Seven Core Values of Catholic Social Teaching

Seven Core Values of Catholic Social Teaching


Life and Dignity of the Human Person
Our belief in the sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of the human person is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.

Call to Family, Community, and Participation
Our tradition proclaims that the person is not only sacred but also social. How we organize our society – in economics and politics, in law and policy – directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community. The family is the central social institution that must be supported and strengthened, not undermined. We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. The role of government and other institutions is to protect and promote the common good.

Rights and Responsibilities
The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities – to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.

Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
Catholic teaching proclaims that a basic moral test is how our must vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.

The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
We believe that the economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected – the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to organize and join unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.

Solidarity
Our culture is tempted to turn inward, becoming indifferent and sometimes isolationist in the face of international responsibilities. Catholic social teaching proclaims that we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, wherever they live. Learning to practice the virtue of solidarity means learning that “loving our neighbor” has global dimensions in an interdependent world.

Care for God’s Creation
The Catholic tradition insists that we show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God’s creation.

http://www.paxjoliet.org/justeach/justeach2.html

I just love that document. The ultimo at this point in time, I might choose to view secularly, but in practical terms there is no daylight between my position and its.

I see that this document originates in the US, but assume that the tenets are universally accepted across the catholic worldwide community and avouched by Rome?

Catholic social teaching is expressed in various ways around the world, the source documents being the various papal encyclical from 1891 to the present, but your posted summary is reflective of the teachings.

Now, like all Catholic teachings in the modern world you can find people who dissent from it, but is certainly is the teaching of the Church (just as much as the teachings on other hot button issues).

As Stephen says, it is core teaching of the Catholic Church, and Rerum Novarum in 1891 is generally considered to mark the beginning of modern Catholic Social Teaching, although of course it also draws on scripture and earlier tradition.

And, yes, it is expressed in different ways, and there is no universally agreed number of principles. When I teach it I usually use the following headings:

Human dignity
Community, common good
Rights and duties
Option for the poor
The dignity of work and the rights of workers
Care for Creation
Solidarity
Participation and Subsidiarity
Governance
Promotion of Peace

You might be interested in Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, a book which I keep by my desk and refer to often.

3

I see the Vatican have it available here

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_...

>3 John5918: Thanks - I never realised it was online. This will be very useful for me when I'm travelling (as I often am) and don't want to carry a weighty tome around with me.

Compendium! That is it.

I had it in my head it was the catechism of social doctrine, so of course I could not find a link before.

Thanks!

I came across this on amazon and wondered is this similar to what we are talking about here?

Edit - Not quite!

>7 LesMiserables:

Rerum Novarum is the encyclical referred to in 3> above. It is generally considered to mark the beginning of modern Catholic social thought.

My problem is, as before, simple. What one wants for "society" has a very wiggly and uncertain relationship to a theory of state action. Are these principles for non-state actors to follow? Great. Should the state somehow inculcate these? Okay, maybe. But how? In what ways can the power of the state be licitly deployed to ensure everyone gets this grab-bag of negative and positive rights, and general societal goals? Given that workers have a "right to productive work," does that mean the state should outlaw unproductive work, create state agencies to ensure against unproductive work—what?

Anyway, I'm happy with these as principles for living. Jesus and any number of saints warned the rich to devote their resources to helping the poor, employers to treat their workers well, etc. But these strike me as halfway to a political philosophy, and, as such, rather lacking.

9

Tim, I appreciate Marx is seen as an enemy of Christianity, but his theories of wage labour nonetheless (to me) are materially relevant now, as when they were conceived, especially his writings on alienation, the division of labour and the distribution of wealth.

>9 timspalding: Tim, I think we've had this conversation before. Catholic Social Teaching (CST) sets outs Catholic principles for living and not a particular political philosophy. It does not dictate that we must have socialism or capitalism, but does dictate principles which should be taken into account in any political system. Many people would argue that a form of socialism is closer to CST (and indeed to the New Testament) than capitalism is (as Stephen hints, I think, in 10>). However CST does not endorse socialism and condemn capitalism, and indeed it includes things like the right to private property which can be seen as a warning against extreme forms of socialism and a protection of some forms of capitalism.

I would say that CST came about at a time of increasing awareness that the social system is not a given (or indeed God-given) which is immutably set in stone and can't be changed by human agency (cf Monty Python's Constitutional Peasants). At that time class and labour were amongst the great issues of social injustice and thus play a prominent role in CST's beginnings. But later the injustices of the communist states also came to the fore, particularly under John Paul II. Care for Creation is another relative newcomer. CST reads the signs of the times (cf Gaudium et Spes) and attempts to reflect on and apply age-old Catholic principles to the current situation.

Tim,

I don't think the Church is trying for a political philosophy, because it has neither the worldly expertise qua Church, nor any real desire to have States run (or aim to run) on some kind of utopian Catholic basis (though some of CST's fans do want it to so develop).

If it was so trying, I would agree with you, CST is a pretty weak effort. However, I think it is more trying to put some guide rails around what types of political philosophies are acceptable, from a Catholic standpoint (i.e. not unrestricted laissez faire, not communism etc).

It still however leaves a fair bit of room for, um, prudential judgement for citizens and statesmen (though perhaps not so much that one can be say a "tea party catholic" or marxist).

From a personal standpoint, I think the Church already does too much politics qua Church, from both an economic and ethics perspective. We would be better to focus on making more Christians, teaching them the values of the Gospel, and letting those extra members of the Church help us influence how society runs (i.e. rather than trying to run political campaigns on various issues).

>3 John5918: Thank you for bumping "Care for Creation" higher up in your list than the last position it occupies in US Bishops' list. As the system that sustains us, as well as valuable and beautiful in its own right, Creation is increasingly becoming unavailable to those who will follow us. Often the destruction is slow in time and space--from our perspective--so not noticeable or immediately alarming, but occurring just the same.

>11 John5918:

Yeah. There's a basic disconnect between us. I see it in what you say right off the bat—that "Catholic Social Teaching (CST) sets outs Catholic principles for living and not a particular political philosophy." "Principles for living" aren't principles for governing. There is a universe of ways to live badly which the state could not and should not enforce, and many others it could but few Catholics think it should. Moral principles and principles for state actions just very different things. And principles that are somehow about how the state, termed "society" sometimes, should work strike me as almost meaningless combined with an agnosticism about what a government can licitly do to bring about those principles so broad as to embrace everything from absolutist theocratic monarchy—the dominant and formerly normative exemplar—and secular socialist democracy.

As far as socialism being closer to the New Testament, I just find that… strange. It strikes me as "not even wrong." It doesn't compute. No ancient state, and certainly neither the Roman state nor the little dependent dynasteia that Jesus spent most of his life in, were socialist. The whole conception of the state was different. From a modern perspective—a mix of extreme laissez-faire capitalism (because the state didn't even think to get involved in most aspects of life), corrupt and brutal kleptocracy, and sub-Saudi Arabian theocracy. And while Jesus said a great deal about the poor, he said almost nothing about the state. Sure, there's a line in Acts about the early Christian community keeping property in common—an experiment which apparently failed rapidly and was not treated as normative. But the difference between a small group of private individuals sharing property and "socialism" is, again, a theory of state action.

Now, I certainly think there are better and worse arguments connecting the New Testament teachings on poverty, social exclusion and so forth to state action. I think they're essential arguments to get right. But the glue is a political theory, and the New Testament just doesn't help you much there. And as far as Catholic tradition goes, I'm afraid the vast bulk of the tradition is as unfriendly to socialism as it is to democracy.

To put it another way, I see very direct line between Jesus' teaching and the Desert Fathers, monasticism and the very strong early Christian emphasis on charity. Charity in particular was a core element of church teaching and practice from the start. (As Julian the Apostate wrote, the Christian church "supported not only their poor, but our (the pagan) poor as well.") Many today forget this. Heck—I'm half-convinced my salary, and my failure to give most of it away, is an afterlife-endangering sin. But these strike me as worlds away from what I take to be Catholic Social Teaching.

Honestly, I'm not just playing Devil's Advocate. I want to understand this tradition, which gets so much play nowadays, and which is clearly regarded as an important part of Catholic teaching. I just can't make it make sense.

>14 timspalding: Thanks, Tim. I find it difficult to understand how you don't get it, to be really honest, and that's perhaps the disconnect between us and our own life journeys, and I say that knowing that you and I both respect each other.

Maybe a parallel might be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It doesn't tell governments which have signed up to it how to do it - that's a political decision for them to make. But it does lay down principles, guidelines, ideals, norms, dreams, visions - choose a word - to which they should aspire and which they should try to implement. It also sets up some creative tensions.

So as I say, CST is not a prescription for political systems. I don't find it at all strange (and I guess >13 margd: doesn't either) that the Church should exhort governments to take care of creation, and should give some guidelines. Same with good governance, promotion of peace, subsidiarity, participation, dignity of labour, rights of workers, the common good, etc. In South Sudan we have corruption and nepotism in government; the Church rightly says that this is not how a political system should be run. We have civil war; the Church rightly says that we should have peace. All over the world we see underpaid workers in sweat shops or in some cases virtual slavery who have no rights; the Church rightly says that they should have rights. What is so strange and controversial about this? I often think that in the USA there is a tendency to view everything through the lens of capitalism/communism, right/left, but CST is not about that.

Of course the New Testament does not speak specifically about political systems, but we can reflect on what system seems most congruent with the values found in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. Sharing goods, caring for the poor and vulnerable, putting the common good over and above individual profit and possessions, honouring the human dignity of all regardless of their wealth and status - all of these seem to me to be the values of socialism rather than capitalism (but as I say, the Church does not teach one or the other; it's up to our individual conscience). I'm proud to associate myself with socialism (which, in Europe, unlike the USA, is not seen as a dirty word), but as I've said to you before, in practice I'm happy with a mixed economy as has worked in much of Europe, including my own native Britain before Thatcher and her followers.

No, rights are rights. The right to free speech isn't an principle, guideline, ideal, norm, dream or visions at all. It's a moral fact about what people and governments may not morally do. The right to free speech forbids the government to send police to smash my printing press, or arrest me for talking on a soap box. And it's not even about the state in the first place, because rights are innate and inalienable, and become a question of policy only through the consent of the governed.

The contrast is between something solid, with obvious political theory implications, like "the right of free speech," and something like "Catholic tradition encourages free but responsible speech, especially for people who don't talk enough."

Take something like "we believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable." It's a nice sentiment, but it has almost no definite meaning. Are the rights and duties related? Can I lose my rights if I don't live up to my duties, or are they—you know—actually rights. Do I lose my rights if I don't seek the common good? What if the good of some and the good of others conflict—is it the larger number? How does a legal system understand a general right which is for all but "especially" for some? What happens when someone's idea of the "common good" conflicts with something that someone from a more intellectually rigorous rights tradition would assert, like freedom of religion or equality before the law?

Sharing goods, caring for the poor and vulnerable, putting the common good over and above individual profit and possessions, honouring the human dignity of all regardless of their wealth and status - all of these seem to me to be the values of socialism rather than capitalism

Socialism is such a big word. It has almost no definite meaning. Still, we have to try. As a historical phenomenon of states that called themselves socialism, the term has been more often associated with appropriative violence than anything like Christian "sharing." Indeed, by the numbers, "genocide" is probably the best description of shared socialist program.

No doubt you think that's unfair. Okay, we'll take that off the table, and pick and choose which socialisms we allow the name—some modern, secular, democratic western European ones, mostly. We'll ignore that a state expansive enough to give you "nice socialism," is the precondition for the other kind. But even ignoring all that, I can't help but feeling there's a mental disc slipped whenever "sharing" is used to mean "taking without permission." The Christian community of Acts shared. St. Francis shared. When the state appropriates a majority of your income to fund a bloated governmental apparatus, much of which acts directly contrary to the Gospel, that's not sharing.

>16 timspalding: The right to free speech forbids the government to send police to smash my printing press, or arrest me for talking on a soap box

Actually it doesn't, or at least it doesn't tell the government how to do that. It simply says that you have the right to free speech and leaves it up to the government to find out how to implement that in law and constitution.

rights are innate and inalienable, and become a question of policy only through the consent of the governed

Exactly. The right to human dignity is an inalienable right as far as the Church is concerned. It becomes a question of policy when one tries to work out what it means in practice and how to safeguard it within a society.

we believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society

Sounds pretty clear to me. We tend to call it democracy.

What if the good of some and the good of others conflict

I think I mentioned creative tensions. But common good is more than the rights of "some" and "others". It's common. And not everything is black and white; there are grey areas.

Socialism... has been more often associated with appropriative violence than anything like Christian "sharing." Indeed, by the numbers, "genocide" is probably the best description of shared socialist program.

Surely you're joking? Your conservative bias is showing!

pick and choose which socialisms we allow the name

Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Tanzania, the British Labour Party...

Should we also pick and choose which capitalisms we allow the name? I was listening to a BBC World Service programme today on what a great example of free market capitalism Pinochet's Chile was.

there's a mental disc slipped whenever "sharing" is used to mean "taking without permission."

It doesn't mean that.

When the state appropriates a majority of your income to fund a bloated governmental apparatus, much of which acts directly contrary to the Gospel, that's not sharing

Tell that to the Scandinavians, who pay very high taxes and in my experience are generally satisfied with the services they receive from their governments.

But don't all governments take taxes to run essential services, including your own, which is the epitome of free market capitalism? Many governments, whether capitalist or socialist or anything else can be accused of wasting tax money, certainly, and one can disagree with what they deem "essential": a nuclear deterrent? a police service? a free national health service? a safety net for the poor and marginalised? a fire brigade? an army? public libraries? an extensive public transport system? national parks and museums? a national archive? a race to land men on the moon (oops, there's a parallel LT thread somewhere claiming that it was all a hoax, but even the hoax was apparently perpetrated with lots of government, ie tax, money!)? scientific research? public utilities such as water, sewage, electricity? managing the nation's rivers and flood defences? international relations? Taxes have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism; they are one of those inevitabilities of life, unless you are a complete anarchist which I don't believe you are.

Edited to add: And governments, at least in the developed western world, are elected. The electorate is presumably aware of each party's policy on taxes as set out in its manifesto. So high taxation is not imposed, but chosen. Of course you can disagree with democracy, imperfect as it may be, but then you need to suggest a better system. Churchill wasn't able to! Maybe we should all go back to Pinochet's free market capitalist paradise? Or just vote for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, which I have to confess I am often tempted to do, despite the untimely demise of Screaming Lord Sutch. You'd probably have to be British to appreciate that one!

