SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP ON DETECTION OF CYBER CRIME AND INVESTIGATION

THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

VATICAN CITY 2008

PONTIFI

CIA

AC

AD

EMIA SCIENTIARVM

SOC

IALIVM

Introduction p. Einführung p. Introduzione p. Introducción p. Programme p.List of Participants p. Biographies of Participants p. Holy Masses p. Memorandum p. 1426252219

1512963

XIV Plenary Session

Pursuing the Common Good:How Solidarity and Subsidiarity

Can Work Together

2-6 May 2008 • Casina Pio IV

And now the Samaritan enters the stage. What will he do? He does notask how far his obligations of solidarity extend. Nor does he ask aboutthe merits required for eternal life. Something else happens: His heart iswrenched open. The Gospel uses the word that in Hebrew had originallyreferred to the mother’s womb and maternal care. Seeing this man in sucha state is a blow that strikes him “viscerally,” touching his soul. “He hadcompassion”—that is how we translate the text today, diminishing itsoriginal vitality. Struck in his soul by the lightning flash of mercy, he him-self now becomes the neighbor, heedless of any question or danger. Theburden of the question thus shifts here. The issue is no longer which oth-er person is a neighbor to me or not. The question is about me. I have tobecome the neighbor, and when I do, the other person counts for me “asmyself.”…One thing is clear: A new universality is entering the scene, andit rests on the fact that deep within I am already becoming a brother toall those I meet who are in need of my help.

The topical relevance of the parable is evident. When we transpose it in-to the dimensions of world society, we see how the peoples of Africa, lyingrobbed and plundered, matter to us. Then we see how deeply they are ourneighbors; that out lifestyle, our history in which we are enmeshed, hasplundered them and continues to do so. This is true above all in the sensethat we have wounded their souls. Instead of giving them God, the Godwho has come close to us in Christ, which would have integrated andbrought to completion all that is precious and great in their own traditions,we have brought to them the cynicism of a world without God in which allthat counts is power and profit, a world that destroys moral standards sothat corruption and the unscrupulous will to power are taken as a matterof course. And that applies not only to Africa.

Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth. From the Baptism inthe Jordan to the Transfiguration (Doubleday, New York, 2007), pp. 197, 198-9.

3

1. In the Compendium of the Social Doctrine ofthe Church (paragraphs 160-163) we read that theprinciples of the dignity of the human person, the com-mon good, subsidiarity and solidarity are the perma-nent principles of the Church’s social doctrine. Theyconstitute the very heart of Catholic social teaching.

‘These principles, the expression of the whole truthabout man known by reason and faith, are born of“the encounter of the Gospel message and of its de-mands summarized in the supreme commandment oflove of God and neighbour in justice with the prob-lems emanating from the life of society”. In the courseof history and with the light of the Spirit, the Churchhas wisely reflected within her own tradition of faithand has been able to provide an ever more accuratefoundation and shape to these principles, progressive-ly explaining them in the attempt to respond coher-ently to the demands of the times and to the continu-ous developments of social life. These are principles ofa general and fundamental character, since they concernthe reality of society in its entirety: from close and im-mediate relationships to those mediated by politics,economics and law; from relationships among com-munities and groups to relations between peoples andnations. Because of their permanence in time and theiruniversality of meaning, the Church presents them asthe primary and fundamental parameters of referencefor interpreting and evaluating social phenomena,which is the necessary source for working out the cri-teria for the discernment and orientation of social in-teractions in every area’. (160 & 161)

2. On the other hand, as we observe social phe-nomena in contemporary societies, we see that theseprinciples are largely misunderstood. Quite often theyare interpreted in ways which are very far from themeaning and intentions proper to the social doctrine.As a matter of fact, reductionist and biased interpre-tations prevail almost everywhere. For instance: thecommon good is identified with material goods, likewater, a healthy environment, or similar things; soli-darity is identified with feelings of love, or philanthro-py, or public charity; subsidiarity is defined as leav-ing decisions to the lower levels of the political sys-tem (see art. 3/B of the EU Maastricht Treaty). Thesemisinterpretations lead to serious consequences.Take, for example, the case of the family: the com-mon good of the family is identified with its assets,family solidarity with sentiments of love, subsidiaritywith leaving each actor to define the family as he/shelikes. At the macro level of the national state, solidar-ity is defined in terms of political control over re-sources, the pursuit of equal opportunities, redistrib-ution via the welfare state (lab side); and subsidiarityis identified with devolution or privatization (lib side).

These examples are only a few of the general misun-derstandings surrounding key concepts – the com-mon good, solidarity and subsidiarity.

3. The 2008 Plenary Meeting is based upon takingthe present situation as a challenge to the social doc-trine, which is requested to reflect anew on how soci-ety can achieve a configuration that is able to imple-ment its principles. We must look for a proper visionof a truly human society by taking into considerationthe cultural, social, economic and political changesof our times in the light of the Christian perspective.

In sum, the aims of this Plenary can be synthe-sised in three points:

(i) first, it is necessary to examine in depth the cur-rent uses of these concepts in order to clarify theircorrect meaning; such a clarification should be un-dertaken with reference both to the historical aspectsof the concepts and to the way they are put into prac-tice today;

(ii) second, it is particularly important to try tolook at social reality and see if there are both theoret-ical developments and practical exemplars of the cor-rect use of these principles, showing how subsidiari-ty and solidarity can work together in order to pro-duce the common good in an effective way;

(iii) third, if the two above aims are achieved, wecan expect that new ideas and practical orientationswill be put at our disposal in order to think of a newconfiguration of society, one that leaves behind theHobbesian and Hegelian heritages which still im-pinge upon contemporary societies and impede thesound working of the four basic principles of the so-cial doctrine.

4. In seeking to accomplish these aims, special at-tention will be given to the issue of the interdepend-ence among the four principles, and how they canand should work together.

As the Compendium of the Social Doctrine re-minds us (paragraphs 162-163); ‘The principles ofthe Church’s social doctrine must be appreciated intheir unity, interrelatedness and articulation. This re-quirement is rooted in the meaning that the Churchherself attributes to her social doctrine, as a unifieddoctrinal corpus that interprets modern social real-ities in a systematic manner. Examining each ofthese principles individually must not lead to usingthem only in part or in an erroneous manner, whichwould be the case if they were to be invoked in adisjointed and unconnected way with respect toeach of the others. A deep theoretical understand-ing and the actual application of even just one ofthese social principles clearly shows the reciproci-ty, complementarities and interconnectedness that

INTRODUCTIONM. ARCHER, P. DONATI

Pursuing the Common Good: How Solidarityand Subsidiarity Can Work Together

4

Pursuing the Common Good: How Solidarity and Subsidiarity Can Work Together Introduction

is part of their structure. These fundamental prin-ciples of the Church’s social doctrine, moreover,represent much more than a permanent legacy ofreflection, which is also an essential part of theChristian message, since they indicate the pathspossible for building a good, authentic and renewedsocial life. The principles of the social doctrine, intheir entirety, constitute that primary articulation ofthe truth of society by which every conscience is chal-lenged and invited to interact with every other con-science in truth, in responsibility shared fully with allpeople and also regarding all people. In fact, mancannot avoid the question of freedom and of themeaning of life in society, since society is a realitythat is neither external nor foreign to his being.These principles have a profoundly moral signifi-cance because they refer to the ultimate and organi-zational foundations of life in society. To understandthem completely it is necessary to act in accordancewith them, following the path of development thatthey indicate for a life worthy of man. The ethicalrequirement inherent in these pre-eminent socialprinciples concerns both the personal behaviour ofindividuals – in that they are the first and indispen-sable responsible subjects of social life at every lev-el – and at the same time institutions representedby laws, customary norms and civil constructs, be-cause of their capacity to influence and conditionthe choices of many people over a long period oftime. In fact, these principles remind us that theorigins of a society existing in history are found inthe interconnectedness of the freedoms of all thepersons who interact within it, contributing bymeans of their choices either to build it up or to im-poverish it’.

5. In the social teaching of the Church, solidarityand subsidiarity are viewed as linked, mutually rein-forcing and necessary to realising the common good.Ideally, this is the case. Indeed, it being the case iswhat makes for a robust civil society – one serving thecommon good and respecting the dignity of each andevery person. However, the relationship between soli-darity and subsidiarity is more complex than impliedabove. Moreover, circumstances have changed so rad-ically that by the third millennium the desired rela-tionship between solidarity and subsidiarity is badlyout of alignment. Therefore, what we have to exam-ine during the 2008 Plenary Meeting are the possibil-ities for aligning these two features of society in anewly transformed social context in which the com-mon good has become more and more problematic.

(a) Firstly, it is necessary to acknowledge that therelationship between solidarity and subsidiarity cannever be taken for granted because their relations arenot symmetrical. It is possible for solidarity to be highand for subsidiarity to be low. This was the case dur-ing early Modernity. Throughout Europe the solidari-ty of the Working Class community was at its peak.Yet, early capitalism was precisely where Market con-

trol was at its (unrestrained) highest and commodifi-cation reduced the value of working people to thewage form. Certainly, a thrust towards subsidiarity de-veloped in the attempt to found Trade Unions, but itwas deflected into wage bargaining and away fromcontrol over the work process, working conditions,and work relations, let alone production and produc-tivity. In short, Unions were incorporated into marketrelations and into the government of the liberal state.

(b) Equally, subsidiarity cannot work without soli-darity. If such a combination is tried, then the organsof subsidiarity distance themselves still further fromsolidarity. These agencies are either commandeeredfrom below, by parties claiming to speak for their‘community’, and/or they are invaded from above, bythe commanding powers of the state bureaucracy. Forexample, the relative autonomy of the Academy inEurope has seen both autonomy and collegiality re-duced by the imposition of government performanceindicators and accountability. Subsidiarity has beenforfeited largely because there has been insufficientsolidarity between academics to defend it.

(c) The conjunction between these two socialforms – solidarity and subsidiarity – and thus theircontribution to achieving the common good is there-fore contingent and not axiomatic. This is the casedespite their mutual reinforcement when they dohappen to co-exist. Moreover, it also seems indu-bitable that much contemporary social change mili-tates against their co-existence. Specifically, what haschanged that makes the conjunction between solidar-ity and subsidiarity ever more problematic?

(d) There is a diminishing supply of community-based solidarity, of shared values and, thus, of socialcement. Everywhere, a variety of changes underminethe stable, geo-local and face-to-face community. Cer-tainly, elective communities (and virtual communitiesand imagined communities) are on the increase, butwithout making any significant contribution to theoverall social solidarity necessary to sustain subsidiar-ity, since, at best, it remains extremely restricted inkind (e.g. football and FIFA).

(e) Conversely, the invasion of everyday life bymarket forces (advertising, easy credit facilities andmoney as the sole currency) and by bureaucratic reg-ulations (national and trans-national) jointly accen-tuate increased materialism within an enlarged ironcage of bureaucracy.

Can this infelicitous cycle be broken? Here wehave to consider the role of reciprocity.

6. To do so, it is necessary to be able to point tosome process whose workings amplify solidarity andsubsidiarity simultaneously, thus enabling the com-mon good to be augmented. We find the key linkingthe two in the concept and practice of reciprocity.

Reciprocity comes in to its own as a ‘startingmechanism’. In so doing, it solves a problem encoun-tered in studies of participation in voluntary associa-tions. It is regularly found that membership of them

5

Pursuing the Common Good: How Solidarity and Subsidiarity Can Work Together Introduction

increases trust, of fellow members and in general,and trust is the common denominator of solidarity.Yet, where does the impetus come from to developvoluntary associations in the first place?

The role of reciprocity as a ‘starter motor’ has longbeen recognised. Cicero wrote that ‘There is no dutymore indispensable than that of returning a kind-ness’, and added that ‘all men distrust one forgetfulof a benefit’. However, homo reciprocus has oftenbeen and often is subject to a one sided accentuation(actually a distortion) of his contributions and theirconsequences.

For example, Marcel Mauss saw reciprocal giftsas underwriting exchange relationships and, thus,inexorably leading to the Market and its ahumanprinciples. Conversely, Alvin Gouldner viewed reci-procity as a generalised social norm, stabilised by a‘mutuality of gratifications’ (a ‘do ut des’ relation-ship) and socially stabilising in its turn. However,such ‘mutuality’ was always at the mercy of forcewhich, in turn, undermined reciprocity and replacedit by relations of coercion. Note, that neither viewcan sustain an active view of justice (law workingfor the common good), for in the two cases Lawwould serve respectively to reinforce market rela-tions and power relations.

Some notions, seemingly cognate to or substitut-ing for reciprocity, actually break away in the sametwo directions – towards market relations or towardspower relations. Thus, the economic and political the-ory of ‘social capital’ tends to assume that even themost Gemeinschaft-like groups are based upon ‘inter-est’, whose advancement (or defence) involves ex-changes with other forms of capital and thus entailsa commodification of persons which is antithetic tosolidarity and subsidiarity alike. Conversely, Commu-nitarianism, as its liberal critics suggest, seeks tocombine the virtues of fraternity with the vices of in-tolerance.

Reciprocity is linked to free-giving. Reciprocitycan only be the key link between solidarity and sub-sidiarity provided that it retains its own linkage tofree-giving – based upon affect, concern and involve-ment in the lives and well-being of others.

