An article written by Rev. James V. Schall, S.J. for Crisis Magazine:
A course in “Roman Catholic Political Philosophy” is rarely found in any academic institution, including those sponsored by the Church. We do find courses titled “Religion and Politics,” “Social Doctrine of the Church,” or “Church and State” — but “Roman Catholic Political Philosophy” is something different. Going back to Plato, it is common to find that most people consider philosophers and academics, not to mention clerics, to be rather foolish and naïve when it comes to dealing with the practical affairs of this world. Philosophers are notorious for studying everything elsebut politics; and when they do, they insist on studying them as if their object were like that of the physical sciences and not free human agents. Aristotle already warned us not to use a method that was inappropriate to the nature of the object studied.
But there are two questions combined in that title: First, what is political philosophy? And second, what is Roman Catholicism? The two are not to be confused. They are, if possible, to be related in a coherent, non-contradictory whole such that each retains its essential nature while relating to the other. Whether we like it or not, both are present in the actual human world in which we live. Philosophy, to be itself, cannot, by its own methods, exclude any consideration of what is, of what claims to be true. Roman Catholics, during their time on earth, live in the polities to which they belong or dwell in. Like everyone else, they too are “political animals,” as Aristotle said.
From its beginnings, Roman Catholicism took for granted, as Pope Benedict XVI remarked in his Regensburg lecture, that it addressed itself first to the philosophers, not to other religions. And yet, very little about politics is found in the New Testament: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” “Be obedient to the emperor.” “We must obey God rather than men.” This relative silence could mean that politics are not particularly important, that more important things exist. In his book From Under the Rubble, Alexander Solzhenitsyn said that, “in relation to the true ends of human beings here on earth, the state structure is of secondary significance.” The New Testament could quietly affirm that politics are something human beings can find on their own from experience, or reading Plato. Aristotle had already explained much of the basic things we need to know about political things before Roman Catholicism ever appeared. Revelation is not mainly concerned with things that we can already know by our natural powers. This is the compliment it pays to reason.
In a famous essay, “What Is Political Philosophy?” Leo Strauss indicated that specifically “political” philosophy inquires not about the philosophic understanding of political things, but about the political understanding of philosophical things. Politics itself, as Aristotle said, is a practical knowledge and activity. What is it that politics needs to know about philosophy to let it be itself? The politician, if he wants, has the raw power to eliminate the philosopher or prophet. Thus, the proper question is: “Why should the philosopher be left free to philosophize in the polity?” In some sense, philosophy must also be a political good. Such a question clearly implies that philosophy, be it good philosophy in a bad regime or bad philosophy in a good regime, may be dangerous to any existing regime. From outside its immediate context, it casts doubts on the foundations of existing political regimes.
The philosopher’s insight into things is not merely political. The philosopher seeks to know the whole, all things that are, including political things. He seeks to relate one thing to another and each to the whole. He seeks to distinguish, to clarify what is true. The politician — who, as Aristotle said, is always overly busy — needs some understanding of the reality that is not just political. He needs to leave space for what does not belong to Caesar. The highest things are not Caesar’s, but those who pursue them dwell in Caesar’s lands. The reduction of all things to politics, at bottom, is tyrannical. But philosophy must itself be a good in the polity for the sake of the polity. The common good includes its good.
The politician is not wrong to be concerned about the effects of philosophy in his city. Still, Joseph Pieper writes: “[Philosophical] contemplation…preserves in the midst of human society the truth which is at one and the same time useless and the yardstick of every possible use; contemplation keeps the true end in sight” (Anthology, 123). Most decent politicians are aware that not all philosophies are the same or equally helpful. Thus, for the common good to which he is, in principle, ordained, the politician must, in his own practical way, also be concerned with the truth of philosophic things. Nothing causes more political damage than aberrant philosophy.
Fides et Ratio, in its emphasis on the validity of philosophy in its present chaotic condition, provided, indirectly, a service to the polity. Many of the most dangerous politicians in modern times have had philosophical pretentions. They wrote about them before they acted, but no one believed them in time. They sought to answer metaphysical and transcendent questions by political means.
Benedict’s Spe Salvi is most pertinent on this point. He rightly sees, as he did in his earlier book Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, that most modern ideology is an attempt to solve transcendent issues by this-worldly scientific or political means. Faith is said to be unreal unless it is political. Even though the Church does not formally endorse any particular philosophy, she is aware that not every philosophy is capable of supporting the truths of the events and their understandings on which revelation is based. Likewise, she understands that not a few philosophers prove to be incapable of getting outside their own minds to reach the world of what is.
Roman Catholicism is primarily concerned with man’s transcendent end and purpose, with how it is achieved in actual lives, in actual places, and in real time. As the early Fathers of the Church often said, believers hope to live quietly in the cities in which they dwell in this world. But martyrs in every age, including our own, give visible testimony that this desired civil peace is not always a reality. And Benedict said in Deus Caritas Est that justice will never reach the real needs of real people unless room is found within it for something beyond political justice. Charity and love are required to see the lot and needs of actual individuals, even within institutions that are supposed to be benevolent and just.
Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI commented on the similarity and difference between the deaths of Socrates and Christ. From the point of view of political philosophy, their deaths, after legal trials in relatively good polities of their time, do bring up the Platonic issue of the best regime, one in which no conflict between truth and polity exists, one in which the philosopher will not be killed. The issue is not merely utopian. In most actual regimes, even relatively decent or democratic ones, this conflict constantly must be resolved again and again. John Paul II warned several times against what he called “democratic tyrannies,” political societies that are based on nothing but the will of the majority, whatever it wills. The constant papal emphasis on the freedom of religion as the most fundamental and primary of all duties of any polity reflects, among other things, its awareness of the actual threats to life of believers in our time both from state and from religion. In this sense, we cannot avoid inquiring about the political implications of the differing religions. They are not all the same.
Politics looks to man the mortal insofar as, knowing that he will die, he is active in this world. Roman Catholicism understands that all actual men are conceived and born into this world. Each has his own duties, dramas, glories, and final end. All persons reach their transcendent end in a manner that includes their freedom and how it was used in the polities of their time, no matter what the forms they proclaim for themselves. This respect for the actual consequences of human choices is why ultimately we have two cities, not just one. Salvation is found in the worst of regimes. Great evildoers can be found in the best. Politics, as such, cannot guarantee salvation. The origin of politics, as Plato said, is in our souls.
All social disorders, John Paul remarked, are ultimately rooted in personal sin. Regimes do not obviate free will, nor do we want them to. Political philosophy eventually confronts issues that it cannot fully answer by itself, by its own methods and competency. Revelation is addressed to human reason precisely as it is most active as reason, most engaged in understanding the immediate and final nature of existing human beings. This is the import of Aquinas’s response to the question of “whether, in addition to eternal, natural, and human law, we also need divine law?” Reason will never realize what it might be capable of knowing until it earnestly seeks what it can know and realize by its own powers. The knowledge of politics includes the knowledge of its intrinsic limits. In this sense, the purpose of revelation is to free politics to be politics, and not a pseudo-religion or metaphysics.
Aristotle had remarked that, if man were the highest being, then politics is the highest science. But he did not think man was the highest being. Man transcends politics only by what is “highest in him,” as Strauss also remarked. Aristotle had said the same thing. Roman Catholicism brings to political philosophy and to the attention of the politician, who realizes the limited nature of his own and the polity’s competence, a freedom from the modern secularist claim to control all things in the name of human autonomy. This claim is based on a relativism and skepticism about man ever finding any purpose outside of his own will and its self-affirmation.
Revelation, in the Roman Catholic view, answers two basic issues that arise in political living that politics itself cannot answer. The first of these is the Platonic concern: “Is the world made in injustice?” Polities were initially set up to provide a context for justice, with courts and, yes, police and armies. But quite obviously, all the injustice occurring in the world is not punished, nor are all the virtues properly rewarded. This realization was the empirical fact that led Plato to propose the immortality of the soul. The immortality of the soul thus had political origins. This immortality made it possible that unpunished crimes and unrewarded good deeds be adequately requited.
Benedict says in Spe Salvi that the world needs judgment for it to be complete. It needs to know that justice ultimately is accomplished. Thus, the Creed’s “Christ will come to judge the living and the dead” follows from this enigma of which Plato was already aware. We are, no doubt, free to reject this aspect of justice, but we do so only by accepting the proposition that the world is unjust. This is why the second American president, John Adams, said that, for politics, hell is the most essential doctrine of religion. The point was that, without this final reckoning, we would be free to do whatever we wanted with no possible concern for punishment of the injustice of our personal and political deeds. Ultimately, hell, as it were, emphasizes the significance of each of our acts in this world. It guarantees their ultimate importance.
The immortality of the soul is a Greek philosophical doctrine. As the Holy Father points out in Jesus of Nazareth, while scriptural intimations of this doctrine can be found, the main focus is Greek. It was necessary for Plato to explain how justice was accomplished in the very person who freely did the injustice.
But Christians use this same doctrine to explain an aspect of the resurrection of the dead. If there were to be a resurrection of a particular person after death, it was necessary, lest there be a creation of a new being and hence no continuity, that something of the dead person remain in being during the period from death to resurrection. Some modern biblical scholars want to deny this existence of the soul after death. They even propose, logically, that if there is to be continuity of person, resurrection must happen immediately after death. But there is really no scriptural evidence for this. Nor is there any philosophic necessity for it. The immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body are the perfect links between reason and revelation.
What is more important about the resurrection of the body, however, is that it implies that it is the whole person who is redeemed, not merely a soul. This is the radical newness that Christ brings into the world. When it looks at the resurrection of the body, Roman Catholic political philosophy goes back to Aristotle’s discussion of friendship. It recalls that Christ said, “I have no longer called you servants, but I call you friends.” This reminder implies that the Godhead is not as distant or abstract as it seems in even the best proofs for the existence of God. Also, it reaffirms the final reality of the whole human person, body and soul. This affirmation arises out of the poignant lament in Aristotle that God seemed to lack one thing that human beings had — namely, friends.
On the side of the Godhead, following this same worry that God is lonely, God is not revealed as a monolithic being. He appears as Trinity: three persons, one God. The “otherness” in God is an otherness of Persons. With proper distinctions, we can describe it as a friendship, an intercommunion of being and good. Thus, it is no surprise that Aquinas discussed charity under the heading of friendship between God and man.
