globalization and labor: in solidarity with the world

“TRANSFORMING THE WORLD TOWARDS THE REIGN OF GOD WITH ST. VINCENT DE PAUL”

Chapter II: globalization and labor: in solidarity with the world

INTRODUCTION:

In our previous topic, we learned how our society has to cope with many social concerns that systematically challenge us both as individuals and a community of people. In particular, these contemporary challenges hinder us from achieving, economic growth, financial stability, and a higher standard of living. Globalization, while envisioned to provide a significant response for economic development, interestingly poses equally significant challenges that, over time, dramatically and drastically changed the way we interact with the world—politically, economically, socially, and culturally.

Globalization covers an encompassing social reality. The advent of globalization saw the increasing integration of economies and societies and inevitably spawned the dynamic interdependencies among nations and people. As a phenomenon of progressive global interaction based mainly on free market policies, it has markedly changed human realities in an unprecedented level.

This particular chapter will tackle the increasing progress and challenges of globalization, specifically the issues that delves on how economic integration and cross-border interconnectedness in social, cultural, and political spheres gradually made the world smaller, developed closer personal linkages, and shaped a new reality for human relations and existence.

Objectives: At the end of the session, the students are expected to:

a)      critically examine the phenomenon of globalization and its impact on labor and the educational system.

b)      appreciate the Church’s social principles on social justice, human dignity, worker’s rights and duties, and human rights.

c)      propose an effective and sustained response to the challenges of globalization in the light of the Adamsonian’s core value of solidarity. 

Let Us “SEE”

Class activity: Debate

Topic: Is “globalization” good or bad for our country (economically, politically, culturally etc.)?

Understanding Globalization

Globalization is a historical process, and while many would consider it as a modern phenomenon, its historical origin remains a subject of debate among scholars whose varied opinions betray some widely split arguments. The extreme estimation and most liberal view, for example, spouses belief that globalization has already started during the age of exploration when the migration of people and discoveries of “new worlds” resulted to the convergence of cultural, economic, and political influences.

Globalization as a concept, however, started its popularity in the 1980s when it began appearing frequently in academic literatures.  In his book, “An Introduction to Global Studies,” Manfred B. Steger defines globalization as the “multidimensional set of social processes that create, multiply, stretch, and intensify worldwide social interdependencies and exchanges, while at the same time fostering in people a growing awareness of deepening connections between the local and the distant.”Other scholars quite simply define it as the increasing integration of economies around the world. As a social process, globalization can be understood through two important dimensions:

1.      Globalization is an unhampered, interconnected flow of materials (goods), services, technology, and information that allows for human convergence in a global level.

2.      Policy of liberalization that opens up and affects the capital and labor market across the globe.

Globalization is undoubtedly a powerful social, political, and economic phenomenon. Its aggressive introduction in the modern world has so far created profound impacts with far-reaching significance on many areas of human and societal life. It is not surprising, therefore, that concerns crop up and questions would be emphatically raised, like: Is globalization really good for all or does it only serve the interests of the few powerful, rich nations at the expense of the poorer and weaker ones? Does it really promote convergence or only perpetuates isolation? Divergent views on globalization such as these are real and present at various levels of academic and political debates and it would be wise to examine how this complex reality deeply affects our life in all of its dimensions. 

Benefits vs. Defeats of Globalization

The one certain thing about the debate over globalization is the fact that the varying opinions only unveiled polarizing principles. Right now, it would be safe to assume that both the ardent critics and supporters of globalization would stay on their own side of the fence. Some agreements are not impossible, like succumbing to a notion that this phenomenon has indeed brought some good and bad, but it would be foolish to expect that the fundamental principles behind the respective arguments would ever be swayed or be expected to change anytime soon.

In view of the context of what we want to achieve from this course, the most logical point of departure is the assumption that globalization brings some benefits and it likewise causes some harm. Moreover, the most plausible question at this point is: Does the good outweigh the bad or vice versa? For the sake of discussion, it would be important to examine and highlight both the positive and negative impacts of globalization on various aspects of human life.