There appears to be sufficient impetus towardsfree-giving in our populations (for example, organdonors or blood donors) that fuels reciprocity as aprocess that is independent of legal injunctions or re-inforcement and expansionary rather than degenera-tive. Crucially, for our times, the free-giving, withoutsearch for material benefit or control, evidenced onthe Internet – a neutral medium, also exploited forboth other purposes – is a practical exemplification of(virtual) solidarity and effective subsidiarity that worksbecause of reciprocity and could not work without it.

It is reciprocity that also results in an upward spi-ral, which reinforces solidarity because more andmore of the human person, rather than just theirlabour power and intellectual skills is invested in suchagencies as voluntary associations – rendering theircontributions ones that cannot be commodified orcommandeered (e.g. dedicated child care, care of theaged, or living in an eco-friendly manner). It is an up-ward spiral because: (a) there is a development of mu-tual obligations and practices of mutual support; (b)there is an extension of ‘friendship’ (in the Aris-totelian sense); (c) there is tendency for social identi-ty increasingly to be invested in such associations.

Hence, the seeming paradox of the third millenni-um that Gemeinschaft can develop from Gesellschaft– as the solution to the problem Modernity could nev-er solve – ‘the problem of solidarity’.

7. Justice should promote the common good.Subsidiarity requires both legal protection and mech-anisms for just correction. Otherwise and regardlessof being buttressed by internal solidarity it can be tak-en over by other forms of control and guiding princi-ples or fragment through the crystallisation of sec-tional interests.

Thus, on the one hand, there is a need for protec-tion by a form of justice differentiated for differentspheres of society, according to criteria appropriateto them. Most obviously, the ‘Third Sector’ requiresprotection from incursions from the state, beyondthose measures ensuring probity in the conduct oftheir affairs.

On the other hand, subsidiarity entails allocation,but of itself neither the ‘Third Sector’ nor classicaldefinitions of justice give sufficient guidance aboutwhat is due to each social subject or human group.Without the articulation of such a theory, grievancescan accumulate and hierarchies with distinct materi-al interests become differentiated, such that no com-mon good can really be achieved.

8. That’s why this Plenary Meeting will give seri-ous attention to ‘practical exemplars’ of solidarity andsubsidiarity in action, to prevent this from being anarid, though necessary, academic exercise. Betweenthe theory and the practice, what we will effectivelybe examining are the building blocks of a new civilsociety able to reach new frontiers in the advance-ment of the common good. The following topics willbe illustrated: new forms of solidary and subsidiaryeconomy; educational initiatives in developing coun-tries; state-family relationships; access to informationgoods (internet); micro-credit and the third sector.

6

1. Im Kompendium der Soziallehre der Kirche (Nr.160-163) steht, dass die Prinzipien der Würde dermenschlichen Person, des Gemeinwohls, der Subsi-diarität und der Solidarität die bleibenden Prinzipien derSoziallehre der Kirche bilden. Sie sind die wahren undeigentlichen Angelpunkte der katholischen Soziallehre.

„Diese Prinzipien, die die ganze mit Hilfe der Ver-nunft und des Glaubens erkannte Wahrheit über denMenschen zum Ausdruck bringen, entspringen ‚aus derBegegnung der Botschaft des Evangeliums und ihrerForderungen, wie sie im Hauptgebot der Gottes- undNächstenliebe und der Gerechtigkeit zusammengefasstsind, mit den Problemen, die sich aus dem Leben derGesellschaft ergeben’. In dem Bemühen, konsequent aufdie Erfordernisse der Zeiten und die beständigen Ent-wicklungen des gesellschaftlichen Lebens einzugehen,hat die Kirche diese Prinzipien nach und nach heraus-gearbeitet und ihnen so im Lauf der Geschichte und imLicht des Geistes durch kluges Nachdenken über die ei-gene Glaubensüberlieferung eine immer klarere Grund-lage und Gestalt geben können. Diese Prinzipien habeneinen allgemeinen und grundlegenden Charakter, weil siesich auf die gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit in ihrer Gesamt-heit beziehen: von den durch Nähe und Unmittelbarkeitgekennzeichneten zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungenbis hin zu jenen, die von der Politik, der Wirtschaft undRechtsordnung vermittelt sind; von den Beziehungenzwischen Gemeinschaften oder Gruppen bis zu den Be-ziehungen zwischen Völkern und Nationen. Aufgrundihrer zeitlichen Dauer und universalen Bedeutung siehtdie Kirche in ihnen das erste und grundlegende Bezugs-system für die Interpretation und Bewertung der gesell-schaftlichen Erscheinungen, das notwendig ist, weilman in ihm zu Kriterien der Einschätzung und Orien-tierung für alle Bereiche des sozialen Handelns gelan-gen kann.“ (Nr. 160 & 161)

2. Andererseits lässt ein Blick auf die sozialen Er-scheinungen der heutigen Gesellschaft erkennen, dassdiese Prinzipien zu einem großen Teil missverstandenwerden. Oft werden sie auf eine Weise gedeutet, die vomSinn und Zweck der Soziallehre weit entfernt ist. In derTat stößt man fast überall auf eine verkürzte oder ten-denziöse Auslegung. So wird zum Beispiel Gemeinwohlmit materiellen Gütern wie Wasser, einer gesunden Um-welt oder ähnlichem gleichgesetzt; Solidarität mit Emp-findung von Liebe, Philanthropie oder Wohltätigkeitdurch den Staat; und Subsidiarität kann dafür stehen,dass Entscheidungen der unteren politischen Ebeneüberlassen werden (siehe Art. 5 des Vertrags zur Grün-dung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft i.d.F. des Art. Bdes Maastricht-Vertrags). Diese Missdeutungen habenschwerwiegende Folgen. Nehmen wir die Familie alsBeispiel: Das Gemeinwohl der Familie wird mit ihremVermögen gleichgesetzt, Solidarität mit der Empfin-dung von Liebe; Subsidiarität bedeutet, dass es jedem„Akteur“ überlassen ist, die Familie nach Gutdünken zudefinieren. Auf der Makroebene des Staates bedeutet(aus „linker“ Sicht) Solidarität politische Kontrolle überdie Ressourcen, das Streben nach Chancengleichheit

und Verteilung durch den Wohlfahrtsstaat, während(aus „liberaler“ Sicht) Subsidiarität mit Dezentralisie-rung oder Privatisierung gleichgesetzt wird. Dies sindnur einige wenige Beispiele, die für die allgemeinenMissverständnisse im Zusammenhang mit den Schlüs-selbegriffen Gemeinwohl, Solidarität und Subsidiaritätstehen sollen.

3. Die Plenarsitzung von 2008 wird die gegenwärti-ge Situation als eine Herausforderung an die Sozialleh-re sehen, erneut zu überlegen, wie eine Gestaltung derGesellschaft erreicht werden kann, die eine Umsetzungjener Prinzipien möglich macht. Wir müssen eine wahr-haft menschliche Gesellschaft in unseren Blick nehmen,indem wir die kulturellen, sozialen, wirtschaftlichenund politischen Veränderungen unserer Zeit aus derchristlichen Perspektive betrachten.

Kurz lassen sich die Ziele unserer Plenarsitzung infolgende drei Punkte zusammenfassen:

(i) Zunächst ist es notwendig, eingehend den unter-schiedlichen gegenwärtigen Gebrauch dieser Begriffezu untersuchen, um ihre eigentliche Bedeutung klarherauszustellen. Diese Klärung sollte sowohl die ge-schichtlichen Aspekte als auch die heutige Umsetzungder Begriffe in die Praxis berücksichtigen.

(ii) In der Folge ist es besonders wichtig, die sozialeRealität ins Auge zu fassen und zu prüfen, ob es sowohltheoretische Entwicklungen als auch praktische Bei-spiele für die richtige Anwendung dieser Prinzipien gibt,die zeigen, wie Subsidiarität und Solidarität zur effekti-ven Schaffung von Gemeinwohl zusammenwirken kön-nen.

(iii) Sind diese Ziele erreicht, werden sich vermut-lich neue Ideen und praktische Orientierungen einstel-len, die eine Neugestaltung der Gesellschaft jenseits desErbes von Hobbes und Hegel möglich machen, einemErbe, das sich noch immer einschränkend auf die ge-genwärtige Gesellschaft auswirkt und das gesunde Wir-ken der vier Grundprinzipien der Soziallehre behindert.

4. Um diese Ziele zu erreichen, muss ein besonderesAugenmerk auf die Interdependenz zwischen den vierGrundprinzipien gerichtet werden, sowie darauf, wie siezusammenwirken können und sollen.

Das Kompendium der Soziallehre der Kirche bringtFolgendes in Erinnerung (Nr.162-163): „Die Prinzipiender Soziallehre müssen in ihrer Einheitlichkeit, inihrem Zusammenhang und in Ihrem Ineinandergreifenbetrachtet werden. Diese Forderung wurzelt in der Be-deutung, die die Kirche selbst ihrer eigenen Soziallehreals einem ‚Corpus’ der Lehre beimisst, das die sozialenWirklichkeiten organisch interpretiert. Die Aufmerk-samkeit für jedes einzelne Prinzip in seiner Besonder-heit darf nicht zu seiner nur teilweisen und verfehltenAnwendung führen, zu der es immer dann kommt,wenn man sich so auf es beruft, als ob es von allen an-deren getrennt und lösgelöst wäre. Die theoretische Ver-tiefung und die Anwendung auch nur eines einzelnender sozialen Prinzipien lassen ihre wechselseitigen, ein-ander ergänzenden und miteinander vernetzten Struk-

EINFÜHRUNGM. ARCHER, P. DONATI

Streben nach Gemeinwohl: Wie Solidaritätund Subsidiarität zusammenarbeiten können

7

Streben nach Gemeinwohl: Wie Solidarität und Subsidiarität zusammenarbeiten können Einführung

turen klar zutage treten. Diese grundlegenden Angel-punkte der kirchlichen Lehre sind überdies weit mehrals ein dauerhaftes Erbe an Ideen, sie sind wesentlicherBestandteil der christlichen Botschaft, weil sie allen diemöglichen Wege zu einem guten, wirklich erneuertengesellschaftlichen Leben aufzeigen. Die Prinzipien derSozialehre bilden in ihrer Gesamtheit jene erste Formu-lierung der Wahrheit über die Gesellschaft, die jedes Ge-wissen dazu aufruft und einlädt, in Freiheit und vollerMitverantwortlichkeit mit allen und für alle zu handeln.Denn der Mensch kann sich der Frage nach der Wahr-heit und der Bedeutung des gesellschaftlichen Lebensnicht entziehen, da die Gesellschaft keine Realität ist,die außerhalb seiner eigenen Existenz liegt. Diese Prin-zipien haben eine zutiefst moralische Bedeutung, weilsie auf die letzten und Richtung gebenden Grundlagendes sozialen Lebens verweisen. Um sie voll und ganz zuverstehen, muss man sein Handeln nach ihnen ausrich-ten und dem Weg der von ihnen aufgezeigten Entwick-lung hin zu einem menschenwürdigen Leben folgen.Die den großen sozialen Prinzipien innewohnende mo-ralische Forderung betrifft sowohl das persönliche Han-deln der einzelnen, insofern sie die unersetzbaren Trä-ger der Verantwortung auf jeder Ebene sind, als auchzugleich die Institutionen, die durch Gesetze, gewohn-heitsmäßige Normen und zivile Strukturen repräsen-tiert werden, weil diese die Fähigkeit haben, die Ent-scheidungen vieler über lange Zeiträume hinweg zu be-einflussen und darauf einzuwirken. Die Prinzipien erin-nern nämlich daran, dass die historisch bestehende Ge-sellschaft aus den sich ineinander verflechtenden Frei-heiten aller Personen entsteht, die in ihr handeln unddurch ihre Entscheidungen zu ihrer Entfaltung oderVerarmung beitragen“.

5. In der Soziallehre der Kirche sind Solidarität undSubsidiarität miteinander verflochten, stärken sich ge-genseitig und sind zur Schaffung des Gemeinwohls not-wendig. Im Idealfall ist das so. Wenn es so ist, entstehteine starke bürgerliche Gesellschaft – eine Gesellschaft,die sich für das Gemeinwohl einsetzt und die die Wür-de jedes Einzelnen ausnahmslos achtet. Dennoch ist dieVerknüpfung zwischen Solidarität und Subsidiaritätkomplexer als oben angedeutet. Auch haben sich dieVerhältnisse so radikal verändert, dass das angestrebteVerhältnis zwischen Solidarität und Subsidiarität seitdem Beginn des neuen Jahrtausends stark aus demGleichgewicht geraten ist. Deshalb ist es unsere Aufga-be, in der Plenarsitzung von 2008 zu untersuchen, in-wiefern diese beiden gesellschaftlichen Grundzüge ineinem neu gestalteten sozialen Kontext, in dem das An-streben von Gemeinwohl immer problematischer wird,aufeinander abgestimmt werden können.

