Today, December 20th, is the International Day of Human Solidarity (established by the United Nations in 2005). This date coincides in with the creation of the World Development Foundation (established on the same date in 2002). The objective of the Foundation is to eradicate poverty and to promote human and social development in developing countries and in particular, among the poorer people in those countries.
The word “solidarity” comes from the Latin word meaning “legal” and originally had a very different meaning. In fact, the Latin noun “solidum”, in addition to meaning “hard, compact or robust”, also had a legal meaning and indicated the obligation of a creditor to pay a debt in full.
Nevertheless, our understanding of the word “solidarity” is derived from the time of the French Revolution when that word had become a moral principle. Solidarity implied a bond of brotherhood and sisterhood among citizens of a free and democratic nation. Thus, the word began to take on new meanings and changed meaning several times. For example, there was a time when solidarity referred to the camaraderie among the members of a corporation. It is interesting, however, that from a moral point of view, solidarity became a norm and is even referenced in the Constitution of the Republic of Italy: The Republic recognizes and guarantees the inviolable rights of the person, both as an individual and in the social groups where human personality is expressed. The Republic expects that the fundamental duties of political, economic and social solidarity be fulfilled (Article #2)[1].
Until recently, solidarity was an ethical, secular principle that later became a Christian value. For example, Pope John Paul II extended the meaning of this word to the interdependence of peoples and of all humankind: [Solidarity] is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all responsible for all (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, #39).
We are all responsible for all. That concept became a universal and a necessary principle with regard to the discernment of injustice. As Don Oreste Benzi has stated: there are two forms of solidarity, post-factum and ante-factum. The first form (post-factum) refers to emergency situations and demands that we gather together all the possible resources in order to intervene when some tragic event has occurred. The second form (ante-factum) impels individuals to live solidarity as a cultural model and at the same time to seek out the root causes of poverty and ways to resolve poverty so that those same individuals can support those who live in situations of misery. Today it is very clear that all those individuals who find themselves living in a situation of absolute poverty are the victims of injustice caused by unequal lifestyles and political options that are opposed to global serenity.
The analogy between anti-factum solidarity and Vincentian missions becomes an expression of the charism and at the same time becomes a clear expression of solidarity with those who are most abandoned … an expression of a desire to eliminate the causes of poverty and to bestow autonomy on those who are the victims of poverty.
Even though Vincent de Paul did not use the word “solidarity” yet when he referred to effective charity we find some strong connotations of that word. In one of his conferences to the Missionaries we read: When we go to visit poor persons, we have to sympathize with them in order to suffer with them, and put ourselves in the dispositions of that great Apostle, who said, I have made myself all to all, so that the complaint Our Lord formerly made through one of the Prophets, does not fall on us: I waited to see if someone would sympathize with me in my sufferings, and there was none. For that purpose, we have to try to stir our hearts to pity, make them sensitive to the sufferings and miseries of our neighbor.[2]The concepts of empathy, sharing, mercy and compassion provide a foundation for solidarity that enables us to be all things to all people because those “others” are my brothers and sisters … they are also a revelation of the suffering face of God. In all of this we find some hints with regard to engaging in a struggle for the common good, something which places a demand on all of us because we are all responsible for the common good.
Because of its international character and its orientation toward understanding the reality that surrounds us, solidarity is transformed into a power of continuity and renewal of human relationships. It opens us to the other as guardian and at the same time makes us custodians of humankind (in which we are immersed from the time of our birth). This responsibility for others and for the common good becomes the foundation for a Christian’s activity and options. Once again John Paul II speaks about the manner in which we might give meaning to the word solidarity: This means carrying on the tradition of charity which has expressed itself in so many different ways in the past two millennia, but which today calls for even greater resourcefulness. Now is the time for a new “creativity” in charity, not only by ensuring that help is effective but also by “getting close” to those who suffer, so that the hand that helps is seen not as a humiliating handout but as a sharing between brothers and sisters.We must therefore ensure that in every Christian community the poor feel at home. Would not this approach be the greatest and most effective presentation of the good news of the Kingdom? (Novo Millennio Ineunte, #50).
The word “solidarity” does not appear in Scripture, but we find the idea expressed in Luke 9:51, which states: when the time for his being taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to travel to Jerusalem. In this text Luke uses the word stêrizéin which means to harden or to strengthen. It can also indicate a a firm decision. The Greek wordpròsōponmeans “what the eye beholds” (pros = toward or in front of + ōps = eye). In the Old Testament, pròsōpon referred to the face of God, more precisely, referred to that part of God that was directed toward the human person. For the people of Israel, to see the face of God implied desiring to be close to God in prayer, seeking communion with God (Psalm 105:4). The face of God became visible in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6); in the meantime we await that future time when we will see God “face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12; Revelation 22:4).
Jesus knew that he had to confront the cross and so he entered into solidarity with that reality … he decided that it was necessary to confront the cross. Therefore, as Jesus took this decisive step towards Jerusalem, that movement was transformed into the image of Jesus who became “hard in the face” because he had firmly decided (stêrizéin) to face his passion and crucifixion.
Today the face of God is the face of those who are poor and it is also our face when we enter into solidarity with others in search for the common good.
In the etymology of the word solidarity we find the perfect metaphor of ourselves as people of faith. Humankind living in solidarity with one another is only possible if we are willing to deal with the cracks that are found there. A fragmented and wounded body is a fragile body. Caring for the poor implies caring for ourselves and for our home (make it a safe, welcoming and adequate place for all). A healthy body is sound body that can also be a holy body.
Girolamo Grammatico
Communication Office CM
Translated: Charles T. Plock, CM
Eastern Province, USA
[1]An English translation of the Constitution can be accessed at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/it/it037en.pdf
[1]Vincent de Paul, Correspondence, Conference, Documents, translators: Helen Marie Law, DC (Vol. 1), Marie Poole, DC (Vol. 1-13b), James King, CM (Vol. 1-2), Francis Germovnik, CM (Vol. 1-8, 13a-13b [Latin]), Esther Cavanagh, DC (Vol. 2), Ann Mary Dougherty, DC (Vol. 12); Evelyne Franc, DC (Vol. 13a-13b), Thomas Davitt, CM (Vol. 13a-13b [Latin]), Glennon E. Figge, CM (Vol. 13a-13b [Latin]), John G. Nugent, CM (Vol. 13a-13b [Latin]), Andrew Spellman, CM (Vol. 13a-13b [Latin]); edited: Jacqueline Kilar, DC (Vol. 1-2), Marie Poole, DC (Vol. 2-13b), Julia Denton, DC [editor-in-chief] (Vol. 3-10, 13a-13b), Paule Freeburg, DC (Vol. 3), Mirian Hamway, DC (Vol. 3), Elinor Hartman, DC (Vol. 4-10, 13a-13b), Ellen Van Zandt, DC (Vol. 9-13b), Ann Mary Dougherty (Vol. 11-12); annotated: John W. Carven, CM (Vol. 1-13b); New City Press, Brooklyn and Hyde Park, 1985-2009, volume XI, p. 308.