15

johnthefireman - I agree with you that Socialism is not a dirty word in Europe, especially not so where we come from in Scotland, although as you will be aware over the past 35 years, the onslaught of self interest in the hands of both the right and the media have made a determined and partially successful attempt at degrading it. In effect since 79' there has been an overt attempt to persuade the population that community collective mutual support is wrong, and that self interest and competition amongst the community is right.

16

Tim - There is so much to say about rights. I think we can see here a real Atlantic about what rights mean. On the US side we here and see desperate arguments about the right to carry guns, the right to free speech etc. I really think that is almost a unique conversation that happens daily in the US. My experience in Europe is quite different, across several countries. There is an understanding that rights are not absolute rights: they are only accessible according to what the community agrees to (through the State elected representatives). So it is not okay to say whatever you want when that is malicious etc. Carry a gun? Why? We see no reason to carry arms.

16

As a historical phenomenon of states that called themselves socialism, the term has been more often associated with appropriative violence than anything like Christian "sharing." Indeed, by the numbers, "genocide" is probably the best description of shared socialist program.

Tim, come on!

It simply says that you have the right to free speech and leaves it up to the government to find out how to implement that in law and constitution.

You are confusing rights with the implementation of rights. Whether or not the government implements your right to free speech, it is an inalienable right.

we believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society

Sounds pretty clear to me. We tend to call it democracy.

Perhaps it's European democracy, where a group can be singled out for non-participation in society, and dealt with accordingly. The American conception is that rights do not require participation--the Amish can refuse to fight, the Jehovah's Witness can refuse to vote.

Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Tanzania, the British Labour Party...

Right. Three Protestant Northern European socialisms. And Tanzania, which recently a one-party socialist state, and is now—after a turn toward freedom and capitalism—is regarded as, at best, "party free," with a laundry list of repressions. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Tanzania, http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-tanzania-2013, http://www.freedomhouse.org/country/tanzania#.Uzsv5ZFxIaU). And these were the good examples?

Should we also pick and choose which capitalisms we allow the name?

Names don't matter to me, but I think we can usefully distinguish between varieties of market economies.

I am reminded of the village where I lived for many years in Ireland and is very well known for its former Parish Priest Fr. MacDyer. Basically due to emigration because of an economy on its knees, Ireland was haemorrhaging young people, but fatally so in rural areas.

Fr. MacDyer arrested the decline and initiated a Socialist programme to rejuvenate the area and it worked.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=fOhnSbdD6Q0C&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&...

http://www.cinews.ie/article.php?artid=10776

http://www.glenfolkvillage.com/history.htm

Tim, come on!

As I said, by the numbers. I certainly understand that modern, democratic, secular, European socialism has a different essential character than Soviet Socialism, National Socialism, Agrarian Socialism or what-have-you.

But like a good "conservative," I note a shared feature—apart from the word: that they are all ideologies that give the state historically unparalleled control over citizens' lives. Power often outlasts good intentions, and the fact is that, in the century since states have held such power, it has more often been used for evil than good.

I don't worry that Britain or Holland are going to kill off their minorities, or force every man, woman and child to work in the fields, but then they are very pale socialisms, and heirs to pre-socialist notions of human rights--unlike, say, Tanzania, where press freedom never took hold. I do think that the religious repression in a state like France would be impossible if French people eschewed the statist notion that their neighbor's veil is somehow their business.

22

But Tim aren't you perhaps aiming at the wrong targets here? Perhaps instead of invoking Stalin or Mao (are you?): not good leaders and would not have made any system work with the way they used their people, you might look at examples of what Socialism does well, like the NHS (UK), Education (Free) - look to Finland , Housing for all who need it.

From my own experience, everything that the left of politics has built up, the right has sold off for the benefit of those with means (normally the well off)

I would also look at the US and why it has so much social dysfunction, so many problems in health, welfare, crime, race - IF it is the stalwart of anti-Socialism?
(Tim I understand this last question might seem provocative - it is - but not aimed as a jibe, but at asking a real question that is almost paradoxical given the 'dream'.)

Thanks

>23 LesMiserables:

I'm not making a big case about Stalin and Mao. But I'm wary of excessive state power.

Britain and so forth aren't just non-genocidal, they also give their state substantially less control of their societies than Stalin or Mao did. Government control isn't merely about direct state control, but it's a decent enough proxy for discussion. Looking at those numbers, government spending (at all levels) is 40% of the US budget, and 45% of the British budget. Sweden's number is 49%. The numbers are even closer if Europe is compared to the parts of America that most resemble it in urbanization, etc. These are not radically different societies.

FWIW, "Socialist" Tanzania has a GDP share of 17%. State-power ideology has given it a tradition of state control of media and other repressions. But they're still waiting for their welfare state.

Maybe a way we can look at this is through competition

I don't think that competition in our society is good or helpful. It creates pride, arrogance, jealousy, winners and losers, hostility, greed etc

I think we can grow to be disciplined and courageous without the need to have a winner takes all society.

Politics is generally focused on growth and competitiveness these days.

The right of politics which is growing ever larger as the left dwindles, is obsessed with growth (which is killing our planet and is unsustainable) and competition (which pits worker against worker for the benefit of the few in society - and I mean the few - who hold the vast majority of wealth and power)

I cannot find anything that resembles love or charity in that mix. I weep for the millions who die starving whilst there are millions who die from excess.

Wow! The problem is competition? I couldn't disagree more. I can't imagine Jesus the carpenter and son of a carpenter believing that, when a customer picks the better craftsman or the better table, that's "pitting worker against worker."

Sure, maybe the bad carpenter should get a base income from the state, so he gets enough to eat even if his products lose out to the competition. Although I don't think anyone could have conceived of such a notion until modern times, one could argue it's somehow consonant with New Testament morality. (The ancient mind would think of charity for the poor—which was understood as a true worship of God—not base incomes.) But competition is more often a moral good than anything else. Good grief, look at all the athletic imagery in the New Testament. Ancient athletes competed, and they competed to win. The other guy lost. There was no runner-up or silver metal in ancient games, like the Olympics.

We agree that no one should starve, of course. And to some extent I agree that the distribution of income is a bad thing—although I think statism is as much a cause of that as anything. But I scarcely see the problem as competition. Indeed, I think it's quite clear to anyone with a basic grasp of economics, that the only thing that has allowed us to keep the world's unprecedented eight billions alive is, in fact, competition to deliver food and other essentials cheaply and efficiently, and more abundantly every year.

26

That is interesting that you don't see the problems as competition.

And I don't think we are even close enough in political or economic terms to debate it, however I would just ask you to consider your last paragraph Tim.

The population of the world is at present unsustainable. Resources like land and rain forest are being destroyed and degraded for short term gain. The billions on this planet do not thrive like the Americans or British or Australians who do not see the devastation to other countries' land and population displacement. These 'others' do not thrive - they survive for a time. Their goals are very different from ours.

Competition, means land degradation, unsustainable resource plundering, pollution, sweat-shop factories and the like.

Almost 10 years ago the UN Long Shadow report came out regarding devastation to irreplaceable systems that support our bio systems on earth. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772&CR1=warning

The cause and only cause is not feeding the poor, helping the billions who scrape a meagre existence in third world countries, but the competition generated by capitalism to make as much money as possible by flooding western countries with cheap sugary salty fatty food. The results are apparent in both the countries where the resources are plundered and where they are sold.

>22 timspalding: modern, democratic, secular, European socialism

Well, perhaps we should judge a system by its best manifestations, not its worst. Isn't that what we tell atheists who condemn all religion because of the extremes of a handful of fundamentalists? Incidentally I think you mis-characterise Tanzania, which is still one of the most stable and peaceful countries in Africa, in part due to the socialist policies implemented by a visionary and devoutly Catholic leader. Development was held back in part by western retaliation against Tanzania because of its socialist leanings. And most Tanzanians do not feel particularly repressed; it's a pretty free country which has generally had peaceful elections and changes of government.

ideologies that give the state historically unparalleled control over citizens' lives

Historically unparalleled? Really? Feudalism? The absolute power of kings and emperors? Assorted dictatorships, right wing or otherwise?

But you and I come from such different milieux, different experiences, different life journeys, Tim, that we will never agree on politics, and I tend to agree with >27 LesMiserables: that "I don't think we are even close enough in political or economic terms to debate it". My own Christian conscience led me towards socialism (and no, I don't mean Mao and Stalin) long before I had heard of Catholic Social Teaching; yours has led you towards conservative capitalism. Fine.

The original point is, though, that Catholic Social Teaching does not insist on either socialism or capitalism. I think your criticism of it is based on the misapprehension which is not uncommon in right wing US circles that it does point only to socialism.

Few would disagree that when Leo XIII wrote Rerum Novarum, labour was being exploited across industrialised Europe. Few would disagree now that labour is being exploited in sweatshops across the developing world to provide cheap consumer goods for Europe and north America. The Church condemns this; do you object to that? But the Church does not prescribe a solution. If you can find a capitalist solution which stops Bangladeshis from being thus exploited, if I can find a socialist one which stops it, both are fine. But, according to the Church, the dignity of labour and the rights of workers are a moral issue.

As >18 LesMiserables: says, virtually everywhere in the world except the USA, "There is an understanding that rights are not absolute rights". Rights are balanced by duties and responsibilities. They are also balanced because my rights should not infringe your rights; that in part is what the concept of common good is all about. "Love thy neighbour as thyself". "Do unto others as you would have done unto you". Why do you object to the Church teaching this as a moral issue?

It's only in the last century that women were allowed to vote in the UK and USA. The last century has also seen a huge number of dictatorships, including Germany, France, Spain, Greece, Portugal, USSR, China, North Korea, Chile, Argentina, Uganda, Sudan, Libya... the list goes on and on. It's only in the last half-century that Northern Ireland attained "one person, one vote", that the non-white minority in the USA obtained civil rights, that the majority of colonies obtained independence from their colonial masters. It's only 20 years ago (this month, in fact) that the majority of people in South Africa obtained the right to vote. There are still quite a few countries in the world where people can't exercise the right to participate in government (and yes, that includes some countries which exercised totalitarian control using a socialist ideology, such as China and North Korea). Why do you object to the Church teaching that people should be allowed to participate in government?

Why do you object to the Church teaching that peace should be promoted, that God's creation should be cared for, that we must pay special attention to the poor and marginalised (surely that's one area where there is no doubt about Jesus' praxis?) and particularly that the dignity of human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, should be respected?

That's what I don't understand, Tim; why are you against Catholic Social Teaching? It is not a direct call to socialism (although as I have said, many of us would see a form of socialism as the best way to implement it), it is a call to implement certain moral imperatives. If these can be implemented as part of capitalism, socialism or any other system, fine, but the important thing is that they should not be ignored.

Thanks you to all for an interesting discussion. Whatever we agree on or disagree on, I think it's safe to say (?) that what we currently have is failing the world.

Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.

The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.

The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.

Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.

The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.

In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-wo...

I think we need something else. The last dot point was telling for me. As the rich in the West asked the rest to makes sacrifices, take pension cuts, give up salary, take pain: they cleaned up.

But living in the West was still the better option. The other dot points would make you cry.

John,

Just to correct you on one point, the ability of States to control their citizens has been so vastly increased by modern technology, that it really is historically unparalleled.

An Egyptian Pharaoh or eastern despot might have had theoretically untrammelled powers, but for many ordinary subjects, such power had little practical import. The ability of such rulers to exercise power, in a practical sense, were extremely limited.

There is a reason why 1984 was based in the future, and not George Orwell's present.

LesMis,

One thing to keep in mind with global wealth / income distribution, is that on say a GDP per capita measure, the world as a whole is poor.

That is, on such a measure, global average income is about the same as e.g. South Africa. Now, that is not South Sudan poor, but is it not rich either.

These facts don't excuse the relatively wealthy from their moral obligations of course, but it should remind us that wealth creation remains important in the struggle for human dignity.

>30 hf22: Point taken, but in terms of freedom I doubt whether a feudal serf had any more freedom nor participation in government than someone living in a modern dictatorship, whether socialist or communist.

Surprising sometimes to see how Catholic social teachings inform (or don't) one's politics.

US politician Paul Ryan (Catholic) recently mused publicly about Pope Francis's priorities and about the poor in America. I half expected some change in direction, but now he proposes a budget with unprecedented big cuts in food stamps, Medicaid, Affordable Care Act, and a reformulation of Medicare to a voucher system, which no doubt means functional cuts in future. He was quoted saying something about empowering the poor to move into the work world, but I don't think living wage is part of his party's platform--at this time anyway. Proposed spending on defense? Up, of course.

OTOH, RC Democratic politicians like US VP Biden and former Sen Kerry, though on board personally with pro-life Catholic social teachings, often have independent governing positions. This dualism was pioneered by President Kennedy. In his time at least, hewing strictly to Vatican line would have been death knell for a Catholic politician's campaign.

Well, neither is real attractive, but in relation to the State the feudal serf would be better off.

That said a serf's relationship to their immediate lord would be a greater issue, as many were in essence slaves of a kind.

And I don't think we are even close enough in political or economic terms to debate it

Yeah, that's probably true. Even so, I will try to express my views. Maybe some sort of understanding can result—agreement being a bridge too far.

Competition, means land degradation, unsustainable resource plundering, pollution, sweat-shop factories and the like.

I don't know. Some of the worst pollution was caused by countries that had no competition. Romania is the poster child here--insanely polluted under centrally-controlled (competition-less) Communism, and now rapidly cleaning up under a market economy.

Are sweat shops about competition? It seems to me they're about poverty and governments that have no labor laws. I'm certainly in favor of labor laws. It seems to me that competition is what made the developed countries rich enough to afford laws against child labor, not to mention hours laws, pollution laws and so forth.

Well, perhaps we should judge a system by its best manifestations, not its worst.

Well, I think we need to keep everything in view. Big government seems to work well in highly developed countries with a history of democracy. It works less well in other places.

it's a pretty free country which has generally had peaceful elections and changes of government

Well, I'm afraid I think you have low expectations. I cite Amnesty International, Freedom House, etc.

Historically unparalleled? Really? Feudalism? The absolute power of kings and emperors? Assorted dictatorships, right wing or otherwise?

