Will Pope Benedict's encyclical take root? Only time will tell

Now that Pope Benedict XVI's long-awaited social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), has been released, a key question arises: Will the pope's call to reform economic and social systems so they encompass broader moral values while focusing on human development be taken seriously by the world's decision-makers?

By Dennis Sadowski
Catholic News Service
Monday, July 13, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNS)—Now that Pope Benedict XVI's long-awaited social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), has been released, a key question arises: Will the pope's call to reform economic and social systems so they encompass broader moral values while focusing on human development be taken seriously by the world's decision-makers?

It just may happen, said several Catholic business leaders, social justice advocates and those involved with developing social policy.

Certainly, they concluded, there is no better time than the present—as the world struggles to overcome its deepest economic recession in nearly 80 years—to give ethical concerns greater consideration in policy decisions.

"This (the encyclical) is a message people are open to," said John Carr, executive director of the Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "The idea that business as usual, that economics as usual, that economics divorced from ethics is the way forward has taken a huge hit.

"I think almost everybody understands that what we have here is not only an economic failure but a moral failure," Carr added.

Carr's analysis is one shared across a broad cross section of American political, academic and justice networks that have conducted countless studies into how the crisis developed. Segments of the business community, particularly the financial sector, might agree, but their observations have been guarded.

Overall, however, not many professionals will admit that their actions led to the massive financial failures in what author Chuck Collins described to Catholic News Service as "a bubble economy based on casino capitalism."

"We've moved to an extreme," explained Collins, a Catholic, who co-wrote The Moral Measure of the Economy, published in 2007 by Orbis Books. "You have a value of regard for life over a focus on consumption and material happiness," he said. "We've reached this kind of zenith of a value imbalance."

Collins said he expects that Pope Benedict's message, based on common values that people around the world hold, will lead to new regulations on business practices to prevent recent abuses in the financial markets from occurring again.

"Most people are hungry to live in a society that places values above individual greed and want to live in communities where human life and opportunity flourish," he said.

Catholic business owner Umberto P. Fedeli, president and CEO of the Fedeli Group, one of Ohio's largest insurance brokerage firms, was more outspoken in his comments. He said the business world can learn much from the recession that started in December 2007.

"If we treated people like we were our brother's keeper and we were more men and women for others, then we would have probably avoided a big part of this economic crisis, which has been an unfortunate moral crisis," Fedeli told CNS from his office in suburban Cleveland.

"I do business the way I want to be treated," said Fedeli, a lifelong Catholic. "You treat your associates like they're an extension of your family. You treat your customers and clients like they're your best friends. You treat your business partners and associates as a member of your extended family.

"If you do this, you wouldn't have to compromise."

Steve Hayes, senior partner and founder of the Human Capital Group Inc., a Nashville, Tenn., executive placement and leadership consulting firm, went a step further, saying that business leaders would do well to adopt Christ's example of being a servant leader.

"As a business leader, it's such a paradox because we're wired to put ourselves first and others second," he explained. "But Christ modeled that that's not the successful path.

"Until we as individuals and as leaders of families and employees and leaders of businesses really get what Christ is teaching us, I think we're always going to have the issues the pope's talking about," Hayes said.

Hayes' 9-year-old company has worked to uphold the strictest ethical standards. His firm has expanded to four other cities in Florida, Georgia and Ohio and had revenues of $2.3 million in 2008, placing it among the top 25 percent of executive placement firms in the country. He attributed his success to adhering to ethical business principles and to following the "paradox of the cross."

"That's what the pope is trying to challenge us to be, to not be me-centered, but to be other-centered," he said.

While Hayes and Fedeli have found success running their companies based on strong ethical practices, Carr acknowledged that the moral framework for a just society offered by Pope Benedict in "Charity in Truth" will not be easy to implement.

But that does not mean people should ever stop trying. Just ask Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobby, which for 38 years has promoted legislation and policies in Congress to ensure a more equitable world.

"(The encyclical) is not a call to religious conversion," Sister Simone, a Sister of Social Service, told CNS. "It's a call to economic reality.... It's a very pragmatic, eyes-wide-open approach that gives it greater resonance in the public forum."

In the real world, the pope's call to action can lead to needed steps that most people can agree upon, said author Collins, who also directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies. He called for new measures to gauge human progress, much like the Dow Jones industrial average measures the ups and downs of the economy.

"We have to have indicators that actually measure the flourishing of human life and this should be as important as the Dow Jones," he said.

