A Milestone on the Way to World-wide Social Teachings

German Version

 From: Stimmen der Zeit, 3/2007, P. 168-180

 Forty years ago Pope Paul VI published the encyclical “Populorum Progressio”. JOHANNES MÜLLER, professor for social sciences and development policy at the University for Philosophy Munich, and JOHANNES WALLACHER, professor for social sciences and economic ethics at the same university, remind of the forward-looking impulses of this text for the global social teachings.

From its beginnings the Catholic Church understands itself as world church with a universal message. It is in this respect perhaps the oldest global player, even if this awareness could unfold only in the course of centuries. This is also reflected in the Catholic social teachings, which first were only looking at the industrialized countries, but gradually opened to the world-wide problems.

A milestone was the encyclical “Populorum progressio” (PP), published by Pope Paul VI on 26 March 1967, an Easter Sunday, a good year after the end of the Second Vatican Council. It was the first social encyclical, which was completely dedicated to the questions of development. It was concerned with the increasing north-south difference and made itself the lawyer of the poor countries. In clear language it denounced the harmful consequences of an unrestrained capitalism and of a individualistically shortened view of the right to private property without social responsibility (PP 26). Not least it referred to the close relationship of development and peace.

Hence it is not surprising that it immediately after its appearance released a broad and most controversy discussion. While it got a very positive reception in the third world, it partly met in the industrialized countries sharp refusal. Liberal critics even accused it of having a Marxist list {1}. Twenty years later (30 December 1987) Pope John Paul II published in memory of Populorum Progressio the social encyclical “Sollicitudo rei socialis” (SRS), which again took as its theme the north-south difference. It referred to “the new views of the encyclical Populorum progressio” (SRS 5-10), and underlined its “lasting relevance” (SRS 2), but it also emphasized how important the “the constant renewal of the social teachings” (SRS 3) was.

If one reads the encyclical Populorum progressio from a distance of forty years, then one can only confirm this judgement. Even if it was in some respects a reflection of its time, then it was nevertheless in most points ahead of its time, and contained forward-looking guidelines for a peaceful development of a world that has today still far more than at that time a future only as “one world”. Hence one can only appropriately appreciate this document, if one appreciates its lasting relevance and importance for a world-wide development, but at the same time also, at least

 


169

in rough outlines, points out where a development is needed, both systematically and as regards contents, in view of the changed global prevailing circumstances.

Comprehensive Understanding of Human Development

Populorum progressio proceeds from a comprehensive and differentiated understanding of development, which is fundamental for the entire encyclical and runs like a thread through it. Development is not limited to economic growth, as indispensable and fundamental it is, but, “True development must be comprehensive, it must bear in mind each man and the whole man” (PP 14). True development must “look out for a new humanism” (PP 20), which wins recognition for the development of man and of the whole mankind in economic, political, social and cultural regard. Thereby the encyclical expressly refers to different French authors, particularly to Jaques Maritain and his “integral humanism” {2}. Paul VI derives from this conception of development very concrete development objectives:

“More human: that is the ascent from misery to the possession of the essential things, the overcoming of the serious social shortcomings, the extension of knowledge, the acquisition of education. More human: that is the clearer knowledge about the human dignity, the orientation towards the spirit of poverty, the co-operation for the well-being of all people, the will to peace. More human: that is the acknowledgment of last values on the part of man and the acknowledgment of God as their source and their goal” (PP 21).

Human development has consequently also a transcendental dimension. It is substantiated by a humanism that is not necessarily Christian, but is open to the absolute reality. Anybody is “called to develop because the life of each man is destined by God for some task” (PP 15). Hence all people are invited and qualified to develop themselves and their world, regardless of their different cultures and many and diverse concepts of values. Just this is the reason why primarily people themselves are to use the resources at hand for a comprehensive development. Development in this sense is always “development from below”, i.e. the human dignity demands that man is centre and aim, subject and carrier of all development.

This has far-reaching consequences for the development theory as well as for the development policy. The encyclical turns thereby implicitly against the widespread idea that the overall economic growth will sooner or later automatically benefit also the poor. Economic growth is admittedly a necessary but by no means a sufficient condition for the overcoming of poverty and underdevelopment. A social development reducing inequalities is at least just as important.

