With this post, I am concluding a series of articles I have been writing about Vatican II.  In the first one, I reviewed some opinions that had been expressed recently about the importance, for the future of the Catholic Church, of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, known as Vatican II.  In the second one, I discussed one of the documents produced by the council, Dei Verbum, which explains how Catholics should read the Bible for the purpose of understanding God’s will as revealed through Christ.  In the third one, I reviewed Part 1 of another document from Vatican II, the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, which explains how the church should interact with a world that has been deeply transformed by science and technology and is facing challenges unforeseen by theologians of an earlier age.  In today’s post, I will end the discussion on the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World by reviewing Part 2 of the document.  Quotations from the document are italicized.

As explained in Part 1, the pastoral calling of the Catholic Church is to use the teaching of Christ for the goal of promoting human dignity for individuals while recognizing the inherent human need for socializing.  After the guidelines provided in Part 1, Part 2 focuses on “some problems of special urgency” such as “marriage and the family, human progress, life in its economic, social and political dimensions, the bonds between the family of nations, and peace.” Those topics are examined below.

The marriage institution is, of course, considered sacred by the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations.  Vatican II identified threats to the institution in the modern world:

Yet the excellence of this institution is not everywhere reflected with equal brilliance, since polygamy, the plague of divorce, so-called free love and other disfigurements have an obscuring effect. In addition, married love is too often profaned by excessive self-love, the worship of pleasure and illicit practices against human generation. Moreover, serious disturbances are caused in families by modern economic conditions, by influences at once social and psychological, and by the demands of civil society. Finally, in certain parts of the world problems resulting from population growth are generating concern.

It is not surprising that the Church emphasizes love, unity and fidelity as fundamental ingredients for a healthy marriage.  But the Council also saw procreation as a goal:

By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love “are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matt. 19:ff), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions. Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them.

To their credit, the authors relied on Jesus’ words to define the relationship between husband and wife, which is based on love and self-giving and, therefore, makes no room for excessive self-love.  Ideally, such a relationship should not lead to adultery or divorce:

This love is uniquely expressed and perfected through the appropriate enterprise of matrimony. The actions within marriage by which the couple are united intimately and chastely are noble and worthy ones. Expressed in a manner which is truly human, these actions promote that mutual self-giving by which spouses enrich each other with a joyful and a ready will. Sealed by mutual faithfulness and hallowed above all by Christ’s sacrament, this love remains steadfastly true in body and in mind, in bright days or dark. It will never be profaned by adultery or divorce. Firmly established by the Lord, the unity of marriage will radiate from the equal personal dignity of wife and husband, a dignity acknowledged by mutual and total love. The constant fulfillment of the duties of this Christian vocation demands notable virtue. For this reason, strengthened by grace for holiness of life, the couple will painstakingly cultivate and pray for steadiness of love, large heartedness and the spirit of sacrifice.

Of course, the Catholic Church holds a position on divorce that is considered extreme by many.  That topic is out of the scope of this article.  Regarding the issue of procreation, the authors stated the following:

Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. The God Himself Who said, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) and “Who made man from the beginning male and female” (Matt. 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: “Increase and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior. Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.

The emphasis on procreation seen here is the primary reason the Church considers homosexuality a “disordered” condition, and I have expressed my disagreement with that position elsewhere.

To the authors’ credit, the above statements do not in themselves imply any sense of prejudice against women.  In fact, husbands and wives are both encouraged to participate in decision-making for the welfare of the family:

Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. Thus they will fulfil their task with human and Christian responsibility, and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort. Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring.

While the document seems to recognize that there is more to marriage than just procreation, it mentions a “duty to procreate” and gives special recognition to large families:

Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family.

This makes marriage without children only acceptable for those who have tried hard, but unsuccessfully, to have offspring:

Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking.

The authors recognized that under some circumstances and living conditions, a couple may find it difficult to pursue its duty to procreate.  However, they maintained the known position of the Catholic Church, rejecting the idea of family planning whether in the form of abortion or any method of contraception:

To these problems there are those who presume to offer dishonorable solutions indeed; they do not recoil even from the taking of life. But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love.

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.