Positive impacts

Globalization obviously has evident benefits. International trade and the rapidly increasing and expanding flow of goods and labor have been at their highest level. Particularly, it gives rise to new industries and offers more job opportunities to the people of developing countries. Different technological advancement clearly has made people’s lives more convenient and easier. This, furthermore, suggests the evidence of desirable processes that enhance greater productivity and earnings in trade industries, which, in effect, help advance worldwide living standards. Additionally, globalization facilitates an accelerated movement of commodities and fast-tracks the exchanges of knowledge and ideas.

In the area of education, it can be argued that the heightened expectation for greater levels of competence and enhanced skills of the labor force helps improve and develop the educational system of the different countries, both the advanced and the developing ones. New pedagogical standards created opportunities for improvements. In the Philippines, for example, this is more evident in the emergence, growth, and success of the online education and the implementation of the K-12 program.

Through technology, global interconnectedness has also brought the breathtaking rapid exchanges of culture. This is manifested through movies, music, television shows, newspapers, satellite broadcasts, fast food, clothing, and other entertainment and consumer goods. With the help of media, new values and way of life are spread, introduced, shared, and embraced in many parts of the world almost everyday.

Others also appreciate how globalization enriches the world culturally by promoting tolerance of diversity. In fact, the envisioned multi-cultural “global village” which is largely attributed to globalization has never been more real when we start to witness closer interaction among people and societies.

Globalization, therefore, has true, tangible benefits and they happen to real people in real places in different parts of the world. Nevertheless, this phenomenon is not all about rosy pictures of growth and advancement. More like a two-edge sword, globalization has similarly real negative impacts which should be addressed.

Negative Impacts

Many argue that globalization only serves the interest of powerful countries and the control over trade, specifically, are done at the expense of poorer and developing nations. Anti-globalization crusaders point to the fact that contrary to the supposed ideals of free competition in the global market, the monopoly of international trade has only helped powerful countries to capture lucrative markets and monopolize industries. Such perpetuation of economic inequality affects people at the lowest level as seen on the exploitation of workers in poor countries who are forced to work for low wages under depressing conditions. These and other realities encourage critics to advocate the alteration or abandonment of the processes of global integration so as to avoid further enslavement in labor and other overwhelming negative social concerns related to the plight of the working poor.

Despite the optimism on global interconnectedness, globalization has also brought concerns on the loss of homogeneity of culture. Loss of unique identity of local societies and people from many parts of the world has been apparent as negative effects of cultural integration have already led to many cases of alienation and conflicts.

Globalization has also worsened concerns on the increase of health risks due to cross-border movement of people. The global issue on migration has lessened safeguards for health security, allowing the undetected entry of infectious diseases to various geographical locations with no capability to prevent outbreaks. Economic policies and the liberalization of trade have also resulted to the spike in the cost and availability of medicines.

While some proponents of globalization argue that the phenomenon globalizes the approach on environmental protection, the reality on the ground speaks differently. Increased economic activities have resulted to environmental degradation. The need for more raw materials is leading industries to double their production of goods sourced from natural resources. Exploitation of the environment has become unabated and the unregulated economic activities have only caused further damage to the environment.

The preceding class debate on whether globalization is “good” or bad” shows the serious issues that need to be addressed. Globalization is a reality that we cannot afford to take for granted and it is imperative that we understand its implications in our daily lives. 

Let Us “DISCERN”

From our discussion, we can discern that globalization, as a reality, is dynamically complicated. It is within our midst, we live with its influences, and it wholly affects us in our daily lives in so many ways, perhaps even without our conscious knowledge. Globalization, however, is not an impersonal phenomenon without a face. It is happening because human beings make it happen, deliberately or by chance.  This means that globalization is shaped by human choices and actions, and it is up to us what to make of it—for the good or for the bad. Since globalization involves human processes and interactions, it can be subjected to ethical evaluation.  Globalization, through its “human agencies,” can be perceived, analyzed, and judged upon.  It is up to individuals, groups, and institutions to utilize globalization for whatever interests or causes. As Christians, particularly for the Catholics, one way to evaluate globalization is through the Catholic Social Teaching. 

What is the Catholic Social Teaching?