 


170

This is done best by a development policy that proceeds from the real needs of the poor and the poor countries, uses their (often plentifully) available resources and promotes the self-initiative of people. Hence the encyclical underlines the responsibility of the developing countries, because real development can happen only by the people on the spot: “Since the peoples are the architects of their own progress they in the first place are to carry the burden and responsibility for it” (PP 77). This point of view was of course considerably determined by the development economist Louis Joseph Lebret OP (1897-1966), who already in the 40’s coined the concept “autopropulsive development”, which was understood by him interdisciplinary {3}. According to it the individual national economies must unfold according to their own dynamics. He emphasized not only the special responsibility of the individual governments, but already at that time he pointed out the central role of the civil societies on the spot with their creative initiative.

As natural as such statements may sound today, so “anachronistic” were they when the encyclical was published forty years ago. At that time the debate of development policy was still determined to a great extent by the modernization theory. A “catching up development”, after the example of the industrialized countries, was seen as aim. Modernization, usually equated with industrialization and economic growth, was almost a synonym for development, which could be attained best by the import of capital and technologies on the lines of the Marshall plan. Only much later one recognized that this conception was much too simple and was to be differentiated in various regards.

In contrast to it Populorum progressio proved to have an amazing farsightedness, in so far as the encyclical with reference to Lebret understood development quite substantially also as a cultural process (PP 14). It underlined the value of each culture and turned thereby against a western ethno-centrism or cultural imperialism.

“Rich or poor, each country has a culture, which it took over from the ancestors: Institutions for the material life, works of spiritual life, of artistic, philosophical, religious kind. If they represent true human values, it would be a large mistake to give them up. A people that were ready to do this would lose the best of it; in order to live it would give away the reason of its life” (PP 40).

But the encyclical is far away from a naive view of culture. It knows the ambivalence of each culture, when it warns for instance of the dangers of an exaggerated nationalism and racial mania (PP 62). Likewise it rejects a “Kulturessentialismus” and a static understanding of culture,

 


171

for it knows on the one hand quite well the problems connected with the meeting of different cultures, but sees on the other hand also the chances of mutual learning:

“Hence the developing countries must choose from what is offered to them: critically examine and reject the illusory values spoiling the character of the human life, but take up the healthy and useful values in order to develop them, according to their characteristics, together with their own values” (PP 41).

Development – the New Name for Peace

Also the starting point of the encyclical lost nothing of topicality: the social question and the “social conflicts resulting from it assumed world-wide dimensions” (PP 9). The process of globalization, which particularly in its economic dynamics takes hold of the entire world, clearly intensified yet the world-wide entwinements and dependences.

The globalization offers of course large chances of more prosperity, just also for developing countries, but its internal dynamics tend towards the exclusion of weaker and fewer efficient people, groups and regions. Newer studies prove that as a result of the globalization the gulf between rich and poor became smaller, but that the share of the poorest twenty per cent of the world population in the world income has sunk {4}, a fact that usually also intensified their plight. This confirms the thesis that the globalization – in any case with regard to the income – has many winners, and this also in wide circles of the population of the Third World, but inversely it makes just the poorest to losers. These and similar abortive developments threaten not only the social co-operation in the countries concerned, but are also causally related to global problems as population growth, epidemics as HIV/AIDS or poverty migration. They are besides a fertile soil for transnational criminality and international terrorism threatening security everywhere in the world.

Hence the developments of the last four decades, not least numerous local as well as world-wide conflicts, confirm one of the central messages of the encyclical, i.e. that today “development is synonymous with peace” (PP 87). Only in the last years the awareness grew that peace, security and development are connected with each other. They are aims depending on each other. On the one hand development is the condition for lasting national and international security; on the other hand development cannot succeed as long as internal conflicts and organized criminality undermine the national order. But this may not lead to it that development policy is only done from the perspective of security politics; a present tendency that in the end falls heaviest on the poor.

 


172

Orientated Towards Political Action and Addressing the Public

It is also to be seen positively that the encyclical is orientated towards action. Already on 6 January 1967 Pope Paul VI had founded the papal commission Justitia et Pax as the church’s institutional answer to the international social question. He complied with the wish of the Council to establish “an organ of the universal church to let participate the poor all over the world in Christ’s love and justice” (GS 90). The encyclical Populorum progressio which appeared few weeks later, underlines this request and stated: “‘Justice and peace’ is name and program of this commission” (PP 5). In 1988, in the context of reform of the Curia, John Paul II changed the name in ‘Papal Council Justitia et Pax’, with the order to develop the social teachings of the church in the fields justice, peace and human rights.

