The concept of a brand (mark) was invented in the Middle Ages to offer credibility to a product. It was an innovative proposition that grew inexorably in meaning and in diversity to the present day.
Yet, somewhere along the end of the 20th Century, Mkt. managers somehow forgot the very simple concept that started it all, which is to say they forgot that brands have to do with credibility and assurance of quality.
For example: if your Nike sneakers are made in the same crappy Chinese factory as their pirated copy and Hewlett Packard doesn't really make their own computers anymore, they should at least ensure their customers that they'll get what they pay for.
The same is true for companies like Microsoft and the many first line Banks the world over. They are supposed to offer support to the products and services they offer to the general populace.
Instead, it is easier obtain post-sales support from the cutthroat sellers of counterfeit products and loan-sharks then it is to deal with the "big brands". Where's the credibility in that?
When the big brands forgo their commitment with their customers, it is time to question the doctrines of brand managers.
Friday 17 December 2010
Friday 29 October 2010
Early Christmas Season?
Does anyone else find it odd that we're still in October, comming up on Haloween, and already we find Christmas decorations in every shopping centre and supermarket?
It's the tendrils of Consumerism stretching forth with the hidden message: "time to start spending again". While the world considers the survival of Mankind, Haiti fights colera, Brazil decides between authoritarianism and democracy and while we ponder the truth behind every new scandal in the Church, shouldn't we also pause a moment to think what Christmas really is?
I find it distasteful that Christmas has been turned into a purely commercial holliday. IT'S NOT! It is supposed to be the celebration of the good news of our redemption through Christ. It is Christ's birthday party. Shouldn't He receive the gifts then?
I've entered a family-wide pact not to give presents a couple of years ago, and it feels great. Instead, we work on making a joint banquet, sharing it in the family and going to mass together. We look onto ourselves and the things we have pursued througout the year, and then we vow to correct the wrongs we've perpetrated and improve on the good that we've done.
I wish governments would do so.
It's the tendrils of Consumerism stretching forth with the hidden message: "time to start spending again". While the world considers the survival of Mankind, Haiti fights colera, Brazil decides between authoritarianism and democracy and while we ponder the truth behind every new scandal in the Church, shouldn't we also pause a moment to think what Christmas really is?
I find it distasteful that Christmas has been turned into a purely commercial holliday. IT'S NOT! It is supposed to be the celebration of the good news of our redemption through Christ. It is Christ's birthday party. Shouldn't He receive the gifts then?
I've entered a family-wide pact not to give presents a couple of years ago, and it feels great. Instead, we work on making a joint banquet, sharing it in the family and going to mass together. We look onto ourselves and the things we have pursued througout the year, and then we vow to correct the wrongs we've perpetrated and improve on the good that we've done.
I wish governments would do so.
Thursday 28 October 2010
Friday 22 October 2010
On Abortion
Defining the moment of conception is the semantic excuse of lawyers and legislators. If this type of talk is to your taste, here's some objective ammunition for you:
Fertilization (biological term for conception) can be internal or external, depending on the species. Whether internal or external, it results in the fusion of gametes and completes the DNA code to generate an embryo for a living organism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conception_(biology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
For me, the naked truth is this: An abortionist is someone who does not want to bear the consequences of an act that is voluntary 98% of the time, and wants instead to impute that responsibility on the product of his sexual encounter. It is less important to understand the exact moment of conception when you realise that 1 unborn innocent pays with his/her life for the irresponsible conduct of 2 adults.
Fertilization (biological term for conception) can be internal or external, depending on the species. Whether internal or external, it results in the fusion of gametes and completes the DNA code to generate an embryo for a living organism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conception_(biology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
For me, the naked truth is this: An abortionist is someone who does not want to bear the consequences of an act that is voluntary 98% of the time, and wants instead to impute that responsibility on the product of his sexual encounter. It is less important to understand the exact moment of conception when you realise that 1 unborn innocent pays with his/her life for the irresponsible conduct of 2 adults.
