Home     The Theology of the Body    Resources    Articles    Essays    Links     Email

Nemo PP.

Pacis quod Spes

To His Brother Bishops
the Priests and Deacons
 Men and Women religious
all the Christian Faithful
and to all men and women
of good will, especially the victims

of Hurricane Katrina

2005.12.12

Venerable Brothers, Precious Sons and Daughters,

Peace and Apostolic Blessing.

1. In days of doubt and confusion, when faith is tried, the Church must be a bulwark, a visible sign of peace and hope. The role of the Lord’s Church is just that, to be His evident manifestation in the world so that we can acclaim God’s glorious aid with the Psalmist: “My God, my rock of refuge, my shield.”[1]

The people of the world seem to face ever-new and ever-constant challenges, ever-wrenching suffering. Particularly poignant and confusing are the calamities often grouped as “natural disasters.” Such a widespread event has befallen the southern region of the United States of America in the form of Hurricane Katrina. Affecting such a wide group of people with its powerful destruction, it gives us pause to reflect on the social teachings of the Catholic faith and their interplay in the current situation.

2. The nature of suffering is one of great unknown. With the existence of an omnipotent, all-loving God, suffering is a difficult concept to comprehend. Yet it “seems to be particularly essential to the nature of man.”[2] That suffering is the subjective experience of an evil, which is a privation of the good created by God, is evident enough from experience and supported by both patristic and papal writings.[3] That suffering exists, though, is a problem greater.

3. Suffering is not a problem to be solved; there is no formula, definition, or cognitive process that can make sense of it, much less eliminate it. It is a reality that is unreachable by the human intellect. We must reflect on God’s response to Job’s criticism of his seemingly senseless suffering: “Who is this that obscures divine plans with words of ignorance?…Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.”[4] Suffering, therefore, is only understandable in the holistic picture of reality, a picture only known to God. Serving as God’s “mouth piece,” Isaiah notes such a distinction, stating, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways, my ways, says the Lord. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways, my thoughts above your thoughts.”[5] The simplistic interpretation of suffering and evil befallen various people, particularly in catastrophic events, therefore, is untenable for any believer of God. Such statements, when placed within the biblical framework, are revealed as empty and meaningless. Jesus Himself forcefully denies characterizing victims of natural disasters as sinners receiving their due punishment.[6] To view events by perceived causal relations, such as deeming an event to have occurred because of a readily identifiable cause, is not simply presumptuous; it is to claim divinity.

4. Through the Incarnation, however, suffering has been transformed from a meaningless event to a share in the salvific work of Christ. The Son not only took on flesh and endured the sufferings of man, but He also freely laid down His life for the salvation of all in the great sacrifice on the hill of Calvary. Suffering can then be united to the cross of Christ, and we, like the Apostle Paul, are enabled to “complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.”[7] Suffering has a purpose in the salvation of the world.

5. Finally, suffering has the seemingly impossible characteristic of bringing forth good. As St. Paul writes, “Where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more.”[8] It is the fire that purifies the gold[9], creating a value and purity not previously present. Examples of good in evil situations abound in each of us. The clearest and most obvious example of good arising from evil, of course, is the salvation wrought through Our Lord’s Passion and death, through which eternal beatitude becomes possible. Good, therefore, can come from this evil of Katrina, a good that is achievable through an understanding and practice of various social teachings.

6. “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.”[10] With those words, the first creation story in Genesis indicates the marvelous position of man: imago Dei. The human person is in a dignified place, one unique in all of creation. Succinctly, “Man ... is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself.”[11] Further, God has created the human person as “little less than a god,”[12] a notion that should inspire awe and amazement. It is no wonder that servant of God John Paul II viewed the human person as the essential foundation for social teaching.[13] Being created in the image of God, the human person is evidenced by a wealth of aspects proper to his or her essence, chiefly: having freedom and an ability to co-create, possessing an immortal soul and reason, being an active, relational, social being.

Being the imago Dei, human persons have a distinct and irremovable dignity, which is the source from which Catholic social teaching flow, the ever-governing principle of any act. If the edifice is not built on the foundation of the person and all his splendor, it will be structurally unsound, choosing fanciful facades destined to crumble rather than the sturdy structure of revealed truth, as is all too often the case in our current day. From this dignity, all human persons possess endowed rights, grounded in his being and his Creator; each being made in God’s likeness, each equally has rights.