In the course of the years everywhere in the world regional or national Justitia et Pax commissions developed from this initiative. In Germany already in 1967 first the ‘Katholische Arbeitskreis Entwicklung und Frieden (KAEF)’ was created for this purpose. In 1982 it was – following the world-wide practice – renamed in ‘Deutsche Kommission Justitia et Pax’. The commission strives for a cross-linking of the church persons dealing with international questions and is in constant dialogue with parliament, government, parties and other social groups about questions of development, peace and human right politics. And it compiles concepts for certain fields of work. An example of it is the declaration “Justice For Everybody – About the Foundation of Church Development Aid” from November 1991. The cross-linking of the Papal Council with the commissions of the local churches, with ecumenical partners, with organizations of the United Nations and with many other participants with whom there are common goals is even much closer.

With its opening to the world the Council prepared also in this regard already the way. Completely on this line also the encyclical addresses from the outset not only Christians but invites “all people of good will” (PP 83) to the dialogue, and defends a social pluralism against a ghetto Catholicism. By arguing to a large extent generally ethically it can address people beyond world-descriptive borders and form “alliances of solidarity” for common goals.

Necessary Development of Central Statements

Regardless of the lasting relevance of central messages of the encyclical, it shows inevitably also some outstanding points and shortcomings which from today’s viewpoint indicate the need of a systematic consolidation, of a greater differentiation and of a partial development.

 


173

In the first place it is about the question of the reasons for the engagement for a comprehensive development of all human beings. If one really wants to reach for this “all people of good will”, then one faces a double, yes, in certain way conflicting challenge: On the one hand one must argue in such a way that this is comprehensible also for people in an increasingly secular and plural society, on the other hand it is – in view of the Renaissance of the religions – necessary to the foundations for the co-operation with other religions. For this above all an social-ethical argumentation presents itself, on the basis of criteria which are accessible to the common reason and which at the same time are open to and can be connected with different specific theological considerations {5}.

Human Dignity – Catalyst for Fair Development Co-operation

A possible starting-point for it is the human dignity, to which all human beings are equally entitled. After Christian understanding it is rooted in the fact that man is created after the image of God. But it can also be deduced rational-ethically from the normative logic of the interpersonal relations, as mutual recognition of all human beings as men with the same dignity. This is the foundation of the general human rights, which include the civil and political rights of the civil pact as well as the economic, social and cultural rights of the social pact. It is in the logic of this approach that all persons have the same rights, but also the obligation to maintain the rights of others and to devote themselves to their realization. From this an option can be deduced for all who are excluded from these rights; this corresponds in the conception of the social teachings to the priority option for the poor. From it certain obligations of the rich and the rich countries result to ensure and protect the poor people’s title of the human rights to the satisfaction of fundamental human needs, and thus in the end to guarantee and to protect the right to life. From there the collective right to development can be understood as title to international structural conditions that do justice to development, particularly to a fair international economic system that permits an independent development {6}.

But one has systematically to clarify what this obligation exactly means and where it ends. About it the second part of the encyclical mentions many strategies and partly also very concrete measures. First of all the “heavy obligation of the highly developed countries to help the rising peoples” (PP 48), even if this should require more taxes. For the aim of greater effectiveness the encyclical pleads for multilateral programs that are as far as possible made consistent with each other (PP 50). The personnel development co-operation is particularly underlined (PP 71f). But it remains unclear what us to be financed with these means.

 


174

Not without good reason this brought the encyclical the reproach of prominent critics such as Oswald von Nell Breuning SJ that these passages stressed too much the international distribution politics “and were at bottom nothing else than a new application of the old-Christian theory of alms giving”, while it actually had to be about supporting the developing countries in “their efforts to make “their underdeveloped economy more productive” {7}.

The impression that the value of an independent industrial development of the poorer countries is neglected in the encyclical is also confirmed by the remarks about the structural questions of the world economy, under the heading “Right and Equitableness in the Trade Relations”. Prominent is thereby first – quite corresponding to the state of the discussion at that time – the problem of varying world market prices of agricultural products and raw materials, the primary export products of poorer countries (PP 56-58). The degradation of the exchange conditions (terms of trade), which are here regarded as primary cause for the commercial losses of poorer countries, cannot simply be denied. But the problem is far more complex than frequently (as here too) represented {8}. Even more problematic is the plea to stabilize the prices of raw materials by international agreements. Theory as well as practice has shown that all these attempts prove in the end as harmful, since they could never exclude the market on a long-term basis.