Yes, absolutely! Kings and emperors had power, certainly. It was enormous in it's own way. But it was large-scale. The greatest pre-modern rulers could kill a citizen with impunity, but they generally didn't even know how many citizens they had, and they certainly had little in the way of detailed information about them. Their regulations were few and very broad. Modern-level control requires modern record-keeping, a modern bureaucracy, etc.

The Church condemns this; do you object to that?

No. I think labor laws are a good thing. Truly free capitalism does not prevent organization by free employees.

As >18 LesMiserables: LesMiserables: says, virtually everywhere in the world except the USA, "There is an understanding that rights are not absolute rights". Rights are balanced by duties and responsibilities. They are also balanced because my rights should not infringe your rights; that in part is what the concept of common good is all about. "Love thy neighbour as thyself". "Do unto others as you would have done unto you". Why do you object to the Church teaching this as a moral issue?

I have no objection to teaching it as a moral issue. It is a moral issue. The question is to what extent it is a matter of political organization.

Like it or not, the Church has always believed there was a class of rights that were neither contingent nor subject to political factors, including the "common good." "Thou shalt not kill" is no more or less than the right to life. "Thou shalt not steal" is likewise. It is similarly (current) church teaching that people have a right to pursue their religious convictions, etc.

I tend to think "love your neighbor as yourself" is a moral injunction, not a legal one. If it were a legal one, it should be "love your neighbor as yourself, or the police will call on you." Indeed, while I'm perfectly in favor of safety nets, "state charity" has a strongly negative effect on private love. In the United States, for example, 45% of the population volunteered time in last month. In Sweden the number was 13%. Denmark is at 22%. Other numbers, such as rates of people who help strangers and donate to charities show the same pattern. Americans give 1.7 of their GDP to charity, the French 0.14%! (See https://www.cafonline.org/PDF/WorldGivingIndex2013_1374AWEB.pdf and http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20Comparisons%20of%20Charitable%20Giv.... When the state takes over charity, people see helping others as others' business, and selfishness is confirmed. No wonder the Christian call rings so false in these countries—among the most secularized in the world. When the church tells you to help the poor, or love your neighbor, the Danish person thinks that's the state's job.

Now, I don't want to take this all the way. It's a good thing that the US has a safety net. But socializing love is a dangerous business.

It's only in the last century that women were allowed to vote in the UK and USA.

Wait a second! Women's suffrage came to the US long before much of the world. The other early adopters were mostly Anglophone countries. France and Italy didn't have it until after the Second World War! In other words, the countries with rock-solid traditions of individual rights and liberal economics had this first. The countries where politicians talked about the "common good" waited until after American soldiers liberated them.

Why do you object to the Church teaching that peace should be promoted, that God's creation should be cared for, that we must pay special attention to the poor and marginalised (surely that's one area where there is no doubt about Jesus' praxis?) and particularly that the dignity of human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, should be respected?

I'm afraid we simply aren't connecting. First, surely you can understand the distinction between moral injunction and government policy. No ancient or medieval church saint argued for state socialism, yet they all respected the dignity of human beings. Second, you are over-tarring me. (I mean, I never even mentioned the environment!)

And as far as the dignity of human beings go, history needs to have its say, and the Catholic should listen. Equality before the law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, universal suffrage, democratic elections—these are the hallmarks of the non-Catholic, liberal tradition, against which the church fought tooth and nail for centuries. Rerum Novarum is a fine document, certainly, but it's author, Leo XIII, also wrote encyclicals condemning press freedom and the American separation of church and state. The church continued to oppose democracy and freedom of religion for decades after, going to far as to brand the acceptance of the separation of state a formal heresy. And where did this lead? Well, I don't think it's a coincidence that the countries that resisted the great 20th century tide toward state control were Protestant and liberal in orientation, while the Catholic countries all succumbed to varieties of fascism, some of them "Catholic." Hitler, Mussolini, Pétain, Franco and so forth all used the rhetoric of rights being non-absolute, "duties" being central and everything being somehow about the "common good." Such arguments only went so far in places like Britain and the US. Should there be another turn toward despotism, I would want to be where people think their lives are their business and the government is there to protect freedom, not a nebulous "common good."

That's what I don't understand, Tim; why are you against Catholic Social Teaching?

Well, honestly, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the unclarity it often seems to engender, and it's rather uncertain position between moral injunction and a sort of meta-political theory. And I'm troubled that the suggestions toward a political theory it does offer promote some rather dicey propositions (like a "duty" to participate in society), while ignoring the fundamentals of human dignity, like freedom of speech and equality before the law. I get the overall impression that Catholic Social Teaching embraces some ideas adopted by half-free Catholic states in the early 20th century to prevent their working class from embracing secular socialism and Marxism, and ignores the political liberties of the enlightenment because Catholics weren't involved in them.

Just to correct you on one point, the ability of States to control their citizens has been so vastly increased by modern technology, that it really is historically unparalleled.

Exactly my point.

>35 timspalding: It seems to me that you are constantly conflating two arguments, or that I am (mis?)understanding you as conflating two arguments.

One is about socialism and capitalism. As I said, you and I will never agree on that one. We're both products of our own life experiences, and clearly our journeys have led us in different directions politically, which is fine. We both come from democratic traditions which allow us to vote for whichever we choose (well, actually I don't think it's possible to vote for socialism in the USA as both your main parties are right of centre, but that's a different argument, and I have lived outside UK for so long now that I no longer have a vote anyway, but you get my drift!)

The second is about Catholic Social Teaching. Every time it is mentioned you seem to get defensive about conservative capitalism. And yet I have mentioned several times that CST does not demand socialism or capitalism or any other system. It demands certain moral principles. As you say yourself, "I think labor laws are a good thing. Truly free capitalism does not prevent organization by free employees". That's what CST teaches - the dignity of labour and the rights of workers under whichever political system is in force.

At the same time you also seem to be very negative about the fact that CST does not give clear directives ("I'm merely pointing out the unclarity"). Of course "'love your neighbor as yourself' is a moral injunction, not a legal one". We have to work out how to do that and we have to work out how to do it not only as individuals but as a society, community, state, government - which implies laws and political systems. The biblical injunction "Thou shalt not kill" (or is the real translation "murder" rather than "kill"?) is indeed "no more or less than the right to life" but it also has to be worked out in practice. States (and the Church) accept that actually you can kill - in self defence, in a just war, capital punishment, for the police to protect life and property - and they have to work out how to incorporate that into the legal and political system.

Statistics can tell you what you want them to. If the state takes care of the poor, or ensures that there aren't so many of them or that they are not so poor, surely that's a good thing? Or do we want to keep people poor just so that the middle classes can volunteer? If the people see their way to helping the poor by addressing systemic issues and paying more taxes in order to reduce poverty, can't that be seen as an exercise of charity (Christian or otherwise) as much as giving money to a soup kitchen? To paraphrase Dom Helder Camara, when I give money to a soup kitchen Tim calls me a good Christian, when I work to change the system so that the soup kitchen isn't needed, Tim says that "selfishness is confirmed". In practice, or course, we will always need both - a state safety net and individual charity - but the balance between the two will vary depending on a variety of factors.

I don't think bringing up despotism is relevant. Respect for the human dignity of the individual, participation, good governance are also part of CST. If another dictator were to come along claiming that the common good (as defined by his party) trumps all, clearly CST would oppose that. But there is a common good. Even in the USA, it seems to me, all but an extreme minority accept that a fire brigade and a police force, to name but two, are necessary as part of the common good.

Much as I respect Amnesty International (but had never heard of Freedom House; I've just looked it up and see that it is a US institution), their absolute standards are something to aspire to, but one has to recognise realities. If Tanzania is compared to old democracies, of course it falls short. The USA has had a couple of hundred years to experiment with democracy; much of Europe has had far longer. If Tanzania is compared to states in a similar stage of development (African nations which became independent in the 1960s) it is one of the freer, more stable, more peaceful ones and has done pretty well. Like many African countries, it would have done a lot better if it had not become a pawn in the Cold War.

Tim, I find it hard to believe that a welfare state promotes selfishness. And I think it harder to believe that one could prove our disprove such a hypothesis.

No matter. Disagreement is fine. In think what we all agree on is that the values prescribed by the church are sown within society and nurtured.

As has been mentioned previously we will see that vision within different possible political vehicles. However there will be occasions or periods of time when catholic values and politics are at odds. In Australia we are living through such a time I believe, where corporate interests are being promoted over fundamental social needs like investing in public education, health and workplace relations.

That's what CST teaches - the dignity of labour and the rights of workers under whichever political system is in force.

Well, I think there's much to recommend that—as indeed, although you don't seem to hear me—I think there's much to recommend in Catholic Social Teaching.

I run into difficulties at some of the details, like "a duty to participate," combined with some of that it doesn't include as part of human dignity, like freedom of speech.

And I get skeptical about the intellectual and doctrinal depth of it, when it seems so clearly a product of a particular set of circumstances in European history. As I put it before, Rerum Novarum arises from an attempt to put the Church on the side of the working class, and compete against secular socialism and Marxism. As such, it picks up some of the things that late 19c. factory workers were upset about, like the right to organize, without touching on the fundamental liberties that the church then opposed, and contemporary socialists also questioned, like the freedom to speak. As things stand, the Catholic church has a lot to say about the rights of workers, but little to say about the rights of citizens. I find that a source of concern, and I think we see its effects in un-democratic Catholic regimes today. Freedom and democracy aren't frills on top, but the preconditions for the dignities CST calls for. Every one-party socialist state embraced labor unions—Cuba is practically one big trade union, but it's all meaningless because, without freedom and limits on government, the union just becomes another way for the powerful to oppress workers.

Statistics can tell you what you want them to. If the state takes care of the poor, or ensures that there aren't so many of them or that they are not so poor, surely that's a good thing? Or do we want to keep people poor just so that the middle classes can volunteer? If the people see their way to helping the poor by addressing systemic issues and paying more taxes in order to reduce poverty, can't that be seen as an exercise of charity (Christian or otherwise) as much as giving money to a soup kitchen? To paraphrase Dom Helder Camara, when I give money to a soup kitchen Tim calls me a good Christian, when I work to change the system so that the soup kitchen isn't needed, Tim says that "selfishness is confirmed". In practice, or course, we will always need both - a state safety net and individual charity - but the balance between the two will vary depending on a variety of factors.

I agree with you on the balance. As I said, "I don't want to take this all the way." But Catholics particularly need to understand that there is a social cost to excising an activity from voluntary society and giving it to the government. Charity is a sort of "muscle." The more you give, the more you give. Consequently, all the indexes of charitable giving move together--giving money, giving time, helping out a stranger. In places like Germany, where charitable giving is virtually nonexistent and the church is funded by the state, you have a society of people who don't volunteer their time, and can't remember the last time they helped out a stranger. I'm afraid I'm stumped you don't find this a problem.

The second reason is that real charity builds society in ways that state charity does not. Recently I was asked to help convey a crib to a new immigrant family, and that simple request has now enmeshed our families together in both economically and spiritually meaningful ways. I don't think that sort of thing can happen when a paid "caseworker" asks you to fill out form 143-2 to collect your crib subsidy.

As to your soup kitchen example, I'm all for it. We should have a "system" where soup kitchens are unnecessary. (As a matter of economics, that system is free-market capitalism with a social safety net, but I digress.) But if there's going to be a soup kitchen, society is going to be much healthier if real people do it, not government employees.

As for the "middle class," that's a cheap dig. The fact is that the poor are the most charitable people in the US. They donate their time and effort far more than rich people. The rich people in the US donate far less, but are statistically more in favor of government doing something about it. (Of course, rich people largely run that government.)

Tim, I find it hard to believe that a welfare state promotes selfishness. And I think it harder to believe that one could prove our disprove such a hypothesis.

See the links I sent, which are from a non-political organization. Big government doesn't just sap personal giving, it saps time spent volunteering and the chance that someone has helped out a stranger. There is clear inverse relationship across dozens of countries. I don't suppose one can prove selfishness without God's eyes, but willingness to donate personal time and to help out strangers seems a good proxy for it. Nor do I think it's a coincidence that, where the state does all the charity, religious faith is at its lowest. Love is something you do, not a policy you vaguely support, and if people aren't asked to love others, religions that center around that call won't make much sense.

>38 timspalding: it seems so clearly a product of a particular set of circumstances in European history

It may well have been triggered within Europe, as Europe was then the centre of the Catholic Church and to some extent of the world, but it draws on and interprets wider Catholic thought and tradition and it has been really taken to heart in other parts of the world, notably Latin America and Africa. It has also developed, eg care for creation. The Church is not static!

Freedom of speech is part of human dignity and is therefore included. That doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the world will interpret it in the same way as the USA, of course.

Don't you think we have a duty to participate in making the world at large and our own countries in particular a better place, in bringing about God's kingdom of peace, justice and love? In Australia you have a legal duty to vote and can be fined if you don't. Our bishops here certainly encourage citizens to participate in their civic duties.

The "middle class" was off the cuff and was not the main point of that example, which was that we need to deal with the systemic causes of poverty, not simply to do charitable band aid. I know the poor are often more active in charity, but of course it would be better if they weren't poor. Your dig about caseworkers and forms is equally meaningless. There are many ways in which people interrelate and build society and community, and giving charitably to people who have slipped through society's safety net is only one of them. Working together to prevent/overcome that injustice is another.

Whenever I go to stay in Germany with church-related friends I see a lot of voluntary work going on.

I think you do an injustice to government employees, who are often very dedicated and caring. When we were looking for a care home for my late mum, we found that the home with the best reputation in the area (and also the one she liked best when we took her to see a few) was run by the local government. In fact generally you do an injustice to government when you speak of it as if it is somehow separate from the people. While that's true in places where the people don't have the right to participate, in the industrialised democracies we get to choose the type of government we want. The Scandinavian social services and the British National Health Service were not imposed on a reluctant populace by a socialist dictator.

Just to add, as a Briton I take a free national health service for granted. I can't imagine a better way of providing health care to the population (which is not to say that the service runs perfectly; it can always be improved). Quality health care should not depend on whether you are rich or poor. I have no objection to rich people paying for extra services if they so wish, but high-quality health care should be available to everyone. That's the common good, and it's also respect for human dignity - you get health care because you are a human being, not because you have the money to pay for it. I've spent much of my life in countries where that isn't the case, and it still appals me.

Don't you think we have a duty to participate in making the world at large and our own countries in particular a better place…?

