For Others, With Others

Pedro Arrupe

Men for Others–A Lecture on the 50th Anniversary
By
Fr. Lee Sung-il, SJ
Director, Sophia School Corporation Catholic Jesuit Center
On July 31, 1973, Fr .Pedro Arrupe, who at the time wasSuperior General of the Society of Jesus, addressed an assemblyof graduates of European Jesuit Schools in the city of Valencia in
Spain. As the manuscript prepared for the event was rather long,
he had to shorten it so as to save time. Nevertheless, the words
spoken by Father Arrupe caused upset among the graduates, someof whom were so angry that they stood up from their seats. It wassuch a painful subject for the graduates to hear.
The lengthy manuscript on which the lecture was based waslater made public in Spanish and also translated into French, andit has since been the object of a great deal of criticism among thealumni. There was no English translation, since English was notincluded among the languages used by the Association of European
Jesuit Schools. However, later, a condensed English version was
published by the Society of Jesus as an official translation, andso people over the world came to know of the content of Father
Arrupe’s lecture. Even in Japan, Fr. Ribas published a Japanesetranslation entitled “New Principles of Catholic Education,” though
in his translation the word “Jesuit” is replaced by “Catholic” in allreferences. This was probably due to the fact that terms like “Jesuit
school” and “Jesuit education” have a rather limited connotation in
Japan, while the content of the lecture was intended to be conveyed
to all Catholic schools.
What indeed could it have been that aroused such reactions ofcensure and protest among the graduates? Those reactions were1

due to terms used by Fr. Arrupe, that made it seems as though he
had with a single stroke, dismissed the education that had been
followed by Jesuit schools until that time. Fr. Arrupe commenced
his lecture with the following words.
Let me first ask you the following question. Have we Jesuits
been carrying out our education for the sake of justice? You and I
know that the majority of your Jesuit teachers would answer thus
to this question. In all sincerity and humility they would reply, “wedid not.”
Likewise, I am sure you yourselves will agree with this selfassessment, and with the same sincerity and humility you will
admit that you have not been trained for the kind of righteous
action and righteous “witness,” that the Church now asks of you.
For the graduates, those words must have sounded like anoutright denial of the education they had received so far. Jesuit
schools in Europe and North America are widely known as so-called‘elite schools.’ Based on the “Ratio Studiorum” or “Regulations ofStudy” of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuit Schools, which carry out
rigorous and academically high-level education, have for over 400
years came to be highly regarded, not just in the Catholic world but
in Europe and the U.S.A. as well. During and after the time of theFrench Revolution, the Jesuits were expelled from numerous areasof Europe, and they were disbanded in due course. Nevertheless,they still continued conducting their educational activities,
wherever they were expelled. A good example of this would be
Georgetown University in Washington DC. With the establishmentof the modern state education came to be state-run, and most of
the Jesuit schools were sequestered by the state, yet many schools
managed to survive as private institutions. In addition, the Jesuits
who enthusiastically carried out educational activities in their2