People of faith, led by the hope that God promises, can lead the way in such reforms, the USCCB's Carr said.

"The crisis has created a moment that could lead to conversion," he said. "And we're in the conversion business. We're in the persuasion business.

"It is a countercultural message. And guess what? The culture we got isn't working, so maybe we're onto something."

Charity in Truth is Pope Benedict's third encyclical
Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), released July 7, is his third encyclical since the beginning of his pontificate in April 2005.

The previous encyclicals have been:
- Deus Caritas Est (God Is Love), Jan. 25, 2006.
- Spe Salvi (On Christian hope), Nov. 30, 2007.
- Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), July 13, 2008.

DIGNITAS PERSONAE

Dignitas Personae is the title of a 2008 instruction by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith giving doctrinal directives on certain embryonic ethical controversies that had emerged since 1987, after Donum Vitae was released.

The document takes a critical stance against selective reduction, prenatal diagnosis, preimplantation diagnosis, in vitro fertilization, cryopreservation‎, parahumans, embryo transfer, genetic engineering, embryo donation , which have been criticized as unethical by pro-life ethicists because they provoke the termination of embryonic cell reproduction.

The doctrinal material is not only addressed to Catholic couples, but also to pharmacists, doctors, ethicists, theologians, politicians and industrialists so that they may try and tackle these issues together. Other related documents, such as Humanae Vitae, were also written for a wide variedy of individuals and specialists on the matter.

Dignitas Personae also reiterates Church opposition to contraception and abortion, mentioning new methods of birth control such as female condoms and the morning-after pill.

DIGNITAS PERSONAE

DIGNITAS PERSONAE (PDF)

Vatican Summary of the Instruction of DIGNITAS PERSONAE

DIGNITAS PERSONAE Q&A

"Child Rights" Forces Mobilize

From ParentalRights.org

Dear Supporter of Parental Rights,

Three major developments—all of them ominous—have occurred in the last several days.

1. On June 1 and 2, Georgetown University Law School hosted a two-day symposium entitled “The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): Why It Is Time to Ratify.”

This well-funded conference was held to organize a new coalition effort by American internationalists to seek ratification of the UN child’s rights treaty.

2. In the second week of June, a major study was released by the British education ministry calling for dramatically dangerous increases in the regulation of homeschoolers in that nation.

This study concludes that the UN CRC requires that the government enter every homeschooling home and privately interview each homeschooling child to determine “the child’s wishes” regarding his or her education.

3. On June 17, at the UN headquarters in Geneva, the UN’s Human Rights Committee—which oversees all human rights treaties—announced that it was forming a committee to draft a new “protocol” for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under this new addition to the CRC, individual children would be able to file a formal legal complaint if they believe that their rights had been violated. It would give this new international tribunal the right to determine if the child’s treaty rights had been violated by any person.

The internationalists believe that this is their moment in history.

They have millions of dollars in their coffers. They have the support of the media. They have the powers of government. They have the entire apparatus of the United Nations.

We have some assets as well.

Our arguments resonate with the American people—the vast majority of Americans believe that Americans should make our own domestic laws and that parents, not government, should make decisions for children.

Leaders at the Georgetown conference publicly admitted that logic and facts will not defeat our arguments. What do they plan to do?

They plan to use emotional arguments. They said so in open public sessions.

At the Georgetown conference, the UN officials and other foreign experts were constantly censored by their American handlers. Why? Because these foreign experts acknowledge that this treaty would be supreme over American law.

The American child’s rights propaganda machine denies that we would forfeit American sovereignty—even though they do not have the legal arguments to back their rhetoric. They did everything they could to silence their guest speakers when they strayed from the sanitized version of their message.

We are in a race. It is a race for the future of the American family and American self-government.

The question is: Will the lies of the internationalists be heard by more Americans than the truth of those who believe in families?

I wish that I could look each person reading this right in the eyes. It is incredibly difficult for written words to explain how serious this situation really is.

The real battle is being fought right now. Our opponents are preparing for a vote in the Senate sometime ahead—as soon as they feel they have laid the groundwork for victory.

Because the internationalists possess the reins of government, have millions of dollars at their disposal, and have powerful allies in the mainstream media, they can build momentum much faster than we are able to do.

We have to get our message out to others and we have to do it today.

I have been leading grassroots political efforts for over thirty years. Without any fear of contradiction, I can tell you that we are going to win or lose the battle over the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the next few months. The key to victory lies in the stage of preparation.