On the human side, the final good of the person is not simply a relatively happy temporal life in a city in this world. The first step in his final happiness is the restoral of his complete being. If we go back to the issue even of human friendship, we see that, at its depth, friendship longs for, desires the love of the whole person, without the destruction of the one who loves. The remarkable thing about a Roman Catholic political philosophy is its ability to relate reason and revelation in such a way that each remains what it is, while at the same time addressing the other at its strongest and highest point. Politics is limited because man transcends the world in his very end, which is that he, body and soul, along with his fellows, is given the inner life of the Godhead, if he so chooses to accept it.
25 January 2015
Cardinal Parolin’s Address to 69th Session of UN General Assembly
As seen in Vatican Insider:
Mr President,
In extending to you the Holy See’s congratulations on your election to the presidency of the sixty-ninth Session of the General Assembly, I wish to convey the cordial greetings of His Holiness Pope Francis to you and to all the participating delegations. He assures you of his closeness and prayers for the work of this session of the General Assembly, with the hope that it will be carried out in an atmosphere of productive collaboration, working for a more fraternal and united world by identifying ways to resolve the serious problems which beset the whole human family today.
Mr President,
In extending to you the Holy See’s congratulations on your election to the presidency of the sixty-ninth Session of the General Assembly, I wish to convey the cordial greetings of His Holiness Pope Francis to you and to all the participating delegations. He assures you of his closeness and prayers for the work of this session of the General Assembly, with the hope that it will be carried out in an atmosphere of productive collaboration, working for a more fraternal and united world by identifying ways to resolve the serious problems which beset the whole human family today.
In continuity with his predecessors, Pope Francis recently reiterated the Holy See’s esteem and appreciation for the United Nations as an indispensable means of building an authentic family of peoples. The Holy See values the efforts of this distinguished institution “to ensure world peace, respect for human dignity, the protection of persons, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, and harmonious economic and social development” (Address to the Secretary General of the United Nations and the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, 9 May 2014). Along these lines and on numerous occasions, His Holiness has encouraged men and women of good will to place their talents effectively at the service of all by working together, in tandem with the political community and each sector of civil society (cf. Letter to the World Economic Forum, 17 January 2014).
Though mindful of the human person’s gifts and abilities, Pope Francis observes that today there is the danger of widespread indifference. As much as this indifference concerns the field of politics, it also affects economic and social sectors, “since an important part of humanity does not share in the benefits of progress and is in fact relegated to the status of second-class citizens” (Address of Pope Francis to the Secretary General of the United Nations and the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, 9 May 2014). At times, such apathy is synonymous with irresponsibility. This is the case today, when a union of States, which was created with the fundamental goal of saving generations from the horror of war that brings untold sorrow to humanity (cf. Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, 1), remains passive in the face of hostilities suffered by defenceless populations.
I recall the words of His Holiness addressed to the Secretary General at the beginning of August: “It is with a heavy and anguished heart that I have been following the dramatic events in northern Iraq”, thinking of “the tears, the suffering and the heartfelt cries of despair of Christians and other religious minorities of [that] beloved land”. In that same letter the Pope renewed his urgent appeal to the international community to “take action to end the humanitarian tragedy now underway”. He further encouraged “all the competent organs of the United Nations, in particular those responsible for security, peace, humanitarian law and assistance to refugees, to continue their efforts in accordance with the Preamble and relevant Articles of the United Nations Charter” (Letter of the Holy Father to the Secretary General of the United Nations Organization concerning the situation in Northern Iraq, 9 August 2014).
Today I am compelled to repeat the heartfelt appeal of His Holiness and to propose to the General Assembly, as well as to the other competent organs of the United Nations, that this body deepen its understanding of the difficult and complex moment that we are now living.
With the dramatic situation in northern Iraq and some parts of Syria, we are seeing a totally new phenomenon: the existence of a terrorist organization which threatens all States, vowing to dissolve them and to replace them with a pseudo-religious world government. Unfortunately, as the Holy Father recently said, even today there are those who would presume to wield power by coercing consciences and taking lives, persecuting and murdering in the name of God (cf. L’Osservatore Romano, 3 May 2014). These actions bring injury to entire ethnic groups, populations and ancient cultures. It must be remembered that such violence is born out of a disregard for God and falsifies “religion itself, since religion aims instead at reconciling men and women with God, at illuminating and purifying consciences, and at making it clear that each human being is the image of the Creator” (BENEDICT XVI, Address to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See, 7 January 2013).
Though mindful of the human person’s gifts and abilities, Pope Francis observes that today there is the danger of widespread indifference. As much as this indifference concerns the field of politics, it also affects economic and social sectors, “since an important part of humanity does not share in the benefits of progress and is in fact relegated to the status of second-class citizens” (Address of Pope Francis to the Secretary General of the United Nations and the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, 9 May 2014). At times, such apathy is synonymous with irresponsibility. This is the case today, when a union of States, which was created with the fundamental goal of saving generations from the horror of war that brings untold sorrow to humanity (cf. Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, 1), remains passive in the face of hostilities suffered by defenceless populations.
I recall the words of His Holiness addressed to the Secretary General at the beginning of August: “It is with a heavy and anguished heart that I have been following the dramatic events in northern Iraq”, thinking of “the tears, the suffering and the heartfelt cries of despair of Christians and other religious minorities of [that] beloved land”. In that same letter the Pope renewed his urgent appeal to the international community to “take action to end the humanitarian tragedy now underway”. He further encouraged “all the competent organs of the United Nations, in particular those responsible for security, peace, humanitarian law and assistance to refugees, to continue their efforts in accordance with the Preamble and relevant Articles of the United Nations Charter” (Letter of the Holy Father to the Secretary General of the United Nations Organization concerning the situation in Northern Iraq, 9 August 2014).
Today I am compelled to repeat the heartfelt appeal of His Holiness and to propose to the General Assembly, as well as to the other competent organs of the United Nations, that this body deepen its understanding of the difficult and complex moment that we are now living.
With the dramatic situation in northern Iraq and some parts of Syria, we are seeing a totally new phenomenon: the existence of a terrorist organization which threatens all States, vowing to dissolve them and to replace them with a pseudo-religious world government. Unfortunately, as the Holy Father recently said, even today there are those who would presume to wield power by coercing consciences and taking lives, persecuting and murdering in the name of God (cf. L’Osservatore Romano, 3 May 2014). These actions bring injury to entire ethnic groups, populations and ancient cultures. It must be remembered that such violence is born out of a disregard for God and falsifies “religion itself, since religion aims instead at reconciling men and women with God, at illuminating and purifying consciences, and at making it clear that each human being is the image of the Creator” (BENEDICT XVI, Address to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See, 7 January 2013).
In a world of global communications, this new phenomenon has found followers in numerous places, and has succeeded in attracting from around the world young people who are often disillusioned by a widespread indifference and a dearth of values in wealthier societies. This challenge, in all its tragic aspects, should compel the international community to promote a unified response, based on solid juridical criteria and a collective willingness to cooperate for the common good. To this end, the Holy See considers it useful to focus attention on two major areas. The first is to address the cultural and political origins of contemporary challenges, acknowledging the need for innovative strategies to confront these international problems in which cultural factors play a fundamental role. The second area for consideration is a further study of the effectiveness of international law today, namely its successful implementation by those mechanisms used by the United Nations to prevent war, stop aggressors, protect populations and help victims.
Following the attacks of 11 September 2001, when the world woke up to the reality of a new form of terrorism, some media and “think tanks” oversimplified that tragic moment by interpreting all subsequent and problematic situations in terms of a clash of civilizations. This view ignored longstanding and profound experiences of good relations between cultures, ethnic groups and religions, and interpreted through this lens other complex situations such as the Middle Eastern question and those civil conflicts presently occurring elsewhere. Likewise, there have been attempts to find so-called legal remedies to counter and prevent the surge of this new form of terrorism. At times, unilateral solutions have been favoured over those grounded in international law. The methods adopted, likewise, have not always respected the established order or particular cultural circumstances of peoples who often found themselves unwillingly at the centre of this new form of global conflict. These mistakes, and the fact that they were at least tacitly approved, should lead us to a serious and profound examination of conscience. The challenges that these new forms of terrorism pose should not make us succumb to exaggerated views and cultural extrapolations. The reductionism of interpreting situations in terms of a clash of civilizations, playing on existing fears and prejudices, only leads to reactions of a xenophobic nature that, paradoxically, then serve to reinforce the very sentiments at the heart of terrorism itself. The challenges we face ought to spur a renewed call for religious and intercultural dialogue and for new developments in international law, to promote just and courageous peace initiatives.
What, then, are the paths open to us? First and foremost, there is the path of promoting dialogue and understanding among cultures which is already implicitly contained in the Preamble and First Article of the Charter of the United Nations. This path must become an ever more explicit objective of the international community and of governments if we are truly committed to peace in the world. At the same time we must recall that it is not the role of international organizations or states to invent culture, nor is it possible to do so. Similarly, it is not the place of governments to establish themselves as spokespersons of cultures, nor are they the primary actors responsible for cultural and interreligious dialogue. The natural growth and enrichment of culture is, instead, the fruit of all components of civil society working together. International organizations and states do have the task of promoting and supporting, in a decisive way, and with the necessary financial means, those initiatives and movements which promote dialogue and understanding among cultures, religions and peoples. Peace, after all, is not the fruit of a balance of powers, but rather the result of justice at every level, and most importantly, the shared responsibility of individuals, civil institutions and governments. In effect, this means understanding one other and valuing the other’s culture and circumstances. It also entails having concern for each other by sharing spiritual and cultural patrimonies and offering opportunities for human enrichment.
And yet, we do not face the challenges of terrorism and violence with cultural openness alone. The important path of international law is also available to us. The situation today requires a more incisive understanding of this law, giving particular attention to the “responsibility to protect”. In fact, one of the characteristics of the recent terrorist phenomenon is that it disregards the existence of the state and, in fact, the entire international order. Terrorism aims not only to bring change to governments, to damage economic structures or simply to commit common crimes. It seeks to directly control areas within one or various states, to impose its own laws, which are distinct and opposed to those of the sovereign State. It also undermines and rejects all existing juridical systems, attempting to impose dominion over consciences and complete control over persons.