Clearly, on this matter, no thought was given to a woman’s freedom to choose.  But regarding the raising of children, while the husband’s participation was judged “highly beneficial,” the role of the wife “at home” was strongly emphasized even though there was a vague attempt to recognize her right to “social progress”:

The family is a kind of school of deeper humanity. But if it is to achieve the full flowering of its life and mission, it needs the kindly communion of minds and the joint deliberation of spouses, as well as the painstaking cooperation of parents in the education of their children. The active presence of the father is highly beneficial to their formation. The children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home. This domestic role of hers must be safely preserved, though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account.

Obviously, this kind of thinking reflects the state of affairs in the 1960’s.  However, personal rights were affirmed for children: They should be educated so that they are prepared to follow their own calling, including marriage, but should remain free, as adults, to make decisions about their own lives.  In other words, arranged marriages were rejected:

Children should be so educated that as adults they can follow their vocation, including a religious one, with a mature sense of responsibility and can choose their state of life; if they marry, they can thereby establish their family in favorable moral, social and economic conditions. Parents or guardians should by prudent advice provide guidance to their young with respect to founding a family, and the young ought to listen gladly. At the same time no pressure, direct or indirect, should be put on the young to make them enter marriage or choose a specific partner.

Considering that marriage and the family play a foundational role in society, an appeal was made to government authorities and institutions to do whatever is needed to support them:

Thus the family, in which the various generations come together and help one another grow wiser and harmonize personal rights with the other requirements of social life, is the foundation of society. All those, therefore, who exercise influence over communities and social groups should work efficiently for the welfare of marriage and the family. Public authority should regard it as a sacred duty to recognize, protect and promote their authentic nature, to shield public morality and to favor the prosperity of home life. The right of parents to beget and educate their children in the bosom of the family must be safeguarded. Children too who unhappily lack the blessing of a family should be protected by prudent legislation and various undertakings and assisted by the help they need.

Along the same line, it was recognized that non-religious trained professionals from various fields have a legitimate role to play in keeping families strong and healthy, while religious professionals are expected to provide pastoral guidance:

Those too who are skilled in other sciences, notably the medical, biological, social and psychological, can considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family along with peace of conscience if by pooling their efforts they labor to explain more thoroughly the various conditions favoring a proper regulation of births.

It devolves on priests duly trained about family matters to nurture the vocation of spouses by a variety of pastoral means, by preaching God’s word, by liturgical worship, and by other spiritual aids to conjugal and family life; to sustain them sympathetically and patiently in difficulties, and to make them courageous through love, so that families which are truly illustrious can be formed.

The document defines culture as follows:

The word “culture” in its general sense indicates everything whereby man develops and perfects his many bodily and spiritual qualities; he strives by his knowledge and his labor, to bring the world itself under his control. He renders social life more human both in the family and the civic community, through improvement of customs and institutions. Throughout the course of time he expresses, communicates and conserves in his works, great spiritual experiences and desires, that they might be of advantage to the progress of many, even of the whole human family.

Given the tremendous advances in a variety of areas of knowledge, and the increased interconnectivity that characterizes the modern world, the document recognizes that “we are witnesses of the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by this responsibility to his brothers and to history,” and summarizes the new challenges with the following questions:

What is to be done to prevent the increased exchanges between cultures, which should lead to a true and fruitful dialogue between groups and nations, from disturbing the life of communities, from destroying the wisdom received from ancestors, or from placing in danger the character proper to each people?

How is the dynamism and expansion of a new culture to be fostered without losing a living fidelity to the heritage of tradition. This question is of particular urgency when a culture which arises from the enormous progress of science and technology must be harmonized with a culture nourished by classical studies according to various traditions.

How can we quickly and progressively harmonize the proliferation of particular branches of study with the necessity of forming a synthesis of them, and of preserving among men the faculties of contemplation and observation which lead to wisdom?

What can be done to make all men partakers of cultural values in the world, when the human culture of those who are more competent is constantly becoming more refined and more complex?

Finally how is the autonomy which culture claims for itself to be recognized as legitimate without generating a notion of humanism which is merely terrestrial, and even contrary to religion itself.

The guidance offered by Vatican II is based on a view of knowledge that differs substantially from the assumptions that characterized the Church in past centuries.  Science and other areas of knowledge were now assumed to have a legitimate role to play:

When man develops the earth by the work of his hands or with the aid of technology, in order that it might bear fruit and become a dwelling worthy of the whole human family and when he consciously takes part in the life of social groups, he carries out the design of God manifested at the beginning of time, that he should subdue the earth, perfect creation and develop himself. At the same time he obeys the commandment of Christ that he place himself at the service of his brethren.