7. As is readily evident, the central right of the human person is that of life, from conception until natural death.[14] Reflecting on the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, we must grapple with the issues of life, particularly euthanasia. Many stories have surfaced in the weeks and months after the storm, providing a saddening foreground to accompany the already dreary backdrop. Accounts are prevalent of bodies piled many in a single room, bodies of the most susceptible people in our society: the old, the sick, the poor. Euthanasia is an intolerable evil, never acceptable.[15] It is never for the good of society to aid a person’s death; such is the faulty and deceptive mode of utilitarianism that is rampant in the world. One life can never be measured against another; each person is an imago Dei. When in a situation of conflict, of complexity, decisions must be made quickly but in no way does that legitimize abandonment of the weak while the strong fend for their own well-being or the euthanizing of the pained or ill. The measure of the person must be the foundation of all decisions. To do otherwise is not only ignoble, it is immoral, an offence against humanity and God. We must pray for the repose of all those souls, that their earthly desperation and weakness might be replaced by the strength of the eternal beatitude of heaven. Moreover, we must pray for those individuals who neglect their role as their “brother’s keeper,”[16] for, as the Second Vatican Council rightly notes regarding such abuses of human rights, “they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury.” [17]

The use of force to save oneself or one’s family members was also sadly a part of the desperate days immediately following the destruction. We are moved to consider situations in which threats of violence, even death, were used to dissuade individuals from using transportation or other means to flee the area of destruction. Even in dire need, the use or even threat of violence to save oneself and neglect another is not acceptable. In fact, it is directly opposed to the Gospel message.[18]

8. With regard to social rights and teachings, a preferential option for the poor must be observed. In his groundbreaking encyclical Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII indicated such a position nearly one hundred and fifteen years ago.[19] As a people, we are entrusted with the care of all, particularly those who cannot care for themselves, continuing Jesus Christ’s own mission of concern for the outcast and neglected.[20] Pope John Paul II described it simply, as “an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness.”[21] Care for the poor is a form of love par excellence. It is our duty as Christians to reveal the love God has for them in a tangible way, a love that they often are not acquainted with because of their social status, because of their concerns of the daily unknowns. The poor are not merely a group of those people, but each is an imago Dei, a brother or sister in Christ. We must effort each day to assuage their pain, to lighten their load, to be a balm in Gilead[22] through the three means of the disciple: prayer, fasting, and good works. Only an authentic life of a modern day disciple will allow God’s grace to produce change, to bear fruit. We each are called to be a disciple of Christ. Let us, therefore, not forget that the Lord is found in each person, in each least brother.[23]

9. Directly related to the preferential option for the poor is the Church’s principle of the universal destination of goods. As the Second Vatican Council noted, “God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity.”[24] It is all too prevalent and noticeable that there exists a disparity between the poor and the rich, between individuals, as well as nations. Such, though, ought not to be the case. God destined fair and equitable use of the world and its resources for all. Through creation, God has shown that all we have is a gift from Him. Even life is upheld by God at each moment.[25] Nothing, therefore, is solely or particularly attributable to our working; there is a constant need to give God the glory due Him.[26] Recognizing properly the causes of the earth and its manifold resources and the call of dominion over it,[27] the human person must, then, properly order his God-given riches in such a way that all people benefit. The poor and disenfranchised must never be denied their share in God’s gifts, but rather should be accounted for firstly, with a loving preference. Individuals, influenced by an attitude of complacency or sufficiency, can not neglect the poor by hoarding their riches—material or otherwise. Even worse is an active, conscious manipulation of power to solidify or even increase a comfortable material status. The Lazaruses in the world deserve a share in the sumptuous dining produced by the arable land; all too often, however, they are denied even the table scraps, an admission that carries consequences for each of us.[28]

10. Both the principles of the preferential option for the poor and the universal destination of goods are particularly applicable in the Hurricane Katrina situation. Images of the poor, of those without means to evacuate, were seen with sadness throughout the world. Squalor and anarchy reigned in various “shelters of last resort.” Common class distinctions were strikingly evident: those with means—means as fundamental as a source of transportation—were able to evacuate, those without were forced to live in sub-human conditions for days. With little food, water, clothing, privacy, and security, people were forced to bear heavy burdens indeed. The lack of order or security was perhaps the most galling, with fights, rapes, and deaths all occurring within a tumultuous space, and no perceivable plan or initiative to remedy the situation. Shelters from the chaos outside they were not; they rather took on and even extenuated the devastation previously wreaked. For human persons to be neglected in such a way is a cause for collective shame and sorrow; basic rights[29] were non-existent.

