61
94
life”.
100
Nonetheless, once our human capacity
for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it
becomes easy for the meaning of work to be mis-
understood.
101
We need to remember that men
and women have “the capacity to improve their
lot, to further their moral growth and to develop
their spiritual endowments”.
102
Work should be
the setting for this rich personal growth, where
many aspects of life enter into play: creativity,
planning for the future, developing our talents,
living out our values, relating to others, giving
glory to God. It follows that, in the reality of
today’s global society, it is essential that “we con-
tinue to prioritize the goal of access to steady
employment for everyone”,
103
no matter the lim-
ited interests of business and dubious economic
reasoning.
128. We were created with a vocation to work.
The goal should not be that technological pro-
gress increasingly replace human work, for this
would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a ne-
cessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth,
a path to growth, human development and per-
100
s
eCond
v
atiCan
e
CumeniCal
C
ounCil
, Pastoral Con-
stitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes,
63.
101
Cf. J
ohn
P
aul
II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus
(1 May 1991), 37: AAS 83 (1991), 840.
102
P
aul
VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio (26
March 1967), 34: AAS 59 (1967), 274.
103
B
enediCt
XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate
(29 June 2009), 32: AAS 101 (2009), 666.
38
95
sonal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially
must always be a provisional solution in the face
of pressing needs. The broader objective should
always be to allow them a dignified life through
work. Yet the orientation of the economy has fa-
voured a kind of technological progress in which
the costs of production are reduced by laying
off workers and replacing them with machines.
This is yet another way in which we can end up
working against ourselves. The loss of jobs also
has a negative impact on the economy “through
the progressive erosion of social capital: the net-
work of relationships of trust, dependability, and
respect for rules, all of which are indispensable
for any form of civil coexistence”.
104
In other
words, “human costs always include economic
costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve
human costs”.
105
To stop investing in people, in
order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is
bad business for society.
129. In order to continue providing employ-
ment, it is imperative to promote an economy
which favours productive diversity and business
creativity. For example, there is a great variety
of small-scale food production systems which
feed the greater part of the world’s peoples, us-
ing a modest amount of land and producing less
waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in or-
chards and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting
104
Ibid.
105
Ibid.
32
96
or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially
in the agricultural sector, end up forcing small-
holders to sell their land or to abandon their tra-
ditional crops. Their attempts to move to other,
more diversified, means of production prove
fruitless because of the difficulty of linkage with
regional and global markets, or because the infra-
structure for sales and transport is geared to larg-
er businesses. Civil authorities have the right and
duty to adopt clear and firm measures in support
of small producers and differentiated produc-
tion. To ensure economic freedom from which
all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally
have to be imposed on those possessing great-
er resources and financial power. To claim eco-
nomic freedom while real conditions bar many
people from actual access to it, and while possi-
bilities for employment continue to shrink, is to
practise a doublespeak which brings politics into
disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed
to producing wealth and improving our world.
It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the
areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the
creation of jobs as an essential part of its service
to the common good.
New biological technologies
130. In the philosophical and theological vi-
sion of the human being and of creation which
I have presented, it is clear that the human per-
son, endowed with reason and knowledge, is not
an external factor to be excluded. While human
48
97
intervention on plants and animals is permissi-
ble when it pertains to the necessities of human
life, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches
that experimentation on animals is morally ac-
ceptable only “if it remains within reasonable
limits [and] contributes to caring for or saving
human lives”.
106
The Catechism firmly states that
human power has limits and that “it is contrary
to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or
die needlessly”.
107
All such use and experimenta-
tion “requires a religious respect for the integrity
of creation”.
108
131. Here I would recall the balanced position
of Saint John Paul II, who stressed the benefits
of scientific and technological progress as evi-
dence of “the nobility of the human vocation
to participate responsibly in God’s creative ac-
tion”, while also noting that “we cannot inter-
fere in one area of the ecosystem without pay-
ing due attention to the consequences of such
interference in other areas”.
