Missing The Point On Hobby Lobby

It is self-evident that women should be free to choose the birth control method they feel works best for their reproductive system and their family circumstances just as men are free to choose the form of boner pill that best suits them. Hobby Lobby is trying to get four specific means of Birth Control off the Obamacare required FDA list of options that the company provided insurance must provide their workers. Hobby Lobby is a privately held company, and its owners believe the requirements are tantamount to abortion, and so forcing their insurance policy to provide them would be like forcing them to fund baby killers. Regardless of the decision, more than a dozen other methods of Birth Control would still be offered by Hobby Lobby to their workers.

That said this case is shaping up as another which enshrines the rights of corporations on the same level or above the actual rights of people. I am less concerned about the specifics of this case, as I am the ramifications, with broader impact, on American citizens. I would be shocked if the SCOTUS opinion said that publicly held corporations would be able to restrict access in any way based on religious ideology. The sheer numbers of shareholders would never fall into a distinctly defined religious grouping. However, I would not be surprised at all to see this decision stretched in new ways to grant ever greater power to entrenched financial interests seeking to exert their political and social influence.

What’s of far greater concern than the Hobby Lobby contraceptive decision is that we seem to be on an Orwellian slide towards a future where Big Brother is defined by corporate wealth, far more than governmental power, with reach beyond that of the state, so entrenched that citizens, even those actively engaged, have no hope of prevailing in either the rigged justice system or at the ballot box. Powerful financial interests, with little restraint beyond a confused and financially mobbed up public opinion, are increasingly running roughshod over both our government and us. Certain entities have grown so large and so powerful, the government is powerless to intercede on the American citizen’s behalf. Far from it, the government exists as a rubber stamp for the meanest, most selfish, most ideologically perverse policies pushed by those interests.

If you think I’m wrong you might ask yourself what happened in West Texas? Who was or will be prosecuted for the West Virginia chemical spill which made the water for 300,000 undrinkable? Did anyone beyond Bernie Madoff ever go to jail for the Big Bank, Wall Street, ponzi scheme, run up to the Market Crash of 2007? Who stands with the citizens of small and medium sized towns across America suffering the medical fallout of fracking in their communities? Why did the farm bill enshrine subsidies for sugar growers, some of them actual members of congress, even as SNAP benefits to the most vulnerable citizens in our communities were cut? Why is it that in the midst of the worst job crisis in American history the political dialogue has been shifted so adroitly to the matter of the debt? Why is it that the NRA has been able to stymie gun control legislation supported by the majority of Republicans, and overwhelming numbers of Democrats and independents? Why are the Koch Brothers investing hundreds of thousands in a County Board Race in Polk County Wisconsin? Why are they Kochs spending heavily to swing a school board race in Colorado? Why are so many of the potential Republican nominees for ’16, including Bush and Christie, lining up for a beauty pageant in Las Vegas? Could it be that the only judge is Shelly Adelson, a billionaire with hard right views on Israel, and little commitment to any other political position other than lax regulation of his Casino interests?

Whether Hobby Lobby wins or loses their case, their workers will still have medical access to some forms of birth control. It is not what it should be, but few things in an America corrupted by religious dogma are. In my view access to proper medical care, including reproductive health, ought to trump religious dogma, but especially in the case of abortion and choice that has never been the reality. Why should this be different? As a consequence I am not that fired up about Hobby Lobby. David Green will pass on eventually, to be replaced by perhaps less dogmatically distorted children and grandchildren, but the real residue of his life will have been striking another blow for the supremacy of financial interests over the rights of American Citizens.

Paul Ryan-1984

I started to do some research this morning on the kerfuffle over Paul Ryan’s C-PAC speech and his hoary tale about soulless school lunches http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/06/a-story-too-good-to-check-paul-ryan-and-the-story-of-the-brown-paper-bag/) I was going to look up the cost of Federal subsidies for School Nutrition programs for children in families that have difficulty providing for their kids. I was going to make the obvious arguments about how little school lunches programs cost on a per meal basis, juxtaposed against the costs of some things the government pays for, apparently with no reservation as to the higher moral purpose of the expense. Each FA-18 Hornet military jet, for example, costs $94 million. I was going to look up the seldom mentioned statistics, when Republicans raise their voices on these programs and demonize the poor, that most of the money goes to people that work. I was going to list a handful of wealthy individuals and Fortune-500 companies that have paid little or no taxes for years. Everyone knows that list is quite lengthy, and it goes to the heart of our increasingly heartless society.  

I even researched Laura Schroff and Maurice Mazyck, the two people at the heart of Representative Ryan’s misanthropic vignette.  There has been a fair amount of press on Schroff and Mazyck, and it pre-dates this latest kerfuffle by years. Laura met Maurice on the streets of New York in 1986, when he was an  11 year old boy. He was panhandling for food. She bought him a meal and they became friends. They have been friends since, now almost 30 years. They have been lauded on shows which range from Rachel Ray to Huckabee. Americans see in them the best of what we can be. This is because Ms. Schroff did more than write a check, a charitable donation she could deduct on her taxes. She gave of herself.  Republicans like to pretend that we can cut taxes further because people like Schroff exist, but both Laura Schroff and Maurice Mazyck are advocates for expanded School Lunch Programs and SNAP,  Supplemental Nutrition assistance. Rep. Ryan’s use of their story was an Orwellian distortion of the facts of Laura Schroff’s and Maurice Mazyck’s life.

By some grace my family has been spared the injury of children without enough to eat, or parents making harsh choices between food and medicine or food and rent. As a child my parents did a number of small “c” charitable things that exposed us to the poverty in our community. Thanks to our parents my brother and sister and I knew poverty existed in our hometown of Streamwood, what it looked like, felt like,  even smelled like, and that the circumstances of these people’s lives were barely different than ours. Twenty years later I stumbled into a mentoring program called Big Brothers and Big Sister’s in New York. BBBS is my favorite charity (http://bigsnyc.org/index.php) precisely because it mentors kids for a future path where hopefully they can sustain themselves. While I always consider those who are purely suffering as worthy, the Coalition for the Homeless for example,  (http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/) for years in my own giving I have emphasized programs designed to help young people avoid the pitfalls that lead them to or trap them in poverty, homelessness, and hunger.