The poorer countries needed rather investments into their own internal development, in order to achieve “a basic economic growth” with widespread effects and as labour intensive as possible. For it is necessary to produce and export not only raw materials but at least also some high-quality goods. Thereby it can be strategically quite meaningful to promote the new industries in the starting period temporally limited by the state, and to protect them from foreign competition. With this economic policy the “Tiger States” not only considerably reduced their poverty in East and South-East Asia, but also many of the today’s industrialized countries, not least Germany, occasionally limited deliberately the free trade, and managed it so to climb in the international competition the ladder to high-quality industrial goods and services.

Good Government – Social Sharing

Decisive for overcoming poverty and underdevelopment are thus first the self-efforts of the developing countries, for which the respective governments carry a special responsibility. This is also expressly emphasized at the end of the encyclical (PP 77), but without systematically taking this down in the practical recommendations in the second part.

 


175

But the comprehensive understanding of development of Populorum progressio points clearly out that poverty means more than the lack of incomes, and is often connected with social exclusion, little access to social basic services (education, health) and lacking possibilities for social participation. In this respect it corresponds to the main feature of the encyclical to emphasize the good government, which includes the keeping of the human rights, rule of law and certainty of the law as well as the promotion of democracy and political participation of the population. But a basic internal development of poorer countries needs also solid economic and social politics, which improves on the one hand the chances of broad population circles and unfolds their productive potential, but cushions on the other hand against the risks connected with the integration into the world economy. For it the poor need access to institutions which take into account their specific needs, begun from medical supply up to legal advice and micro credits.

Today the scope for action for a development-favourable policy on national level is certainly strongly limited by the various global entwinements and dependences. The structures of the world trade and the activity of its institutions, like the World Trade Organization (WTO) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are substantially determined by the industrialized countries and their governments. In so far as the latter are elected and controlled by their citizens, the people in the richer countries have a share of the responsibility for the world-economical basic conditions supporting the fight against the world-wide poverty.

Participation and Assistance to Self-help

For the organization of an international order and above all of the world trade order the principle of subsidiarity is of great importance. It has two sides, which are related to each other: to ensure on the one hand the right to participation and on the other hand the obligation to render help to self-help. This mutual relation is also the standard for it how competencies are to be institutionally organized and allotted: The order of the world economy must on the one hand offer to the poor countries the necessary space for their own development, but on the other hand also establish instruments to their support, for instance by a preferential treatment in the context of the world trade organization or by development co-operation.

The principle of subsidiarity offers also the possibility to connect structurally development and justice in the context of the world economy, which was a main objective of Populorum progressio.

 


176

The criterion of the development justice {9} has thereby a double normative meaning. First of all it is in a instrumental or functional sense rather synonymous with “entwicklungsadäquat” (adequate for development), i.e. the national as well as international economic system may in no case hinder the process of the development but should rather promote it. Secondly “entwicklungsgerecht” (doing justice to development) has a normative ethical meaning, as far as the economic system is to be arranged in its different dimensions according the standard of the justice.

The present international economic system does not cope with this requirement. So for example the international agrarian trade is in various regard shaped by structural injustice. This particularly applies to the usual practice of the industrialized countries to subsidize their own agrarian goods and to sell them below production costs on the world market (export dumping). But these structures are also the result of a wrong agricultural policy in many developing countries. The consequence is the loss of many small rural enterprises and independent agricultural cnmpetencies. Many countries became in the meantime net importers of food, although they are still predominantly agrarian structured. There is also the fact that the majority of the developing countries are excluded from many crucial negotiations – the small countries just for lack of personnel and financial means. With the world economy summits, which make important decisions for the world economy, the developing countries are not at all represented.

Some of these basic deficits Populorum progressio already foresightedly recognized forty years ago. Referring to the things already said by the social encyclical “Rerum novarum” (1891) about fair work contracts, it emphasizes that international treaties and trade agreements are not already just by the fact that they were made by free agreement of the partners. If the parties to the contract have – as often is the case in the north south relations – very unequal power, such agreements can be quite unfair (PP59). This applies also today, particularly if international treaties weaken the ability of poor countries to independent development. Thus for instance the agreement on the protection of mental property (TRIPS) cuts the traditional right of the farmers to win seeds from the own harvest, and partly leads to the fact that they must make expensive additional purchases from foreign countries. Besides this regulation threatens the diversity of species.

