OVC Progetto AVSI in Kenya
For more information, go to The Association of Volunteers in International Service
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Our Valuable Children. -- II
AVSI project: Our valuable children - Rwanda
For more information, go to The Association of Volunteers in International Service
For more information, go to The Association of Volunteers in International Service
The Adventure of Knowledge - Letter from Fr. Carron
FRATERNITÀ DI COMUNIONE E LIBERAZIONE
Milan, January 28, 2008
Dear friends,
On Sunday, January 20, in a spontaneous gesture which rose up, as it were, from the depths of our hearts, many of us went to Saint Peter’s Square as a sign of communion with the Bishop of Rome, who, because of well-known events, declined to participate in the inauguration of the new academic year at the Sapienza University to which he had been invited. No doubt this gesture of yours was the fruit of being educated by the Movement to respond to reality’s provocations.
We must thank God for the readiness of your response, because it is the sign of our having been penetrated by “that form of teaching to which we have been committed” (J. Ratzinger). Indeed there is no other explanation for this spontaneous mobilization than the awareness of the value of the figure of the Pope for our lives. In him the risen Lord communicates His victory in the time and space of human history. Without the authoritative testimony of Peter’s Successor we would be lost like so many of our contemporaries. Last year’s March 24 audience was the imposing proof of this and it will forever mark our history. To follow the Pope thus means following the repercussions of His presence. And it demands that we engage reason and freedom.
We were able to touch this with our own hands when the speech that Benedict XVI was to have delivered at the university was made public. In him that “task to safeguard sensibility to the truth” shines forth. It is his unshakeable testimony which constitutes for us the hope of not succumbing to the danger of the Western world against which he warned, the danger of giving up on “the question of the truth,” for we know well that “if reason...becomes deaf to the great message that comes to it from Christian faith and wisdom, then it withers like a tree whose roots can no longer reach the waters that give it life,” and it surrenders.
This great witness of the Holy Father constitutes an exceptional appeal to each of us to use reason this way. He has offered it to us just as we begin the new School of Community on Msgr. Giussani’s book, Is it Possible to Live this Way?, a book whose first pages deal with faith as a “method of knowledge.” We are the first to sense the need for an education that allows us to know reality in-depth, that allows us to recognize the urgency of beginning a journey of knowledge that makes the Mystery familiar to us. Three years after his death, we ask Fr. Giussani to continue to accompany us on the path that he marked out for us.
By following the proposal made to us by the School of Community the gaze which we admire in the Pope, one that is completely open upon reality, can become ours more and more. Only by traveling down the same path can we truly know, by means of witness, the reality of which the Christian faith speaks.
This passion for the reasonableness of the faith is so familiar to us because Fr.
Giussani never cheated us; he encouraged us to go towards truth so that our adhesion to the faith dignified for our nature as men.
United more than ever in this adventure,
Fr. Julián Carrón
Milan, January 28, 2008
Dear friends,
On Sunday, January 20, in a spontaneous gesture which rose up, as it were, from the depths of our hearts, many of us went to Saint Peter’s Square as a sign of communion with the Bishop of Rome, who, because of well-known events, declined to participate in the inauguration of the new academic year at the Sapienza University to which he had been invited. No doubt this gesture of yours was the fruit of being educated by the Movement to respond to reality’s provocations.
We must thank God for the readiness of your response, because it is the sign of our having been penetrated by “that form of teaching to which we have been committed” (J. Ratzinger). Indeed there is no other explanation for this spontaneous mobilization than the awareness of the value of the figure of the Pope for our lives. In him the risen Lord communicates His victory in the time and space of human history. Without the authoritative testimony of Peter’s Successor we would be lost like so many of our contemporaries. Last year’s March 24 audience was the imposing proof of this and it will forever mark our history. To follow the Pope thus means following the repercussions of His presence. And it demands that we engage reason and freedom.
We were able to touch this with our own hands when the speech that Benedict XVI was to have delivered at the university was made public. In him that “task to safeguard sensibility to the truth” shines forth. It is his unshakeable testimony which constitutes for us the hope of not succumbing to the danger of the Western world against which he warned, the danger of giving up on “the question of the truth,” for we know well that “if reason...becomes deaf to the great message that comes to it from Christian faith and wisdom, then it withers like a tree whose roots can no longer reach the waters that give it life,” and it surrenders.
This great witness of the Holy Father constitutes an exceptional appeal to each of us to use reason this way. He has offered it to us just as we begin the new School of Community on Msgr. Giussani’s book, Is it Possible to Live this Way?, a book whose first pages deal with faith as a “method of knowledge.” We are the first to sense the need for an education that allows us to know reality in-depth, that allows us to recognize the urgency of beginning a journey of knowledge that makes the Mystery familiar to us. Three years after his death, we ask Fr. Giussani to continue to accompany us on the path that he marked out for us.
By following the proposal made to us by the School of Community the gaze which we admire in the Pope, one that is completely open upon reality, can become ours more and more. Only by traveling down the same path can we truly know, by means of witness, the reality of which the Christian faith speaks.
This passion for the reasonableness of the faith is so familiar to us because Fr.
Giussani never cheated us; he encouraged us to go towards truth so that our adhesion to the faith dignified for our nature as men.
United more than ever in this adventure,
Fr. Julián Carrón
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Communicating Oneself
Suzanne, thanks for posting so many notes from the diaconia. It was great meeting and you and Scott, and others I'd never met; along with all the old friends that I don't see as often as I'd like.
The meeting with educators was particularly helpful for me. Two weeks ago I wouldn't have thought to go, but for the past few weeks my new parish (the one in my neighborhood) has been begging for catechists. I began to get the distinct feeling that they were talking to me... so I sent the parish an email offering to help out. The director of religious education sent me back an email saying "Jim, I came to the CL Beginning Day at your house in October!" So I had an immediate verification that I was doing what I needed to do.
But as I sat in the meeting with educators at the diaconia, I really began to feel a profound sense of gratitude... gratitude for having met the Movement, and gratitude for having been shown where I was needed the most in my own circumstances. I didn't have to push the Movement, or worry about how many people were coming to School of Community. I just have to follow for myself and my own needs, then let Christ show me where he needs me to be.
Don't get me wrong... I'm really nervous about my first class with the 5th graders at my parish. But I know that I'm not there to give them the answers, or to be The Perfect Catholic. I'm there to witness to what has happened to me, to the fact that I've met Christ.
The meeting with educators was particularly helpful for me. Two weeks ago I wouldn't have thought to go, but for the past few weeks my new parish (the one in my neighborhood) has been begging for catechists. I began to get the distinct feeling that they were talking to me... so I sent the parish an email offering to help out. The director of religious education sent me back an email saying "Jim, I came to the CL Beginning Day at your house in October!" So I had an immediate verification that I was doing what I needed to do.
But as I sat in the meeting with educators at the diaconia, I really began to feel a profound sense of gratitude... gratitude for having met the Movement, and gratitude for having been shown where I was needed the most in my own circumstances. I didn't have to push the Movement, or worry about how many people were coming to School of Community. I just have to follow for myself and my own needs, then let Christ show me where he needs me to be.
Don't get me wrong... I'm really nervous about my first class with the 5th graders at my parish. But I know that I'm not there to give them the answers, or to be The Perfect Catholic. I'm there to witness to what has happened to me, to the fact that I've met Christ.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
One hundred thousand smiles
From a post on Come to See. Notes from a discussion at the National Diakonia (New York, 1/08) between Father Julian Carron, Chris Bacich and teachers and educators:
Question: Should we choose texts according to our mentality, that is "Catholic" texts?