When I was a young man and mentoring through BBBS, all my friends knew my “little”,  Calvin. I was proud of what I did and I wore it perhaps a little too proudly. Somehow my friend survived and lives down in the Carolinas now. He has had issues over the years, but like that old Door’s song I like to think that he broke on through to the other side. I seldom speak of that experience now. I think this is partly because that that relationship, no matter my failings in it, was what I, speaking purely for myself, truly consider giving. Everything since then somehow falls short. There is no small shame in that.

So instead of another litany of statistics, let me just say this: Mr. Ryan has his story and I have mine. If sustaining the lives of children with nutritional needs is soulless then I will surrender my soul. It's sort of f***ed up anyway. Just tell me when and where.

We can be outraged over Ryan’s distortion of the truth, but he represents a part of who we are just as Laura Schroff and Maurice Mazyck represent another. When I say part of who we are, I literally mean it. I know it is part of who I am. Most of us are weary at some point or another of the burdens of our society. It’s is easy to feel worn down by the needs of others. Selfishness is a human trait that can only be mitigated by selfless giving.

I make no judgment here on the quality of Ryan’s life, certainly not in comparison to mine. He may be a good and charitable man in his private giving, but the powerful and wealthy forces he represents are another matter entirely.  If Mr. Ryan is a giving man in private, on the public stage he is a scoundrel, selling victimhood to the powerful, and creating villainy out of hunger.  

Finally this, the matter here is not statistics. I have exposed a glimmer of my own journey here precisely because I know that real lives are at stake. I have been in their apartments and homes, felt their struggle, and viscerally internalized their pain. On FB I have read the constant struggle of Colleen and her beautiful, princely, tousle-haired, autistic son, Mathew. Colleen’s whole family endures through this struggle. I am sure many of us who read her regular posts would reach through and extend our hand if we could. Are we to believe that whatever lifeline either the state of Nebraska or the Federal government extends to this family is soulless? I will never accept that. I reject completely Ryan’s Orwellian saga. My soul may be tired but the struggle continues. Mr. Ryan is who he is, but I will never be that cynical.

Blowin' In the Wind

I watched all of MTP today. I have not done that for months. Now I remember why, and it's not just this show. The constant barrage of media talking heads we hear every day distorts our view and cramps our morality. David Gregory did his duty, asking Sec. Kerry essentially the same two questions in slightly different ways. The first is very important: “Will the President consider American Military intervention to resolve the Crisis in Ukraine?”

In fairness, Kerry wanting to seem tough, sort of danced around a direct answer to the questions. We know how that goes and how that can go, but in this case everyone knows American military action is not in the tool case. 

 The second question is more nefarious and it gets to the reason that the question about war needs to be answered. Gregory came at it several ways from different directions, but the gist of it is this: “You know that Putin is a bad mofo, Why is the President such a wimp?” At the moment Americans are anti-war bordering on isolationists, so one may rightly wonder what moral standard must be abridged so that the US feels compelled to roll out the long bombers and fire up the tanks. 

 It is odd even to an anti-war liberal like me to think that American can no longer be the police force for the world. How strange to consider what options are available beyond brute force? The world gets complicated when you have to accept and understand the perspective of every other nation on earth: We cannot deploy our forces and engage every problem. We’re going to have to talk our way out of some of these. We’re left with lesser weapons which require rather more sophisticated leadership.

Weapons of diplomatic isolation and economic pressure can work, but they’re a little like tax evasions charges which send gangsters to prison for 20 years, so much less satisfying. We live in a complicated world with evil forces of rather substantial size and scope, but I think this is a good and challenging dialogue to have. Most of the world has already adapted to this reality. Only the US still thinks we can project a macho big d*** foreign policy and fix all the problems of the world.

Of course these tactics are easily demagogued.

So the only questions Gregory was interested in directed everyone’s attention to what he characterized as Putin’s vigorous leadership as compared to Obama’s weakness. That Gregory did not accept Kerry’s non-denials of war as actual denials of war is what journalists are supposed to do. Kerry waffled and jived to no apparent purpose until Gregory finally asked the question that closed the loop so Kerry had to say no to militarism. But the mano-a-mano bullshit Gregory was spewing completely undermined any environment where an honest answer could be rendered. At the beginning of the panel Gregory went so far as to say this moment is all about the credibility of the President of the United States.

Really? 

 To every slob that followed, everyone who exhausted their book of clichés in reference to what they called a weak president, including Sen. Marco Rubio, I wanted to ask, “What would you have them do?”

Of course with America this is exactly what happens and before long we are sending two carriers in a wild scrum of “My d*** is bigger than your d***.” Up until now Obama has navigated that well. He entered as an anti-war president. With some glaring and disappointing exceptions he has governed that way. This is especially true as it pertains to Iran, where both Repub Romney and Israeli PM have proposed policies that likely would have led to war. It’s hard for me to see how the events in Ukraine could lead to American military involvement, but I still found the exchange interesting. It says so much more about Americans than Obama himself. 

 Beyond the news mongers and the posturing of our politicians it seems to me that Americans are the real reason we find ourselves so easily on the brink of War. Americans protect their macho manhood like a teenage boy on a football field. 

Gregory asked all the questions about the President because people sitting at home go, “Hey, you know, Obama is sort of a wimp.” He bows to kings, apologizes for this and that, and he never seems to stand up for anything.” I get that it’s a part of a narrative now and it resonates. But so is the fact that 13 years after Afghanistan most Americans view it as a mistake. Four years after Bush took us to Iraq most Americans thought that was a mistake. Since Korea once American’s see the price of war they come to the conclusion quickly that the price is not worth it. Yet every time, the jacked up talking heads postulate questions about manhood, or strength, or power soon America’s internal abhorrence of war, is trampled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwgrjjIMXA

Ann Colter Is Right About One Thing

”With all the smirking on the left about their electoral victories, it’s important to remember that Democrats haven’t won the hearts and minds of the American people.”—Ann Coulter

62% of Americans support a pathway to Citizenship—Newsmaxx Poll

90% of Americans support gun background checks in almost all cases—Washington Post

76% of Americans support raising the minimum wage—Gallup

79% of Americans support targeted Tax Cuts to spur Job Growth. 75% favor additional infrastructure spending to create jobs.—Gallup

59% of Americans oppose the Affordable Care Act—Fox News—However, in January 1.1 million people signed up. CBO now estimates six million will have signed up by March. Initial estimates were for 7 million. Current monthly enrollments are now meeting or exceeding initial estimates. Almost all of the shortfall is a result of problems in the first 60 days.