mission lands exerted a significant influence on the enhancementof cultures around the world, and in so doing they fortuitously
created what one might call, a “social elite.”
It was in the face of this type of history and way of life of theJesuit schools that Fr. Arrupe spoke of the necessity of “education
for justice.” It was something that primarily followed the outlookof the Catholic Church as oriented by the Second Vatican Council.
Fr. Arrupe himself on several occasions referred to the Second
Vatican Council in the course of his talk. Through this Council,
the Catholic Church sought for ways to renew and adapt the form
it hitherto possessed to the realities of present-day society. The
Synod (Council of Bishops) that subsequently followed, confirmed
this direction. Foremost in the direction was a “preferential option
for the poor.” This was to strive for the realization of “Social
Justice” on the basis of the Gospel of Christ, and for the Catholic
Church, tackling the issue of Social Justice was a “constitutive”
element in its evangelical mission.
This was an urgent and pressing issue in developing nations
during the 1970s. Political powers oppressed the people and thegap between the rich and poor widened. The Catholic Church
could not ignore the voices of people suffering from poverty anddestitution, for to stand by their side was indeed a posture basedon the Gospel of Christ.
This fundamental stance of the Catholic Church was viewed
by Father Arrupe as being the most vital factor for the renewal of
the Jesuits. Two years after the talk given in Valencia, the 32nd
General Congregation of the Society of Jesus was held in 1975,
wherein it was clarified that the mission of the Society of Jesus
today is the “proclamation of faith and promotion of justice.” Thismission continues to be confirmed by the Jesuits today, nearly 50
3years after the 32nd General Congregation.
Consequently, if Jesuit schools are educational institutions
associated with the mission of the Society of Jesus, then thelecture, “Men for Others,” would still be relevant. The term “Jesuit
Education” was coined in the 1980s. Until then the institutions
were simply referred to as Jesuit Schools, signifying the fact thatthe schools had Jesuits. If Jesuits happened to be involved in the
education provided by those schools, it was referred to as “Jesuit
education.” However, in every nation the number of Jesuits
working in schools is witnessing a steady decline, and there exist
quite a few schools wherein there are no Jesuits at all. Accordingly,
the question of what constitutes “Jesuit education” has come to bepondered over, and the awareness that schools carrying out sucheducation are “Jesuit schools,” has also emerged. In other words,
we have no choice but to consider seriously the issue of “Jesuit
Schools with no Jesuits.”
It was under such circumstances that 50 years have passedby, since the lecture “Men for Others.” Did Fr. Arrupe have anawareness that situations like these would arise? Back in 1957,
there were three Jesuit’s middle and high schools in Japan,
and there are records indicating that the Jesuits working there
assembled and conducted training sessions. Fr. Arrupe who was
the Provincial gave the first talk. The content follows the “Ratio
Studiorum” and reminds us of the administration, which followed
methods based on the constitution of the Society of Jesus. However,it recommends that we avoid two extremes. One is to emphasize
and adapt the educational model of one’s own nation of origin, andthe other is to consider Japan as unique, so as to avoid the effortsof learning the educational methods of other nations. One may
perceive here a desire to strike a balance between Jesuits who are
missionaries, and those who are Japanese. However, there are no4

words indicating the renewal of Jesuit schools in the context of thetimes. Nevertheless, both the Catholic Church and the Society ofJesus would undergo a major transition, in the next decade. “Menfor Others” was that epoch-making lecture.
Fifty years have elapsed since that lecture, and now theexpression “Men for Others,” has become a motto common to
Jesuit schools around the world. And that’s not all. Studying with
an awareness of social justice has come to be included within
the circumstances in which each school is placed, and concrete
practices as well have begun to be carried out. Furthermore,educational and school facilities for those who have been driven
to the margins of society, have begun to be created and managed.
“Fey Alegria” are institutions for the primary school education ofchildren who are at the lowest levels of society. These are centeredin South America. They have been conducted since the 1950s,
and they have since seen an ever growing expansion. In North
America, “Cristo Rey” schools for young Mexican immigrants
which were begun in Chicago have spread throughout the nation.
These schools are also run for the education of Hispanic, black, andindigenous youth, who tend to be at the extremity of societies thatcreate vast disparities. Even in Asia, nations that are economicallyand politically volatile like East Timor and Cambodia, have begun
raising schools for underprivileged children.
When using the term “Men for Others,” we need to bear inmind the meanings of the words “men” and “others.” The word men
does not refer to human beings who are males. Recently, due to thefact that people have grown aware of gender issues, in our Jesuit
schools too we don’t merely use the word ‘men’. Rather, we also
include the word ‘women’, and say “Men and Women for Others.”
Furthermore, it was later realized that rather than merely
restrict ourselves to the words ‘men’ or ‘women,’ it would be more
5

appropriate to say “For Others with Others.”
However, a noteworthy point to ponder over here is when
Fr. Arrupe used the word “men,” what did he intend to signify?
Concerning this issue he said, “men and women who will live notfor themselves but for God and his Christ–for the God-human who
lived and died for all the world; men and women who cannot evenconceive of the love of God which does not include love for the leastof their neighbors; men and women who are completely convincedthat the love of God that does not issue in justice for others is a
farce.” Here, what the word “others” signifies is clear. These others
are the “smallest people,” the “oppressed people in an unjust
society,” and the “marginalized people.”“Men and Women for Others, with Others,” or “For Others,with Others,” has become a “motto” for Jesuit schools around theworld, and we may say that these words of Father Arrupe havenow become firmly established. As a matter of fact, there haveeven been moves to realize educational missions in line with those
directives. Also, quite obviously this is something we need to bearin mind if we wish to continue our Jesuit schools, and promote our
educational mission of fostering men and women who have a desire
to live for others, with others.