The global nature of this phenomenon, which knows no borders, is precisely why the framework of international law offers the only viable way of dealing with this urgent challenge. This reality requires a renewed United Nations that undertakes to foster and preserve peace. At present, the active and passive participants of such a system are all the states, which place themselves under the authority of the Security Council and who are committed not to engage in acts of war without the approval of the same Council. Within this framework, military action carried out by one state in response to another state is possible only in the event of self-defence when under direct armed attack and only up until such time as the Security Council successfully takes the necessary steps to restore international peace and security (cf. Charter of the United Nations, Art. 51). New forms of terrorism engage in military actions on a vast scale. They are not able to be contained by any one state and explicitly intend to wage war against the international Community. In this sense we are dealing with criminal behaviour that is not envisaged by the juridical configuration of the United Nations Charter. This notwithstanding, it must be recognized that the norms in place for the prevention of war and the intervention of the Security Council are equally applicable, on varying grounds, in the case of a war provoked by a “non-State actor”.
In the first place, this is because the fundamental objective of the Charter is to avoid the scourge of war for future generations. The juridical structure of the Security Council, for all its limits and defects, was established for this very reason. Moreover, Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations assigns the Security Council the task of determining threats or aggressions to international peace, without specifying the type of actors carrying out the threats or aggressions. Finally, the states themselves, by virtue of membership to the UN, have renounced any use of force which is inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (cf. Charter of the United Nations, Art.2, 4).
Following the attacks of 11 September 2001, when the world woke up to the reality of a new form of terrorism, some media and “think tanks” oversimplified that tragic moment by interpreting all subsequent and problematic situations in terms of a clash of civilizations. This view ignored longstanding and profound experiences of good relations between cultures, ethnic groups and religions, and interpreted through this lens other complex situations such as the Middle Eastern question and those civil conflicts presently occurring elsewhere. Likewise, there have been attempts to find so-called legal remedies to counter and prevent the surge of this new form of terrorism. At times, unilateral solutions have been favoured over those grounded in international law. The methods adopted, likewise, have not always respected the established order or particular cultural circumstances of peoples who often found themselves unwillingly at the centre of this new form of global conflict. These mistakes, and the fact that they were at least tacitly approved, should lead us to a serious and profound examination of conscience. The challenges that these new forms of terrorism pose should not make us succumb to exaggerated views and cultural extrapolations. The reductionism of interpreting situations in terms of a clash of civilizations, playing on existing fears and prejudices, only leads to reactions of a xenophobic nature that, paradoxically, then serve to reinforce the very sentiments at the heart of terrorism itself. The challenges we face ought to spur a renewed call for religious and intercultural dialogue and for new developments in international law, to promote just and courageous peace initiatives.
What, then, are the paths open to us? First and foremost, there is the path of promoting dialogue and understanding among cultures which is already implicitly contained in the Preamble and First Article of the Charter of the United Nations. This path must become an ever more explicit objective of the international community and of governments if we are truly committed to peace in the world. At the same time we must recall that it is not the role of international organizations or states to invent culture, nor is it possible to do so. Similarly, it is not the place of governments to establish themselves as spokespersons of cultures, nor are they the primary actors responsible for cultural and interreligious dialogue. The natural growth and enrichment of culture is, instead, the fruit of all components of civil society working together. International organizations and states do have the task of promoting and supporting, in a decisive way, and with the necessary financial means, those initiatives and movements which promote dialogue and understanding among cultures, religions and peoples. Peace, after all, is not the fruit of a balance of powers, but rather the result of justice at every level, and most importantly, the shared responsibility of individuals, civil institutions and governments. In effect, this means understanding one other and valuing the other’s culture and circumstances. It also entails having concern for each other by sharing spiritual and cultural patrimonies and offering opportunities for human enrichment.
And yet, we do not face the challenges of terrorism and violence with cultural openness alone. The important path of international law is also available to us. The situation today requires a more incisive understanding of this law, giving particular attention to the “responsibility to protect”. In fact, one of the characteristics of the recent terrorist phenomenon is that it disregards the existence of the state and, in fact, the entire international order. Terrorism aims not only to bring change to governments, to damage economic structures or simply to commit common crimes. It seeks to directly control areas within one or various states, to impose its own laws, which are distinct and opposed to those of the sovereign State. It also undermines and rejects all existing juridical systems, attempting to impose dominion over consciences and complete control over persons.
The global nature of this phenomenon, which knows no borders, is precisely why the framework of international law offers the only viable way of dealing with this urgent challenge. This reality requires a renewed United Nations that undertakes to foster and preserve peace. At present, the active and passive participants of such a system are all the states, which place themselves under the authority of the Security Council and who are committed not to engage in acts of war without the approval of the same Council. Within this framework, military action carried out by one state in response to another state is possible only in the event of self-defence when under direct armed attack and only up until such time as the Security Council successfully takes the necessary steps to restore international peace and security (cf. Charter of the United Nations, Art. 51). New forms of terrorism engage in military actions on a vast scale. They are not able to be contained by any one state and explicitly intend to wage war against the international Community. In this sense we are dealing with criminal behaviour that is not envisaged by the juridical configuration of the United Nations Charter. This notwithstanding, it must be recognized that the norms in place for the prevention of war and the intervention of the Security Council are equally applicable, on varying grounds, in the case of a war provoked by a “non-State actor”.
In the first place, this is because the fundamental objective of the Charter is to avoid the scourge of war for future generations. The juridical structure of the Security Council, for all its limits and defects, was established for this very reason. Moreover, Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations assigns the Security Council the task of determining threats or aggressions to international peace, without specifying the type of actors carrying out the threats or aggressions. Finally, the states themselves, by virtue of membership to the UN, have renounced any use of force which is inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (cf. Charter of the United Nations, Art.2, 4).
Given that the new forms of terrorism are “transnational”, they no longer fall under the competence of the security forces of any one state: the territories of several states are involved. Thus the combined forces of a number of nations will be required to guarantee the defence of unarmed citizens. Since there is no juridical norm which justifies unilateral policing actions beyond one’s own borders, there is no doubt that the area of competence lies with the Security Council. This is because, without the consent and supervision of the state in which the use of force is exercised, such force would result in regional or international instability, and therefore enter within the scenarios foreseen by the Charter of the United Nations.
My Delegation wishes to recall that it is both licit and urgent to stop aggression through multilateral action and a proportionate use of force. As a representative body of a worldwide religious community embracing different nations, cultures and ethnicities, the Holy See earnestly hopes that the international community will assume responsibility in considering the best means to stop all aggression and avoid the perpetration of new and even graver injustices. The present situation, therefore, though indeed quite serious, is an occasion for the member states of the United Nations Organization to honour the very spirit of the Charter of the United Nations by speaking out on the tragic conflicts which are tearing apart entire peoples and nations. It is disappointing, that up to now, the international community has been characterized by contradictory voices and even by silence with regard to the conflicts in Syria, the Middle East and Ukraine. It is paramount that there be a unity of action for the common good, avoiding the cross-fire of vetoes. As His Holiness wrote to the Secretary General on 9 August last, “the most basic understanding of human dignity compels the international community, particularly through the norms and mechanisms of international law, to do all that it can to stop and to prevent further systematic violence against ethnic and religious minorities”.
While the concept of “the responsibility to protect” is implicit in the constitutional principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of Humanitarian Law, it does not specifically favour a recourse to arms. It asserts, rather, the responsibility of the entire international community, in a spirit of solidarity, to confront heinous crimes such as genocide, ethnic cleansing and religiously motivated persecution. Here with you today, I cannot fail to mention the many Christians and ethnic minorities who in recent months have endured atrocious persecution and suffering in Iraq and Syria. Their blood demands of us all an unwavering commitment to respect and promote the dignity of every single person as willed and created by God. This means also respect for religious freedom, which the Holy See considers a fundamental right, since no one can be forced “to act against his or her conscience”, and everyone “has the duty and consequently the right to seek the truth in religious matters” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, 3).
My Delegation wishes to recall that it is both licit and urgent to stop aggression through multilateral action and a proportionate use of force. As a representative body of a worldwide religious community embracing different nations, cultures and ethnicities, the Holy See earnestly hopes that the international community will assume responsibility in considering the best means to stop all aggression and avoid the perpetration of new and even graver injustices. The present situation, therefore, though indeed quite serious, is an occasion for the member states of the United Nations Organization to honour the very spirit of the Charter of the United Nations by speaking out on the tragic conflicts which are tearing apart entire peoples and nations. It is disappointing, that up to now, the international community has been characterized by contradictory voices and even by silence with regard to the conflicts in Syria, the Middle East and Ukraine. It is paramount that there be a unity of action for the common good, avoiding the cross-fire of vetoes. As His Holiness wrote to the Secretary General on 9 August last, “the most basic understanding of human dignity compels the international community, particularly through the norms and mechanisms of international law, to do all that it can to stop and to prevent further systematic violence against ethnic and religious minorities”.
While the concept of “the responsibility to protect” is implicit in the constitutional principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of Humanitarian Law, it does not specifically favour a recourse to arms. It asserts, rather, the responsibility of the entire international community, in a spirit of solidarity, to confront heinous crimes such as genocide, ethnic cleansing and religiously motivated persecution. Here with you today, I cannot fail to mention the many Christians and ethnic minorities who in recent months have endured atrocious persecution and suffering in Iraq and Syria. Their blood demands of us all an unwavering commitment to respect and promote the dignity of every single person as willed and created by God. This means also respect for religious freedom, which the Holy See considers a fundamental right, since no one can be forced “to act against his or her conscience”, and everyone “has the duty and consequently the right to seek the truth in religious matters” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, 3).
In summary, the promotion of a culture of peace calls for renewed efforts in favour of dialogue, cultural appreciation and cooperation, while respecting the variety of sensibilities. What is needed is a far-sighted political approach that does not rigidly impose a priori political models which undervalue the sensibilities of individual peoples. Ultimately, there must be a genuine willingness to apply thoroughly the current mechanisms of law, while at the same time remaining open to the implications of this crucial moment. This will ensure a multilateral approach that will better serve human dignity, and protect and advance integral human development throughout the world. Such a willingness, when concretely expressed in new juridical formulations, will certainly bring fresh vitality to the United Nations. It will also help resolve serious conflicts, be they active or dormant, which still affect some parts of Europe, Africa and Asia, and whose ultimate resolution requires the commitment of all.