(a) Zunächst ist festzustellen, dass ein Bezug zwi-schen Solidarität und Subsidiarität niemals selbstver-ständlich war, weil beide in keinem symmetrischen Ver-hältnis zueinander stehen. Solidarität kann hoch undSubsidiarität gering sein. So war das in der Frühen Mo-derne. In ganz Europa war die Solidarität der Gemein-schaft der Arbeiterklasse auf dem Höhepunkt angelangt.Gleichzeitig war die Marktmacht gerade im Frühkapi-talismus (uneingeschränkt) am höchsten und die Kom-modifikation beschränkte die Arbeiter in ihrem Wertauf ihren Lohn. Gewiss fand ein Vorstoß in RichtungSubsidiarität durch den Versuch der Gründung von Ge-

werkschaften statt, der aber abgebogen und auf Lohn-verhandlungen beschränkt wurde, ohne eine Kontrolleüber den Arbeitsablauf, die Arbeitsbedingungen, die Ar-beitsbeziehungen, geschweige denn die Produktion undProduktivität möglich zu machen. Kurz gesagt, wurdendie Gewerkschaften in die Marktbeziehungen und denliberalen Staat integriert.

(b) Desgleichen kann Subsidiarität nicht ohne Soli-darität wirken. Wird eine Verbindung versucht, distan-zieren sich die für die Subsidiarität zuständigen Fakto-ren einmal mehr von der Solidarität. Sie werden entwe-der von unten von Kräften gesteuert, die behaupten, fürdie „Gemeinschaft“ einzutreten, und/oder kraft der Be-fehlsgewalt der staatlichen Bürokratie. Zum Beispiel hatder relativ autonome Wissenschaftsbetrieb in Europadurch die Einführung von staatlichen Leistungskontrol-len und Rechenschaftspflichten nicht nur einen Rück-gang in seiner Eigenständigkeit sondern auch in seinerKollegialität erfahren. Die Subsidiarität ging größten-teils verloren, weil unter den Wissenschaftlern zu wenigSolidarität herrschte, sie zu verteidigen.

(c) Die Beziehung zwischen diesen beiden gesell-schaftlichen Erscheinungen – Solidarität und Subsi-diarität – und ihr Beitrag zur Verwirklichung des Ge-meinwohls ist folglich ungewiss und nicht selbstver-ständlich. Das ist auch dann der Fall, wenn sie neben-einander bestehen, und sich gegenseitig stärken. Zudembesteht kein Zweifel, dass gegenwärtig zahlreiche sozia-le Veränderungen eine Koexistenz in Frage stellen. Dochbleibt die Frage: Was hat sich speziell verändert, so dassdas Verhältnis von Solidarität und Subsidiarität immernoch problematischer wird?

(d) Die auf der Gemeinschaft basierende Solidaritätschwindet, gemeinsame Werte nehmen ab, und damitauch der soziale Zusammenhalt. Überall untergrabenzahlreiche Veränderungen die stabile, lokale menschli-che Gemeinschaft. Gewiss sind die beliebig gestaltetenGemeinschaften (wie auch virtuelle und imaginäre Ge-meinschaften) im Kommen, allerdings ohne jenen be-deutsamen Beitrag zur gesamtgesellschaftlichen Solida-rität zu leisten, der für die Aufrechterhaltung der Subsi-diarität nötig wäre. Sie bleiben bestenfalls eng auf eineSache beschränkt (z.B. Fußball und FIFA).

e) Umgekehrt dringen Marktkräfte (wie Werbung,leicht zugängliche Kredite und Geld als einziger Wert)gleichzeitig mit (nationalen und transnationalen) büro-kratischen Vorschriften in den Alltag ein. Sie unterstrei-chen den anwachsenden Materialismus in dem immerweiter wachsenden eisernen Käfig der Bürokratie.

Kann dieser Teufelskreis durchbrochen werden? Indiesem Zusammenhang ist die Rolle der Reziprozität inBetracht zu ziehen..

6. Hierfür ist es notwendig auf einige Entwicklungs-prozesse zu verweisen, die Solidarität und Subsidiaritätgleichzeitig anwachsen lassen und damit auch das Ge-meinwohl. Der Schlüssel für die Verbindung dieser bei-den gesellschaftlichen Ausformungen liegt in dem Be-griff und der Ausübung von Reziprozität.

Die Reziprozität ist als „Startmechanismus“ zu ver-stehen. Als solcher trägt sie zu der Lösung einer Fra-gestellung bei, die sich bei einer Untersuchung von Mit-gliedschaften bei freiwilligen Vereinigungen ergab. Re-gelmäßig wurde herausgefunden, dass die Mitglied-schaft bei solchen Vereinigungen das Vertrauen – so-

8

Streben nach Gemeinwohl: Wie Solidarität und Subsidiarität zusammenarbeiten können Einführung

wohl in die Mitglieder als auch allgemein – stärkt. Ver-trauen aber ist der gemeinsame Nenner von Solidarität.Worauf aber ist überhaupt der Impuls zurückzuführen,freiwillige Vereinigungen zu bilden?

Die Rolle der Reziprozität als Startmechanismus istfrüh erkannt worden. Cicero schrieb, dass es „keine un-abdingbarere Pflicht gibt als Freundlichkeit zu erwi-dern“ und meinte überdies, dass „der Mensch jedemmisstraut, der eine ihm gewährte Gunst vergisst“. Ande-rerseits war und ist der homo reciprocus oft auch der ein-seitigen Betonung (wenn nicht Verzerrung) dessen aus-gesetzt, was er einbringt, und dessen, was daraus folgt.

Zum Beispiel betrachtete Marcel Mauss gegenseiti-ge Geschenke als eine Vereinbarung von Austauschbe-ziehungen, die unerbittlich zum Markt und seinen men-schenverachtenden Grundsätzen führen müsste. Umge-kehrt sah Alvin Gouldner in der Reziprozität eine allge-mein soziale Norm, die durch „gegenseitige Zuwendun-gen“ (ein „do ut des“-Verhältnis) gefestigt würde und alssozialer Stabilisator wirke. Jedenfalls war eine solche„Wechselseitigkeit“ immer ein Spielball der Kräfte, dieihrerseits die Reziprozität untergruben und durchZwangsverhältnisse ersetzten. Anzumerken ist, dass kei-ne der beiden Interpretationen einer aktiven Vorstellungvon Gerechtigkeit (als dem Recht das dem Gemeinwohldient) entspricht. In beiden Fällen dient das Recht da-zu, die Marktbeziehungen und die Machtverhältnissezu stärken.

Einige Begriffe, die mit Reziprozität verwandt sindoder für sie einzustehen scheinen, gehen in Wirklich-keit in dieselbe Richtung – nämlich in Richtung derMarktbeziehungen und der Machtverhältnisse. So gehtdie wirtschaftliche und politische Theorie des „Sozial-kapitals“ tendenziell davon aus, dass selbst Gruppen,die dem Begriff der Gemeinschaft am nächsten kom-men, auf „Interessen“ gründen, deren Förderung (oderSchutz) einen Austausch mit anderen Kapitalformenbedingt und so eine Kommodifikation der Person zurFolge haben, was einer Antithese zu Solidarität und Sub-sidiarität gleichkommt. Andererseits versucht der Kom-munitarianismus, wie liberal gesinnte Kritiker feststel-len, die Tugenden der Brüderlichkeit mit den Lasternder Intoleranz zu vereinen.

Reziprozität ist mit dem Akt der Freigiebigkeit ver-bunden. Reziprozität kann nur der Angelpunkt zwischenSolidarität und Subsidiarität sein, wenn sie ihre Bindungan die Freigiebigkeit aufrecht erhält – aus Interesse, ausSorge oder Eingebundensein in das Leben und dasWohlergehen anderer Menschen.

In der Bevölkerung scheint der Anreiz zur Freigie-bigkeit in genügend großem Maß vorhanden zu sein(Beispiel: Organspender und Blutspender), was die Re-ziprozität unabhängig von rechtlichen Vorschriften undBestärkungen durch Recht und Gesetz eher fördert alsschwächt. Entscheidend für unsere Zeit ist, dass dieFreigiebigkeit, die sich, ohne materielle Vorteile oderein Kontrollverhalten anzustreben, im Internet – als ei-nem neutralen Medium, das auch für die beiden ande-ren Ziele herangezogen werden kann – manifestiert.Freigiebigkeit veranschaulicht praktisch die (virtuelle)Solidarität und effektive Subsidiarität, die aufgrund derReziprozität funktioniert und ohne sie nicht funktionie-ren könnte.

Die Reziprozität wirkt wie eine aufwärtsstrebende,die Solidarität stärkende Spirale, weil immer mehr Per-sönliches, mehr als nur die Arbeitskraft und die intel-lektuellen Fähigkeiten eines Menschen, in Institutionenwie freiwilligen Vereinigungen eingebracht wird. Dieses„Mehr“ nimmt eine Gestalt an, in der es nicht kommo-difiziert und nicht „vermachtet“ werden kann (wie imFalle der Kinder- und Altenbetreuung oder umweltbe-wussten Wohnens). Es handelt sich um eine aufwärts-strebende Spirale, weil: (a) sowohl die Pflichten als auchdie praktische Hilfe zunehmend gegenseitig sind, (b)„Freundschaften“ (im aristotelischen Sinne) ausgebautwerden, (c) die soziale Identität immer mehr in solcheVereinigungen eingebracht wird.

Daraus folgt das scheinbare Paradoxon des neuenJahrhunderts, dass sich die Gemeinschaft aus der Ge-sellschaft entwickeln kann – als Lösung für das Problem,das die Moderne nie lösen konnte: „das Problem der So-lidarität“.

7. Das Rechtswesen sollte das Gemeinwohl fördern.Die Subsidiarität bedarf sowohl des rechtlichenSchutzes als auch präziser Steuerungsmechanismen.Andernfalls könnte sie, unabhängig von einer Stützungdurch interne Solidarität, von anderen Kontrollformenund Leitprinzipien vereinnahmt oder durch Verhärtungpartikularer Interessen zersplittert werden.

So ist einerseits ein rechtlicher Schutz erforderlich,der die verschiedenen gesellschaftlichen Wirkungskrei-se differenziert berücksichtigt und entsprechende Kri-terien zugrunde legt. Am offensichtlichsten braucht derDritte Sektor den Schutz gegen Eingriffe des Staates,die über die Gewährleistung korrekten Geschäftsgeba-rens hinausgehen.

Andererseits bedeutet Subsidiarität Zuweisung. Aberweder die Eigenart des ‚“Dritten Sektors“ noch klassi-sche Rechtsdefinitionen leiten in ausreichender Weisean, was dem jeweiligen gesellschaftlichen Sachverhaltoder der jeweiligen Gruppe zusteht. Ohne die Formu-lierung einer diesbezüglichen Theorie können Missstän-de anwachsen und sich Hierarchien mit unterschiedli-chen materiellen Interessen herausbilden, so dass in derTat das Gemeinwohl verfehlt wird.

8. Deshalb wird diese Plenarsitzung ein ganz beson-deres Augenmerk auf praktische Beispiele von Solida-rität und Subsidiarität legen. Das wird verhindern, dassdie Sitzung in eine trockene, wenngleich notwendigeakademische Übung ausartet. Was wir zwischen Theo-rie und Praxis wirksam untersuchen werden, sind dieBausteine einer neuen bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, dieimstande ist, bei der Förderung des Gemeinwohls zuneuen Grenzen vorzustoßen. Folgende Themen werdenbehandelt: neue Formen von wirtschaftlicher Solida-rität und wirtschaftlicher Subsidiarität; Bildungsinitia-tiven in Entwicklungsländern; das Verhältnis von Staatund Familie; der Zugang zu Informationsgut (Internet);das Kleinkreditwesen und der Dritte Sektor.

9

1. Nel Compendio della Dottrina Sociale della Chie-sa (paragrafi 160-163) leggiamo che i principi della di-gnità della persona umana, del bene comune, della sus-sidiarietà e della solidarietà sono i principi permanentidella dottrina sociale della Chiesa. Essi costituiscono icardini stessi dell’insegnamento sociale cattolico.

“Tali principi, espressione dell’intera verità sull’uo-mo conosciuta tramite la ragione e la fede, scaturisco-no ‘dall’incontro del messaggio evangelico e delle sueesigenze, che si riassumono nel comandamento su-premo dell’amore di Dio e del prossimo e nella giusti-zia, con i problemi derivanti dalla vita della società’.La Chiesa, nel corso della storia e alla luce dello Spi-rito, riflettendo sapientemente all’interno della pro-pria tradizione di fede, ha potuto dare a tali principifondazione e configurazione sempre più accurate,enucleandoli progressivamente, nello sforzo di rispon-dere con coerenza alle esigenze dei tempi e ai conti-nui sviluppi della vita sociale. Questi principi hannoun carattere generale e fondamentale, poiché riguarda-no la realtà sociale nel suo complesso: dalle relazioniinterpersonali caratterizzate da prossimità ed imme-diatezza a quelle mediate dalla politica, dall’economiae dal diritto; dalle relazioni tra comunità o gruppi airapporti tra i popoli e le Nazioni. Per la loro perma-nenza nel tempo ed universalità di significato, la Chie-sa li indica come il primo e fondamentale parametrodi riferimento per l’interpretazione e la valutazionedei fenomeni sociali, necessario perché vi si possonoattingere i criteri di discernimento e di guida dell’agi-re sociale, in ogni ambito” (160 e 161).