70% of Americans support providing all low- and moderate-income four year olds with access to high quality preschool-- Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research

67% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way income and wealth are currently distributed in the U.S. This includes three-fourths of Democrats and 54% of Republicans—Gallup

50% of Americans would support banning all contributions by individuals and instead have campaigns entirely funded by the government—Gallup

However, 75 percent of Americans feel there is “too much money in politics,” and only 25 percent felt that there should not be limits on the amounts spent in elections. 75 percent also feel that the amount of money in elections has given rich people more influence than other Americans.—Reuters Ipsos

In a March 2013 poll 79% of Americans support targeted Tax Cuts to spur Job Growth. 75% favor additional infrastructure spending to create jobs.—Gallup

However, more targeted polls regarding tax policy, corporate tax reform deficit spending and even defense spending present a mixed bag of sentiment. When one looks at a broad range of polls one gets the impression of an American electorate that wants to have its cake and eat it too.  The Tea Party protester with the signboard which says, “Government keep your hands off my Medicare!” comes to mind. People are confused. $7 billion in spending in the 2012 Election cycle (Federal Election Commission, as reported Sunlight Foundation) will do that for you.

When polled positions expressed by Americans on issue after issue are in extreme opposition to those  favored by the Republican Party.  Congress is perceived to be highly dysfunctional mostly because they are passing almost no legislation, but more importantly because there is a complete lack of action on issues where there is a clear and broad consensus. When public opinion leans strongly in one direction and the actions of Congress do not rise to meet those needs, we can be sure that there is a substantial amount of money tilting the table on which the legislation rests.

Finally this, 63% of Americans believe climate change is occurring, but a rising number, 23 percent, believe it is a hoax. (Newsmaxx). A new Poll by the  Yale Project on Climate Change Communication indicated that 83 percent say the U.S. should make an effort to reduce global warming, even if those efforts have economic costs. While the numbers of those willing to seek action on climate change –even as they leave home and discover winter is happening outside-- is not surprising, far more impressive  is the number of climate change deniers. 23 percent is an increase of 7 percent from just a year ago. There may be some overlap with the nearly 46% of Americans who believe in Creationism and a “literal interpretation of Genesis (this includes those who think creation took place over six actual days and those who allow for a longer time period but believe humans were created in their present form)” up from 40 percent in 2010. --Gallup 2012

Ann Colter is right about one thing. “Democrats have not won the hearts and minds of the American people.” It’s clearly not a policy issue, so what other reason could there be?

Uninformed, fearful, awash with cash from highly motivated, deeply entrenched financial interests, Americans will go the polls in just 9 months or so. There will be those on both left and right who will analyze the results in the realm of political dialogue and policy decisions. No matter whether they vote Democrat or Republican the interests of all Americans will at best be represented in a watered down stew of corrupt money. How much longer do we need to pretend it’s real?

http://freakoutnation.com/2014/02/13/ann-coulter-i-cant-live-in-america/

The Enemy Within

According to Open Secrets.ORG, the Securities Industry & Financial Market Association (SIFMA) spent $5.0 million on lobbyists in 2011 and another $5.0 Mil in 2012. In the last election cycle SIFMA made just under $600,000 in political contributions. They gave roughly equal amounts to the Dem and Repub Senatorial Committees (Total $55,000) and made made similarly equal contributions to the Dem and Repub Congressional Committees (Total $65,000). There is a direct connection between the expenditures of these funds and policies enacted or ignored in Washington.

The Nation article at the end of this piece details the ways in which SIFMA is doing its level best to stymie community based efforts to use the laws of eminent domain to help underwater homeowners. The TARP money went to the banks and Wall Street firms, those represented by SIFMA, but money allocated for programs to help owners went largely unspent. Cities and towns across America, seeing the failure of the Federal programs, are still trying to secure the safety and vitality of their communities by avoiding still more abandoned homes. To do this they must stand up to the banks, trying to do what Washington can’t or won’t do.  

 As the Nation notes, these are small change programs, but SIFMA seems to be fighting them on principle. The city of Brockton, MA, had planned to help 2,300 homeowners. Richmond, CA, planned to use eminent domain laws to rescue 624 homeowners. In response, not only has SIFMA leaned on local authorities, but they have pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to apply pressure to short circuit the programs. While Freddie and Fannie were quasi public-private entities before the financial crash of 2007, they are currently wholly owned by American taxpayers. They were taken over to save them from their own malfeasance. Though the bailout of Fannie and Freddie was only, only (?), $187 billion, as a result of the reserves that were set aside for problem loans it added $606 billion, with a “B”, to the national debt. Of the five trillion of debt that has been accrued during the Obama administration, nearly 15% was a result of the bailout of these two agencies.  

Though many other entities have emerged from the emergency funding schemes enacted around the time of TARP, Freddie and Fannie have not. Though dividends have been paid, and there is increasing optimism that the moneys will be returned to the federal coffers at some point, they have a long, long way to go. Last April Moody’s estimated 2019 as a target date for repayment.

Though, profitable now, the two agencies are not strong enough to pay back the largesse of the taxpayer any sooner. In addition, Congress, fearing erosion in the Mortgage market, and a hit to home prices once they do emerge, is not pushing with any fervor for repayment.

Whatever the repayment plan these two taxpayer owned financial institutions, Freddie and Fannie, are now siding with SIFMA to ensure that more homeowners lose their homes. Back when the banks were chasing profits in derivatives and all sorts of esoteric investment vehicles, often betting against their own investors in the process, clearly some people who were not qualified got loans. The wild speculation in bonds, based on those loans, was the reason for the financial collapse of 2007. While the banks, AIG’s, and other institutions like Fannie and Freddie  that knew better got TARP funding, the homeowners, in so many cases hoodwinked by the process, are still underwater.  

