Showing posts with label social doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social doctrine. Show all posts

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Pope Francis Calls For 'Legitimate Redistribution' Of Wealth To The Poor


AP | by NICOLE WINFIELD
Posted: 05/09/2014 8:35 am EDT
Updated: 05/09/2014 12:59 pm EDT

























VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope Francis called Friday for governments to redistribute wealth to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the "economy of exclusion" that is taking hold today.

Francis made the appeal during a speech to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the heads of major U.N. agencies who are meeting in Rome this week.

Latin America's first pope has frequently lashed out at the injustices of capitalism and the global economic system that excludes so much of humanity.

On Friday, Francis called for the United Nations to promote a "worldwide ethical mobilization" of solidarity with the poor in a new spirit of generosity.

He said a more equal form of economic progress can be had through "the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society."

Francis had a similar message to the World Economic Forum in January and in h is apostolic exhortation "The Joy of the Gospel." That document, which denounced trickle-down economic theories as unproven and naive, provoked criticism in the U.S. that he was Marxist.

Francis has denied he's Marxist, and spent years in Argentina battling Marxist excesses of liberation theology. But he has said from the outset that he wants a church that "is poor and for the poor" and ministers to the most marginal of society.

On Friday, he urged the U.N. to promote development goals that attack the root causes of poverty and hunger, protect the environment and ensure "dignified" labor for all.

"Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustices and resisting the economy of exclusion, the throwaway culture and the culture of death which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted," he said.

Source
.

Wednesday, December 04, 2013

Rush Limbaugh: Pope is preaching 'pure Marxism'



 

December 2nd, 2013
11:29 AM ET


Rush Limbaugh: Pope is preaching 'pure Marxism'


By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor


(CNN) – Pope Francis: Successor to St. Peter ... the people's pontiff ... Marxist?

That's what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh suggests, calling the Pope's latest document "pure Marxism."

Limbaugh blasted the pontiff on Wednesday, a day after Francis released "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel), a 50,000-word statement that calls for church reform and castigates elements of modern capitalism.

Limbaugh's segment, now online and entitled "It's Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It's a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists)," takes direct aim at the pope's economic views, calling them "dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong."

The Vatican issued the English translation of "Evangelii," which is known officially as an apostolic exhortation and unofficially as a pep talk to the worlds 1.5 billion Catholics.

Francis – the first pope ever to hail from Latin America, where he worked on behalf of the poor in his native Argentina – warned in "Evangelii" that the "idolatry of money" would lead to a "new tyranny."

The Pope also blasted "trickle-down economics," saying the theory "expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power."

READ MORE: Pope Francis: No more business as usual

The Pope's critique of capitalism thrilled many liberal Catholics, who have long called on church leaders to spend more time and energy on protecting the poor from economic inequalities.

But Limbaugh, whose program is estimated to reach 15 million listeners, called the Pope's comments "sad" and "unbelievable."

"It's sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth."

In fact, Argentina was a battlefield between leftist socialists and right-wing security forces during much of Francis' early career in the country, where he was a Jesuit priest and later archbishop of Buenos Aires.

Limbaugh, who is not Catholic, said he admires the faith "profoundly." He admired Pope Francis as well, "up until this," Limbaugh said.

The talk show host also said that he has made numerous visits to the Vatican, which he said "wouldn't exist without tons of money."

"But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him," Limbaugh added. "This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope."

Limbaugh took particular issue with the Pope's criticism of the "culture of prosperity," which the pontiff called a "mere spectacle" for the many people who can't afford to participate.

"This is almost a statement about who should control financial markets," Limbaugh said. "He says that the global economy needs government control."

"I'm not Catholic, but I know enough to know that this would have been unthinkable for a pope to believe or say just a few years ago," Limbaugh continued.

In fact, Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI, now pope emeritus, could be just as strong a critic of capitalism.

In 2009, Benedict, in an official church document called an encyclical, said there was an urgent need for "a political, juridical and economic order" that would "manage the global economy."

As Limbaugh notes, Benedict's predecessor, the late Pope John Paul II, was a noted foe of communism, after living under its oppressions in his native Poland. But even John Paul thought that unregulated capitalism could have negative consequences.

In "Evangelii," Francis called for more of a spiritual and ethical revolution than a regulatory one.

"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,'" said Francis, quoting the fifth-century St. John Chrysostom.

Liberal Catholics defended Pope Francis on Monday, calling on Limbaugh to apologize and retract his remarks.

"To call the Holy Father a proponent 'pure Marxism' is both mean-spirited and naive," said Christopher Hale of the Washington-based Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. "Francis's critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church's social teaching."

Limbaugh is not the only conservative commentator to take issue with the Pope's views on capitalism.

READ MORE: Sarah Palin 'taken aback' by Pope Francis's 'liberal' statements

“I go to church to save my soul," said Fox News' Stuart Varney, who is an Episcopalian. "It’s got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics.”

It doesn't sound like the criticism is slowing Francis down, however. He's started sending a Vatican contingent, including the Papal Swiss Guards, into Rome to deliver food and charity.


Daniel Burke - CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor


Source
.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Social Doctrine of the Church and the Economy: Centessimus Annus Foundation celebrates anniversary




 

romereports

Published on Apr 11, 2013


http://en.romereports.com The goal of the papal Centessimus Annus Foundation is to spread the Social Doctrine of the Church in the world of economics. The issue is especially relevant nowadays, with more than 200 million are unemployed.