Monday 18 October 2010
On BioTechnology Research
Who, in their right mind, would doubt the inherent danger of abuse of a newly developing technology by parties seeking to obtain financial gain and/or power?
I was discussing the issue with a lawyer friend, who is studying the legal implications and the existing conflicts of Biodiversity Protection laws as opposed to Human Artificial Insemination laws and the laws concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) in agriculture and cattle farming. Our talk went past the moral and ethical altercations of the subject and quickly into the sphere of the pragmatic implications.
In this day and age, it is inconceivable that any thinking person would hesitate for a millisecond to accept as truth that any new technology that had military or political application would instantly be put to use; especially one that can be researched under the banner of medical and socioeconomic development.
Such is the case of biotechnologies. The warnings that are screamed to the four winds are quickly quieted and buried under criticism from the interested parties, who in financial alignment with the secularist extremists in the general media, manage to promote carefree research in controversial fields. Those who raise red flags are instantly branded as “retrograde” or “religious fanatics” or even “anti-scientific” and “superstitious”. Yet, even scientists have to concede that they cannot fathom the ripple effects of interfering with the process of natural selection.
We, in our arrogance, allow ourselves to believe we already control the knowledge and the technology necessary to manipulate the genome of living organisms. We, who can’t see into tomorrow with sufficient clarity to foretell the weather, feel that we can account for the myriad variables involved in meddling with the Ecosystems of our faintly mapped abode, the Earth, by promoting certain desirable traits in our crops and in our cattle over those already selected by millions of years of natural selection.
It is true that we have been doing it for centuries by cross-breeding cattle and crops, and with already measurable impact on natural balance. However, it is one thing to give Nature a push and a completely different one to bypass Nature altogether. Now we are changing the DNA of certain crops and animals, and we are making new organisms that are bound to break the balance of our ecosystems beyond what's already history.
Why do we do it? We do it for money. We do it irresponsibly in order that some corporations may profit and fund presidential campaigns. We do it, claiming that we are doing it to satiate the hungry, but the fruits of the research are not aimed at that goal, are they? We do it, claiming we are healing the ill, but the cure comes at steep prices. Let’s not kid ourselves that such advancements are meant to be altruistic. We do it for money.
And in the name of profit margins and presidential campaigns, we pursue this research without sufficient pause. We don’t wait for important impact research results. We don’t give ourselves the time to evaluate whether the fact that there is something we can do with science necessarily means that we should do it. We don’t stop to think that there can be irremediable adverse impacts that could affect the very survival of the Human Race. We don’t question the inevitable possibility of abuse from parties wishing to employ these advancements in promoting social segregation or other political agendas. And then we pay for our collective folly.
I was discussing the issue with a lawyer friend, who is studying the legal implications and the existing conflicts of Biodiversity Protection laws as opposed to Human Artificial Insemination laws and the laws concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) in agriculture and cattle farming. Our talk went past the moral and ethical altercations of the subject and quickly into the sphere of the pragmatic implications.
In this day and age, it is inconceivable that any thinking person would hesitate for a millisecond to accept as truth that any new technology that had military or political application would instantly be put to use; especially one that can be researched under the banner of medical and socioeconomic development.
Such is the case of biotechnologies. The warnings that are screamed to the four winds are quickly quieted and buried under criticism from the interested parties, who in financial alignment with the secularist extremists in the general media, manage to promote carefree research in controversial fields. Those who raise red flags are instantly branded as “retrograde” or “religious fanatics” or even “anti-scientific” and “superstitious”. Yet, even scientists have to concede that they cannot fathom the ripple effects of interfering with the process of natural selection.
We, in our arrogance, allow ourselves to believe we already control the knowledge and the technology necessary to manipulate the genome of living organisms. We, who can’t see into tomorrow with sufficient clarity to foretell the weather, feel that we can account for the myriad variables involved in meddling with the Ecosystems of our faintly mapped abode, the Earth, by promoting certain desirable traits in our crops and in our cattle over those already selected by millions of years of natural selection.