Yes. I also think that we should be kind to our children, be sorry for our sins and pray for others. I don't think the state exists to enforce such rules, nor do I think it exists to make us fulfill out civic duties. And I have considerable respect and tolerance for those groups that, for one reason or another, believe that the state deserves neither their allegiance nor their "duty." Indeed, I think a principle function of the state is to protect people who hold unpopular views, including those who don't like the state.

you get health care because you are a human being, not because you have the money to pay for it

I understand where you're coming from. In my vocabulary, there's a difference between negative and positive rights. The right to free speech, a negative right, is a right that doesn't impinge on anyone else. It demands nothing from others' but avoiding oppression. Ditto all the other traditional rights—property, religion, etc. The right to free, high-quality health care is a different sort of thing, because it requires something of others—namely, the money to make it happen. It's not like the right to free speech, but the right to take money from your neighbor to pay for your megaphone. And it requires the means to do it. Until quite recently, free universal healthcare was simply not something society could afford. In Jesus' time, it wasn't even possible, as doctors were a very mixed bag, and often no better than no health care at all.

Now, I'm okay with making such things policy goals. I accept that the state may decide on such goals, within its means and pursuing them without violating the rights. But there's a distinction. And I find it very disconcerting when some put such policy goals above actual rights, like the right to free speech. I think that's fundamentally backward, and I think the elevation of policy goals above basic human freedoms threatens to give you what I described before—Catholic states that are half-free until they fall entirely into dictatorship, while rights-minded non-Catholic states preserve both freedom and the common good, and even win the Catholic states their freedom in time.

>41 timspalding: I think you fail to recognise the importance of community and society, of which the state is one manifestation. It's hardly surprising; you live in probably the most individualistic nation in the world. As I have often said, your life experience and mine lead us in different directions. It was Margaret Thatcher who reportedly said, "There is no such thing as society", while Desmond Tutu and many others have spoken of ubuntu, the idea that we do not exist only or even primarily as individuals but as members of a community, in relationship with others. The Church has something to say not only about our behaviour as individuals but also as members of a community or a society.

Many in the world would consider the right to free speech to be less important than the right to be alive, to have food, shelter, water, security, education, health care. Don't get me wrong, free speech is very important and everybody aspires to it, but putting it above everything else is a peculiarly US sport. There are thirty articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 2 states, "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration" (my italics), not only the ones which seem most important in industrialised western democracies. The African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights has 62, because it also recognises the rights of communities (peoples) as well as individuals.

The right to free, high-quality health care is a different sort of thing, because it requires something of others—namely, the money to make it happen

What a peculiar way of looking at it. What it actually requires is simply for everybody to pay their taxes to support an essential national service in the same way they support the police force, the fire brigade, the army, the civil service and other essential national services. Everybody who can afford to do so contributes according to their means; everybody who can't still gets high quality health care. Whether you are an obscenely rich CEO or an impoverished unemployed immigrant, you get high quality health care.

You realise the right of free speech also requires money to make it happen? It requires legislation, monitoring, policing, the setting up of commissions and other bodies to deal with abuses, civic education, time spent by courts, the cost of imprisoning those who break the laws on free speech, etc. Living in society requires that we invest in that society, financially as well as in other ways.

41 Tim

The right to free, high-quality health care is a different sort of thing, because it requires something of others—namely, the money to make it happen.

This is an interesting comment and I think one that illuminates the geopolitical gulf that rests between Europe and the US. Society exists because we continually require something of others: mutual aid. There is I believe a canker at the core of right wing thinking on individualism. They believe that society exists to provide them opportunities to become wealthy but simultaneously they repel any thoughts that they owe anything to society in the form of mutual assistance. It is a cancer that runs through right wing ideology.

So I would want to establish why for instance free high quality health care is less important than a free high quality military? (or any other public service)

The second thing I would want to establish is why we think those things are free?
Our general taxation through exchange of goods and services and more direct taxation through income generation pays for those services. So I would supplement my questions with another: Why do we pay twice for health care (at point of access), when only once for the the police, army etc?

My conclusions are that the military, police and related services that are always at the core of right wing politics are bolstered at the expense of services like health because they underpin the political agendas of right wing governments. That is why Thatcher smashed the miners by using brutal police violence. Its why Bush invaded Iraq.

>43 LesMiserables: the geopolitical gulf that rests between Europe and the US... a canker at the core of right wing thinking on individualism

Thanks, Stephen.

What a peculiar way of looking at it. What it actually requires is simply for everybody to pay their taxes to support an essential national service in the same way they support the police force, the fire brigade, the army, the civil service and other essential national services. Everybody who can afford to do so contributes according to their means; everybody who can't still gets high quality health care. Whether you are an obscenely rich CEO or an impoverished unemployed immigrant, you get high quality health care.

This is an interesting comment and I think one that illuminates the geopolitical gulf that rests between Europe and the US.

I'm afraid you think you're making a political point, but you're simply missing the meaning and references of my words. I am merely restating a familiar, basic concept, that of negative and positive rights (see Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights). One may certainly believe there are truly innate positive rights, but that doesn't kill the distinction anymore than distinguishing between rights and duties or soup and salad does kills those distinctions. There are also objections to the distinction, but it's not some US-Europe or conservative American thing!

They believe that society exists to provide them opportunities to become wealthy but simultaneously they repel any thoughts that they owe anything to society in the form of mutual assistance.

I'm afraid that's it for me. Misrepresentation reaches a point where it can only be explained by gross uncharity or gross ignorance.

45

Hi Tim
I do truly believe that the US does not have a centre or left of centre political option for voters. There lies the gulf. But Europe is catching up: the media have made sure of that, demonizing anything that smacks of public ownership as intolerable.

I fall to see how I have misrepresented you. When I say the right do not feel they owe anything to society, I mean of course in the form and expression of public services. Right wing governments embrace charity not because it is a virtue but because it lessens the requirement for public services ergo the taxation to support them.

>45 timspalding: Well, as I said earlier, I think you were the one conflating a number of different issues, and so it's not surprising that the response to one gets confused with the response to another. I have said more than once that I'm really not understanding where you are coming from, and that in itself is understandable given our different life experiences, so I would say it is talking past one another rather than misrepresenting.

>46 LesMiserables: the US does not have a centre or left of centre political option for voters... But Europe is catching up

Agreed to both, with the qualifier "unfortunately" to the second one!

Interesting, last night I was reading a few things and I came across on the CERC website a latest article http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/social_justice/sj0274.htm on the Seven Principles of Catholic Social Teaching. This one certainly has a different feel for it, although the core principles remain, the emphasis changes from point to point.

For Tim: Pope Francis Lauds Tanzania for Safeguarding Freedom of Worship (AMECEA)

Or, if it were the Daily Mail or Fox News, presumably the headline would be: "Shock! Amazement! Socialist-leaning state inexplicably safeguards freedom of worship!"

Another one for Tim: Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why (Guardian)

>50 John5918: And a negative review of Thomas Piketty's ideas -

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/10/terence-corcoran-the-straw-dogs-of-...

Ordering the book from my library.

50

Thanks for the link. On my bedside table beside Montaigne's Essays and Russell's History of Western Philosophy, sit Capital Vol.I and Harvey's Companion to it.
I have my eye on the Piketty volume but considering my current literary obligations it will have to wait.

But this kind of volume was LONG overdue. They will attempt to discredit it of course, perhaps do a bit of a dirty character assassination into the bargain too.

I have managed to get hold of the translation of the 1959 Église et Société économique The Church and Social Justice from my local University library. I'm looking forward to dipping into this when I get a few minutes.

Capitalism and the Dalai Lama (NYT)

54

Thanks for the link. I worry that that may be the best that a compassionate right can think of: ways of creating more opportunities for wealth creation for the poor and some hand outs for the unfortunate. I believe that a completely new way of thinking is required. Its not about wealth creation but wealth distribution, andnevn then I'm uncomfortable about the fixation on wealth rather than equality. Too many suffer because of capitalism. You can't tweak it for the common good: there is intrinsic selfishness within its structure that accounts for its voracious appetite for trashing health, community and environment.
I appreciate the Dalai Lama wants to start from the premise of the individual, but unless the individual joins their community rather than exploits it, you will continue to have a US that only understands extreme individualism as a conceptual framework for organising 'society'.

As the pope has just said "Money is behind every evil in our society"

>55 LesMiserables: I think you're right in highlighting the tension between individual and society/community. In the modern industrialised nations we think of ourselves as individuals par excellence; I am primarily an autonomous individual first, and secondarily I can join voluntary associations; "I think therefore I am"; Margaret Thatcher can (reportedly) say, "There is no such thing as society". In more traditional societies we are primarily members of a community and we explore our individuality within that; we can only exist in relationship to others; ubuntu; "We are therefore I am". Of course we need a bit of both, and individualism has played a major role in human rights, democracy and other such advances, but I fear that the pendulum in the modern western world has swung much too far towards the individualistic extreme and capitalism is a catalyst, symptom or inevitable result of that.

Edited to add a couple of links to the "Money is behind every evil in our society" quote.

Papal preacher slams 'curse' of money-driven corruption

Pope Francis prays for abandoned in Good Friday service

Father Cantalamessa's Good Friday Homily: "Judas Was Standing With Them"

One line that caught my eye in the last one:

is it not also a scandal that some people earn salaries and collect pensions that are sometimes 100 times higher than those of the people who work for them and that they raise their voices to object when a proposal is put forward to reduce their salary for the sake of greater social justice?

56

Precisely!

I recall reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and then thinking later that her Utopian ideals were built upon the very souls she was happy to trample over.

>57 LesMiserables: Someone recommended Atlas Shrugged to me twenty years ago because they know I am interested in railways, and I began reading it as a novel centred on railways. Like you, it was a while before the philosophy she was espousing dawned on me.

On Good Friday, Pope's focus on social justice Gospel (NCR)

Statue Of A Homeless Jesus Startles A Wealthy Community (NPR)

60

If it gets people thinking about their fellow man, then I'm all in favour of it.

"It is now common, (the rector) says, to see people come, sit on the bench, rest their hand on the bronze feet and pray."

Right now, the fate of a central parcel of land next to library is being debated in our town. A park is proposed, but there is fear that homeless will take over the benches. (Which in all honesty would deter my wandering through.) It won't happen in a public space, but I wonder what effect a statue such as this would have on a small central park. Would the homeless avpoid it? Would it be vandalized? Would it inspire local NGOs to move in to help?

Inequality is the root of social evil.

Pope Francis

Cardinal Vincent Nichols on austerity and welfare provision in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10639015/New-Cardinal-Vincent-Nichols-w...

The Cardinal here, pulls no punches about what has been allowed to happen in the UK.

Pope's tweet on inequality points to moral course (NCR)

"Inequality is the root of social evil"...

Francis' tweet comes as an exclamation point to his November apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, in which he wrote: "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"...

This is a short and interesting editorial from the America Magazine on Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty and is uncomfortable reading especially around concerns of inequality.

The article mentions that Pope Francis makes a simple yet pointed comment on why it is news when the stock market drops two points but not when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure.

http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/facing-inequality

I regret we didn't start a conversation around the Pope's tweet, that inequality is the root of social evil. But as much as I agree with the sentiment of the Pope's words, one should not push it too far. A 2% decline in the US stock market wipes out some $373 billion dollars of value. Investments aren't monopoly money; they translate to real-world things. In this case, they translate to companies going bankrupt, jobs lost, people made homeless, divorces, neglect and squandered lives. And, leaving all that aside, it also represents billions of dollars that could but did not go to the governments and charities that keep homeless people from dying of exposure.

67

Tim, I think though that the spirit of the comment is more attuned to making us consider what is important to Christ's message.

Value and exchange have and will always exist and so a means of facilitating this necessarily operate in society.

I may well be wrong but I think what the Pope is saying is that the stock exchange as an institution where its roots lay in actual trading of goods has now become simply a monster that provbides a way of making money at the expense of others with no essential contribution to society.

>66 LesMiserables: & 67... I've been reading Piketty and the response(s) to Piketty, and there is much there to consider and digest. Still, I am convinced that the inequality that matters isn't the disparity which exists in the overall material wealth of the United States and Western Europe* but between that collective wealth and the material (and again relative) poverty of the rest of the world. That's the disparity that matters or will soon come to matter in every sphere: morality and ethics, geopolitical, economic, environmental, cultural.

* here's an example of conspicuous consumption that's hard to swallow: http://www.holidaysplease.co.uk/news/drinking-holiday/

>69 enevada: And the fact that so much of the discourse on inequality and poverty is framed from the western viewpoint, with the victims' voice marginalised.

>70 John5918:: not just marginalised but never even heard or considered - or if so in a cursory manner that fails to move us.

From Evangelii Gaudium: ....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. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

Re-reading the encyclical post-Piketty is almost eerie.

>71 enevada: Thank you! I was being too diplomatic!

>72 John5918:: You are wonderful, some days yours is the only voice for others, the unheard, that some of us may encounter. The culture of prosperity does indeed deaden us - our (western) poverty is spiritual and cultural. What you bring is another perspective, another reminder of faithfulness- hey, perhaps your true missionary work is here, with us! Lord knows we could use it.

>73 enevada: Funnily enough I'm currently in a three-month period when I seem to be spending hardly any time in South Sudan as I've been to South Africa and Britain and am about to go to the USA and then the Netherlands to do advocacy - briefings, media interviews, speaking at conferences, meeting government and church officials, talking to church groups, agencies and individuals, etc. I got back to Juba only yesterday and will leave again on Monday.

Living in the developing world as I have done for the best part of four decades now, being here as an immigrant/resident rather than an occasional visitor or aid worker, marrying into a local family, belonging to and working for a local church, all of these tend to give one a completely different worldview from the developed western world. But it does partially explain why I am often out of step with the dominant culture/worldview represented on LT; we start from such different assumptions and experiences (although I know to some extent where the other side is coming from as I can never lose my roots so in a sense I straddle the two).

>74 John5918:: the straddle offers you a good vantage point for observation and reflection. I'm glad you are willing to share your experience with both sides.

>68 LesMiserables:: What the Pope is saying - unequivocally - is that the financial system rules rather than serves, it is our master and we (hyper-consumers) are its slaves. What the Pope suggests is that we say no - firmly and resolutely - to this reversal of exchange.

How we do that is a tougher nut to crack.