The Catholic Social Teaching or CST (also called Catholic Social Doctrine) is a body of teachings of the popes and bishops on matters of social issues. They are official messages of the Catholic Church that deal with problems of poverty, wealth, social injustice, economics, politics, culture, social organization, relationship between nations, war, environment, and so forth. The Church provides these teachings on the basis that it has the “the duty to scrutinize the signs of the times in the light of the Gospel (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 1964, no. 4).” 

Generally, the purpose of CST is to offer guidelines on moral issues, especially on social problems facing humanity. This is done by providing analyses on contemporary global or worldwide concerns that raise questions on the meaning of human life.  CST also presents criteria for judging contemporary social concerns from the Christian perspective. CST proposes principles or directives for action, especially on social justice, peace, and the integrity of creation. 

As guidelines, the CST has to be concretized in specific contexts.  Because The Church has to continually address newly emerging social, economic, political, and cultural realities, the CST is not a "static" body of thought but a dynamic one whereby further reflections and discernment are needed in order to help Christians and their Christian communities respond to the changed and changing situations and circumstances of their societies.  These guidelines are found in writings of the popes, the councils or conciliar assemblies, and local and regional conferences of bishops.  It is widely held that the first CST is Pope Leo XIII's 1891 Rerum Novarum.

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962-1965) in its teaching Gaudium et Spes (1964; The Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World) justifies the Church’s involvement in social problems in this manner: “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts. For theirs is a community composed of men. United in Christ, they are led by the Holy Spirit in their journey to the Kingdom of their Father and they have welcomed the news of salvation which is meant for every man. That is why this community realizes that it is truly linked with mankind and its history by the deepest of bonds (Gaudium et Spes, 1964, no. 1) .”

The teaching says that the Church is neither separate nor far above from the human society or the realities affecting human experience.  The Church is in the world, who feels “the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the people of this age.”  As followers of Christ, Christians are to be in solidarity with the people, with their struggles and aspirations in life, because “nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in the hearts” of Christians. In solidarity, the Church joins people, especially the poor and the afflicted, in working for solutions to make their lives and the larger world better.   

When one examines the CST, the word “globalization” does not appear in any papal encyclical or conciliar document.  This is so because the word “globalization” has assumed common usage only in the 1990s. But even then, the rich tradition of social teaching points to principles which the Church proposes for human and social advancement of peoples, nations, and their international relations.

The following central principles that CST offers to make life more meaningful in our times are discussed in a general way; its specific elaboration will be discussed in the progression of this course.

Respect for Human Person with Dignity and Rights

CST teaches that the human person is created in the image of God, and accordingly, every person possesses a God-given dignity that must be respected, upheld, defended, and nurtured.  The respect of human dignity is measured in the respect of person’s fundamental human rights (Gaudium et Spes, 1964, no. 26). These rights include (see Pacem in Terris, 1963, nos. 11-27):

·         the right to live, such as the right to bodily integrity, including food, clothing, shelter, education, medical and health care, rest, and the necessary social services;

·         the rights pertaining to moral, cultural, and religious values, such as freedom of speech and publication, the right to pursue whatever profession a person may choose, the right to be accurately informed about public events; the natural right to share in the benefits of culture, such as to receive a good general education, and a technical or professional training consistent with the degree of educational development in the person’s own country; the right to exercise religious freedom publicly and privately, along with the freedom of conscience and to worship God according to one's conscience; the right to choose freely one's state in life;

·         economic rights, such as the right to equitable distribution of wealth, the right to engage in productive work, the right to just wages, the right to organize unions; the right of meeting, assembly, and forming associations; the right to pursue economic opportunities; the right to emigrate and immigrate in one’s country and other countries;

·         political rights, such as right to suffrage, right to speech, freedom of expression, and to participate in political decision-making process.

Right to Private Property and the Common Good

For the CST, private property and other forms of private ownership of goods “assure a person a highly necessary sphere for the exercise of his personal and family autonomy and ought to be considered as an extension of human freedom ... stimulating exercise of responsibility, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberty (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, no. 176; Gaudium et Spes, 1964; no. 71: Rerum Novarum, 1891, nos. 103-104; Mater et Magistra, 1961, nos. 428-429).” While private property is an essential element of an authentically social and democratic economic policy, the CST requires that ownership of goods be equally accessible to all. This means that no person or group can accumulate properties for their own selves alone and never at the expense of depriving other people.  