It is true that we have been doing it for centuries by cross-breeding cattle and crops, and with already measurable impact on natural balance. However, it is one thing to give Nature a push and a completely different one to bypass Nature altogether. Now we are changing the DNA of certain crops and animals, and we are making new organisms that are bound to break the balance of our ecosystems beyond what's already history.
Why do we do it? We do it for money. We do it irresponsibly in order that some corporations may profit and fund presidential campaigns. We do it, claiming that we are doing it to satiate the hungry, but the fruits of the research are not aimed at that goal, are they? We do it, claiming we are healing the ill, but the cure comes at steep prices. Let’s not kid ourselves that such advancements are meant to be altruistic. We do it for money.
And in the name of profit margins and presidential campaigns, we pursue this research without sufficient pause. We don’t wait for important impact research results. We don’t give ourselves the time to evaluate whether the fact that there is something we can do with science necessarily means that we should do it. We don’t stop to think that there can be irremediable adverse impacts that could affect the very survival of the Human Race. We don’t question the inevitable possibility of abuse from parties wishing to employ these advancements in promoting social segregation or other political agendas. And then we pay for our collective folly.
Monday 11 October 2010
Considerations on Media Cover of Sex Abuse Scandals
In a world where the news media has become more reality show than news reporting, it is refreshing to hear a little bit of truth and common sense every now and again.
The following are words quoted from and address by John Thavis, Rome bureau chief of Catholic News Service, given Tuesday last, during a roundtable presentation on "Ecclesial Communion and Controversy," at the World Press Congress organized this past week by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.
"In 2001, CNS broke the story of Pope John Paul's motu proprio "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela," which reserved sex abuse cases to the doctrinal congregation, and set up strict new procedures to deal with offenders. We worked for weeks on the story, and we had to squeeze information out of Vatican officials. And this was not a "bad news" story; this was a "good news" story about the Vatican taking action, taking these sins more seriously. You would think they would want the world to know; but they didn't. Today, it's completely different. As you know, the Vatican has made so much information available about sex abuse policies and procedures that I bet there are very few in this room who have read it all. They have a Vatican Web page dedicated to the issue. The Vatican today is proactive.
In terms of information, in terms of journalism, these are hard-won battles. In recent months, as we all know, the re-emergence of the sex abuse scandal has drawn coverage by Catholic and secular media. And I think this time around, Catholic media share in the disappointment felt by bishops and the Vatican at the way the mainstream media has reported the issue. Here are some distinctive traits that I think Catholic media have brought to this coverage, traits that are often missing among secular journalists:
1. Context: Because Catholic media are familiar with what happened in 1993 or in 2002, they know the church has already responded with some very good steps and programs.
2. Time frame: Catholic media know that most cases of clerical abuse are from past decades, with very few occurring today -- something that I think most readers of newspapers still don't understand.
3. Fairness: There has been, I think, a "gotcha" mentality in efforts to somehow lay the sex abuse scandal at Pope Benedict's doorstep. Catholic journalists know that this is simply not how it happened, and that the current pope took many steps as head of the doctrinal congregation to deal with the problem. As with many things, he was methodical and determined and patient. In the eyes of some critics, perhaps too patient and deliberate. But certainly he was moving in the right direction. The portrait of Pope Benedict as an architect of cover-up is a false caricature, in my opinion.
4. Perspective: Catholic media have resisted, by and large, the trend toward hammering one big story incessantly, almost to the exclusion of anything else. For the first six months of this year, if you read a story about the Vatican in a major US newspaper, it was probably about sex abuse. This is a hallmark of the cable-news mentality that seems to have invaded every newsroom: a big story is established and then fed daily, like a beast. The essential storyline is never questioned. Details, subtleties and ambiguous information all fall by the wayside. You keep the big story going: this is the gospel of the modern mass media, I think largely for economic reasons. And fortunately, the Catholic press has managed to resist this and keep a perspective, reporting on sex abuse as a painful failure, but not as if it were the only aspect -- or even the main aspect -- of contemporary church life.
