John 6, 1-15 + CSDC and CV

Chapter 6 

John 6, 1-15 + CSDC and CV

CV 75a Paul VI had already recognized and drawn attention to the global dimension of the social question [155]. Following his lead, we need to affirm today that the social question has become a radically anthropological question, in the sense that it concerns not just how life is conceived but also how it is manipulated, as bio-technology places it increasingly under man's control. In vitro fertilization, embryo research, the possibility of manufacturing clones and human hybrids: all this is now emerging and being promoted in today's highly disillusioned culture, which believes it has mastered every mystery, because the origin of life is now within our grasp.

Notes: [155] Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 3: loc. cit., 258. 

Civil society is multifaceted and irregular; it does not lack its ambiguities and contradictions

CSDC 418. The political community and civil society, although mutually connected and interdependent, are not equal in the hierarchy of ends. The political community is essentially at the service of civil society and, in the final analysis, the persons and groups of which civil society is composed.[854] Civil society, therefore, cannot be considered an extension or a changing component of the political community; rather, it has priority because it is in civil society itself that the political community finds its justification. The State must provide an adequate legal framework for social subjects to engage freely in their different activities and it must be ready to intervene, when necessary and with respect for the principle of subsidiarity, so that the interplay between free associations and democratic life may be directed to the common good. Civil society is in fact multifaceted and irregular; it does not lack its ambiguities and contradictions. It is also the arena where different interests clash with one another, with the risk that the stronger will prevail over the weaker.

  Notes: [854] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1910.

(Jn 6, 1-15) The Christian vision of creation makes a positive judgment on the acceptability of human intervention in nature   

[1] After this, Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee (of Tiberias). [2] A large crowd followed him, because they saw the signs he was performing on the sick. [3] Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. [4] The Jewish feast of Passover was near. [5] When Jesus raised his eyes and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, he said to Philip, "Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?" [6] He said this to test him, because he himself knew what he was going to do. [7] Philip answered him, "Two hundred days' wages worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little (bit)." [8] One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to him, [9] "There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what good are these for so many?" [10] Jesus said, "Have the people recline." Now there was a great deal of grass in that place. So the men reclined, about five thousand in number. [11] Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted. [12] When they had had their fill, he said to his disciples, "Gather the fragments left over, so that nothing will be wasted." [13] So they collected them, and filled twelve wicker baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves that had been more than they could eat. [14] When the people saw the sign he had done, they said, "This is truly the Prophet, the one who is to come into the world." [15] Since Jesus knew that they were going to come and carry him off to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain alone.  

CSDC 473. The Christian vision of creation makes a positive judgment on the acceptability of human intervention in nature, which also includes other living beings, and at the same time makes a strong appeal for responsibility.[1002] In effect, nature is not a sacred or divine reality that man must leave alone. Rather, it is a gift offered by the Creator to the human community, entrusted to the intelligence and moral responsibility of men and women. For this reason the human person does not commit an illicit act when, out of respect for the order, beauty and usefulness of individual living beings and their function in the ecosystem, he intervenes by modifying some of their characteristics or properties. Human interventions that damage living beings or the natural environment deserve condemnation, while those that improve them are praiseworthy. The acceptability of the use of biological and biogenetic techniques is only one part of the ethical problem: as with every human behaviour, it is also necessary to evaluate accurately the real benefits as well as the possible consequences in terms of risks. In the realm of technological-scientific interventions that have forceful and widespread impact on living organisms, with the possibility of significant long-term repercussions, it is unacceptable to act lightly or irresponsibly.

  

 Notes: [1002] Cf. John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 October 1982), 6: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, V, 3 (1982), 892-893. 

[Initials and Abbreviations.- CSDC: Pontifical Council for Justice And Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church; -  SDC: Social Doctrine of the Church; - CV: Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in truth)]