|
|
|
COMMON GOOD The Catechism
of the Catholic Church in discussing the common good quotes the Letter of
Barnabas, a Christian document of the late first or early second century:
“In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual
is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined
only in reference to the human person: ‘Do not live entirely isolated,
having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but
gather instead to seek the common good together’ [Ep. Barnabae, 4, 10;
PG 2, 734]” (1905). Echoing an
ancient Christian teaching, the Catechism stresses the importance of the
common good in its sections on the human person and society. Catholic
social teaching begins from the premise, rooted in both reason and
revelation, that human beings – substantial unities of body and soul,
hence possessing reason and will – are by their very nature social
creatures. To achieve their specific perfection and reach happiness, they
must under normal circumstances participate in common goods transcending
their purely individual well-being and only made possible by life in
society, from the family up through the political community and the
universal “cosmopolis.” Over the past
three or four centuries, nevertheless, many in the modern West have
progressively lost sight of the common good, focusing their attention
instead almost exclusively on individual rights, autonomous life plans,
and partisan interests. As Pope John Paul II has noted, in modern
democracies “there is a growing inability to situate particular
interests within the framework of a coherent vision of the common good.
The latter is not simply the sum total of particular interests; rather it
involves an assessment and integration of those interests on the basis of
a balanced hierarchy of values; ultimately, it demands a correct
understanding of the dignity and rights of the person” (encyclical The
Hundredth Year, Centesimus Annus, 47 [1991]). Given this unhealthy
situation, which many have called a “crisis of individualism,” renewed
interest in the concept of the common good has been awakened in religious,
political, and academic circles. Historical
Overview • The common good first assumed prominence in political science
and ethics with the work of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-c. 322
B.C.). In his Politics, Aristotle cites the extent to which a political
regime seeks and procures the common good (or common advantage), the good
life for all its citizens, central in determining the degree of its
justice: “It is evident, then, that those regimes which look to the
common advantage are correct regimes according to what is unqualifiedly
just, while those which look only to the advantage of the rulers are
errant . . . for they involve mastery, but the city is a
partnership of free persons” (Bk. 3, Ch. 6). The central
place accorded the common good in Catholic teaching is an inheritance
especially from the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, who built on its treatment
by Aristotle and others such as St. Augustine. Aquinas’s account of the
common good is essentially teleological, bound up with the “end” (in
Greek, telos) or purpose of human existence. When Aquinas speaks of this
end of human life, he is referring to the good that perfects the human
being, which affords him or her the opportunity to live happily or
flourish. When a single end or goal is in some way shared by or capable of
perfecting many human beings, it is in that way and to that extent their
common good. Some common
goods are shared by all humans as humans because they are founded in our
common human nature as such. Others are common only to members of a given
nation, local community, or family. Aquinas posits a hierarchical ordering
among the various human goods, according to their objective perfection and
universality. The highest and most perfectly common goods are immaterial
or spiritual in nature. At the top of this hierarchy is God himself, the
supreme, transcendent common good of human beings. Truth and
beauty are also very high human goods, “common” in that they are in no
way diminished by the participation and enjoyment of a multitude of
persons. St. Augustine, in his early dialogue On Free Choice of the Will
(De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis), exhorts his readers to recognize the
great value of wisdom “because the highest good is known and grasped by
truth, and because this truth is wisdom” (Bk. 2, Ch. 13). And he
continues: “We possess in truth . . . what we all may enjoy,
equally and in common. . . . No one says to the other,
‘Get back! Let me approach too! Hands off! Let me also embrace it!’
All men can cling to truth, and touch it. . . . No part of
truth is ever made the private property of anyone; rather, it is entirely
common to all at the same time” (Bk. 2, Ch. 14). On the
practical level, as the Catechism notes in a Thomistic vein, “[e]ach
human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized
as such”; moreover, “it is in the political community that its most
complete realization is found” (1910). Political society facilitates the
life of justice and virtue for its citizens, as well as providing for
their peace and security. Its goal is – or should be – the overarching
well-being of all the citizens, and in this sense is the paramount common
good on the temporal, practical plane of human existence. Pope John XXIII
wrote that, correctly understood, the temporal common good “embraces the
sum total of those conditions of social living, whereby men are enabled
more fully and more readily to achieve their own perfection” (encyclical
Mother and Teacher, Mater et Magistra, 65 [1961]; cf. Vatican Council II,
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes,
26). St. Thomas
stresses that the temporal common good “comprises many things” and
“is produced by many actions” (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 96, 1). Its
essential moral and intellectual requirements remain the same across
cultural boundaries, but it receives its particular character in the
context of a given people’s customs and institutions. Each and
every member of a community has a duty, and consequently ought to have the
right, to contribute to the common good according to his or her abilities
and position in that society. This is a fortiori the case for the Catholic
layperson, who should be well-formed in the Church’s moral wisdom and
social teaching. Those in authority have a special responsibility to
ensure that the vision of the good pursued is genuine and in accord with
human dignity; to coordinate the various contributions of individuals,
families, and intermediate associations with a view to the common good of
all; and to enact laws that truly aim at procuring the common good,
whether directly or indirectly. Citizens, and especially those in
positions of authority, need to cultivate virtues such as charity,
prudence, and fortitude to work for the common good with discernment and
perseverance. Sound religion and religious life play a key role in
fostering social peace and justice, and in contributing to the character
formation citizens require to work effectively for the common good. In giving
absolute priority to one’s private goods, such as wealth or health, a
human being actually fails to achieve his own full personal good.