To help spur growth, the foundation organized a conference in May, which is expected to draw about 300 people. Today, it also announced the winners of the first-ever Economy and Society awards, which mark's the foundation's 20th anniversary.

.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Gaudium et Spes



Vatican II: Gaudium et Spes

A Summary Article by Gerald Darring




The Council expresses a desire to engage in conversation with the entire human family (a. 3) so that the Church can help shed light on the human mystery and cooperate in solving contemporary problems (a. 10). It addresses this Constitution to Catholics, to all Christians, and to the whole of humanity (a. 2).

The Church has the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel (a. 4), and in line with this the Council expresses its own view of contemporary society. It says that we are in a new age of human history, since the social and cultural circumstances of life have profoundly changed (a. 54). The human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one (a. 5). We are undergoing a cultural and social transformation (a. 4) resulting in rapid changes in industrialization, urbanization, communication, and socialization (a. 6) as well as changes in attitudes, values, and norms of behavior (a. 7). We are witnessing a healthy evolution toward unity and a process of wholesome socialization (a. 42). Increasing socialization can cause problems but it also offers opportunities for the positive development of the human person (a. 25). Modern technical advances are promoting a growing interdependence among people (a. 23), which tightens and spreads by degrees over the whole world (a. 26).

We are on the road to a more thorough development of human personality and to a growing discovery and vindication of our rights (a. 41). There is growing awareness of human dignity, of rights and duties that belong to everyone and cannot be taken away (a. 26). People are claiming the rights deprived them through injustice or unequal distribution (a. 9); they thirst for a full and free life worthy of humans (a. 9). A keener sense of human dignity is leading to a political environment more protective of human rights (a. 73).

There is a mounting increase in the sense of autonomy as well as of responsibility: we are witnessing the birth of a new humanism in which humanity is defined in terms of social and historical responsibility (a. 55). Under these circumstances it is now possible to free most of humanity from the misery of ignorance (a. 60).

These positive signs noted by the Council are countered by several negative signs. Splits have developed within individuals, families, races, and nations (a. 8). Many find it difficult to identify permanent values and apply them to changing circumstances (a. 4), and one of the more serious errors of our age is the split between people's faith and their daily lives (a. 43).

Social disturbances take place, resulting in part from natural economic, political and social tensions, but at a deeper level they result from pride and selfishness (a. 25). The magnified power of humanity threatens to destroy the race itself (a. 37). Wars continue their devastation, and the fierce character of warfare threatens to result in unsurpassed savagery (a. 79). Even when no war is being waged, the world is constantly beset by strife and violence (a. 83).

The Council concludes that the modern world shows itself at once powerful and weak, capable of the noblest deeds or the foulest; before it lies the path to freedom or to slavery, to progress or retreat, to community or hatred (a. 9).

The Council sets out to establish a working relationship with the world in which it finds itself, for the Church goes forward together with humanity and experiences the same earthly lot which the world does (a. 40). The followers of Christ share the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of today's people, especially those who are poor (a. 1), and Christians are joined with the rest of society in the search for truth (a. 16).

The People of God and the human race render service to each other (a. 11). The Church serves as a leaven and as a kind of soul for human society (a. 40). It can contribute to making people and history more human (a. 40), opening up to people the meaning of their own existence (a. 41). The Church can inject into modern society the force of its faith and love put into vital practice (a. 42). The universality of the Church enables it to serve as a bond between diverse human communities (a. 42). The Church respects all the true, good, and just elements found in human institutions (a. 42), and Christians living and working in the world are bound to penetrate the world with a Christian spirit (a. 43). The Church can and ought to be enriched by the development of human social life, and indeed the Church has profited richly by the history and development of humanity (a. 44). Whoever works to better the world contributes to the Church as well (a. 44).

While defining the Church's relationship to the world, the Council restates as well the mission of the church. The Church has a saving and an eschatological purpose which can be fully attained only in the future world (a. 40). The Church's mission is religious and not in the political, economic or social order, but this religious mission can help the human community structure itself properly (a. 42).

The mission of the Church includes these religious and less specifically religious goals: to reveal the mystery of God (a. 41); to make God present and in a sense visible (a. 21); to communicate God's life to people and cast the reflected light of that life over the entire earth (a. 40); to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the Spirit (a. 3); to preach the Gospel to everyone and dispense the treasures of grace (a. 89); to guard the heritage of God's Word and draw from it moral and religious principles (a. 33); to work that God's Kingdom may come, and that the salvation of the whole human race may come to pass (a. 45); to scrutinize the signs of the times and interpret them in the light of the Gospel (a. 4); to hear, distinguish and interpret the many voices of our age, and judge them in the light of God's Word (a. 44); to promote unity (a. 42); to stimulate and advance human and civic culture (a. 58); to foster and elevate all that is found to be true, good and beautiful in the human community (a. 76); to shed on the whole world the radiance of the Gospel message, and to unify under one Spirit all people of whatever nation, race or culture (a. 92).