74

John, this will shock you no doubt, but since we are talking about cultural assumptions and different starting points, I have long wished to visit Africa, numerous places, but have just been to scared. Yup! I adfmit it that that is the media conditioning we get. Every time Africa is on the news there is someone with a machine gun or a machete. My point is that we are conditioned unconsciously in the most heartrending ways for someone's agenda.

>74 John5918: I can only agree with you about the conditioning. I wouldn't necessarily recommend a visit to South Sudan at the moment, although even most of this country is safe enough most of the time, but Africa as a whole is a wonderful place to be, with no more than its fair share of crime.

Jane and I are planning to have a quiet retirement on a beautiful piece of land outside Nairobi, and in two or three years time we hope to have a guest cottage to offer hospitality to those who just want to visit beautiful Africa.

Value and exchange have and will always exist and so a means of facilitating this necessarily operate in society.

I guess I see this sort of statement—which echoes many others—as part of the problem. Economics is not just value and exchange and necessary operation of society. Economics matters, even to the soul. Add a percent to the unemployment rate and you've got a million people out of work. A million people out of work means more people in poverty, fewer people graduating high school, more broken marriages, more people on the street, people dying of a stab wound from drug violence. It means dozens or hundreds of Catholic churches that have to shut down--and people who need the church more.

Want to see as God sees--see the joys and fears, pain and despair of uncountable millions? Look at a graph of the stock market. ;)

While I acknowledge that financial markets have epiphenomenal elements, I tear my hair out at the idea that they have become "simply a monster that provbides a way of making money at the expense of others with no essential contribution to society." If you have a home loan, a car loan, a school loan, or work for a business that ever had to raise capital--for that matter, if you enjoy kibitzing on a website that had to raise capital!--you can't say this. And, yeah, I know you know that stuff is underneath. But a lot of Christians talk this way. It's intellectually--and I would say even morally--equivalent to waving away government aid because some recipients are fraudulent. Economics matters!

Rant over. I hope you understand I'm more humorously irritated than ACTUALLY irritated. :)

78

Tim, I think we are at crossed purposes here, but anyway I apologise if I in some way I inferred that I was talking about economy, I wasn't.

I really did mean as I wrote, and that was in reference to the stock market.

Well, I guess I don't see a major difference. Stock markets are where the shares of larger public companies are traded. While in the short run there is all sorts of noise and potential foolishness, in the long run stock prices are the true value of the companies they are comprised of. As aggregates, stock markets are the value of the companies on them, and a central fact of the economy.

80

Ok Tim, I think I can see where you are coming from and again I think we are looking at this from different perspectives. I imagine you are assuming a stock market that is evident in current usage throughout the Western world is the only one possible, whereas I can see a vision of the world that uses markets to distribute wealth amongst its citizens in what is loosely described as one form of market socialism.

In fact I would go so far as to say our present stock market driven economies, perhaps not in our time, but at some point, the absolute concentration of wealth amongst less and less people at the expense of the environment, the general population and developing countries, will be its very downfall.

A couple of NCR articles related to care for creation.

Climate change is church's No. 1 pro-life issue

Vatican sustainability summit urges action on ecological devastation

I finally ordered a copy of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. I am looking forward to prayerfully considering these doctrines in coming weeks.

>82 John5918: "care for creation."

I regularly read a blog kept by Bill Patenaude, a scholar I know who is deeply engaged with this issue, that I can highly recommend (one of his personal missions, as it were, is to approach "Catholic ecology" from an angle sympathetic also to the "conservative" wing of the Church here in the U.S., which needs some hand-holding on the issue): http://catholicecology.blogspot.com/

Bank of England governor: capitalism doomed if ethics vanish (Guardian)

Capitalism is at risk of destroying itself unless bankers realise they have an obligation to create a fairer society, the Bank of England governor has warned...

It's about time to be hearing from the industry leaders. There may be hope, yet.

In May 29 letter to EPA, U.S. bishops state that they stand ready to work with EPA, the Administration, and members of Congress to ensure that measures necessary to address climate change both care for creation and protect “the least of these".

It quotes Pope Francis, who is working on an encyclical about the ecology of mankind, “Creation is a gift, it is a wonderful gift that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude.”

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/enviro...

Theologians critique Cardinal Dolan's defense of capitalism (NCR)

Refers to a May 22 opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, "The Pope's Case for Virtuous Capitalism," by Cardinal Timothy Dolan. Hmm, maybe people called Tim have similar views...

88

Virtuous Capitalism is a contradiction, no?

If we consider a virtue to be a mid point between to opposing excess and deficiency.
Let's look at say bravery. It stands midway between foolhardiness and cowardice.

What opposing excesses do we have? Laissez Faire Capitalism and Communism. One has no regulation. The other has no freedom.

The mid point is a regulated market economy that in some way distributes wealth in a much more equitable manner than is presently the case.

It is not Capitalism. Capitalism lacks virtue by its excesses as does Communism.

Virtuous Capitalism is silly.

>89 LesMiserables: Now here's one where I can broadly agree with you!

90

Okay, Ill work on an edit ;-)

>89ff.

I think there's a basic problem with the term "capitalism." There is a huge difference between the sort of unfree crony businessism that prevailed in a parts of Latin America, and even imperfect free-market governments like the US. To confuse them is as distorting as being against democratic socialism because Stalin was a monster.

92

What does even imperfect free-market governments like the US mean?

Are you saying that the US needs less regulation in its Capitalism?

Well, in some ways, yes, and in others no. I'm against regulation whose essential purpose is to aid politically-connected businesses and industries—a very common phenomenon. But anyway the the distinction I'm drawing is between "capitalism" that's essentially the government aiding certain well-connnected businesses, and countries with a robust free market and legal protections. No country is ideal, of course, but there's a big difference between "capitalisms." Nazi Germany had businesses and markets. So does Saudi Arabia. But lumping them in with the US or Britain just confuses the issue.

>94 timspalding: But Tim, most of the current criticism of capitalism is not of Latin American cronyism, nor of Nazi business practices, nor indeed of the old-fashioned capitalism which gave Marx his opening. Modern criticism is aimed at precisely the type of free-market capitalism which you describe being practised by the USA and a number of other western nations.

95

And it is a very Protestant Capitalism in the US and UK and....

>95 John5918:

I think that's largely true. But there's a blurring of the lines. Not to pick Francis apart too much, but I think it's pretty clear he doesn't know much about economics, and his experience with capitalism is almost entirely of the corrupt, crony-capitalism kind.

When I read a passage like this:

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.

I feel profound unease. Certainly nobody argues that economic growth inevitably brings greater justice and inclusiveness. But the trend is precisely in that direction--economic growth lifts people out of poverty and creates both economic and political pressure toward justice and freedom. "The Rise of the Rest," that has moved such a large portion of humanity from dire poverty into a middle-some state didn't come during the 60s, 70s or 80s, when much of the third world was captive to the sort of statist anti-capitalist systems the Pope seems to favor. India, for example, has gone from a majority-poor nation with a highly-restrictive socialist government to a largely free-market state that's a full-fledged player in the global economy. To the minds of many on the left this can only be bad. But it's moved the poverty rate in India from over 50% to about 20% in two decades. In other words, "trickle down" economics—even in a state with lots of bureaucracy and crony favoritism--has lived HALF A BILLION PEOPLE out of poverty. Are the excluded still waiting? Some of them, but a lot aren't still waiting--the capitalism bus arrived, and while it isn't perfect, it's better than the corrupt socialist bus stop they were at before. In other words, any discussion of economics and poverty needs to start with the enormous power of capitalism to move people out of poverty--and then suggest ways that can be improved--not start by identifying capitalism as the principal problem.

the 60s, 70s or 80s, when much of the third world was captive to the sort of statist anti-capitalist

I think it would be more correct to say that much of the third world was captive to the east-west communist-capitalist conflict in which they were the pawns where the proxy war of the Cold War was played out.

The final section in John Allen's weekly column at the Globe addresses a recent conference in Rome on "impact investing", which seeks to bring the tools of private equity investing to bear on traditional social philanthropic goals: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/06/21/health-scare-confirms-pope-fran...

>98 John5918:

No, but when you look at the actual economics of countries, statism was triumphant. "Sides" were not uniform. Even "western" countries, like Turkey, embraced protectionism, nationalized industries, state-owned enterprises, wage and price controls and so forth to a degree unthinkable today. The loosening and then ending of that regime, starting in the early 80s, account for the phenomenon growth of that country, as it did many others.

World War I's Pope Benedict XV and the pursuit of peace (NCR)

Why do we still honour free-market intellectuals? (Guardian)

rightwing intellectuals still cannot accept that their certainties no longer make sense...

There are principled arguments against the state interfering in businesses... It is just that ... modern societies have learned the hard way that they no longer have the luxury of believing them...

the inability of the left to say how it can move on from a failed status quo, and the inability of the right even to admit that it has failed, explains why we are stuck in a kind of limbo...

Politicians and policy makers back Catholic Social Teaching as solution to economic crisis (Tablet)

Francis in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences emphasises the responsibility of humanity in creation (VIS)

The cold war, Catholicism and modern capitalism (Guardian)

The financial crisis and its aftermath have revealed the dark side of the post-cold war model, but Catholic social teaching proposes correcting the way market forces work so that they serve the public interest...

Blaming the Poor (Aleteia)

Jesus, perhaps disappointingly, gives no abstract theory of social justice. Instead, Jesus makes his life a concrete parable about how to live in this world. He demands of his first followers that they be living witnesses to a simple life on the edge of the dominant consciousness. Once you are at the visible center of any group, or once you are at the top of anything, you have too much to prove and too much to protect. Growth or real change is unlikely. You will be a defender of the status quo--which appears to be working for you. Every great spiritual teacher has warned against this complacency. The only free positions in this world are at the bottom and at the edges of things. Everywhere else, there is too much to maintain--an image to promote and a fear of losing it all--which ends up controlling your whole life.

Reverse Mission (Richard Rohr)

Four ways to heal the divide between pro-life and social justice advocates (NCR)

Vatican to host first-ever conference to reevaluate just war theory, justifications for violence (NCR)

The Vatican will be hosting a first of its kind conference next week to reexamine the Catholic church's long-held teachings on just war theory, bringing some 80 experts engaged in global nonviolent struggles to Rome with the aim of developing a new moral framework that rejects ethical justifications for war...

I'm a little taken aback to see the reference to "experts", as I am one of those invited to participate!

>110 John5918:

I hope the "re-examination" moves beyond the Cold War argument (i.e. modern weapons like Nukes make Just War impossible in practice), to address the current signs of the times like the lower level conflicts in the Middle East, Africa etc.

The Cold War argument is actually pretty reasonable, but it really only applies to things approaching modern Total War, which for similar reasons no one seems really interested in trying out anyway.

I would really like to see what arguments there are against using violence, as the Vatican and Pope have recently endorsed, to stop ISIS from for example enslaving populations. Because the "effectiveness of nonviolent campaigns", as mentioned in the article, is not a winning one in that context.

>111 hf22: using violence, as the Vatican and Pope have recently endorsed, to stop ISIS from for example enslaving populations

I think the pope's comments were rather more nuanced. If I recall correctly he said that certain types of atrocity had to be stopped, but not by bombing people. But yes, this is the type of issue that Catholic Social Thought is grappling with.

the "effectiveness of nonviolent campaigns"

One will probably never know because it hasn't been tried "in that context". Who knows what would happen if the same amount of money and resources, the same number of active people, the same political will, and a willingness to accept the same number of deaths along the way were put into non-violent means? Nonviolent successes are very much under-represented in the literature on conflict, and in the media. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan is a recent (2011) exception.

But I suspect the main thrust will be to discuss how to shift what currently seems to be the default position in most of the world that violence is a routine and acceptable method of solving disputes, and that more violence is the normal response to violence, towards a recognition that violence should be the very last resort after all others have been tried and failed, and with limits on how much violence is permissible - in some ways a recovery of the existing just war theory, but with a different emphasis, a different default position, and an insistence that all the criteria of a just war should be met, not just the criterion of just cause. Because in practice, in modern conflicts (and we're not just talking here about the Total War of World Wars I and II, nor the nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction of the Cold War, but of the real wars being fought today, one of which I live and work in), it is almost impossible to meet all the criteria of a just war.

While it is seductive to think that violence saves lives, and while it is true that sometimes in the short term limited violence can save some lives (eg "police", "protection" and "rescue" type interventions), it's worth noting that in practice most violence simply leads to more violence, if not today then tomorrow or in ten years. That's why the Church should emphasise justice and peace through non-violent means.

>112 John5918:

The Pope and Vatican have absolutely provided diplomatic support and a green light for limited military action against ISIS.

But to your main point, I am supportive of reinforcing the need to actually apply just war principles and prioritizing the peaceful as did our Lord. And as far as I can see conflicts like the ones in South Sudan are not just on either side.

But, and it appears you would perhaps agree, I don't see a moral case for an absolutist pacifism.

There are clearly cases, such as ISIS, where violence is morally needed as at least an interim measure in conjunction with other approaches. As even if non violence could work in the medium term, that does not excuse us of our obligation to those say being subject to genocide in the meantime.

That violence sometimes begets violence, can not be used as an excuse to let people get murdered and enslaved. Reality is greater than ideas, as the Pope is fond of saying. And so discernment must be applied, using principles like those of just war, rather than imposing blanket pronouncements.

So, if I am reading the outcome of this conference correctly, reevaluating just war has morphed into renaming it. Which is not actually a terrible idea, as the current phrase does hide somewhat that we are speaking of a justified evil, not a positive good.

But it certainly is getting headlines beyond its actual import.

>114 hf22:

I'm still travelling so haven't seen the media reports yet. If you can post any links I'd be grateful. I'll post something when I get the chance, probably in a few days. It really was a good conference, with about 75 people from all over the world, many coming from active conflicts, all experts in their own way on peace building, whether as practitioners, activists, academics, theologians, members of the Pontifical Council. Very interesting to hear the different perspectives and insights from their different contexts. One of the most moving was an intervention from a young nun from Iraq. It's always very valuable to hear from people on the ground, whose perspective is often very different from the international community and media.

Just Twitter reports at the moment, claiming no such thing as a just war, and that Cardinal Turkson is going lobby the Pope to abolish just war theory.

But as far as I can tell from earlier texts of speeches, what is actually being proposed is a new language, while actual just war criteria for using force to deal with next genocide etc are being supported.

Will post actual articles once I see them.