- No! Then the novelty of what we've encountered doesn't enter, and we introduce duality. There is no literature that doesn't have to do with religion -- it engages the senses, Life, Beauty...
- This method -- with this method, the curriculum is a way in which we recognize, people can recognize the newness.
- There is no "Catholic" literature -- just literature.
- We have a new way of facing everything -- even something that is wrong.
- We don't have to face "Christian" topics. We have to face topics!
- Because otherwise we bring through the door that which we just threw out the window. And we reintroduce dualism in the way we face the topic.
Question: The students I have are impossible to engage. Even after a semester, all but two of them are lying down with their heads on the desk, asleep. So, my question is about method...
- Are you determined by this lack of success?
- These circumstances are a provocation to our faith.
- If we can't find a way to face this class with newness, it becomes our tomb.
- Books don't complain or protest.
- Do not be discouraged.
- Too much attention to curriculum, methodology -- these things don't make us secure.
- If we live something that allows us to be alive in our life -- this is the question. How can we help each other become alive? We belong to Christ because otherwise we are not alive.
- How can we help ourselves to enter the topic we need to face in a way that can be interesting to us and our students? I need to be passionate about what I am doing or else dualism is within me. If I speak of Christ but life is just something I put up with? No! That's dualism. When I taught, I had to be myself during the hour of the lesson. Nobody could stop the students from speaking during lunch about what I had taught them in the hour before.
- Education is a communication of oneself.
- Just like for parents. The way you face reality. How we react, live our free time, use money -- these all become factors for education.
- This is the victory -- education!
- It's not a problem of communicating a discourse, but Life -- and nothing can impede us from communicating this -- even in prison we can communicate this -- even jail can be a different place if we have encountered Christ.
Question: What about students who seem to live inside a bubble and are ever more defensive against any adult who tries to make a proposal?
- What charity is needed to overcome this resistance!We need charity to wait for something to happen.
- How many smiles must a mother make to receive one smile in return? Maybe a thousand? This is not a mechanism!
- So, if it's like that for an infant, before any damage, then we need one hundred times the smiles. Maybe a million times, maybe more! This is only possible if we are Christian. Only if we're so grateful, so moved by the tenderness of God for our humanity.
- But if we get angry and quit smiling, we choose a new method -- rules, preaching, shouting.
- What if a mother said, "A smile doesn't work, I'll yell or preach"?
- Only if we're so happy we can be free from the results.
- Education, care of others, it's a question of the Church, a work of the Church. Only someone who is so grateful, so free -- this is a verification of our faith.
- Only because Christ became man -- he has a passion for our life -- there is no other reason.
- Otherwise we complain because the results don't arrive.
- We need to recognize that the difficulty is convenient for us, that the difficulty is there to help us to verify our faith.
Monday, January 21, 2008
This morning's synthesis
My notes from Father Carron's synthesis at the Communion and Liberation national Diakonia:
What is the evidence that John and Andrew had encountered Something crucial for their life? What is the sign [they witnessed] that they decided to come back to be with Him the next day? [It seems] simple, but in this event is the whole of Christianity. I am always struck that we meet many people in life -- but what makes us want to come back to [a person]? What awakens in us a curiosity to the point where we decide to come back -- like what happened with the disciples? Little by little they became friends -- this is the victory of Christ in life -- that we become one thing in Him, and this is the defeat of individualism. They needed to meet him again and again every day. They couldn't live without him. This is the evidence of the meaning of the encounter that they had with him. This is the same [thing] that happens with us. We encounter Somebody -- the Christian community in which we find something for our life that we desire forever. For this reason we are happy to be together in these days. Because the Life passes through this event of being together, of this event of the encounter with the community, [the] Christian community. And I hope that always more we become friends and we sustain each other in our path, our journey to our destiny, our happiness, and become more and more one thing, One Person in Christ. And what did we live these days here? What is the content of what we are living here?
At La Thuile a proposal [was] made that we have these friends, witnesses. This is the proposal that [the] Christian community, the Movement has [made] to us. This is what this booklet ["Friends, that is Witnesses] did [for] us. [Now] we meet after six months to verify that this has happened. What is the work that we have done together? To accompany each one of us in this journey for learning the way of life.
I want to repeat in [this] moment the most important words of the School of Community for this year. Because, in this work we have the proposal of the movement once more. And encounter -- that is the grace greater than any other we have received in life. The encounter with Christ in the Christian community and this is the encounter with a real thing, a community, as John and Andrew encountered a real person, Jesus, who they could touch and see. We can touch and see in the Christian community. An encounter in School of Community that reveals one to oneself. [It] reveals who I am.
[That which] is the real desire of my heart wakes the whole desire of my heart. In this sense [it] reveals myself to myself -- who I am. For this reason, the School of Community is a grace, a gift, the most important gift because all our attempts are not able to give an instant of what the encounter does. Because nobody has looked on our life with the kindness, mercy, love -- as Christ has done with us. Even the hairs on your head are numbered. This is the grace of the encounter that embraces our whole person, whatever the circumstances, whatever [...].
There is no encounter without a proposal. There is no encounter [in which] we don't [also] meet at the same time a proposal for our life.
What is this proposal -- the working hypothesis that Christ put in our heart, eyes, mind, to enter into reality [...] to embrace myself every morning and to look at the sea or the sun, our friends, the people -- to face every need we face in every moment. The proposal is to live, to enter life.
The proposal is not to be together in some moments, for meetings, a club. [This holds] no interest. I'm not interested. [It is] a proposal for the whole life, because only if we enter [into] life with this proposal can we recognize the value of the proposal, the promise of Christ for our life. Don't take this for granted because the last thing we consider is the Christian proposal when we face life. First we verify the ideas in our mind, our attempts at solutions -- many times the last [thing we consider] is the Christian proposal. [But] when we think of [these] other possibilities (our own ideas, attempts), it's the death of Christian faith. We complain Christ doesn't fulfill this promise but the question is if we have taken seriously this proposal. The truth of it can only be discovered in life, in the relationship with reality. We should verify its truth in reality. Verification is in the relationship with everything that happens in our life -- that Christ can [answer everything].
For this reason Father Giussani said in the School of Community, to verify we must commit ourselves completely with clear and renewed concentration. This is what I call "our work." The work is this commitment -- not only [to] a meeting, a gesture, with some kind of [...] within us. The commitment is in the way we face everything. Communion and Liberation is not a club. It is a proposal for the whole of life.
The reason for the encounter [is that] we need to do this verification in community, in the relationship with the community. For this reason the victory over individualism is decisive. We can't do it alone.
[When we have difficulties, we have to remember to face] this situation with Christ in my eyes, looking at the difficulties and repeating [that] even the hairs of your head are numbered. But many times when we are in the bottom of our nothingness we forget this and we need somebody, some witness that can gaze on our life with the life of Christ and this -- it's not possible to do alone. For this reason, the apostles came back again and again and again to meet Jesus because they were needy for this gaze, this embrace.
Verification not of our images, our thought, our feeling. Christianity is a FACT -- a different thing. It is in this moment, when we recognize this, that somebody can look at [us] with [a] kindness, a mercy, a tenderness, that we can't imagine -- when [we are] at the bottom of our nothingness. This is the experience of Christian faith that makes it reasonable to adhere to Christ.