Will we have adequate preparation to win?

The annual budget of Parentalrights.org is less than $500,000. They have millions and millions of dollars at their disposal.

We must raise money right now to employ professionals who can help us get our message out in the media.

We must also raise money right now to employ experienced people to work the halls of Capitol Hill on our behalf.

I cannot do these things alone. We have to have a quality team if we expect to stop the combined power of Geneva, New York, and Washington.

This is the time to decide whether you are willing to take meaningful action.

There are just two tangible things I would ask you to do.

1. Give a gift of $10 or more right now to parentalright.org (PRO). Membership in PRO is just $25 a year. Sustaining membership is just $100. We have to raise a substantial amount of cash or we simply cannot keep up.

2. Please recruit at least three other people to sign up for our online email alerts. We have over 100,000 people who are a part of this team. We need to get to 4,000,000 supporters before the battle starts. We have to dramatically pick-up the pace of recruiting people if we are going to have any hope of beating the other side in the greatest grassroots battle in American history. We need to be doubling our numbers every couple months to get our team in place.

You are the best recruiters we have. Please pick up your phone right now and call a friend and tell them that they need to read the email you are about to send them and that you really need them to become part of the team. This kind of personal attention will work.

In less than two years, American social workers may be in a position to inform all our children that if they have any conflict with their parents over any decisions at all then they can file a formal complaint in an American court to vindicate their international rights. And ultimately, once this new protocol is in place, if they don’t like the outcome from the American courts, there will be a new UN tribunal to hear their complaint.

Moms and dads, we have to get ready. The battle for American liberty is about to begin.

Michael Farris

Amercians swap early and often

From the Pew Forum and The Examiner

By: ERIC GORSKI
Associated Press
06/20/09

The U.S. is a nation of religious drifters, with about half of adults restlessly switching faith affiliation at least once during their lives, a new survey has found.

And the reasons behind all the swapping depend greatly on whether one grows up kneeling at Roman Catholic Mass, praying in a Protestant pew or occupied with nonreligious pursuits, according to a report issued Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

While Catholics are more likely to leave the church because they stopped believing its teachings, many Protestants are driven to trade one Protestant denomination or affiliation for another because of changed life circumstances, the survey found.

The ranks of those unaffiliated with any religion, meanwhile, are growing not so much because of a lack of religious belief but because of disenchantment with religious leaders and institutions.

The report estimates that between 47 percent and 59 percent of U.S. adults have changed affiliation at least once. Most described just gradually drifting away from their childhood faith.

"This shows a sort of religion a la carte and how pervasive it is," said D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist of religion. "In some ways, it's an indictment of organized Christianity. It suggests there's a big open door for newcomers, but a wide back door where people are leaving."

The report, "Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S.," sought to answer questions about widespread religion-changing identified in a 2007 Pew survey of 35,000 Americans.

The new report, based on re-interviews with more than 2,800 people from the original survey, focuses on religious populations that showed a lot of movement: ex-Catholics, ex-Protestants, Protestants who've swapped denominational families within Protestantism and people raised unaffiliated who now belong to a faith.

The 2007 survey estimated that 44 percent of U.S. adults had left their childhood religious affiliation.

But the re-interviews found the extent of religion-swapping is likely much greater. The new survey revealed that one in six Americans who belong to their childhood faith are "reverts" — people who left the faith, only to return later.

Roughly two-thirds of those raised Catholic or Protestant who now claim no religious affiliation say they have changed faiths at least twice. Thirty-two percent of unaffiliated ex-Protestants said they've changed three times or more.

Age is another factor. Most people who left their childhood faith did so before turning 24, and a majority joined their current religion before 36.

"If people want to see a truly free market at work, they really should look at the U.S. religious marketplace," said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Sixteen percent of U.S. adults identified as unaffiliated in the 2007 survey; 7 percent of Americans described being raised unaffiliated, suggesting that many Americans end up leaving their religion for none.

About half of those who have become unaffiliated cited a belief that religious people are hypocritical, judgmental or insincere. Large numbers said they think religious organizations focus too much on rules, or that religious leaders are too focused on money and power.

John Green, a University of Akron political scientist and a senior fellow with the Pew Forum, classified most unaffiliated as "dissatisfied consumers." Only 4 percent identify as atheist or agnostic, and one-third say they just haven't found the right religion.