2. Tuttavia, analizzando i fenomeni sociali nelle so-cietà contemporanee, osserviamo che questi principivengono in larga parte fraintesi. Molto spesso sono in-terpretati in modi che sono lontanissimi dai significatie dalle intenzioni che attengono alla dottrina sociale.Effettivamente, interpretazioni riduzioniste e prevenu-te prevalgono quasi dovunque. Ad esempio: il bene co-mune viene identificato con i beni materiali, come l’ac-qua, un ambiente salubre, o cose simili; la solidarietàviene identificata con l’amore, la filantropia, o la pub-blica beneficenza; la sussidiarietà è definita come la-sciare che le decisioni vengano prese dai livelli più bas-si del sistema politico (cfr. art. 3/B del Trattato Euro-peo di Maastricht). Queste errate interpretazioni com-portano una serie di conseguenze. Prendiamo, adesempio, il caso della famiglia: il bene comune dellafamiglia viene identificato con il suo patrimonio, la so-lidarietà familiare con i sentimenti d’amore, la sussi-diarietà con il lasciare ad ogni “attore” definire la fa-miglia come meglio crede. Al macro livello dello statonazionale, la solidarietà viene definita in termini dicontrollo politico sulle risorse, il conseguimento dellepari opportunità, la ridistribuzione tramite lo stato as-

sistenziale (da parte della sinistra); e la sussidiarietàviene identificata con la devolution o la privatizzazio-ne (da parte liberale). Questi non sono che alcuniesempi dei malintesi di natura generale che contorna-no questi concetti chiave – il bene comune, la solida-rietà e la sussidiarietà.

3. La Sessione Plenaria del 2008 si basa sul consi-derare la situazione attuale come una sfida alla dottri-na sociale, a cui si richiede di riflettere nuovamentesul modo in cui la società può raggiungere una confi-gurazione grazie alla quale mettere in pratica i propriprincipi. Dobbiamo cercare una visione corretta di so-cietà realmente umana, prendendo in considerazione icambiamenti culturali, sociali, economici e politici deinostri tempi alla luce della prospettiva cristiana.

In breve, gli intenti di questa Plenaria possono es-sere riassunti nei seguenti tre punti:

(i) primo, è necessario esaminare approfondita-mente gli usi correnti di questi concetti al fine di chia-rire il loro corretto significato; un tale chiarimento do-vrebbe far riferimento sia agli aspetti storici di tali con-cetti, sia al modo in cui essi vengono messi in praticaal giorno d’oggi;

(ii) secondo, è particolarmente importante guarda-re alla realtà sociale e vedere se ci siano sviluppi teori-ci ed esempi pratici dell’uso corretto di tali principi,che mostrino come sussidiarietà e solidarietà possonooperare insieme al fine di produrre in modo efficace ilbene comune;

(iii) terzo, se le due precedenti finalità vengono rag-giunte, possiamo aspettarci che nuove idee e orienta-menti pratici ci saranno messi a disposizione al fine dipensare a una nuova configurazione della società, unasocietà che si lasci alle spalle le eredità di Hobbes e diHegel che ancora influenzano le società contempora-nee e ostacolano il sano funzionamento dei quattroprincipi di base della dottrina sociale.

4. Nel perseguire questi fini, un’attenzione partico-lare sarà riservata al problema della interdipendenzatra i quattro principi, e a come essi possano e debbanooperare congiuntamente.

Come il Compendio della Dottrina Sociale ci ricor-da (paragrafi 162-163): “I principi della dottrina socia-le devono essere apprezzati nella loro unitarietà, con-nessione e articolazione. Tale esigenza si radica nel si-gnificato attribuito dalla Chiesa stessa alla propriadottrina sociale, di corpus dottrinale unitario che in-terpreta le realtà sociali in modo organico. L’attenzio-ne verso ogni singolo principio nella sua specificitànon deve condurre ad un suo utilizzo parziale ed er-rato, che avviene qualora lo si invochi come fosse di-sarticolato e sconnesso rispetto a tutti gli altri. L’ap-profondimento teorico e la stessa applicazione di an-

INTRODUZIONEM. ARCHER, P. DONATI

Perseguire il Bene Comune: come solidarietàe sussidiarietà possono operare insieme

10

Perseguire il Bene Comune: come solidarietà e sussidiarietà possono operare insieme Introduzione

che uno solo dei principi sociali fanno emergere conchiarezza la reciprocità, la complementarità, i nessiche li strutturano. Questi cardini fondamentali delladottrina della Chiesa rappresentano, inoltre, ben piùdi un patrimonio permanente di riflessione, che pureè parte essenziale del messaggio cristiano, poiché in-dicano a tutti le vie possibili per edificare una vita so-ciale buona, autenticamente rinnovata. I principi delladottrina sociale, nel loro insieme, costituiscono quellaprima articolazione della verità della società, dalla qua-le ogni coscienza è interpellata e invitata ad interagirecon ogni altra, nella libertà, in piena corresponsabilitàcon tutti e nei confronti di tutti. Alla questione della ve-rità e del senso del vivere sociale, infatti, l’uomo nonpuò sottrarsi, in quanto la società non è una realtàestranea al suo stesso esistere. Tali principi hanno unsignificato profondamente morale perché rinviano aifondamenti ultimi e ordinatori della vita sociale. Peruna loro piena comprensione, occorre agire nella lorodirezione, sulla via dello sviluppo da essi indicato peruna vita degna dell’uomo. L’esigenza morale insita neigrandi principi sociali riguarda sia l’agire personaledei singoli, in quanto primi ed insostituibili soggettiresponsabili della vita sociale ad ogni livello, sia, altempo stesso, le istituzioni, rappresentate da leggi,norme di costume e strutture civili, a causa della lorocapacità di influenzare e condizionare le scelte di mol-ti e per molto tempo. I principi ricordano, infatti, chela società storicamente esistente scaturisce dall’intrec-ciarsi delle libertà di tutte le persone che in essa inte-ragiscono, contribuendo, mediante le loro scelte, adedificarla o ad impoverirla”.

5. Nell’insegnamento sociale della Chiesa, solida-rietà e sussidiarietà sono considerate collegate, sirafforzano reciprocamente e sono necessarie al rag-giungimento del bene comune. Idealmente, questo èvero. Effettivamente, stando così le cose una societàcivile risulta unita e forte – una società che serve ilbene comune e rispetta la dignità di ogni singola per-sona. Tuttavia, la relazione tra solidarietà e sussidia-rietà è più complessa di quanto sottintenda quantodetto sopra. Inoltre, le circostanze sono mutate cosìradicalmente che per il terzo millennio l’auspicatarelazione tra solidarietà e sussidiarietà risulta grave-mente squilibrata. Dunque, ciò che dobbiamo esa-minare nel corso della Sessione Plenaria del 2008 so-no le possibilità di bilanciamento tra questi dueaspetti della società in un contesto sociale recente-mente mutato, in cui il perseguimento del bene co-mune è divenuto sempre più problematico.

(a) Primo, è necessario riconoscere che il rapportotra solidarietà e sussidiarietà non può mai essere datoper scontato perché le loro relazioni non sono simme-triche. Si può verificare il caso in cui la solidarietà siaal suo apice e la sussidiarietà molto in basso. Ciò èquanto è avvenuto durante la prima Modernità. In tut-ta Europa la solidarietà nella comunità della ClasseOperaia era al suo culmine. Tuttavia, il primo capitali-smo si trovava precisamente dove era il controllo delMercato, ovvero al suo (sfrenato) punto più alto e lamercificazione riduceva il valore dei lavoratori alla pa-

ga. Certamente, una spinta verso la sussidiarietà si svi-luppò quando si cercò di fondare i sindacati, ma essafu deviata nella direzione della contrattazione retribu-tiva e lontano dal controllo del processo lavorativo, del-le condizioni di lavoro, e delle relazioni di lavoro, pernon parlare della produzione e della produttività. Inbreve, i sindacati furono inglobati nelle relazioni dimercato e nel governo dello stato liberale.

(b) Allo stesso modo, la sussidiarietà non può fun-zionare senza la solidarietà. Se una tale combinazio-ne viene tentata, allora gli organismi della sussidia-rietà si allontanano ancor più dalla solidarietà. Questeagenzie o vengono monopolizzate dal basso, da parti-ti che affermano di parlare per la loro “comunità”, e/ovengono invase dall’alto, dai poteri dominanti dellaburocrazia di stato. Ad esempio, la relativa autonomiadell’Accademia in Europa ha visto la sua autonomia ela sua collegialità ridotte dall’imposizione di indicato-ri governativi di rendimento e dalla responsabilità. Siè rinunciato alla sussidiarietà principalmente perchénon c’è stata sufficiente solidarietà tra gli accademicinel difenderla.

(c) La concomitanza di queste due forme sociali –solidarietà e sussidiarietà – e dunque il loro contributonel perseguimento del bene comune è perciò contin-gente e non assiomatico. È così, malgrado esse sirafforzino reciprocamente quando accade che coesi-stano. Inoltre, appare anche indubitabile che molticambiamenti sociali contemporanei operino a detri-mento della loro coesistenza. Specificamente, cosa ècambiato tanto da rendere la concomitanza tra solida-rietà e sussidiarietà ancor più problematica?

(d) C’è una decrescente disponibilità di solidarietàbasata sulla comunità, di valori condivisi e, dunque,di collante sociale. Ovunque, una molteplicità dicambiamenti insidia la stabile comunità locale chevive a stretto contatto. Certamente, le comunità elet-tive (e quelle virtuali e quelle immaginate) sono inaumento, ma senza che esse riescano a fornire alcunsignificativo contributo alla solidarietà sociale gene-rale che è necessaria per sostenere la sussidiarietà,dal momento che, nel migliore dei casi, essa rimaneestremamente limitata ad ambiti molto ristretti(p.es. il gioco del calcio e la FIFA).

(e) Per contro, l’invasione nella vita quotidiana daparte di forze di mercato (pubblicità, facili agevolazio-ni creditizie e il denaro come unica valuta) e di normeburocratiche (nazionali e transnazionali) congiunta-mente accentuano l’accresciuto materialismo all’inter-no dell’estesa gabbia di ferro della burocrazia.

Può questo ciclo sconveniente essere interrotto? Inquesto contesto, dobbiamo prendere in considerazio-ne il ruolo della reciprocità.

6. Per fare ciò, è necessario dare risalto ad alcuniprocessi il cui funzionamento fa aumentare allo stessotempo la solidarietà e la sussidiarietà, permettendo co-sì che anche il bene comune venga accresciuto. Trovia-mo l’anello che unisce queste due forme sociali nelconcetto e nella pratica della reciprocità.

La reciprocità viene riconosciuta come “meccani-smo di avvio”. Così facendo, essa risolve un problema

11

Perseguire il Bene Comune: come solidarietà e sussidiarietà possono operare insieme Introduzione

in cui ci si imbatte negli studi sulla partecipazione nel-le associazione di volontariato. Con regolarità si con-stata che l’appartenenza a questo tipo di associazioniaccresce la fiducia, dei membri e in generale, e la fidu-cia è il denominatore comune della solidarietà. Eppu-re, da dove viene in primo luogo la spinta a far nasce-re le associazioni di volontariato?

Il ruolo della reciprocità quale “motorino d’avvia-mento” è noto da molto tempo. Cicerone scrisse che“Non vi è dovere più indispensabile di quello di ricam-biare una cortesia”, e aggiunse che “tutti gli uomini dif-fidano di chi si dimentica di un favore ricevuto”. Tut-tavia, l’homo reciprocus è spesso stato, e spesso è, sog-getto ad un’unilaterale accentuazione (in realtà una di-storsione) dei suoi contributi e delle loro conseguenze.

Ad esempio, Marcel Mauss interpretò i doni reci-proci come relazioni di scambio di sottoscrizione eche, dunque, portavano inesorabilmente al Mercato eai suoi principi a-umani. Al contrario, Alvin Gouldnerha interpretato la reciprocità come una norma socialegenerica, resa stabile da una “reciprocità di gratifica-zioni” (una relazione basata sul “do ut des”) che a suavolta è stabilizzante dal punto di vista sociale. Tutta-via, tale “reciprocità” era sempre in balia di forze che,a loro volta, indebolivano la reciprocità e la rimpiazza-vano con rapporti di coercizione. È da notare che nes-suna delle due interpretazioni può essere d’aiuto aduna visione attiva della giustizia (la legge che lavora avantaggio del bene comune), perché in entrambi i casila Legge servirebbe rispettivamente a rinforzare le re-lazioni di mercato e i rapporti di potere.

Alcuni concetti, apparentemente affini o sostitutividi reciprocità, in realtà vanno nelle stesse due direzioni– verso le relazioni di mercato e verso i rapporti di po-tere. Così, la teoria economica e politica del “CapitaleSociale” tende a dare per scontato che anche i gruppipiù vicini al concetto di Gemeinschaft si basanosull’“interesse”, il cui progresso (o difesa) comportascambi con altre forme di capitale e dunque implicauna mercificazione delle persone, cosa che è antiteticain ugual misura alla solidarietà e alla sussidiarietà. Diconverso, il Comunitarianismo, come i suoi critici dipensiero liberale suggeriscono, cerca di combinare levirtù della fraternità con i vizi dell’intolleranza.