6Men for Others
Pedro Arrupe (1973)
On July 31, 1973, Pedro Arrupe, the superior general of the Society ofJesus, spoke to the 10th International Congress of Jesuit Alumni ofEurope gathered in Valencia, Spain. Because of the “new awarenessin the Church,” Arrupe concedes in these remarks that a graduate
from Jesuit schools and colleges had not been properly educatedto participate “in the promotion of justice and the liberation of the
oppressed.” Nevertheless, he remains hopeful that, with proper
adjustments, “the paramount objective of Jesuit education” could bereached, namely the formation of its graduate as “man for others,”
a man who would “give himself to others in love—love, which is his
definitive and all-embracing dimension, that which gives meaning to
all his other dimensions.”

I. EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE
1. Fashioning Men for Others
Education for justice has become in recent years one of
the chief concerns of the Church. Why? Because there is a newawareness in the Church that participation in the promotion ofjustice and the liberation of the oppressed is a constitutive elementof the mission which Our Lord has entrusted to her.1 Impelled bythis awareness, the Church is now engaged in a massive effort toeducate —or rather to re-educate— herself, her children, and allmen so that we may all “lead our life in its entirety... in accord
with the evangelical principles of personal and social morality to7

be expressed in a living Christian witness.”2Today our prime educational objective must be to form menfor-others; men who will live not for themselves but for God and his
Christ —for the God-man who lived and died for all the world; men
who cannot even conceive of love of God which does not include
love for the least of their neighbors; men completely convinced thatlove of God which does not issue in justice for men is a farce.

2. Deficiencies in the Past
This kind of education goes directly counter to the prevailing
educational trend practically everywhere in the world. We Jesuits
have always been heavily committed to the educational apostolate.
We still are. What, then, shall we do? Go with the current oragainst it? I can think of no subject more appropriate than this for
the General of the Jesuits to take up with the former students of
Jesuit schools.
First, let me ask this question: Have we Jesuits educated you
for justice? You and I know what many of your Jesuit teachers
will answer to that question. They will answer, in all sincerity andhumility: No, we have not. If the terms “justice” and “education
for justice” carry all the depth of meaning which the Church gives
them today, we have not educated you for justice.
What is more, I think you will agree with this self-evaluation,
and with the same sincerity and humility acknowledge that you
have not been trained for the kind of action for justice and witness
to justice which the Church now demands of us. What does thismean? It means that we have work ahead of us. We must help eachother to repair this lack in us, and above all make sure that infuture the education imparted in Jesuit schools will be equal to thedemands of justice in the world.

8

3. We have the tools
It will be difficult, but we can do it. We can do it because,
despite our historical limitations and failures, there is somethingwhich lies at the very center of the Ignatian spirit, and whichenables us to renew ourselves ceaselessly and thus to adapt
ourselves to new situations as they arise.
What is this something? It is the spirit of constantly seeking
the will of God. It is that sensitiveness to the Spirit which enables
us to recognize where, in what direction, Christ is calling us at
different periods of history, and to respond to that call.
This is not to lay any prideful claim to superior insight or
intelligence. It is simply our heritage from the Spiritual Exercisesof Saint Ignatius. For these Exercises are essentially a method
enabling us to make very concrete decisions in accordance with
God’s will. It is a method that does not limit us to any particular
option, but spreads out before us the whole range of practicable
options in any given situation; opens up for us a sweeping visionembracing many possibilities, to the end that God himself, in all
his tremendous originality, may trace out our path for us. It is this“indifference”, in the sense of lack of differentiation, this not beingtied down to anything except God’s will, that gives to the Society
and to the men it has been privileged to educate what we may calltheir multi-faceted potential, their readiness for anything, any
service that may be demanded of them by the signs of the times.

4. Readiness for change
Jesuit education in the past had its limitations. It wasconditioned by time and place. As a human enterprise it will
always be. But it could not have been a complete failure if we wereable to pass on to you this spirit of openness to new challenges, thisreadiness for change, this willingness —putting it in Scriptural9

terms— to undergo conversion. This is our hope: that we haveeducated you to listen to the living God; to read the Gospel so as
always to find new light in it; to think with the Church, within
which the Word of God always ancient, ever new, resounds withthat precise note and timbre needed by each historical epoch. For
this is what counts; on this is founded our confidence for the future.
It is not as a father speaking to sons that I speak to you today.
It is as a companion, a fellow alumnus, speaking to his classmates.
Sitting together on the same school bench, let us together listen to
the Lord, the Teacher of all mankind.

II. WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE?
A. The Call of the Church
There are two lines of reflection before us. One is to deepen our
understanding of the idea of justice as it becomes more and moreclear in the light of the Gospel and the signs of the times. The otheris to determine the character and quality of the type of man wewant to form, the type of man into which we must be changed, andtowards which the generations succeeding us must be encouraged
to develop, if we and they are to serve this evangelical ideal ofjustice.

5. The Synod of 1971
The first line of reflection begins with the Synod of Bishops of1971, and its opening statement on “Justice in the World”:
1. Gathered from the whole world, in communion with all
who believe in Christ and with the entire human family,
and opening our hearts to the Spirit who is making thewhole of creation new, we have questioned ourselves about
10the mission of the People of God to further justice in theworld.
2. Scrutinizing the "signs of the times" and seeking to detect
the meaning of emerging history... we have listened to theWord of God that we might be converted to the fulfilling of
the divine plan for the salvation of the world.
3. ...We have... been able to perceive the serious injustices
which are building around the world of men a network of
domination, oppression and abuses which stifle freedom
and which keep the greater part of humanity from sharing
in the building up and enjoyment of a more just and more
fraternal world.
4. At the same time we have noted the inmost stirringmoving the world in its depths. There are facts constituting
a contribution to the furthering of justice. In associations ofmen and among peoples there is arising a new awareness
which... spurs them on to liberate themselves and to be
responsible for their own destiny.

6. The Council and after
Please note that these words are not a mere repetition of what
the Church has traditionally taught. They are not a refinement of
doctrine at the level of abstract theory. They are the resonance ofan imperious call of the living God asking his Church and all menof good will to adopt certain attitudes and undertake certain typesof action which will enable them effectively to come to the aid ofmankind oppressed and in agony.
This interpretation of the signs of the times did not originate
with the Synod. It began with the Second Vatican Council; its
application to the problem of justice was made with considerable
vigor in Populorum progressio; and spreading outward fromthis center to the ends of the earth, it was taken up in 1968 by
11

the Latin American Bishops at Medellin, in 1969 by the African
Bishops at Kampala, in 1970 by the Asian Bishops in Manila. In
1971, Pope Paul VI gathered all these voices together in the greatcall to action of Octogesima adveniens.
The Bishops of the Synod took it one step further, and inwords of the utmost clarity said: "Action on behalf of justice andparticipation in the transformation of the world fully appear tous as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel, or,in other words, of the Church's mission for the redemption of thehuman race and its liberation from every oppressive situation."3
We cannot, then, separate action for justice and liberation from
oppression from the proclamation of the Word of God.

B. Tensions in the Church
This is plain speech indeed. However, it did not prevent
doubts, questionings, even tensions from arising within the Church
itself. It would be naive not to recognize this fact. Contradictions,or at least dichotomies, have emerged regarding the actual
implementation of this call to action, and our task now is to try toharmonize these dichotomies if we can. This would be in the spiritof the Holy Year that is coming, which is the spirit of reconciliation.
To begin with, let us note that these dichotomies aredifferences of stress rather than contradictions of ideas. In view ofthe present call to justice and liberation, where should we put ourstress —in our attitudes, our activities, our lifestyle:
1. Justice among men, or justice before God?
2. Love of God, or love of the neighbor?
3. Christian charity, or human justice?
4. Personal conversion, or social reform?
5. Liberation in this life, or salvation in the life to come?
6. Development through the inculcation of Christian values,12

or development through the application of scientifictechnologies and social ideologies?

7. Justice and the Church
Quite clearly, the mission of the Church is not coextensivewith the furthering of justice on this planet. Still, the furtheringof justice is a constitutive element of that mission, as the Synod
teaches. Recall the Old Testament: that First Alliance, the pact of
Yahweh with his chosen people, was basically concerned with thecarrying out of justice, to such a degree that the violation of justiceas it concerns men implies a rupture of the Alliance with God.
Turn, now, to the New Testament, and see how Jesus has received
from his Father the mission to bring the Good News to the poor,
liberation to the oppressed, and to make justice triumph. "Blessed
are the poor"4 —why? Because the Kingdom has already come; theLiberator is at hand.

