Recently, on December 10th of this year, the world celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR.) To mark the occasion many secular and religious organizations have offered a series of reflections to demonstrate their consistent support for this historical moral document. Our own Passionists International has participated in a number of commemorative events and continues to advocate for the issues that are protected under this document. Please take some time to visit their website and read their recent newsletter.
 
This month I would like to contribute in my own small way to this affirmation by reflecting on two powerful symbols that drive the Passionist Office for Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation. The first and most powerful symbol is of course the Cross. It is a central symbol for the entire Christian community but for us Passionists the Cross has a special significance. The UDHR is another powerful symbol for us as it articulates many of the social truths that Catholic teaching offers and places it within the history of global human community.
 
I offer this reflection because for many years I have struggled to find a consistent meaning behind these two symbols. The tendency for me has been to see human rights as an expression of my own individual dignity and liberty. On the other hand the Cross has been a symbol of totally giving oneself over to God's will and the human community. These two symbols appear to be mutually exclusive and yet it is the spirituality of one and the philosophy of the other that has driven both Catholic social teaching and the mission of the Passionist JPIC Office. How is the UDHR to be reconciled with the Cross?
 
My own personal struggle with this conundrum has led me to accept three propositions:
1.      A reexamination of the Cross through the social lens,
2.      A holistic approach to Human Rights,
3.      Acceptance of a melioristic approach to history.
 
Did the cross compromise the human dignity of Christ? While we defend the dignity of Christ's divine nature, how do we defend his human dignity? Much of our Christian theology of the cross has traditionally emphasized the divine role in what we know as the Paschal Mystery and this may have caused us some confusion in how we define the cross with respect to our own human dignity. If we read the Passion narrative from the perspective of the social interaction between Christ and the governing authorities who condemned him we realize that at no point did Christ surrender his human dignity. Jesus did not command the Chief Priest to arrest him, nor did Jesus command Pilate to crucify him. We believe Jesus to be a perfect embodiment of God's love towards humanity. In the Passion narrative the example he gives is to claim his human dignity with tenacity. Thus, the history of the Cross became a witness to the close relationship between Jesus' human dignity and that of the entire human community. It illustrates further that human dignity can only be expressed in the service of the common good and in solidarity with all creation.
 
The cross expressed the human dignity of Jesus in the midst of a great social injustice. The cross was imposed on Jesus not by God but by a social system that feared the political challenge of true dignity and freedom empowered by God's love. God's response to this social injustice was to raise Jesus from the dead. In so doing, God elevated Jesus' human dignity and affirmed the dignity of our common humanity. Through the Cross we are inspired to live as free agents who share in the dignity of Christ because we know that our dignity is affirmed by God and the power of sin in our social structures cannot take that away from us.  
 
Rights flow from dignity. However a common perception identifies rights in very individualistic terms: these rights are mine and they protect me from the oppressive forces of the social community. This individualistic approach to human rights conflicts with the dignity of the human person as we have just come to understand it. This misinterpretation is particularly common in the American context.
 
There is a reason why we as Americans have a harder time defining human rights outside of this individualistic interpretation. It is grounded in the design of our nation's Constitution and in the articles that we call the Bill of Rights. The American constitution was a legal and philosophical revolution in the world of 1788 that started the world down a path of constitutionally guaranteed rights for its citizens. The American framers focused on the protection of civil and political rights. These are called "negative" rights meaning they are rights that prohibit a nation from acting against its citizenry; including infringement of free speech or freedom of religion. These rights tend to be civil and political.
 
Since then many other nations have developed constitutional laws of their own, also integrating "positive" rights. These rights are basic services that one can expect from government such as health care or education. These other layers of rights tend to be social and economic. In January of 1944 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt described this development in rights theory as a "second Bill of Rights" in what turned out to be his last State of the Union address:
 
We have come to a clear realization of the fact, however, that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry, people who are (and) out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
 
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, or race or creed.
           
While Roosevelt's vision for a second Bill of Rights is still not part of the American Constitution, the international community did embrace this vision 60 years ago with the UDHR. Articles 22 to 27 of the UDHR promote these social and economic rights. Human Rights, understood in this way, demonstrate a balance of the individual in relationship to the community. Yes, we all have individual rights that befit our own God given dignity. But we also have duties and responsibilities to our neighbors which the "positive" rights protect. The dignity of Christ as witnessed in his life and death and which God affirmed in the resurrection converge in this way with the rights and responsibilities that we celebrate with the UDHR. 
 
There remains, however, the challenge to explain the 2000 year gap between the revelation of our dignity in Jesus' acceptance of the Cross and the clarity of that dignity achieved in the UDHR. This is where a melioristic approach to history becomes helpful. Meliorism implies that the world tends to become better and that humans can aid that betterment. Because of the power of the cross I choose to believe that there is meaning in the suffering that took place 2000 years ago on Calvary and that there continues to be meaning in the ongoing social suffering that we see in our world. Within these moments when great social suffering is endured, I tend to see times of social grace and wisdom that can improve the condition of humanity if we, the human community, can act on them.  For myself there is great historical and religious significance in the fact that both the UDHR and the United Nations were born out of the cross that was the Second World War and Great Depression.
 
When the crucified Jesus was raised the apostolic community of the early church chose to live in the freedom and dignity that Christ offered. In the aftermath of World War II God raised the human community to a new level of global awareness and universal dignity. Should we not also live in the freedom and dignity that was divinely inspired to our forbearers? A melioristic approach is consistent with Christian eschatology which believes that inasmuch as we are actively living as followers of Christ on earth and empowered by the Holy Spirit we are working towards the emergence of the Kingdom of God. The power of sin is still alive and active in our society. My hope is that incrementally we, in relationship with God, Christ, and in solidarity with our human community, can grow towards this new creation based on Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation. This is a long term project, but one that is grounded in the dignity of Christ and now measured by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.