Mr President,
Mr President,
With Resolution A/68/6 of the 68th Session of the General Assembly, it was decided that this present Session would discuss the Post-2015 Development Agenda, to be then formally adopted in the 70th Session in September 2015. You yourself, Mr President, aptly chose the main theme of this present Session: Delivering and Implementing a Transformative Post-2015 Development Agenda.
During your recent meeting with all the Chief Executives of Agencies, Funds and Programs of the United Nations (cf. Address to the Secretary General of the United Nations and the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, 9 May 2014), His Holiness requested that future objectives for sustainable development be formulated “with generosity and courage, so that they can have a real impact on the structural causes of poverty and hunger, attain more substantial results in protecting the environment, ensure dignified and productive labour for all, and provide an appropriate protection for the family, which is an essential element in sustainable human and social development. Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the ‘economy of exclusion’, the ‘throwaway culture’ and the ‘culture of death’”. Pope Francis encouraged the Chief Executives to promote “a true, worldwide ethical mobilization which, beyond all differences of religious or political convictions, will spread and put into practice a shared ideal of fraternity and solidarity, especially with regard to the poorest and those most excluded” (ibid).
In this regard, the Holy See welcomes the 17 “Sustainable Development Goals” proposed by the Working Group (Open Working Group for Sustainable Goals), which seek to address the structural causes of poverty by promoting dignified labour for everyone. Equally, the Holy See appreciates that the goals and targets, for most part, do not echo wealthy populations’ fears regarding population growth in poorer countries. It also welcomes the fact that the goals and targets do not impose on poorer states lifestyles which are typically associated with advanced economies and which tend to show a disregard for human dignity. Furthermore, with regard to the Post-2015 Development Agenda, the incorporation of the results of the OWG [Open Working Group for Sustainable Goals], alongside the indications given in the Report of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing and those arising out of the interagency consultation, would seem indispensable for the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the efforts of the United Nations and of many people of good will, the number of the poor and excluded is increasing not only in developing nations but also in developed ones. The “Responsibility to protect”, as stated earlier, refers to extreme aggressions against human rights, cases of serious contempt of humanitarian law or grave natural catastrophes. In a similar way there is a need to make legal provision for protecting people against other forms of aggression, which are less evident but just as serious and real. For example, a financial system governed only by speculation and the maximization of profits, or one in which individual persons are regarded as disposable items in a culture of waste, could be tantamount, in certain circumstances, to an offence against human dignity. It follows, therefore, that the UN and its member states have an urgent and grave responsibility for the poor and excluded, mindful always that social and economic justice is an essential condition for peace.
Mr President,
Each day of the 69th Session of the General Assembly, and indeed of the next four Sessions, up until November 2018, will bear the sad and painful memory of the futile and inhumane tragedy of the First World War (a senseless slaughter, as Pope Benedict XV referred to it), with its millions of victims and untold destruction. Marking the centenary of the start of the conflict, His Holiness Pope Francis expressed his desire that “the mistakes of the past are not repeated, that the lessons of history are acknowledged, and that the causes for peace may always prevail through patient and courageous dialogue” (Angelus, 27 July 2014). On that occasion, the thoughts of His Holiness focused particularly on three areas of crisis: the Middle East, Iraq and Ukraine. He urged all Christians and people of faith to pray to the Lord to “grant to these peoples and to the Leaders of those regions the wisdom and strength needed to move forward with determination on the path toward peace, to address every dispute with the tenacity of dialogue and negotiation and with the power of reconciliation. May the common good and respect for every person, rather than specific interests, be at the centre of every decision. Let us remember that in war all is lost and in peace nothing” (ibid).
Mr President,
In making my own the sentiments of the Holy Father, I fervently hope that they may be shared by all present here. I offer to each of you my best wishes for your work, while trusting that this Session will spare no effort to put to an end the clamour of weapons that marks existing conflicts and that it will continue to foster the development of the entire human race, and in particular, the poorest among us.
Thank you, Mr President.
During your recent meeting with all the Chief Executives of Agencies, Funds and Programs of the United Nations (cf. Address to the Secretary General of the United Nations and the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, 9 May 2014), His Holiness requested that future objectives for sustainable development be formulated “with generosity and courage, so that they can have a real impact on the structural causes of poverty and hunger, attain more substantial results in protecting the environment, ensure dignified and productive labour for all, and provide an appropriate protection for the family, which is an essential element in sustainable human and social development. Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the ‘economy of exclusion’, the ‘throwaway culture’ and the ‘culture of death’”. Pope Francis encouraged the Chief Executives to promote “a true, worldwide ethical mobilization which, beyond all differences of religious or political convictions, will spread and put into practice a shared ideal of fraternity and solidarity, especially with regard to the poorest and those most excluded” (ibid).
In this regard, the Holy See welcomes the 17 “Sustainable Development Goals” proposed by the Working Group (Open Working Group for Sustainable Goals), which seek to address the structural causes of poverty by promoting dignified labour for everyone. Equally, the Holy See appreciates that the goals and targets, for most part, do not echo wealthy populations’ fears regarding population growth in poorer countries. It also welcomes the fact that the goals and targets do not impose on poorer states lifestyles which are typically associated with advanced economies and which tend to show a disregard for human dignity. Furthermore, with regard to the Post-2015 Development Agenda, the incorporation of the results of the OWG [Open Working Group for Sustainable Goals], alongside the indications given in the Report of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing and those arising out of the interagency consultation, would seem indispensable for the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the efforts of the United Nations and of many people of good will, the number of the poor and excluded is increasing not only in developing nations but also in developed ones. The “Responsibility to protect”, as stated earlier, refers to extreme aggressions against human rights, cases of serious contempt of humanitarian law or grave natural catastrophes. In a similar way there is a need to make legal provision for protecting people against other forms of aggression, which are less evident but just as serious and real. For example, a financial system governed only by speculation and the maximization of profits, or one in which individual persons are regarded as disposable items in a culture of waste, could be tantamount, in certain circumstances, to an offence against human dignity. It follows, therefore, that the UN and its member states have an urgent and grave responsibility for the poor and excluded, mindful always that social and economic justice is an essential condition for peace.
Mr President,
Each day of the 69th Session of the General Assembly, and indeed of the next four Sessions, up until November 2018, will bear the sad and painful memory of the futile and inhumane tragedy of the First World War (a senseless slaughter, as Pope Benedict XV referred to it), with its millions of victims and untold destruction. Marking the centenary of the start of the conflict, His Holiness Pope Francis expressed his desire that “the mistakes of the past are not repeated, that the lessons of history are acknowledged, and that the causes for peace may always prevail through patient and courageous dialogue” (Angelus, 27 July 2014). On that occasion, the thoughts of His Holiness focused particularly on three areas of crisis: the Middle East, Iraq and Ukraine. He urged all Christians and people of faith to pray to the Lord to “grant to these peoples and to the Leaders of those regions the wisdom and strength needed to move forward with determination on the path toward peace, to address every dispute with the tenacity of dialogue and negotiation and with the power of reconciliation. May the common good and respect for every person, rather than specific interests, be at the centre of every decision. Let us remember that in war all is lost and in peace nothing” (ibid).
Mr President,
In making my own the sentiments of the Holy Father, I fervently hope that they may be shared by all present here. I offer to each of you my best wishes for your work, while trusting that this Session will spare no effort to put to an end the clamour of weapons that marks existing conflicts and that it will continue to foster the development of the entire human race, and in particular, the poorest among us.
Thank you, Mr President.
07 November 2014
Syria: Christ’s followers, caught between Assad and the Caliphate
In a new book coordinated by Samuel Lieven, titled “The Black Book on the Condition of Christians in the World” and now on sale in Europe, Jean-Michel di Falco, Timothy Radcliffe and Andrea Riccardi attempt to document the scope of anti-Christian action around the world . The book is a collection of analyses by the world’s top scholars. Below is a preview of the chapter written by Italian journalist Domenico Quirico
As seen in Vatican Insider:
Christians in Syria: I came into contact with them straight away, on the second day of my umpteenth visit to the land of the revolution which turned into a horrific and ferocious civil war. Yabroud is located just over the Lebanese border. Its mountains seem far away, bare, rocky, solemn peaks crowned by clouds. In order to complete the first leg of the journey which should take me to Damascus, I skirt around the mountainside with a Free Syria Army reinforcement team, above deep and scary, cloud-filled gorges. At sundown, the vast Yabroud plain and Qara further in the distance, appear submerged in glorious sunlight, with cultivated fields and orderly orchards stretching out across it in a carpet-like pattern. But it is the sentinels of the desert; behind them are the endless plains that lead to Damascus; its cliffs and sand make the faraway sky seem cloudy.
This has been the land of Christians for centuries. They have held out against all odds: Crusades and the jihad, poverty and revolutions, fanaticism and indifference. Above all, they escaped the jaws of one unforgivable sin: desperation. On my previous four trips to Syria under rebellion I never paid much attention to the Christian community in the country ruled by Assad. They account for approximately 10-12% of the Syrian population but it is difficult to give precise estimates, as people’s religion is not stated on their personal identification documents. I confess that I saw it as a problem of secondary importance given the tragic abyss which 22 million Syrians, including Sunnis, Alawites, Arabs, Turkmens, Druses and Kurds, found themselves in. Of course I had noticed that the Christians in Free Syrian Army units were rather few. Certainly when I talked about it with the rebels many of their faces dropped just at the mention of them: “Christians have always been closely tied to Bashar out of interest and fear... They are suspicious of us revolutionaries and accuse us of being fundamentalists and fanatics. But in reality they are defending their interests, wealth and the social status they have gained. Fir this reason they see the regime as a safety net and us an unknown.”
But, they added, “there will be no vendettas in Aleppo”, a martyr city and symbol of the revolution that has been split down the middle, with neighbourhoods that have been freed on the one hand and the regime’s strongholds on the other. “There will also be a place for Christians in the new State that we visualise as democratic, pluralistic and multidenominational.”