8. Love of neighbor
We are commanded to love God and to love our neighbor. But
note what Jesus says: the second commandment is like unto thefirst; they fuse together into one compendium of the Law. And in
his vision of the Last Judgment, what does the Judge say? "As longas you did this for one of the least of my brothers, you did it forme."5 As Father Alfaro says:[E]ntry or exclusion from the Kingdom announced by Jesus
depends on one’s attitude towards the poor and oppressed,
who are the same referred to in Isaiah 58, 1-12 as thevictims of human injustice, and for whom God wishes tomanifest his justice. But the great new factor is that Jesus
makes of these despised and marginal men "his brothers";
he makes himself personally solidary with the poor and13the helpless, with the hungry and the destitute. Every
man who finds himself in such a situation is the brotherof Christ. Whatever is done for them is done for Christ
himself. Whoever gives effective help to these "brothers" ofJesus belongs to his Kingdom; whoever leaves them in theirmisery excludes himself from the Kingdom.6

9. Love and justice meet
Just as love of God, in the Christian view, fuses with love ofneighbor, to the point that they cannot possibly be separated, so,too, charity and justice meet together and in practice are identical.
How can you love someone and treat him unjustly? Take justiceaway from love and you destroy love. You do not have love if the
beloved is not seen as a person whose dignity must be respected,
with all that that implies. And even if you take the Romannotion of justice as giving to each his due, what is owing to him,a Christian must say that he owes love to all men, enemies not
excepted. Just as we are never sure that we love God unless welove our fellowmen, so we are never sure that we have love at all
unless our love issues in works of justice. And I do not mean worksof justice in a merely individualistic sense. I mean three things:
First, a basic attitude of respect for all men which forbids
us ever to use them as instruments for our own profit.
Second, a firm resolve never to profit from, or allow
ourselves to be suborned by, positions of power derivingfrom privilege, for to do so, even passively, is equivalent
to active oppression. To be drugged by the comforts ofprivilege is to become contributors to injustice as silent
beneficiaries of the fruits of injustice.
Third, an attitude not simply of refusal but ofcounterattack against injustice; a decision to work with14

others towards the dismantling of unjust social structures
so that the weak, the oppressed, the marginalized of thisworld may be set free.

10. From Personal Conversion to Social Reform
Sin is not only an act, a personal act, which makes us
personally guilty. Over and above this, sin reaches out to what
we may call the periphery of ourselves, vitiating our habits,
customs, spontaneous reactions, criteria and patterns of thought,
imagination, will. And it is not only ourselves who influence our“periphery”. It is shaped by all who have helped to form us, by all
who form part of our world.
We thus have a congenital inclination toward evil. In
theological language this is called “concupiscence”, which is,concretely, a combination in us of the sin of Adam and all the sinsof men in history —including our own. When a man is converted,
when God effects in him the marvel of justification, he turns to God
and his brothers in his innermost self, and as a consequence sin in
the strict sense is washed away from him. However, the effects ofsin continue their powerful domination over his “periphery”, andthis, quite often, in a way that he is not even aware of.
Now, Christ did not come merely to free us from sin and flood
the centre of our person with his grace. He came to win our entire
self for God —including what I have called our “periphery”. Christ
came to do away not only with sin, but with its effects, even in thislife; not only to give us his grace, but to show forth the power of his
grace.
Let us see the meaning of this as it pertains to the relationshipbetween personal conversion and structural reform. If “personal
conversion” is understood in the narrow sense of justification
operative only at the very core of our person, it does not adequately
represent the truth of the matter, for such justification is only the15

root, the beginning of a renewal, a reform of the structures at the“periphery” of our being, not only personal but social.
If we agree on this, conclusions fairly tumble forth. For the
structures of this world —our customs; our social, economic,
and political systems; our commercial relations; in general, theinstitutions we have created for ourselves— insofar as they haveinjustice built into them, are the concrete forms in which sin is
objectified. They are the consequences of our sins throughout
history, as well as the continuing stimulus and spur for further
sin.
There is a biblical concept for this reality. It is what SaintJohn calls, in a negative sense, the “world.” The “world” is in thesocial realm what “concupiscence” is in the personal, for, to use theclassical definition of concupiscence, it “comes from sin and inclines
us to it.”Hence, like concupiscence, the “world” as understood in thissense must also be the object of our efforts at purification. Our
new vision of justice must give rise to a new kind of spirituality, of
asceticism; or rather, an expansion of traditional spirituality andasceticism to include not only the personal but the social. In short,interior conversion is not enough. God’s grace calls us not only to
win back our whole selves for God, but to win back our whole world
for God. We cannot separate personal conversion from structuralsocial reform.