109
He made it clear
that the Church values the benefits which result
“from the study and applications of molecular
biology, supplemented by other disciplines such
as genetics, and its technological application in
agriculture and industry”.
110
But he also point-
106
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2417.
107
Ibid., 2418.
108
Ibid., 2415.
109
Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, 6: AAS 82
(1990), 150.
110
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (3 October
1981), 3: Insegnamenti 4/2 (1981), 333.
43
98
ed out that this should not lead to “indiscrimi-
nate genetic manipulation”
111
which ignores the
negative effects of such interventions. Human
creativity cannot be suppressed. If an artist can-
not be stopped from using his or her creativity,
neither should those who possess particular gifts
for the advancement of science and technology
be prevented from using their God-given talents
for the service of others. We need constantly to
rethink the goals, effects, overall context and eth-
ical limits of this human activity, which is a form
of power involving considerable risks.
132. This, then, is the correct framework for
any reflection concerning human intervention on
plants and animals, which at present includes ge-
netic manipulation by biotechnology for the sake
of exploiting the potential present in material re-
ality. The respect owed by faith to reason calls for
close attention to what the biological sciences,
through research uninfluenced by economic in-
terests, can teach us about biological structures,
their possibilities and their mutations. Any legiti-
mate intervention will act on nature only in order
“to favour its development in its own line, that
of creation, as intended by God”.
112
133. It is difficult to make a general judgement
about genetic modification (GM), whether veg-
111
Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, 7: AAS 82
(1990), 151.
112
J
ohn
P
aul
II, Address to the 35
th
General Assembly of the
World Medical Association (29 October 1983), 6: AAS 76 (1984), 394.
31
99
etable or animal, medical or agricultural, since
these vary greatly among themselves and call
for specific considerations. The risks involved
are not always due to the techniques used, but
rather to their improper or excessive application.
Genetic mutations, in fact, have often been, and
continue to be, caused by nature itself. Nor are
mutations caused by human intervention a mod-
ern phenomenon. The domestication of animals,
the crossbreeding of species and other older and
universally accepted practices can be mentioned
as examples. We need but recall that scientific de-
velopments in GM cereals began with the obser-
vation of natural bacteria which spontaneously
modified plant genomes. In nature, however, this
process is slow and cannot be compared to the
fast pace induced by contemporary technological
advances, even when the latter build upon several
centuries of scientific progress.
134. Although no conclusive proof exists that
GM cereals may be harmful to human beings, and
in some regions their use has brought about eco-
nomic growth which has helped to resolve prob-
lems, there remain a number of significant diffi-
culties which should not be underestimated. In
many places, following the introduction of these
crops, productive land is concentrated in the
hands of a few owners due to “the progressive
disappearance of small producers, who, as a con-
sequence of the loss of the exploited lands, are
46
100
obliged to withdraw from direct production”.
113
The most vulnerable of these become temporary
labourers, and many rural workers end up mov-
ing to poverty-stricken urban areas. The expan-
sion of these crops has the effect of destroying
the complex network of ecosystems, diminishing
the diversity of production and affecting region-
al economies, now and in the future. In various
countries, we see an expansion of oligopolies for
the production of cereals and other products
needed for their cultivation. This dependency
would be aggravated were the production of in-
fertile seeds to be considered; the effect would
be to force farmers to purchase them from larger
producers.
135. Certainly, these issues require constant at-
tention and a concern for their ethical implica-
tions. A broad, responsible scientific and social
debate needs to take place, one capable of con-
sidering all the available information and of call-
ing things by their name. It sometimes happens
that complete information is not put on the table;
a selection is made on the basis of particular in-
terests, be they politico-economic or ideological.
This makes it difficult to reach a balanced and
prudent judgement on different questions, one
which takes into account all the pertinent vari-
ables. Discussions are needed in which all those
directly or indirectly affected (farmers, consum-
113
e
PisCoPal
C
ommission
for
P
astoral
C
onCerns
in
a
rgentina
, Una tierra para todos (June 2005), 19.
.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