La reciprocità si lega al donare. La reciprocità puòessere solo l’anello che collega solidarietà e sussidia-rietà a condizione che essa mantenga la sua connessio-ne con il donare liberamente – che è basato sull’affet-to, l’interesse e il coinvolgimento nella vita e nel benes-sere degli altri.

Sembra che tra le nostre popolazioni ci sia unasufficiente spinta verso il libero donare (per esem-pio, i donatori di organi o di sangue) che alimenta lareciprocità quale processo indipendente da comandidella legge o da sostegni legali o normativi, che ten-de a diffondersi piuttosto che a degenerare. Cosa fon-damentale, per i nostri tempi, il donare, senza cheesso implichi la ricerca di un controllo o di un bene-ficio materiale, mostrato chiaramente su Internet –un medium neutro, sfruttato anche per entrambi gli

altri due scopi – è un’esemplificazione pratica di so-lidarietà (virtuale) e di efficace sussidiarietà che fun-ziona a motivo della reciprocità e non potrebbe fun-zionare senza di essa.

È la reciprocità che produce anche una spiraleascensionale che rinforza la solidarietà in quantosempre più la persona umana, piuttosto che esclusi-vamente la sua forza lavoro e le sue abilità intellet-tuali, viene investita nella sua globalità in agenziequali le associazioni di volontariato – che trasforma-no i loro contributi in qualcosa che non può esseremercificato o monopolizzato (p. es. l’assistenza aibambini, agli anziani, o il vivere in un modo rispet-toso dell’ambiente). È una spirale ascensionale per-chè: (a) vi è un incremento di impegni reciproci e dipratiche di mutuo sostegno; (b) vi è un’estensionedell’ ‘amicizia’ (in senso aristotelico); (c) vi è una ten-denza all’identità sociale che in misura crescente puòessere investita in questo tipo di associazioni.

Da qui l’apparente paradosso del terzo millennioche il Gemeinschaft può svilupparsi dal Gesellschaft –come soluzione al problema che la Modernità non hapotuto mai risolvere – “il problema della solidarietà”.

7. La giustizia dovrebbe promuovere il bene comu-ne. La sussidiarietà ha bisogno sia di protezione giudi-ziale che di precisi meccanismi di correzione. Altri-menti, e nonostante sia sostenuta da solidarietà inter-na, può essere dominata da altre forme di controllo eprincipi guida o frammentarsi nella cristallizzazionedi interessi settoriali.

Così, da una parte, c’è bisogno di protezione daparte di una forma di giustizia che sia differenziata aseconda delle diverse sfere della società, e che rispon-da a criteri che siano loro adeguati. Sicuramente, il“Terzo Settore” necessita di protezione dalle incursio-ni dello stato, oltre a quelle misure che assicurano cor-rettezza nella condotta dei loro affari.

Dall’altra, la sussidiarietà comporta la distribuzio-ne, ma di per sé né il “Terzo Settore”, né le definizioniclassiche di giustizia forniscono una guida sufficientesu cosa sia dovuto ad ogni soggetto sociale o gruppoumano. Senza l’articolazione di una tale teoria, i tortisi possono accumulare e le gerarchie con diversi inte-ressi materiali differenziarsi sempre, così che nessunbene comune potrà davvero essere perseguito.

8. Ecco perché questa Sessione Plenaria dedicheràuna particolare attenzione a “esemplificazioni pratiche”di solidarietà e sussidiarietà in azione, per impedire chesia solo un arido, per quanto necessario, esercizio acca-demico. Tra la teoria e la pratica, ciò che noi effettiva-mente esamineremo sono i mattoni di una nuova so-cietà civile capace di raggiungere nuove frontiere nelprogredire del bene comune. Verranno illustrati i se-guenti temi: nuove forme di economia solidale e sussi-diaria; iniziative educative nei paesi in via di sviluppo;le relazioni tra stato e famiglia; l’accesso ai beni-infor-mazione (internet); il micro credito e il terzo settore.

12

1. En el Compendio de la Doctrina Social de la Igle-sia (párrafos 160 a 163), leemos que sus principios per-manentes son la dignidad de la persona humana, el biencomún, la subsidiaridad y la solidaridad. Ellos consti-tuyen el núcleo mismo de la enseñanza social católica.

“Estos principios, expresión de la verdad íntegrasobre el hombre conocida a través de la razón y de lafe, brotan ‘del encuentro del mensaje evangélico y desus exigencias - comprendidas en el Mandamiento su-premo del amor a Dios y al prójimo y en la Justicia –con los problemas que surgen en la vida de la socie-dad’. La Iglesia, en el curso de la historia y a la luz delEspíritu, reflexionando sabiamente sobre la propia tra-dición de fe, ha podido dar a tales principios una fun-dación y configuración cada vez más exactas, clarifi-cándolos progresivamente, en el esfuerzo de respon-der con coherencia a las exigencias de los tiempos y alos continuos desarrollos de la vida social. Estos prin-cipios tienen un carácter general y fundamental, ya quese refieren a la realidad social en su conjunto: desde lasrelaciones interpersonales caracterizadas por la proxi-midad y la inmediatez, hasta aquellas mediadas por lapolítica, por la economía y por el derecho; desde lasrelaciones entre comunidades o grupos hasta las rela-ciones entre los pueblos y las Naciones. Por su perma-nencia en el tiempo y universalidad de significado, laIglesia los señala como el primer y fundamental pará-metro de referencia para la interpretación y la valora-ción de los fenómenos sociales, necesario porque deellos se pueden deducir los criterios de discernimientoy de guía para la acción social, en todos los ámbitos”(160 y 161).

2. Por otro lado, cuando analizamos los fenómenossociales que se producen en las sociedades contempo-ráneas, observamos que tales principios están muy su-jetos a malentendidos. A menudo se interpretan demodos que están bastante alejados del significado y lasintenciones que corresponden a la doctrina social. Enefecto, las interpretaciones reductivas y sesgadas pre-valecen casi por doquier. Por ejemplo, se identifica elbien común con bienes materiales tales como el aguao un medio ambiente saludable; la solidaridad se iden-tifica con el amor, la filantropía o la caridad pública;la subsidiaridad se define como la acción de dejar lasdecisiones libradas a los niveles inferiores del sistemapolítico (véase el Artículo 3/B del Tratado de la UniónEuropea, o Tratado de Maastricht). Estos errores deinterpretación acarrean graves consecuencias. Tome-mos como ejemplo el caso de la familia: el bien comúnfamiliar se define en términos de su patrimonio, mien-tras que su solidaridad se identifica con el amor, y susubsidiaridad con la acción de permitir que cada actordefina la familia según su propio criterio. En el nivel“macro” del Estado nacional, la solidaridad se defineen términos del control político de los recursos, de la

búsqueda de igualdad de oportunidades, y de la redis-tribución a través del Estado benefactor (según lo in-terpretado por la izquierda); y la subsidiaridad se iden-tifica con la delegación de poderes o la privatización(según la interpretación liberal). Estos son tan solo al-gunos de los malentendidos que se han difundido entorno a conceptos cardinales tales como el bien co-mún, la solidaridad y la subsidiaridad.

3. La Sesión Plenaria de 2008 apunta a considerarla situación actual como un desafío a la doctrina so-cial, que se enfrenta a una necesidad renovada de re-flexión acerca de cómo puede la sociedad alcanzar unaconfiguración capaz de implementar sus principios.Debemos buscar una visión adecuada de una sociedadverdaderamente humana tomando en cuenta los cam-bios culturales, sociales, económicos y políticos denuestro tiempo a la luz de la perspectiva cristiana.

En suma, los objetivos de esta Sesión Plenaria pue-den resumirse en tres aspectos:

(i) en primer lugar, es necesario examinar en pro-fundidad los usos actuales de estos conceptos con elfin de aclarar su correcto significado; tal aclaración de-bería hacerse en referencia tanto a los aspectos histó-ricos de estos conceptos como a la manera como se loslleva a la práctica hoy en día;

(ii) en segundo lugar, es particularmente importanteobservar la realidad social de modo de detectar avancesteóricos y ejemplos prácticos de la correcta aplicaciónde estos principios, que demuestren cómo la subsidiari-dad y la solidaridad pueden funcionar juntas con el ob-jeto de fomentar el bien común de forma eficaz;

(iii) en tercer lugar, si se logran los dos fines ante-riores, es de esperar que tendremos a nuestra disposi-ción ideas y orientaciones prácticas que nos permiti-rán pensar en una configuración social nueva y capazde dejar atrás los legados de Hobbes y Hegel que si-guen pesando sobre las sociedades contemporáneas yque impiden un funcionamiento óptimo de los cuatroprincipios básicos de la doctrina social.

4. En la persecución de estos fines, cabe prestar es-pecial atención a la interdependencia entre los cuatroprincipios, así como también al modo en el que pue-den y deberían funcionar juntos.

Como nos lo recuerda el Compendio de la DoctrinaSocial (párrafos 162 y 163): “Los principios de la doctri-na social deben ser apreciados en su unidad, conexión yarticulación. Esta exigencia radica en el significado, quela Iglesia misma da a la propia doctrina social, de ‘cor-pus’ doctrinal unitario que interpreta las realidades so-ciales de modo orgánico. La atención a cada uno de losprincipios en su especificidad no debe conducir a suutilización parcial y errónea, como ocurriría si se invo-case como un elemento desarticulado y desconectadocon respecto de todos los demás. La misma profundi-

INTRODUCCIÓNM. ARCHER, P. DONATI

En busca del bien común: de cómo la solidaridady la subsidiaridad pueden funcionar juntas

13

En busca del bien común: de cómo la solidaridad y la subsidiaridad pueden funcionar juntas Introducción

zación teórica y aplicación práctica de uno solo de losprincipios sociales, muestran con claridad su mutuaconexión, reciprocidad y complementariedad. Estosfundamentos de la doctrina de la Iglesia representanun patrimonio permanente de reflexión, que es parteesencial del mensaje cristiano; pero van mucho másallá, ya que indican a todos las vías posibles para edifi-car una vida social buena, auténticamente renovada.Los principios de la doctrina social, en su conjunto, cons-tituyen la primera articulación de la verdad de la socie-dad, que interpela toda conciencia y la invita a interac-tuar libremente con las demás, en plena corresponsabili-dad con todos y respecto de todos. En efecto, el hombreno puede evadir la cuestión de la verdad y del sentido dela vida social, ya que la sociedad no es una realidad ex-traña a su misma existencia. Estos principios tienen unsignificado profundamente moral porque remiten a losfundamentos últimos y ordenadores de la vida social. Pa-ra su plena comprensión, es necesario actuar en la di-rección que señalan, por la vía que indican para el de-sarrollo de una vida digna del hombre. La exigenciamoral ínsita en los grandes principios sociales concier-ne tanto el actuar personal de los individuos, como pri-meros e insustituibles sujetos responsables de la vidasocial a cualquier nivel, cuanto de igual modo las insti-tuciones, representadas por leyes, normas de costum-bre y estructuras civiles, a causa de su capacidad de in-fluir y condicionar las opciones de muchos y por mu-cho tiempo. Los principios recuerdan, en efecto, que lasociedad históricamente existente surge del entrelazar-se de las libertades de todas las personas que en ella in-teractúan, contribuyendo, mediante sus opciones, aedificarla o a empobrecerla”.

5. En la enseñanza social de la Iglesia, la solidaridady la subsidiaridad se perciben como principios enlaza-dos que se refuerzan mutuamente y son necesarios pa-ra alcanzar el bien común. Esa sería la situación ideal.En efecto, la concreción de tal situación es lo que ga-rantiza una sociedad civil sólida, es decir, una sociedadque sirve al bien común y que respeta la dignidad de ca-da uno de sus integrantes. Sin embargo, la relación en-tre solidaridad y subsidiaridad es más compleja que loimplicado anteriormente en el presente texto. Es más,las circunstancias han cambiado de una forma tan ra-dical que para el Tercer Milenio, la relación entre soli-daridad y subsidiaridad está marcadamente desequili-brada. Por consiguiente, durante la Sesión Plenaria de2008 es nuestro deber examinar las posibilidades deequilibrar estos dos aspectos de la sociedad en el marcode un contexto social completamente renovado dondeel bien común se ha vuelto cada vez más problemático.

(a) En primer lugar, es necesario reconocer que larelación entre solidaridad y subsidiaridad nunca puededarse por sentada, dado que los vínculos entre ambosconceptos no son simétricos. Existe la posibilidad deque la solidaridad abunde y la subsidiaridad sea limita-da. Fue esto lo que sucedió en los albores de la Moder-nidad. A lo largo y a lo ancho de Europa, la solidaridadmanifestada por la comunidad de la clase obrera esta-ba en su apogeo. Sin embargo, en sus inicios, el capita-

lismo se destacó por el auge (desenfrenado) del controlde mercado y por una mercantilización que redujo elvalor de los trabajadores al salario. Sin duda, los inten-tos de fundar los sindicatos dieron impulso a la subsi-diaridad, pero tal impulso se desvió hacia la negocia-ción salarial al tiempo que se alejó del control del pro-ceso laboral, las condiciones y las relaciones laborales,y desde luego, la producción y la productividad. En re-sumen, los sindicatos se incorporaron a las relacionesde mercado y al gobierno del Estado liberal.

(b) De igual modo, la subsidiaridad no puede fun-cionar sin la solidaridad. Un intento de tal naturalezasolo lograría que los órganos de la subsidiaridad se ale-jaran aún más de la solidaridad. Estos organismos sonaprehendidos desde abajo, por quienes dicen hablaren nombre de su “comunidad”, o son invadidos desdearriba, por los poderes dominantes de la burocracia deEstado. Por ejemplo, la relativa independencia de laAcademia en Europa se ha visto menoscabada en suautonomía y colegialidad por causa de la imposiciónde indicadores gubernamentales de desempeño y res-ponsabilidad. Se ha renunciado a la subsidiaridad másque nada porque no ha habido suficiente solidaridadentre los académicos para defenderla.

(c) La conjunción de estas dos formas sociales – so-lidaridad y subsidiaridad – y por consiguiente su apor-te al logro del bien común, es por lo tanto contingen-te, y no axiomática. Esto es así a pesar de su mutuo re-fuerzo cuando sí coexisten. Es más, parece indudableque en gran medida el cambio social contemporáneomilita contra su coexistencia. En términos específicos,¿qué es lo que ha cambiado para que esta conjunciónentre solidaridad y subsidiaridad sea cada vez más pro-blemática?

(d) Hay una oferta decreciente de solidaridad basa-da en la comunidad, de valores compartidos, y porconsiguiente, de aglutinante social. En todas partes,una serie de cambios socava la comunidad de tipo es-table y local caracterizada por un territorio físico y porel contacto presencial. Sin duda, las comunidades elec-tivas (y las virtuales e imaginadas) están en auge, perono hacen ningún aporte significativo a la solidaridadsocial global que es necesaria para sostener la subsi-diaridad, dado que en el mejor de los casos, sigue es-tando limitada a ámbitos restringidos (por ejemplo, elfútbol y la FIFA).

(e) A la inversa, la irrupción en la vida cotidiana delas fuerzas de mercado (la publicidad, el cómodo ac-ceso al crédito y el dinero como valor de cambio úni-co) y de las normas burocráticas (tanto nacionales co-mo transnacionales) exacerba el materialismo dentrode una jaula burocrática férrea y expandida.

¿Es posible poner fin a este ciclo pernicioso? En estecaso debemos considerar la función de la reciprocidad.

6. Para esto, es necesario señalar algún proceso cu-yo funcionamiento intensifique la solidaridad y la sub-sidiaridad de forma simultánea, lo cual permitiría elfortalecimiento del bien común. La clave que une am-bos principios estriba en el concepto y la práctica dela reciprocidad.

14

En busca del bien común: de cómo la solidaridad y la subsidiaridad pueden funcionar juntas Introducción

La reciprocidad se reconoce como un “mecanismode arranque”. Así, resuelve un problema observado enlos estudios de la participación en asociaciones volun-tarias. Es común ver que la pertenencia a estas asocia-ciones aumenta la confianza, entre los miembros y engeneral, y la confianza es el denominador común de lasolidaridad. Sin embargo, ¿de dónde surge el impulsode llevar adelante asociaciones voluntarias?

La función de la reciprocidad como “motor dearranque” se reconoce desde hace mucho tiempo. Ci-cerón escribió que “no existe un deber más indispen-sable que devolver un favor”, y agregó: “todos los hom-bres desconfían de aquel que se olvida de un favor”.No obstante, a menudo el homo reciprocus ha estadoy está sujeto a una acentuación unilateral (una distor-sión en realidad) de sus propios aportes y sus conse-cuencias.

Por ejemplo, Marcel Mauss percibía los favores re-cíprocos como garantías de las relaciones de intercam-bio, y por lo tanto, como aspectos conducentes al mer-cado y a sus principios desprovistos de humanidad.Por el contrario, Alvin Gouldner percibía la reciproci-dad como una norma social generalizada, estabilizadapor una “mutualidad de gratificaciones” (una relación“do ut des”), y a su vez socialmente estabilizadora. Sinembargo, tal “mutualidad” siempre estuvo a mercedde la fuerza, la cual socavó la reciprocidad y la reem-plazó por relaciones de coerción. Cabe observar queninguna de las dos perspectivas es capaz de sosteneruna visión activa de la justicia (el derecho al serviciodel bien común), dado que en ambos casos el derechoserviría para reforzar las relaciones de mercado y lasrelaciones de poder respectivamente.

Algunas nociones aparentemente afines a la reci-procidad o sustitutivas de ella se alejan en una de estasdos direcciones: hacia las relaciones de mercado o ha-cia las relaciones de poder. Así, la teoría económica ypolítica del “Capital Social” tiende a suponer que in-cluso los grupos más cercanos al concepto de Gemeins-chaft se basan en el “interés”, cuya promoción (o de-fensa) implica intercambios con otras formas de capi-tal y conlleva así una mercantilización de las personasantitética tanto a la solidaridad como a la subsidiari-dad. A la inversa, el comunitarismo, tal como sugierensus críticos liberales, busca combinar las virtudes dela fraternidad con los defectos de la intolerancia.

La reciprocidad está ligada a la gratuidad. La prime-ra solo puede ser el vínculo clave entre solidaridad y sub-sidiaridad cuando conserva su vinculación con la segun-da, que está fundada en el afecto y el interés por la viday el bienestar del otro, y en la participación en ellos.

Parece haber en nuestras poblaciones un impulsosuficiente hacia una gratuidad que promueve la reci-procidad en cuanto proceso independiente de imposi-ciones legales o de aparatos normativos, dotado deuna tendencia a expandirse más que a desvirtuarse (estal el caso de las donaciones de sangre o de órganos).Algo crucial en los tiempos que corren es que la gra-tuidad desprovista de la búsqueda de beneficios mate-riales o de control evidenciada en la Internet (un me-dio neutral explotado también para los otros dos pro-

pósitos) es un ejemplo práctico de la solidaridad (vir-tual) y de la subsidiaridad efectiva que logra funcionardebido a la reciprocidad, y que sería incapaz de operaren su ausencia.

Como tal, la reciprocidad produce una espiral as-cendente que refuerza la solidaridad, dado que cadavez más la persona humana, en lugar de limitarse a sucapacidad como mano de obra y sus aptitudes intelec-tuales, está investida con entidades tales como las aso-ciaciones voluntarias que transforman sus aportes enalgo que no puede ser mercantilizado ni aprehendido(por ejemplo, el cuidado de los niños y los ancianos, ola convivencia ecológicamente responsable). Es unaespiral ascendente porque: (a) se desarrollan obliga-ciones mutuas y prácticas de apoyo recíproco; (b) seextiende la “amistad” (en el sentido aristotélico); y (c)se manifiesta una tendencia hacia una creciente inves-tidura de la identidad social con estas asociaciones.

De ahí la aparente paradoja del tercer milenio quedemuestra que el Gemeinschaft puede desarrollarse apartir del Gesellschaft, y que plantea así la solución alproblema que la Modernidad fue incapaz de resolver,es decir, “el problema de la solidaridad”.

7. La justicia debe promover el bien común. Lasubsidiaridad necesita tanto de la protección jurídicacomo de los mecanismos para una corrección justa.De lo contrario, e independientemente del sostén de lasolidaridad interna, es pasible de ser dominada porotras formas de control y principios rectores, o de frag-mentarse a través de la cristalización de los interesessectoriales.

Por lo tanto, por un lado existe la necesidad de pro-tección a través de una forma de justicia diferenciadapara distintas esferas de la sociedad, según los crite-rios más adecuados a cada una. No cabe duda de queel “Tercer Sector” necesita estar protegido de las incur-siones del Estado, más allá de las medidas que garan-ticen probidad en la conducción de sus asuntos.

Por otro lado, la subsidiaridad implica distribución,pero por sí solos ni el “tercer sector” ni las definicionesclásicas de la justicia son guías suficientes con respec-to a lo que es debido a cada sujeto social o grupo hu-mano. Sin la articulación de una teoría de esta natura-leza, podrían acumularse los agravios y diferenciarselas jerarquías con diversos intereses materiales, de talsuerte que no podría alcanzarse ningún bien común.

8. Por eso, esta Sesión Plenaria prestará especialatención a los “ejemplos prácticos” de la solidaridad yla subsidiaridad en acción, a fin de evitar que este seaun ejercicio académico árido aunque necesario. Entrela teoría y la práctica, lo que en efecto habremos deexaminar son los elementos fundamentales de unanueva sociedad civil capaz de alcanzar nuevas fronte-ras en la promoción del bien común. Se tratarán lossiguientes temas: nuevas expresiones de la economíasolidaria y subsidiaria; iniciativas educativas en paísesen desarrollo; relaciones entre Estado y familia; acce-so a los bienes de la información (la Internet); el mi-cro crédito y el tercer sector.

15

Subsidiarity, Solidarity and the Common Good

MORNING SESSION

9:00 Welcome by the Dean-President of the PASS, Prof. Belisario Betancur

9:15 Subject of the Meeting by Margaret Archer and Pierpaolo Donati

9:30 Chair: Dean-President of the PASSSpeaker:� Roland Minnerath

The Basic Principles of the Social Doctrine: Their Interpretation as a ChallengeCommentator:� Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo

10:30 Discussion

11:00 Coffee break

11:30 Chair: Michel SchooyansSpeaker:� Russell Hittinger

Subsidiarity, Solidarity and the Common GoodCommentator:� Diarmuid Martin

12:30 Discussion

13:00 Lunch at the Casina Pio IV

AFTERNOON SESSION

14:30 Chair: Wilfrido VillacortaSpeakers:� Jacques Godbout

Free-Giving in the Lifeworld� Alain Caillé

Reciprocity and the Common GoodCommentator� Frédéric Vandenberghe

16:00 Discussion

17:00 Coffee break

17:30 Practical exemplar 1: Michel BauwensElectronic Giving and Sharing

18:00 Discussion

19:00 General Discussion

19:30 Dinner at the Casina Pio IV

FRIDAY, 2 MAY 2008

15:30-19:00 Council Meeting

THURSDAY, 1 MAY 2008

PROGRAMME


16

Pursuing the Common Good: How Solidarity and Subsidiarity Can Work Together Programme

Family and Education

MORNING SESSION

9:00 Chair: Giampaolo CrepaldiSpeakers:� Pierpaolo Donati

The State and the Family in a Subsidiary Society� Practical exemplar 2: Jan Schröder

The Initiative ‘Lokale Bündnisse für Familie’

10:10 Discussion

10:35 Coffee break

10:45 Depart for the Papal Audience

12:00 Papal Audience


AFTERNOON SESSION

14:30 Commentators:� Manfred Spieker� Paul Kirchhof

15:00 Discussion

15:30 Coffee break

16:00 Chair: Kevin RyanSpeaker:� Margaret Archer

Subsidiarity, Solidarity and State Educational Systems: Past, Present and FutureCommentator:� Juan J. Llach

17:00 Discussion



SATURDAY, 3 MAY 2008

7:00 Bus leaves Domus Sanctae Marthae on pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Gennaro in the Duomoof Naples

10:00 Holy Mass at the Duomo

11:15 Visit to the Carthusian Monastery of San Martino

13:30 Lunch at the Royal Continental Hotel


SUNDAY, 4 MAY 2008

17


Economy and Civil Society

MORNING SESSION

9:00 Chair: Hans ZacherSpeaker:� Stefano Zamagni

Reciprocity as the Motor of a Civil Society Oriented Towards the Common GoodCommentator:� José T. Raga

10:00 Discussion

11:00 Coffee break

11:30 � Practical exemplar 4: Luigino BruniNew Forms of Economy: The Economy of Communion

12:00 Discussion


AFTERNOON SESSION

14:30 Chair: Paulus ZuluSpeaker:� Partha Dasgupta

Social Capital and the Common GoodCommentator:� Joseph Stiglitz

15:30 Discussion

16:30 Coffee break

17:00 � Practical exemplar 5: Giorgio VittadiniOrganizations Acting in a Subsidiary Way in Civil Society (the Case of the ‘Food Bank’)

17:30 Discussion

18:15 � Practical exemplar 6: Alfonso Prat-GayMicro-Credit: Innovative Organisations in the Third Sector

18:45 Discussion



MONDAY, 5 MAY 2008

Social Justice and the Common Good

MORNING SESSION

9:00 Chair: Nicholas McNallySpeaker:� Rafael Alvira

Social Justice and the Common Good Within and Between Different Spheres of SocietyCommentator:� Rocco Buttiglione

10:00 Discussion

TUESDAY, 6 MAY 2008

�

18


10:30 Coffee Break

11:00 Speakers:� Pedro Morandé

Subsidiarity in Chilean Education� Practical exemplar 3: Alberto Piatti

A Global Educational Program: The Case of Novos Alagados, Salvador Bahia

12:30 Discussion


AFTERNOON SESSION

14:30 Chair: Hanna Suchocka� Round Table:

Solidarity and Subsidiarity in International RelationsParticipants:� Ombretta Fumagalli Carulli� Angelika Nußberger� Vittorio Possenti� Herbert Schambeck� Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista� Krzysztof Skubiszewski� Mina Ramirez

16:30 Coffee break


18:00 Retrospect and Prospects: Pierpaolo Donati and Margaret Archer

18:30 Closed Session for Academicians


9:00-11:30 Council Meeting

WEDNESDAY, 7 MAY 2008

19

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS


�

OUTSIDE EXPERTS

NAME AND TITLE NAT. DISCIPLINE AND INSTITUTION PAPER AND EXEMPLAR

Prof. Rafael ALVIRA E Philosophy, University of NavarraSocial Justice and the Common Good Withinand Between Spheres of Society

Prof. Michel BAUWENS B Philosophy, Foundation for P2PAlternatives Electronic Giving and Sharing

Prof. Luigino BRUNI I Economics, University of Milan-BicoccaNew Forms of Economy:The Economy of Communion

Prof. Alain CAILLÉ F Economic and Sociology,University of Paris 10 Reciprocity and the Common Good

Prof. Jacques GODBOUT CDNEconomics and Ethics,University of Quebec

Free-Giving in the Lifeworld

Prof. Russell HITTINGER USAPhilosophy and Religion,University of Tulsa

Subsidiarity, Solidarity and the Common Good

H.E. Msgr.Diarmuid MARTIN

IRL Archbishop of DublinCommentary on: ‘Subsidiarity, Solidarityand the Common Good’

Dr. Alberto PIATTI IEducation and Development, SecretaryGeneral, AVSI Foundation

A Global Educational Program:The case of Novos Alagados, Salvador Bahia

Dr. Alfonso PRAT-GAY RARepresentative in Argentinaof Planet Finance

Micro-Credit: Innovative Organisationsinthe Third Sector

Dr. Jan SCHRÖDER D Physics, JSB mbH & Co. KG The Initiative ‘Lokale Bündnisse für Familie’

Prof. Manfred SPIEKER D Catholic Theology, University of Os-nabrück

Commentary on: ‘The State and the Familyin a Subsidiarity Society’

Prof. FrédéricVANDENBERGHE

BR University Institute of Research (IUPERJ)of Rio de Janeiro

Commentary on: ‘Free-Giving in the Lifeworld’ and ‘Reciprocity and the Common Good’

Prof. Giorgio VITTADINI I Economics, Foundation for SubsidiarityOrganizations Acting in a Subsidiary Wayin Civil Society (the Case of the ‘Food Bank’)

Prof. Stefano ZAMAGNI I Economics, University of BolognaReciprocity as the Motor of a Civil Society OrientedTowards the Common Good

20

Pursuing the Common Good: How Solidarity and Subsidiarity Can Work Together List of Participants

�

PONTIFICAL ACADEMICIANS


Prof. Margaret S. ARCHER UK Sociology, University of WarwickJoint Organiser of the Meeting

Subsidiarity, Solidarity and State EducationalSystems: Past, Present and Future

Prof. Belisario BETANCUR CO Law, Santillana Foundation, FormerPresident of Colombia

Prof. Rocco BUTTIGLIONE I Political Philosophy, University of TeramoCommentary on: ‘Social Justice and the CommonGood Within and Between Spheres of Society’

Prof. Partha S. DASGUPTA UK Economics, University of Cambridge Social Capital and the Common Good

Prof. Luis E.DERBEZ BAUTISTA

MEXEconomics, Centre of Globalisation andDemocracy, Former Foreign Minister ofMexico

Round Table

Prof. Pierpaolo DONATI I Sociology, University of BolognaJoint Organiser of the Meeting The State and the Family in a Subsidiary Society

Prof. OmbrettaFUMAGALLI CARULLI

I Canon Law,Catholic University of Milan Round Table

H.E. AmbassadorMary Ann GLENDON

USA Law, U.S. Ambassdor to the Holy See

Prof. Paul KIRCHHOF D Law, University of HeidelbergCommentary on: ‘The State and the Family in aSubsidiarity Society’

Prof. Hsin-chi KUAN HK Political Sciences, Chinese University ofHong Kong

Prof. Juan J. LLACH RA Economics, Austral UniversityCommentary on: ‘Subsidiarity, Solidarity and StateEducational Systems: Past, Present and Future’ and‘Subsidiarity in Chilean Education’

Hon. Mr. JusticeNicholas McNALLY

ZW Law, Retired Judge of Appeal inZimbabwe Chairperson

H.E. Msgr.Prof. Roland MINNERATH

F History, Archbishop of DijonThe Basic Principles of the Social Doctrine:Their Interpretation as a Challenge

PASS FOUNDATION

NAME AND TITLE NAT. DISCIPLINE AND INSTITUTION

Dr.Dr. Herbert BATLINER FL Law, President of the Foundation for the Promotion of the Social Sciences andMember of the Council

Mr. Cornelius G. FETSCH D Economics, Member of the Foundation for the Promotion of the Social Sciences

H.E. Msgr.Egon KAPELLARI

A Bishop of the Diocese of Graz-Seckau; Delegate of the Holy See to the Council ofthe Foundation for the Promotion of the Social Sciences

Dr. Martin STRIMITZER A Law, Member of the Foundation for the Promotion of the Social Sciences

21

Pursuing the Common Good: How Solidarity and Subsidiarity Can Work Together List of Participants


Prof. Pedro MORANDÉ RCHSocial Sciences, Pontifical Universityof Santiago, Chile

Subsidiarity in Chilean Education

Prof. Angelika NUSSBERGER

D Director of the Institute for EasternEuropean Law, University of Cologne Round Table

Prof. Vittorio POSSENTI I Political Philosophy,University of Venice Round Table

Prof. José T. RAGA E Economics, Complutense Universityof Madrid

Commentary on: ‘Reciprocity as the Motor ofa Civil Society Oriented Towards the Common Good’

Prof. Mina M. RAMIREZ RP Social Sciences, Asian Social Instituteof Manila Round Table

Prof. Kevin RYAN USA Psychology and Education Chairperson

Prof. Louis SABOURIN CDN Law, University of Quebec

Prof. Herbert SCHAMBECK ALaw, Political Sciences andPhilosophyof Law, University of Linz

Chairperson, Round Table

Prof. Michel SCHOOYANS B Social Philosophy, University of Louvain Chairperson

Prof. KrzysztofSKUBISZEWSKI

PL Law, Iran-United States ClaimsTribunal Round Table

Prof. Joseph STIGLITZ USA Economics, University of Columbia,Nobel Prize for Economics 2001

Commentary on:‘Social Capital and the Common Good’

H.E. AmbassadorHanna SUCHOCKA

PLLaw, Polish Ambassador to the HolySee, Former Prime Minister of Poland

Chairperson

Prof. Wilfrido V. VILLACORTA RP Political Science, De La Salle University Chairperson

Prof. Bedrich VYMETALÍK CZ Law, Charles University in Prague

Prof. Hans ZACHER D Law, University of Munich, FormerPresident of the Max Planck Institute Chairperson

Prof. Paulus ZULU ZA Sociology, University of Natal Chairperson

PASS COUNCIL MEMBERS


H.E. Msgr.Giampaolo CREPALDI

VSecretary of the Pontifical Council forJustice and Peace, Member of theCouncil

Chairperson

H.E. Msgr. Prof. MarceloSÁNCHEZ SORONDO

VPhilosophy, LUMSA University, Rome,Bishop Chancellor of the PontificalAcademy of Social Sciences

Commentary on: ‘The Basic Principles of the SocialDoctrine: Their Interpretation as a Challenge’

22

Alvira, Rafael, Professor of Philosophy and Direc-tor of the Institute ‘Empresa y Humanismo’ at theUniversity of Navarra. He is professor at MendozaUniversity (Argentina) and Montevideo (Uruguay).He was visiting professor and lecturer at diverse ac-ademic institutions in USA, Europe and LatinAmerica. He is author of nine books and more thana hundred articles. Address: University of Navarra,Dept. of Philosophy, 31080 Pamplona (Spain)Tel.: +34 948 425600 ext. 2481/5691 - Fax: +34 948425636 - Email: [email protected].

Bauwens, Michel was born on 21 March 1958.A Belgian integral philosopher and Peer-to-Peertheorist, he worked as an internet consultant, in-formation analyst for the United States Informa-tion Agency, and information manager for Britishpetroleum, (where he created one of the first vir-tual information centers), and is former editor-in-chief of the first European digital convergencemagazine, Wave. With Frank Theys, Bauwenswas the co-creator of the three hour documentaryTechnoCalyps, an examination of the ‘meta-physics of technology’. He is the author of a num-ber of on-line essays, including a seminal thesisPeer to Peer and Human Evolution, and is also theeditor of Pluralities-Integration|Pluralities/Integra-tion Newsletter. He now lives in Chiang Mai,Thailand, where he has created the Foundationfor P2P Alternatives. He has taught courses onthe anthropology of digital society to postgradu-ate students at ICHEC/St. Louis in Brussels, Bel-gium, and similar courses at Payap Universityand Chiang Mai University in Thailand. Address:Email: [email protected].

Bruni, Luigino, Associate Professor of PoliticalEconomy at the University of Milan-Bicocca andVice-Director of the CISEPS in the same university.Bruni has published a number of essays on Italianeconomists, in particular Genovesi, Pareto, and Pan-taleoni. He is interested in social themes in econom-ics and was the editor of Economia di Comunione:per una cultura economica a più dimensioni (1999).He has also published works on philosophy andethics in economics and his current areas of researchinclude economic rationality and the interpersonaldimension in economics. Address: Università degliStudi di Milano-Bicocca, Dipartimento di EconomiaPolitica, P.zza dell’Ateneo Nuovo, 1, I-20126 Milan(Italy). Email: [email protected].

Caillé, Alain, Professor of Economics and Sociolo-gy at the University of Paris 10 (Nanterre). Founder

of La Revue du Mauss of which he has been the ed-itor since 1981. His principal publications include:Critique de la raison utilitaire (La Découverte, 1989);Don, intérêt et désintéressement (La Découverte,1994); Anthropologie du don (Desclée de Brouwer,2000). Address: MAUSS, 3 avenue du Maine, F-75015 Paris (France). Tel.: +33 1 42841703 - Fax:+33 1 42842417 - Email: [email protected].

Derbez Bautista, Luis Ernesto (born April 1, 1947in Mexico City) is a Mexican politician and currentpresident of the Universidad de Las Américas inCholula, Puebla. Upon assuming power in Decem-ber 2000, President Vicente Fox chose him to serveas his Secretary of the Economy. In January 2003,following the resignation of Jorge Castañeda, Der-bez took over as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a po-sition that he held until President Vicente Fox’s termended on December 1, 2006. Since January 2007,Luis Ernesto Derbez has been the General Directorof the Centre for Globalization, Competitivenessand Democracy at the Instituto Tecnológico deMonterrey, Campus Santa Fe, and Secretary for In-ternational Affairs of the Partido Acción Nacional(PAN). Between January 2003 and December 2006he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico;and between December 2000 and December 2002,he was the Minister of the Economy. From July toNovember 2000, he chaired President-elect VicenteFox’s transition team which defined Mexico’s 2000-2006 economic and social programs. Mr. Derbezhad a distinguished professional and academic ca-reer working for the World Bank Group, the Inter-American Development Bank, Johns Hopkins Uni-versity’s School of Advanced International Studiesand the Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey. He al-so did consulting work for some of Mexico’s lead-ing private sector companies such as Alfa, Vitro,Visa, and FEMSA. As head of Mexico’s Ministries ofthe Economy and Foreign Affairs, Mr. Derbez vig-orously increased the country’s presence in worldbusiness and political affairs. Prof. Derbez was ap-pointed an Academician of the PASS by the Holy Fa-ther on 24 July 2007. Address: Presidente, Centro deGlobalización y Democracia, Centro para la Global-ización, Competitividad y Democracia Tecnológicode Monterrey, Av. Carlos Lazo No. 100, Col. Santa FeDeleg. Alvaro Obregón 01389 México (DF México).Tel.: +52 91778000 - Email: [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected].

Godbout, Jacques T., Emeritus Professor at theNational Institute of Scientific Research (Univer-sity of Quebec). His principal field of research has

BIOGRAPHIES OF PARTICIPANTS


23

Pursuing the Common Good: How Solidarity and Subsidiarity Can Work Together Biographies of Participants

been the relationship between organisations andtheir customers and he is the author of La partici-pation contre la démocratie (Montréal, Saint-Mar-tin) and La démocratie des usagers (Montréal,Boréal). He has also studied the subject of giftsand in 1992 published, together with Alain Caillé,L’Esprit du don (Paris and Montréal, La Décou-verte and Boréal), which was translated into fivelanguages. He is also the author of Le don, la detteet l’identité (2000). Address: INRS, 385 rue Sher-brooke Est, Montréal, Québec (Canada) H2X 1E3.Email: [email protected].

Hittinger, Russell was born on 27 July 1949 inQuantico, Virginia. Russell Hittinger is an interna-tionally recognized contributor to major contem-porary debates in jurisprudence, law, and ethicsand has held professorships at the Catholic Uni-versity of America, Princeton University, FordhamUniversity, and New York University. He has servedon the Virginia Governor’s Council for Self-Deter-mination and State Sovereignty and is currently amember of the Ethics Task Force of the St. Fran-cis Health Care System in Tulsa. He also serves onthe editorial boards of the American Journal of Ju-risprudence and First Things. His many honours in-clude the Josephine Yalch Zekan Award for thebest scholarly article in faith and law and a Na-tional Endowment for the Humanities fellowshipfor university teachers. Address: Dept. of Philoso-phy and Religion, University of Tulsa, 600 SouthCollege Ave., Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 (U.S.A.). Tel.:+1 918 6313081 - Fax: +1 918 6312057 - Email:[email protected].

H.E. Msgr. Diarmuid Martin was born in Dublinon 8th April 1945. He attended schools in Dublin(Oblate School, Inchicore; De La Salle School, Bal-lyfermot; Marian College, Ballsbridge). He studiedphilosophy at University College Dublin and theolo-gy at the Dublin Diocesan Seminary (Holy Cross Col-lege, Clonliffe). He was ordained priest by Archbish-op John Charles McQuaid in St Patrick’s TrainingCollege, Drumcondra, on 25th May 1969. He enteredthe service of the Holy See in 1976 in the PontificalCouncil for the Family. In 1986 he was appointedUnder-Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justiceand Peace, and in 1994 Secretary of the same Pon-tifical Council. On 5th December 1998 he was ap-pointed Titular Bishop of Glendalough and receivedthe Episcopal ordination at the hands of Pope JohnPaul II in St Peter’s Basilica on 6th January 1999. Hewas a member of various Vatican Offices, includingthe Central Committee for the Great Jubilee of theYear 2000. In March 2001 he was elevated to therank of Archbishop and undertook responsibilitiesas Permanent Observer of the Holy See in Geneva,at the United Nations Office and Specialised Agen-cies and at the World Trade Organisation. He was

appointed Coadjutor Archbishop of Dublin on May3rd 2003. Archbishop Martin automatically succeed-ed Cardinal Desmond Connell as Archbishop ofDublin on 26 April 2004. Address: Archbishop’sHouse, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 (Ireland), Tel: +353 18373732 • Fax: +353 1 8369796

Nußberger, Angelika is a law professor at the Uni-versity of Cologne and Director of the Institute forEastern European Law. She teaches public interna-tional law, comparative constitutional law, and inter-national social law. Her research focuses, on the onehand, on the co-existence and interaction of differentlegal cultures, especially in Eastern Europe, and, onthe other hand, on regulatory approaches to socialproblems in the globalised world. In one of her re-cent research works she has analysed the effects ofstandard-setting activities of the International LabourOrganisation, the Council of Europe and the UnitedNations in the field of social protection. Since 2004she has been a member of the Committee of Expertson the Application of Conventions and Recommen-dations of the International Labour Organisation andsince 2006 a substitute member of the EuropeanCommission for Democracy through Law (VeniceCommission). Prof. Nußberger was appointed anAcademician of the PASS by the Holy Father on 4March 2008. Address: Institut für Ostrecht der Uni-versität zu Köln, Klosterstr. 79d, D-50931 Köln (Ger-many). Tel.: +49 221 4705583 - Fax: +49 221 4705582- Email: [email protected].

Piatti, Alberto has been since 1995 the Manag-ing Director of the AVSI Foundation, an NGO in-volved in 40 countries with 100 long-term devel-opment projects. He is a member of the Pontifi-cal Council ‘Cor Unum’, committed to Vaticancharity and solidarity initiatives, and has attend-ed several international conferences as a memberof the Holy See delegation. From 1992 to 1998 hewas a member of the Board of Directors of‘Famiglie per l’Accoglienza’, a non-profit associa-tion for abandoned children. Since 1999 he hasbeen the Vice President of the non-profit associa-tion ‘Compa-gnia delle opere’. Address: SecretaryGeneral, AVSI Foundation, Via M. Gioia, 181, I-20125 Milan (Italy). Tel.: +39 02674988359 -Email: [email protected].

Prat-Gay, Alfonso, a 37-year-old economist, was thepresident of Argentinas Central Bank from 2002 to2004. Prior to this he co-founded APL Economa, aneconomic consulting firm in Buenos Aires, advisingleading local and foreign companies doing businessin Argentina. From 1994 until 2001 he worked at JPMorgan where he headed the Global FX Researchteam out of London, providing regular advise onhow to trade around 40 currencies across the globe.He gained kudos for the design of several insightful

24

Pursuing the Common Good: How Solidarity and Subsidiarity Can Work Together Biographies of Participants

trading models that continue to outperform moretraditional alternatives in the FX world. Prior to hisLondon assignment, he was the Head of Researchof the Emerging Markets Proprietary TradingGroup, a team investing JPMorgans own capitalacross all EM asset classes. He joined JPMorgan in1994 and spent the first two years as the countryeconomist for Argentina and Chile based in NewYork. Earlier in his career (1989-1992) he alsoserved Director of research at Alpha S.A., a leadingmacroeconomic consulting firm in Buenos Aires.Since 2004 he is representative in Argentina of Plan-et Finance, which is dedicated to promote the mi-cro-credit. Prat-Gay is a Ph.D. candidate from theUniversity of Pennsylvania where he obtained hisMasters of Arts in Economics (1994). He holds aBachelor of Arts degree in Economics from the Uni-versidad Católica Argentina (1989) (summa cumlaude) where he also taught several undergraduatecourses (1989-92). He is a member of the faculty ofUniversidad Torcuato Di Tella and a member of theacademic board of the Universidad Católica Ar-gentina, both in Buenos Aires.

Schröder, Jan was born in 1963. He took his PhDin high-energy physics and currently engages inresearch and management consultancy in the pol-icy field of demographic change, civil society andchildhood, youth and families. His specialisationis outcome-oriented management and organisa-tion in the fields of common welfare. He is alsodirector of the JSB Dr. Jan Schröder Beratungs-geselolschaft & Co. GmbH and has been head ofthe service bureau of Local Alliances for the Fam-ily in Germany since 2004. Address: JSB Dr. JanSchröder Beratungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG,Argelanderstraße 1, D-53115 Bonn (Germany).Tel.: +49 228 908720 - Fax: +49 228 90872-72 -Email: [email protected].

Spieker, Manfred is Professor of Christian SocialSciences at the Institute of Catholic Theology at theUniversity of Osnabrück, where he has taught since1983. He is the author of numerous books and arti-cles on Catholic social teaching and is widely regard-ed as one of Germany’s leading thinkers and com-mentators on Catholic social thought. He has servedas a visiting professor at the University of Valparaisoin Chile (1988), the Faculty of Catholic Theology inErfurt (1991), and Vilnius University (1998). He isalso President of the Association Internationale pourl’Enseignement Social Chrétien and has served as anadvisor to the Catholic Bishops Conference of Ger-many. Address: Universität Osnabrück, Schloßstraße4, D-49069 Osnabrück (Germany). Tel.: +495419694286 - Fax: +49 5419694376 - Email: [email protected].

Vandenberghe, Frédéric, senior researcher at theUniversity for Humanist Studies, Utrecht and Profes-

sor of sociology at IUPERJ, Rio de Janeiro. He wasvisiting professor at various universities in Europe,the United States and Brazil. He works mainly in thefield of social and political theory. He has publishedvarious books and inumerous articles. Address: Inst.Universitario de Pesquisas, Rio de Janeiro (IUPERJ),Rua de Matriz, 82 Botafogo, Rio de Janeiro, RJ-22260-100 (Brazil). Tel.: +55 212860996 - Fax: +55212867146 - Email: [email protected]

Vittadini, Giorgio is the Founder and President ofthe Fondazione per la Sussidiarietà (Foundation forSubsidiarity) which promotes cultural initiativeswith social, economic, political and scientificthemes, providing educational and training pro-grammes, research projects, editorial and publish-ing activities. He is a Professor of MethodologicalStatistics at the School of Statistical Sciences at theUniversity of Milan-Bicocca. He founded and wasthe President until 2003 of Compagnia delle Opere(Companion in Works), an international associationof 30,000 businesses inspired by the social doctrineof the Catholic Church. Since 1981 he has been amember of the Fraternity of Comunione e Liber-azione (Communion and Liberation). He is a mem-ber of the board of the Meeting per l’Amicizia fra iPopoli (Meeting for friendship among Peoples)which, with an average attendance of over 700,000,is among the most significant cultural events in Eu-rope. Since 2003 he has been a member of the Steer-ing Committee of the Giorgio Cini Foundation inVenice. He has been part of the advisory board ofthe Crossroads Cultural Center in New York andWashington, DC. Giorgio Vittadini is the editor ofthe cultural quarterly Atlantide and of the journalRivista Non Profit. He is the author of numerouspublications on social and economic subjects, par-ticularly regarding subsidiarity, human capital, wel-fare, and non- profit. The principal fields of his sta-tistical work are: multivariate analysis, structuraland latent variables models, evaluation problems inthe field of public utility services (with particular ref-erence to education and health) and human capitalestimation. He is the Scientific Director of the Uni-versity Consortium Nova Universitas, School forGraduate and Post-Graduate Training and Educa-tion. In 2005 Giorgio Vittadini was awarded theGold Medal of the National Commission for the Pro-motion of Italian Culture Abroad, the Italian Min-istry of Foreign Affairs. Giorgio Vittadini was bornin Milan, Italy on 20 February 1956. In 1979 he grad-uated with honours in economics at the CatholicUniversity of the Sacred Heart in Milan. Address:Fondazione per la Sussidiarietà, Via Torino, 68, I-20123 Milan (Italy), Tel.: +39 0286467235 - Fax: +390289093228 - Email: [email protected]

Zamagni, Stefano, Full Professor of PoliticalEconomy at the University of Bologna and Ad-

25

Pursuing the Common Good: How Solidarity and Subsidiarity Can Work Together Biographies • Holy Masses

junct Professor of International Political Econo-my, Johns Hopkins University, Bologna Center. Hetook his first degree in economics and trade at theCatholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milanand later studied at Linacre College, the Universi-

ty of Oxford (1969-1973). Address: Università degliStudi di Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze Eco-nomiche, Piazza Scaravilli, 2, I-40126 Bologna(Italy) Tel.: +39 0512098665 - Fax: +39 0512098040 -Email: [email protected].

For the biographies of the Academicians of the PASS, Members of the Council, and Members of the PASS Foundation, cf.Pontificia Academia Scientiarvm Socialivm, Year Book (Vatican City 2004), p. 12 ff.

Friday2 May

Saturday3 May

Sunday4 May

Monday5 May

Tuesday6 May

8:00 8:00 10:00 8:00 8:00

Altar Tombof St Peter


Duomo of NaplesAltar Tombof St Peter


H.E. Msgr.Gianfranco RAVASIPresident of the P. Council of Culture

H.Em. Card.Angelo SODANODean of the College of Cardinals

H.Em. Card.Crescenzio SEPE

Archbishop of Naples

H.Em. Card.Giovanni Battista RE

Prefect Congregation for Bishops

H.E. Msgr.Fernando FILONI

Substitute of the Secretariat of State

Participants wishing toattend should meet at7:45 in the hall of the

Domus Sanctae Marthae









HOLY MASSES

26

Pursuing the Common Good: How Solidarity and Subsidiarity Can Work Together Memorandum

Memorandum

– Every day a bus will leave the Domus Sanctae Marthae at 8:45 for the Academy, fifteen minutes be-fore the beginning of the session. A bus will depart from the Academy after dinner at the end of theafternoon sessions to take participants back to the Domus Sanctae Marthae. Lunch and dinner for theparticipants will be served at the Academy every day except on Sunday, 4 May, when only dinner willbe served after the pilgrimage to the tomb of San Gennaro in the Duomo of Naples.

– Every day, except Sunday, Holy Mass will be held at 8:00 in St. Peter’s (Altar: Tomb of St. Peter).Participants wishing to attend should meet at 7:45 in the hall of the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

– On Sunday, for those wishing to attend, there will be a pilrimage to the tomb of St. Gennaro in theDuomo of Naples, where Holy Mass will be held at 10:00, followed by lunch given by H.Em. CardinalArchbishop Crescenzio Sepe. If you would like to attend, please sign the form that will be distributedduring the Plenary Session, and a bus will collect you at 7:00 from the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

NotePlease give your form for the refunding of expenses to the secretariat at least one day before yourdeparture so that you can be refunded immediately.

30 April 2008 • (46)

THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCESCASINA PIO IV

V-00120 VATICAN CITYTel: 0039 0669881441 Fax: 0039 0669885218

E-mail: [email protected]

For further information please visithttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index_social_en.htm

Ingresso Sant’Uffizio

The ‘Sant’Uffizio’ gate

Ingresso del Perugino

The ‘Perugino’ gate

Sede della Pontificia

Accademia delle Scienze Sociali

Seat of the Pontifical

Academy of Social Sciences

(CASINA PIO IV)

Chiesa di Santo Stefano

degli Abissini

St Stephen

of the Abyssinians Church

Domus

Sanctae Marthae

Altare Tomba S. Pietro

Altar of St Peter’s Tomb

Ingresso Sant’Anna

The ‘Sant’Anna’ gate

Ingresso Musei Vaticani

Entrance gate

to the Vatican Museum

Guardia Medica

Emergency Medical Service

FRONT COVER:Escher, Maurits Cornelis,

Sun and Moon, 1948

SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP ON DETECTION OF CYBER CRIME AND INVESTIGATION

Documents

Transcript of SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP ON DETECTION OF CYBER CRIME AND INVESTIGATION