11. An on-going process
It follows that this purification, this social asceticism, thisearthly liberation is so central in our Christian attitude toward
life that whoever holds himself aloof from the battle for justiceimplicitly refuses love for his fellows and consequently for God.
The struggle for justice will never end. Our efforts will never befully successful in this life. This does not mean that such efforts
16

are worthless.
God wants such partial successes. They are the first fruits ofthe salvation wrought by Jesus. They are the signs of the comingof his Kingdom, the visible indications of its mysterious spreading
among men. Of course, partial successes imply partial failures;
painful failures; the defeat of many people, many of us, who will
be overcome and destroyed in the fight against this “world.” For
this “world” will not take it lying down, as the vivid American
expression has it. It will persecute, it will try to exterminate those
who do not belong to it and stand in opposition to it.
But this defeat is only apparent. It is precisely those who
suffer persecution for the sake of justice who are blessed. It isprecisely the crucified who pass through the world “doing good andhealing all.”7

12. Technologies and Ideologies necessary but not sufficient
To point out in very general fashion that there are injustices
in the world —something which everybody knows without being
told— that is not enough: agreed. Having stated principles, wemust go to a map of the world and point out the critical points —geographical, sociological, cultural— where sin and injustice findtheir lodgment: also agreed. To do this, technologies and ideologies
are needed as instruments of analysis and action so that they will
actually dislodge and dismantle injustice: by all means agreed.
What role is left, then, for the inculcation of Christian values,
for a Christian ethos? This: we cannot forget that technologies
and ideologies, necessary though they are, derive their origin,historically, from a mixture of good and evil. Injustice of one kindor another finds in them too a local habitation and a name.
Put it this way: they are tools, imperfect tools. And it is theChristian ethos, the Christian vision of values, that must use
these tools while submitting them to judgment and relativizing
17their tendency to make absolutes of themselves. Relativizing them,putting them in their place, as it were, with full realization that
the Christian ethos cannot possibly construct a new world without
their assistance.

III. THE MEN THE CHURCH NEEDS TODAY
13. Continuing Education
With this background, let us now enter upon our second line ofreflection, which bears on the formation of men who will reconcile
these antitheses and thus advance the cause of justice in themodern world; their continuing formation, in the case of us “oldtimers”, their basic formation, in the case of the youth who will
hopefully take up the struggle when we can do no more.
With regard to continuing education, let me say this: ouralumni associations are called upon, in my opinion, to be a channel
par excellence for its realization. Look upon it as your job, and, withthe assistance of our Jesuits in the educational apostolate, workout concrete plans and programs for it.
And let us not have too limited an understanding of what
continuing education is. It should not be simply the updating oftechnical or professional knowledge, or even the re-educationnecessary to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world. It
should rather be what is most specific in Christian education: acall to conversion. And that means, today, a conversion that will
prepare us for witnessing to justice as God gives us to see it fromthe signs of our times.

14. Men for Others
What kind of man is needed today by the Church, by the18

world? A man who is a “man-for-others”. That is my shorthanddescription of him. A man-for-others. But does this not contradict
the very nature of man? Is not man a “being-for-himself”? Giftedwith intelligence that endows him with power, does he not tend
to control the world, making himself its center? Is this not thevocation, the history of man?
Yes; man, gifted with conscience, intelligence and power isindeed a center. But a center called to go out of himself, to give
himself to others in love —love, which is his definitive and allembracing dimension, that which gives meaning to all his otherdimensions. Only he who loves fully realizes himself as a man.
To the extent that he shuts himself off from others man does not
become more a person; he becomes less.
The man who lives only for his own interests not only provides
nothing for others. He does worse. He tends to accumulate in
exclusive fashion more and more knowledge, more and more power,
more and more wealth; thus denying, inevitably to those weaker
than himself their proper share of the God-given means for humandevelopment.