Does anyone believe that either the Dems or the Repubs will call for hearings in Congress into this program of intimidation? Does anyone believe that these same financial institutions that have paid billions in fines since 2007 for rigging everything from LIBOR rates to foreclosures to the mortgage market itself can’t afford to contribute to the solution?

This is the price of Citizens United and the evisceration of McCain Feingold. Those that attempt to parse John Boehner's ideology, Tea Party ideologue or main stream conservative, are completely missing the point. Boehner's ideology is driven far more by that of his special interest donors than any time worn political theory. Just this week we found that after he defended the company in West Virginia that corrupted drinking water for 300,000 people, claiming that "more regulation is not the answer", we found that he accepted campaign contributions from the company. The company, Freedom Industries filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection this week.

SIFMA made contributions to 31 House Dems, 46 House Republicans, 7 Senate Dems and 14 Senate Republicans. They also donated $745 to one Barack Obama and $30,000 to Mitt Romney. This is what happened to Dodd-Frank and this'll be what will happen to tax reform, corporate or otherwise. According to Open Secrets the #1 issue on which SIFMA spends lobbying money is around policies those that affect the Finance industry, the business of its members. #2 is taxes. This is the problem of Washington and the reason Congress sucks eggs on almost every issue important to the average American citizen. Moreover, this is not a problem of bad old Republicans and pure as the driven snow, friend of the working man/ woman, Democrats. SIFMA has bribed every politician on either side of the aisle that they thought could do them some good. About 1 of every 5 members of the House or Senate received funds from SIFMA. They haven't  corrupted the process. They bought it.

The finance industry is by no means alone in their extravagance. According to Open Secrets the insurance industry spent about $115 in direct lobbying last year and that does not include the money they spent on public issue ads designed to confuse/ sway public opinion. The tech lobby, while pushing for Immigration reform, is also spending big on reducing their tax bill. Last year they spent more than $100 million. Mining, Big Oil, Healthcare Institutions, Big Pharma  and the Defense Industry also each spent at least $100 million on lobbying last year. Direct contributions to politicians and the Senate and Congressional campaign committees for each party nearly match what is being spent on lobbying. Then there is the ubiquitous Public Service ads designed to mold public opinion.  So we get clean coal ads designed to obscure the impact of the dirtiest of fuels on the environment. BP has cleaned up the Gulf. Nothing to see here. The free exchange of ideas is now a slave market, funded by entrenched financial interests.

While the rest of America was arguing about race and abortion and trans-vaginal ultrasounds, while we defended or vilified those, some called takers, who depend on the $3.00 a day average they receive in supplemental food (SNAP) benefits, the guys on Wall Street stole our homes and wrecked our communities. They actually came in the middle of the night and drove away with everything.

http://www.thenation.com/print/article/177965/wall-street-group-aggressively-lobbied-federal-agency-thwart-eminent-domain-plans

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000229

Joy of the Gospel: The Journey Continues

The document from Pope Francis is quite lengthy. Much has been made of the few quotes having to do with economic justice and income inequality. Pope Francis has so much more to say. Following are some of the things that resonated with particular depth in my reading.

For myself, while still greatly moved by the story of Jesus, my faith is no longer firm. Actually it barely exists. Even the specific existence of God is more question than principle. This is particularly so because the balance of history is heavily weighted by evil perpetuated by the people of God, all too often in the name of God as they chose to define it.  While I recognize human failure so much more than any shortcoming in an ill-defined, at least for me, God, I have still been left asking how could this be? The Holocast? Rwanda?  Cambodia? Birmingham in 1963? 9-11? Newtown? God ought not to be held responsible for these horrors. What I cannot countenance is how a real and living God, willing to answer my prayers about a problem at work, would abandon real believers in such desperate times.  Faith through that prism seems more than illogical. In this context it more closely approximates something closer to the actual definition of clinical insanity. The suggestion that God works in mysterious ways is no answer. With each new atrocity it becomes ever more dissatisfying.

Still my mother wanted us to have God in our lives, and she worked at it long enough and hard enough that some ember still burns. My spiritual journey is a paradox, a non-believer who prays with frequency, believing in its power in an abstract and I often think absurd way. This I do even as my logical mind challenges any belief in God. The evil I see every day affirming that most prayers, even from those more devout and honorable than I, go unanswered. The mystery of faith indeed.

Then there’s that pesky count of a billion planets. The endless wars fought over a small patch in the Middle East based on any sort of religious primacy seems eminently human, religious fervor substituted for spirituality in a way that is devoid of any potential God. In the context of our known world the three major monotheist religions, including Christianity, especially Christianity, my spiritual home,  seem petty, ugly, and perverse. In the context of our known universe they approach absurdity. Any faith I have seems illogical. Even so the journey continues because the foundation of my personal testament is that my knowledge is incomplete and in the end there is something wholly inadequate in a life devoid of spiritualism. The journey continues.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

6

There are Christians whose lives seem like Lent without Easter. I realize of course that joy is not expressed the same way at all times in life, especially at moments of great difficulty. Joy adapts and changes, but it always endures, even as a flicker of light born of our personal certainty that, when everything is said and done, we are infinitely loved.

7

To some extent this is because our “technological society has succeeded in multiplying occasions of pleasure, yet has found it very difficult to engender joy”.[2] I can say that the most beautiful and natural expressions of joy which I have seen in my life were in poor people who had little to hold on to. I also think of the real joy shown by others who, even amid pressing professional obligations, were able to preserve, in detachment and simplicity, a heart full of faith.

14

In first place, we can mention the area of ordinary pastoral ministry, which is “animated by the fire of the Spirit, so as to inflame the hearts of the faithful who regularly take part in community worship and gather on the Lord’s day to be nourished by his word and by the bread of eternal life”.[11] In this category we can also include those members of faithful who preserve a deep and sincere faith, expressing it in different ways, but seldom taking part in worship. Ordinary pastoral ministry seeks to help believers to grow spiritually so that they can respond to God’s love ever more fully in their lives.

A second area is that of “the baptized whose lives do not reflect the demands of Baptism”,[12] who lack a meaningful relationship to the Church and no longer experience the consolation born of faith. The Church, in her maternal concern, tries to help them experience a conversion which will restore the joy of faith to their hearts and inspire a commitment to the Gospel.