Asserting that the Church can open up to people the meaning of their own existence (a. 41), the Council addresses the human person and human activity and experience. It says that people are more precious for what they are than for what they have (a. 35). The dignity of the human person applies to the human body, good and honorable, which God created and will raise up on the last day (a. 14); the human intellect, which shares in the light of the divine mind (a. 15); and the human conscience, the most secret core and sanctuary of a person where one is alone with God (a. 16). Human dignity demands the freedom to direct oneself toward goodness (a. 17).

Human work constitutes an unfolding of God's creation, and human accomplishments are a sign of God's grace (a. 34). Human progress is good, but it tempts us to seek our own interests and not those of others (a. 37). We find ourselves fully only in giving ourselves sincerely to others (a. 24)

Human experience includes both the call to grandeur and the depths of misery (a. 13). All human activity is threatened by pride and must be purified by the power of Christ's cross and resurrection (a. 37). The human mystery takes on light only in the mystery of the Word made flesh, whose Spirit offers to every person the possibility of being associated with the saving events of Jesus (a. 22). The riddle of human existence grows most acute in the face of death, yet revelation tells us that God created us for life beyond death and Christ has freed us from death (a. 18).

The Council acknowledges that people want to know the meaning of life and death, and they can never be altogether indifferent to the problems of religion (a. 41). The recognition of God is not hostile to human dignity (a. 21), and indeed the basic source of human dignity lies in our call to communion with God (a. 19). There is not a mutual opposition between faith and science (a. 36), nor is there an opposition between professional and social activities on the one hand, and religious life on the other (a. 43). Religion is being purified of superstition at the same time that growing numbers of people are abandoning religion in practice (a. 7).

The Council argues against a concept of religion which includes only worship and moral living: it asserts that religion also includes involvement in earthly affairs (a. 43). It also argues against discriminatory attitudes involving religion. All discrimination based on religion is contrary to God's intent and must be overcome and eradicated (a. 29), and we ought to respect and love those who think or act differently from us in religious matters (a. 28).

Noting with approval that there is a steadily growing respect for people of other religions (a. 73), the Council attempts to conduct a respectful dialogue with atheists. Atheism is one of the most serious problems of our age (a. 19). The word atheism is used to cover a number of different attitudes and approaches (a. 19). Atheism arises from different causes, and believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for the atheism of others, concealing rather than revealing the authentic face of God (a. 19). Atheism often reflects a desire to be totally independent of God, so that humans can be an end unto themselves (a. 20). Atheism can also result from the anticipation of human liberation solely through economic and social efforts, while viewing religion as an obstacle because it arouses hope for a deceptive future life (a. 20). Atheism raises weighty questions, which should be examined seriously (a. 21). The remedy to atheism is a proper presentation and living out of our faith (a. 21). There must be dialogue so that believers and unbelievers can work together for a better world (a. 21).

In line with the mission of the Church to guard the heritage of God's Word and draw from it moral and religious principles (a. 33), the Constitution includes some general moral statements which the Council wants us to reflect on before proceeding on to the concrete problems of today's world: --All human activity must harmonize with the genuine good of the human race (a. 35); --We cannot, through laziness or lack of concern, be satisfied with a merely individualistic morality (a. 30), for God created us not for life in isolation but for the formation of social unity (a. 32); --Serving and living and working with others strengthens our freedom (a. 31); --Only in freedom can we direct ourselves toward goodness (a. 17); --One must obey one's conscience, for according to it one will be judged (a. 16); --An improper hierarchy of values results in self-centeredness (a. 37); --The acknowledgment of personal rights does not imply exemption from every requirement of divine law (a. 41); --What divine revelation makes known to us conforms with experience (a. 13); --We often experience an imbalance between a concern for practicality and efficiency, and the demands of moral conscience (a. 8); --We can love and respect others who think or act differently from us without becoming indifferent to truth or goodness (a. 28); --We must distinguish between error and the person in error: the error must always be rejected while the person never loses the dignity of being a human person (a. 28).

In addition to these general moral statements, the Council also offers a number of guidelines for social justice intended to help humanity establish a political, social and economic order which will serve people and affirm and develop their dignity (a. 9).

The Council promotes respect for both individuals and the community. It asserts that the beginning, the subject and the goal of all social institutions is and must be the human person (a. 25). Respect for human dignity means that everyone must have what they need to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, shelter, the freedom to choose a state of life and found a family, the right to education, employment, a good reputation, respect, appropriate information, action in good conscience, protection of privacy, and religious freedom (a. 26). God made us into one family, and we should treat one another in a spirit of community (a. 24). Every social group must respect the needs and aspirations of other groups as well as the general welfare of the entire human family (a. 26). We must make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception, and each of us must consider every neighbor without exception as another self (a. 27).

The dignity of the individual and the community demands respect for life: whatever is opposed to life poisons human society, harms its practitioner, and dishonors the Creator (a. 27). It also demands respect and love for those who think or act differently from us in social, political, and religious matters (a. 28). We must recognize the basic equality of all people: all discrimination is contrary to God's intent and must be overcome and eradicated (a. 29).

Both the individual and the community have obligations to each other: human institutions must work to safeguard basic human rights (a. 29), while at the same time each person must contribute to the common good and must support the private and public institutions which work for a better world, and one of our primary duties is the observance of social laws and precepts (a. 30)

The Council teaches that we have a mandate to govern the world with justice and holiness (a. 34), so that we have a duty imposed upon us to build a better world based upon truth and justice (a. 55). Believers and unbelievers alike must work for a better world (a. 21); we must work together without violence and deceit to build up the world in genuine peace (a. 92). This task demands that we recognize that technical advances are worth less than the work we do for justice, community, and social order (a. 35), and that the effort to establish a universal community is not a hopeless one (a. 38).