Also in view of the joint responsibility of the rich countries and their banks for the crushing burden of debts of many developing countries the ethical standard of the “Verfahrensgerechtigkeit” (just proceedings) is most relevant {10}. The encyclical referred a long time before the beginning of the international debt crisis in the year 1982 also to this problem, and made already very concrete suggestions (PP 54). If they had been considered, the indebtedness of the development countries would probably not have increased from about 50 billion dollars in the year 1967 to almost 2500 billion dollars in the year 2000.

 


177

New Challenges

Also a farsighted encyclical can of course not foresee all problems which will arise forty years later. Hence some challenges are in conclusion still to be outlined, which – from the point of view of contents – make a development of the social teachings necessary or at least desirable.

One may counter Paul VI’s partially quite harsh words about capitalism that this criticism was outdated after the collapse of real existing socialism in 1989, because at bottom there were today no realistic alternative. But the fact that the capitalistic free-market economy proved to be superior of the planned economy does not prove by any means that it is capable to solve the large global problems of the present. On the contrary, the social and ecological developments of the last two decades rather confirm one of the conclusions of the encyclical: “The international co-operation on world level needs institutions which prepare, co-ordinate and lead it, until a legal order is created that is generally recognized” (PP78). With it at bottom the necessity for a world administrative policy (global governance) is addressed, which goes beyond the past question of the relationship between state and market. It must include those enterprises that are active throughout the world and the international civil society with its increasing weight and win them over to constructive cooperation. For it one discusses for some time models of political control under inclusion of non-governmental participants on different levels of action (local, national, regional, international){11}.

In view of the profound changes after 1989 and the increasing entwinements in the context of the globalization we meet today also the so-called North-South-Problem in a differentiated form. On the one hand there are in the meantime larger and larger differences among the development and transformation countries with regard to economic power and social indicators. While many developing countries could reduce the gulf to the rich countries, many poorer countries and particularly the poorest fell even more behind. Economically stronger and meanwhile also politically more influential countries such as China, India or Brazil bear therefore also a much greater share of responsibility for a world order suiting the needs of development. But so far they hardly noticed it. On the other hand poverty and underdevelopment react due to the world-wide entwinements much more strongly than in former times on the prosperity countries. All this should actually strengthen the awareness that global challenges can today only be mastered by common responsibility and efforts.

A particularly urgent problem, which is hardly mentioned in Populorum progression and about which also the social teachings of the church so far said not much, is the progressive destruction of the environment, above all the global climatic change.

 


178

This problem area is today of central importance for the connection of development and justice. The industrial nations are the main cause of the climatic change, but the poor in the developing countries will be most affected by the effects, particularly since they have few possibilities to adapt themselves to the consequences of the climatic change. This has extensive consequences for the securing of food supply, the power supply or the availability of water.

So far the past discussion in the industrialized countries neglected to a large extent the justice problems associated with it, and the conflict potentials included in it. The main challenge is to conceive and to realize a global environmental policy that does not increase the burden of the poor. Inversely the “intragenerationelle” justice (justice between the now living generations) may not ignore the “intergenerationelle” justice (justice done to the future generations), with which it is quite substantially about the poor from tomorrow. A climatic policy that knows of its obligation to limit the dangerous climatic change as well as of the necessary adjustment must face these conflicts. They will probably play the crucial role in the international negotiations about the climatic change. Hence it is all the more important to develop strategies which give developing countries and countries at the stage of economic take-off a share of the active protection of the climate, without reducing their ability to economic development and their fight against poverty {12}.

A further large challenge is the complex connection of world-wide migration and development, which Populorum progression at least mentions under the keyword “immigrant worker”. Due to the globalization this problem certainly got a dimension that was at that time a not yet conceivable. Everywhere in the world the globalization promoted the expectation of a “catching up development”. The reason is not least that the western civilization model, but above all its prosperity exerts great attraction. Quite in contrast to it the global difference between rich and poor and the situation of the poorest worsened in many places, partly also as consequence of environmental disasters. This tension produces almost inevitably a high migration potential. Besides today it is also possible to overcome fast and relatively cheaply wide distances. The result is an enormous increase (often illegal) of migration, which definitely brings some advantages to countries of origin as well as to the countries of destination, but it creates also large problems. Thus just the richer countries increasingly fear the loss of their own cultural identity and the endangerment of the internal security by political extremism and organized criminality. This situation lets ask partly completely new questions about the ethics of migration, about the “right to freedom of movement”, the question about the cultural identity or the legitimacy of borders {13}. Besides, this question is of eminent importance for the relationship of Christianity and Islam.