This is the verification -- so we can recognize how reasonable it is to be Christian because we can face every moment of life in the company of Christ.
Encounter is experience because in that moment we can make the comparison [between] the proposal of Christianity with every other proposal and we can recognize the difference between the proposal of Christ [and all the others].
This is the proposal for life, to enter in life, in everything of life, and it is in reality that I become always more supported [by] Christ and enthusiastic [for] Christ.
Because it is life [which is the place where] we recognize that Christ enters into our life and changes [any] circumstance.
[It is for this reason that Father Giussani said that] Christianity is subversive [...].
[Otherwise, there is] no reason to remain Christian. We cannot repeat doctrine as if this were enough. It's the new experience of living ordinary things in a new way. This is what makes us enthusiastic [for] Christ, this experience.
From the beginning of this [Diakonia we have asked], What is the problem of our Christian life? Christianity is easy: always the child needs to find his mother beside him and life is easy. For us Christ is not so real as mother/child. Why? Because Christ is not real? This is the problem we need to face in the School of Community. This is the first problem. This one. That we are not sure of his presence. Many times Christ is an extra thing. Not so real as the mother is for the child.
Many times we live as orphans instead of as sons. Nothing is more evident than [the fact that] at this moment another is making us. Many times we reduce [Christ] to a feeling. [Then] when I don't feel him, he doesn't exist. We are in the context of our culture. For many people religion is a matter of feeling and ethics.
[As the Pope said] we live in a world that has decided not to face the problem of the truth. Our faith opposes this resignation in front of the truth.
[This is the problem: we think that] we are not able to know the Mystery. [We think that ] faith is not a knowledge. [We think that the] religion of Christianity is only a feeling that we feel.
It is possible to know the Mystery. Faith is a question of knowledge. Can I really know Christ, as I know this glass? [Is Christ a reality] or is [Christianity] something without consistency? The encounter with Communion and Liberation helps us understand the profound meaning of these words of the Pope.
From the beginning, Father Giussani [emphasized the connection between] faith and reason. [When] teaching religion, [he had] this passion that faith first and foremost must demonstrate that it is reasonable and this is crucial for us in this moment. School of Community is the tool we have [in order] to face the reduction of faith to feeling or to ethics. Faith is a question of knowledge. We can start School of Community [after this Diakonia] more aware of the importance of this question for our life. [It]is not a question for philosophers. [It is for Christians] to live Christian faith in this cultural situation in which faith and religion are reduced to feeling and ethics.
For the knowledge of reality, Father Giussani insists, involves our person. Even more important, we need to face a method of knowledge that needs to involve the whole person [in order] to verify the credibility of this witness.
The third premise of the Religious Sense [is so important] because knowledge always involves reality. The position of our person before reality [is what determines] our capacity to say yes or not [to Christ's proposal in the same way as] to say yes when I ask is this paper white? We need to answer, but this [requires] a commitment of the whole person. We have before us a possibility, a proposal that fits perfectly with our situation -- in which the Mystery in his kindness, tenderness, [comes] to help us -- in this moment in which we are called to live our Christian faith, to commit ourselves in this world.
[The School of Community exists] to help us, to accompany [us, so that we can be] together]in this journey. I hope that every one of us can be available to this work, to answer to this grace, because it is a grace. To answer in this situation that we have tools, this powerful instrument, that allows us to face [our cultural situation]. So, good work to everybody!
What is the evidence that John and Andrew had encountered Something crucial for their life? What is the sign [they witnessed] that they decided to come back to be with Him the next day? [It seems] simple, but in this event is the whole of Christianity. I am always struck that we meet many people in life -- but what makes us want to come back to [a person]? What awakens in us a curiosity to the point where we decide to come back -- like what happened with the disciples? Little by little they became friends -- this is the victory of Christ in life -- that we become one thing in Him, and this is the defeat of individualism. They needed to meet him again and again every day. They couldn't live without him. This is the evidence of the meaning of the encounter that they had with him. This is the same [thing] that happens with us. We encounter Somebody -- the Christian community in which we find something for our life that we desire forever. For this reason we are happy to be together in these days. Because the Life passes through this event of being together, of this event of the encounter with the community, [the] Christian community. And I hope that always more we become friends and we sustain each other in our path, our journey to our destiny, our happiness, and become more and more one thing, One Person in Christ. And what did we live these days here? What is the content of what we are living here?
At La Thuile a proposal [was] made that we have these friends, witnesses. This is the proposal that [the] Christian community, the Movement has [made] to us. This is what this booklet ["Friends, that is Witnesses] did [for] us. [Now] we meet after six months to verify that this has happened. What is the work that we have done together? To accompany each one of us in this journey for learning the way of life.
I want to repeat in [this] moment the most important words of the School of Community for this year. Because, in this work we have the proposal of the movement once more. And encounter -- that is the grace greater than any other we have received in life. The encounter with Christ in the Christian community and this is the encounter with a real thing, a community, as John and Andrew encountered a real person, Jesus, who they could touch and see. We can touch and see in the Christian community. An encounter in School of Community that reveals one to oneself. [It] reveals who I am.
[That which] is the real desire of my heart wakes the whole desire of my heart. In this sense [it] reveals myself to myself -- who I am. For this reason, the School of Community is a grace, a gift, the most important gift because all our attempts are not able to give an instant of what the encounter does. Because nobody has looked on our life with the kindness, mercy, love -- as Christ has done with us. Even the hairs on your head are numbered. This is the grace of the encounter that embraces our whole person, whatever the circumstances, whatever [...].
There is no encounter without a proposal. There is no encounter [in which] we don't [also] meet at the same time a proposal for our life.
What is this proposal -- the working hypothesis that Christ put in our heart, eyes, mind, to enter into reality [...] to embrace myself every morning and to look at the sea or the sun, our friends, the people -- to face every need we face in every moment. The proposal is to live, to enter life.
The proposal is not to be together in some moments, for meetings, a club. [This holds] no interest. I'm not interested. [It is] a proposal for the whole life, because only if we enter [into] life with this proposal can we recognize the value of the proposal, the promise of Christ for our life. Don't take this for granted because the last thing we consider is the Christian proposal when we face life. First we verify the ideas in our mind, our attempts at solutions -- many times the last [thing we consider] is the Christian proposal. [But] when we think of [these] other possibilities (our own ideas, attempts), it's the death of Christian faith. We complain Christ doesn't fulfill this promise but the question is if we have taken seriously this proposal. The truth of it can only be discovered in life, in the relationship with reality. We should verify its truth in reality. Verification is in the relationship with everything that happens in our life -- that Christ can [answer everything].
For this reason Father Giussani said in the School of Community, to verify we must commit ourselves completely with clear and renewed concentration. This is what I call "our work." The work is this commitment -- not only [to] a meeting, a gesture, with some kind of [...] within us. The commitment is in the way we face everything. Communion and Liberation is not a club. It is a proposal for the whole of life.
The reason for the encounter [is that] we need to do this verification in community, in the relationship with the community. For this reason the victory over individualism is decisive. We can't do it alone.
[When we have difficulties, we have to remember to face] this situation with Christ in my eyes, looking at the difficulties and repeating [that] even the hairs of your head are numbered. But many times when we are in the bottom of our nothingness we forget this and we need somebody, some witness that can gaze on our life with the life of Christ and this -- it's not possible to do alone. For this reason, the apostles came back again and again and again to meet Jesus because they were needy for this gaze, this embrace.