The poor, though, should have been the first concern in the evacuation plan. A government is in a particularly noticeable and important position as protectors of its people, “anxiously safeguard(ing) the community and all its members.”[30] It is the obligation of all people, but in a special way of the government, to care for and look after the marginalized members of society. The poor can never simply fend for themselves. Further, even when the dire situation of many of the victims still in affected areas was known, the needed help of food, water, and manpower, to restore not only order but more importantly the basic human rights, were not made available. Coordination between levels of government was sorely lacking, with those forced to a shelter for safety being victimized again. Political games cannot be played out when lives are in the balance; the needs of people trump any political capital. Pride never ought to contaminate the governing of officials.[31] Such is evident when the human person is correctly understood as the “subject and goal of all social institutions.”[32] Therefore, adhering to the universal destination of goods, vital supplies should have been sent post haste, irregardless of the wasteful affects of bureaucratic procedures.

11. The poor are also of special concern with regards to the plans to rebuild the devastated areas. Those people with little means are as a part of any city or region as any other. In many cases family roots in a given area extend through generations. Planners should shun the idealism of creating a poverty-free city. The poverty lived by those people was often a direct result of inefficient governing or non-existent opportunities. Such would be to not address the real problem but only its perceptual results, allowing the disturbing cycle of poverty to perpetuate itself again. Not giving the poor a voice in the re-creation of their city is to commit a grave injustice; not to welcome them back with arms opened is even worse. We must be ever-mindful of the admonition in Proverbs concerning the poor: “Injure not the poor because they are poor, nor crush the needy at the gate; for the Lord will defend their cause…”[33]

12. “‘Teacher what commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”[34] With this remarkable statement, Jesus presents to us, just as he did to that inquiring scholar, His path of discipleship, a practical understanding of what it means to follow Him. The primacy of faith and love of God is not novel. Nor, for that matter, is the need to love your neighbor.[35] Their union as the greatest commandment, though, is. Love of God is now intrinsically tied to love of neighbor, the outward manifestation of one’s love for the divine. Jesus is affirming what was long ago shown in God’s questioning of Cain[36]: we are our brother’s keeper. We must act with love toward our brother, our neighbor. Love, as is often forgotten, is not a deeply emotional or sentimental feeling but rather an act motivated by the selfless desire for another’s good. In the second half of the greatest commandment, Jesus gives to us a sturdy foundation for social justice: the principle of solidarity.

With the scholar in the Lucan account, we also must ask: “And who is my neighbor?”[37] A rejection of the simplistic concept of neighbor as determined by ethnicity, proximity, or belief is clearly made by Jesus in the parable of the “Good Samaritan” He offers as a response. The basis of such a belief is the existence of a basic human dignity, one endowed by God in each individual human person. With a common human dignity based upon person as person, there develops a bond between each person, a commonality expressible as a brotherhood or sisterhood. By his or her very being a human, each person is inextricably connected to each other. Therefore, to love one’s neighbor suddenly takes on the fullness of loving and caring for all human persons. There must contain an overarching element, as the Second Vatican Council notes, stating, “For the more closely the world comes together, the more widely do people's obligations transcend particular groups and extend to the whole world.”[38] Solidarity must be extended to all, equally.

13. Though it is true that a common human dignity grounds solidarity, the principle takes on even a fuller light in the person of Jesus Christ. After washing his disciples’s feet, Jesus addresses His closest followers at the Last Supper and gives them His mystifying new command, telling them, “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.”[39] Only in the hours to follow does this commandment take on its meaning in entirety. In the bloody, painful Passion of our Lord the commitment to love as He has takes on its complete significance. On the cross, Jesus showed His disciples, as He shows us today, the fullness of love: complete self-offering. Jesus reaches out from the cross to each of us with individual love, taking upon Himself our debt to sin and making open the way of salvation. He is the “spotless unblemished lamb” that is the ransom for each of us.[40] Jesus, therefore, illumines His previous command of “love of neighbor.” Love is transformed into an orientation towards the other. It is no longer simply an act but is, rather, a way of life, constituted by corresponding acts. To love is to not think of oneself; it is to turn to “the other,” recognize him or her as a fellow member in Christ’s mystical body, and give without limit or regard to him or her. Pope John Paul made such a concept of solidarity known, writing, “(Solidarity) 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.”[41]