Syrian Christians have traditionally always supported the Baath party and the nation-State. But they have also done so out of need. They see it as a way of holding back fundamentalism. Their Golden Age was the 1950’s, when they actively participated in the political and parliamentary life of a newly-independent Syria; in the 1954 elections they obtained 16 members of parliament. This was the only democratic election in the country’s entire history.
The emir of the Al Nusra Front group that had taken me hostage for a period of ten days was a good looking Lebanese man with blue eyes who came from the villages on the border to fight the holy war in Syria and settle the score with Hezbollah’s Shiites. Apparently they had carried out a massacre in his village. It was this chain of events that led to the of the moloch that was the Syrian civil war. A monk who was a warrior, just like his young fighters, prayer and war, an ascetic life where there was no room for smiles, food or piety. He would pass by the stable where his group of fighters were living in poor conditions, when it was not yet daylight, as knock on the iron doors with a stick he always carried with him, shouting: “Wake up, mujaheddin. God is calling, it’s prayer time!” He had a clever and cruel look in his eye and he had things all worked out in his mind. When I asked him what future lay ahead for Syria if they managed to get rid of Bashar, he said without hesitation: we will establish the Caliphate here, according to the will of the great and merciful God. Sharia law will reign supreme. But this will only be the beginning... We will then throw all Jews into the sea, conquer Lebanon and overthrow the atheist and corrupt regimes in Jordan, Iraq... and then Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, al-Andalus, Spain and all of God’s lands. And the Caliphate will return to its former glory, in the sacred days when Islam was victorious. I asked him what would happen to Christians in the future Caliphate: they have been living here for centuries, this is their home... They will have a better fate than that of the Alawites, Bashar’s Satanic sect, which we will hunt down and exterminate, right down to the very last man, woman and child. If Christians obey, they will be able to stay here, but they will have to pay a tax, like all dhimmis. As citizens, they will never enjoy the same rights as true believers!
Over the past year, the nature of the Syrian civil war and its players have changed radically. The number of jihadist groups financed by Saudi Arabia and often made up entirely of foreign volunteers, have multiplied and are also stronger. In a land where the Free Syrian Army is no longer, these groups are the real opposition force that stands against the regular army. They have brought with them a fanaticism that was lacking in the first phase of the revolution. They see the regime’s overthrowal as the first phase in the process of re-establishing the Caliphate in a country that is a key player in the Middle East. Approaches to Christians vary: each katiba takes a more or less extremist stance depending on its composition – Chechens, Libyans, Tunisians, Tatars, Saudis and Europeans . Misinformation on both warring sides has given birth to numerous theories and myths. Western newspapers have collected and published terrifying stories about fundamentalist groups killing Christians and allegedly bottling their blood and sending it to the Saudis who finance their groups, to show that they are hard at work in this holy war! There has also been talk of Christian crucifixions based on videos from questionable sources. There are jihadist groups of dubious origin which may have been created or infiltrated by the regime’s secret services to spread confusion and conduct dirty military operations. For example, who shot Fr. Franz van der Lugt in the neck three times ? The Dutch Jesuit priest who agreed to stay in Homs’ old quarter which had been under siege for two years, despite the bombs and the lack of food, to show to the world that he “[did] not see Muslims or Christians” but “above all, human beings”. Was it the fundamentalists or the regular army that killed him to take revenge? Who kidnapped another Jesuit priest, Fr. Paolo Dall’Oglio, founder of the Mar Musa monastery – a place of extraordinary ecumenism where Muslims and Christians pray side by side – over a year ago? Unlike the Christian leaders he had often jad disagreements with, he had chosen to back the revolutionary side right from the start, against a regime which he denounced as corrupt and violent. Here we have a priest and revolutionary free from any contradictions and hypocrisy.
Some are adamant – though there is no confirmation – that Fr. Dall’Oglio was kidnapped by one of the jihad’s most radical groups, ISIL, which controls the territories on the Syria-Iraq border where the Italian Jesuit priest went missing. Dall’Oglio’s revolutionary values are of no importance to these new rebel fanatics in the face of two other capital “sins”: being Western and above all, Christian.
As seen in Vatican Insider:Christians in Syria: I came into contact with them straight away, on the second day of my umpteenth visit to the land of the revolution which turned into a horrific and ferocious civil war. Yabroud is located just over the Lebanese border. Its mountains seem far away, bare, rocky, solemn peaks crowned by clouds. In order to complete the first leg of the journey which should take me to Damascus, I skirt around the mountainside with a Free Syria Army reinforcement team, above deep and scary, cloud-filled gorges. At sundown, the vast Yabroud plain and Qara further in the distance, appear submerged in glorious sunlight, with cultivated fields and orderly orchards stretching out across it in a carpet-like pattern. But it is the sentinels of the desert; behind them are the endless plains that lead to Damascus; its cliffs and sand make the faraway sky seem cloudy.
This has been the land of Christians for centuries. They have held out against all odds: Crusades and the jihad, poverty and revolutions, fanaticism and indifference. Above all, they escaped the jaws of one unforgivable sin: desperation. On my previous four trips to Syria under rebellion I never paid much attention to the Christian community in the country ruled by Assad. They account for approximately 10-12% of the Syrian population but it is difficult to give precise estimates, as people’s religion is not stated on their personal identification documents. I confess that I saw it as a problem of secondary importance given the tragic abyss which 22 million Syrians, including Sunnis, Alawites, Arabs, Turkmens, Druses and Kurds, found themselves in. Of course I had noticed that the Christians in Free Syrian Army units were rather few. Certainly when I talked about it with the rebels many of their faces dropped just at the mention of them: “Christians have always been closely tied to Bashar out of interest and fear... They are suspicious of us revolutionaries and accuse us of being fundamentalists and fanatics. But in reality they are defending their interests, wealth and the social status they have gained. Fir this reason they see the regime as a safety net and us an unknown.”
But, they added, “there will be no vendettas in Aleppo”, a martyr city and symbol of the revolution that has been split down the middle, with neighbourhoods that have been freed on the one hand and the regime’s strongholds on the other. “There will also be a place for Christians in the new State that we visualise as democratic, pluralistic and multidenominational.”
Syrian Christians have traditionally always supported the Baath party and the nation-State. But they have also done so out of need. They see it as a way of holding back fundamentalism. Their Golden Age was the 1950’s, when they actively participated in the political and parliamentary life of a newly-independent Syria; in the 1954 elections they obtained 16 members of parliament. This was the only democratic election in the country’s entire history.
The emir of the Al Nusra Front group that had taken me hostage for a period of ten days was a good looking Lebanese man with blue eyes who came from the villages on the border to fight the holy war in Syria and settle the score with Hezbollah’s Shiites. Apparently they had carried out a massacre in his village. It was this chain of events that led to the of the moloch that was the Syrian civil war. A monk who was a warrior, just like his young fighters, prayer and war, an ascetic life where there was no room for smiles, food or piety. He would pass by the stable where his group of fighters were living in poor conditions, when it was not yet daylight, as knock on the iron doors with a stick he always carried with him, shouting: “Wake up, mujaheddin. God is calling, it’s prayer time!” He had a clever and cruel look in his eye and he had things all worked out in his mind. When I asked him what future lay ahead for Syria if they managed to get rid of Bashar, he said without hesitation: we will establish the Caliphate here, according to the will of the great and merciful God. Sharia law will reign supreme. But this will only be the beginning... We will then throw all Jews into the sea, conquer Lebanon and overthrow the atheist and corrupt regimes in Jordan, Iraq... and then Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, al-Andalus, Spain and all of God’s lands. And the Caliphate will return to its former glory, in the sacred days when Islam was victorious. I asked him what would happen to Christians in the future Caliphate: they have been living here for centuries, this is their home... They will have a better fate than that of the Alawites, Bashar’s Satanic sect, which we will hunt down and exterminate, right down to the very last man, woman and child. If Christians obey, they will be able to stay here, but they will have to pay a tax, like all dhimmis. As citizens, they will never enjoy the same rights as true believers!
Over the past year, the nature of the Syrian civil war and its players have changed radically. The number of jihadist groups financed by Saudi Arabia and often made up entirely of foreign volunteers, have multiplied and are also stronger. In a land where the Free Syrian Army is no longer, these groups are the real opposition force that stands against the regular army. They have brought with them a fanaticism that was lacking in the first phase of the revolution. They see the regime’s overthrowal as the first phase in the process of re-establishing the Caliphate in a country that is a key player in the Middle East. Approaches to Christians vary: each katiba takes a more or less extremist stance depending on its composition – Chechens, Libyans, Tunisians, Tatars, Saudis and Europeans . Misinformation on both warring sides has given birth to numerous theories and myths. Western newspapers have collected and published terrifying stories about fundamentalist groups killing Christians and allegedly bottling their blood and sending it to the Saudis who finance their groups, to show that they are hard at work in this holy war! There has also been talk of Christian crucifixions based on videos from questionable sources. There are jihadist groups of dubious origin which may have been created or infiltrated by the regime’s secret services to spread confusion and conduct dirty military operations. For example, who shot Fr. Franz van der Lugt in the neck three times ? The Dutch Jesuit priest who agreed to stay in Homs’ old quarter which had been under siege for two years, despite the bombs and the lack of food, to show to the world that he “[did] not see Muslims or Christians” but “above all, human beings”. Was it the fundamentalists or the regular army that killed him to take revenge? Who kidnapped another Jesuit priest, Fr. Paolo Dall’Oglio, founder of the Mar Musa monastery – a place of extraordinary ecumenism where Muslims and Christians pray side by side – over a year ago? Unlike the Christian leaders he had often jad disagreements with, he had chosen to back the revolutionary side right from the start, against a regime which he denounced as corrupt and violent. Here we have a priest and revolutionary free from any contradictions and hypocrisy.
Some are adamant – though there is no confirmation – that Fr. Dall’Oglio was kidnapped by one of the jihad’s most radical groups, ISIL, which controls the territories on the Syria-Iraq border where the Italian Jesuit priest went missing. Dall’Oglio’s revolutionary values are of no importance to these new rebel fanatics in the face of two other capital “sins”: being Western and above all, Christian.