Verification not of our images, our thought, our feeling. Christianity is a FACT -- a different thing. It is in this moment, when we recognize this, that somebody can look at [us] with [a] kindness, a mercy, a tenderness, that we can't imagine -- when [we are] at the bottom of our nothingness. This is the experience of Christian faith that makes it reasonable to adhere to Christ.
This is the verification -- so we can recognize how reasonable it is to be Christian because we can face every moment of life in the company of Christ.
Encounter is experience because in that moment we can make the comparison [between] the proposal of Christianity with every other proposal and we can recognize the difference between the proposal of Christ [and all the others].
This is the proposal for life, to enter in life, in everything of life, and it is in reality that I become always more supported [by] Christ and enthusiastic [for] Christ.
Because it is life [which is the place where] we recognize that Christ enters into our life and changes [any] circumstance.
[It is for this reason that Father Giussani said that] Christianity is subversive [...].
[Otherwise, there is] no reason to remain Christian. We cannot repeat doctrine as if this were enough. It's the new experience of living ordinary things in a new way. This is what makes us enthusiastic [for] Christ, this experience.
From the beginning of this [Diakonia we have asked], What is the problem of our Christian life? Christianity is easy: always the child needs to find his mother beside him and life is easy. For us Christ is not so real as mother/child. Why? Because Christ is not real? This is the problem we need to face in the School of Community. This is the first problem. This one. That we are not sure of his presence. Many times Christ is an extra thing. Not so real as the mother is for the child.
Many times we live as orphans instead of as sons. Nothing is more evident than [the fact that] at this moment another is making us. Many times we reduce [Christ] to a feeling. [Then] when I don't feel him, he doesn't exist. We are in the context of our culture. For many people religion is a matter of feeling and ethics.
[As the Pope said] we live in a world that has decided not to face the problem of the truth. Our faith opposes this resignation in front of the truth.
[This is the problem: we think that] we are not able to know the Mystery. [We think that ] faith is not a knowledge. [We think that the] religion of Christianity is only a feeling that we feel.
It is possible to know the Mystery. Faith is a question of knowledge. Can I really know Christ, as I know this glass? [Is Christ a reality] or is [Christianity] something without consistency? The encounter with Communion and Liberation helps us understand the profound meaning of these words of the Pope.
From the beginning, Father Giussani [emphasized the connection between] faith and reason. [When] teaching religion, [he had] this passion that faith first and foremost must demonstrate that it is reasonable and this is crucial for us in this moment. School of Community is the tool we have [in order] to face the reduction of faith to feeling or to ethics. Faith is a question of knowledge. We can start School of Community [after this Diakonia] more aware of the importance of this question for our life. [It]is not a question for philosophers. [It is for Christians] to live Christian faith in this cultural situation in which faith and religion are reduced to feeling and ethics.
For the knowledge of reality, Father Giussani insists, involves our person. Even more important, we need to face a method of knowledge that needs to involve the whole person [in order] to verify the credibility of this witness.
The third premise of the Religious Sense [is so important] because knowledge always involves reality. The position of our person before reality [is what determines] our capacity to say yes or not [to Christ's proposal in the same way as] to say yes when I ask is this paper white? We need to answer, but this [requires] a commitment of the whole person. We have before us a possibility, a proposal that fits perfectly with our situation -- in which the Mystery in his kindness, tenderness, [comes] to help us -- in this moment in which we are called to live our Christian faith, to commit ourselves in this world.
[The School of Community exists] to help us, to accompany [us, so that we can be] together]in this journey. I hope that every one of us can be available to this work, to answer to this grace, because it is a grace. To answer in this situation that we have tools, this powerful instrument, that allows us to face [our cultural situation]. So, good work to everybody!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Communion and Liberation: La Sapienza University, another disgrace for Italy
PRESS RELEASE
Communion and Liberation:
La Sapienza University, another disgrace for Italy
Popes have been able to speak everywhere in the world (Cuba, Nicaragua, Turkey, etc). The only place where the Pope cannot speak is La Sapienza, a University founded, after all, by a Pope.
This brings out two extremely grave facts:
1) The inability of the Italian Government to guarantee the right of expression in Italian territory of a foreign Head of State, and Bishop of Rome, spiritual guide for a billion people. In preventing what the vast majority of people expect and want, some small groups find, in fact, protection, even authoritative protection.
2) The cultural ruin of the Italian university which makes it possible for an athenaeum like La Sapienza to transform itself into an ideological “rubbish dump.”
As citizens and as Catholics we are indignant at what has happened and we are sorry for Benedict XVI, to whom we feel even more closely bound, acknowledging him as the defender—in virtue of his faith—of reason and freedom.
CL Press Office
Milan, January 15, 2008.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
What is man, what is the human person?
«The whole cosmos reaches for a certain point of evolution, at which it becomes self- awareness: that point is called "I." The "I" is self-awareness of the world, of the cosmos, and of oneself. The cosmos is the context in which the relationship with God, with the Mystery, lives.
The Psalmist asks, "Lord, what on earth is man that you keep him in mind, that you remember him?" Among all the beasts and little creatures of the cosmos, man is one- hundredth, a thousandth, a ten- thousandth. But the greatness of man, the honor and glory of man, lies in the fact that man, the individual man, is in relationship with the infinite. To live what man is, to realize his person, man must grasp everything that God has done. Happiness is the final end of this process, the process of penetrating the eternal.
Sooner or later, one begins to say this eighth Psalm of David every day.»~Fr. Giussani, The Psalms, p18-19
Monday, January 7, 2008
Communion and Liberation Northwest Summer Vacation 2008
(cross-posted @ Vitus Speaks)
Mark your calendars: CL Northwest Summer Vacation, July 2-6th, 2008 at Camp Casey in Whidbey Island.
Yes Folks, Whidbey Island is Beautiful!
Here is an article in NY Times.
Here is the NW Source Page.
If you'd like more information, email me.
Come Join us.
Mark your calendars: CL Northwest Summer Vacation, July 2-6th, 2008 at Camp Casey in Whidbey Island.
Yes Folks, Whidbey Island is Beautiful!
Here is an article in NY Times.
Here is the NW Source Page.
If you'd like more information, email me.
Come Join us.
A Coalition of Christians and Secularists to Protect the Child
In the post "Let No One Touch the Child." The Church Blesses the Worldwide Moratorium on Abortion from Chiesa comes a report on a remarkable new momentum in Europe, a surprising coalition of believers and secularists, who are joining to support life. The insistence of the Church from the Pope to the faithful on the value of human life has not gone unheard and has touched those who recognize the moral law.
This article discusses the influence of Pope Benedict in the political realm for the defense of human dignity and can be a model for our own efforts. We should look not only to Christians but to all men and women of good will in building a society that protects the person. What we propose is not a theocracy, but a free society that respects the dignity of the human person and the natural structure of the family.
Note also that the Church's support for the UN moratorium on capital punishment was the first step; the proposed moratorium on abortion followed that action. An uncompromising respect for all human life is persuasive and builds on values already recognized. This demonstrates the quote I offered earlier from Pope John Paul II: "The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine."