For the CST, the individual has a right to own private property but it must be subordinated to common good. CST teaches that “private property is not an absolute right and is no right at all when others are in need (Populorum Progessio, 1967, no. 23).” Common good thus takes priority over the right to private property (see Quadragesimo Anno, 1931; Mater et Magistra, 1961). For, “God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people…. In using them, therefore, a person should regard his lawful possessions not merely as his own but also as common property in the sense that they should accrue to the benefit of not only himself but of others (Gaudium et Spes, 1964, no. 69).”

“Common good” may be defined as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily (Gaudium et Spes, 1964, no. 26; Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, no. 164).” Moreover, "[T]he common good [is] the good of all people and of the whole person… The human person cannot find fulfilment in himself, that is, apart from the fact that he exists “with” others and “for” others (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, no. 165).” "The goal of life in society is in fact the historically attainable common good (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, no. 168).” Henceforth, every social group must take into account the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups and of the general welfare of the human family. 

CST also teaches that human beings as they progress their economic life must also take care of the environment or the natural world.  “God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people….In using them therefore, a person should regard his lawful possessions not merely as his own but also as common property in the sense that they should accrue to the benefit of not only himself but of others (Gaudium et Spes, 1964, no. 69; confer Octogesima Adveniens, 1971).” The meaning of universal common good, thus, is not only the good of humanity but the community of all creation (Pope John Paul II, 1990). In short, the right to private property is within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, no. 177).”

Principles of Solidarity and Total/Integral Human Development

CST defines solidarity as "a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say for the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 1987, no. 38).”  Solidarity presupposes a community or society of diverse elements where all are called to cooperate together for the common good. Two elements are essential in the notion of solidarity: (a) persons or groups make a deliberate choice to link together for the advancement of the common good; and (b) they are linked by bonds of common origin (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 1987, no. 38). 

CST recognizes that there is an increasing awareness among people of their fundamental interdependence. The development of societies is not and cannot simply be narrowed down to economics, but it concerns the total development or integral development of people that respects and promotes their dignity and rights of persons and the whole person.  “Development cannot be limited to mere economic growth. In order to be authentic, it must be complete: integral, that is, it has to promote the good of every person and of the whole person (Populorum Progressio, 1967, no. 14).” The question, therefore, is not “how much is a nation producing?” or “how fast and how many does a worker produce in one day?” Rather, the deeper question is “are people happy or satisfied with their work that gives them a sense of fulfillment?”  It is not that economic growth is unimportant, or that economic well-being is not a concern for development; rather, economic development is only a part of human development that enhances the ability of people to flourish on multiple levels.

If this basic regard for the human person with dignity and rights is absent, CST enjoins all to demonstrate their solidarity especially for and with those who are exploited, oppressed, and marginalized.   “When interdependence becomes recognized in this way, the correlative response as a moral and social attitude, as a ‘virtue’, is solidarity … not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far …[but] a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all. (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 1987, no. 38).”

In other words, solidarity is “virtue” for all social groups, not just for the rich and the powerful.  In a world divided and beset by every type of conflict, the conviction is the growing of a radical interdependence and consequently of the need for a solidarity which will take up interdependence and transfer it to the moral plane (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 1987, no. 26). CST calls on the rich and powerful people and nations to be responsible for the poor and the weak (Populorum Progessio, 1967, no. 48). Conversely, the poor and the weak should also reject passive and destructive attitudes that make them helpless and powerless.

CST endorses the solidarity of the workers to pursue their interests and causes that will bring about social justice in society (Laborem Exercens, 1981, no. 8).  This is suggested by CST because “work” is every form of action by which the world is transformed and shaped or maintained by human beings. It is through work that human beings achieve fulfillment, and thus, they must cooperate and work together to create something good for all. Solidarity, therefore, "helps us to see the 'other'--whether a person, people, or nation--not just as some kind of instrument ... but as our 'neighbor,' a 'helper' (Gen. 2:18-20), to be made a sharer, on par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 1987, 39).”

Subsidiarity and Participation

The teaching on subsidiarity holds that human activities, including the exercise of authority and decision-making, are best handled at the lowest possible level, closest to the affected persons, rather than by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization.  (Note to Teachers: Give examples here, like in AdU and in the relationship between national and local government units.)