Furthermore, when man gives himself to the various disciplines of philosophy, history and of mathematical and natural science, and when he cultivates the arts, he can do very much to elevate the human family to a more sublime understanding of truth, goodness, and beauty, and to the formation of considered opinions which have universal value. Thus mankind may be more clearly enlightened by that marvelous Wisdom which was with God from all eternity, composing all things with him, rejoicing in the earth, delighting in the sons of men.

Even though the scientific community was warned against the danger of an “exclusive emphasis on observable data, and an agnosticism about everything else,” and against treating its methods as “the supreme rule of seeking the whole truth,” the advantages and potential of the scientific approach were recognized:

Those unfortunate results, however, do not necessarily follow from the culture of today, nor should they lead us into the temptation of not acknowledging its positive values. Among these values are included: scientific study and fidelity toward truth in scientific inquiries, the necessity of working together with others in technical groups, a sense of international solidarity, a clearer awareness of the responsibility of experts to aid and even to protect men, the desire to make the conditions of life more favorable for all, especially for those who are poor in culture or who are deprived of the opportunity to exercise responsibility. All of these provide some preparation for the acceptance of the message of the Gospel a preparation which can be animated by divine charity through Him Who has come to save the world.

Most importantly, Vatican II acknowledged that the scientific community should have freedom to do its work without being shackled by a controlling Church:

Culture, because it flows immediately from the spiritual and social character of man, has constant need of a just liberty in order to develop; it needs also the legitimate possibility of exercising its autonomy according to its own principles. It therefore rightly demands respect and enjoys a certain inviolability within the limits of the common good, as long, of course, as it preserves the rights of the individual and the community, whether particular or universal.

This Sacred Synod, therefore, recalling the teaching of the first Vatican Council, declares that there are “two orders of knowledge” which are distinct, namely faith and reason; and that the Church does not forbid that “the human arts and disciplines use their own principles and their proper method, each in its own domain”; therefore “acknowledging this just liberty,” this Sacred Synod affirms the legitimate autonomy of human culture and especially of the sciences.

All this supposes that, within the limits of morality and the common utility, man can freely search for the truth, express his opinion and publish it; that he can practice any art he chooses; that finally, he can avail himself of true information concerning events of a public nature.

An appeal was also made to governments not to use their authority to control the development of culture:

As for public authority, it is not its function to determine the character of the civilization, but rather to establish the conditions and to use the means which are capable of fostering the life of culture among all even within the minorities of a nation. It is necessary to do everything possible to prevent culture from being turned away from its proper end and made to serve as an instrument of political or economic power.

With this statement, Vatican II finds itself in direct contrast to today’s Christian nationalists who believe it is their duty to seize political authority in order to impose their particular cultural inclinations on others.  Instead, Vatican II asked Christians to work

diligently for fundamental decisions to be taken in economic and political affairs, both on the national and international level which will everywhere recognize and satisfy the right of all to a human and social culture in conformity with the dignity of the human person without any discrimination of race, sex, nation, religion or social condition.

In particular, Christians should direct their energies toward establishing societies where educational opportunities are available to all, in keeping with individual aptitudes, so that all people can attain their full potential and contribute to the common good.  Again, it is fair to say that this goal is not shared by Christian nationalists today.  But Vatican II declared that obstacles should be removed so that disadvantaged groups such as farmers, workers and women can have full access to culture:

Everything must be done to make everyone conscious of the right to culture and the duty he has of developing himself culturally and of helping others. Sometimes there exist conditions of life and of work which impede the cultural striving of men and destroy in them the eagerness for culture. This is especially true of farmers and workers. It is necessary to provide for them those working conditions which will not impede their human culture but rather favor it. Women now work in almost all spheres. It is fitting that they are able to assume their proper role in accordance with their own nature. It will belong to all to acknowledge and favor the proper and necessary participation of women in the cultural life.

Vatican II also encouraged collaboration, rather than competition, between Church theologians and those who develop culture outside of the Church, for a harmonious advancement of knowledge:

May the faithful, therefore, live in very close union with the other men of their time and may they strive to understand perfectly their way of thinking and judging, as expressed in their culture. Let them blend new sciences and theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and the teaching of Christian doctrine, so that their religious culture and morality may keep pace with scientific knowledge and with the constantly progressing technology. Thus they will be able to interpret and evaluate all things in a truly Christian spirit.