This article discusses the influence of Pope Benedict in the political realm for the defense of human dignity and can be a model for our own efforts. We should look not only to Christians but to all men and women of good will in building a society that protects the person. What we propose is not a theocracy, but a free society that respects the dignity of the human person and the natural structure of the family.
Note also that the Church's support for the UN moratorium on capital punishment was the first step; the proposed moratorium on abortion followed that action. An uncompromising respect for all human life is persuasive and builds on values already recognized. This demonstrates the quote I offered earlier from Pope John Paul II: "The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine."
Benedict XVI made the family the focus of his message to the world for the Day of Peace celebrated on January 1, on the family as the "primary agency of peace."
The Catholics of Spain also dedicated a day to the support of the family, with a grandiose Sunday gathering in Madrid on December 30. A similar mass Family Day was held in Italy, in Rome, last May 12. The next appointment will perhaps be in Berlin, in the heart of de-Christianized Europe.
The Madrid gathering was strongly marked by the Church. It unfolded as an immense outdoor liturgy, presided over by bishops and cardinals, and offered for the observation and reflection of all. The central moment was a television linkup with the pope, who at the Angelus, from Rome, spoke directly to the crowd in Spanish.
On May 12, 2007, in Rome, the square outside of Saint John Lateran was also filled mainly with Catholics. But it was not the hierarchy of the Church that called and presided over that Family Day. It was, instead, a citizens' committee headed by Savino Pezzotta, a Catholic, and Eugenia Roccella, a feminist of radical secularist formation. Also speaking from the stage were Giorgio Israel, a Jew, and Souad Sbai, a Muslim. The form of family presented for the attention and care of all was not primarily the one celebrated by the Christian sacrament, but the "natural union between man and woman" inscribed in the civil constitution.
An initiative that goes against the grain even more emerged in Italy, during the recent Christmas festivities: the promotion of a worldwide moratorium on abortion, after the moratorium on the death penalty approved by the United Nations on December 18....
The Church of Benedict XVI, Ruini, and cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the current president of the Italian bishops' conference, has thus looked very favorably on the fact that a non-Catholic like Ferrara has taken the initiative of launching the moratorium on abortion.
Because in effect, this is what has happened. Ferrara launched his first appeal in favor of the moratorium on abortion on the television program "Otto e mezzo," the same evening as the UN's approval of the moratorium on the death penalty, December 18.
The following day, December 19, this appeal appeared in print in "il Foglio." The afternoon of that same day, "L'Osservatore Romano" published on the front page an interview with cardinal Renato Martino, president of the pontifical council for justice and peace:
"Catholics do not consider the right to life as something that can be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, or partitioned. [...] The clearest example is that of the millions and millions of killings of certainly innocent human beings, unborn babies."
On December 20, "Avvenire," the newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference, gave its full support to the moratorium on abortion, with a front-page editorial by Marina Corradi and an interview with Ferrara.
On December 21, Ferrara announced that he would be fasting from Christmas Eve to the first day of the new year, in support of public financing for the Life Assistance Centers (CAV's) that help mothers who are tempted to have abortions.
In effect, during the following days the Lombardy Region and the municipal government of Milan supplied 700,000 euro to the CAV at Mangiagalli, the Milanese clinic that performs the greatest number of abortions. Last year at this clinic, the CAV was responsible for 833 births, by helping mothers in difficulty. In total, it is calculated that all of the CAV's operating in Italy have saved about 85,000 babies from abortion from 1975 until today.
Meanwhile, pages and pages of "il Foglio" have been filled with letters in support of the moratorium. A growing, unstoppable torrent of letters. Some are simple expressions of agreement, but most of them include sophisticated reflection, stories, experiences of fathers and mothers, painful accounts, and enthusiastic endorsements. Hundreds, thousands of letters in which the absolute protagonist was the tiny little being formed from conception – welcomed, loved, exalted. It is difficult to imagine a Christmas celebrated with music more appropriate than this concert of letters....
But what does the moratorium on abortion propose in practical terms? Ferrara dreams of "five million pilgrims of life and love, all in Rome next summer." To ask for two things from governments all over the world: first, to "suspend every policy that provides an incentive for the practice of eugenics"; second, to "write into the universal declaration of human rights the right to be born." With a manifesto prepared by personalities of various perspectives, like Didier Sicard of France, Italy's Carlo Casini, Roger Scruton, from England, the American bioethicist Leon Kass, and the new U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, Mary Ann Glendon, "naturally excluding any form of blame, and far more any legal persecution of women who may decide to have an abortion" as permitted by the laws in effect in the various countries.
On the evening of December 31, interviewed on a widely popular television news program, cardinal Ruini summarized the Church's position as follows:
"I believe that after the good result obtained in regard to the death penalty, it is very logical to recall the topic of abortion and ask for a moratorium, at least to stimulate and awaken the consciences of all, to help people to realize that the baby in the mother's womb is truly a human being, and that its suppression is inevitably the suppression of a human being.
"In the second place, it may be hoped that this moratorium will also provide a stimulus for Italy, at least for the complete application of the law on abortion, which claims to be a law intended for the defense of life, and then to apply this law in those areas that can truly be in defense of life, and perhaps, thirty years after the passage of this law, to update it in keeping with the scientific progress that, for example, has made great steps forward in regard to the survival of premature babies. It becomes truly inadmissible to proceed with abortion at a point where the fetus could survive outside of the womb."
Powered by ScribeFire.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Where We Live
What also strikes me (playing "angel's advocate" to myself) is the fact that Christ calls us to live in the precise circumstances we're given -- that, like it or not, I happen to be an American citizen living in 2008.
Suzanne, I'm so glad you raise your thoughts because you are echoing the dismay so many feel, and we have the chance to judge this and see how to live as Christians in the world. I don't mean who precisely to vote for, but how to participate in our civic life while seeking the meaning of all this. I hope you didn't feel scolded. ;) I'm trying to understand for myself, so that I won't take a reductive, unhopeful position about our country's situation.
I have often felt resigned about many things in our country, such as abortion or war. Instead, I see so many speaking out for what they want. It struck me that the stem-cell research debate would not die, despite the insistence on letting science have a free hand for "progress". When these researchers found a new way (adult stem cells), they did want something that would not be offensive to so many. It means that the minority is heard, as long as we don't quit. It has been true of the torture debate, which the public won't let up on. It's true of the desire for respect for life, which continues to be a large factor in this election. We're tempted to give up if we think it's about winning instead of about witnessing. And in the end, the victory is Christ's.
Friday, January 4, 2008
The Third Evil
Thanks very much for taking my stumbling attempts seriously. I am particularly impressed by the "third evil" that Sharon mentions at the beginning of her post -- I find this argument most compelling.
I am also glad to feel quite mortified that my position (as Sharon correctly points out) is emblematic of bunker-mentality Catholicism, something I often decry! It's not that I want to withdraw from the arena of politics -- there are many ways I participate and communicate with my elected officials -- it's just that voting, per se, is fraught with conflict for me. I would be happy to vote if there were a "none of the above" category -- such that if enough voters checked it off, the whole process would have to begin with a fresh field of candidates, until we could find one we could all love.
What also strikes me (playing "angel's advocate" to myself) is the fact that Christ calls us to live in the precise circumstances we're given -- that, like it or not, I happen to be an American citizen living in 2008. Probably a lot of why I do not like to get behind any of these candidates is that I keep saying "if only..." and calling myself an idealist. But if the ideal, that is Christ, can only be found in my particular circumstances, then I am going to have to start looking harder (digging beneath the dirt to find the gold, as Giussani points out in "Why the Church?").