"A lot of the unaffiliated seem to be OK with religion in the abstract," Green said. "It's just the religion they were involved in bothered them or they disagreed with it."

The unaffiliated category is not just a destination. It's also a departure point: a slight majority of those raised unaffiliated eventually join a faith tradition.

Those who do cite several reasons: attraction of religious services and worship (74 percent), feeling unfulfilled spiritually (51 percent) or feeling called by God (55 percent).

The survey found that Catholicism has suffered the greatest net loss in all the religion switching. Nearly six in ten former Catholics who are now unaffiliated say they left Catholicism due to dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings on abortion and homosexuality. About half cited concerns about Catholic teachings on birth control and roughly four in ten named unhappiness with Catholicism's treatment of women.

Converts to evangelicalism were more likely to cite their belief that Catholicism didn't take the Bible literally enough, while mainline Protestants focused more on the treatment of women.

Fewer than three in 10 former Catholics cited the clergy sexual abuse scandal as a factor — a finding that Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl cited as an example of the faith's resilience.

"Catholics can separate the sins and human failings of individuals from the substance of the faith," Wuerl said in a statement.

Wuerl noted a finding that getting teenagers to weekly Mass greatly improves their chances of staying in the fold; the same holds true for Protestant teens attending services.

The survey found that 15 percent of Americans were raised as Protestants but now belong to a different Protestant tradition than their upbringing. Nearly four in 10 cited a move to a new community, while one-third said they married someone from a different background.

_____

On the Net: http://www.pewforum.org

Bioethics and the Myth of Relativism

From Zenit

Interview with Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk

By Giovanni Patriarca

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, JUNE 17, 2009 (Zenit.org).- A neuroscientist and ethicist is underlining the need to base bioethics in moral principles, and is affirming that even people who profess relativism count on certain absolutes in life.

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk is the director of education at the Philadelphia-based National Catholic Bioethics Center. He writes a monthly column for The Catholic Herald titled "Making Sense out of Bioethics."

In this interview with ZENIT, he discusses some of the need to base bioethics in absolute moral principles in light of recent events related to his field.

ZENIT: In recent years bioethics seems to have become a battleground where many interest groups try to impose their political views separated from any consideration of the field's moral foundations. The 2005 U.N. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights could be considered a starting point, but it leaves some questions unanswered. Where is bioethics going in such a globalised world?

Father Pacholczyk: The declaration is, in my opinion, sufficiently vague as to be largely unhelpful when it comes to addressing challenging bioethical discussions and approaching serious moments of decision making.

The final line of the declaration speaks of how no one should be allowed to "engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity," but it does not specify any of these broad ideas in an applied or meaningful way.

In my own work, when it comes to fundamental human rights, perhaps the most obvious instance would be the fundamental rights of the human embryo, the youngest member of our human family.

Yet the word "embryo" is not ever mentioned in the declaration. I worry that much of our modern bioethical discourse simply "talks around" the key issues.

ZENIT: Recently in the United States, human embryonic stem cell research has been promoted by new federal funding, and the media reports that this has divided the public. What is the position of the Catholic Church in such a delicate moment?

Father Pacholczyk: The Catholic Church in this delicate moment, as in every moment, expounds and authoritatively teaches the natural law.

The moral truth about human embryonic stem cell research can be known by the light of natural reason.

The issue is a matter of basic human rights. I sometimes remind people that each of us is merely an embryo who grew up.

Once we grasp this basic biological fact correctly, and once we see the truth of the proposition that all are created equal, that all deserve equal protection under the law, human embryonic stem cell research, insofar as it requires the destruction of embryos, can be seen for what it is: an action that is always and everywhere immoral.

ZENIT: Can the field of bioethics survive without moral absolutes or does it face the possibility of remaining persistently adrift?

Father Pacholczyk: Moral absolutes form the bedrock of society and are a sine qua non for its just ordering.

Moral absolutes also stand at the root of all sound bioethics. The proclamation that "there are no moral absolutes by which we are bound" is itself an absolutist moral statement.

Interestingly, nobody really believes in moral relativism today anyway; they simply believe that when it comes to absolute morality, they themselves must be the arbiters of what is moral and what is not.

I have never met anyone who didn't insist on moral absolutes of some kind. Even those of the most liberal-minded, relativist stripe will, when pushed, insist that certain actions are absolutely wrong, whether it is polluting and causing global warming, killing polar bears, or threatening the South American rainforests.