Lastly, we cannot forget that evangelization is first and foremost about preaching the Gospel to those who do not know Jesus Christ or who have always rejected him. Many of these are quietly seeking God, led by a yearning to see his face, even in countries of ancient Christian tradition. All of them have a right to receive the Gospel. Christians have the duty to proclaim the Gospel without excluding anyone. Instead of seeming to impose new obligations, they should appear as people who wish to share their joy, who point to a horizon of beauty and who invite others to a delicious banquet. It is not by proselytizing that the Church grows, but “by attraction”.

24

An evangelizing community gets involved by word and deed in people’s daily lives; it bridges distances, it is willing to abase itself if necessary, and it embraces human life, touching the suffering flesh of Christ in others. Evangelizers thus take on the “smell of the sheep” and the sheep are willing to hear their voice. An evangelizing community is also supportive, standing by people at every step of the way, no matter how difficult or lengthy this may prove to be. It is familiar with patient expectation and apostolic endurance. Evangelization consists mostly of patience and disregard for constraints of time. Faithful to the Lord’s gift, it also bears fruit.

28

We must admit, though, that the call to review and renew our parishes has not yet sufficed to bring them nearer to people, to make them environments of living communion and participation, and to make them completely mission-oriented.

38

First, it needs to be said that in preaching the Gospel a fitting sense of proportion has to be maintained. This would be seen in the frequency with which certain themes are brought up and in the emphasis given to them in preaching. For example, if in the course of the liturgical year a parish priest speaks about temperance ten times but only mentions charity or justice two or three times, an imbalance results, and precisely those virtues which ought to be most present in preaching and catechesis are overlooked. The same thing happens when we speak more about law than about grace, more about the Church than about Christ, more about the Pope than about God’s word.

44

I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy which spurs us on to do our best. A small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties. Everyone needs to be touched by the comfort and attraction of God’s saving love, which is mysteriously at work in each person, above and beyond their faults and failings.

47

The Church is called to be the house of the Father, with doors always wide open. One concrete sign of such openness is that our church doors should always be open, so that if someone, moved by the Spirit, comes there looking for God, he or she will not find a closed door. There are other doors that should not be closed either. Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason. This is especially true of the sacrament which is itself “the door”: baptism. The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.[51] These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.

49

Let us go forth, then, let us go forth to offer everyone the life of Jesus Christ. Here I repeat for the entire Church what I have often said to the priests and laity of Buenos Aires: I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security. I do not want a Church concerned with being at the centre and then ends by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures. If something should rightly disturb us and trouble our consciences, it is the fact that so many of our brothers and sisters are living without the strength, light and consolation born of friendship with Jesus Christ, without a community of faith to support them, without meaning and a goal in life. More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door peole are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: “Give them something to eat” (Mk 6:37).

52

We are in an age of knowledge and information, which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power.

No to an economy of exclusion

53

Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

54

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

No to the new idolatry of money

55

One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex  32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves

57

Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.[55]

58

A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.

No to the inequality which spawns violence

59

Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called “end of history”, since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.

60

Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. This serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.

64

We are living in an information-driven society which bombards us indiscriminately with data – all treated as being of equal importance – and which leads to remarkable superficiality in the area of moral discernment. In response, we need to provide an education which teaches critical thinking and encourages the development of mature moral values.

70

There is also a certain exodus towards other faith communities. The causes of this breakdown include: a lack of opportunity for dialogue in families, the influence of the communications media, a relativistic subjectivism, unbridled consumerism which feeds the market, lack of pastoral care among the poor, the failure of our institutions to be welcoming, and our difficulty in restoring a mystical adherence to the faith in a pluralistic religious landscape.

Challenges from urban cultures

What is called for is an evangelization capable of shedding light on these new ways of relating to God, to others and to the world around us, and inspiring essential values. It must reach the places where new narratives and paradigms are being formed, bringing the word of Jesus to the inmost soul of our cities. Cities are multicultural; in the larger cities, a connective network is found in which groups of people share a common imagination and dreams about life, and new human interactions arise, new cultures, invisible cities. Various subcultures exist side by side, and often practise segregation and violence. The Church is called to be at the service of a difficult dialogue. On the one hand, there are people who have the means needed to develop their personal and family lives, but there are also many “non-citizens”, “half citizens” and “urban remnants”. Cities create a sort of permanent ambivalence because, while they offer their residents countless possibilities, they also present many people with any number of obstacles to the full development of their lives. This contrast causes painful suffering. In many parts of the world, cities are the scene of mass protests where thousands of people call for freedom, a voice in public life, justice and a variety of other demands which, if not properly understood, will not be silenced by force.

Yes to the challenge of a missionary spirituality

80

Pastoral workers can thus fall into a relativism which, whatever their particular style of spirituality or way of thinking, proves even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism. It has to do with the deepest and inmost decisions that shape their way of life. This practical relativism consists in acting as if God did not exist, making decisions as if the poor did not exist, setting goals as if others did not exist, working as if people who have not received the Gospel did not exist.

89

Isolation, which is a version of immanentism (the belief that God exists in and extends into all parts of the created universe, including the individual), can find expression in a false autonomy which has no place for God. But in the realm of religion it can also take the form of a spiritual consumerism tailored to one’s own unhealthy individualism. The return to the sacred and the quest for spirituality which mark our own time are ambiguous phenomena. Today, our challenge is not so much atheism as the need to respond adequately to many people’s thirst for God, lest they try to satisfy it with alienating solutions or with a disembodied Jesus who demands nothing of us with regard to others. Unless these people find in the Church a spirituality which can offer healing and liberation, and fill them with life and peace, while at the same time summoning them to fraternal communion and missionary fruitfulness, they will end up by being taken in by solutions which neither make life truly human nor give glory to God.

94

…those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others.

97

Those who have fallen into this worldliness look on from above and afar, they reject the prophecy of their brothers and sisters, they discredit those who raise questions, they constantly point out the mistakes of others and they are obsessed by appearances. Their hearts are open only to the limited horizon of their own immanence and interests, and as a consequence they neither learn from their sins nor are they genuinely open to forgiveness. This is a tremendous corruption disguised as a good. We need to avoid it by making the Church constantly go out from herself, keeping her mission focused on Jesus Christ, and her commitment to the poor. God save us from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings!