30 October 2014
Pope Emeritus Breaks Silence to Support Truth Over Dialogue
As seen on Aleteia:
When Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation in February of 2013, he said he would continue to serve the church "through a life dedicated to prayer.” He has made few public appearances since he left office, and has said and written even less.
His relative silence was broken Oct. 21, when his longtime secretary, Archbishop Georg Ganswein, read a 1,800-word speech written by Benedict on the occasion of the dedication of the Aula Magna at the Pontifical Urbaniana University to the Pope Emeritus.The university belongs to the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. It dedicated the hall as a “gesture of gratitude” for what Benedict “has done for the Church as a conciliar expert, with his teaching as professor, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and, finally, the Magisterium."
In the speech, the Pope emeritus said that dialogue with other religions is no substitute for spreading the Gospel to non-Christian cultures, and warned against relativistic ideas of religious truth as “lethal to faith.” He also said the true motivation for missionary work is not to increase the Church’s size but to share the joy of knowing Christ.
“The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people,” retired Pope Benedict wrote. “‘But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the Church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?’"
“In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired Pope wrote. “The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world."
“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine,” he wrote.
Pope Benedict wrote that some religions, particularly “tribal religions,” are “waiting for the encounter with Jesus Christ,” but that this “encounter is always reciprocal. Christ is waiting for their history, their wisdom, their vision of the things.” This encounter can also give new life to Christianity, which has grown tired in its historical heartlands, he wrote.
“We proclaim Jesus Christ not to procure as many members as possible for our community, and still less in order to gain power,” the retired Pope wrote. “We speak of him because we feel the duty to transmit that joy which has been given to us.”
When Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation in February of 2013, he said he would continue to serve the church "through a life dedicated to prayer.” He has made few public appearances since he left office, and has said and written even less.
His relative silence was broken Oct. 21, when his longtime secretary, Archbishop Georg Ganswein, read a 1,800-word speech written by Benedict on the occasion of the dedication of the Aula Magna at the Pontifical Urbaniana University to the Pope Emeritus.The university belongs to the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. It dedicated the hall as a “gesture of gratitude” for what Benedict “has done for the Church as a conciliar expert, with his teaching as professor, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and, finally, the Magisterium."
In the speech, the Pope emeritus said that dialogue with other religions is no substitute for spreading the Gospel to non-Christian cultures, and warned against relativistic ideas of religious truth as “lethal to faith.” He also said the true motivation for missionary work is not to increase the Church’s size but to share the joy of knowing Christ.
“The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people,” retired Pope Benedict wrote. “‘But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the Church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?’"
“In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired Pope wrote. “The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world."
“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine,” he wrote.
Pope Benedict wrote that some religions, particularly “tribal religions,” are “waiting for the encounter with Jesus Christ,” but that this “encounter is always reciprocal. Christ is waiting for their history, their wisdom, their vision of the things.” This encounter can also give new life to Christianity, which has grown tired in its historical heartlands, he wrote.
“We proclaim Jesus Christ not to procure as many members as possible for our community, and still less in order to gain power,” the retired Pope wrote. “We speak of him because we feel the duty to transmit that joy which has been given to us.”
17 October 2014
Cardinal Burke says statement from Pope Francis defending Catholic teaching is ‘long overdue’
From LifeSiteNews.com:
In a candid interview Monday, Cardinal Raymond Burke voiced the concerns of many of his brothers in the Synod hall and lay Catholic activists throughout the world that the public presentation of the Synod has been manipulated by the organizers in the General Secretariat.
He strongly criticized yesterday’s Relatio post disceptationem, or “report after the debate,” which the Catholic lay group Voice of the Family had called a “betrayal,” saying it proposes views that "faithful shepherds ... cannot accept," and betrays an approach that is "not of the Church." He called on Pope Francis to issue a statement defending Catholic teaching.
“In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue,” he told Catholic World Report’s Carl Olsen. “The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.”
“The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church,” he added.
The relatio, he said, proposes views that many Synod fathers “cannot accept,” and that they “as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept.”
The document, among its most controversial propositions, asks whether “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation” could align with Catholic doctrine; proposes allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”; and says pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.
“Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable,” Burke told Olsen.
“The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called ‘revolutionary’, teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.”
Burke lamented that the bishops’ interventions are not published, while the General Secretariat chose to publish the controversial relatio, which was intended as a merely provisional summary of the first week that is under review by the fathers this week.
“All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the Relatio post disceptationem of yesterday morning,” he said.
“While the individual interventions of the Synod Fathers are not published, yesterday’s Relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church.”
While critics of Burke's public interventions in the Synod debates have portrayed him as representing a fringe, he was elected by his brother bishops to moderate one of the three English-speaking small groups discussing the relatio this week.
In a candid interview Monday, Cardinal Raymond Burke voiced the concerns of many of his brothers in the Synod hall and lay Catholic activists throughout the world that the public presentation of the Synod has been manipulated by the organizers in the General Secretariat.
He strongly criticized yesterday’s Relatio post disceptationem, or “report after the debate,” which the Catholic lay group Voice of the Family had called a “betrayal,” saying it proposes views that "faithful shepherds ... cannot accept," and betrays an approach that is "not of the Church." He called on Pope Francis to issue a statement defending Catholic teaching.
“In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue,” he told Catholic World Report’s Carl Olsen. “The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.”
“The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church,” he added.
The relatio, he said, proposes views that many Synod fathers “cannot accept,” and that they “as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept.”
The document, among its most controversial propositions, asks whether “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation” could align with Catholic doctrine; proposes allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”; and says pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.
“Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable,” Burke told Olsen.
“The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called ‘revolutionary’, teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.”
Burke lamented that the bishops’ interventions are not published, while the General Secretariat chose to publish the controversial relatio, which was intended as a merely provisional summary of the first week that is under review by the fathers this week.
“All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the Relatio post disceptationem of yesterday morning,” he said.
“While the individual interventions of the Synod Fathers are not published, yesterday’s Relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church.”
While critics of Burke's public interventions in the Synod debates have portrayed him as representing a fringe, he was elected by his brother bishops to moderate one of the three English-speaking small groups discussing the relatio this week.
12 October 2014
The Most Pro-Life “Doctor Who” Ever—10 Points You Missed
From CatholicVote.org:
On Saturday October 4 the BBC ran the most boldly pro-life, explicitly anti-abortion TV show in the history of Doctor Who, and maybe in all of modern television.
The show was so skillfully crafted that pro-abortion folks might not know what hit them yet, but they will soon.
Here are the 10 pro-life highlights that you may have missed from this sci-fi gem.
For non-Who fans, I’ll provide a little bit of background along the way. As for spoilers: consider yourself warned! (You can buy the episode for $3 on iTunes or other digital providers.)
1. THE PREGNANT MOON
In case you don’t know, Doctor Who is a Time Lord who seeks adventures throughout time and space. Though an alien, he looks human and travels with a female (usually non-romantic) human companion.
2. LUNAR ULTRASOUND
Guessing at this answer, the Doctor dives into a strange cavern of fluid and comes back with proof. Using his ubiquitous sonic screwdriver, he takes a sonographic image—an ultrasound of the moon.
The picture is rendered in the familiar blue and red tones that all of us and many pregnant women have seen.
It reveals the image of a fetus, albeit one that is several hundred billion tons large and bears huge wings. It is curled into the full interior of the moon, with the surface as its shell.
Four characters are on scene to digest this news: the Doctor, Clara, Courtney, and the female lead astronaut Captain Lundvik. They marvel at the image, but for very different reasons.
3. “UNIQUE AND UTTERLY BEAUTIFUL”
The first reactions are vivid. The Doctor sets the tone.
“Doctor, what is it?” Clara asks. He cannot contain his wonder. “I think it is unique. I think that’s the only one of its kind in the universe. I think that that is utterly beautiful.”
For many years the Doctor has been a hero who is fearless, but not because he has an abundance of courage—instead, because he has wonder. When other people see monsters, he sees the beauty of creation.
That sense of wonder is now turned into the womb of humanity. But human fear is not solved so easily.
4. “HOW DO WE KILL IT?”
Captain Lundvik shatters the feeling of wonder with cold realism. “How do we kill it?”
5. “IT’S A LITTLE BABY!”
Courtney’s youth and compassion assert themselves. “It’s a little baby!” she reacts in horror to Lundvik’s drive towards death.
Clara joins the chorus. “Stop. Right, listen. This is a, this is a life. I mean this, this must be the biggest life in the universe.”
“It is killing people. It is destroying the earth,” Lundvik insists. Her reasons are sympathetic, but still driven too narrowly by fear.
“You cannot blame a baby for kicking,” Clara chimes back.
Lundvik is quick to reach her own dehumanizing conclusions about life in this womb. “It’s an exoparasite. Like a flea, or a head louse.”
“I’m gonna to have to be a lot more certain than that if I’m going to kill a baby” proclaims Clara.
The Doctor’s companions have often been his conscience. He battles his own apprehensions and hatreds. Clara, Amy Pond and others have entreated and even shamed the Doctor into making the right choice—the pro-life choice. Now it’s humanity’s turn.
6. EVERYTHING IS DEATH
Captain Lundvik is not bloodthirsty, but she has fallen into despair. She only sees the destruction that might (but might not) befall if they don’t choose death.
To her, space has not elicited wonder, but dread: “the stars, the blackness, that’s all dead. Sadly that is the only life any of us will ever know.”
Courtney sees more. “There’s life here. There’s life just next door.” But Lundvik cannot hope.
Still, Lundvik is not a villain. She feels trapped. She doesn’t want to abort. “Listen I don’t want to do this. All my life I dreamed about coming here. But this is how it has to end.”
7. GRAPHIC IMAGES
8. THE DOCTOR LEAVES
At this point the sophistication of the writers moves to a new level. The Doctor becomes the emotionally distant boyfriend, and more definitively, the voice of pro-choice empowerment itself.
He leaves. He knows the right decision, but refuses to help the human women make it.
“Whatever future humanity might have depends on the choice that is made right here, right now. Kill it. Or let it live. I can’t make this decision for you.”
Clara pleads with him to stay, to give wisdom—to help them make the right choice. But he gets nasty. “Sorry, well actually I’m not sorry. It’s time to take the stabalizers off your bike.”