When it comes to killing young humans in the womb, these same liberal-minded individuals will paradoxically insist that everybody should be free to choose to do whatever they want, although such radical freedom of choice will be summarily denied by them to anyone who might wish to take the lives of pandas or dolphins.

In other words, they exercise a selective absolutism, where they are the ones to decide, often based on unexamined sentiment, those matters that are to be held as absolutely wrong. Their own myopic version of the truth, which is really only a partial and incomplete image of it, becomes a kind of central focus and obsession for them.

--- --- ---

On the Net:

National Catholic Bioethics Center

Farewell to the Rapture

An article written in 2001 by N.T. Wright

Little did Paul know how his colorful metaphors for Jesus’ second coming would be misunderstood two millennia later.

The American obsession with the second coming of Jesus — especially with distorted interpretations of it — continues unabated. Seen from my side of the Atlantic, the phenomenal success of the Left Behind books appears puzzling, even bizarre[1]. Few in the U.K. hold the belief on which the popular series of novels is based: that there will be a literal “rapture” in which believers will be snatched up to heaven, leaving empty cars crashing on freeways and kids coming home from school only to find that their parents have been taken to be with Jesus while they have been “left behind.” This pseudo-theological version of Home Alone has reportedly frightened many children into some kind of (distorted) faith.

This dramatic end-time scenario is based (wrongly, as we shall see) on Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God. The dead in Christ will rise first; then we, who are left alive, will be snatched up with them on clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

What on earth (or in heaven) did Paul mean?

It is Paul who should be credited with creating this scenario. Jesus himself, as I have argued in various books, never predicted such an event[2]. The gospel passages about “the Son of Man coming on the clouds” (Mark 13:26, 14:62, for example) are about Jesus’ vindication, his “coming” to heaven from earth. The parables about a returning king or master (for example, Luke 19:11-27) were originally about God returning to Jerusalem, not about Jesus returning to earth. This, Jesus seemed to believe, was an event within space-time history, not one that would end it forever.

The Ascension of Jesus and the Second Coming are nevertheless vital Christian doctrines[3], and I don’t deny that I believe some future event will result in the personal presence of Jesus within God’s new creation. This is taught throughout the New Testament outside the Gospels. But this event won’t in any way resemble the Left Behind account. Understanding what will happen requires a far more sophisticated cosmology than the one in which “heaven” is somewhere up there in our universe, rather than in a different dimension, a different space-time, altogether.

The New Testament, building on ancient biblical prophecy, envisages that the creator God will remake heaven and earth entirely, affirming the goodness of the old Creation but overcoming its mortality and corruptibility (e.g., Romans 8:18-27; Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 65:17, 66:22). When that happens, Jesus will appear within the resulting new world (e.g., Colossians 3:4; 1 John 3:2).

Paul’s description of Jesus’ reappearance in 1 Thessalonians 4 is a brightly colored version of what he says in two other passages, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Philippians 3:20-21: At Jesus’ “coming” or “appearing,” those who are still alive will be “changed” or “transformed” so that their mortal bodies will become incorruptible, deathless. This is all that Paul intends to say in Thessalonians, but here he borrows imagery—from biblical and political sources—to enhance his message. Little did he know how his rich metaphors would be misunderstood two millennia later.

First, Paul echoes the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the Torah. The trumpet sounds, a loud voice is heard, and after a long wait Moses comes to see what’s been going on in his absence.

Second, he echoes Daniel 7, in which “the people of the saints of the Most High” (that is, the “one like a son of man”) are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being raised up to sit with God in glory. This metaphor, applied to Jesus in the Gospels, is now applied to Christians who are suffering persecution.

Third, Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province. The citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city. Paul’s image of the people “meeting the Lord in the air” should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world.

Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth, as the Left Behind series suggests, but as a vivid and biblically allusive description of the great transformation of the present world of which he speaks elsewhere.

Paul’s misunderstood metaphors present a challenge for us: How can we reuse biblical imagery, including Paul’s, so as to clarify the truth, not distort it? And how can we do so, as he did, in such a way as to subvert the political imagery of the dominant and dehumanizing empires of our world? We might begin by asking, What view of the world is sustained, even legitimized, by the Left Behind ideology? How might it be confronted and subverted by genuinely biblical thinking? For a start, is not the Left Behind mentality in thrall to a dualistic view of reality that allows people to pollute God’s world on the grounds that it’s all going to be destroyed soon? Wouldn’t this be overturned if we recaptured Paul’s wholistic vision of God’s whole creation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Tim F. Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Left Behind (Cambridge, UK: Tyndale House Publishing, 1996). Eight other titles have followed, all runaway bestsellers.