What worries me is that Catholic communicators, with all their perspective, context and fairness on the sex abuse story, have not really had much impact beyond their own limited audience. We feel frustration at times over how the mainstream media treats the church; but this frustration is often translated into a kind of closed-circuit discussion among ourselves. There's a risk of becoming too self-congratulatory. We need to ask: how well do we really communicate with the modern world, the wider world, beyond our own ecclesial borders?"
Objective and true, as a true media newsman should be. He only forgot to point out that less than 1% of reported child abuse comes from the Clergy. If only 1% of abuse is related to the priesthood, what happened to the objective reporting on the other 99%?
The following are words quoted from and address by John Thavis, Rome bureau chief of Catholic News Service, given Tuesday last, during a roundtable presentation on "Ecclesial Communion and Controversy," at the World Press Congress organized this past week by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.
"In 2001, CNS broke the story of Pope John Paul's motu proprio "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela," which reserved sex abuse cases to the doctrinal congregation, and set up strict new procedures to deal with offenders. We worked for weeks on the story, and we had to squeeze information out of Vatican officials. And this was not a "bad news" story; this was a "good news" story about the Vatican taking action, taking these sins more seriously. You would think they would want the world to know; but they didn't. Today, it's completely different. As you know, the Vatican has made so much information available about sex abuse policies and procedures that I bet there are very few in this room who have read it all. They have a Vatican Web page dedicated to the issue. The Vatican today is proactive.
In terms of information, in terms of journalism, these are hard-won battles. In recent months, as we all know, the re-emergence of the sex abuse scandal has drawn coverage by Catholic and secular media. And I think this time around, Catholic media share in the disappointment felt by bishops and the Vatican at the way the mainstream media has reported the issue. Here are some distinctive traits that I think Catholic media have brought to this coverage, traits that are often missing among secular journalists:
1. Context: Because Catholic media are familiar with what happened in 1993 or in 2002, they know the church has already responded with some very good steps and programs.
2. Time frame: Catholic media know that most cases of clerical abuse are from past decades, with very few occurring today -- something that I think most readers of newspapers still don't understand.
3. Fairness: There has been, I think, a "gotcha" mentality in efforts to somehow lay the sex abuse scandal at Pope Benedict's doorstep. Catholic journalists know that this is simply not how it happened, and that the current pope took many steps as head of the doctrinal congregation to deal with the problem. As with many things, he was methodical and determined and patient. In the eyes of some critics, perhaps too patient and deliberate. But certainly he was moving in the right direction. The portrait of Pope Benedict as an architect of cover-up is a false caricature, in my opinion.
4. Perspective: Catholic media have resisted, by and large, the trend toward hammering one big story incessantly, almost to the exclusion of anything else. For the first six months of this year, if you read a story about the Vatican in a major US newspaper, it was probably about sex abuse. This is a hallmark of the cable-news mentality that seems to have invaded every newsroom: a big story is established and then fed daily, like a beast. The essential storyline is never questioned. Details, subtleties and ambiguous information all fall by the wayside. You keep the big story going: this is the gospel of the modern mass media, I think largely for economic reasons. And fortunately, the Catholic press has managed to resist this and keep a perspective, reporting on sex abuse as a painful failure, but not as if it were the only aspect -- or even the main aspect -- of contemporary church life.
What worries me is that Catholic communicators, with all their perspective, context and fairness on the sex abuse story, have not really had much impact beyond their own limited audience. We feel frustration at times over how the mainstream media treats the church; but this frustration is often translated into a kind of closed-circuit discussion among ourselves. There's a risk of becoming too self-congratulatory. We need to ask: how well do we really communicate with the modern world, the wider world, beyond our own ecclesial borders?"
