50
112
experience of community in which the walls of
the ego are torn down and the barriers of selfish-
ness overcome. This experience of a communi-
tarian salvation often generates creative ideas for
the improvement of a building or a neighbour-
hood.
117
150. Given the interrelationship between living
space and human behaviour, those who design
buildings, neighbourhoods, public spaces and
cities, ought to draw on the various disciplines
which help us to understand people’s thought
processes, symbolic language and ways of act-
ing. It is not enough to seek the beauty of de-
sign. More precious still is the service we offer to
another kind of beauty: people’s quality of life,
their adaptation to the environment, encounter
and mutual assistance. Here too, we see how im-
portant it is that urban planning always take into
consideration the views of those who will live in
these areas.
151. There is also a need to protect those com-
mon areas, visual landmarks and urban land-
scapes which increase our sense of belonging,
of rootedness, of “feeling at home” within a
city which includes us and brings us together.
117
Some authors have emphasized the values frequent-
ly found, for example, in the villas, chabolas or favelas of Latin
America: cf. J
uan
C
arlos
s
Cannone
, S.J., “La irrupción del po-
bre y la lógica de la gratuidad”, in J
uan
C
arlos
s
Cannone
and
m
arCelo
P
erine
(eds.), Irrupción del pobre y quehacer filosófico. Hacia
una nueva racionalidad, Buenos Aires, 1993, 225-230.
32
113
It is important that the different parts of a city
be well integrated and that those who live there
have a sense of the whole, rather than being con-
fined to one neighbourhood and failing to see
the larger city as space which they share with oth-
ers. Interventions which affect the urban or ru-
ral landscape should take into account how var-
ious elements combine to form a whole which
is perceived by its inhabitants as a coherent and
meaningful framework for their lives. Others will
then no longer be seen as strangers, but as part
of a “we” which all of us are working to create.
For this same reason, in both urban and rural set-
tings, it is helpful to set aside some places which
can be preserved and protected from constant
changes brought by human intervention.
152. Lack of housing is a grave problem in
many parts of the world, both in rural areas and
in large cities, since state budgets usually cover
only a small portion of the demand. Not only
the poor, but many other members of society as
well, find it difficult to own a home. Having a
home has much to do with a sense of person-
al dignity and the growth of families. This is a
major issue for human ecology. In some places,
where makeshift shanty towns have sprung up,
this will mean developing those neighbourhoods
rather than razing or displacing them. When the
poor live in unsanitary slums or in dangerous
tenements, “in cases where it is necessary to re-
locate them, in order not to heap suffering upon
49
114
suffering, adequate information needs to be giv-
en beforehand, with choices of decent housing
offered, and the people directly involved must be
part of the process”.
118
At the same time, crea-
tivity should be shown in integrating rundown
neighbourhoods into a welcoming city: “How
beautiful those cities which overcome paralyz-
ing mistrust, integrate those who are different
and make this very integration a new factor of
development! How attractive are those cities
which, even in their architectural design, are full
of spaces which connect, relate and favour the
recognition of others!”
119
153. The quality of life in cities has much to
do with systems of transport, which are often
a source of much suffering for those who use
them. Many cars, used by one or more people,
circulate in cities, causing traffic congestion,
raising the level of pollution, and consuming
enormous quantities of non-renewable energy.
This makes it necessary to build more roads and
parking areas which spoil the urban landscape.
Many specialists agree on the need to give prior-
ity to public transportation. Yet some measures
needed will not prove easily acceptable to society
unless substantial improvements are made in the
systems themselves, which in many cities force
118
P
ontifiCal
C
ounCil
f
or
J
ustiCe
a
nd
P
eaCe
, Compen-
dium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 482.
119
Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 Novem-
ber 2013), 210: AAS 105 (2013), 1107.
33
115
people to put up with undignified conditions due
to crowding, inconvenience, infrequent service
and lack of safety.
154. Respect for our dignity as human beings
often jars with the chaotic realities that people
have to endure in city life. Yet this should not
make us overlook the abandonment and ne-
glect also experienced by some rural populations
which lack access to essential services and where
some workers are reduced to conditions of servi-
tude, without rights or even the hope of a more
dignified life.
155. Human ecology also implies another pro-
found reality: the relationship between human
life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our
nature and is necessary for the creation of a more
dignified environment. Pope Benedict XVI spoke
of an “ecology of man”, based on the fact that
“man too has a nature that he must respect and
that he cannot manipulate at will”.
120
It is enough
to recognize that our body itself establishes us in
a direct relationship with the environment and
with other living beings. The acceptance of our
bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and
accepting the entire world as a gift from the Fa-
ther and our common home, whereas thinking
that we enjoy absolute power over our own bod-
120
Address to the German Bundestag, Berlin (22 September
2011): AAS 103 (2011), 668.
49
116
ies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy
absolute power over creation. Learning to accept
our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest
meaning, is an essential element of any genuine
human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in
its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am
going to be able to recognize myself in an en-
counter with someone who is different. In this
way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of
another man or woman, the work of God the
Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not
a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel
out sexual difference because it no longer knows
how to confront it”.