[2] See my Jesus and the Victory of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1996); the discussions in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999); and Marcus J. Borg and N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), chapters 13 and 14.

[3] Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).

Beware the "New Compassion"

From Catholic Online

By Jennifer Hartline
6/12/2009

The new 'compassion' says that we must include and accept everyone, regardless of opinions, lifestyles, beliefs, actions or choices.

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) - I sense a growing weariness among Christians in the fierce cultural battles currently being waged, such as abortion and gay “marriage.” Does it seem like life would be so much easier if we stopped making a big deal about things and just let people do what they wanted? Live and let live, right? Isn’t that the compassionate attitude?

The accusation goes like this: if you dare to call something wrong or immoral, or if you insist that some things are inherently good and others are inherently evil and therefore should not be allowed, then you are being exclusive and insensitive, judgmental and without compassion. If you have the temerity to actually call something a sin, well, that’s the new capital offense.

With regard to the most serious moral and social issues of our day, those with an anti-Christian agenda are trying to redefine compassion -- they equate compassion with tolerance and acceptance, and it just ain’t so.

Beware the new “compassion.”

The new “compassion” says that we must include and accept everyone, regardless of their opinions or lifestyles, actions, beliefs or choices. We should simply agree to disagree, and stop being so critical. After all, doesn’t Jesus welcome everyone with open arms?

It sounds good. It sounds kind and sympathetic. It sounds loving, even. It sounds pretty convincing. But I’m not convinced.

Yes, Jesus surely did stretch His arms open wide and die for the salvation of all mankind, and absolutely no one was excluded from that sacrifice. It is for everyone who accepts it. Accepting the sacrifice means we accept the reason it was necessary in the first place: sin.

Sin is a big deal! It’s deadly, serious stuff. So deadly that only God Himself could save us from it. Let’s not forget, though, that we are still accountable for the part we can do – we have to turn our backs on sin. We are supposed to “go and sin no more.” In a word, we have to repent. God calls us to repentance, as proof of His great compassion.

Imagine how hopeless we would all be if God had merely been sympathetic toward us instead of compassionate? We would still be lost if He had been tolerant and accepting. What if He had left us to be doomed to our eternal death without any hope? After all, the screw-up was ours. He was under no obligation to rescue us from our disobedience and pride. Yet, He is a loving Father, and His children were being devoured by the beast we shook hands with.

He could not simply look on us with a sad sigh, accepting our sinfulness with tolerance. God is unchanging; holy and perfect. Sin can never stand in His presence, and He loves us far too much to ever tolerate anything that would keep us from Him.

I am unutterably grateful that God is not tolerating and accepting! This is what makes our Father so amazing! Sin was killing us, and watering it down wasn’t the answer. God dealt with sin not by making allowances for it, or making excuses for us. He didn’t lower His standards or adjust His expectations one iota. In His perfect justice He showed us compassion, and He met His own demands on our behalf.

Christ died to set us all free from sin, but we will not be free if we remain slaves to it. “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey – whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” Romans 6:16-18

Our freedom comes through repentance. That’s the point – we can’t stay where we are, making allowances, making excuses for ourselves and others, trying to be tolerant. That’s not compassion. It’s a death sentence.

This new “compassion” is a cunning trick that says each of us can decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, but don’t be fooled. It is a lie from the pit of hell because it deceives us into tolerating sin and calling evil good. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20

We’re not doing anyone any favors by denying or “fudging” the reality of sin. God tells us quite specifically that certain things are sinful, whether we like it or not. And that’s precisely the problem – a lot of people don’t like it.

The modern motto is that people should be able to live as they please without moral “imposition” from anyone else. I even hear Catholics saying the Church has no right to impose its beliefs or morality on anyone else. I strongly disagree – with the premise and the wording. The Church has every right, and more importantly, every obligation, to tell mankind of the danger of sin and the deadly consequences of indulging in it. That’s not “imposing morality.” It is the greatest demonstration of compassion.