99

I especially ask Christians in communities throughout the world to offer a radiant and attractive witness of fraternal communion. Let everyone admire how you care for one another, and how you encourage and accompany one another: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35). This was Jesus’ heartfelt prayer to the Father: “That they may all be one... in us... so that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21).

103, 104

Women’s role in the church are covered in these sections but I found these comments largely unsatisfying.

117

Hence in the evangelization of new cultures, or cultures which have not received the Christian message, it is not essential to impose a specific cultural form, no matter how beautiful or ancient it may be, together with the Gospel. The message that we proclaim always has a certain cultural dress, but we in the Church can sometimes fall into a needless hallowing of our own culture, and thus show more fanaticism than true evangelizing zeal.

118

We cannot demand that peoples of every continent, in expressing their Christian faith, imitate modes of expression which European nations developed at a particular moment of their history, because the faith cannot be constricted to the limits of understanding and expression of any one culture.[95] It is an indisputable fact that no single culture can exhaust the mystery of our redemption in Christ.

133

It is not enough that evangelizers be concerned to reach each person, or that the Gospel be proclaimed to the cultures as a whole. A theology – and not simply a pastoral theology – which is in dialogue with other sciences and human experiences is most important for our discernment on how best to bring the Gospel message to different cultural contexts and groups.[110] The Church, in her commitment to evangelization, appreciates and encourages the charism of theologians and their scholarly efforts to advance dialogue with the world of cultures and sciences. I call on theologians to carry out this service as part of the Church’s saving mission. In doing so, however, they must always remember that the Church and theology exist to evangelize, and not be content with a desk-bound theology.

Reverence for truth

147

But our own aim is not to understand every little detail of a text; our most important goal is to discover its principal message, the message which gives structure and unity to the text. If the preacher does not make this effort, his preaching will quite likely have neither unity nor order; what he has to say will be a mere accumulation of various disjointed ideas incapable of inspiring others. The central message is what the author primarily wanted to communicate; this calls for recognizing not only the author’s ideas but the effect which he wanted to produce. If a text was written to console, it should not be used to correct errors; if it was written as an exhortation, it should not be employed to teach doctrine; if it was written to teach something about God, it should not be used to expound various theological opinions; if it was written as a summons to praise or missionary outreach, let us not use it to talk about the latest news.

Personal accompaniment in processes of growth

169

In a culture paradoxically suffering from anonymity and at the same time obsessed with the details of other people’s lives, shamelessly given over to morbid curiosity, the Church must look more closely and sympathetically at others whenever necessary.

171

We need to practice the art of listening, which is more than simply hearing. Listening, in communication, is an openness of heart which makes possible that closeness without which genuine spiritual encounter cannot occur. Listening helps us to find the right gesture and word which shows that we are more than simply bystanders.

THE INCLUSION OF THE POOR IN SOCIETY

In union with God, we hear a plea

187

Each individual Christian and every community is called to be an instrument of God for the liberation and promotion of the poor, and for enabling them to be fully a part of society. This demands that we be docile and attentive to the cry of the poor and to come to their aid.

188

it means working to eliminate the structural causes of poverty and to promote the integral development of the poor, as well as small daily acts of solidarity in meeting the real needs which we encounter. The word “solidarity” is a little worn and at times poorly understood, but it refers to something more than a few sporadic acts of generosity. It presumes the creation of a new mindset which thinks in terms of community and the priority of the life of all over the appropriation of goods by a few.

190

Sadly, even human rights can be used as a justification for an inordinate defense of individual rights or the rights of the richer peoples. With due respect for the autonomy and culture of every nation, we must never forget that the planet belongs to all mankind and is meant for all mankind; the mere fact that some people are born in places with fewer resources or less development does not justify the fact that they are living with less dignity. It must be reiterated that “the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others”.[155] To speak properly of our own rights, we need to broaden our perspective and to hear the plea of other peoples and other regions than those of our own country. We need to grow in a solidarity which “would allow all peoples to become the artisans of their destiny”,[156] since “every person is called to self-fulfilment”.[157]

197

God’s heart has a special place for the poor, so much so that he himself “became poor” (2 Cor 8:9). The entire history of our redemption is marked by the presence of the poor. Salvation came to us from the “yes” uttered by a lowly maiden from a small town on the fringes of a great empire. The Saviour was born in a manger, in the midst of animals, like children of poor families; he was presented at the Temple along with two turtledoves, the offering made by those who could not afford a lamb (cf. Lk 2:24; Lev 5:7); he was raised in a home of ordinary workers and worked with his own hands to earn his bread. When he began to preach the Kingdom, crowds of the dispossessed followed him, illustrating his words: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Lk  4:18). He assured those burdened by sorrow and crushed by poverty that God has a special place for them in his heart: “Blessed are you poor, yours is the kingdom of God” (Lk 6:20); he made himself one of them: “I was hungry and you gave me food to eat”, and he taught them that mercy towards all of these is the key to heaven (cf. Mt 25:5ff.).

 198

For the Church, the option for the poor is primarily a theological category rather than a cultural, sociological, political or philosophical one. God shows the poor “his first mercy”.[163] This divine preference has consequences for the faith life of all Christians, since we are called to have “this mind… which was in Jesus Christ” (Phil  2:5). Inspired by this, the Church has made an option for the poor which is understood as a “special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness”.[164] This option – as Benedict XVI has taught – “is implicit in our Christian faith in a God who became poor for us, so as to enrich us with his poverty”.[165] This is why I want a Church which is poor and for the poor. They have much to teach us. Not only do they share in the sensus fidei, but in their difficulties they know the suffering Christ. We need to let ourselves be evangelized by them. The new evangelization is an invitation to acknowledge the saving power at work in their lives and to put them at the centre of the Church’s pilgrim way. We are called to find Christ in them, to lend our voice to their causes, but also to be their friends, to listen to them, to speak for them and to embrace the mysterious wisdom which God wishes to share with us through them.

199

Our commitment does not consist exclusively in activities or programmes of promotion and assistance; what the Holy Spirit mobilizes is not an unruly activism, but above all an attentiveness which considers the other “in a certain sense as one with ourselves”.