Then he postures his abandonment in words that Planned Parenthood could not have written better itself. “It’s your moon, womankind. It’s your choice.”
In “Doctor Who,” the lead actor changes every few years, under the plot conceit that before he dies he can regenerate into a new body. He’s the same person but with a varying personality.
This year’s Doctor is more practically minded, but considerably more insensitive—sometimes intentionally, sometimes absent-mindedly. It is his character flaw along with combating his interior hatreds.
In this episode it was perfectly played into the dismissive posture towards women offered by the pro-choice movement.
9. LIGHTS OUT
With the three girls left to make their abortion decision, Clara patches into mission control and asks all of earth to weigh in during the next hour: “We have a terrible decision to make. We can kill this creature or let it live. We don’t know what’s going to happen when it hatches—if it will hurt us, help us, or just leave us alone. We have to decide together. If you think we should kill the creature turn your lights off. If you think we should take the chance, let it live, leave your lights on. We’ll be able to see. Goodnight earth.”
The earth then chooses: and one country at a time, its lights go off. It makes a massive choice to kill. (An interesting contrast with the moral choice made at the end of “The Dark Knight.”)
But as the timer counts to zero and Lundvik reaches to push the nuclear button, Clara jumps in and turns off the nukes permanently. She knew life was the right choice.
Just in case some people still haven’t figured out the episode was a giant analogy to abortion, the countdown display declares “ABORTED.” Clara aborted the abortion.
The choice made, the Doctor comes back and they transport to earth to watch what happens. The moon hatches into a giant winged creature. Its shell does not rain down on earth to destroy humanity, but disintegrates harmlessly. The creature lays a new egg—a “new moon”—and physics is restored.
We learn that humanity, having seen the beauty of creation that it almost killed, is inspired to reach to the stars again, and eventually populates the universe.
10. PATRONIZING PRO-CHOICE PLATITUDES
The brutal coda to this episode affirms both life and friendship. Clara is furious with the Doctor for leaving instead of helping her.
***
“Kill the Moon” was a thoroughly pro-life story.
Yet it was effective. It did not preach or caricature. The dialogue sizzled. It was riveting, morally serious, and often fun.
While the writers may have felt they were sprinkling in enough “pro-choice” rhetoric to mollify pro-choice elites, that ultimately won’t do. They took that rhetoric and laid it bare as platitudes about women’s choice and empowerment, cheap and patronizing, an abandonment of women.
The moon baby was not a monster, but neither was Lundvik. Her motivations were understandable, and we could relate to all her conclusions. She didn’t want abortion, she just felt she had no choice.
But ultimately Lundvik’s perspective was wrong—despair had narrowed her vision. Life and friendship is the answer.
Finally seeing the wonder of life, Lundvik tells Clara “Thank you. Thank you for stopping me. Thank you for giving me the way back.”
Thank you for stopping abortion.
Not bad for 50 minutes of campy sci-fi.
On Saturday October 4 the BBC ran the most boldly pro-life, explicitly anti-abortion TV show in the history of Doctor Who, and maybe in all of modern television.
The show was so skillfully crafted that pro-abortion folks might not know what hit them yet, but they will soon.
Here are the 10 pro-life highlights that you may have missed from this sci-fi gem.
For non-Who fans, I’ll provide a little bit of background along the way. As for spoilers: consider yourself warned! (You can buy the episode for $3 on iTunes or other digital providers.)
1. THE PREGNANT MOON
In case you don’t know, Doctor Who is a Time Lord who seeks adventures throughout time and space. Though an alien, he looks human and travels with a female (usually non-romantic) human companion.
In this latest episode “Kill the Moon,” the Doctor and companion Clara Oswald land on the moon in 2049 (along with Courtney, a teenage student from the school where Clara teaches).
Serious fluctuations in the moon’s physics are causing death and destruction on earth. Humans have given up space exploration, but they send a few astronauts to investigate–armed with nuclear weapons.
They meet the Doctor and have some scary experiences with deadly spider-like creatures. But by the end of the first act the Doctor discovers the real problem. The moon, which appeared to be growing and breaking apart—turns out to be a giant space egg, ready to hatch. Cue the moral drama.
Serious fluctuations in the moon’s physics are causing death and destruction on earth. Humans have given up space exploration, but they send a few astronauts to investigate–armed with nuclear weapons.
They meet the Doctor and have some scary experiences with deadly spider-like creatures. But by the end of the first act the Doctor discovers the real problem. The moon, which appeared to be growing and breaking apart—turns out to be a giant space egg, ready to hatch. Cue the moral drama.
2. LUNAR ULTRASOUND
Guessing at this answer, the Doctor dives into a strange cavern of fluid and comes back with proof. Using his ubiquitous sonic screwdriver, he takes a sonographic image—an ultrasound of the moon.
The picture is rendered in the familiar blue and red tones that all of us and many pregnant women have seen.
It reveals the image of a fetus, albeit one that is several hundred billion tons large and bears huge wings. It is curled into the full interior of the moon, with the surface as its shell.
Four characters are on scene to digest this news: the Doctor, Clara, Courtney, and the female lead astronaut Captain Lundvik. They marvel at the image, but for very different reasons.
3. “UNIQUE AND UTTERLY BEAUTIFUL”
The first reactions are vivid. The Doctor sets the tone.
“Doctor, what is it?” Clara asks. He cannot contain his wonder. “I think it is unique. I think that’s the only one of its kind in the universe. I think that that is utterly beautiful.”
For many years the Doctor has been a hero who is fearless, but not because he has an abundance of courage—instead, because he has wonder. When other people see monsters, he sees the beauty of creation.
That sense of wonder is now turned into the womb of humanity. But human fear is not solved so easily.
4. “HOW DO WE KILL IT?”
Captain Lundvik shatters the feeling of wonder with cold realism. “How do we kill it?”
The hatching is already causing catastrophe on earth, and maybe when it fully hatches it will destroy the earth entirely. Or maybe it won’t. They aren’t sure.
“Kill the moon?” The Doctor slams Lundvik’s proposal on the table for all of them to look at plainly. He turns off the ultrasound, making the creature disappear while they discuss its fate.
Recent seasons have made the Doctor face situations where he can succumb to his fears and destroy life, or affirm his better nature and trust ways to affirm the inherent value of life, sometimes taking leap of faith.
Even when facing genocide and torture the plotline has favored the life-affirming choice—until now. Would it continue to do so in an abortion analogy?
“Kill the moon?” The Doctor slams Lundvik’s proposal on the table for all of them to look at plainly. He turns off the ultrasound, making the creature disappear while they discuss its fate.
Recent seasons have made the Doctor face situations where he can succumb to his fears and destroy life, or affirm his better nature and trust ways to affirm the inherent value of life, sometimes taking leap of faith.
Even when facing genocide and torture the plotline has favored the life-affirming choice—until now. Would it continue to do so in an abortion analogy?
5. “IT’S A LITTLE BABY!”
Courtney’s youth and compassion assert themselves. “It’s a little baby!” she reacts in horror to Lundvik’s drive towards death.
Clara joins the chorus. “Stop. Right, listen. This is a, this is a life. I mean this, this must be the biggest life in the universe.”
“It is killing people. It is destroying the earth,” Lundvik insists. Her reasons are sympathetic, but still driven too narrowly by fear.
“You cannot blame a baby for kicking,” Clara chimes back.
Lundvik is quick to reach her own dehumanizing conclusions about life in this womb. “It’s an exoparasite. Like a flea, or a head louse.”
“I’m gonna to have to be a lot more certain than that if I’m going to kill a baby” proclaims Clara.
The Doctor’s companions have often been his conscience. He battles his own apprehensions and hatreds. Clara, Amy Pond and others have entreated and even shamed the Doctor into making the right choice—the pro-life choice. Now it’s humanity’s turn.
6. EVERYTHING IS DEATH
Captain Lundvik is not bloodthirsty, but she has fallen into despair. She only sees the destruction that might (but might not) befall if they don’t choose death.
To her, space has not elicited wonder, but dread: “the stars, the blackness, that’s all dead. Sadly that is the only life any of us will ever know.”
Courtney sees more. “There’s life here. There’s life just next door.” But Lundvik cannot hope.
Still, Lundvik is not a villain. She feels trapped. She doesn’t want to abort. “Listen I don’t want to do this. All my life I dreamed about coming here. But this is how it has to end.”
7. GRAPHIC IMAGES
The Doctor lays bare the consequences of Lundvik’s proposal. Sure, killing the moon will stop its hatching, because “there’ll be nothing to make it break up. There’ll be nothing trying to force its way out.”
But euphemisms will not do, either. “The gravity of the little dead baby will pull all the pieces back together again. Of course it won’t be very pretty. You’d have an enormous corpse floating in the sky. Might have some very difficult conversations to have with your kids.”
“I don’t have any kids,” Lundvik says, displaying her deep loneliness.
But euphemisms will not do, either. “The gravity of the little dead baby will pull all the pieces back together again. Of course it won’t be very pretty. You’d have an enormous corpse floating in the sky. Might have some very difficult conversations to have with your kids.”
“I don’t have any kids,” Lundvik says, displaying her deep loneliness.
8. THE DOCTOR LEAVES
At this point the sophistication of the writers moves to a new level. The Doctor becomes the emotionally distant boyfriend, and more definitively, the voice of pro-choice empowerment itself.
He leaves. He knows the right decision, but refuses to help the human women make it.
“Whatever future humanity might have depends on the choice that is made right here, right now. Kill it. Or let it live. I can’t make this decision for you.”
Clara pleads with him to stay, to give wisdom—to help them make the right choice. But he gets nasty. “Sorry, well actually I’m not sorry. It’s time to take the stabalizers off your bike.”
Then he postures his abandonment in words that Planned Parenthood could not have written better itself. “It’s your moon, womankind. It’s your choice.”
In “Doctor Who,” the lead actor changes every few years, under the plot conceit that before he dies he can regenerate into a new body. He’s the same person but with a varying personality.
This year’s Doctor is more practically minded, but considerably more insensitive—sometimes intentionally, sometimes absent-mindedly. It is his character flaw along with combating his interior hatreds.
In this episode it was perfectly played into the dismissive posture towards women offered by the pro-choice movement.