14. The need for a greater emphasis on solidarity among the peoples of the world is clear; as interdependence grows so must concern for “the other.”[42] The circle of brotherhood must be extended until all are within; we must create a true “family of persons.” No person or peoples may be excluded; any justification or reasoning otherwise is groundless, unreflective of the Gospel dictate to love even enemies.[43]

The need for solidarity is particularly noticeable in the wake of a natural disaster. We are all brothers and sisters. Therefore, there is a responsibility to respond with aid to members of our family of persons. Events may physically affect only a small portion of people, compared to the world at large, but they should reverberate throughout the world, causing brothers and sisters to act out of love of neighbor.

Governments have a special obligation to offer assistance in times of distress in areas outside of their own nations. No matter the development in the country affected, a travesty creates a relative poverty. Lesser developed nations, moreover, should be shown the utmost care; having difficulty in normal conditions, lesser developed nations can be affected for decades by a natural disaster without the proper help. There is a need to extend the “preferential option for the poor” to a national level. Further, a national disaster should not be the awakening to the plight of the world’s poor, but as Pope John XXIII stressed, the sub-human conditions existent as norms in various countries should be reason enough to help.[44] As seen already, the principle of the universal destination of goods must be a guiding factor, and when seen in light of a true understanding of solidarity, its fullness and calling is evident. Therefore, both individuals and nations alike should be encouraged to continue the support of those ravaged by poverty and destruction through economic, as well a prayerful means.

15. The goal of solidarity can be found in the pursuit and achievement of the common good. Pope John is again helpful, defining the common good as “the sum total of all those conditions of social life which enable individuals, families, and organizations to achieve complete and effective fulfillment.”[45] The tie made between common good and fulfillment or actualization is an important one. Man and woman as imago Dei finds his or her ultimate fulfillment in the beatific vision achievable after death; all actions must, therefore, be ordered under it. Further, the dignity possessed by each person can never be lost or denied in such a conception of the common good; rather, the endowed dignity of the person interprets the common good, interprets the necessary or usable means in its achievement. Therefore, a conception of the common good that abandons the essential rights and dignity of the person is obviously flawed, a misrepresentation of the common good. Supported by the universal destination of goods, solidarity, and human rights and dignity, the common good is to be pursued actively, with the good of the whole of the family of persons being its goal.

Governments must be especially cognizant of the common good, operating in such a way as to promote it. States need to protect and promote natural human rights and duties.[46] An honest and fervent campaign to do so would be within its nature as a social institution created by the person. In the midst of trauma and distress, a commitment to the common good is, more than ever, necessary to be made. Such brings us back once again to a focus on human rights. Two enumerated by the Second Vatican Council of note with regards to the common good are that of education and work.[47]

16. The right to an education is a fundamental human right, supported by the natural law.[48] The human person necessarily needs an education to further his or her effort of self-actualization. Such an actualization, though, does not merely benefit the educated individual; rather, the society as a whole derives benefits from the education of its members. Further, the common good is achieved only through the actualization of all people and, with extension, families, and organizations.[49] Education, therefore, should be made available to all individuals, regardless of their economic state. Moreover, in the rebuilding of a city or region after a natural disaster, the educational structure must be a priority, not merely as a means to attract those displaced back, but in nature of its fundamental importance to the human person. It is also a commendable act of solidarity for educational institutions to open their doors to those fleeing the destruction of their native land; such a gesture is a practical example of love of neighbor.