201

No one must say that they cannot be close to the poor because their own lifestyle demands more attention to other areas. This is an excuse commonly heard in academic, business or professional, and even ecclesial circles. While it is quite true that the essential vocation and mission of the lay faithful is to strive that earthly realities and all human activity may be transformed by the Gospel,[171] none of us can think we are exempt from concern for the poor and for social justice: “Spiritual conversion, the intensity of the love of God and neighbour, zeal for justice and peace, the Gospel meaning of the poor and of poverty, are required of everyone”.[172] I fear that these words too may give rise to commentary or discussion  with no real practical effect. That being said, I trust in the openness and readiness of all Christians, and I ask you to seek, as a community, creative ways of accepting this renewed call.

The economy and the distribution of income

202

The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses. As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality,[173] no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.

203

The dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which ought to shape all economic policies. At times, however, they seem to be a mere addendum imported from without in order to fill out a political discourse lacking in perspectives or plans for true and integral development. How many words prove irksome to this system! It is irksome when the question of ethics is raised, when global solidarity is invoked, when the distribution of goods is mentioned, when reference in made to protecting labour and defending the dignity of the powerless, when allusion is made to a God who demands a commitment to justice. At other times these issues are exploited by a rhetoric which cheapens them. Casual indifference in the face of such questions empties our lives and our words of all meaning. Business is a vocation, and a noble vocation, provided that those engaged in it see themselves challenged by a greater meaning in life; this will enable them truly to serve the common good by striving to increase the goods of this world and to make them more accessible to all.

204

We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.

207

Any Church community, if it thinks it can comfortably go its own way without creative concern and effective cooperation in helping the poor to live with dignity and reaching out to everyone, will also risk breaking down, however much it may talk about social issues or criticize governments. It will easily drift into a spiritual worldliness camouflaged by religious practices, unproductive meetings and empty talk.

Concern for the vulnerable

209

Jesus, the evangelizer par excellence and the Gospel in person, identifies especially with the little ones (cf. Mt 25:40). This reminds us Christians that we are called to care for the vulnerable of the earth. But the current model, with its emphasis on success and self-reliance, does not appear to favour an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak or the less talented to find opportunities in life.

210

It is essential to draw near to new forms of poverty and vulnerability, in which we are called to recognize the suffering Christ, even if this appears to bring us no tangible and immediate benefits. I think of the homeless, the addicted, refugees, indigenous peoples, the elderly who are increasingly isolated and abandoned, and many others. Migrants present a particular challenge for me, since I am the pastor of a Church without frontiers, a Church which considers herself mother to all. For this reason, I exhort all countries to a generous openness which, rather than fearing the loss of local identity, will prove capable of creating new forms of cultural synthesis. How beautiful are those cities which overcome paralysing mistrust, integrate those who are different and make this very integration a new factor of development! How attractive are those cities which, even in their architectural design, are full of spaces which connect, relate and favour the recognition of others!

THE COMMON GOOD AND PEACE IN SOCIETY

218

Peace in society cannot be understood as pacification or the mere absence of violence resulting from the domination of one part of society over others. Nor does true peace act as a pretext for justifying a social structure which silences or appeases the poor, so that the more affluent can placidly support their lifestyle while others have to make do as they can. Demands involving the distribution of wealth, concern for the poor and human rights cannot be suppressed under the guise of creating a consensus on paper or a transient peace for a contented minority. The dignity of the human person and the common good rank higher than the comfort of those who refuse to renounce their privileges. When these values are threatened, a prophetic voice must be raised.

221

Progress in building a people in peace, justice and fraternity depends on four principles related to constant tensions present in every social reality. These derive from the pillars of the Church’s social doctrine, which serve as “primary and fundamental parameters of reference for interpreting and evaluating social phenomena”.[181] In their light I would now like to set forth these four specific principles which can guide the development of life in society and the building of a people where differences are harmonized within a shared pursuit. I do so out of the conviction that their application can be a genuine path to peace within each nation and in the entire world.

Time is greater than space

222

A constant tension exists between fullness and limitation. Fullness evokes the desire for complete possession, while limitation is a wall set before us. Broadly speaking, “time” has to do with fullness as an expression of the horizon which constantly opens before us, while each individual moment has to do with limitation as an expression of enclosure. People live poised between each individual moment and the greater, brighter horizon of the utopian future as the final cause which draws us to itself. Here we see a first principle for progress in building a people: time is greater than space.

 223

This principle enables us to work slowly but surely, without being obsessed with immediate results. It helps us patiently to endure difficult and adverse situations, or inevitable changes in our plans. It invites us to accept the tension between fullness and limitation, and to give a priority to time. One of the faults which we occasionally observe in sociopolitical activity is that spaces and power are preferred to time and processes. Giving priority to space means madly attempting to keep everything together in the present, trying to possess all the spaces of power and of self-assertion; it is to crystallize processes and presume to hold them back. Giving priority to time means being concerned about initiating processes rather than possessing spaces. Time governs spaces, illumines them and makes them links in a constantly expanding chain, with no possibility of return. What we need, then, is to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society and engage other persons and groups who can develop them to the point where they bear fruit in significant historical events. Without anxiety, but with clear convictions and tenacity.

Unity prevails over conflict

226

Conflict cannot be ignored or concealed. It has to be faced. But if we remain trapped in conflict, we lose our perspective, our horizons shrink and reality itself begins to fall apart. In the midst of conflict, we lose our sense of the profound unity of reality.

227

When conflict arises, some people simply look at it and go their way as if nothing happened; they wash their hands of it and get on with their lives. Others embrace it in such a way that they become its prisoners; they lose their bearings, project onto institutions their own confusion and dissatisfaction and thus make unity impossible. But there is also a third way, and it is the best way to deal with conflict. It is the willingness to face conflict head on, to resolve it and to make it a link in the chain of a new process. “Blessed are the peacemakers!” (Mt 5:9).