I am glad that I had the courage to look like a fool and to risk being scolded, because these answers are very useful for my life.
I am also glad to feel quite mortified that my position (as Sharon correctly points out) is emblematic of bunker-mentality Catholicism, something I often decry! It's not that I want to withdraw from the arena of politics -- there are many ways I participate and communicate with my elected officials -- it's just that voting, per se, is fraught with conflict for me. I would be happy to vote if there were a "none of the above" category -- such that if enough voters checked it off, the whole process would have to begin with a fresh field of candidates, until we could find one we could all love.
What also strikes me (playing "angel's advocate" to myself) is the fact that Christ calls us to live in the precise circumstances we're given -- that, like it or not, I happen to be an American citizen living in 2008. Probably a lot of why I do not like to get behind any of these candidates is that I keep saying "if only..." and calling myself an idealist. But if the ideal, that is Christ, can only be found in my particular circumstances, then I am going to have to start looking harder (digging beneath the dirt to find the gold, as Giussani points out in "Why the Church?").
I am glad that I had the courage to look like a fool and to risk being scolded, because these answers are very useful for my life.
Voting and Freedom
Suzanne, If we're going to talk about two evils, maybe we should talk about the third, which would be to have a power vacuum and chaos or a dictatorship. We will not have a perfect candidate, nor a perfect bishop, or parent or child or friend ...
The freedom to act in the polis was invented by the Greeks and was a wonderful and providential preparation to the Gospel freedom as understood by the early Christians and those who followed in many different societies and political systems. The first Christians brought freedom to a new level when they lived the experience that it is better to fear those who kill the soul than those who kill the body. They lived the truth supremely in their bodies in martyrdom and some today still do.
In the amazing book by Hugo Rahner, Church and State in Early Christianity (it's out of print, but everybody should find and own a copy and keep it), these persecuted Christians made a point of being good citizens and praying for the emperor. This call for prayer was insistent and taken seriously. Even if voting wasn't an option, they lived very much at the center of things and interested in it all. I don't think we are called to stand to the side of things; otherwise, we live a dualism (or alternate ghetto culture) which wasn't the case with the early Christians. Things only changed because they were involved, and in particular the popes were vocal with the emperors. It is documented that these early popes were the voice of freedom in the world, which is first of all the freedom to believe in and worship God truly.
The freedom of the person (which truly is not expressed in having an abortion or by committing any other inhuman act) affirms that "Every hair on your head has been counted." It means that the smallest and weakest among us matters, because each is loved by God. Democracy is an affirmation of this value of the person, however flawed it may be in practice. Obviously a secular society does not recognize the foundation of the freedom of the person, created and destined by God, and this is the reason the protection of the human is eroding and so much at risk.
We don't have to win an election, but we do have to bear witness as the Pope does continually in his statements to world leaders. Maybe it's good that we have to offer a nuanced participation in an election, because we have to recognize the Republican (or Democratic) party is not going to save the world.
The freedom to act in the polis was invented by the Greeks and was a wonderful and providential preparation to the Gospel freedom as understood by the early Christians and those who followed in many different societies and political systems. The first Christians brought freedom to a new level when they lived the experience that it is better to fear those who kill the soul than those who kill the body. They lived the truth supremely in their bodies in martyrdom and some today still do.
In the amazing book by Hugo Rahner, Church and State in Early Christianity (it's out of print, but everybody should find and own a copy and keep it), these persecuted Christians made a point of being good citizens and praying for the emperor. This call for prayer was insistent and taken seriously. Even if voting wasn't an option, they lived very much at the center of things and interested in it all. I don't think we are called to stand to the side of things; otherwise, we live a dualism (or alternate ghetto culture) which wasn't the case with the early Christians. Things only changed because they were involved, and in particular the popes were vocal with the emperors. It is documented that these early popes were the voice of freedom in the world, which is first of all the freedom to believe in and worship God truly.
The freedom of the person (which truly is not expressed in having an abortion or by committing any other inhuman act) affirms that "Every hair on your head has been counted." It means that the smallest and weakest among us matters, because each is loved by God. Democracy is an affirmation of this value of the person, however flawed it may be in practice. Obviously a secular society does not recognize the foundation of the freedom of the person, created and destined by God, and this is the reason the protection of the human is eroding and so much at risk.
We don't have to win an election, but we do have to bear witness as the Pope does continually in his statements to world leaders. Maybe it's good that we have to offer a nuanced participation in an election, because we have to recognize the Republican (or Democratic) party is not going to save the world.
Imprudent Judgments
Jack, I like the way you point out that we gave a binary problem here, with a two-party system. This has become an acute problem for Catholics, because many of us thought we could just be Republicans like rooting for a football team. We're not avid sports fans in our house, but we did have to adjust our loyalties when our daughter started going to USC, since my husband went to UCSF and had always rooted for Cal. At least we have to keep track of the score and have some sympathy for bad games.
The Iraq war has been a wake-up call for Catholics in America, I hope. Some of us even feel that prolife voters have been used for ill purposes. This war was condemned by Pope John Paul II forcefully and for specific reasons. It was a preemptive strike, therefore not defensive as required by just war theory. (Our attack on Afghanistan was not condemned because it was considered defensive.) And it could be foreseen that the outcome would be worse than the previous state. Also it put the fragile Christian population of the Middle East in jeopardy. We also went in on false pretenses. All this has been argued elsewhere, so I'm not going to belabor it. The stance of the next president on war will not only affect Iraq, but also our relationship with Iran, South Korea, Israel/Palestine etc. The repercussions are quite serious for the whole world and I believe as momentous as the life issues we face as a society. Still, as my husband points out, it could be safer to have a more hawkish president if the person was reasonable and if our strength was oriented toward peace.
The Church has a lot to say human matters in the world, and fortunately it is easier to find out these teachings and to educate ourselves than it was in the past. Arguably the pope has the best informed and most disinterested (or non self-interested) diplomatic corps in the world (see How the Vatican Works, my review on John Allen's book All the Pope's Men). But more than that, I believe there's a reason we didn't just get a rulebook in the Bible or a catechism to apply for ourselves, but instead we're given the presence of Christ in teachers guided by the Holy Spirit, because He did not leave us alone.
The Iraq war has been a wake-up call for Catholics in America, I hope. Some of us even feel that prolife voters have been used for ill purposes. This war was condemned by Pope John Paul II forcefully and for specific reasons. It was a preemptive strike, therefore not defensive as required by just war theory. (Our attack on Afghanistan was not condemned because it was considered defensive.) And it could be foreseen that the outcome would be worse than the previous state. Also it put the fragile Christian population of the Middle East in jeopardy. We also went in on false pretenses. All this has been argued elsewhere, so I'm not going to belabor it. The stance of the next president on war will not only affect Iraq, but also our relationship with Iran, South Korea, Israel/Palestine etc. The repercussions are quite serious for the whole world and I believe as momentous as the life issues we face as a society. Still, as my husband points out, it could be safer to have a more hawkish president if the person was reasonable and if our strength was oriented toward peace.