Let those who teach theology in seminaries and universities strive to collaborate with men versed in the other sciences through a sharing of their resources and points of view. Theological inquiry should pursue a profound understanding of revealed truth; at the same time it should not neglect close contact with its own time that it may be able to help these men skilled in various disciplines to attain to a better understanding of the faith.

Given the tremendous progress made in methods of production, one might have expected the development of economic life to lead to a reduction in social inequalities.  Instead, the gap between the rich and the poor increased tremendously.  Inequalities from region to region, from country to country, also increased enough to threaten the peace of the world.

Vatican II advocated for a democratization of economic life to redirect control away from small groups of powerful people.  But extreme capitalism and extreme socialism were both rejected:

Growth is not to be left solely to a kind of mechanical course of the economic activity of individuals, nor to the authority of government. For this reason, doctrines which obstruct the necessary reforms under the guise of a false liberty, and those which subordinate the basic rights of individual persons and groups to the collective organization of production must be shown to be erroneous. 

With the goal of reducing inequalities, Vatican II advocated for help for country people involved in agriculture who need to increase production and sell their products at fair prices.  Also, citizens and public authorities were urged to treat migrant workers with dignity and without discrimination.  Of course, this Christian ideal is in conflict with the nationalistic priorities that exist today in the countries of the world.

As a general principle, Vatican II declared that it is the “duty of society” to help citizens find suitable employment with living wages so they can support their families.  The authors also denounced working conditions that turn workers into “slaves to their own work.” They urged employers to adapt “to the needs of the person and to his way of life, above all to his domestic life, especially in respect to mothers of families, always with due regard for sex and age.” Personal development opportunities for workers were also considered important.

Vatican II recognized the worker’s right to a share in company profits and to be represented by unions.  Peaceful negotiations were encouraged when disagreements existed, but the right to strike was affirmed.

According to Vatican II, “God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples” and “the right of having a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family belongs to everyone.”  Therefore, Christians “are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods.”  In other words, there is a duty to assist the poor that goes beyond mere private charity.  Accordingly, the following advice was given:

If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others. Since there are so many people prostrate with hunger in the world, this sacred council urges all, both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him,” and really to share and employ their earthly goods, according to the ability of each, especially by supporting individuals or peoples with the aid by which they may be able to help and develop themselves.

Those in charge of making investments should keep these ideas in mind and focus on the present and future well-being of people not only in their own countries, but in other countries as well.

Vatican II supported efforts to protect the rights of a person in public life, including “the right freely to meet and form associations, the right to express one’s own opinion and to profess one’s religion both publicly and privately” and denounced political systems “that hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize large numbers through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from the service of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of the rulers themselves.”

Given the obsession of the Catholic Church for punishing heretics in past centuries, its embrace of religious freedom is a major admission of past wrongdoing.  But it reflects a new attitude of respect for the rights of minorities and a “steadily growing respect for men of other opinions or other religions.”

Given the unavoidable diversity of opinions in a given community, Vatican II affirmed the necessity to have “an authority to direct the energies of all citizens toward the common good, not in a mechanical or despotic fashion, but by acting above all as a moral force which appeals to each one’s freedom and sense of responsibility.”  From that perspective, state authorities are assumed to be a part of the divine design, but their authority must be exercised “within the limits of the moral order and directed toward the common good—with a dynamic concept of that good—according to the juridical order legitimately established or due to be established. When authority is so exercised, citizens are bound in conscience to obey.”

The Church urged all citizens “to use their free vote to further the common good” and praised “those who for the good of men devote themselves to the service of the state and take on the burdens of this office.”  Patriotism was expected, but within limits:

Citizens must cultivate a generous and loyal spirit of patriotism, but without being narrow-minded. This means that they will always direct their attention to the good of the whole human family, united by the different ties which bind together races, people and nations.

Vatican II urged political parties to pursue the common good rather than their own interests, and encouraged Christians to participate in political life.  However, it should be understood that those Christians do not necessarily represent the Church when they engage in political activities.  The Church is to maintain her independence and her role is defined as follows:

The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.

The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. For man’s horizons are not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he preserves intact his eternal vocation. The Church, for her part, founded on the love of the Redeemer, contributes toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of a nation and between nations. By preaching the truths of the Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields of human endeavor the light of her doctrine and of a Christian witness, she respects and fosters the political freedom and responsibility of citizens.