The Council has some messages directed primarily to members of the Church. It says that our hope related to the end of time does not diminish in any way our duty to address contemporary problems (a. 21); the expectation of a new earth must not weaken but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one (a. 39). Christians should seek and think of those things which are above, but this duty should increase their obligation to work with others for a better world (a. 57) and those Christians are mistaken who think they can shirk their earthly responsibilities just because we seek a life to come (a. 43). The Christian message holds us bound to build up the world and be concerned for the welfare of others (a. 34), and the teaching of Christ requires that we forgive injuries and love our enemies (a. 28). We must foster within the Church itself mutual esteem, reverence and harmony, through the full recognition of lawful diversity (a. 92).

After laying out its theoretical program, the Council turns its attention to several problems which it says are of special urgency (a. 46). The first topic is marriage and family. The companionship of male and female produces the primary form of interpersonal communion (a. 12). The Council notes that modern economic conditions are causing serious disturbances in families (a. 47), and this is important because the condition of families has a decisive bearing on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of human society as a whole (a. 48). Everyone should work for the welfare of marriage and the family: parents, children, those who exercise influence in society, Christians, researchers, pastors, and various organizations (a. 52).

The second topic taken up in the Constitution is culture. People arrive at full humanity only through culture, those things by which people develop and perfect their bodily and spiritual qualities (a. 53). A more universal form of human culture is developing, one which promotes and expresses the unity of the human race (a. 54). For the first time in human history all people are convinced that the benefits of culture ought to be and actually can be extended to everyone (a. 9).

The Church is not bound to any particular form of human culture (a. 42), to any particular way of life or any customary pattern of life (a. 58). Because there are many ties between the message of salvation and human culture (a. 58), the Church is involved in a living exchange with diverse cultures of people (a. 44), although sometimes it is difficult to harmonize culture with Christian teaching (a. 62).

The Council lays down the following guidelines for evaluating the role of culture in society.

Culture needs freedom and autonomy, and it demands respect (a. 59). We ought to respect and love those who think or act differently from us in social, political, and religious matters (a. 28).

Culture should be subordinated to the integral perfection of the human person and the common good of society (a. 59).

Individuals should be educated to a higher degree of culture (a. 31).

All cultural discrimination is contrary to God's intent and must be overcome and eradicated (a. 29). There should be no discrimination in the satisfaction of the right to culture because everyone has the right to culture and the duty to develop themselves culturally (a. 60).

Women must be affirmed as participants in cultural life (a. 60), and they ought not to be denied the right to cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men (a. 29).

Increased exchanges among cultures cannot be allowed to disturb the life of communities or destroy ancestral wisdom and the peculiar character of each people (a. 56).

The refinement of the culturally competent cannot stand in the way of others' participating in the cultural values of the world (a. 56).

The recognition of the autonomy of culture cannot give rise to an a-religious or anti-religious humanism (a. 56).

The arts and disciplines should be free to use their own principles and methodologies, and people must be free to search for the truth, express opinions, and practice art (a. 59).

Culture cannot be made to serve as an instrument of political or economic power (a. 59).

The third topic taken up by the Council is socio-economic life. It teaches that people are the source, center, and purpose of all economic and social life (a. 63), and that the purpose of economic production is to serve people in their material needs as well as in the demands of their intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious lives (a. 64). The Church is not bound to any particular economic system (a. 42), but it is critical of the excessive economic and social differences among people or groups of people which violate social justice, equity, human dignity, and social and international peace (29). It is also critical of the dangerous lack of balance between developed and other countries, and also between agriculture, industry, and the services (a. 63).

Of special concern to the Church is poverty and the poor. The followers of Christ share the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of all people, but especially of those who are poor (a. 1). The Council notes with sadness that even with unprecedented wealth, resources and economic power, we are still tormented by hunger and poverty (a. 4); the greater part of the world is still suffering from so much poverty that it is as if Christ himself were crying out in these poor to beg the charity of the disciples (a. 88).

Subhuman living conditions are opposed to life, thereby poisoning human society and dishonoring God (a. 27). Moreover, human freedom is often crippled when a person encounters extreme poverty (a. 31). Economic development sometimes results in contempt for the poor (a. 63), but the Council calls on us to react differently: love of neighbor means that we cannot imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus (a. 27). People must help the poor, and not merely out of their superfluous goods (a. 68). At the same time, those in extreme necessity have the right to procure what they need from the riches of others (a. 68). The Council condemns the arms race, which it says ensnares the poor to an intolerable degree (a. 81), and it proposes the establishment of an organism of the universal Church which would be set up to cultivate both the justice and love of Christ toward the poor (a. 90).

The Council offers a vision of a just socio-economic order. This vision is based on the principle that the right to have a sufficient share of earthly goods belongs to everyone (a. 68). Based on this principle, the Council asserts that everyone has the right to work and the duty to work faithfully (a. 67), and that wages should be such that people and their dependents can live worthy lives (a. 67). Workers have the right to form unions and to take part in them without fear of reprisal (a. 68). Disputes should be settled by negotiation, but if necessary by strikes (a. 68).