121
iv. t
he
PrinCiPle
of
the
Common
good
156. An integral ecology is inseparable from
the notion of the common good, a central and
unifying principle of social ethics. The common
good is “the sum of those conditions of social
life which allow social groups and their individu-
al members relatively thorough and ready access
to their own fulfilment”.
122
157. Underlying the principle of the common
good is respect for the human person as such,
endowed with basic and inalienable rights or-
121
Catechesis (15 April 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 16
April 2015, p. 8.
122
s
eCond
v
atiCan
e
CumeniCal
C
ounCil
, Pastoral Con-
stitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes,
26.
35
117
dered to his or her integral development. It has
also to do with the overall welfare of society and
the development of a variety of intermediate
groups, applying the principle of subsidiarity.
Outstanding among those groups is the family,
as the basic cell of society. Finally, the common
good calls for social peace, the stability and secu-
rity provided by a certain order which cannot be
achieved without particular concern for distrib-
utive justice; whenever this is violated, violence
always ensues. Society as a whole, and the state
in particular, are obliged to defend and promote
the common good.
158. In the present condition of global soci-
ety, where injustices abound and growing num-
bers of people are deprived of basic human
rights and considered expendable, the principle
of the common good immediately becomes,
logically and inevitably, a summons to solidarity
and a preferential option for the poorest of our
brothers and sisters. This option entails recog-
nizing the implications of the universal destina-
tion of the world’s goods, but, as I mentioned in
the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium,
123
it
demands before all else an appreciation of the
immense dignity of the poor in the light of our
deepest convictions as believers. We need only
look around us to see that, today, this option is in
fact an ethical imperative essential for effectively
attaining the common good.
123
Cf. Nos. 186-201: AAS 105 (2013), 1098-1105.
44
118
v. J
ustiCe
BetWeen
the
generations
159. The notion of the common good also ex-
tends to future generations. The global economic
crises have made painfully obvious the detrimen-
tal effects of disregarding our common destiny,
which cannot exclude those who come after us.
We can no longer speak of sustainable devel-
opment apart from intergenerational solidarity.
Once we start to think about the kind of world
we are leaving to future generations, we look at
things differently; we realize that the world is a
gift which we have freely received and must share
with others. Since the world has been given to
us, we can no longer view reality in a purely util-
itarian way, in which efficiency and productivi-
ty are entirely geared to our individual benefit.
Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but
rather a basic question of justice, since the world
we have received also belongs to those who will
follow us. The Portuguese bishops have called
upon us to acknowledge this obligation of jus-
tice: “The environment is part of a logic of re-
ceptivity. It is on loan to each generation, which
must then hand it on to the next”.
124
An integral
ecology is marked by this broader vision.
160. What kind of world do we want to leave
to those who come after us, to children who are
now growing up? This question not only concerns
124
P
ortuguese
B
ishoPs
’ C
onferenCe
, Pastoral Letter Re-
sponsabilidade Solidária pelo Bem Comum (15 September 2003), 20.
32
119
the environment in isolation; the issue cannot be
approached piecemeal. When we ask ourselves
what kind of world we want to leave behind, we
think in the first place of its general direction, its
meaning and its values. Unless we struggle with
these deeper issues, I do not believe that our con-
cern for ecology will produce significant results.
But if those issues are courageously faced, we
are led inexorably to ask other pointed questions:
What is the purpose of our life in this world?
Why are we here? What is the goal of our work
and all our efforts? What need does the earth
have of us? It is no longer enough, then, simply
to state that we should be concerned for future
generations. We need to see that what is at stake
is our own dignity. Leaving an inhabitable planet
to future generations is, first and foremost, up to
us. The issue is one which dramatically affects us,
for it has to do with the ultimate meaning of our
earthly sojourn.
161. Doomsday predictions can no longer be
met with irony or disdain. We may well be leav-
ing to coming generations debris, desolation and
filth. The pace of consumption, waste and envi-
ronmental change has so stretched the planet’s
capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsus-
tainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes,
such as those which even now periodically occur
in different areas of the world. The effects of the
present imbalance can only be reduced by our
decisive action, here and now. We need to reflect
33
120
on our accountability before those who will have
to endure the dire consequences.
162. Our difficulty in taking up this challenge
seriously has much to do with an ethical and cul-
tural decline which has accompanied the deteri-
oration of the environment. Men and women of
our postmodern world run the risk of rampant
individualism, and many problems of society
are connected with today’s self-centred culture
of instant gratification. We see this in the crisis
of family and social ties and the difficulties of
recognizing the other. Parents can be prone to
impulsive and wasteful consumption, which then
affects their children who find it increasingly dif-
ficult to acquire a home of their own and build
a family. Furthermore, our inability to think se-
riously about future generations is linked to our
inability to broaden the scope of our present in-
terests and to give consideration to those who
remain excluded from development. Let us not
only keep the poor of the future in mind, but
also today’s poor, whose life on this earth is brief
and who cannot keep on waiting. Hence, “in ad-
dition to a fairer sense of intergenerational sol-
idarity there is also an urgent moral need for a
renewed sense of intragenerational solidarity”.
125
125
B
enediCt
XVI, Message for the 2010 World Day of Peace,
8: AAS 102 (2010), 45.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