Objective and true, as a true media newsman should be. He only forgot to point out that less than 1% of reported child abuse comes from the Clergy. If only 1% of abuse is related to the priesthood, what happened to the objective reporting on the other 99%?
Friday 8 October 2010
Brazil at a Crossroads
In a society of violence, one does what one can to avoid trouble. Though Brazil isn't all bad, far from it, it is true that big cities like Rio and Sao Paulo have gone down the drain because of organised crime.
Legally speaking, impunity filtered down from government embezzlers to petty criminals and resulted in chaos. Socioeconomically speaking, Brazil has yet to learn how to disperse public money. For all practical purposes, life in the big metropolitan areas of Brazil is becoming more and more unbearable.
As with everyone else, Brazil has a problem with greed in certain governmental circles. A greedy public official is nearly always a corrupt one waiting to be bribed into selling out another piece of the country or the welfare of its people.
What Brazil needs is to forgo what Brazilians call "jeitinho" and start thinking of how to put the house in order for future generations.
Legally speaking, impunity filtered down from government embezzlers to petty criminals and resulted in chaos. Socioeconomically speaking, Brazil has yet to learn how to disperse public money. For all practical purposes, life in the big metropolitan areas of Brazil is becoming more and more unbearable.
As with everyone else, Brazil has a problem with greed in certain governmental circles. A greedy public official is nearly always a corrupt one waiting to be bribed into selling out another piece of the country or the welfare of its people.
What Brazil needs is to forgo what Brazilians call "jeitinho" and start thinking of how to put the house in order for future generations.
How Difficult is It to Tackle Poverty?
I've arrived at the conclusion that the reason why it is so difficult to understand the works of economists and sociologists towards expressing their understanding of the reasons for underdevelopment and their suggestions on how to promote a way out from poverty and famine for modern society is simply that most economists and sociologists also don't understand the dynamics of real social development.
In my view, overcoming the interests of a few greedy groups and demolishing consumerism/materialism as a social paradigm are the REAL problem behind underdevelopment. Figuring out how to tackle these without stepping on the toes of the rich & powerful is the dilemma that prevents practical solutions. After all, western societies' power matrix is currently founded on renewed consumption of goods.
No modern tycoon and no modern government is willing to forgo financial power to save global society (or the environment) without at least the promise of an immediate alternative profit margin.
As Sir Winston Churchil once eloquently put: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
In my view, overcoming the interests of a few greedy groups and demolishing consumerism/materialism as a social paradigm are the REAL problem behind underdevelopment. Figuring out how to tackle these without stepping on the toes of the rich & powerful is the dilemma that prevents practical solutions. After all, western societies' power matrix is currently founded on renewed consumption of goods.
No modern tycoon and no modern government is willing to forgo financial power to save global society (or the environment) without at least the promise of an immediate alternative profit margin.
As Sir Winston Churchil once eloquently put: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
Friday 1 October 2010
Monday 27 September 2010
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” (John 15: 18,19)
Christian values (indeed religious values in general) are truly inconvenient to a great many aspirations. Among them: greed, cruelty, hedonism, sodomism, materialism, consumerism and a number of other "isms" that make the rich richer and the powerful more powerful. I don't blame them for trying to do without Faith.
Christian values (indeed religious values in general) are truly inconvenient to a great many aspirations. Among them: greed, cruelty, hedonism, sodomism, materialism, consumerism and a number of other "isms" that make the rich richer and the powerful more powerful. I don't blame them for trying to do without Faith.
Thursday 23 September 2010
Knitting the Fabric of Christianity
Spoken yesterday by the Holy Father, these are the words professed by a man who wants to knit the fabric of Mankind:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
As you know, I have just returned from my first Apostolic Journey to the United Kingdom, and I wish to send my affectionate greetings to all those I met and those who contributed to the visit through the media during four days, which have begun a new and important phase in the long-standing relations between the Holy See and Great Britain.