God desires that not one of His children be lost for eternity, and His people are charged with the mission of telling the world that each of us has a choice to make. “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live…” Deut 30: 19

We must be motivated by the same love and compassion that compelled Christ to die for us. We cannot be afraid to call sin what it is. We will be scorned and called every name in the book for insisting that some things are wrong and sinful. We’ll be labeled judgmental, self-righteous and hateful. But consider this: do you leave your door unlocked and welcome the criminal who would rob your house and maybe even kill you? Satan is just such a thief. He comes to kill and destroy our souls and sin is his weapon. How, then, is it compassionate to welcome and tolerate the sin that threatens to kill?

-----
Jennifer Hartline is a Catholic Army wife and stay-at-home mother of three precious kids who writes frequently on topics of Catholic faith and daily living. She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online.

Benedict Calls on Laity to Recognize Pastoral Responsibility

From Zenit

Benedict XVI: Church Needs Change of Mentality

ROME, MAY 28, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Laypeople are not merely the clergy's collaborators, but rather share in the responsibility of the Church's ministry, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope called on the laity to become more aware of their role when he inaugurated Tuesday an ecclesial conference for the Diocese of Rome on "Church Membership and Pastoral Co-responsibility." The conference is under way through Friday.

"There should be a renewed becoming aware of our being Church and of the pastoral co-responsibility that, in the name of Christ, all of us are called to carry out," the Holy Father said. This co-responsibility should advance "respect for vocations and for the functions of consecrated persons and laypeople," he added.

The Pontiff acknowledged that this requires a "change of mentality," especially regarding laypeople, shifting from "considering themselves collaborators of the clergy to recognizing themselves truly as 'co-responsible' for the being and action of the Church, favoring the consolidation of a mature and committed laity."

The Bishop of Rome suggested that "there is still a tendency to unilaterally identify the Church with the hierarchy, forgetting the common responsibility, the common mission" of all the baptized.

"Up to what point is the pastoral responsibility of everyone, especially the laity, recognized and encouraged," he asked.

Referring to laypeople committed in the service of the Church, the Pope said there should not be "a lessening of the awareness that they are 'Church,' because Christ, the eternal Word of the Father, convokes them and makes them his People."

Benedict XVI thus asked priests to transmit to laypeople a "sense of belonging to the parish community" and the importance of unity. He further encouraged that laypeople draw close to sacred Scripture, through means such as lectio divina, and carry out missionary activity, in first place through living out charity.

The Holy Father contended that preparations for the Jubilee Year 2000 in Rome helped "the ecclesial community to enhance awareness that the command to evangelize is not just for a few, but for all the baptized."

That's how the Church has lived for generations, he added, while "so many baptized" have "dedicated their lives to educating young generations in the faith, to care for the sick and to help the poor."

"This mission is entrusted to us today, in different situations, in a city in which many baptized have lost the way of the Church and those who are not Christians do not know the beauty of our faith," the Pope stated.

On the other hand, he cautioned against a tendency to see the People of God from a "purely sociological" point of view "with an almost exclusively horizontal perspective that excludes the vertical reference to God."

The Pontiff looked at the distinction between "People of God" and "Body of Christ," affirming that both concepts "are complementary and together form the New Testament concept of the Church."

He explained: "While 'People of God' expresses the continuity of the history of the Church, 'Body of Christ' expresses the universality inaugurated on the cross and with the resurrection of the Lord."

"In Christ, we become really the People of God," which, he affirmed, means everyone, "from the Pope to the last child."

"The Church, therefore, is not the result of a sum of individuals, but a unity among those who are nourished by the Word of God and the Bread of Life," the Pontiff noted.

And the Church "grows and develops," he affirmed. "The future of Christianity and the Church of Rome is also the commitment and the testimony of each one of us."

See also APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM: DECREE ON THE APOSTOLATE OF THE LAITY

Just the beginning?

From Fox News

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

"On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county." David Jones told FOX News.

"We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all," Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," the couple's attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

For David and Mary Jones, it's about more than a question of money.

"The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion," Broyles told FOX News. "I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple bible study in their own home."

"The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved," Mary Jones said. "There are thousands and thousands of bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future."

The couple is planning to dispute the county's order this week.

If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

Relations Warms Between Russian Orthodox Church and Vatican

From the NY Times

By SOPHIA KISHKOVSKY
Published: May 22, 2009

MOSCOW — Festivities in Rome this weekend for the dedication of an Orthodox church on the grounds of the Russian Embassy near the Vatican attest to a surprising but marked warming of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Vatican in recent months, according to church officials and analysts.