Realities are more important than ideas

231

There also exists a constant tension between ideas and realities. Realities simply are, whereas ideas are worked out. There has to be continuous dialogue between the two, lest ideas become detached from realities. It is dangerous to dwell in the realm of words alone, of images and rhetoric. So a third principle comes into play: realities are greater than ideas. This calls for rejecting the various means of masking reality: angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, empty rhetoric, objectives more ideal than real, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems bereft of kindness, intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom.

232

Ideas – conceptual elaborations – are at the service of communication, understanding, and praxis. Ideas disconnected from realities give rise to ineffectual forms of idealism and nominalism, capable at most of classifying and defining, but certainly not calling to action. What calls us to action are realities illuminated by reason. Formal nominalism has to give way to harmonious objectivity. Otherwise, the truth is manipulated, cosmetics take the place of real care for our bodies.[185] We have politicians – and even religious leaders – who wonder why people do not understand and follow them, since their proposals are so clear and logical. Perhaps it is because they are stuck in the realm of pure ideas and end up reducing politics or faith to rhetoric. Others have left simplicity behind and have imported a rationality foreign to most people.

The whole is greater than the part

234

An innate tension also exists between globalization and localization. We need to pay attention to the global so as to avoid narrowness and banality. Yet we also need to look to the local, which keeps our feet on the ground. Together, the two prevent us from falling into one of two extremes. In the first, people get caught up in an abstract, globalized universe, falling into step behind everyone else, admiring the glitter of other people’s world, gaping and applauding at all the right times. At the other extreme, they turn into a museum of local folklore, a world apart, doomed to doing the same things over and over, and incapable of being challenged by novelty or appreciating the beauty which God bestows beyond their borders.

235

The whole is greater than the part, but it is also greater than the sum of its parts. There is no need, then, to be overly obsessed with limited and particular questions. We constantly have to broaden our horizons and see the greater good which will benefit us all. But this has to be done without evasion or uprooting. We need to sink our roots deeper into the fertile soil and history of our native place, which is a gift of God. We can work on a small scale, in our own neighbourhood, but with a larger perspective. Nor do people who wholeheartedly enter into the life of a community need to lose their individualism or hide their identity; instead, they receive new impulses to personal growth. The global need not stifle,

Dialogue between faith, reason and science

242

Dialogue between science and faith also belongs to the work of evangelization at the service of peace.[189] Whereas positivism and scientism “refuse to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences”,[190] the Church proposes another path, which calls for a synthesis between the responsible use of methods proper to the empirical sciences and other areas of knowledge such as philosophy, theology, as well as faith itself, which elevates us to the mystery transcending nature and human intelligence. Faith is not fearful of reason; on the contrary, it seeks and trusts reason, since “the light of reason and the light of faith both come from God”[191] and cannot contradict each other. Evangelization is attentive to scientific advances and wishes to shed on them the light of faith and the natural law so that they will remain respectful of the centrality and supreme value of the human person at every stage of life. All of society can be enriched thanks to this dialogue, which opens up new horizons for thought and expands the possibilities of reason. This too is a path of harmony and peace.

243

The Church has no wish to hold back the marvellous progress of science. On the contrary, she rejoices and even delights in acknowledging the enormous potential that God has given to the human mind. Whenever the sciences – rigorously focused on their specific field of inquiry – arrive at a conclusion which reason cannot refute, faith does not contradict it. Neither can believers claim that a scientific opinion which is attractive but not sufficiently verified has the same weight as a dogma of faith. At times some scientists have exceeded the limits of their scientific competence by making certain statements or claims. But here the problem is not with reason itself, but with the promotion of a particular ideology which blocks the path to authentic, serene and productive dialogue. nor the particular prove barren.

Interreligious dialogue

250

An attitude of openness in truth and in love must characterize the dialogue with the followers of non-Christian religions, in spite of various obstacles and difficulties, especially forms of fundamentalism on both sides. Interreligious dialogue is a necessary condition for peace in the world, and so it is a duty for Christians as well as other religious communities. This dialogue is in first place a conversation about human existence or simply, as the bishops of India have put it, a matter of “being open to them, sharing their joys and sorrows”.[194] In this way we learn to accept others and their different ways of living, thinking and speaking. We can then join one another in taking up the duty of serving justice and peace, which should become a basic principle of all our exchanges. A dialogue which seeks social peace and justice is in itself, beyond all merely practical considerations, an ethical commitment which brings about a new social situation. Efforts made in dealing with a specific theme can become a process in which, by mutual listening, both parts can be purified and enriched. These efforts, therefore, can also express love for truth.

254

Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”,[199] and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”.[200] But due to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace, God’s working in them tends to produce signs and rites, sacred expressions which in turn bring others to a communitarian experience of journeying towards God.[201] While these lack the meaning and efficacy of the sacraments instituted by Christ, they can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences. The same Spirit everywhere brings forth various forms of practical wisdom which help people to bear suffering and to live in greater peace and harmony. As Christians, we can also benefit from these treasures built up over many centuries, which can help us better to live our own beliefs.

Social dialogue in a context of religious freedom

257

As believers, we also feel close to those who do not consider themselves part of any religious tradition, yet sincerely seek the truth, goodness and beauty which we believe have their highest expression and source in God. We consider them as precious allies in the commitment to defending human dignity, in building peaceful coexistence between peoples and in protecting creation.

The spiritual savour of being a people

270

Sometimes we are tempted to be that kind of Christian who keeps the Lord’s wounds at arm’s length. Yet Jesus wants us to touch human misery, to touch the suffering flesh of others. He hopes that we will stop looking for those personal or communal niches which shelter us from the maelstrom of human misfortune and instead enter into the reality of other people’s lives and know the power of tenderness. Whenever we do so, our lives become wonderfully complicated and we experience intensely what it is to be a people, to be part of a people.

274

If we are to share our lives with others and generously give of ourselves, we also have to realize that every person is worthy of our giving. Not for their physical appearance, their abilities, their language, their way of thinking, or for any satisfaction that we might receive, but rather because they are God’s handiwork, his creation. God created that person in his image, and he or she reflects something of God’s glory. Every human being is the object of God’s infinite tenderness, and he himself is present in their lives.  Jesus offered his precious blood on the cross for that person. Appearances notwithstanding, every person is immensely holy and deserves our love. Consequently, if I can help at least one person to have a better life, that already justifies the offering of my life.