The Church has a lot to say human matters in the world, and fortunately it is easier to find out these teachings and to educate ourselves than it was in the past. Arguably the pope has the best informed and most disinterested (or non self-interested) diplomatic corps in the world (see How the Vatican Works, my review on John Allen's book All the Pope's Men). But more than that, I believe there's a reason we didn't just get a rulebook in the Bible or a catechism to apply for ourselves, but instead we're given the presence of Christ in teachers guided by the Holy Spirit, because He did not leave us alone.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
What Do I Mean by "Prudential Judgments"?
That's a great question. If you permit me the equivalent of thinking out-loud, let me see if I can clarify what I mean by "prudential judgments". I think the best way to describe it is that I am referring to the application of a principle to concrete facts and circumstances. Of course, that's not a brightline. After all, you could say that the understanding that abortion is an intrinsic evil is just an application of the principles of the immorality of murder. But just because there is fuzziness on the boundaries, I think it is fair to recognize that there is a large zone in the middle where there are the moral principles and then the application of them to facts.
In that way, I would view the pronouncements on the justness of the Iraq War as prudential judgments. The Church recognizes that war is not an intrinsic evil and therefore the question is left ot judgment about whether a given war meets the criteria necessary to make it permissible. Of course, to say that something is in the realm of a prudential judgment is not to say that that judgment is void of objectivity and certainty. It is not to say it is mere preference. It is to say that judgment and prudence are required.
Consider the principle that torture is intrinsically wrong. I would view the determination about whether a particular act constitutes torture to be a prudential judgment. Suppose someone came up to me and said, "So if I chop of this man's leg in an interrogation is that torture?" I'd answer, of course it is. If they responded, "Well, that's just your prudential judgment," I would respond, "It should be yours, too." Now, I think the degree of certainty on some of these applications of principles to facts can be so high that we by proxy can be relatively comfortable with universalizing the judgment into a rule. Waterboarding is wrong. Or abortion is wrong. But we need to be careful when we do that to make sure that we haven't made a mistake in that universalization. For example, with the "abortion is wrong" principle, one could see how some might take that to preclude the principles the Church does say are legitimate when it comes to a medical procedure to save the life of a mother that has the unintended consequence of the baby's death. Most of us avoid that confusion because we don't recognize that act as an abortion. (And other's manipulate those principles to give cover to acts that are wrong.) My point is that one can have a very high degree of certainty that a prudential judgment is the correct one.
Of course, other areas may be more difficult to decide. What's the right policy to have with respect to illegal immigration? Whatever one might think of the morality of particular proposals on this subject, it is generally an area where I'd hope most would admit less certainty. Thus, my pairing of prudence with judgment.
Returning to the question at hand, about whether Catholics must vote, for myself, I find that I have little basis to justify not voting in a primary. Which is a bit ironic, in that a primary is merely a tool for party members to select their party's candidate. (We forget that because we are used to, due to our two-major party system, the government facilitating that process by operating the elections.) But it is in the primaries where I find myself most capable of finding a candidate that I can comfortably support and need not worry about the classic fear and peer-pressure arguments I mentioned earlier. In truth, if my candidate isn't the nominee, I don't know how I will handle the general election. I'm taking this one step at a time.
In that way, I would view the pronouncements on the justness of the Iraq War as prudential judgments. The Church recognizes that war is not an intrinsic evil and therefore the question is left ot judgment about whether a given war meets the criteria necessary to make it permissible. Of course, to say that something is in the realm of a prudential judgment is not to say that that judgment is void of objectivity and certainty. It is not to say it is mere preference. It is to say that judgment and prudence are required.
Consider the principle that torture is intrinsically wrong. I would view the determination about whether a particular act constitutes torture to be a prudential judgment. Suppose someone came up to me and said, "So if I chop of this man's leg in an interrogation is that torture?" I'd answer, of course it is. If they responded, "Well, that's just your prudential judgment," I would respond, "It should be yours, too." Now, I think the degree of certainty on some of these applications of principles to facts can be so high that we by proxy can be relatively comfortable with universalizing the judgment into a rule. Waterboarding is wrong. Or abortion is wrong. But we need to be careful when we do that to make sure that we haven't made a mistake in that universalization. For example, with the "abortion is wrong" principle, one could see how some might take that to preclude the principles the Church does say are legitimate when it comes to a medical procedure to save the life of a mother that has the unintended consequence of the baby's death. Most of us avoid that confusion because we don't recognize that act as an abortion. (And other's manipulate those principles to give cover to acts that are wrong.) My point is that one can have a very high degree of certainty that a prudential judgment is the correct one.
Of course, other areas may be more difficult to decide. What's the right policy to have with respect to illegal immigration? Whatever one might think of the morality of particular proposals on this subject, it is generally an area where I'd hope most would admit less certainty. Thus, my pairing of prudence with judgment.
Returning to the question at hand, about whether Catholics must vote, for myself, I find that I have little basis to justify not voting in a primary. Which is a bit ironic, in that a primary is merely a tool for party members to select their party's candidate. (We forget that because we are used to, due to our two-major party system, the government facilitating that process by operating the elections.) But it is in the primaries where I find myself most capable of finding a candidate that I can comfortably support and need not worry about the classic fear and peer-pressure arguments I mentioned earlier. In truth, if my candidate isn't the nominee, I don't know how I will handle the general election. I'm taking this one step at a time.
Politics and scruples
I want to thank Jack for joining in the discussion about politics and voting. You have introduced terms that make it possible for me to be able to speak on this subject here. Until now, I have felt a little helpless -- the rope was turning too fast for me, and I didn't feel up to skipping in.
I have serious questions concerning this topic. Isn't supporting, with my vote, the lesser of two evils, a material cooperation with (a lesser of two) evils? I know what the bishops say on the subject, but one of my big frustrations comes when priests, in the confessional, tell me, dismissively, "That's not a sin." I feel like this "license" that the bishops give us may constitute a mistake on their part.
And sometimes I wonder whether the passionate desire to make abortion illegal might not actually create a situation where more abortions occur? I was working as an obstetrical social worker in Chicago when a "pro-life" candidate took power and made drastic cuts to the services available to poor women with children (as a separate part of the platform he ran on). I did witness a slow, but dramatic increase in my clients' decisions to abort as the new cuts took effect.
This next point might seem very frivolous, but saying that we ought to vote because it is a right we're given could sound like a not-so-distant relative to the notion that we ought to do other things, legalized things (abortion, say), just because we have the right...but we use our freedom to refuse to do these things -- we are even perhaps freer because we refuse them? The question mark is there because I'm not sure if the same argument could be applied all over the place or whether I'm just being absurd.
When I look at the candidates, all of the candidates, I can't see a single one who I, as a Christian, could support. Even Ron Paul; his stance on the second amendment leads me to fear that if I vote for him, I might be materially cooperating with an increase in handgun deaths, deaths that might have been avoided if he were not quite so scrupulous about following the Constitution, which, though beautiful, is not a thoroughly biblical document. Please understand that I am not trying to say that anyone else who votes for him will be guilty of these hypothetical deaths -- I only mean to say that I would feel implicated.
Today in School of Community, we read the passage that includes the Letter to Diognetus -- and I was struck by how Christians live in their countries as sojourners and foreigners. It seems to me that by opting not to vote, I am affirming my status as a stranger in the political arena. Once the election is over, I will render unto Caesar what belongs to him, but I do not want to feel implicated in the evil that Caesar commits in the world.
I have serious questions concerning this topic. Isn't supporting, with my vote, the lesser of two evils, a material cooperation with (a lesser of two) evils? I know what the bishops say on the subject, but one of my big frustrations comes when priests, in the confessional, tell me, dismissively, "That's not a sin." I feel like this "license" that the bishops give us may constitute a mistake on their part.