Ok here it is (http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/5414/0/pax-christi-puts-pressure-on-vatican-to-end-its-support-for-just-wars-).

I would like to see a copy of the actual statement. Mr Lamb's article does not seem complete to me, particularly in light of Cardinal Turkson's quoting on Pope Francis on ISIS in his own speech to the conference, and the organisers previous acknowledgement of the need to deal with unjust violence.#

# From a few days ago "While clear ethical criteria are necessary for addressing egregious attacks or threats in a violent world, moral theologians and ethicists should no longer refer to such criteria as the ‘just war theory’, because that language undermines the moral imperative to develop tools and capacity for nonviolent conflict.”

>117 hf22:

As far as I can see, that quote in italics is from an earlier draft of the statement and was omitted from the final version, although I don't have the final version in front of me at the moment.

Cardinal Turkson, in his opening message, did indeed mention Pope Francis' words that it is licit to stop ISIS, but he stressed that the pope also made it clear not by bombing. Turkson explored some of the other options.

The overall feeling at the conference, I think, was that in the context of modern warfare and weaponry, no war could be deemed just. Also that the Church has to be much more proactive in exploring and disseminating non-violent practices.

Edited to add: Now I've looked at the Tablet article, and I don't see those words you quoted. Can I ask where you got them?

Edited again: I see that the final version of the statement is now posted on the Pax Christi International website, www.paxchristi.net

The pope's message to the conference is also posted there.

The words quoted were from an earlier texts from the start of the conference. As you say, they are not reflected in the final text.

It still seems the final text does not call for an absolutist pacifism, but a renaming and refocusing of the just war tradition. But it is not far off doing so, and clearly represents a desire for an absolutist approach.

But the world after Rwanda, after each failure to save lives, has said never again. I could not, in service to an unreal ideological affirmation, allow similar genocides to proceed. It would be monstrous. Reality is greater than ideas.

>119 hf22:

Contra myself a bit, an all but absolutist pacifism could well be required of the Church in our time. The reality of conflict and witness of the New Testament mentioned by the final conference statement are persuasive.

As is the pre 4th C Christian experience of pacifism, which I am sure was mentioned at the conference, if not in its final statement. An analogy with the development on religious liberty could be helpful, as the connections with the relationship between Church and State in our time and the earliest Church are much closer than for much for the intervening period. Therefore just as our teaching on religious liberty has come to reflect something more like than of the pre-Nicene position, so could our teaching on war.

And at NCR (http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/landmark-vatican-conference-rejects-just-war-theory-asks-encyclical-nonviolence).

Marie Dennis, an American who serves as a co-president of Pax Christi International, said she and the conference group "believe that it is time for the church to speak another word into the global reality." "When we look at the reality of war, when we look at the teachings of Jesus, we're asking what is the responsibility of the church," she said. "And it is, we believe, a responsibility to promote nonviolence." Dennis also said she understands that people may raise concerns in rejecting the just war theory over needing to stop unjust aggressors. Her group, she said, agrees that violent aggressors have to be stopped. "The question is how," said Dennis. "Our belief would be that as long as we keep saying we can do it with military force, we will not invest the creative energy, the deep thinking, the financial and human resources in creating or identifying the alternatives that actually could make a difference." "As long as we say that dropping bombs will solve the problem we won't find other solutions and I think that's feeling more and more clear to us," he said.

The key problem here. A moralist can only pick from what is available, even when everything available is less than desirable. You don't get to deem responsible people to be guilty of grave immorality because they have not come up with an alternative for which you can't even suggest an outline, and may not ever turn out to exist. It is like, while conceivably poverty will become one day as morally intolerable as slavery, that can only occur once we can find a way to make universal poverty elimination plausible. But in the meantime you don't get to deem everyone to be acting in a gravely evil manner, even as they may be doing the best possible reduce poverty, on the basis it may spur them on.

I am sure Pope Francis's version of Pacem in Terris, and I am confident that will be the Pope's next encyclical, will retain the necessary ability to deal with hard cases (consistent with VII's treatment in Gaudium et spes). War is not yet like capital punishment - We don't yet have that "international authority with the necessary competence and power" or other solution. And we don't get to skip ahead to the time when it may be - The next Rwanda, the next ISIS will most likely come before we get to that time. As with marriage in Amoris Laetitia, we don't get to ignore hard cases, so that we can fixate on the ideal.

Discussion of Pax Christi declaration at dotcommonweal (Https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/just-war-and-just-peace).

Another reminder of the need to deal with hard cases.

>122 hf22:

I find that article rather superficial, but it does touch on some of the misunderstandings and differences of opinion.

"Physical force" and "war" are not the same thing. If I shove someone in the street I am using physical force, but not war. As I mentioned in >112 John5918:, there are "police", "protection" and "rescue" type interventions which would probably not be construed as war. Rescuing the girls from Boko Haram, even if it might entail some physical force, could be a limited intervention which is not the same as starting a war in northern Nigeria. Even under traditional just war theory the latter would almost certainly be illicit, the former would be licit. So for many peacebuilders, the statement that there can no longer be a just war does not exclude limited use of physical force.

Amongst peacebuilders, there are absolute pacifists who believe as a matter of principle that violence of any sort is unacceptable, even in self defence or to protect others. They would base this on the gospels and the first 300 years of Christian tradition. Then there are others who would not take such an absolutist stance, who would assert that nonviolence should be the default position but that there may be extreme cases where limited physical violence could be acceptable. However both would agree that in the modern context, war itself can never be justified.

Nonviolence also does not mean doing nothing. In fact it is a very active process, often more difficult than simply taking up arms. As the pope said, it may be licit to try to stop ISIS, but it is not licit to bomb them. Other more complex, less immediate and ultimately more effective means need to be explored.

At Crux (http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/04/16/now-isnt-the-time-for-the-church-to-abandon-idea-of-just-war/).

>123 John5918:

Military action is military action. If you want to distinguish between types, that is legitimate, but it helps to make it clear in advance.

But stopping ISIS requires bombs. Without bombs a great many innocent Yazidis and Kurds and Shias would be dead or enslaved. There is nothing but violence which could have saved them in the time available. A hard and rare case sure, but a real one, and not the last of its type. But hard cases are always the 1%, and yet we still must deal with them.

And it must be acknowledged violence caused ISIS. The Iraq War did beget violence. But we don't get do overs. Moralists must work with the world as it is, not as it would have been if they had listened last time.

Pointing to imaginary more effective methods is ideological madness. What are they? How would they work? How many would have to die before they work? Less immediate is not on the table when people are dying.

I can't, as say a voter in a Western country, let people be massacred because of an ideological departure from reality. Until there is another real option, bombing can not only be legitimate, it can be a moral requirement.

Demanding people be left to die because of such a ideological fixation would be evil. People, reality, are greater than ideas. Every time that has been forgotten evil and death have followed. Even with the best of intentions. Especially with the best of intentions.

>124 hf22:

An uninformed rant. It's not clear whether this author actually understands even traditional Catholic just war theory.

forcing the Church to support inaction or half-baked schemes in the face of terrorism, genocide, and invasion

Nonviolence is not inaction, and it seems to me that you can't get more "half-baked" than most of the recent wars aimed at preventing "terrorism, genocide, and invasion". Sir John Chilcot's report on Iraq will make interesting reading.

Farcical plans for unarmed civilian protection are not enough

Might be worth reading the book by Chenoweth and Stephan which I cited in >112 John5918:.

How many would be comfortable with a church that teaches that the police cannot use force to stop an active school shooter from killing more children?

See my comments in >123 John5918: about the difference between war and physical force. This discourse is not dominated by absolute pacifists, although they are part of the conversation, but by people trying to understand what Jesus' and the early Church's message of nonviolence means in the 21st century.

why did the pacifists who push these remedies not put their bodies on the line

Actually many of them do, including many of those who were at the conference, whereas many of those writing this type of article don't live in war zones.

It not only means that no Christian can justly serve in the armed forces today, it means that the young men who invaded on D-Day and were gunned down before they even reached the beach were not acting justly.

It does not judge the past but looks at the signs of the times today in the 21st century, so that blatant appeal to emotion is misplaced. Whether "no Christian can justly serve in the armed forces today" is a good question, one that should be explored, just as it was explored by the early Church when they read the signs of their times in a world of militarisation, oppression and violence.

We need to incorporate new moral criteria for post-war requirements. More attention must be given to peacekeeping, reconciliation, participation, and building a just, sustainable peace. We need to explore new possibilities for nonviolent resistance and change, where these are feasible. The Church must press states and the international community to address the underlying causes of conflict before they metastasize.

Well, yes. That's what we're saying.

should the Church repudiate just war theory in favor of obligatory pacifism?

These are not the only two options.

The just use of force and creative nonviolence belong together as essential tools in building a just peace

In practice that will probably be the case, but note that it says "just use of force", not "just war". Also most peacebuilders would probably not put use of force and creative nonviolence in that order (nonviolence is the first priority) nor want to give the impression that they are equal (nonviolence is the default position).

>125 hf22:

Military action is military action. If you want to distinguish between types, that is legitimate, but it helps to make it clear in advance.

I thought I made that clear in >112 John5918:, but my apologies if it wasn't clear. I hope it is now. Military actions vary immensely in scope and scale. For example, a hostage rescue situation in which a couple of helicopter loads of special forces come in and out in the space of a few minutes, using military force to rescue hostages, is not the same as a war in which there is large scale bombing which inevitably causes civilian casualties, "boots on the ground" for months or years, destruction of infrastructure, and often enough atrocities committed by the occupying forces to boost recruitment to the force being targeted.

But stopping ISIS requires bombs

That is yet to be demonstrated. The pope certainly doesn't think so, as he explicitly says.

Pointing to imaginary more effective methods is ideological madness. What are they? How would they work?

At the conference Cardinal Turkson pointed to the funding of the war. Who is buying ISIS oil? Who is buying the antiquities which they are selling? As always one can look at who is supplying weapons (in this case many of the ISIS weapons are the ones the USA supplied to Iraq, now captured by ISIS, another example of how short-term military "solutions" just exacerbate the problem). What is the geopolitics of the area? How can interests which currently seem to be working at cross-purposes (Russia, Turkey, Europe, USA, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Kurds, different opposition groups, etc) be encouraged to create a more coherent approach? What are the possibilities of dialogue, whether direct or indirect, with ISIS (and anyone who says "none" is not aware of what is already going on behind the scenes)? An organised nonviolent resistance strategy would include these and many other techniques. It is not "imaginary" but tried and tested, and there is no evidence that it is less effective than military methods; quite the opposite, in fact (again, see Chenoweth and Stephan).

How many would have to die before they work?

Probably no more than would have to die in the war.

I can't, as say a voter in a Western country, let people be massacred because of an ideological departure from reality.

Neither can I, which is why I am opposed to war, which sees far more people massacred.

Demanding people be left to die because of such a ideological fixation would be evil. People, reality, are greater than ideas. Every time that has been forgotten evil and death have followed. Even with the best of intentions. Especially with the best of intentions.

Exactly. The recent ideological fixation with war is evil, and evil and death follow, even/especially with the best of intentions. And the evil and death continue after the particular conflict has been "resolved".

>126 John5918:

Yeah the author is not great, despite apparently being a PhD candidate with an interest in Just War according to his bio. Big in Catholic Democrat circles I understand, Catholics for Obama and that sort of thing.

But I think the Pax Christi statement is what is driving the problem here. I think between the lines that conference accepts some use of force as part of its Just Peace idea, presumably based on similar principles and discernment as the Just War tradition. And that is undoubtedly the line any papal encyclical would include.

But the statement seemed to want to suggest an absolute pacifism, and certainly begged for headlines like that, despite that currently being morally untenable.

Your actual position is reasonable, and would get much support. Making it look like absolute pacifism however is going to dampen and damage that support.

>127 John5918:

The real question is matters like the Yazidis at Sinjar. Bombing saved 50,000 people from a massacre. 5,000 still died because help did not come sooner.

Nothing but bombs was going to do that. Every other response is to allow a genocide - There was no time. Any pretense otherwise is imaginary. Refusing to help because of an ideological position would have been evil. An unspeakable evil which would have cried to heaven.

And an evil easy to justify. All these foreigners who keep trying to kill each other and us. The ones we save this week may well be the ones trying to kill innocents the next. Why should we risk our blood? The natural inclination of a wealthy nation is not to intervene.

But the call of Christ is otherwise. And in truth you seem to agree. So lets not give people the excuse not to do the 99% nonviolence that is required, because of an ideological ideal. Lets make the case justice requires the 99% nonviolence, rather than choose language which falls into an unjustifable absolutism.

>129 hf22: Bombing saved 50,000 people from a massacre. 5,000 still died because help did not come sooner. Nothing but bombs was going to do that

None of those statements are certain, even though they form the dominant narrative in the western world. Very few things are certain in war.

>130 John5918:

And this is the evil of ideology. A refusal to accept reality, even if thousands have to die.

>131 hf22:

Well, yes. The dominant ideology at the moment is a militaristic one. It is accepted fairly unquestioningly and to some extent is the default position, despite the fact that thousands have to die and it very rarely achieves success. Few people are aware of the non-violent option and many wrongly dismiss it as ineffective passive inaction. The dominant ideology must be challenged.

>132 John5918:

I can't support letting 50,000 people die so you get to feel subversive or prophetic or whatever.

Its evil. Ideological madness. Monstrous.

Those people needed saving. Unless you had an actual alternative, rejecting bombing is to condemn them to death and slavery. Appeals to possibility, a formal logical fallacy no less, will not scrub that blood from our hands.

>133 hf22: I can't support letting 50,000 people die so you get to feel subversive or prophetic or whatever.

That comment is unworthy of you.

Its evil. Ideological madness. Monstrous.

War is evil. Ideological madness. Monstrous. It happens to be the dominant ideology at the moment which blinds people to the alternatives.

Those people needed saving

Exactly what Pope Francis said. And he specifically excluded bombing as a way of doing it.

Unless you had an actual alternative

I don't think you are listening to the conversation.

I would add that you seem to be forgetting that even in the traditional just war theory, just cause is not the only criterion that needs to be satisfied. In this case it certainly was satisfied. But were all the other criteria satisfied? Despite your own certainty, which I respect, that is open for discussion.

>134 John5918:

Unworthy? I have no words for precisely how evil your approach here is.