9. LIGHTS OUT
With the three girls left to make their abortion decision, Clara patches into mission control and asks all of earth to weigh in during the next hour: “We have a terrible decision to make. We can kill this creature or let it live. We don’t know what’s going to happen when it hatches—if it will hurt us, help us, or just leave us alone. We have to decide together. If you think we should kill the creature turn your lights off. If you think we should take the chance, let it live, leave your lights on. We’ll be able to see. Goodnight earth.”
The earth then chooses: and one country at a time, its lights go off. It makes a massive choice to kill. (An interesting contrast with the moral choice made at the end of “The Dark Knight.”)
But as the timer counts to zero and Lundvik reaches to push the nuclear button, Clara jumps in and turns off the nukes permanently. She knew life was the right choice.
Just in case some people still haven’t figured out the episode was a giant analogy to abortion, the countdown display declares “ABORTED.” Clara aborted the abortion.
The choice made, the Doctor comes back and they transport to earth to watch what happens. The moon hatches into a giant winged creature. Its shell does not rain down on earth to destroy humanity, but disintegrates harmlessly. The creature lays a new egg—a “new moon”—and physics is restored.
We learn that humanity, having seen the beauty of creation that it almost killed, is inspired to reach to the stars again, and eventually populates the universe.
10. PATRONIZING PRO-CHOICE PLATITUDES
The brutal coda to this episode affirms both life and friendship. Clara is furious with the Doctor for leaving instead of helping her.
Clara begs for a good reason why he left. He can’t be as callous as he seems. But she is wrong. “It wasn’t my decision to make. I told you.”
“You know what, shut up. I am so sick of listening to you,” Clara rages. Leaving “was cheap, it was pathetic, no, no, it was patronizing.”
“No, that was me allowing you to make a choice about your own future,” the Doctor persists in one last attempt to defend pro-choice ideology. “That was me respecting you.”
“My God, really, was it?” Clara yells back as tears well up. “Yeah well, respected is not how I feel.”
“I was helping.”
“What, by clearing off?”
“Yes.”
“Well then clear off,” for good, she says.
Telling these women that abortion was “your choice” was the opposite of friendship.
Nor is this a mere platitude about it not mattering what you choose as long as you choose it. Clara didn’t want the Doctor to stay regardless of the choice she made. Clara wanted him to stay precisely to help her choose life.
“I nearly didn’t press that button. I nearly got it wrong. That was you, my ‘friend,’ making me scared, making me feel like a bloody idiot. You walk our earth, Doctor. You breathe our air. You make us your friends and that is your moon too, and you can damn well help us when we need it.”
“You know what, shut up. I am so sick of listening to you,” Clara rages. Leaving “was cheap, it was pathetic, no, no, it was patronizing.”
“No, that was me allowing you to make a choice about your own future,” the Doctor persists in one last attempt to defend pro-choice ideology. “That was me respecting you.”
“My God, really, was it?” Clara yells back as tears well up. “Yeah well, respected is not how I feel.”
“I was helping.”
“What, by clearing off?”
“Yes.”
“Well then clear off,” for good, she says.
Telling these women that abortion was “your choice” was the opposite of friendship.
Nor is this a mere platitude about it not mattering what you choose as long as you choose it. Clara didn’t want the Doctor to stay regardless of the choice she made. Clara wanted him to stay precisely to help her choose life.
“I nearly didn’t press that button. I nearly got it wrong. That was you, my ‘friend,’ making me scared, making me feel like a bloody idiot. You walk our earth, Doctor. You breathe our air. You make us your friends and that is your moon too, and you can damn well help us when we need it.”
***
“Kill the Moon” was a thoroughly pro-life story.
Yet it was effective. It did not preach or caricature. The dialogue sizzled. It was riveting, morally serious, and often fun.
While the writers may have felt they were sprinkling in enough “pro-choice” rhetoric to mollify pro-choice elites, that ultimately won’t do. They took that rhetoric and laid it bare as platitudes about women’s choice and empowerment, cheap and patronizing, an abandonment of women.
The moon baby was not a monster, but neither was Lundvik. Her motivations were understandable, and we could relate to all her conclusions. She didn’t want abortion, she just felt she had no choice.
But ultimately Lundvik’s perspective was wrong—despair had narrowed her vision. Life and friendship is the answer.
Finally seeing the wonder of life, Lundvik tells Clara “Thank you. Thank you for stopping me. Thank you for giving me the way back.”
Thank you for stopping abortion.
Not bad for 50 minutes of campy sci-fi.
06 October 2014
Cardinal Burke: Synod should take Communion proposal ‘off the table’
As seen in CatholicHerald.co.uk:
The highest ranking American bishop at the Vatican says this month’s Synod of Bishops on the family should mark the end of a high-level debate over whether to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion.
“The matter really has to be clarified at this point so that this doesn’t continue,” Cardinal Raymond L Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, told Catholic News Service October 1st. “For this to go on for another year, it can only do harm.”
By church law, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics are not admitted to Communion unless they obtain an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages or abstain from sexual relations with their new partners, living together as “brother and sister.”
Pope Francis has said the predicament of such Catholics exemplifies a general need for mercy in the church today. He invited German Cardinal Walter Kasper to address the world’s cardinals at the Vatican in February, when the cardinal argued that, in certain cases, the church can “tolerate something that, in itself, is unacceptable”: a couple living together as husband and wife in a second union.
The topic is sure to be one of the most discussed at the Oct. 5-19 extraordinary synod on the family, following a lively public debate at the highest levels of the church.
Cardinal Burke is one of five cardinals — three of them of synod fathers — who contributed to a new book of essays arguing against Cardinal Kasper’s proposal.
“I cannot see how (the proposal) can go forward if we are going to honor the words of our Lord himself in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, in which he said the man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,” said Cardinal Burke, who heads the Vatican’s highest court. “The person who’s living in an irregular union is living in an adulterous union and therefore cannot be admitted to the sacraments until that situation has been rectified.”
While he said the debate over Cardinal Kasper’s proposal “can only be a healthy thing as long as there’s an honest and deep exchange of views on the matter,” he said protracted discussion at the highest levels has bred confusion.
“This has gone on now for several months and I see that in the media there’s the expectation that there’s going to be some change in the church’s teaching,” Cardinal Burke said. “I hear from bishops and priests that many people are coming to them and insisting that they can now receive the sacraments because they interpret that somehow the church has already changed her teaching. And that isn’t healthy.”
The October 2014 synod is not supposed to reach definitive conclusions but prepare the agenda for a larger world synod a year later, which will make recommendations to the pope. Yet, Cardinal Burke voiced hopes that church leaders would conclude their debate on the Communion question during the first phase of the process.
“What I would hope would happen at (the 2014 synod) is that this issue be clarified and it be off the table,” he said.
Pope Francis is the “first teacher of the faith,” who is expected to author an apostolic exhortation based on the two synods, but he “wanted to call the presidents of conferences of bishops from around the world to hear their thinking, and if he hears from them that there is no point in further discussion of the matter and it should be taken off the table, that would be a wonderful thing,” the cardinal said.
Cardinal Burke said he could not estimate how many of the nearly 200 bishops attending the synod might be open to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, though he said he saw support in Europe and resistance among bishops in Africa. But he said he could not envision the German cardinal’s recommendation prevailing.
“These are bishops, these are shepherds of the flock, who are Catholic. I can’t imagine them accepting this proposal,” he said. “I don’t know quite how I would be able to digest it.”
The highest ranking American bishop at the Vatican says this month’s Synod of Bishops on the family should mark the end of a high-level debate over whether to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion.
“The matter really has to be clarified at this point so that this doesn’t continue,” Cardinal Raymond L Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, told Catholic News Service October 1st. “For this to go on for another year, it can only do harm.”
By church law, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics are not admitted to Communion unless they obtain an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages or abstain from sexual relations with their new partners, living together as “brother and sister.”
Pope Francis has said the predicament of such Catholics exemplifies a general need for mercy in the church today. He invited German Cardinal Walter Kasper to address the world’s cardinals at the Vatican in February, when the cardinal argued that, in certain cases, the church can “tolerate something that, in itself, is unacceptable”: a couple living together as husband and wife in a second union.
The topic is sure to be one of the most discussed at the Oct. 5-19 extraordinary synod on the family, following a lively public debate at the highest levels of the church.
Cardinal Burke is one of five cardinals — three of them of synod fathers — who contributed to a new book of essays arguing against Cardinal Kasper’s proposal.
“I cannot see how (the proposal) can go forward if we are going to honor the words of our Lord himself in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, in which he said the man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,” said Cardinal Burke, who heads the Vatican’s highest court. “The person who’s living in an irregular union is living in an adulterous union and therefore cannot be admitted to the sacraments until that situation has been rectified.”
While he said the debate over Cardinal Kasper’s proposal “can only be a healthy thing as long as there’s an honest and deep exchange of views on the matter,” he said protracted discussion at the highest levels has bred confusion.
“This has gone on now for several months and I see that in the media there’s the expectation that there’s going to be some change in the church’s teaching,” Cardinal Burke said. “I hear from bishops and priests that many people are coming to them and insisting that they can now receive the sacraments because they interpret that somehow the church has already changed her teaching. And that isn’t healthy.”
The October 2014 synod is not supposed to reach definitive conclusions but prepare the agenda for a larger world synod a year later, which will make recommendations to the pope. Yet, Cardinal Burke voiced hopes that church leaders would conclude their debate on the Communion question during the first phase of the process.
“What I would hope would happen at (the 2014 synod) is that this issue be clarified and it be off the table,” he said.
Pope Francis is the “first teacher of the faith,” who is expected to author an apostolic exhortation based on the two synods, but he “wanted to call the presidents of conferences of bishops from around the world to hear their thinking, and if he hears from them that there is no point in further discussion of the matter and it should be taken off the table, that would be a wonderful thing,” the cardinal said.
Cardinal Burke said he could not estimate how many of the nearly 200 bishops attending the synod might be open to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, though he said he saw support in Europe and resistance among bishops in Africa. But he said he could not envision the German cardinal’s recommendation prevailing.
“These are bishops, these are shepherds of the flock, who are Catholic. I can’t imagine them accepting this proposal,” he said. “I don’t know quite how I would be able to digest it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)