“The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms (Compedium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, no. 187).” In the thinking of the CST, every social activity should furnish help (“subsidium”) to the members of the “body” (that is, the society) and never destroy and absorb them (Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, no. 203; Centesimus Annus, 1991, no. 48).”

The practice of subsidiarity entails the following related principles: 

·         the respect and effective promotion of the human person and the family;

·         ever greater appreciation of associations and intermediate organizations in their fundamental choices and in those that cannot be delegated to or exercised by others;

·         the encouragement of private initiative so that every social entity remains at the service of the common good, each with its own distinctive characteristics;

·         the presence of pluralism in society and due representation of its vital components;

·         safeguarding human rights and the rights of minorities;

·         bringing about bureaucratic and administrative decentralization;

·         striking a balance between the public and private spheres, with the resulting recognition of the social function of the private sphere;

·         appropriate methods for making citizens more responsible in actively ‘being a part’ of the political and social reality of their country.” (Compedium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, no. 187).  

When subsidiarity is pursued it also promotes the principle of participation (Octogesima Adveniens, 1971, no. 417). Participation is demonstrated in a “series of activities by means of which the citizen, either as an individual or in association with others, whether directly or through representation, contributes to the cultural, economic, political and social life of the civil community to which he or she belongs (Compedium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, 189; confer Gaudium et Spes, 1964, no. 75).” In this sense, participation is a duty to be fulfilled consciously by all towards the common good. 

The cooperation of all peoples and the building of a national and international community depend on the participation of all peoples, such as participation in political, economic and cultural processes.  “In this perspective it becomes absolutely necessary to encourage participation above all of the most disadvantaged, as well as the occasional rotation of political leaders in order to forestall the establishment of hidden privileges. Moreover, strong moral pressure is needed, so that the administration of public life will be the result of the shared responsibility of each individual with regard to the common good (Compedium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, 191).”

Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

Solidarity with and the care for the poor and vulnerable people (women, children, sick, disabled, elderly, refugees, etc.) is the very heart of Christian living that stems from the self-understanding of Jesus of his mission: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed (Luke 4:18).”

In the CST, this mandate of Jesus Christ finds expression in the language of “preferential option for the poor and vulnerable.” The phrase comes from the Latin American Bishops' Conferences (CELAM) that met in Medellin, Colombia, in 1968, where the Catholic Church was called upon to become a “Church of the poor.”  In its meeting at Puebla, Mexico, in 1979, CELAM, the term "preferential option for the poor" was coined. In their description of the term, the bishops stated that "this option does not imply exclusion of anyone, but it does imply a preference for the poor and a drawing closer to them." In Asia, the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC), in its first and second assemblies in 1970 and 1974, the mission of the Asian Church was defined in terms of becoming a “Church of the poor” in the context of a continent where there is widespread and miserable poverty, the presence of age-old religions other than Christianity, and the richness of cultures of peoples.

First of all, preferential option for the poor and the vulnerable means looking at the poverty of people, not that they are caused by laziness or vices, but because of the structures of society tor how society is organized hat have made people poor. “No consideration of the problems associated with development could fail to highlight the direct link between poverty and unemployment. In many cases, poverty results from a violation of the dignity of human work, either because work opportunities are limited (through unemployment or underemployment), or ‘because a low value is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her family (Caritas in Veritate, 2009, no. 63).” The prevalence of poverty and injustice on the poor is not merely a matter of personal doings of individuals but it is historically and structurally embedded in society.  When structures violate human dignity and marginalize people, they are truly unjust structures and one can justifiably speak of “structures marked by sin (Libertatis Conscientia [Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation], 1986, no. 74).”