Private property is an extension of human freedom, and access to ownership should be fostered, keeping mind the social obligations attached to private ownership (a. 71). Investments should be based on concern for the common good (a. 70). Everyone involved in an economic enterprise should share in its administration and profits (a. 68), and the largest possible number of people and nations must have an active share in directing economic development (a. 65).

Economic growth cannot be controlled exclusively by market forces or government authority (a. 65). Special attention must be given farmers, immigrants, the sick and the elderly (a. 66). All discrimination based on social condition is contrary to God's intent and must be overcome and eradicated (a. 29).

More international cooperation is needed in the economic field (a. 84). The international economy demands an end to profiteering, national ambition, appetite for political supremacy, militarism, and ideological propaganda (a. 85).

The next topic taken up by the Council is political life. Political community exists for the common good--the sum of social conditions within which people attain their perfection (a. 74). The Council welcomes the fact that more and more people are becoming politically active (a. 73), and it teaches that the Church is not bound to any particular political system (a. 42, 76), and can work under any kind of government which recognizes basic human rights, the demands of the common good, and the freedom of the Church to exercise its own mission (a. 42).

People should be free to choose their political system and their rulers (a. 74). Political authority must be based on appeals to people's freedom and sense of responsibility. It must always be exercised within the limits of the moral order and directed towards the common good (a. 74). It can never be based on dictatorial systems or totalitarian methods which violate human rights (a. 75). Political systems should not hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize people through avarice and political crimes, or serve special interests (a. 73). People have the right to defend human rights from abuse by public authority (a. 74).

Citizens and governments have duties to each other which must be carried out for the common good. People have the right and the duty to use their free vote to further the common good. Political parties can never give their interests priority over the common good (a. 75). We ought to respect and love those who think or act differently from us in political matters (a. 28).

The final topic taken up by the Council is peace. Peace is an enterprise of justice and the fruit of love: it is not merely the absence of war, or the maintenance of a balance of power, or the calm enforced by dictatorship (a. 78). It must be born of mutual trust among nations and not be imposed through fear of available weapons (a. 82). Excessive economic and social differences among people or groups of people violate social and international peace (29), and building up peace involves rooting out the causes of discord, especially injustice (a. 83).

Governments have the right to legitimate defense when peaceful means of settlement have been exhausted. Those in military service who fulfill this role properly contribute to the establishment of peace, but conscientious objectors should be protected by law. Orders should not be obeyed which are immoral, such as those designed for the methodical extermination of an entire people (a. 79).

The new circumstances surrounding war force us to evaluate war with an entirely new attitude (a. 80). In its own evaluation of war, the Council declares that any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of cities and populations merits condemnation (a. 80). It teaches that the arms race is not a safe way to preserve peace, and may even aggravate the causes of war. It is a trap for humanity, ensnaring the poor to an intolerable degree (a. 81). Our goal should be a time when all war is outlawed by international consent (a. 82). Christians should work with all true peacemakers, and especially praiseworthy are those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights (a. 78).

Throughout its Pastoral Constitution, the Council returns time and again to Christ because, it says, God provides a full answer to human questions in Christ, so that whoever follows after Christ, the perfect human, becomes more human (a. 41). Christ is the model and guide for all that we seek in social justice. He is the perfect human being, providing us with an example for our imitation (a. 22). He taught us by his example to share in human community, revealing the human vocation in terms of the most common of social realities (a. 32).

Christ entered the world to rescue and not to sit in judgment, to serve and not to be served (a. 3). Christ through his Spirit can offer us the light and the strength to measure up to our supreme destiny (a. 10). The Father wants everyone to recognize Christ our brother and love him in word and deed (a. 93). Marriage is a reflection of the loving covenant uniting Christ with the Church, manifesting to everyone Christ's living presence in the world (a. 48)

The Council bases its hopeful perspective on the saving acts of Christ. Christ won the victory for humans when he rose to life, for by his death he freed us from death (a. 18). People are equal because they have all been redeemed by Christ (a. 29). All human activity is threatened by pride and must be purified by the power of Christ's cross and resurrection (a. 37). Christ is now at work in human hearts through the energy of his Spirit (a. 38).

Christ is himself the cause of the justice and peace we seek. He is the author of peace, the Prince of Peace reconciling all people with God (a. 78). In Christ can be found the key, the focal point and the goal of humanity and of all human history (a. 10); he is the goal of human history, the focal point of the longings of history and of civilization, the center of the human race, the joy of every heart and the answer to all its yearnings (a. 45). Only in Christ can the human mystery take on light (a. 22). He entered the world's history as a perfect human, taking that history up into himself and summarizing it (a. 38).


Source
.

Wednesday, December 05, 2012

Ave Maria Mutual Funds


Photo (Courtesy) http://christianinvestmentforum.org/members-directory/ave-maria-funds

From , former About.com Guide



Minimum Investment:

$1,000

Sales Charge:

No-load

Fund Managers:


George Schwartz, founded Schwartz Investment Counsel, Inc. in 1980 and is the portfolio manager of the Ave Maria Catholic Values Fund.
Gregory R. Heilman, is the co-manager of the Ave Maria Catholic Values Fund and is responsible for equity research functions for Schwartz Investment Counsel.
Richard Platte, Jr. has been the lead manager of the Ave Maria Rising Dividend Fund since May of 2005.
Timothy Schwartz has been the lead manager of the Ave Maria Opportunity Fund since May of 2006.