15. Humanizing the World
What is it to humanize the world if not to put it at the serviceof mankind? But the egoist not only does not humanize thematerial creation, he dehumanizes men themselves. He changes
men into things by dominating them, exploiting them, and taking
to himself the fruit of their labor.
The tragedy of it all is that by doing this the egoist
dehumanizes himself. He surrenders himself to the possessions hecovets; he becomes their slave—no longer a person self-possessed
but an un-person, a thing driven by his blind desires and theirobjects.
But when we dehumanize, depersonalize ourselves in this19

way, something stirs within us. We feel frustrated. In our heart ofhearts, we know that what we have is nothing compared with what
we are, what we can be, what we would like to be. We would liketo be ourselves. But we dare not break the vicious circle. We think
we can overcome our frustrations by striving to have more, to havemore than others, to have ever more and more. We thus turn ourlives into a competitive rat-race without meaning.
The downward spiral of ambition, competition, and selfdestruction twists and expands unceasingly, with the resultthat we are chained ever more securely to a progressive, andprogressively frustrating, dehumanization.
Dehumanization of ourselves and dehumanization of others.
For by thus making egoism a way of life, we translate it, we
objectify it, in social structures. Starting from our individual sinsof egoism, we become exploiters of others, dehumanizing themand ourselves in the process, and hardening the process into a
structure of society which may rightfully be called sin objectified.
For it becomes hardened in ideas, institutions, impersonal anddepersonalized organisms which now escape our direct control, atyrannical power of destruction and self-destruction.
How escape from this vicious circle? Clearly, the whole process
has its root in egoism—in the denial of love. But to try to live inlove and justice in a world whose prevailing climate is egoism
and injustice, where egoism and injustice are built into the very
structures of society—is this not a suicidal, or at least a fruitlessundertaking?

16. Good in an evil world
And yet, it lies at the very core of the Christian message; it is
the sum and substance of the call of Christ. Saint Paul put it in asingle sentence: “Do not allow yourself to be overcome by evil, butrather, overcome evil with good.”8 This teaching, which is identical
20

with the teaching of Christ about love for the enemy, is thetouchstone of Christianity. All of us would like to be good to others,
and most of us would be relatively good in a good world. What isdifficult is to be good in an evil world, where the egoism of others
and the egoism built into the institutions of society attack us andthreaten to annihilate us.
Under such conditions, the only possible reaction would seemto be to oppose evil with evil, egoism with egoism, hate with hate;in short, to annihilate the aggressor with his own weapons. But
is it not precisely thus that evil conquers us most thoroughly?
For then, not only does it damage us exteriorly, it perverts ourvery heart. We allow ourselves, in the words of Saint Paul, to be
overcome by evil.
No; evil is overcome only by good, hate by love, egoism bygenerosity. It is thus that we must sow justice in our world. To be
just, it is not enough to refrain from injustice. One must go further
and refuse to play its game, substituting love for self-interest as
the driving force of society.
All this sounds very nice, you will say, but isn’t it just a little
bit up in the air? Very well, let us get down to cases. How do we getthis principle of justice through love down to the level of reality,
the reality of our daily lives? By cultivating in ourselves three
attitudes:

17. Live more simply
First, a firm determination to live much more simply —as
individuals, as families, as social groups— and in this way to stop
short, or at least to slow down, the expanding spiral of luxurious
living and social competition. Let us have men and women who
will resolutely set themselves against the tide of our consumer
society. Men and women who, instead of feeling compelled toacquire everything that their friends have will do away with many21

of the luxuries which in their social set have become necessities,
but which the majority of mankind must do without. And if thisproduces surplus income, well and good; let it be given to those forwhom the necessities of life are still luxuries beyond their reach.

18. No unjust profit
Second, a firm determination to draw no profit whatever fromclearly unjust sources. Not only that, but going further, to diminish
progressively our share in the benefits of an economic and social
system in which the rewards of production accrue to those alreadyrich, while the cost of production lies heavily on the poor. Let there
be men and women who will bend their energies not to strengthen
positions of privilege, but, to the extent possible, reduce privilege
in favor of the underprivileged. Please do not conclude too hastily
that this does not pertain to you —that you do not belong to theprivileged few in your society. It touches everyone of a certainsocial position, even though only in certain respects, and even if we
ourselves may be the victims of unjust discrimination by those whoare even better off than ourselves. In this matter, our basic pointof reference must be the truly poor, the truly marginalized, in ourown countries and in the Third World.