17. Work also is a natural element of the person. Pope John Paul beautifully describes the nature and purpose of work, stating, “Work remains a good thing, not only because it is useful and enjoyable, but also because it expresses and increases the worker's dignity. Through work we not only transform the world, we are transformed ourselves, becoming ‘more a human being.’”[50] Work, therefore, cannot be narrowly conceived as a task remunerated by pay; workers must not be conceived as cool mercenaries. Work, rather, has a deep affect on the person, flowing from his or her dignity. Pope Leo XIII in his masterful social encyclical Rerum Novarum stresses the need of the person to “impress his personality” on his work and its fruits.[51] There is, of course, the duty of the employer to care for his or her employee, needing to offer “a wage sufficient to support him and his family,”[52] as well as uphold the dignity of the worker.[53] The nature of work is to aid in the process of self-actualization and, therefore, is a necessary part of the human life. Further, those individuals whose jobs were destroyed when they were affected by a natural disaster need to be accommodated as best as possible, with employers’s hiring them when possible, enabling the common good and practicing solidarity.

17. God has given humans dominion over all the earth, which has served as evidence of the unique stature of man and woman.[54] The environment, therefore, is a realm that falls under the direct care of the human person, a substantial power. This role, however, should not give rise to abuse of God’s gifts for the sake of maximizing economic profits. Though humans in a sense stand above other created things, they must never lose the understanding of standing with all creation, based on their common creation from God. After stressing the harm a neglectful and abusive attitude towards nature has, Pope John Paul aids us in ordering our thoughts, acknowledging, “We are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity.”[55] There is an obligation to, though empowered with dominion, act with a responsible charity. The Second Vatican Council cautions against a faulty view, noting, “God destined the earth and all it contains for all people and nations so that all created things would be shared fairly by all humankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity.”[56] Therefore, particularly in the time of and areas affected by natural disasters, there must be a concerted effort to restore balance to the ecosphere, to recover the natural elements destroyed or seriously harmed in the disaster.

18. Finally, a mention must be given to the “most weighty” principle of subsidiarity.[57] Its foundation is established in the human person. Succinctly, it holds that what can be handled at the most basic societal level should be handled at that level. Clearly, there is a confidence in the free initiative and capacities of the human person. Also evident is the implicit claim that those most in touch with a situation are the best to handle it, limiting “bureaucratic ways of thinking…accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”[58] There seems to be the belief that larger is synonymous with better. Often, though, the opposite is actually true; governments have become wasteful as they add unnecessary steps and time in their role of governing. It must, further, always be kept in mind that social entities, such as the national government, exist for the person, not vice versa.[59] The person should be properly viewed as the creative being that he or she is, entrusted to make decisions without an overhanging governmental structure to interfere. For societies to be structured otherwise is an “injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order.”[60]

When recovering from a natural disaster, therefore, affected people should have a substantial presence in the process, especially in a large-scale rebuilding initiative. To take the decisions out of the hands of those who live in the actual area is not only wasteful, but it is also foolish. Moreover, all citizens should command an equal say, not one directly reflective of means. Then and only then will the common good be readily achievable.[61]

19. In the final analysis, the Church offers her children an ample storehouse of riches, one accumulated through her history, to understand more fully their roles in society. The discussion will ultimately shift again to the discussion of suffering, one we have attempted to address. We are limited to reflecting on Jesus’ words in the following account in John: “As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered, ‘It was not that this man sinned or his parents, but that the works of God might be manifest in him.’”[62] We will never fully understand suffering. However, the good that arises out of it is as tangible as it is mystifying. Let us effort to always act with unfailing concern for social justice and to be every aware of the light God draws forth from the darkest of situations.

20. May the virgin Mary, Queen of the Americas, continue to guide and protect you, particularly those of you affected by Hurricane Katrina, may the light of Christ shine forth brightly throughout this world to clarify the path of the Lord, and may God bless you all.

Given at St. Peter's in Rome, the twelfth day of December, the memorial of Our Lady of Guadalupe, in the year 2005, the first year of Our pontificate.

NEMO

Bibliography

The New American Bible (New York: Oxford, 1990).

Pope John XXIII Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra <www.vatican.va>. 1961.

-----, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris <www.vatican.va>. 1963.

Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris <www.vatican.va>. 1984

-----, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus <www.vatican.va>. 1991.

-----, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae <www.vatican.va>. 1995.

-----, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens <www.vatican.va>. 1981

-----, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis <www.vatican.va>. 1987.

-----, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor <www.vatican.va>. 1993.

Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum <www.vatican.va>. 1891.

Pope Pius XI Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno <www.vatican.va>. 1931.

St. Augustine. Confessions. Trans. Henry Chadwick. New York: Oxford, 1998.  

Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of

    Today Gaudium et Spes. <www.vatican.va>. 1966.