Background:

Managers of the Ave Maria Mutual Funds say they participate in “morally responsible” investing. The family’s first fund, the Ave Maria Catholic Values Fund, was started in 2001 after Dominoes Pizza owner Tom Monaghan, a devout Catholic, asked his money manager George Schwartz to create a Catholic mutual fund.
“He wanted me to screen out companies related to abortion,” says Schwartz. “We decided to put together a Catholic advisory board and the Catholic advisory board determined that we should also screen out a few other things that the Catholic Church is against, such as pornography, contributing to Planned Parenthood and offering non-marital partner benefits to employees. We screen out companies in those four categories.”
The advisory board includes high-profile figures such as CNBC commentator Lawrence Kudlow, former Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz, and political activist Phyllis Schlafly.

.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Revolt of the Bishops? Statement on the Economy Voted Down


POSTED AT: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2012 03:48:56 PM
AUTHOR: KEVIN CLARKE


Given the state of the economy and the mood of the nation, a letter of hope during economic dark times seemed like a good idea when the U.S. bishops voted by a wide margin to draft a message on work and the economy during their June meeting in Atlanta. But after the draft of that resulting document was discussed by the bishops during their fall meeting in Baltimore yesterday, it became quickly clear that the statement was unexpectedly in trouble. Today the document, titled "The Hope of the Gospel in Difficult Economic Times," was shot down, failing to achieve the two-thirds needed for passage. The vote was 134, yes, 84 no, with nine abstentions.

Written by a drafting committee headed by Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron of Detroit, under some guidelines laid out by the bishops at their June meeting in Atlanta, the document had been challenged by Spokane's Blaise Cupich and retired Retired Archbishop and one-time conference president Joseph A. Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston. According to the USCCB twitter feed from the meeting yesterday, Archbishop Fiorenza quickly criticized the document following its introduction by Archbishop Vigneron. "Why don't we address the growing gulf between the haves and the have nots?" he asked.

Archbishop Fiorenza said, "I have very serious questions about this," adding he had only received the draft for review three days earlier. "I am very disappointed, and I fear that this draft, if not changed in a major way," will harm the U.S. bishops' record on Catholic social teaching. He observed that the subtitle is about work: "A pastoral message on work, poverty and the economy," yet he said the document includes just one short reference on the right of workers to unionize.

"One sentence," he added. "It's almost like it was an afterthought. But when you look at the compendium of the social teachings of the church, there are three long paragraphs on the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, and the right to strike." He asked why "Hope of the Gospel" includes no reference, "not even a footnote," about the U.S. bishops' 1986 pastoral letter on the economy, "Economic Justice for All," which he noted was the product of several years of work.

Retired Auxiliary Bishop Peter A. Rosazza of Hartford, Conn., asked whether the drafting committee had consulted with an economist, which he said was one of the recommendations of the bishops in June.

They had not, Archbishop Vigneron told him. According to Vigneron, the document relied on encyclicals from popes JPII and Benedict XVI.

Retired Bishop Joseph M. Sullivan of Brooklyn, N.Y., said the document "doesn't address in any way the major shift in the American economy." He also said it ought to reference the 1986 document "to show the continuity of what we said then."

After a day of review, the statement took more hits during floor debate today from a number of other bishops who complained that it did not properly connect to past Catholic social teaching, particularly the aforementioned pastoral "Economic Justice," was not suitably critical of the forces that brought the country to its economic knees in 2008 and had nothing too little to say about the role of unions.

Bishop Rosazza complained that the document has "no sting, no bite" and doesn't address cuts to government programs that help the poor. Albany's Bishop Howard Hubbard said the statement did not adequately address causes of economic collapse, the role of government, the decline of labor and Catholic social teaching. The document doesn't offer comfort or hope to anyone, complained Bishop Cupich, it speaks of market forces but not deregulation and immoral behavior that created the financial crisis.

Galveston's Cadinal Daniel DiNardo defended the statement, arguing Archbishop Vigneron did what he was asked; the problem may be that bishops' expectations for the statement were unreasonably high.

Having failed to pass in the conference, the document was effectively D.O.A. but elements within it may appear in future statements.

Have moderates in the conference finally decided to push back against the conference's conservative drift? Hard to say, (especially when your "insight" is based on a twitter feed!) but as many of the objectors here appear to be retired, non-voting members, there does not appear to be too much cause for celebration among Catholic progressives.