You offer no way to save those people, and yet demand we fail to use the only actual means of doing so. A means which did meet all just war criteria by the way.

Because of make believe. Ideological make believe. And that makes you a supporter of letting them die / be enslaved. So you don't have to leave your ideological comfort zone. Its evil. A horrifying evil.

If you refuse to deal in reality, you have nothing of value to add. Handwaving away that their must be something is not an alternative. Not in the real world.

Its an edge case, a hard case. A 1% case. And stopping ISIS on Mt. Sinjar is not the same as stopping them all together, which is in many ways not able to be done by military action.

But it is a real case. And if your approach can't deal with it, you don't have a moral approach. Even if you are right the other 99% of the time. And I am sympathetic you ARE right the other 99% of the time. There are non violent options for a lot of cases where we send in bombs. But none can save 50,000 on a weeks notice from people unable to be persuaded from their goal of killing them.

Facts have to be faced. Even crappy ones.

>138 John5918:

Well, clearly we disagree on this one, although I don't make any insinuations against you as you do against me.

>136 John5918:

When you want to require we allow mass murder occur, polite disagreement ain't going to cut it. No apologies for that.

But as always, don't really know you from a bar of soap, and I can only respond to the comments you offer here. Any personal insinuations made I retract unreservedly.

>137 hf22:

Well, thank you. I do not disagree with you that there is just cause for intervening in this particular case, but I cannot be as certain as you that all the other criteria of the traditional just war theory have been met. I don't think that uncertainty constitutes "allowing mass murder to occur", particularly as neither you nor I know all the details.

>138 John5918:

I am across the details as they were publically reported. And those on the ground and those expert in these matters appear to concur.

And I don't get to dismiss that on the basis of a fallacy like an appeal to possibility. Just like with say climate change, I have to start with the evidence as presented, and apply moral reasoning from there.

So yes the appeal to notional uncertainty is morally irresponsible, in the same manner as climate change skepticism.

Could Pope Francis Be Ready to Throw Out Just War Theory? (Sojourners)

Armchair critics of the conference might contend that the conference’s proposal would endanger people living in conflict zones. But... the push to move past just war theory originated among people experiencing violence themselves. “At our meeting in Rome in April we heard a clear call from Catholics in the majority world and in situations of extreme conflict that the Church’s teaching on war and peace was not only insufficient to the level of violence they are facing but it was, in some cases, contributing to that violence.”

Edited to add:

"Too often the 'just war theory' has been used to endorse rather than prevent or limit war"...

just war theory can “act as an accelerant when a country is contemplating military action"...

the meeting cannot be summed up as an effort to replace just war theory with pacifism, as some critics have tried. “We were not talking about ‘just war’ versus ‘pacifism.’ We were talking about marrying the vast amounts of peacemaking research, civil resistance statistics, Just Peace principles that are rising out of people’s lived experience — and that have proven effective in converting injustice to justice — with the deep, pervasive, peace theology of the Church"...

>140 John5918:

It was not critics who presented the conference that way, it was its own final "appeal".

A peace theology can and should subsume (not replace) the just war criteria. This will however be delayed if language like the appeal is used, which suggests a desire to replace just war with an absolutist pacifism.

A thread on Catholic Social Thought, particularly one which includes a conversation on peacebuilding, is perhaps as good a place as any to remember Daniel Berrigan, RIP.

Daniel Berrigan, poet, peacemaker, dies at 94

Berrigan's message to peacemakers: Persevere

Both from NCR

Just to prove I was at the nonviolence conference, there's a picture of me with my hands in my pockets (something I'm rather good at) standing next to my colleague the Secretary General of the South Sudan Council of Churches if you scroll down the photo page, photo # DSC_0172. Another one much further down shows me with a microphone in my hand addressing the assembled multitudes, something I also rather like doing, # NVConf17.

Lest this post be deemed too ego-centred, let me also draw your attention to a page with many links relating to the conference.

Yup, you look British! (In a good way.) Bet you have the accent down, too! :-)

(What's with the scarlet socks on the (Secretary General?)? Is that a bishop thing?)

>144 margd: There are some churchmen in whom the wearing of scarlet socks seems rather pretentious; there are others who are so humble and pastoral that one suspects they were given them by a well-meaning benefactor and don't even notice the colour. I think in this case it is the latter!

A statement from the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference

The Arms Deal was an Ethical Blunder: SACBC Justice and Peace Commission Says

the greatest threat to our national security are economic inequalities and youth unemployment which are themselves fuelling violent social protests. Every day, we see incidents of service delivery protests and other forms of protests which are increasingly becoming violent. The defence capabilities that the military acquired through the arms procurement in 1999 are irrelevant in the face of this security threat...

>146 John5918:

Putting aside the corruption, the corvettes and helicopters seem justified. The capabilities they provide would be needed for peacetime emergencies as much as anything else (like enabling SA to fulfil its international obligations in respect of its coastline and territorial waters). The rest is questionable, as even from a military standpoint it is doubtful it would be sufficient if ever needed, and it is too much if it is not needed.

I would however caution against pretending eliminating military spending would fix many other problems (its lot of money in one sense, but a once in 30 year arms purchase is not really massive in the context of the other actual problems to be solved). Also a lack of immediate threats should not really be pointed to as a reason not to have contingencies - The capabilities both help eliminate threats from emerging and are unlikely to be able to be generated on demand if threats do occur.

You don't ignore the snake just because a tiger is eyeing you off, as an acquaintance used to say.

A different aspect of social justice:

Theft of sausage and cheese by hungry homeless man 'not a crime' (Guardian)

The supreme court has established a sacrosanct principle: a small theft because of hunger is in no way comparable to an act of delinquency, because the need to feed justifies the fact...

the real offence was caused by the state because of its abandonment of the poor...

Rediscovering nonviolence in the Vatican

The best kept secret of the Catholic Church—its social teachings

The Feast of Pentecost. I was reflecting today on war and peace, something we reflect on often here in South Sudan as we are still in the midst of a war, albeit one which is hopefully drawing to a close now. My thoughts turned again to the nonviolence conference in Rome, and to this LT thread.

From about >119 hf22: onwards, there is a suggestion that the current exploration and evolution of Catholic thought on war and nonviolence is driven by ideology, also described in terms of ideological madness and evil.

It suddenly occurred to me what should have been blindingly obvious to me from the start, that the thinking on nonviolence and the shift from "just war" toward "just peace" is being driven not by ideology, not by armchair theorists, but by praxis, by people on the ground in war zones, people who are actually experiencing war firsthand. Most of the people at the conference, including myself, were from active or recently-active war zones.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for disagreement, but I think the suggestion that people are simply pushing an ideological agenda is misplaced.

Catholic social teachings call to the dignity of creation (NCR)

>150 John5918:

If you do not wish to push ideological agenda, stop trying to avoid addressing hard cases and inconvenient facts.

And ideological agendas can be formed in many places. Incomprehensible experiences which need to be given story and meaning are far from the least of these sources#. Pointing to personal experience does not acquit us of ideology. Its limits are of course the root of most of our prejudices after all.

# It has been said of ideology that it is "most distinctively maps of problematic socal reality ... which attempt to render otherwise incomprehensible socal situations meaningful, to so construe them as to make it possible to act purposefully within them" (Clifford Geertz).

>150 John5918:

Just to show you what I mean, I might give an example which goes the other way. I once met a Victoria Cross winner, Ben Roberts-Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roberts-Smith), after a function at which he spoke. The man is truly impressive. Convinced me for all time that Hector and Achilles are totally plausible characters, up to and including everyone thinking they must be children of the gods. Not to mention the force of Samuel Johnson's quote that "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier", at least when one compares oneself to such as him.

And he has an ethos, of honour and duty, which seems to have been almost entirely forged out of the need to make sense of his own deeply personal experiences in horrifically violent circumstances.

And he was deeply impressive, and his ethos was deeply impressive, and he is very far from a pacifist. However his ethos formed from praxis also seemed to choose to ignore reality to the extent it did not help him deal with his own experience of war. Like amongst other things being absolutely sure, now and when he charged multiple machine gun posts, that his young daughters would never have been able to forgive him, even look him in the eye, if he had not been a man who could charge multiple machine gun posts despite it being almost suicidal.

Praxis formation does not stop us from having ideological blind spots. Rather it causes us to have them.

What Happens When You Replace a Just War With a Just Peace (Foreign Policy)

Can the Catholic Church put an end to centuries of sanctioning war, and start promoting peace instead?

On the Vatican Conference and Just Peace (Catholic Moral Theology)

Yet, one thing surprised me and is instructive. Those living in violent conflict zones, mostly all in the global south, were all in support as far as I could tell of the Catholic Church focusing on nonviolence and just peace, and no longer using just war theory. After such an encounter, it was only a few of those in Europe or the U.S. who were more resistant to letting go of just war theory.

>154 John5918:

The first explicitly avoids what needs to be addressed - Rather than getting bogged down in debates over whether military force to save the Yazidis is justified (a debate that would likely prove to be unnecessarily divisive), the church should call for nonviolent, nonmilitary options to confront violent extremism.

And you don't get to avoid the hard cases which undermine your framework. So not morally useful.

>155 John5918:

And the second at least owns the hard cases, but in doing so fails the test Christ set in the parable of the Good Samaritan, and thus counsels evil in the guise of moral purity:

If governments or the U.N. decide for military action in such genuine atrocity cases, the Church’s role is less about condemning those persons who took such action. Instead, the Church’s role is to clearly name such a response of violent action as a tragedy, a failure on the way of just peace, as well as inconsistent with human dignity and a culture of human rights for all.

So instead of advocating necessary assistance be provided to those suffering atrocities, the author calls us bemoan the fact they will be helped, so that his purity will not be contaminated. This is the way of the priest and Levite who left the traveller to die rather than comprise their own purity, and not the way of Christ who would have us get dirty to help the suffering.

So evil and requiring rejection.

Kenya: I was a stranger and you welcomed me (JRS)

It references Catholic Social Teaching On Immigration And The Movement Of Peoples (USCCB).

Peacemaking is a transformation of the imagination (NCR)

Religious freedom in crisis around the world (NCR)

Religious conflicts are rarely purely theological. Often they are also fights over resources and political power by tribal or ethnic groups. What begins as a political fight or a dispute over water, land, oil, or other resources can explode beyond control if the disputants are from different religious groups. Political leaders who add religion to the mix are pouring gasoline onto a fire that had already been started.

A Memorial Day reflection from Daniel Berrigan, America's late peace-priest (NCR)

The cardinal said the Vietnam War was a just war. The Berrigans said, "No war is just."

>160 John5918:

And they were both wrong.

Subversive peacemaking' theme at Pax Christi conference (Ekklesia)

'Subversive Peacemakers – from the First World War to today'

Another reflection on the Rome nonviolence conference:

Quilting Peace

Just one small example of the many creative nonviolent initiatives which are going on:

Iraqi Businessman Rescues Yazidi Girls from ISIS (Aleteia)

>164 John5918:

There is nothing in the article to suggest the activities are, in fact, non violent. Nor is smuggling in that part of the world generally a non violent occupation.

Interesting reflection in the Grauniad:

Pacifists can opt out of war. So why can’t their taxes do the same?

How humankind is one - ″Humani generis unitas″: the Catholic teaching for the third millennium

(From the German section of Pax Christi, September 2015, recently translated into English and several other languages)

Pope says Church should ask forgiveness from gays for past treatment (Reuters)

Although the headline focuses on gays, Francis also speaks more broadly:

"I think that the Church not only should apologise ... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by (being forced to) work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons..."

"We Christians have to apologise for so many things, not just for this (treatment of gays) but we must ask for forgiveness, not just apologise! Forgiveness! Lord, it is a word we forget so often!"...

The pope did not elaborate on what he meant by seeking forgiveness for the Church "having blessed so many weapons," but it appeared to be a reference to some Churchmen who actively backed wars in the past...

Pope Francis says there’s no military solution in Syria (Crux)

Interesting that one of the key findings of the UK's Chilcot report, released today, is that the war against Iraq in 2003 was not a "last resort". This echoes warnings issued by Pope Saint John Paul II at the time.

Imprisoned war resister rooted in Catholic faith (NCR)

God can guide us, even in the midst of tragedies (NCR)

OFM Study Guide - THE CRY OF THE EARTH AND THE CRIES OF THE POOR

http://www.ofm.org/ofm/?p=11174&lang=en

POPE FRANCIS ANNOUNCES NEW SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT (Tablet)

Pope announces new super-dicastery (Global Pulse)

Jesus and ‘Just War?’ Time to Focus on Just Peace and Gospel Nonviolence (Huffington Post)

NB: I was a participant in the Vatican conference to which this article refers.

Death penalty 'does not fulfill justice,' say Texas Catholic bishops (NCR)

Social Justice Is a Christian Tradition — Not a Liberal Agenda (Sojourners)

Statement on a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence

Issued by a Pax Christi International Conference of African member organisations in Johannesburg, 5-9 December 2016, under the theme "Nonviolence in Africa: Creating a Future of Hope"

http://www.paxchristi.net/sites/default/files/final_conference_statement_press.p... (English)

Déclaration pour une culture de paix et de non-violence, http://www.paxchristi.net/sites/default/files/final_conference_statement_french.... (French)

See a separate thread for MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE FIFTIETH WORLD DAY OF PEACE - Nonviolence: a Style of Politics for Peace

I'm very taken with today's meditation from Richard Rohr, and I think it speaks well to Catholic Social Thought. I quote it almost in full:

As I see it, religion is at its best when it leads us forward, when it guides us in our spiritual growth as individuals and in our cultural evolution as a species. —Brian McLaren {1}

Yes, we live in very troubling times; and we are fortunate to be alive now when we have so much possibility for growth in love. Many say we are in the midst of a spiritual awakening. Theologian Harvey Cox calls it the Age of the Spirit. He writes: “Faith is resurgent, while dogma is dying. The spiritual, communal, and justice-seeking dimensions of Christianity are now its leading edge. . . . A religion based on subscribing to mandatory beliefs is no longer viable.” {2}

There is a wide and multi-textured resurgence of the older and essential contemplative tradition. Many are returning to our mystical roots. Science has become one of religion’s best friends as it often validates the consistent intuitions of the mystics. Neuroscience helps us understand how our mind works and the impact of meditation and prayer. Critical biblical scholarship now has the help of anthropology, sociology, history, and archaeology.