On matters of war and peace, Vatican II offered a position grounded on Jesus’ words, proclaiming that “the artisans of peace are blessed ‘because they will be called the sons of God’” (Matt. 5:9).  Therefore, the pursuit of peace was praised and war was rejected:

Consequently, as it points out the authentic and noble meaning of peace and condemns the frightfulness of war, the Council wishes passionately to summon Christians to cooperate, under the help of Christ the author of peace, with all men in securing among themselves a peace based on justice and love and in setting up the instruments of peace.

False notions of peace, such as the so-called “peace through strength” idea, or the use of nuclear armaments as deterrent, were rejected.  Indeed,

Peace is not merely the absence of war; nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies; nor is it brought about by dictatorship. Instead, it is rightly and appropriately called an enterprise of justice.

Peace can only be truly established if there is justice for all.  It is a long-term enterprise that can only succeed if humans embrace the notion of brotherly love taught by Jesus:

That earthly peace which arises from love of neighbor symbolizes and results from the peace of Christ which radiates from God the Father. For by the cross the incarnate Son, the prince of peace reconciled all men with God. By thus restoring all men to the unity of one people and one body, He slew hatred in His own flesh; and, after being lifted on high by His resurrection, He poured forth the spirit of love into the hearts of men.

For this reason, all Christians are urgently summoned to do in love what the truth requires, and to join with all true peacemakers in pleading for peace and bringing it about.

Accordingly, praise was given to those who commit themselves to non-violent means when they fight for justice.

The Council recognized that technological advances have led to the proliferation of weapons that make wars more brutal, savage and devastating.  Furthermore, guerilla warfare and terrorism are new ways of waging war against enemies.  The Council had a special condemnation for actions and orders issued by those in charge and leading to “the methodical extermination of an entire people, nation or ethnic minority. Such actions must be vehemently condemned as horrendous crimes. The courage of those who fearlessly and openly resist those who issue such commands merits supreme commendation.”

The Council supported international agreements aiming at “making military activity and its consequences less inhuman.”  But recognizing that wars remain a sad reality today, it conceded that “State authorities and others who share public responsibility have the duty to conduct such grave matters soberly and to protect the welfare of the people entrusted to their care.”  This concession is for self-defense purposes and does not apply to nations that seek the “subjugation of other nations.” 

Of course, the concession is a departure for the true Christian attitude:  Before the merging of state and religion in the Roman Empire, Christians followed the model of non-violence exemplified by Jesus and his disciples, refusing to repay evil with evil.  The council, on the other hand, declared that “Those too who devote themselves to the military service of their country should regard themselves as the agents of security and freedom of peoples.”

Regarding the extreme danger to the future of humanity due to the presence of modern weaponry, the Council stated the following:

Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

Encouragement was given to leaders who dedicate themselves to creating the building blocks leading to peace between nations.  The Council also expressed the need for “the establishment of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights.”

The Council saw “injustice,” and particularly “excessive economic inequalities,” as the biggest obstacle to peace.  It also listed as sources of discord “the desire to dominate” and “contempt for persons.”  Deeper sources could also be found in “human envy, distrust, pride, and other egotistical passions.”

The pursuit of the common good must rely on “organizations of the international community” which “make provision for men’s different needs, both in the fields of social life—such as food supplies, health, education, labor and also in certain special circumstances which can crop up here and there, e.g., the need to promote the general improvement of developing countries, or to alleviate the distressing conditions in which refugees dispersed throughout the world find themselves, or also to assist migrants and their families.”

The Council praised existing international and regional organizations which have already started that process.  It also called for “greater international cooperation in the economic field,” but gave the following warning:

If an authentic economic order is to be established on a world-wide basis, an end will have to be put to profiteering, to national ambitions, to the appetite for political supremacy, to militaristic calculations, and to machinations for the sake of spreading and imposing ideologies.

Unfortunately, this is a tall order and no nation in the world is ready, today, to follow such advice.  In fact, in the United States, those who claim that America is a Christian nation are the least likely to adopt this vision.

However, the document provides detailed guidelines for cooperation between developed and developing nations.  Such guidelines, which cannot be included in the present summary, rely for their success on a change in attitudes driven by the royal law of the Christian faith: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”