And sometimes I wonder whether the passionate desire to make abortion illegal might not actually create a situation where more abortions occur? I was working as an obstetrical social worker in Chicago when a "pro-life" candidate took power and made drastic cuts to the services available to poor women with children (as a separate part of the platform he ran on). I did witness a slow, but dramatic increase in my clients' decisions to abort as the new cuts took effect.
This next point might seem very frivolous, but saying that we ought to vote because it is a right we're given could sound like a not-so-distant relative to the notion that we ought to do other things, legalized things (abortion, say), just because we have the right...but we use our freedom to refuse to do these things -- we are even perhaps freer because we refuse them? The question mark is there because I'm not sure if the same argument could be applied all over the place or whether I'm just being absurd.
When I look at the candidates, all of the candidates, I can't see a single one who I, as a Christian, could support. Even Ron Paul; his stance on the second amendment leads me to fear that if I vote for him, I might be materially cooperating with an increase in handgun deaths, deaths that might have been avoided if he were not quite so scrupulous about following the Constitution, which, though beautiful, is not a thoroughly biblical document. Please understand that I am not trying to say that anyone else who votes for him will be guilty of these hypothetical deaths -- I only mean to say that I would feel implicated.
Today in School of Community, we read the passage that includes the Letter to Diognetus -- and I was struck by how Christians live in their countries as sojourners and foreigners. It seems to me that by opting not to vote, I am affirming my status as a stranger in the political arena. Once the election is over, I will render unto Caesar what belongs to him, but I do not want to feel implicated in the evil that Caesar commits in the world.
Prudential Judgments and Voting
Hi Jack,
First, [to everybody] I would suggest tmaking a new post instead of using the comments box is more useful for an extended discussion. They do this regularly at the excellent group blog by Catholic legal scholars, Mirror of Justice.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "prudential judgments". Some might include in there everything not declared definitively by the extraordinary magisterium and would exclude judgments by the popes on the war in Iraq, for example. But the example you give seems more of an extrapolation of some principles than the teaching authority itself in action.
Have you seen this article at Intentional Disciples? It's very interesting about how to apply the US bishops' criteria and some of the undefined ground in facing the contradictions in voting.
I'm starting to change my mind about how to vote. I think I was feeling terribly responsible for shifting my weight in a less evil direction. Your thoughts in this regard are very provocative. Abortion etc. is clearly evil, but I'm not convinced the war is less evil at all (not only Iraq, but potentially Iran and on). Instead I may decide to not take full responsibility for the outcome ;) but just let my vote say what it means. This is contingent on Ron Paul running independently after the primaries. Still I can't see staying home, because the right to vote is too important to me. I will vote as I can. This is an exercise of freedom, something so precious to us.
Sharon
First, [to everybody] I would suggest tmaking a new post instead of using the comments box is more useful for an extended discussion. They do this regularly at the excellent group blog by Catholic legal scholars, Mirror of Justice.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "prudential judgments". Some might include in there everything not declared definitively by the extraordinary magisterium and would exclude judgments by the popes on the war in Iraq, for example. But the example you give seems more of an extrapolation of some principles than the teaching authority itself in action.
Have you seen this article at Intentional Disciples? It's very interesting about how to apply the US bishops' criteria and some of the undefined ground in facing the contradictions in voting.
I'm starting to change my mind about how to vote. I think I was feeling terribly responsible for shifting my weight in a less evil direction. Your thoughts in this regard are very provocative. Abortion etc. is clearly evil, but I'm not convinced the war is less evil at all (not only Iraq, but potentially Iran and on). Instead I may decide to not take full responsibility for the outcome ;) but just let my vote say what it means. This is contingent on Ron Paul running independently after the primaries. Still I can't see staying home, because the right to vote is too important to me. I will vote as I can. This is an exercise of freedom, something so precious to us.
Sharon
Prudential Judgments
The blog, Catholics For Ron Paul, took a bit of a break today from their candidacy advocacy to address the question of whether Catholics must vote. The question was spurred by a news article quoting a bishop that seemed to imply that the principle of voting for "the lesser of two evils" is a moral obligation rather than a statement of what might be morally permissible.
I'll assume for the moment that the Bishop has been correctly understood. If that's the case, I think he has made an error. But it raised for me some thoughts I have long mulled about the odd way in which we tend to approach the prudential judgments of the Church. Some like to use their prudential character as an excuse to dismiss them. But others, and this to me seems to go with less scrutiny, univeralize that prudential judgment into a rule. It provoked the following comment from me:
I'll assume for the moment that the Bishop has been correctly understood. If that's the case, I think he has made an error. But it raised for me some thoughts I have long mulled about the odd way in which we tend to approach the prudential judgments of the Church. Some like to use their prudential character as an excuse to dismiss them. But others, and this to me seems to go with less scrutiny, univeralize that prudential judgment into a rule. It provoked the following comment from me:
As a follow-up, this is something that has troubled me for so long about how Catholics approach matters of prudential judgment. When the Church speaks in its prudential wisdom on a point, it should of course be listened to and given serious attention. But, as it is precisely a matter of prudential judgment, I think it is patently wrong for Catholics to take the statement of the Church's prudential wisdom and universalize it into a rule. I suppose I'd prefer they do that than universalize another judgment into a rule, as I have a greater confidence in the approach and seriousness that the Church brings to these matters than most. But that still should be recognized as a mistake. Because the church can't, by offering up its prudential judgment, remove from the question its prudential nature. Meaning, we still must exercise our own judgment. No one can take away from us the responsibility to stand before a situation, look at it as it really is, and with all our wisdom and good counsel, respond. In some cases, that might consist of verifying whether a given circumstance fits the reasons offered up by the Church and whether the Church's conclusions about those reasons are true. But we cannot escape the need to take responsibility to verify and render judgments. As much as so many would like, consciously or subconsciously. I don't care how good the schema is, it's still a schema and not exercise of actual judgment. Frankly, I fear this is one of the things Catholics would understand better if they understood that this responsibility extends to the faith itself, that the Church only proposes and invites us to verify the claims it makes about Christ and our lives.I'd be interested in others thoughts.
This is in part what I was getting at in my prior post. I think too many people are looking for a schema; something that will help them avoid actually having to exercise judgment about their situation. And unfortunately, in their effort to offer guidance, sometimes the Bishops present things (or the people take them and run with them) in a way that distorts them into a schema.
Unfortunately, I think that's part of what has happened here. A syllogism was created. We have a co-responsibility for the common good and voting is a way to exercise it. Therefore not voting is a failure to exercise our co-responsibility for the common good. Problem is, logically, that doesn't follow. It may be that not voting is a failure to exercise our co-responsibility for the common good and, when speaking about apathy, I think that's right. But it is not inherently so that not voting is always a failure to exercise our co-responsibility for the common good. Facts matter. A contextual judgment needs to be made.
That's life. Unfortunately, many would prefer something simpler than life.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Open Christianity by Msgr. Luigi Giussani
This article by Don Giussani was published in Logos, but I see now that it's available at the CL site also: "Open Christianity."
"He, Jesus, is the prominent figure, not I with my faults. His face is at stage centre and not the features of my poverty. Gazing upon Him I will realize that He alone can resolve all problems, all of my problems and those of others." (p 5)
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)