 


179

Finally there is neglected – in the encyclical completely and the social teachings of the church to a large extent – the gender justice, which is of great importance for an integrated and self-determined human development. Numerous studies prove that women actually look more after the securing of the basic needs of their families and children, and that they contribute more to the overcoming of poverty than the men. But in many countries they are still to a large extent excluded from decision-making processes, also from those which concern them directly. Hence it is with regard to the development policy of greatest importance that the role of women is strengthened, particularly by education and more certainty of the law, so that they can take over responsibility on all social levels just like the men. The enforcement of the rights of women has in this respect a great instrumental importance, but at the same time it has also a high intrinsic value for the women concerned. Inversely the men must take far more responsibility for elementary survival questions than up to now: such as securing food, child education and health. In this respect the rights of women are not some partial question, but the key to a fairer relationship of the sexes {14}.

The social teaching of the church is not only handed down in social encyclicals, but there are also many other important documents, not least those of the local churches. Many of the challenges mentioned here are for example mentioned in the “Kompendium der Soziallehre der Kirche” (manual of the social teachings of the church){15}. To some questions there are also helpful statements of the German church, e.g. about the climatic change {16} or to the gene the justice {17}. But since social encyclical letters have special weight it remains desirable that they too will even more deal with the outlined challenges in the future.

NOTES

{1} see for instance H. Helbling, Kritik an der Enzyklika, in: Ist die katholische Soziallehre antikapitalistisch?, edited by A. Rauscher (Köln 1968) 25-30.

{2} see P. Langhorst, Zu einer Theologie menschlicher Entwicklung, in: ThG 40 (1997) 262-270.

{3} see N. Klein, Dreißig Jahre Enzyklika “Populorum progressio”, in Orien 61 (1997) 75-77.

{4} Globaliation and Inequality: World Income Distribution and Living Standards, 1960-1998, hg. v. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Oslo 200) – summary: Globalization and Inequality: A Norwegian Report, in Population and Development Review 26 (2000) 843-848.

{5} see for instance J. B. Banawiratma u. J. Müller, Kontextuelle Sozialtheologie (Freiburg 1995) bes. 23-29.

{6} see J. Müller u. J. Wallacher, Entwicklungsgerechte Weltwirtschaft (Stuttgart 2005) 119f.

{7} O. von Nell-Breuning, Soziallehre der Kirche (Wien 1977) 172 (Hervorhebung im Original).

{8} see Ökonomie der Entwicklungsländer, hg. v. N. Wagner u. M. Kaiser (Stuttgart ³1995) 68-72.

{9} see Müller u. Wallacher (A. 6) bes. 113-119.

{10} in detail see in addition J. Müller, Ethische Kriterien zur Beurteilung von Lösungsansätzen zur Überwindung der Schuldenkrise, in: Lösungsstrategien zur Überwindung der Internationalen Schuldenkrise, hg. v. M. Dabrowski u.a. (Berlin 2000) 55-77.

{11} see M. Reder, Global Governance (Darmstadt 2006).

 


180

{12} see O. Edenhofer, Eine Ethik der Nachhaltigkeit, in dieser Zs. 224 (2006) 742-756.

{13} see Grenzenloses “Recht auf Freizügigkeit”?, hg. v. J. Müller und M. Kiefer (Stuttgart 2004).

{14} see Frauen – Gewinnerinnen oder Verliererinnen der Globalisierung?, hg. v. J. Müller u. M. Kiefer (Stuttgart 2007).

{15} Päpstlicher Rat für Gerechtigkeit und Frieden, Kompendium der Soziallehre der Kirche (Freiburg 2006).

{16} Die Deutschen Bischöfe, Der Klimawandel: Brennpunkte globaler, intergenerationeller u. ökologischer Gerechtigkeit. Bericht im Auftrag der Kommission für gesellschaftliche und soziale Fragen und der Kommission Weltkirche (Bonn 2006).

{17} Geschlechtergerechtigkeit u. weltkirchliches Handeln, hg. v. d. Deutschen Kommission Justitia et Pax (Bonn 2004).

http://www.con-spiration.de/texte/english/2007/mueller-e.html

Back to: KEY DOCUMENTS OF CHURCH SOCIAL DOCTRINE

Back to: Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples)