Reflections and proposals of the Society of Jesus in Spainto strengthen solidarityin confronting the crisis

A crisis ofsolidarity

IN CONFRONTINGTHE CRISIS

SOLIDARITY

100% recycled paper. Manufacturing process without chlorine or optical brighteners.

¿Quiénes somos y desde dónde hablamos?

The different sectors through which the Society of Jesus in Spain develops its activities com-prise institutions and individuals (both Jesuits and non-Jesuits) who seek to carry out a missionof service of the faith and promotion of justice in dialogue with the diverse cultures and religioustraditions. Concretely:

-- The social sector seeks close contact with the socially marginalized, acts in solidarity to pro-mote justice, and engages in reflection to understand and transform society’s structures.

-- The university sector is dedicated to the integral and professional formation of young peo-ple according to the Ignatian tradition, but it also does research oriented toward a more just andmore humane society, publishing and applying the research where possible.

-- The non-university educational sector is dedicated to the integral formation of young peo-ple in the initial stages of human life, according to the Ignatian tradition.

-- The pastoral sector includes a number of diverse activities related to direct evangelization,accompaniment of individuals and communities in human and Christian growth, and dialogueabout the faith with the culture of our time.

-- As members of Jesuit communities and lay communities inspired by Ignatian spirituality, weshare our lives together and strive to be an image of God’s presence in our world.

These different forms of presence allow us to maintain a direct and varied contact with the realityof our world, and this contact does not leave us indifferent: it affects us and it challenges us, andit also makes us conscious of our responsibilities as members of society. Drawing on this rich ex-perience, we feel encouraged to share our reflections, our concerns, our questions, our propo-sals. We believe that they should be heard in a pluralist society like Spain’s. We do not desire toimpose them on anybody but simply offer them in the hope of promoting public debate. We do soinspired by Gospel values and by a Christian perspective which we think can be understood byeveryone, even those who do not share it.

1

2 Introduction

4 We contemplate the reality

10 We interpret the reality

22 We propose viable solutions

33 We make a commitment

table ofcontents

2

Our starting point is our present-day situation and the increasing symptoms of gene-ralized malaise that are becoming ever more evident. Some of the characteristics ofthe growing disquiet are these:

-- The economic crisis, beyond the debate about figures, manifests itself most clearly in the mas-sive long-term unemployment which has prevented many young people from getting even theirfirst job and which keeps many workers in a state of great uncertainty about future employment.

-- The economic crisis forces entire families into situations of dire poverty; they lack the meansto meet their most urgent needs and often risk losing something as important as their own dwe-lling.

-- The background of the crisis is the cataclysm that has struck the financial world. We are toldthat we are emerging from the crisis, but only at the cost of cutting social spending and devotinghuge amounts of public funds to rescue private banks. No accountability has ever been deman-ded of the persons responsible for the obscure financial strategies that put the whole economyon the brink of destruction.

-- Political leaders have shown themselves incapable of devising adequate proposals and solu-tions; they seem more concerned with internal struggles and feuds between the parties. Moreover,they are perceived to be acting under the pressure put on them by the transnational economic andpolitical powers.

-- Meanwhile, countless cases of corruption are being uncovered: many persons have madeillicit use of public money for personal benefit. Corruption has seriously affected major politicalformations; political leaders denounce the corruption of others but fail to recognize the corrup-tion of their own partisans.

-- During these days the growing numbers of migrants and refugees who are arriving at ourborders reveal to us a reality that is even more serious and pressing than our own. We are wit-nessing the desperation and distress of those who have no alternative but to leave their owncountries and venture out on a dangerous journey with an uncertain outcome.

This vision may appear pessimistic, but it corresponds to the general perception of our society,and it is supported by solid data. If we are not careful, it is a vision that can feed despair, discou-rage collective projects, and make people look only to their own personal welfare. Given thissituation, the institutions of the Society of Jesus and those of us who collaborate in them, bothJesuits and lay persons, want to respond to the mission commended to us by Pope Benedict XVIand by the last General Congregation (held in 2008): we want to work for reconciliation, and wewant to go to the frontiers of society. These frontiers are always a challenging, difficult territory,but we must face the realities we meet there honestly and seek true reconciliation among all. Ourguiding star must be the demands of justice based on the Gospel, which requires respect forthe dignity of every human person and preferential attention to the most vulnerable. Given this

Introduction

3

commitment to the mission of the Society of Jesus, what we propose as the objective of thisdocument is the following:

-- We want to allow ourselves to be affected by the reality: we must open ourselves toit and not remain indifferent to society’s problems or avoid them.

-- We want to encourage reflection based on solid analysis of the reality in order to gain a dee-per understanding of the multiple causes of the problems and not just rely on simplified expla-nations.

-- We want to take a stance based on Christian ethical principles and offer it to our thoroughlypluralist society.

-- We want to suggest proposals and alternatives for action that citizens can study as poli-tical options, and we want to pose questions about other areas where we see no clear solutionsbut believe it is unacceptable to resign ourselves to the existing situation.

-- We want to stimulate our own sense of personal and institutional responsibility andask ourselves how we can contribute to resolving these problems.

-- In summary: we want to express our great dissatisfaction, not out of pessimism or despairbut with a spirit of creativity and exploration.

We have also opted for a concrete perspective: we want to analyze the situation from the view-point of solidarity.We do this because we believe that solidarity is a decisive coordinate of oursociety, and it is especially relevant in the context of the present crisis. While the crisis has produ-ced many initiatives of solidarity, it has also generated behaviors and dynamics that are devoid ofsolidarity. We speak of solidarity in confronting the crisis because we recognize that manypeople are already responding this way, and we encourage them to strengthen that response. Butwe also speak of a crisis of solidarity because some reactions are not only lacking in solidaritybut are using the crisis to justify selfish attitudes and behaviors that are quite opposed to solida-rity. The crisis has called solidarity into question not only as a personal attitude, but as a value tobe recognized in our social and political structures, which have been shown to be in need of tho-rough revision.

For us solidarity is also a civic value with an undeniable Christian foundation. We want to makeexplicit the ultimate inspiration of our reflection and our labor; we do not seek to impose it onanybody, but we are convinced that it can enrich everyone. We know that many persons see thehuman and the Christian as incompatible, or they view the relationship between them as proble-matic. That is not the case with those of us who have worked on this reflection: we are convincedthat a harmony exists between the human and the Christian, and we want this to be clear from thevery first pages of this reflection, which we hope will inspire the work of our institutions.

We want to make special reference to the recent document of the Spanish bishops, The Church,Servant of the Poor (24 April 2015), which has served to stimulate our own reflections and hasstrengthened our commitment according to the charism proper to the Society of Jesus. We alsoare grateful to Pope Francis for his recent encyclical, Laudato Si’: On Caring for Our CommonHome (24 May 2015) and we welcome its invitation to collaborate in open dialogue with every-body, believers and non-believers, in order to make our planet a more habitable place for allhuman beings and for other living creatures.

4

We contemplatethe reality

5

A first look at the reality close to us

We speak of what we see, what we study, what we experience, what we share. Everything thatappears in the following pages is born of our own everyday commitments, our many hours of hel-ping people in Caritas offices, our research in university libraries, our work with youth groups, ourhearing confessions in the churches, our teaching of high-school students, and our work in socialaction projects. In all our labors there is attentive listening, cordial welcoming, faithful accompa-niment, concrete assistance, rigorous study, sacramental practice, silent work, public denuncia-tion,... and also incoherence. In everything we do, there is above all a sustained effort to expe-rience our reality in its depths, an effort that is paradoxically also a gift.

Five short stories have blossomed out of the careful listening of the current reality which you willfind in an ilustration in the following boxes. The aim to show real faces reflecting the multipleeffects of the crisis surrounding us.

Coincidences or causalities

To reach the employment offi-ce from Mireya’s house, shehas to climb some very steep

steps. Feeling bored, resigned, and hope-less, Mireya approaches the EmploymentService of Catalonia in her neighborhoodof Cornellà de Llobregat. She has to get herunemployment card stamped. She no lon-ger has any hope that any job will result fromthese sad, routine visits. At the most they willoffer her a training course. (“Another one!What use will it be?” she mumbles to her-self). Sometimes she remembers the fa-mous “flash mob” scene with the song“Here comes the sun.” It gave her muchstrength and hope the first time she saw it,but after a while it was not enough. Today,in fact, is a cloudy, gloomy day.

Climbing up the steps is exhausting, butcoming down them is almost worse. Thedominant sensation she has had duringthese years is that of slowly descending toever lower levels.

First there was a precarious job and a re-duction of work hours. Then there was theunemployment pay, the welfare check, the400 Euro assistance. By that time, feelingthoroughly demoralized, she became cyni-cal when she heard people talk about de-cent pay for hard work. There is no ques-tion about it: the decline of these years hasbeen tremendously damaging for her.

Now Mireya returns home with something toread. At least she’ll be entertained. By chan-ce she found an old booklet in the waitingroom of the employment office, and it loo-ked interesting. The title was striking: “Gua-ranteed Minimum Income and Decent Wa-ges.” The authors were Eduardo Rojo andJuan García-Nieto. It was printed in 1989.She doesn’t realize that it is a publicationof the Study Center of Cristianisme i Jus-tícia.

Mireya has heard something about the cu-rrent debate, but she didn’t know that the

1

6

same questions have been discussed fordecades. In any case, perhaps the bookletshe found by chance will help her discover

that when it comes to economic and socialpolicies, almost everything has a cause; al-most nothing happens by chance.

Right to housing

Ivan hasn’t returned to the pa-rish since that bright and hope-ful day of his wedding, except

for a funeral now and then, occasions mar-ked by sadness and grief.

Today is different, but his mood is still som-ber. After being unemployed for more thana year, he knows that he will have a hard timepaying the gas bill for heating this winter.But with the freezing air of Zaragoza andthree little children, heating the house is nota luxury he can do without.

Armed with valor and suppressing his sha-me, Ivan makes his way to the Caritas offi-ce of his parish to see whether he mightget some assistance. The cold air is pene-trating to his bones, but he is still hoping thatsome warm-hearted people might be able tohelp him.

Thanks be to God (and the good will of thepeople and the church organization) Ivanlearns that the Diocesan Solidarity Cam-paign this year is concentrating its effortson the problem of housing. He cares littleabout the phrases they are using in the cam-paign: exclusion from housing, struggleagainst evictions, energy poverty, etc. Whatis important is that he can obtain help topay for heating. Moreover, some neighbor-hood volunteers are going to assist him withpractical matters and try to keep his spiritsup. The feared prospect of eviction sudden-ly is lifted, and his life becomes more hope-ful. Once again he sees the church as acommunity he can approach without fear orshame. The streets of the city are morehos-pitable, and the walls of his house aremore welcoming. Despite the cold outside,he feels warm within because he knowsthat he has a right to housing.

2

Pío, pío que yo no he sido

“Look, I’ve tried, but the figuresdon’t come out right,” cries theanguished Carlos to his wife.

“If they don’t give us a place in the publicpre-school, we’ll have to pay 300 Euros fora private one, and you know we can’t affordthat.” But even if they don’t enroll little Car-lota in a pre-school, the figures won’t workout right because then they’ll have to hiresomeone to care for her, or else one of themwill have to spend less time working. Theycan’t ask any more of Grandmother sinceshe is busy enough caring for Grandfatherwith his incipient Alzheimer’s.

“But it’s not just that,” says Ana. “The thing

is we can’t cover our other costs either. He-re we are, two people with university degre-es. Society has invested a lot in our training,and many others are studying in universi-ties. This seems to be a kind of ‘Mattheweffect’ (to those who have, more shall begiven...). As long as priority is given to hig-her education while early childhood educa-tion is neglected, wealth will continue to betransferred from the poor to the rich, andthe gap between rich and poor will keepgrowing. Then they’ll tell us we’re living in ademographic winter!”.

The conversation is taking place in a poorneighborhood of Pajaritos de Sevilla, right

3

7

near the street where the SAFA Foundationhas its “White Dove” school, whose goal isfighting school absenteeism and failure bypromoting quality education and solid pro-fessional formation. Among the many birdsin their neighborhood, Carlos and Ana hear

a voice that seems to be singing that songfrom the children’s game, “Peep, Peep, It’sNot Me!” They wonder: who is responsiblefor education that reproduces socialinequality instead of correcting it? Peep,peep...

Figures or letters

“Mommy, is the study of taxesa part of the sciences or a partof the humanities?” asked the

teenaged Amaia of her mother, who is aprofessor of public finance at the Universityof Deusto. It’s an interesting question, butit goes beyond the alternative of choosingbetween sciences and humanities in a high-school curriculum. Indeed, it is a questionthat is becoming ever more central in oursociety. Is it a matter of figures or letters?Well, it depends on your perspective. Clear-ly it is important to know whether a tax policyis progressive or not, what kinds of taxesthere are, how fiscal balances evolve, whattaxes are levied on labor income and capi-tal income... That is, one must study the fi-gures. But one must also learn new wordsabout financial behaviors (fraud, evasion,graft) that ordinary citizens are quite una-ware of, accustomed as they are to the auto-matic withdrawals from their paychecks andto filing their annual tax return with basicreductions.

Izaskun was musing on these matters(“what questions Amaya asks!”) while she

was reviewing the paper she would be gi-ving at a seminar on government financeand development. The seminar was organi-zed by the non-governmental developmentorganization Alboan in cooperation with theHuman Rights Institute and the Center ofApplied Ethics at her university.

The theme of her presentation was the threeways in which government finance influen-ces development policies: mobilization ofresources, promotion of human rights, andstrengthening of public institutions.

Naturally it is difficult to demand solidarityin government finance when corruption andfiscal fraud are rampant. These were herthoughts as she arrived at the place wherethe seminar was being held.

As she got ready to pay the cab driver, shewas only slightly surprised when she heardthe question: “Ticket or bill? With tax orwithout?”

Izaskun mumbled to herself, almost withoutthinking: “Ah, figures or letters...”

4

What I really meant to say...

When Fatima feels some sym-ptom of sickness coming on,she has to make a very preci-

se self-diagnosis. If she coughs hard andhas a pain in her chest, she thinks she canput up with it. If she feels nauseous, it maybe that she is pregnant, and then she can

go to the clinic without worrying. Fatima isa young working woman in her thirties. Sheis healthy and strong, as are most of themigrants in our country. She therefore usesthe health services much less than the ave-rage person. Actually, she has only one pro-blem, but it is a very serious one. Since she

5

8

From certain perspectives, cases like the ones we’ve just described lead inevitably to conse-quences that are truly problematic (evictions, serious illness, bankruptcy...). At the same time,they motivate us to examine the circumstances and ask ourselves how we have arrived at thispoint. We need to carry out a critical analysis of the presuppositions at work; that is, we needto discover the underlying logic of what is happening.

does not have immigration documents, shecannot receive medical attention unless sheis pregnant.

Such is the absurd paradox of our presentsystem, thanks to the health services reformlaw that was passed on 20 April 2012. Thelaw replaced the universal healthcare mo-del (established in 1986) with a new systemin which medical attention is available notto “citizens” but to “insured persons.” Amongall the reforms and cutbacks of these years,this is the most horrendous because of itsinhumane character, the shameful legislati-ve maneuver that produced it, and the myo-pia of political vision that it reveals.

In fact, at the end of March 2015 the Mi-nister of Health declared his intention to mo-dify this norm, arguing that it is “a public-

health problem” and that a practical appro-ach is preferable “so that we are not over-whelmed with emergencies.” Basing his ar-gument not on people’s rights but on purepragmatism, he was proposing a policy thatthe opposition has been advocating foryears, and he was doing so for the samereasons.

Meanwhile, many individuals –perhaps asmany as 800,000– have lost health care co-verage and are suffering terribly as a result.“Pueblos Unidos,” the center run by the Je-suit Migrant Service (JMS) in Spain is loca-ted in the neighborhood of Ventilla in Ma-drid, and the staff there know this realitywell for they have accompanied Fatima andmany others persons in their efforts to findways to care for their health apart from thepublic system.

From our immediate reality to the global stage in which it is embedded

The concrete cases cited here put a human face on the problems, but we need also to contem-plate the global stage on which these persons move. In our time nothing can be understoodwithout taking into account the process of globalization that envelops us. We hear a lot aboutglobalization, but we are not fully aware of how much it is changing our lives, even when we are notconscious of it. The world has become smaller and more accessible; everything seems to be with-in our reach. This has happened partly because of spectacular advances in technology, com-munications, and transportation, but also because of the removal of trade barriers and greaterintegration of world markets.

While the result is a cornucopia of opportunities such as humankind has never before enjoyed,this process of globalization is also highly selective and ambiguous.

9

Globalization is selective because the opportunities are not offered equally to everybody. Mar-kets and borders are not liberalized out of concern for equality and justice but in function of par-ticular interests: the almost total freedom with which money circulates around the world standsin stark contrast with the tremendous restrictions on the movement of persons. It is for this rea-son that we have the heartrending scenes of migrants and refugees besieging the borders ofthe wealthiest countries and regions, such as the United States and Europe.

The inequality of opportunity is manifest everywhere. There is tremendous inequality in the percapita incomes of different nations since income is closely related to globalizing forces thatfavor worldwide economic and commercial activity. Moreover, those differences in income areincreasing.

The overall level of poverty has been reduced in recent decades, but we know that there are manyplaces where poverty is persistent and where extreme poverty has alarming consequences. Thereorganization of the global productive system and the transfer of industrial activity to emergingnations are phenomena related to globalization. They point toward a new economic reality whichfavors certain geographical areas, but this new reality does not succeed in absorbing the avai-lable labor or in improving working conditions.

Globalization gives priority to the economy and favors those who wield economic power. At thesame time, it limits the ability of governments to intervene in the economy. The power of the majortransnational companies cannot be controlled easily by legal norms or by public authorities. Suchcompanies benefit enormously from the free movement of capital and the liberalization of mar-kets. Their economic interests take precedence over every other social objective.

Globalization is not only selective but also ambiguous. It is true that it multiplies opportunities,but it multiplies threats just as much, so that we live in a world that is more insecure and unstable.International terrorism, which is a faceless force with no easily identifiable location, is the mostobvious expression of this insecurity, but another frightening aspect is the massive spread ofcertain diseases which cross territorial borders and raise justified alarm. We have had recentexperience of the instability of markets, especially financial markets, and we remember them well.

Its ambiguous nature makes it clear that globalization does not provide opportunities foreveryone because not all of us can protect ourselves successfully from its negative effects.Again, the most vulnerable persons are the preferred victims of globalization.

This whole phenomenon of globalization, with its lights and shadows, makes one thing clear: forbetter or for worse, we live in a world marked by interdependence. But interdependence impli-citly summons us to responsibility: we cannot ignore the consequences of our actions when weknow that they have foreseeable repercussions on others. It therefore appears more than justi-fiable to speak of solidarity as a moral response to interdependence.

10

We interpretthe reality

11

Solidarity as an interpretative key

We are dealing here with a word that is used frequently today, and as often occurs with termswhich become fashionable, its meaning becomes diversified. Not only that, but its content issometimes devalued and even trivialized. At the same time, its frequent repetition indicates thatit is pointing to something that society is taking more seriously. For this reason, we do well todefine clearly what kind of solidarity we are talking about.

Solidarity became the favorite slogan of the disadvantaged classes of Western society in theepoch of the great social struggles. It expressed the combined efforts of the poor to defend theirlegitimate interests and their rights when these were being systematically denied them by thesocieties in which they lived. But this horizontal solidarity was soon complemented by what wecan call vertical solidarity, which happened when other groups of the society took the side of thosewho were marginalized and had less social power, and fought for their interests. This verticalsolidarity consists in taking responsibility for the problems of others (normally, the more vulne-rable) and working to help them. There have always been generous people who practice solida-rity, but the word “solidarity” takes on new meaning when its practice not only increases quan-titatively but acquires significant social relevance.

Pope John Paul II spoke of solidarity in his 1987encyclical on the development of people. Heconsidered solidarity the best moral response to our world’s growing interdependence, and hedefined it as the attitude of making ourselves responsible for everyone.

When we talk of a “moral” response, we should not think only of individual behavior. We can andwe should infuse moral values into our institutions, our organizations, and our laws. And that hashappened. It will help us to identify the different levels at which solidarity expresses itself in oursocieties:

-- The most immediate level is the personal and voluntary solidarity that is practiced by allpersons who place their resources, economic or otherwise, at the service of those in need. Suchsolidarity can take the form of giving money occasionally to a homeless person, doing volunteerwork for several hours a week for the benefit of the sick or the needy, or taking part in the acti-vities of a social movement.

-- Solidarity also takes organized forms which are initiated by groups of volunteers in orderto carry out more systematic and even institutionalized activities that benefit those who experien-ce various kinds of need.

-- There are also institutionalized forms of solidarity which go beyond the voluntary initiati-ves of groups and touch on the very organization of society, being the fruit of an explicit or a tacitagreement. These tasks are the ones taken on by the government or by some public authority.

12

The crisis of solidarity and the social state

Although our current problems take on many dimensions, ranging from the most local to themost global, we begin by analyzing the social, economic, and political model which characteri-zes Spanish society. We describe in the following sections our analysis of the other dimensionsof our reality.

1/ Social state and solidarity

The social state is a model of governmental organization that is the fruit of a consensus that emer-ged from the convergence of progressive political ideologies after the 1929 financial crisis andthe Second World War. This new consensus, which took the shape of the social market economyin continental Europe, laid the foundation for the consolidation of democracy and the socialcohesion of societies that had seen their divisions increase during the 19th century as a resultof the industrial revolution. The consensus guaranteed a certain equality of opportunity that wouldnot limit personal freedom but would indeed make it possible. Whereas the preceding capita-list model had made advances in the granting of individual freedoms, the new model strives toachieve a balance between freedom and equality.

The key element of this model is the recognition and implementation of those social rights whichseek to make equal opportunity a concrete reality. Recognition of these rights means guarante-eing that public resources will cover people’s basic needs in areas that are vital for the exerciseof freedom. Those areas are education, health care, pensions, access to housing, and most re-cently, attention in situations of dependence.

The value which inspires this model is solidarity: we are treating of a social pact in which weall take responsibility for everyone else. This model shatters the la logic of the market becausea recipient’s needs are not covered only by what he contributes of his own resources; rather, theyare recognized as what he has a right to, independently of his contribution to society or the publictreasury. The logic of rights has replaced the logic of the market.

This variety of forms of solidarity no doubt contributes to making our societies more livable andhumane. In fact, the present crisis has inspired initiatives and solidarity networks that are helpingto relieve its most pernicious effects and defend its victims. But the crisis has also reopenedthe debate about the practice of solidarity, its effects, and its limitations. This debate becomesespecially interesting when it concentrates on the solidarity supported by the government, espe-cially since many people today consider government a factor that has contributed to the crisisrather than alleviating it. This brings us to reflect on the model of society that took shape in ourown country and in others around the middle of the 20th century: the social state.

13

The social state naturally has to integrate moral values and juridical rights with political deci-sions. This is possible thanks to a progressive fiscal system which channels a major part of pri-vate income toward public administration. By converting the funds collected into benefits for thecitizens, this fiscal system makes solidarity into an authentic public institution: solidarity is nowdependent not on the free decisions of the citizens but on a legal system that is binding on every-body. Solidarity obviously involves a redistribution of income because those who receive thegreatest benefits are not the persons who contribute most.

Behind this system there is a productive organization that functions freely: the goods and ser-vices produced and the income generated are distributed according to the logic of supply anddemand. However, a part of the income generated accrues to the government for the financingof the benefits that are guaranteed by people’s social rights.

This model requires an administration that is honest, transparent, and efficient, but it also requi-res responsible citizens who accept the model because they consider it just and who make theircontribution to society both in the creation of wealth and in the payment of taxes.

2/ Crisis of solidarity and crisis of the social state

We cannot deny that the difficult situation we are now passing through has encouraged solida-rity with those who are closest to us. An obvious example is the fact that families have becomean effective cushion to protect people from the ravages of the economic crisis. This dependen-ce of family ends up reinforcing what is called the Mediterranean or “familial” model of the socialstate, in which, it should be pointed out, the major burden falls on women. At the same time, itdiminishes solidarity with those who are not closely related. As a result, the institutions of thesocial state are tremendously weakened, to the point where the social state seems to be losingthe legitimacy that once sustained it. Moreover, the consensus among different ideological cu-rrents that made its development possible appears to be waning. Can it be said that, when dif-ficult times come, people tend to give priority to their own flesh and blood and fail to promoteattitudes and initiatives that are more altruistic?

The result is the daily experience we have of living in a society that is less hospitable, less welco-ming, less secure, and more threatening. We have the diffuse but unsettling feeling that we arelosing something that had slowly but steadily become consolidated and that seemed irreversi-ble: the model of the social state as it developed historically. Such a situation produces greatmalaise.

All this leads us to affirm that the present crisis, which is a crisis of solidarity, involves a radicalquestioning of the social state. People have been talking about this for years, but now, since thecrisis is more evident, it is seen not as transitory phase but as a structural fixture: it affects thevery foundations of the model, the solidarity that gave it legitimacy.

We are therefore face to face with a serious crisis, not just because of its effects are morenoticeable but because it has ultimate consequences for the social-state model, which appea-red definitively established. The crisis is serious because it is no longer possible to think that thesituation will return to the way it was before: we can no longer use the past to design the future,nor can we hope to recover what is lost. This crisis demands of us tremendous imagination andcreativity.

To understand its reach, we refer to three dynamics that are intertwined and reinforce each other.Here, we describe them.

-- There is a growing conviction that this model of the state is of itself sufficient toguarantee solidarity. Once the political powers and the public administration appear to becommitted to solidarity, citizens feel that they can dedicate themselves to pursuing their legiti-mate personal interests and not worry so much about others. Solidarity has been adopted so firmlyby the public powers that an undue dichotomy has opened up between the market and the govern-ment, between the private and the public sectors. Thus we have the paradox that institutionalsolidarity has deactivated voluntary solidarity. In other words, the model has fallen victim to its ownvirtues. The social state that has benefited everybody has had the undesired consequence ofspreading a unilateral culture of rights, and unfortunately this culture of rights has become sodeeply rooted today that it neglects its indispensable complement, the culture of duties and res-ponsibilities.

-- There is growing conviction that when the social state grows too large, it deactiva-tes the initiatives of citizens. In its first stages, the social state gained legitimacy by carryingout its proper functions effectively, by increasing social benefits, and by improving the welfareof everybody. As a result of that rapid and spectacular development, however, the state grew toa size that made it less efficient or even inefficient, and it became increasingly opaque. Inefficiencyand corruption are the two main flaws that afflict the social state today and that contribute to theloss of legitimacy for its institutions. That is why we often hear it said that the initiative must bereturned to civil society and the market and that cooperation and solidarity need to be replacedby freedom and competition.

-- There is evidence that the model of the social state is unviable in the context ofglobalization. If the process of globalization is unstoppable, there will doubtlessly be problemsfor the development of the social state. In a global market with disappearing borders and moreopen competition, the countries with lower standards of living (and consequently lower produc-tion costs) are better able to export their products. We should not forget that globalization pre-sents opportunities for the emerging countries, which find new avenues of development openedup to them. However, for countries with a higher standard of living and higher social costs, glo-balization is a handicap that is difficult to overcome.

3/ Crisis of the social state and development of the finance economy

To these factors we have analyzed so far we must add still another, namely, the finance economy,which has developed with unusual force in recent years and was largely responsible for thegreat economic crisis in the years following 2007. The almost complete liberalization of finan-cial transactions is one more manifestation of globalization. This liberalization was reinforcedby a deregulating mentality and was promoted by the managers of the financial institutions, whoknew how to take full advantage of the circumstances to extract the maximum returns from theirdevious strategies. The crisis produced by all those transactions leaves us with some importantquestions:

-- Why has globalizing liberalization proceeded more rapidly in the finance sector than in othersectors? Is there not good reason to question this selective globalization? What persons or ins-titutions have established the different rhythms of liberalization? Will there not be at least someneed to moderate the rhythm of market liberalization?

14

15

-- Has not the financial crisis made us aware once again that the market, when it is allowed tofunction without controls, ends up producing distortions that are harmful for everybody?

But the financial crisis poses other questions that go beyond the worldwide liberalization of mar-kets. Today when there is talk of the financialization of the economy, we are once again facedwith a paradox.

The development of money and finance, thanks to savings, allowed for improved production ofgoods and a better life for many people. The finance economy became an indispensable com-plement of the productive economy, which grew and improved with its help. The spectaculargrowth of the finance economy was initially fueled by the need to reduce the risk in markets thatare becoming ever more volatile and unstable. After that initial impulse, however, the finance eco-nomy has acquired such huge dimensions and extreme complexity that it has become an obs-tacle for the normal growth in the production of goods and services. The finance economy hasended up being the determining factor of all economic activity. Moreover, it is the source ofincreasing inequality, both when comparing the returns on capital with the returns on labor (thefiscal burden is here decisive) and when comparing the returns on financial capital with thereturns on productive capital (because the latter takes much longer to mature and become pro-fitable).

Beyond the technical complexities, which even the experts understand only with difficulty, thereis a certain mentality that is evident, one that is being powerfully promulgated throughout thesociety: it is the obsessive desire for short-term economic gain, something that the rapid deve-lopment of finance has made possible and even easy. A great many people have irresponsiblybenefited from financial manipulations, without considering the medium or long-term conse-quences. The crisis has been fed by such very cruel maneuvers.

Solidarity and the European Union

As we stated from the beginning, when describing the framework of globalization, the crisis ofsolidarity that we have been analyzing is not limited to Spanish society. Although Spain is cer-tainly where we perceive its effects most directly and most harshly, our country can no longerunderstand itself apart from the European or the global context. Spain cannot and should notattempt to revamp on its own the social-state model. It would be foolish to insist on national sove-reignty in order to close ourselves off to other horizons. Solidarity has played an important rolein all of Europe, but today it is being questioned and weakened.

All human, social, and political realities are ambiguous: their positive aspects coexist with other,negative aspects. As citizens we must learn to discern between these realities so as to strengthenthe positive and combat the negative. In the European Union today we see more shadow than

light. Especially alarming is the disaffection of many European citizens with regard to the pro-ject of the Union itself. Also, the recent crisis has made evident the imbalance of power in theEuropean institutions.

This reality cannot obscure the fact that the founders of a united Europe were seeking aboveall a system that would guarantee the peaceful coexistence of peoples who for centuries hadengaged in innumerable wars and endless discords. The European project was at once ambitiousand realistic (the goal was political, the means were economic). It was totally original becausethere was no pre-existing model. And it was launched with boldness even though there were stillmany wounds left open from the Second World War.

It would take us too long to enter into all the details of this process, which has now lasted morethan six decades. The advances on the economic side have been much more rapid than on thepolitical side, with the result that many believe that the “Europe of merchants” is consideredmore important than the “Europe of citizens.”

However, we should be aware that, when the European Union was being established, mecha-nisms of solidarity were introduced wherever appropriate. Stress was placed especially on inte-rregional solidarity as a way to help the less developed regions, and also to prevent the forese-eable negative effects that could result from integration into a single European market. In a way,an earnest effort was made to endow the European model under construction with schemes andvalues inspired by the social state, which was already functioning successfully in many membercountries.

Another aspect of the European Union worthy of mention at this moment is the process for expan-sion. The reasons for including this process are diverse, but most basic was the desire to incor-porate new members into the project of peaceful co-existence which began in Europe in the1950s. The theme of European unity is not simple; one of the problematic issues is the very con-cept of Europe and its geographical limits. However, there is no doubt that the whole processis founded on European culture, which was formed over centuries with contributions from Gree-ce, from Rome, from Christianity, from the Enlightenment, and from modernity. This patrimonyinvolves achievements that have benefited all humanity, although there are shadowy aspects ofthe history as well. There are many elements of European culture that must be cherished andpreserved, such as the centrality and the essential dignity of the human person, the recognitionof human rights (both civil and social), economic progress, and increased material wellbeing. Agood way of summing up the meaning of all this are the two ideals, solidarity and subsidiarity.

1/ The European Union and the crisis of solidarity

The crisis has affected the structures of solidarity in Europe as a whole, but the roots of the crisisgo beyond the present economic predicament. We have to look also at the most recent stepsthat have been taken in the construction of Europe: the establishment of a single currency andthe expansion of the Union to include many formerly communist countries. These developmentshave brought with them various difficulties:

-- The acceleration of the expansion process has incorporated countries with very diversetrajectories, with different economic structures, with high levels of inequality, and with very dis-tinct cultures even within the European mold. The result is a European Union with a great diver-sity that is not always sufficiently integrated in the institutions.

16

17

-- The single currency was the last step in a process which revealed the unevenness of Eu-ropean integration. The Euro was a source of European pride when it was functioning well infavorable economic times, but the financial crisis made evident the lack of political instrumentscapable of taking the needed measures with agility and rapidity. Unfortunately, that lack of ade-quate political structures resulted in the imposition of decisions by the countries in the Unionwith the most power.

All this has only accentuated the already traditional indifference of the European citizenry, whowere never given a good explanation of the meaning and the values of the project. That indifferen-ce now seems to be taking on aggressive aspects. Our common substrate, the inherited Europ-ean culture, has not sufficed to give us a sense of solidarity in the face of our common problems.Rather, it has led us to barricade ourselves behind national governments so that these will defendus without consideration of what lies beyond our national borders.

This primacy of the interests of the member states over the interests of the Union can be interpre-ted as another manifestation of the individualism so characteristic of contemporary culture, buthere at the level of nations. Particular interests are given absolute priority over general interests.

The way in which the European Union has dealt with the consequences of the economic crisisreflects many of the imbalances and unfinished processes that we have pointed out. The res-cue programs that have been imposed on the continent’s most indebted economies attempt tofollow an agenda of structural reforms that in many cases are necessary, but in practice suchprograms have demanded adjustment measures and economic austerity that have hinderedrecovery rather than helping it. Good solutions have been very difficult to find because of thelack of a clear and effective institutional architecture, the absence of a decidedly Europeanconsciousness, and the imbalance between the Eurozone’s integrated monetary policies andfiscal policies which are the exclusive responsibility of each member country. The final result isstill uncertain, but even now the European dream has been seriously damaged, and people’sidentity as European citizens along with it.

Planetary solidarity,citizens of the world

European solidarity cannot prescind from global solidarity because, in a world as interdepen-dent as ours, it is not enough to reinforce borders and build walls. There exists a long traditionof personal solidarity and social solidarity which reaches around the globe. In these times whenthat tradition is seriously questioned, it must be renewed and strengthened, but it is at the levelof public policies and institutions that new responses of solidarity are most necessary right now.

Our efforts to set up institutional mechanisms of solidarity –such as within national states andin the spaces of regional integration, like the European Union– should be extended to provideuniversal coverage for a world that increasingly functions as an economic unity.

1/ International cooperation: an expression of global solidarity

It is a fact that solidarity is being expressed in many ways around the world. There is greatersensitivity towards those who live below the living standards that we enjoy. This increased sympa-thy is due to the abundance of information we have available today, as well as to our direct con-tacts through traveling and volunteering in developing countries, and other such experiences.But it is also due to the existence of channels for the resources that are voluntarily donated bymany persons; these channels are provided mainly by a wide network of non-governmentalorganizations.

However, as a result of the crisis we are experiencing and the growing social needs in our owncountry, many people are strongly questioning the need to express our solidarity with those whoare suffering most in our world. Many are setting our internal social needs over against more glo-bal needs, thus fracturing the spirit of solidarity, which by definition must be universal.

Governments also include in their budgets funds for development assistance. In so doing, theyare responding to the resolution adopted by the United Nations in 1972, according to which themore industrialized nations would dedicate 0.7% of their GDP to official development aid for theimpoverished countries of the South. It is true that efforts have been made, but that 0.7% levelof foreign aid funds has been reached by very few of the countries that made the initial commit-ment. The present crisis is also affecting policies in Spain, resulting in considerable cuts in thepublic funds destined for development assistance.

Development assistance is not only a question of the donors’ good will, especially when thereis evidence that the good will provides a cover for mechanisms that help to perpetuate situationsof dependency, or that benefit the donor more than they do the recipient. In these cases thereis a need to purify international solidarity, which can reach considerable quantities.

The present situation provides an opportunity for revising the quality of development aid, evenif it does no more than improve the efficiency, both among individuals and among governments,of the total funds, reduced as a result of the crisis,.

Rethinking the model of development aid requires purification of the intentions of the donors,better channeling of small efforts into larger-scale projects, and giving the counterparts greaterprotagonism in defining needs and empowering the recipients. To this end, what is needed isnot so much greater resources as better use of existing resources. That also is part of solidaritythat is well informed.

2/ The mechanisms of institutionalized global solidarity

The voluntary and organized forms of solidarity that are provided by social and governmentalinitiatives must be complemented by still another dimension of the solidarity that is our concernin this document: institutionalized solidarity. We must speak here again of the complementaritybetween the market and the public powers, but now without understanding the public powersas identified with the government, as was the case before.

This conviction is the same as the one that justifies the option for a mixed model, where marketfreedom is complemented by public regulation, which exercises some control over the marketin order to increase its advantages and reduce its negative effects. It is much more difficult now,

18

19

however, to imagine what that mixed model means because we are talking about a global mar-ket and we are proposing some kind of global body which oversees the functioning of that uni-fied market and corrects its imbalances.

On the other hand, the financial crisis has revealed the real dangers of such a large market func-tioning with total freedom, without any control or regulation. So great is the danger that urgentcalls are being heard for the establishment of a world authority to exercise functions of control.Nowadays no one finds it strange that we should be talking of some kind of world governmentthat addresses the reality of the world market. What is difficult is conceiving what such gover-nance would look like. Perhaps it would not be a single system (one great government) but acombination of different international bodies that would serve as a counterweight to the powerof the great economic powers which in fact rule the planet.

Apart from the question of financial control, we want to stress the global character of the newSustainable Development Goals which the world has established for the next 15 years, until 2030.These 17 goals have three major objectives: eliminating extreme poverty, struggling againstinequality and injustice, and stopping climate change. These goals for sustainable deve-lopment that have been marked out by the United Nations are the responsibility of all countriesand all persons.

Environmental solidarity

In our time global solidarity takes on new dimensions since we all have a tremendous respon-sibility for the common patrimony of humanity, the planet earth. This is the “common home” aboutwhich Pope Francis speaks in his encyclical Laudato Si’ and which he made the center of hisdiscourse at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit which took place in September2015.

Today we must recognize that the physical setting that envelops us is being seriously threatened,precisely by the action of human beings. Until the 1950s the environment was not consideredespecially relevant from a moral point of view; it was viewed only as a source of natural resour-ces for our societies, or it was a challenge which human beings had to dominate by means ofamazing infrastructure.

Nowadays we are conscious that any vision of the future requires us to take full account ofthe ecological and environmental implications of our actions.

The environmental challenges are most evident in their local and global dimensions. While theimmediate effects are produced in a defined local context, the accumulated effects take on glo-bal dimensions because all ecosystems are interconnected. The effects are therefore multipliedboth in time and in space.

The same science that helped us progress is now warning us about the risks we are running aswe exceed some of the physical limits of the planet. Our economic and technological systemsallow us to enjoy levels of wellbeing that were unknown to previous ages. Nevertheless, thiswellbeing has been attained by means of intensive use of non-renewable resources (oil, coal,minerals) that will soon be exhausted. At the same time we are putting such great pressure oncertain renewable resources (water, forests, fisheries) that their survival and regeneration isbecoming ever more precarious.

Urban concentration, industrial development, massive consumption, commercial distribution (bot-tling and packaging), and transportation have caused exponential growth of waste products. Airpollution, water contamination (oceans, lakes, aquifers) and soil degradation constitute some ofthe great challenges of our time. Even though there has been an increase in environmentallegislation and protection, we still have many areas where further improvement is necessary (inSpain, the purification of water is a notable case).

Our economic system needs robust consumption to create employment and sustain investment.In recent years we have seen the dramatic effects of a sharp reduction in economic activity, andwe are witnessing an internal contradiction that is becoming ever more evident over the long term:the exhaustion of resources and the difficulty of disposing of waste products.

Technology is a great instrument for trying to turn the situation around, and efforts are beingmade to find alternatives that require fewer and more efficient inputs. Even so, it is becomingclearer that a sustainable system, one that offers decent living conditions for all persons, needsto find paths where consumption is not the only motor of the economy. Some of these paths arealready in evidence: economic activities for the conservation of nature, management of wasteproducts, efficient design of products and processes, ecologically integrated agricultural pro-duction and livestock raising, development of renewable sources of energy, etc. There is a variedconstellation of initiatives which are grouped together under the concept of the “green economy.”

Although it is true that this concept of the green economy runs the risk of becoming a disguisefor the same consumerist model (“business as usual”), we cannot deny that it has great potential,both for mobilizing important public and private resources and for promoting dynamic activitiesoriented toward sustainability. Our legitimate suspicions should not put a brake on what is abasically positive orientation.

Even if contamination and resource exhaustion were not the serious problems they are, recentyears have revealed to us a new risk associated with human activity. We are talking about clima-te change, that is, the humanly induced acceleration of the processes leading to an increase inthe average temperature of the planet. The International Climate Change Panel, an agency of theUnited Nations, has produced a series of reports which document how the accumulation of gases,especially carbon dioxide, is producing a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. The Panel’srecommendation is limiting the emission of such gases in order to prevent worldwide tempera-tures from rising more than 2 degrees Centigrade.

Reducing the emission of gases is a challenge for everybody, but there is resistance. Limitingeconomic growth is unacceptable to the emerging economies because they now have, for thefirst time in history, the opportunity to help millions of people to escape from poverty. For thedeveloped economies limiting growth is unacceptable because it means changing our lifes-tyles, and this is an extremely complicated matter.

20

21

In the case of the Mediterranean countries, the forecasts indicate that serious climatic changeswill provoke prolonged droughts, widespread desertification, and other related phenomena suchas degradation of soil, loss of biodiversity, and reduced agricultural production. Adaptation tosuch an ecosystem would require a serious improvement in our infrastructure, and it would pro-duce scarcity, something that is far from our thoughts today but that unfortunately is very possi-ble given the forecasts available.

The pronounced role that human beings play in climate change has serious moral implications.It is clearly a global phenomenon, which means that all of us must acknowledge some responsi-bility for it. The responsibility is of different grades, however, because those of us in industriali-zed countries have been contributing to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphe-re for a much longer time than others. The moral obligation also has a novel aspect since the“future generations” become subjects of our concern. If it is difficult for us to make decisionsabout immediate matters, it is much more difficult to propose sacrifices or efforts that will bene-fit only generations to come and not ourselves. Nevertheless, the solidarity that we are advo-cating must also take responsibility for making a sustainable future possible.

22

We proposeviable solutions

23

We conclude these reflections with some proposals and some questions still to beanswered. We offer our contribution with humility as a subject for public debate. Wedo not propose a complete set of initiatives or a political program, but only a few ideaswhich can be incorporated into a reform agenda. They are ideas that we hope will helpus to escape from the crisis with our spirit of solidarity strengthened and renewed.

We begin by mentioning some of the most important challenges our society is facing, and bydefining the principles that will guide us as we search for solutions. We present below a seriesof proposals (or open questions) which constitute an action agenda at the three levels of soli-darity: that of individual citizens, that of organized society, and that of public policies.

Some principlesto guide us

In our search for alternatives, we believe that there are certain ineradicable principles, and wewant to recall them since they are the ones that inspired the model of the social state from itsorigins.

1/ The human person at the center

This principle was formulated by the Second Vatican Council, which brought together many phi-losophical, cultural, and religious traditions: “The beginning, the subject, and the goal of all socialinstitutions is and must be the human person, which for its part and by its very nature standscompletely in need of social life” (Gaudium et Spes, no. 25). This means that all social, politi-cal, and economic institutions must be at the service of the human person.

2/ Human development, human rights

Human dignity means that all human beings should be able to develop in accord with the rightsthey have as persons, but also in accord with their own aspirations (development of abilities).Human beings should be the principal protagonists in their own development, in defining whothey are and who they hope to be.

3/ The common good of society

Since human persons are social beings who live in society, it is important that society be orga-nized in a way that offers them what is most essential for their development. The common goodis the totality of conditions that society should offer all persons so that they can follow their voca-tion and realize their legitimate aspirations.

24

Some proposals and tasks yet remaining

These principles must be put into practice in our present-day context, a time when everything isbecoming fractured and in danger of being lost. We do not have ready solutions for the challen-ges we have mentioned, but we want to explore new possibilities and formulate questions thatwill give rise to creativity. We refuse to be carried away by the sterile pessimism, that urges us toresign ourselves to a society without solidarity. Nor do we want to embrace an, idealistic obstinacythat clings to successful models of the past but fails to realize how different the situation is todayand how serious the problems are. Can we once again put our faith in solidarity and be opento revising the particular models that give expression to solidarity?

We present here a Decalogue of proposals for strengthening solidarity and reinforcing the meansfor making it reality. In some cases we suggest concrete actions, and in others we present cha-llenges for which we have no solution but which still need to be addressed. These proposalsaddress the three ways in which solidarity can be expressed: the spontaneous solidarity of citi-zenship, the organized solidarity of civil society, and the institutionalized solidarity of government.

4/ Solidarity

The social nature of all human beings means that they should accept responsibility for the waysin which their lives and activities affect others. Solidarity, as we have said, implies that we areall responsible for one another. Solidarity should therefore exist in balance with responsible citi-zenship but also in healthy tension with it.

5/ Subsidiarity

In a well-balanced society that is organized according to the various structural levels (person,family, intermediate institutions, government), each level should be granted its own proper mar-gin of action. Higher levels should not interfere with lower ones except when the latter are una-ble to act effectively. In this way, limits are set on the function of the government, whose duty isto guarantee certain minimal needs but not to take full responsibility for them. The governmentshould promote and support the initiatives of others rather than seek to replace them.

6/ Social rights

Social rights are a decisive component of the common good because they guarantee everyoneequality of opportunity, as well as protection and security. However, the degree of their realiza-tion is not defined beforehand but rather depends on the political and economic decisions ofeach society.

25

1/ A citizenry committed to solidarity

-- Promoting a culture of solidarity

We have already stated that the starting point for a society committed to solidarity is a culture inwhich citizens view themselves as co-responsible for the needs of all, especially of those whohave fewer opportunities. The magnitude of the present crisis has highlighted the urgent needto promote among the citizenry a firm commitment to the common good. To that end we encou-rage people to engage in sincere personal, familial, and community reflection that will help usdo the following:

• Review our lifestyles and move toward greater austerity, which will enable us to “live moresimply so that others can simply live”;

• Practice daily gestures of solidarity that bring us closer to those in need;

• Seek out means to participate in public life and contribute to the common good.

2/ A social fabric that promotes solidarity

-- Strengthening civil society

It becomes more evident every day that a third element needs to be incorporated into the deba-te about market vs. government, namely, civil society with its institutions, and the citizenry in gene-ral. The civil society is always producing new initiatives which show how the general interestsof the citizenry, especially concern for the most vulnerable, do not have to be carried out exclu-sively by the government. If in the past the social state made it seem that the public sphere coin-cided with the governmental, today we understand that such a conception not only lacks a basisin reason but impoverishes society and is harmful for everyone.

For the exercise of citizenry we need intermediate institutions capable of channeling and media-ting people’s participation in public life. The present crisis has made plain the increasing dete-rioration of social mediations which have traditionally facilitated citizen participation (politicalparties, unions, neighborhood organizations, etc.). At the same time new movements and orga-nizations have emerged which, while being well recognized socially, do not yet always have thecapacity of giving full participation to the citizenry. For these reasons we see the following tasksas urgent:

• Making citizens fully aware of the enormous capacity they have for bringing about socialchange, when they work closely together and act as a counter-force to other real powers.

• Respecting and guaranteeing the full exercise of participation that is born of civil society.

• Developing new incentives and assistance for the organizations of civil society, such as socialrecognition and patron support.

• Promoting the integration of civil society with the government and with the market so that toge-ther they pursue the common good, both in the design and provision of public services andin the development of the civil economy that we will speak about below.

• Maintaining and revitalizing the structures, functions, and articulation of civil society so thatthey are true channels for citizen participation in public spaces.

• Promoting digital training and the use of social networks as spaces for citizen communica-tion.

-- Developing the civil economy

Nowadays new ways are opening up for developing the civil economy as opposed to the domi-nant political economy. Pope Benedict XVI reflected on this civil economy in his encyclical Caritasin veritate. Instead of the model of the homo oeconomicus, which has been dominant in econo-mics until now, we need today a less reductionist anthropological vision that takes into accountall the dimensions of human reality, not just the economic. This vision should be realized in theeconomic realm by promoting businesses where the traditional criteria (maximization of profit,with all the variations that the expression allows) are combined with more altruistic criteria, orien-ted to the good of others and inspired by the ideals of gift and reciprocity.

Worthy of mention here are a great diversity of creative initiatives in consuming (fair trade, consu-mer cooperatives, direct producer-consumer relations...), financing (ethical banking, solidarityfunds...), production (recycling economy, social undertakings), forms of property (cooperatives,social insertion businesses...), and new organizational models (networks, work-sharing systems...).Even though they are only in their initial stages in our society, they should be encouraged for theyare the embryo of a new economic logic that is finely tuned to the ideal of solidarity. We believethat these new initiatives should be encouraged and promoted in the search for new means tomake solidarity a reality in economic activity.

3/ Renewed public policies for strengthening solidarity

The third level of solidarity, and the one we have most concentrated on in this document, is thesolidarity that is institutionalized by means of government action and public policies. We believethat profound dialogue is necessary in order to reach broad agreement about key social andpolitical questions.

Today it is essential to have basic accord regarding long-term policies which will serve to pro-mote public action independently of the political tendency of the government in power. What ismore, there is a need to have basic principles and practices that are agreed upon not only bythe political parties but also by the majority of social organizations. With these basic accords inplace, the different social and political actors should offer proposals that will give concreteshape to a general consensus.

We propose seven major areas of agreement: four refer to national policies (revitalizationof the social state, education, regeneration of public life, and policies of inclusion) and three tobroader horizons of solidarity (environment, Europe, and global responsibility).

-- Renew and strengthen the social state

The model of the social state should be maintained for it is difficult to imagine a better alternative.However, it is necessary to review its practices, correct its excesses, and reorganize its institu-tions as to make them more transparent, more efficient, and more participatory. Debate should

26

be carried on, not to dismantle the social state but to generate a broad-based consensus thatwill allow it to be strengthened, re-envisioned, and recreated. In our opinion, this reflection shouldtreat at least the following aspects:

• Social rights. They are a crucial conquest of our societies, but we need to correct their pos-sible dysfunctions and carry on serious public debate about the resources needed to make theman effective reality.

• Market/government equilibrium. There is a growing consensus that neither the market northe state is sufficient by itself to guarantee the development of a peaceful and just society. How-ever, debate about this matter is often highly unproductive because people adopt sharply defi-ned postures: the defenders of the market criticize the real deficiencies of politics (lack of atten-tion to general interests and the common good) from an idealized conception of the economy (themarket as the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and the best guarantee of indivi-dual liberties). For their part, the defenders of politics and the state criticize the real deficienciesof the market (its tendency to increase differences) from an idealized conception of politics (solelyseeking the general interests of society). It is necessary to establish a basic framework, sharedby all, which allows both logics to combine along the lines already realized in other Europeancountries.

• The public sphere and the sphere of government. It is important to distinguish between thepublic sphere (what serves the general interest or the common good of society) and the sphereof government (what is done by the state). The government must act as the guarantor of funda-mental rights (including social rights) by establishing mechanisms which will facilitate the par-ticipation of society in the task of creating solidarity.

• An equitable, efficient, and adequate fiscal system. The social state is sustained by theeconomic contributions of citizens and businesses. In view of recent developments, our presentfiscal system is being revised to make it more equitable, so that it will function more progressi-vely and reapportion the contributions of labor income and capital gains. However, in order forthe system to regain legitimacy and be accepted by all, it is indispensable that fiscal fraud becombated and that resource administration be more transparent.

-- Universal, high-quality education

Solidarity affects education in a double sense. First, solidarity demands that education be avai-lable to everyone and that it not be another source of inequality and discrimination; rather, itshould make a contribution to social cohesion and integration. Second, solidarity should be oneof the principal aims of education; it should be considered a central value of the kind of personwe wish to form. This implies a critique of the individualistic view of the human person, a view thatfails to understand that living with others is not only an opportunity but also a responsibility.

The ongoing political and social confrontation regarding education does little to contribute tothis twofold aspect of solidarity. Rather, it is provoking disorientation in our society and wides-pread discouragement among education professionals. We therefore propose to engage in thevital debate which will allow us to arrive at a broad and stable educational pact among all the socialand political forces. Such an agreement should include the following elements:

• Promoting public recognition of education as a pillar of development and democracy, andrestoring social esteem to educators as key contributors to those goals.

27

• Paying special attention to the different educational stages; making early childhoodeducation truly accessible to the whole population, with the complementary formation of theparents; assuring equality of opportunity in university education; and dignifying and improvingprofessional training.

• Making the improved quality of education a central objective so that education providespersons the possibility of developing all their dimensions and so succeed in life.

• Promoting formation of children and young people in solidarity.

-- Social policies in the fight against poverty

Public solidarity is expressed first of all in the development of policies for assisting the victims ofpoverty and exclusion. The intensity of the current crisis has burst the seams of our social poli-cies, which have always enjoyed a broad basic consensus. It is now necessary to revise thesepolicies and practices and to renew that broad consensus that was the foundation for policiesof social inclusion. Three aspects must be given special attention:

• The excluded. Special attention should be given to the victims of exclusion that the crisis hasproduced. Those of us who continue to benefit in some way from the social state cannot forgetthose who have been condemned to marginalization and exclusion. A society committed to soli-darity must care above all for the most vulnerable, paying special attention to those groups whichPope Francis says are considered to be our society’s “rubbish” (within the context of what he callsthe “throwaway culture”). Employment policy and the struggle against poverty in general shouldbe strengthened, and they should be revised with a view to making them more efficient (on thebasis of existing evidence).

• Migrants and refugees. Immigrants, who until a few years ago were a necessary source oflabor for a society whose demographic profile was in decline, are today considered persons weneed to “dispose of”: we do not understand the reasons which drive them to come here, nor arewe aware of the tremendous anxiety they experience. We limit ourselves to believing that theyare no longer needed here; there’s no place for them.

At the same time, a whole new wave of refugees is calling at the doors of Europe, seeking pro-tection from persecution and war. All the countries of Europe must be ready to receive this exo-dus of refugees arriving at our borders and must try to integrate them firmly into our society atall levels.

Beyond the humanitarian and legal duty we have to welcome the refugees, we must establish atthe European level a more coherent migratory and refugee policy, one that organizes and faci-litates different national projects and guarantees protection in a world where there is growingconflict and a great disproportion between population distribution and the human and econo-mic resources available.

• Family. In recent years the institution of the family has diversified, but it has also become wea-ker. The decrease in the number of children and the increasing equality between men and womenare among the most noteworthy manifestations of the changes that have occurred. Nevertheless,we are aware that much still needs to be done with regards to equality. Also, many families arestill in situations of extreme vulnerability. A solid family policy requires the provision of assistan-ce that corresponds to these changes; it most particularly requires special attention to the most

28

vulnerable families and their members. In this regard, there should be serious study of the via-bility, the advantages, and the drawbacks of a minimum basic income for all.

-- Regeneration of public life, institutional quality, and social leadership1

This is a theme of great importance for public opinion and the day-to-day behavior of ordinarycitizens. In many cases the functioning of institutions has not measured up to what the situationdemands, and the absence of leaders of recognized authority who are committed to the com-mon good has damaged the credibility of institutions. It is wrong to demand sacrifices of thepeople or to impose cutbacks on them when there are multiple and manifest cases of abuse:economic crimes (fraud, tax evasion, etc.) and political illegalities (corruption, frequent cases ofprevarication, use of power for personal benefit, nepotism, etc.).

We believe in the need to recover a social consensus that promotes revitalization of our publiclife and improves the quality and transparency of our institutions. To that end:

• It is necessary to inspire new leadership in the different spheres of public life; it must be effi-cient leadership that has a vision that is inclusive and cohesive.

• Every form of abuse should be prosecuted, clarified, and punished so that people will feelconfident that justice is being done.

• Transparency, technical skill, and democracy must be indispensable qualities of the ins-titutions most relevant for our public life. The commitment of all actors to greater transparencyis essential for revitalization of public life. If the institutions, the political parties, and all the publicauthorities agree to subject themselves to clear and demanding rules for transparency, with goodcontrol practices and public rendering of accounts and evaluation, then the whole of society willadvance in this area that is especially vital for democratic renewal.

• In particular, it is necessary to revise the way the political parties function so so that partyinterests are not given priority over the common good. The excessive weight of party influencemust be lessened by means of an electoral reform that encourages citizen participation, reducesthe power of party machines, and confers greater protagonism on parliamentary life.

• There is also an urgent need to create an effective and real separation of the public powers.Since the independence of the judicial power is of the greatest importance, all party and cor-porate politicization of the judicial organs of government must be avoided. In this regard, thesystem of quotas must be eliminated, procedures must be established which guarantee profes-sionalism and pluralism, the judicial branch must be given the resources it needs, and it mustestablish its own systems of accountability.

• Freedom of expression and freedom of information should be guaranteed, and theyshould also be exercised responsibly. The mass media should set up systems of self-control thatentail the best acceptable practices. Committees of information ethics should be charged withguaranteeing and protecting both freedom of expression and the veracity and proper utilizationof information. All opportunist and political use of information, which is common these days,

29

1 This point includes several of the proposals included in the declaration of UNIJES: “Toward the DemocraticRegeneration of Public Life in Spain”.

should be avoided. Since both private and public means of communication are important ins-truments for democracy and for preserving the value of authentic politics, they should strive toexcel in serving society. Moreover, they should be transparent in their management, finance, andcontrol.

-- Solidarity with the environment

It is becoming impossible to think about the future of humanity without considering the environ-mental implications. If we want to speak about solidarity, then we must also talk about the con-tamination of soils, water, and air, and also about the destruction of biodiversity and all the otherphenomena resulting from climate change. As the current crisis has made abundantly evident,poverty and climate change are the two great challenges of the 21st century.

In his recent encyclical, Laudato Si’, Pope Francis has made clear the Church’s commitment toenvironmental issues. As the Pope says, “We are faced not with two separate crises, oneenvironmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is bothsocial and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach tocombating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protectingnature” (no. 139).

Integral ecology, as proposed by Pope Francis, is as much concerned with the care for our pla-net, which is our common home, as it is with the care for persons. Our own proposals are in partinspired by the recent encyclical:

• We should promote a multi-dimensional ecology: an environmental ecology that requires“consideration of the capacity for regeneration of each ecosystem”; an economic ecology thatconsiders the implications of its decisions beyond increasing profit and reducing costs; and asocial ecology that looks after the health and the strengthening of institutions.

• We should promote a cultural ecology that honors the rights of the native peoples and theircultures. Respect for and appreciation of local activity is essential. We should promote an eco-logy of everyday life that assures everyone the right to decent housing in peaceful neighbor-hoods that have access to social services. Such an ecology of everyday life also requires publictransportation as a means for reducing contamination and the emission of greenhouse gases.

• We should promote a human ecology based on the common good. Such an ecology not onlyrespects persons and their social welfare, but also includes a call to solidarity and the preferen-tial option for the poor, for we live in contexts of ever greater inequality, where more and morepeople find themselves bereft of social and economic relations.

• We should strive to have the need for justice between generations recognized as a moralimperative of our time. To that end, it is necessary to foster a profound attitude of dialogue at dif-ferent levels: in local, national, and international politics; in rendering the processes of politicaldecisions transparent; and in relations with the scientific world.

• We should pay special attention to certain situations in our present context that require deci-sive and urgent action, such as the plight of persons too poor to pay for energy. All homesshould be guaranteed basic heating requirements and decent living conditions. Also, there shouldbe a transition toward renewable sources of energy; such a transition, guided by the criteria ofsocial justice, should involve citizen participation.

30

• We should foster initiatives that seek to promote simpler lifestyles that put less stress onconsumption. Among these are fair-trade initiatives, buyers’ groups that bring together produ-cers and consumers of food products, and all that has to do with a collaborative economy. Eco-logical conversion requires above all the development of lifestyles that reduce consumption andpromote recycling and reutilization as ways toward achieving a life of more sobriety and solidarity.

-- A Europe with greater solidarity

We have the impression of being immersed in a process that we do not control, a process thatis directed by powerful groups, both within the community and without, that are imposing them-selves on the European Union as a whole. We need to recover the consciousness and the con-viction that the initiative belongs to us. Europe should once again become a space for promo-ting solidarity, just as it was in the final decades of the 20th century. This means advancing in theconstruction of Europe and correcting the imbalances of the present half-built model. We needa dialogue that allows for a consensus to be formed, one that will promote this process of deve-loping the European model. Some suggestions to this end are the following:

• “More Europe”.We are aware that on this point no consensus exists today, and for that rea-son it should continue to be the subject of debate. Given the existing situation –namely, we arealready embarked on the project, it would be difficult to reverse the process, the project is pre-senting noticeable difficulties, and our future needs to be inspired by the values of peace andsolidarity– it is necessary to plan to move forward in the sense of “more Europe.” The represen-tative organs must therefore be truly representative, as in any democratic organization, and theymust be given powers sufficient for leading the process forward. This would be coherent witha unified market because the political structures should maintain some correspondence to theeconomic structures: a unified market demands an instance of political power at the same level.

• A social market economy. Not every model of the European Union is valid. We favor a modelwhich turns into reality what the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 proposed as an objective of the Union,namely, sustainable development that is based on the following: “balanced economic growth andstable prices, a highly competitive social market economy that promotes full employment andsocial progress, and a high level of protection and qualitative improvement of the environment.”In a social market economy, the market becomes the instrument for placing the economy at theservice of the human development of all.

• A fiscal Europe.Many voices are being raised on all sides, especially as a result of the recentcrisis, asking that the unified monetary system of the Euro be complemented with an advancein fiscal and budgetary policies. That is a topic that should be discussed politically, as the mone-tary union was, and it should be discussed with urgency and decisiveness since the lack of aunified fiscal policy produced very negative effects in the recent financial crisis.

• Solidarity and subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity has been invoked at decisive mo-ments in the construction of Europe, but now it must be made to function in a contrary sense:not only should the member states be allowed to do what it is within their power to do, but theorgans of the Union should concern themselves with what the governments of the member statescan no longer accomplish since they have renounced essential instruments for the sake of thewhole. The yielding of sovereignty that characterizes the Union requires that we apply the prin-ciple of subsidiarity more effectively. Only then will solidarity between countries, regions, andcitizens be guaranteed.

31

• European citizenship as a task. Solidarity cannot exist if people are not conscious of a sha-red identity. Such consciousness is lacking in the Union and cannot be formed simply by sta-ting the advantages that accrue to each member by belonging to the Union. It is necessary tohelp people appreciate the meaning of building a project that benefits everybody. A prosperouseconomy will not suffice if there is not a civil society that is conscientious and active, well orga-nized and creative, a source of initiatives that contemplate the good of all Europe, Such a civilsociety will be necessary even if there are political institutions on a par with the unified Europeanmarket.

-- Planetary solidarity, citizens of the world

It is neither ethical nor possible to build models of solidarity that function as islands in the middleof a world of inequalities where many millions of people are still deprived of their basic rights.The most urgent task for solidarity continues to be the well-being of each and every person onour planet. We therefore propose the following:

• We must recognize the responsibility we have for creating global solidarity. A few yearsago, foreign aid was popular; international solidarity was a way of being modern and relevant.Today, in times of crisis, there is much questioning of international solidarity. In the face of difficul-ties our own societies tend to retreat into themselves and concentrate exclusively on their ownproblems. It is necessary to reaffirm our moral responsibility toward poor persons beyond ourborders; at the same time we must recognize the need for strategic intelligence that is able toidentify the opportunities for development and the risks of present-day social injustice.

• We must create mechanisms of institutionalized solidarity in a global world, both ingovernments and in the worldwide civil society. In regard to the role of governments, westress the importance of reaching agreements that correspond to the general interests of allhumankind and are not limited to negotiating the particular interests of certain sectors. It is neces-sary to go further and resolutely explore new policies, instruments, and institutions that are capa-ble of establishing mechanisms that will facilitate the regulation and redistribution of the bene-fits of globalization.

• We should favor the setting up of transnational institutions that help to make glo-balization a process that benefits all human beings. Globalization has in fact shaped aworldwide economic space that is not conducive to policies of cohesion and redistribution suchas those that exist within each country. This deficiency needs to be remedied by a system of worldgovernment which has institutions truly competent to serve the needs of humankind at the pla-netary level. Imagining and designing such a system will require great creativity and political will.

• We should restore the policies of development aid. The crisis has provoked a radical cut-back in development aid and a dismantling of aid policies in many public institutions. We needto restore foreign aid funds as part of Spain’s responsibility toward the world. Aid policy shouldbe oriented toward satisfying basic social needs and strengthening the ability of institutions toimprove the quality of aid. Policies that affect the countries of the South should be coherent soas to assure that they are aligned with their development objectives.

32

33

We make a commitment

34

Concretecommitments

Having made this reflection and considered our specific reality, we want now to formulate cer-tain concrete commitments which will guide our activities as institutions of the Society ofJesus:

1/ As a central focus of our project, we want to provide our students at different levels with an education in solidarity.

We need to develop in our students sensitivity to social problems and inspire in them commit-ment to the common good, both generally and in specific actions, so that they grow to be per-sons who are conscientious, competent, compassionate, and committed.

2/ We need to make service of the common good more present in our academic research and our intellectual activity, paying special attention tothe problems of the most disadvantaged.

We have drawn up this reflection not only to evaluate a situation that affects all of usbut with the consciousness that we also have some responsibility for what is happe-ning.

The mission of the Society of Jesus, which is the service of faith and the promotionof justice in dialogue with other cultures and religious traditions, should inspire ouractions and all our institutions. We carry out our mission through a great variety of acti-vities in which solidarity can be present in many ways, but we have not always succe-eded in making it effectively present. For this reason, the present document shouldbe for us:

• An instrument for a personal examination of conscience.

• An occasion for evaluating the functioning and the activities of our institutions.

• An invitation to continue to probe deeper in our analysis of the situation and its underlyingcauses.

• A review of our social presence and that of our institutions in areas as different as personalaccompaniment, pastoral work and preaching, educational tasks, research, advocacy initiatives,and direct contact with the marginalized.

35

3/ We need to promote inclusive practices in all our educational activity, evaluating the social relevance of our schools, universities, and training centers.

4/ We need to intensify our work of accompanying, serving, and defending the most vulnerable persons and groups of our society and our world, especially when they have no way of making their voice heard or of defending their most basic rights.

5/ We need to promote Christian community in general and the Ignatian family in particular, reflecting on this document in ways that will lead us to renewed commitment and greater devotion to the common good.

Moreover, as individuals and as communities, as Jesuits and lay persons who feel part of theIgnatian family, we make the following commitments:

6/ To promote true communities of hospitality and to foster solidarity in ourcommunities.

7/ To encourage dynamics of collaboration and solidarity within our variousLocal Apostolic Platforms.

8/ To form alliances with other groups and sectors working for a solution tothe present crisis through solidarity.

Acknowledgment

We want to express our thanks for the work done by the editorial com-mission: Daniel Izuzquiza sj, Ildefonso Camacho sj, and José IgnacioGarcía sj, who made themselves available from the start in this effortto speak out during these times of profound and prolonged crisis.They have helped to illuminate our reflections and to express the sen-timent of the entire Ignatian family.

Collaborating with them was an intersectorial working group of theProvince whose members were Enrique López Viguria (UNIJES), Án-gel Arenas sj (EDUCSI), Daniel Izuzquiza sj (Pastoral), Elena Rodrí-guez-Avial (Communications), and Alberto Ares sj, Luis Arancibia, andAna Vázquez Ponzone (Sector Social). They have accompanied thiswhole process, bringing to it the expertise and the insight of each oftheir sectors.

In our efforts to build up the Province, we want to give heartfelt thanksto the communities, to PAL, and to all the sectors, works, and mem-bers of the Ignatian family who have contributed to the final versionof this document by sharing their wisdom and demonstrating theircommitment to the times in which we live.