Seeing the world through the eyes of the poor is not enough. Preferential option for the poor is demonstrated by standing with the poor in solidarity. This should lead to action for justice with and on behalf of those who are poor and marginalised.  The Church proclaims that:  “Listening to the cry of those who suffer violence and are oppressed by unjust systems and structures, and hearing the appeal of a world that by its perversity contradicts the plan of its Creator, we have shared our awareness of the Church's vocation to be present in the heart of the world by proclaiming the Good News to the poor, freedom to the oppressed, and joy to the afflicted. The hopes and forces which are moving the world in its very foundations are not foreign to the dynamism of the Gospel, which through the power of the Holy Spirit frees people from personal sin and from its consequences in social life.... Action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world fully appear to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel, or, in other words, of the Church's mission for the redemption of the human race and its liberation from every oppressive situation. (Synod of Bishops on Justice in the World, 1971, nos. 5-6; italics supplied)

The Church and Christians therefore, have the responsibility to repudiate any political or social alliance with unjust holders of power that aggravates the plight of the poor and vulnerable. Preferential option for the poor means to defend the interests of the poor and to work for changes that will eliminate systematic injustices on the local, national and global levels, without losing sight of the good in groups and institutions in the context of common good. Whenever there are people who are marginalized, exploited, oppressed and unjustly treated, be it economically, politically or culturally, the Church has the duty to speak up on their behalf and to create conditions whereby they can be heard, they are defended against injustice, to assess policies and social institutions in terms of their impacts on the poor, and to provide opportunities for their empowerment and attainment of the fullness of their human lives. Henceforth, preferential option for the does not mean pitting one group against another, but rather, it calls all of the citizens to strengthen the whole community by assisting those who are most vulnerable.

Social Justice

The preceding principles boils down to the most central teaching, that of social justice. In its classical formulation by the Church, justice “consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbour.  From a subjective point of view, justice is translated into behaviour that is based on the will to recognize the other as a person, while, from an objective point of view, it constitutes the decisive criteria of morality in the intersubjective and social sphere (Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, 201).” The phrase “social justice” concerns the social, political and economic aspects and, above all, the structural dimension of problems and their respective solutions” (Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, 201; cf. Laborem Exercens, 1981, nos. 580-583).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) lists down several possibilities which social justice can be promoted:

§  As with any ethical obligation, the participation of all in realizing the common good calls for a continually renewed conversion of the social partners. Fraud and other subterfuges, by which some people evade the constraints of the law and the prescriptions of societal obligation, must be firmly condemned because they are incompatible with the requirements of justice. Much care should be taken to promote institutions that improve the conditions of human life.

§  Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

§  Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him: What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt. 

§  There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel: Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace. 

§  Society ensures social justice by providing the conditions that allow associations and individuals to obtain their due.”

In sum, the result of justice is peace. The CST holds that “If you want peace, work for justice. (Pope Paul VI, 1972).”  Peace is not the absence of war. Genuine peace is when each and every member of the human family experience justice in one’s whole person and the whole community men and women.  The vision of peace through justice can be summarized with four elements: (1) promoting and defending human rights; (2) collaborating in authentic development of the whole nation and the whole person; (3) building bonds of solidarity among people; and (4) creating a world order where justice and peace are the cornerstone of international relations.

Let Us “Act”

            Let us have another look at globalization, this time to evaluate its dangers or threats and promises or possibilities in the light of the principles in Catholic Social Teaching or CST.  On the left column are the “CST principles.” On the space of the column on “Dangers or Threats,” write your evaluation of globalization in relation to each of the principle.  On the space of the column on “Promises or Possibilities,” write your evaluation of globalization in relation to each principle. On the rightmost column, under “What Must Be Done,” write concrete suggestions of actions that can correct or remove the dangers or threats and to develop further the promises or possibilities that globalization offers.

Note to Teachers: The ”Act” activity may be done by individual students or by small groups, and the outcome can either be submitted as written paper or reported and discussed to the whole class. If the teacher chooses group work, the product can be a movie clip of not more than 10 minutes which show their answers to the columns in a creative audio-visual way.  Teachers must see to it, guide the students and evaluate their work, that their evaluation is pertinent or relevant to the principles of CST.  Consistency with the principles of CST is a criterion for grading, that is, to find out whether or not as a good understanding and application of the principles.

           

CST Principles	Dangers or Threats of Globalization	Promises or Possibilities of Globalization	What Must Be Done?
Respect for Human Person with Dignity and Rights
Right to Private Property and the Common Good
Solidarity and Total/Integral Human Development
Subsidiarity and Participation
Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
Social Justice