19. Agents of Change
Third, and most difficult: a firm resolve to be agents of change
in society; not merely resisting unjust structures and arrangements,
but actively undertaking to reform them. For, if we set out toreduce income in so far as it is derived from participation in unjust
structures, we will find out soon enough that we are faced with an
impossible task unless those very structures are changed.
Thus, stepping down from our own posts of power would be too
simple a course of action. In certain circumstances it may be the22proper thing to do; but ordinarily it merely serves to hand over theentire social structure to the exploitation of the egotistical. Hereprecisely is where we begin to feel how difficult is the struggle
for justice; how necessary it is to have recourse to technical andideological tools. Here is where cooperation among alumni andalumni associations becomes not only useful but necessary.
Let us not forget, especially, to bring into our counsels ouralumni who belong to the working class. For in the last analysis, itis the oppressed who must be the principal agents of change. The
role of the privileged is to assist them; to reinforce with pressure
from above the pressure exerted from below on the structures thatneed to be changed.

20. Christ the Man for Others
Men-for-others: the paramount objective of Jesuit education—basic, advanced, and continuing— must now be to form suchmen. For if there is any substance in our reflections, then this is
the prolongation into the modern world of our humanist tradition
as derived from the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius. Only by
being a man-for-others does one become fully human, not only inthe merely natural sense, but in the sense of being the “spiritual”
man of Saint Paul. He is the man filled with the Spirit; and weknow whose Spirit that is: the Spirit of Christ, who gave his life forthe salvation of the world; the God who, by becoming Man, became,beyond all others, a Man-for-others.

23

Note
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Cf. Synod of Bishops 1971, "Justice in the World", nn. 6, 37-8.
Ibid. n. 49.
Ibid. n. 6.
Lk 6.20
Mt. 25.40
Juan Alfaro, S.J., Theology of Justice in the World, PontificalCommission Justice Peace, 1973, p. 28.
7. Acts 10.38
8. Rom 12.21

24

A Brief Biography of Father Pedro Arrupe
1907: Born in Bilbao in Spain, (November 14).
1922: Entered the School of Medicine at Madrid University.
1926: Made a pilgrimage to Lourdes.
1927: Entered the Society of Jesus.
1932: Expulsion of the Jesuits from Spain.
1936: Ordained a Priest in Valkenburg, Netherlands.
1937: Completed his 4th year of Theological study at the Universityof St. Mary in Kansas, USA.
1937: Completed his Tertianship at Cleveland, Ohio, in the USA.
1938: Arrived at Yokohama Port in Japan (October 15).
1940: Appointed to Yamaguchi by the Jesuits.
1941: Arrested by the military police and incarcerated in the
Yamaguchi prison.
1942: Relocates to Nagatsuka in Hiroshima, on his appointment as
Novitiate Rector and Novice Master.
1945: Commences the treatment of the injured, in the aftermath of
the Atomic bomb incident at Hiroshima, (August 6).
1954: Japan is constituted a Jesuit Vice-province. Appointed Viceprovincial.
1958: Japan is constituted a Province of the Society of Jesus.
Appointed Provincial.
1965: Elected as the 28th Superior General of the Society of Jesus
at the 31st General Congregation of the Jesuits.
1971: Visited Japan as Superior General, (April, 5 to 13).
1973: Delivered his lecture on “Men for others” at Valencia in
Spain, (July 31).
25

1974: Convened the 32nd General Congregation of the Society ofJesus.
1979: Established the Jesuit Refuge Service (JRS), to assist theVietnamese refugees.
1981: Collapses due a cerebral thrombosis at Rome’s Fiumicino
Airport, on his way back from the Philippines.
1983: R e s i g n s a s S u p e r i o r G e n e r a l a t t h e 3 3 r d G e n e r a l
Congregation of the Society of Jesus.
1991: Dies at the Headquarters of the Society of Jesus in Rome,(February 5).
2018: Notification by the Vatican of a formal enquiry, for thecanonization of Fr. Pedro Arrupe.

26