If trends hold true, they add, a meeting of the pope and the patriarch of the Orthodox Church in Russia may be close. Whether even that could begin to overcome the centuries-old hatred surrounding the two churches’ conflicting authority over Christians is another question.

To mark the dedication Sunday of the Church of St. Catherine the Great Martyr, Orthodox clergy will conduct a prayer service Saturday at the Church of San Clemente, and the choir of the Danilov Monastery, the seat of the Moscow Patriarchate, will sing in a Roman basilica.

Pope John Paul II long dreamed of visiting Russia and mending relations with its Orthodox church, the world’s largest. But the pope’s Polish origins apparently heightened the suspicions of Russian church leaders about his intent, and he was neither invited to Russia nor able to overcome tensions about the Uniate Church, which follows the Eastern rite but is loyal to Rome, and Catholic priests prosyletizing here.

After John Paul’s death, and the election in January of Patriarch Kirill as the new head of the Russian Orthodox Church, relations have warmed.

In March, Pope Benedict XVI, a German, sent a message to a ceremony in Bari, Italy, where the Italian government handed back to Russia a church and pilgrimage center built in the czarist era.

“How could we not recognize that this beautiful church awakens in us the nostalgia for full unity and maintains alive in us the commitment to work for union among all the disciples of Christ,” Benedict wrote.

Reflecting Russia’s geopolitical dance with Europe, the Moscow Patriarchate has found common ground with Benedict, and since Patriarch Kirill was enthroned, he has appointed church officials who portray the pope as a like-minded man of the church, not politics.

“This pope, in contrast to the previous one, doesn’t strive to always be politically correct,” said Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, an Oxford-educated theologian who was until recently the Russian Orthodox Bishop of Vienna and Austria and the Russian Church’s representative to European institutions. “He believes he must speak of the teachings of the Catholic church. The task of such a church figure, especially of such rank, is to clearly state the teaching of the church, even if it doesn’t correspond to contemporary standards of political correctness.”

Archbishop Hilarion was selected in March to lead the patriarchate’s Department of External Church Relations, which Patriarch Kirill headed for two decades. Both Archbishop Hilarion and the Reverend Vsevolod Chaplin, another rising church official in his early forties who heads a newly created department on church and society relations, strongly backed Benedict’s controversial comments in March that condoms are not the solution to the spread of AIDS. Their voices were among the few supporting Benedict’s stand.

From Rome come indications that Patriarch Kirill’s election represents a new chance for Russian Orthodoxy.

His predecessor, Patriarch Aleksy II, “had to work to refound the church, to set up structures, organize the clergy” after Soviet power crumbled, said Monsignor Bruno Forte, archbishop of Chieti-Vasto and a member of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. “Kirill has been handed a reborn church, so he has the strength to forge a new path.”

As Metropolitan of Smolensk in 2006, Patriarch Kirill wrote the foreword to the first Russian-language edition of Pope Benedict’s book “Introduction to Christianity,” written when he was still the theologian Joseph Ratzinger.

He wrote: “The traditionalism of Benedict XVI offers a profound view, a wise insight into the essence of things. It is my deep conviction that this must be the approach of all Christians desiring to remain loyal to the never-aging Tradition of the Ancient Church in the face of the latest in a series of onslaughts of totalitarian relativism, which we are observing today.”

Ironically, while conservative values unite the new patriarch and Benedict, Patriarch Kirill has been under attack by Russian Orthodox fundamentalists, in part for an outgoing style and presence that more readily recall John Paul II.

Tensions between Moscow and some of the world’s Orthodox churches are a stumbling block to relations with the Roman Catholic Church.

Moscow and Constantinople have been wrestling for centuries over jurisdictional issues, and with renewed vigor since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

On the issue of primacy, the Moscow Patriarchate chafes especially when the Patriarch of Constantinople is described as the leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians, and when that patriarch is compared with the pope.

The Russian Church, said Archbishop Hilarion, would like to promote the role of Orthodoxy in the European Union. “Now several Orthodox states are part of the European Union,” he said, alluding to Bulgaria, Romania and Greece.

All this has experts saying that a meeting of pope and patriarch is now much more likely, if hard to predict. “Patriarch Kirill is unpredictable,” said Aleksei Yudin, a member of the editorial board of the Russian Catholic Encyclopedia. “He might have some powerful move. If a goal appears, he won’t be slow.”

Elisabetta Povoledo contributed reporting from Rome