Last Thursday, I was honoured by the warm welcome of Her Majesty The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh in Scotland’s historic capital Edinburgh. Later that day, I celebrated Mass in Glasgow in the presence of many bishops, priests, religious and a great concourse of the faithful against the backdrop of a beautiful sunset at Bellahouston Park, within sight of the place where my beloved predecessor celebrated Mass with the Scots twenty-eight years ago.
Upon arriving in London, I met thousands of Catholic students and schoolchildren at a very joyful celebration, reminding all of us of the excellent and essential work being done by Catholic schools and teachers throughout the land. I then had the pleasure of meeting the clerical and lay representatives of different religions and of discussing the search for the sacred common to all men.
Later, I had the honour of calling upon His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury who has come on several occasions to meet me in Rome. Our meeting at Lambeth Palace, in the presence of the Bishops of the Church of England, was very cordial and fraternal. I then crossed the river to Westminster where I was given the unprecedented opportunity to address both Houses of Parliament gathered in Westminster Hall on the importance of a fruitful dialogue between religion and reason, a theme as relevant in the time of Saint Thomas More as it is in our own day. Finally that day, I had the privilege of kneeling in prayer with the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Tomb of Saint Edward in Westminster Abbey, and of giving thanks to God with the Archbishop, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and other British Christian leaders, for the many blessings God has bestowed upon our efforts to re-knit the fabric of our Christian fellowship.
The next morning, I had the pleasure of greeting Prime Minister David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Ms Harriet Harman, leader of the Opposition, before celebrating Mass in Westminster Cathedral, with a liturgy evocative of the best of the English musical tradition in the celebration of the Roman rite. That afternoon, I was welcomed very cordially by the Little Sisters of the Poor and the elderly people they look after. There I also had the chance to thank and encourage those charged with the safeguarding of children in Britain. That evening I participated at a beautiful vigil of deep prayerfulness and stillness at Hyde Park with tens of thousands of the faithful.
On Sunday morning, I travelled to Birmingham where I had the joy of celebrating the Beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman. Later that day, after a warm and fraternal meeting with all the Bishops of Britain, I was bidden farewell by Prime Minister Cameron during a very cordial speech at Birmingham International Airport on the Government’s wish to build a partnership for development with the Catholic Church and others.
Sunday, then, was a moment of deep personal satisfaction, as the Church celebrated the blessedness of a great Englishman, whose life and writings I have admired for many years and who has come to be appreciated by countless people far beyond the shores of his native land. Blessed John Henry Newman’s clear-minded search to know and express the truth in charity, at whatever cost to his own personal comfort, status and even friendships, is a wonderful testimony of a pure desire to know and love God in the communion of the Church. His is surely an example that can inspire us all.
© Copyright 2010 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
As you know, I have just returned from my first Apostolic Journey to the United Kingdom, and I wish to send my affectionate greetings to all those I met and those who contributed to the visit through the media during four days, which have begun a new and important phase in the long-standing relations between the Holy See and Great Britain.
Last Thursday, I was honoured by the warm welcome of Her Majesty The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh in Scotland’s historic capital Edinburgh. Later that day, I celebrated Mass in Glasgow in the presence of many bishops, priests, religious and a great concourse of the faithful against the backdrop of a beautiful sunset at Bellahouston Park, within sight of the place where my beloved predecessor celebrated Mass with the Scots twenty-eight years ago.
Upon arriving in London, I met thousands of Catholic students and schoolchildren at a very joyful celebration, reminding all of us of the excellent and essential work being done by Catholic schools and teachers throughout the land. I then had the pleasure of meeting the clerical and lay representatives of different religions and of discussing the search for the sacred common to all men.