.
.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Two Catholic candidates

Joe Biden and Paul Ryan clash sharply on foreign policy, economy in debate


Here's a portion of the Vice Presidential Debate Transcript October 12, 2012:

RADDATZ: I want to move on, and I want to return home for these last f ew questions. This debate is, indeed, historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.
Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country…
RYAN: Sure.
RADDATZ: … please talk personally about this, if you could.
Congressman Ryan?
RYAN: I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life.
RYAN: Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.
You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born, for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. A little baby was in the shape of a bean. And to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child Liza, “Bean.” Now I believe that life begins at conception.
That’s why — those are the reasons why I’m pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don’t agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they’re doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals.
Our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties. And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That to me is pretty extreme.
RADDATZ: Vice President Biden?
BIDEN: My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.
But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that. With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.
That is a fact. Now with regard to the way in which the — we differ, my friend says that he — well I guess he accepts Governor Romney’s position now, because in the past he has argued that there was — there’s rape and forcible rape. He’s argued that in the case of rape or incest, it was still — it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend.
RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan.
RYAN: All I’m saying is, if you believe that life begins at conception, that, therefore, doesn’t change the definition of life. That’s a principle. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.
Now, I’ve got to take issue with the Catholic church and religious liberty.
BIDEN: You have on the issue…
(CROSSTALK)
RYAN: … why would they keep — why would they keep suing you? It’s a distinction without a difference.
RADDATZ: I want to go back to the abortion question here. If the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, should those who believe that abortion should remain legal be worried?
RYAN: We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination.
BIDEN: The court — the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is. Just ask yourself, with Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for — for Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw (inaudible) — outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen.
I guarantee you, that will not happen. We picked two people. We pick people who are open-minded. They’ve been good justices. So keep an eye on the Supreme Court…
RYAN: Was there a litmus test on them?
BIDEN: There was no litmus test. We picked people who had an open mind; did not come with an agenda.
RADDATZ: I’m — I’m going to move on to this closing question because we are running out of time.


- On The Web
.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Paul Ryan, Catholic Who Looks to Church's Social Teaching, Tapped as Romney Running Mate

(9393)


Wisconsin congressman cheered by some as strong pro-lifer, criticized by others as wanting to reduce deficit ‘on the backs of the poor.’


08/11/2012




Win McNamee/Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, wave as Ryan is announced as his vice-presidential running mate in front of the USS Wisconsin Aug. 11 in Norfolk, Va.

– Win McNamee/Getty Images

A budget-cruncher who cites Catholic social teaching as an inspiration for his own economic thinking has been tapped for the second slot on the GOP presidential ticket.


Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, on Saturday named Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and a seven-term congressman from Wisconsin, as his running mate.


The eagerly anticipated announcement was made in Norfolk, Va., where Ryan, 42, was joined on stage by his wife, Janna, and their three small children.


With the choice of Ryan, an advocate of entitlement reform and shrinking the size of the federal government, Romney has ensured that the role of government and the future of Medicare will figure prominently in this year’s race for the White House.


While Ryan has attracted harsh criticism from some Catholics — questioning whether he can rightly lay claim to the mantle of Catholic social teaching — other Catholics regard Ryan as an excellent choice.


“I am thrilled with the selection of Ryan,” Catholic theologian Michael Novak said, “because it emphasizes family, character and a vision that is on the offense against President Obama and that sees Obama as destroying the country’s military and financial structure and pitting class against class.”


“As a smart, serious Catholic, Congressman Ryan has been steadfast on issues of fundamental principle — defending religious liberty, life and traditional marriage,” The Catholic Association said in a press release.


“In addition, he has been thoughtful and articulate in applying Catholic principles to the other challenges facing America,” the statement added.


The selection also drew immediate praise from pro-life leaders.


“Paul Ryan has been an eloquent defender of life, articulating his view that policy and principles can work together,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life. “On the issue of defending life in particular, the use of the bully pulpit is crucial, and we look forward to hearing more from Congressman Ryan on the need to ensure that every person is welcomed in life and protected in law.”


“By selecting Congressman Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate, Governor Romney demonstrates his commitment to protecting American women and unborn children,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. “He has a pristine pro-life voting record and will be an asset to Governor Romney’s campaign.”


Still, Ryan is controversial in some Catholic circles. When he spoke at Georgetown University last spring, he was greeted by a statement from 60 Catholic theologians who charged that his budget plan was “morally indefensible and betrays Catholic principles of solidarity, just taxation and a commitment to the common good.”


A letter from nearly 90 faculty and administration officials at Georgetown informed Ryan that his budget plan “appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”


And — if that wasn’t enough — a committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, led by Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, Calif., sent a letter to Congress criticizing the Ryan budget.


Ryan replied in a brief statement that he shared their “commitment to a preferential option for the poor” — a key element of Catholic social teaching — but added that the option “does does not mean a preferential option for bigger government.”


Speaking at Georgetown, Ryan said that some Catholics “for a long time have thought they had a monopoly of sorts … not exactly on heaven, but on the social teaching of our Church. Of course there can be differences among faithful Catholics on this.”


Throwing Granny Off a Cliff?


Ryan went on to say that the “overarching threat to our whole society today is the exploding federal debt. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict, has charged that governments, communities and individuals running up high debt levels are ‘living at the expense of future generations’ and ‘living in untruth.’"


“We in this country still have a window of time before a debt-fueled economic crisis becomes inevitable. We can still take control before our own needy suffer the fate of Greece. How we do this is a question for prudential judgment, about which people of good will can differ,” Ryan said at Georgetown.


Entering the fray Saturday morning, Ryan said, “I’m proud to stand with a man who understands what it takes to foster job creation in our economy, someone who knows from experience that if you have a small business — you did build that.”


This was a reference to President Obama’s “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” speech in July in Roanoke, Va. The remark, which has haunted the president’s campaign, is widely interpreted as putting the role of government over that of the individual.


With regard to Medicare, Ryan would allow the current system, as an option, but would introduce market-based competition and a patient-centered voucher system. This led to Democratic political ads featuring a Ryan lookalike pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair over a cliff.