Moreover, he harms, by omission at least, the other members of his
community by hindering the full realization of their common good. Thomas
Aquinas remarks that “any good or evil done to one of those constituting
a society redounds to the whole society, just as an injury to the hand
injures the man”; and indeed even “when someone does that which
contributes to his own good or evil . . . recompense is owed to
him insofar as it also affects the community according as he is a member
of society” (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 21, 3; cf. 19, 10). Pope John Paul
speaks of this phenomenon in the language of spiritual solidarity among
men, which he relates to the common good: “This . . . is not a
feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so
many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is 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” (encyclical On Social Concerns, Sollicitudo Rei
Socialis, 38 [1987]; italics in original). In parallel
fashion, if a particular community – say, a given nation – were to
pursue its common good in isolation from or to the detriment of the wider
common good – for example, of the whole human race – this would be a
form of collective selfishness, and in the long run not conducive to the
true good even of that country’s citizens. Our common humanity is the
foundation for the universal common good of which the Church’s
Magisterium speaks. In his encyclical Peace on Earth, Pacem in Terris,
Pope John XXIII wrote: “We must remember that, of its very nature, civil
authority exists, not to confine its people within the boundaries of their
nation, but rather to protect, above all else, the common good of that
particular civil society, which certainly cannot be divorced from the
common good of the entire human family. This entails not only that civil
societies should pursue their particular interests without hurting others,
but also that they should join forces and plans whenever the efforts of an
individual government cannot achieve its desired goals. But in the
execution of such common efforts, great care must be taken lest what helps
some nations should injure others” (98-99; cf. 100, 130-141). The political
philosophy of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment generally rejected any
such notions as the human person’s natural sociability and orientation
to various common goods, culminating in a summum bonum, or highest human
good. Political economy was posited as existing above all to provide for
the individual’s comfortable self-preservation. Any remaining notion of
a common good was greatly watered down or replaced by the utilitarian
ethic of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Members of
political communities influenced by this political and philosophical
movement were more likely to focus on safeguarding their own rights than
on their duty to contribute to the common good at various levels, even at
the cost of personal inconvenience. In large-scale consumer societies, as
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) predicted in his great work Democracy in
America, individualism and materialism became more acute and widespread. Recent Church
Teaching • Against this backdrop, Catholic social teaching in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries maintained a central place for the
common good and recognized the importance of revitalizing it on the levels
of theory and practice. But certain political events of the twentieth
century mandated extreme caution and clarity when discussing the common
good. In their assault against liberal democracy and capitalist economics,
both Fascists and communists used appeals to the common good, however
distorted, in their rhetoric. A Ukrainian
recalls the verbal tactics of a party propagandist during the terrible
famine Stalin engineered in that country: “[T]he gist of his speech is
as follows: a stray ant is of no account; it can become lost in its search
for food; it may be mercilessly crushed by someone. . . .
Who cares about a stray single ant? What really counts is the anthill. . . .
So it is with human beings. . . . The collective farm is
everything; the individual is nothing!” (Miron Dolot, Execution by
Hunger: The Forgotten Holocaust, pp. 70-71). Josef Pieper, a German
Catholic philosopher and student of St. Thomas, recalls his experience
under the Nazi regime: “The new masters’ slogan, ‘the common good
before the good of the individual,’ which was proclaimed at all turns
and like everything they took up, was quickly worn out and denatured,
rapidly unmasked itself as a mere pretext and propaganda trick” (No One
Could Have Known: An Autobiography: the Early Years, 1904-1945, p. 95). In order to
guard against misinterpretation or manipulation of the term, the
Magisterium in the second half of the twentieth century emphasized the
role of subsidiarity in healthy social and political life. It also
stressed the common good as the good of the human persons comprising a
given community. It is not the proper good of some organic “state,” to
which individual lives and fortunes may be sacrificed. Thus: “The
common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: ‘The
order of things must be subordinated to the order of persons, and not the
other way around’ [Gaudium et Spes 26]. This order is founded on truth,
built up in justice, and animated by love” (CCC 1912; cf. also 1881,
1892; Gaudium et Spes, 25; and John Paul II, Address to the United Nations
General Assembly, October 5, 1995, 1 and 16-18). The Catechism teaches
that the common good can only be attained through fostering “respect for
the person as such,” facilitating the fulfillment of his duties and
protecting his proper freedoms and rights; the “social well-being and
development” of the community in its material and spiritual aspects; and
“peace,” which is “the stability and security of a just order” (CCC
1907-1909; cf. 1925). See:
Authority; Cardinal Virtues; Church and State; Citizenship; Civil Law;
Human Goods; Natural Law; Politics; Social Doctrine; Subsidiarity;
Teleological Ethics. Suggested
Readings: CCC 1877-1896, 1898, 1901-1903, 1905-1917, 1921, 1924-1928,
2420, 2425, 2429, 2434, 2442. Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 23-26, 30-31, 42-43,
73-76, 84. John XXIII, Mother and Teacher, Mater et Magistra, 65-67; Peace
on Earth, Pacem in Terris, 35-38, 46-48, 53-66, 70-74, 98-100, 136-141.
John Paul II, The Hundredth Year, Centesimus Annus, 34, 41, 47-48. M.
Sherwin, O.P., “St. Thomas and the Common Good: The Theological
Perspective: an Invitation to Dialogue,” Angelicum LXX (1993), 307-328. Mary
M. Keys Russell
Shaw. Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine. Copyright ©
1997, Our Sunday Visitor.
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