There is a broad awareness that Jesus was clearly teaching non-violence, simplicity of lifestyle, peacemaking, love of creation, and dying to the ego for both individuals and groups by offering a radical social critique to the systems of domination, power, and money. There’s a growing recognition that Jesus was concerned about the transformation of real persons and human society here on earth. Christianity is meant to be a loving way of life now, not just a system of beliefs and requirements that people hope will earn them a later reward in heaven. There is a new appreciation for “many gifts and ministries” (1 Corinthians 12), “together making a unity in the work of service” (Ephesians 4) instead of concentrating power and knowledge in a top tier of male leadership.

Spiritual globalization is allowing churches worldwide to benefit from these breakthroughs at approximately the same time, which of itself is a new kind of reformation! The internet has opened up possibilities for learning, connecting, and networking with faith-filled, committed, loving people all over the world. As Brian McLaren says, now “we can migrate from organized religion to organizing religion—that is, religion organizing for the common good.” {3}

Christian denominations and world religions are realizing they are more alike than different. Consciousness is evolving. Christian theologians are predicting that this century will open up Trinitarian and practice-based spirituality, with a focus on the Holy Spirit, which many call “the forgotten member of the Trinity.” And we have a pope in Francis who is truly a man of the Gospel instead of a mere church man, someone at the top who genuinely cares about those at the bottom and our precious common home, the earth.

Of course, when there’s movement forward, there’s always pushback. But that’s just a call for more action steeped in prayer.

References:

1. Brian D. McLaren, The Great Spiritual Migration: How the World’s Largest Religion Is Seeking a Better Way to Be Christian (Convergent: 2016), xi.
2. Harvey Cox, The Future of Faith: The Rise and Fall of Beliefs and the Age of the Spirit (HarperOne: 2009), 5-6.
3. McLaren, The Great Spiritual Migration, 14.

Catholic health officials to GOP: proceed with caution on Affordable Care Act repeal
https://www.ncronline.org/news/politics/catholic-health-officials-gop-proceed-ca...

Interesting that House Speaker Paul Ryan is taking some pushback from Catholics during August recess. Protesters protested outside his church in support of DACA ("dreamers") and against white supremacists. The priest was given advance notice and Ryan was a no-show. Apparently he is not available to them in DC. The group next planned to be at his Town Hall.

WATCH: Group protests outside Paul Ryan's church calling for him to protect immigrant program
Jonah Beleckis | Sunday, August 20, 2017
http://www.gazettextra.com/20170820/watch_group_protests_outside_paul_ryans_chur...

___________________________________________________

I recall Ryan doing some soul-searching re poor after Pope's visit to US, but reset, if any, didn't last?

..In another notable exchange, a Dominican nun, Sister Erica Jordan, asked Paul how he squares his Catholic faith with his and his party's laissez-faire policies of cutting taxes, social services, and health care support. Ryan said he wants to help the poor, and he thinks the best way to do that is by promoting "upward mobility and economic growth." The "war on poverty" has largely failed, he said. Jordan did not look terribly impressed...
http://theweek.com/speedreads/719817/paul-ryan-praises-trumps-afghanistan-war-sp...

___________________________________________________

James J. Martin SJ, American Jesuit priest, writer, and editor-at-large of the Jesuit magazine America, commented in a tweet:

Great question from her. Terrible answer from him. Catholic social teaching means programs that lift the poor first, not as an afterthought.
-James Martin, SJ‏Verified account @JamesMartinSJ 8h8 hours ago

Bishop tells court Plowshares action is rooted in Catholic teaching (NCR)

The seven Catholic peacemakers who entered a naval base to symbolically dismantle nuclear weapons-armed submarines acted from the primacy of conscience rooted in their faith, the bishop of Jackson, Mississippi, told a Georgia court...

their actions were consistent with long-standing Catholic teaching about the sinfulness of nuclear weapons...

Kopacz cited the U.S. Catholic bishops' 1983 pastoral letter on peace and nuclear weapons, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response...

Jewish economist says Catholic social teaching is his moral compass (NCR)

Jeffrey Sachs

'On 4-5 April, the Vatican's Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development and Pax Christi International's Catholic Nonviolence Initiative organised a workshop on the theme, "Path of Nonviolence: Towards a Culture of Peace."

With a consideration and understanding of current situations of conflict and violence, participants engaged in dialogue about the roots of violence, the hope for peace and reconciliation, and reflected on paths to a conversion to nonviolence. They noted that nonviolence is not only a method but a way of life, a way to protect and care for the conditions of life for today and tomorrow...'

Link to press release

I had the privilege of participating in this consultation amongst participants from Mexico, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Brazil, Canada, the United States, Uganda, Philippines, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Fiji, South Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Palestine, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, including Bishops, Archbishops, peace practitioners, theologians, social scientists, educators and those in pastoral ministry, along with the Dicastery's Prefect Cardinal Peter Turkson (Ghana) and Cardinal Joseph Tobin (Newark, New Jersey, USA).

Vatican's second conference on nonviolence renews hope for encyclical (NCR)

it "would be helpful if the magisterium and the pope move toward a much fuller mainstreaming of the concept of nonviolence as an active force in the world as the central Christian response to elements of armed conflict and military engagement"...

a papal encyclical on nonviolence would bring the concept "from the periphery of Catholic thought on war and peace to the center, mainstreaming nonviolence as a spirituality, lifestyle, a program of societal action and a universal ethic"...

The April event was the second of its kind, following a 2016 meeting at the Vatican that reevaluated the church's long-held teachings on just war theory, a tradition that uses a series of criteria to evaluate whether use of violence can be considered morally justifiable.

A number of theologians have criticized continued use of the theory in modern times, saying that both the powerful capabilities of modern weapons and evidence of the effectiveness of nonviolent campaigns make it outdated...

Pope demands respect for Geneva Conventions as anniversary looms (Crux)

Often an outspoken champion for the protection of the most vulnerable, Pope Francis on Sunday issued an appeal for the international community to adhere to legal protections for civilians and prisoners of war outlined in the Geneva Conventions, the 70th anniversary of which falls on Monday...

>186 John5918:

The final statement of the April 2019 nonviolence conference, entitled Nonviolence nurtures hope, can renew the Church took a while to get published, but it is now available here.

I came back to this topic to check something for somebody, re-read the whole thread, and realised there's some quite interesting conversations on it.

There were some negative comments on Tanzania back amongst the posts in the twenties and thirties above, so this article might be of interest:

Tanzania has what it takes to be ‘African economic giant’ (The Africa Report)

East Africa’s sleeping giant is finally awakening. Right in the middle of the global Coronavirus pandemic, Tanzania has provided a rare piece of good news — on 1 July 2020, the country achieved its middle-income vision five years ahead of schedule...

Reporting on Africa tends to swing between two extremes: Africa is either a hopeless basket case or a rising continent. What is often conspicuously lacking is a more nuanced analysis of the unspectacular progress that is being made. Tanzania’s case shows that no country is pre-ordained to remain underdeveloped.

Tanzania is potentially an African economic giant due to what I call its unique characteristics — strategic location, diverse resources, and political stability. Perhaps most crucially, the country has enjoyed decades of political stability, with hardly any of the conflicts that have affected almost all its neighbours since independence in the 1960s...

Another document has just crossed my desk, in connection with the Catholic Nonviolence Initiative, which nicely summarises Catholic Social Thought as follows:

a. Dignity of Each Person: Every person possesses inherent dignity, and has the right to be treated with respect.

b. Participation: Every person has the right to participate in the political, economic, and cultural life of their society. Everyone has something to contribute.

c. Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable: The moral test of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable.

d. Solidarity: We recognize that we are one family, and commit to the common good.

e. Subsidiarity: Functions should be undertaken at the lowest level practicable. Local communities should be empowered.

f. Respect for the Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers: The economy must be at the service of people, and not the other way around. Workers have a right to a living wage; to productive work; to organize and form unions; and to safe working conditions.

g. Stewardship, and Care for Creation: We must exist in right relationship with all of creation. We must sustain and strengthen, and not exploit or abuse, God’s creation.

I would add Promotion of Peace to these seven.

A new book on peacebuilding and Catholic Social Thought. I haven't read it, and it looks pretty expensive for me, even on Amazon.

Peacebuilding and Catholic Social Teaching by Theodora Hawksley (no Touchstone yet)

Description

The Roman Catholic Church, with its global reach, centralized organization, and more than 1.4 billion members, could be one of the world’s most significant forces in global peacemaking, and yet its robust tradition of social teaching on peace is not widely known. In Peacebuilding and Catholic Social Teaching, Theodora Hawksley aims to make that tradition better known and understood, and to encourage its continued development in light of the lived experience of Catholics engaged in peacebuilding and conflict transformation worldwide.

The first part of this book analyzes the development of Catholic social teaching on peace from the time of the early Church fathers to the present, drawing attention to points of tension and areas in need of development. The second part engages in constructive theological work, exploring how the existing tradition might develop in order to support the efforts of Catholic peacebuilders and respond to the distinctive challenges of contemporary conflict.

Peacebuilding and Catholic Social Teaching is one of the first scholarly monographs dedicated exclusively to theology, ethics, and peacebuilding. It will appeal to students and academics who specialize in Catholic social teaching and peacebuilding, to practitioners of Catholic peacebuilding, and to anyone with an interest in religion and peacebuilding more generally.

The Catholic Church and Peacebuilding: Bridging the Gap Between People Power and Peace Processes (YouTube)

I always prefer to read texts rather than to watch videos, but in these pandemical times I suppose we have to get used to webinars and the like, and this is an interesting panel presentation under the auspices of the US Institute of Peace. I know three of the participants personally, Marie, Scott and Maria, and have worked with them, and I met Bishop Robert at a nonviolence conference in Rome a couple of years back.

Today's reflection from Richard Rohr

Jesus’ Social Program

Jesus does not directly attack the religious and institutional sin systems of his time until his final action against the money changers in the temple (see Matthew 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46). Because of this, Jesus’ primary social justice critique and action are often a disappointment to most radicals and social activists. Jesus’ social program, as far as I can see, is a quiet refusal to participate in almost all external power structures or domination systems. His primary action is a very simple lifestyle, which kept him from being constantly co-opted by those very structures, which I (and Paul) would call the “sin system.”

Jesus seems to have avoided the monetary system as much as possible by using “a common purse” (John 12:6; 13:29). His three-year ministry, in effect, offers free healing and healthcare for any who want them. He consistently treats women with a dignity and equality that is almost unknown in an entirely patriarchal culture. At the end of his life, he surrenders to the punitive systems of both empire and religion by letting them judge, torture, and murder him. He is finally a full victim of the systems that he refused to worship.

Jesus knew the destructive power of what Walter Wink wisely called the “domination system.” {1} These systems usually wield power over the poor, the defenseless, and the outsider in every culture. When he does take on the temple system directly (Mark 11:15–18), Jesus is killed within a week. Contrary to history’s interpretation of Jesus’ practice, he did not concentrate on personal, “flesh” sins nearly as much as the sins of “the world” and “the devil,” but few of us were taught to see him that way.

In fact, Jesus is always forgiving individual sinners, which was a problem for the righteous from the beginning (Luke 7:34). In contrast, I do not once see him “forgiving” the sins of systems and empires. Instead, he just makes them show themselves (Mark 5:8) and name themselves (Mark 5:9)—as did Desmond Tutu in South Africa and Martin Luther King, Jr. in America.

Significantly, Jesus says “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!” (Matthew 11:21) and “Alas for you {cultures of the} lawyers, scribes, and Pharisees” (most of Matthew 23 and Luke 11:37‒54). He didn’t warn Bill from Bethsaida, Cathy from Chorazin, or Simon the Pharisee, with whom he engages and eats (Luke 7:36–47). He laments over “Jerusalem, Jerusalem” (Luke 13:34‒35) instead of attacking Jerry from Jerusalem. Today we would call that making an “unfair generalization”; but if what I am saying here has any truth to it, maybe it is a much more truthful and fair diagnosis of the problem. It is Bethsaida and Jerusalem that should fear judgment more than Bill and Jerry! It is “Capernaum” that is to be cast into hell (Matthew 11:23), not necessarily Corey from Capernaum. How did we miss that? It is crucial in our understanding of evil as being, first of all, a social agreement.

1. Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Augsburg Fortress: 1992).

Let's Build Peace Together - Celebrating 75 years of Pax Christi International (YouTube)

75 years ago two ordinary people nurtured an extraordinary hope. Today the Pax Christi International movement is making a difference around the world...

There's a new book just out called Advancing Nonviolence and Just Peace in the Church and the World, published by Pax Christi International.

'Advancing Nonviolence and just peace in the church and the world' is the fruit of a global, participatory process facilitated from 2017-2018 by the Catholic Nonviolence Initiative (CNI), a project of Pax Christi International, to deepen Catholic understanding of and commitment to Gospel nonviolence.

This book includes biblical, theological, ethical, pastoral and strategic resources that might serve as a contribution to Catholic thought on nonviolence. It details how:

Nonviolence is a core Gospel value, constitutive of the life of faith.

Nonviolence is essential to transforming violence and injustice

Nonviolence is a universal ethic

Nonviolence is a necessary foundation for culture of peace.

Paperback ISBN: 9781784567163

It appears to be available here.

Popular movements meeting supported by Francis presents proposals for new economic system (Crux)

On Saturday two of Pope Francis’s most trusted advisors took part in the latest edition of the World Meeting of Popular Movements, which has been supported by the pope since the early days of his pontificate. The meeting brings together grassroots organizations from five continents working with the poor and marginalized, with the goal of letting them become the protagonists of their own stories...

it’s necessary to imagine an alternative system to the “globally hegemonic capitalist system,” to eradicate the “worldwide idolatry of money that structures the global economy,” to advance an economy centered “on nature, on men and women”...

Nuclear Weapons Banned: 50th Ratification of United Nations Treaty

Today, Honduras, ratified the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, agreeing with 84 other signatories and 49 other states parties to “never under any circumstance . . . develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons.” The treaty brings the force of international law to nuclear disarmament efforts...

Statement on the 75th anniversary of the United Nations: A call for its strengthening in the (post) COVID-19 era

While commemorating its own 75th anniversary, Pax Christi International issues this statement with other Catholic voices advocating for peace, justice, and human rights at the United Nations (UN). We invite you to share our message celebrating the achievements of the United Nations, while calling for Member States to strengthen the entire UN system...

Both from Pax Christi International