“The first thing to understand is that granny is going to be thrown off the cliff anyway, if we don’t make changes to Medicare,” said Joseph Antos, Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Antos said that Ryan’s plan would modernize Medicare and make it more efficient.


Saying that “on fiscal matters, Paul Ryan has no peer,” Antos noted that Ryan gets to the root of problems. Antos said that, for example, “Ryan understands that sequester [across the board cuts] is a really terrible idea because it doesn’t take on the tough issues.”


“I like the Ryan choice very much,” said Paul Kengor, author and professor of political science at Grove City College. “Liberals are going to be attacking him as lacking in compassion, being a deficit hawk and hurting the poor. But, as Ronald Reagan would say, the best anti-poverty program is a growing economy. Paul Ryan wants to help the poor by growing the economy and with policies more in line with [the Catholic principle of] subsidiarity.”


“Everybody is going to be using the word ‘gravitas,’” Kengor continued, “and Paul Ryan has gravitas. They won’t Quayle him. They can’t make him look like a deer in the headlights. He will be able to answer the questions.”



Register correspondent Charlotte Hays writes from Washington



Source: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/paul-ryan-catholic-who-looks-to-churchs-social-teaching-tapped-as-romney-ru/#ixzz23dWipaFa

.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Leaders address the future of Catholic peacebuilding in Rome

July 12, 2011 • Gerard Powers

website_catholic_peacebuilders_4_

...

“If Catholic Social Teaching is the Church’s Best Kept Secret, Catholic peacebuilding may be Catholic Social Teaching’s Best Kept Secret,”
according to Gerard Powers, Director of Catholic Peacebuilding Studies at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and coordinator of the Catholic Peacebuilding Network. “From South Sudan and Central America to Congo and Colombia, the Catholic Church is a powerful force for peace, freedom, justice and reconciliation. But that impressive and courageous peacebuilding work of the Catholic community is often unknown, unheralded and under-analyzed.” Full text




Friday, September 02, 2011

“The holy obligation of participation in political life”

San Bernardino diocesan coordinator of Justice for Immigrants offers political ‘examination of conscience’ for Catholics


(Editor’s Note: The following is an article posted Aug. 26 on the blog of the Diocese of San Bernardino by Kathi Scarpace, diocesan coordinator of Justice for Immigrants.)

In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation. This obligation is rooted in our baptismal commitment to follow Jesus Christ and to bear Christian witness in all we do.” (Faithful Citizenship 13). Uh, oh. This hot potato is the teaching of the Church. And this hot potato is something that we should be teaching, and modeling, for our children and teens.

Here is a little examination of conscience.

Are you registered to vote? Do you vote only for the president or do you vote in every election? Have you offered to help your 18-year-old register to vote?

What issues are important to you and why? How does your stand on these issues align with Catholic social teaching? Do you know what Catholic social teaching is?

How do you learn about the issues important to you? Who do you listen to for political advice? Have you asked your teen his or her opinion on an issue that matters to you?

Do you know who your legislators are? Have you ever called or visited an elected official? Why or why not? How do you participate in the life of your town or city?

The word “political” comes from the Greek root word, polis or city. Greeks valued participation in the life of the city. Are you involved in a civic event, e.g., a bike race, a parade, a fundraiser? Do you bring your children with you to help with the event? What lessons are you teaching?

What does “separation of Church and state” mean to you? Have you ever read the bishops’ document, Faithful Citizenship? How does your faith impact your political point of view? If your faith does not influence your political perspective, why not? As Father Bransfield of the US Catholic Conference writes, “Conscience insists that human dilemmas are moral concerns long before they are political points of view.”

“Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.” This dismissal could be translated, “Go and make a difference.” Making a difference, for Catholics, often means charity. Charity is the needed tourniquet that stops the bleeding; political action is a surgery that closes the wound. Young people want to make a difference and an impact on the world. Political actions: voting, participating in civic events, learning about the issues of the day, reflecting on Church teaching and communicating our concerns and values to our legislators and our children, are ways we can fulfill the holy obligation of participation in political life.

Nothing to be scared of.

Source.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Millennium Development Goals: In Light of Catholic Social Teaching

September 4, 2009

By D. Brian Scarnecchia, JD Terrence McKeegan, J.D.


Download PDF



This paper considers the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) from the perspective of Catholic social doctrine in three ways. First, it demonstrates the reason why studying the MDGs in light of Catholic social doctrine allows the policymaker to test how well current international development schemes fulfill their fundamental goal of improving human dignity. Second, it briefly summarizes the history of international development, offering a critical analysis of the MDGs’ underlying principles. Third, it takes each of the eight MDGs in turn and considers them in light of the Millennium Development Goals Reports through the years 2005 to 2008, the Holy See’s interventions at the United Nations (UN), and the authors’ own analysis. The paper finds that without some changes to the way the MDGs are now promoted by various UN and other officials, they will not live up to their mandate.

The paper concludes that for international development to succeed it must build community with, not simply for, the poor. We warn that without genuine solidarity with the poor, development aid tends to reinforce class differences. When this happens, wealthy countries are tempted to view developing countries — especially where populations are growing — as a threat to their security and to devise development targets and objectives that promote the national interests of donor nations over the genuine needs and human aspirations of the people in developing countries.
..
Source
.