Later, I had the honour of calling upon His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury who has come on several occasions to meet me in Rome. Our meeting at Lambeth Palace, in the presence of the Bishops of the Church of England, was very cordial and fraternal. I then crossed the river to Westminster where I was given the unprecedented opportunity to address both Houses of Parliament gathered in Westminster Hall on the importance of a fruitful dialogue between religion and reason, a theme as relevant in the time of Saint Thomas More as it is in our own day. Finally that day, I had the privilege of kneeling in prayer with the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Tomb of Saint Edward in Westminster Abbey, and of giving thanks to God with the Archbishop, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and other British Christian leaders, for the many blessings God has bestowed upon our efforts to re-knit the fabric of our Christian fellowship.
The next morning, I had the pleasure of greeting Prime Minister David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Ms Harriet Harman, leader of the Opposition, before celebrating Mass in Westminster Cathedral, with a liturgy evocative of the best of the English musical tradition in the celebration of the Roman rite. That afternoon, I was welcomed very cordially by the Little Sisters of the Poor and the elderly people they look after. There I also had the chance to thank and encourage those charged with the safeguarding of children in Britain. That evening I participated at a beautiful vigil of deep prayerfulness and stillness at Hyde Park with tens of thousands of the faithful.
On Sunday morning, I travelled to Birmingham where I had the joy of celebrating the Beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman. Later that day, after a warm and fraternal meeting with all the Bishops of Britain, I was bidden farewell by Prime Minister Cameron during a very cordial speech at Birmingham International Airport on the Government’s wish to build a partnership for development with the Catholic Church and others.
Sunday, then, was a moment of deep personal satisfaction, as the Church celebrated the blessedness of a great Englishman, whose life and writings I have admired for many years and who has come to be appreciated by countless people far beyond the shores of his native land. Blessed John Henry Newman’s clear-minded search to know and express the truth in charity, at whatever cost to his own personal comfort, status and even friendships, is a wonderful testimony of a pure desire to know and love God in the communion of the Church. His is surely an example that can inspire us all.
© Copyright 2010 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
Wednesday 22 September 2010
Lula's Legacy
The Brazilian media is gagged, seduced and/or bullied into submission by parties in the government. That is the ONLY explanation why they are not yelling into the four winds against the perspective of perpetuating a regime that has thrown ethics out the window along the last eight years.
Presidential elections are up next month in Brazil. Lula has become Brazil's international poster boy for progress and social equity. The forerunner is Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva's successor. Yet, the Internet and the printed press is booming with corruption scandals and a shady past that almost never makes it into the televised media. Why is that?
Scandal after scandal, the present government has managed to stay in power despite a flood of corruption and impunity that reaches down from the presidential palace, through the senate and into the lowest echelons of society. The damage done by leaving unpunished those that were amply proven guilty is permeating every level of our Society and is being perpetuated in our contemporary culture. From shoplifting to abuse of power to fraud, Brazilian Society has learned the lessons taught by the presidential palace in Brasilia.
Yet, the charismatic figure of Luis Inacio – the captivating ignorant immigrant worker that made president – has managed to divorce itself from each and every scandal simply by denying that he had any knowledge of them or even that they happened. On the streets, people are doing the same when they crash their cars or are caught stealing.
Here’s an admirable man, one that was given a great opportunity: the chance to really make a difference and change Brazil for the better. He had everything going for him. He had the presidency, the majority in the senate, the ample support of the people, an economy fixed by the previous administration and ready to boom and everything else a man could ask for in order to become a statesman. He could have changed this country beyond imagination by promoting good education and genuine opportunity by generating infrastructure for further growth.
Instead, Luis wasted it all and gave in to corruption to remain a dirty politician supporting his friends and family within the government. Why? Was it just greed? Was it incompetence? No. He is not the “ignorant immigrant” he wants us to believe. Here’s a fox masquerading as lamb.
His policy? The oldest possible: Bread and Circus. Circus is the cascade of scandals playing out on the tele every night, with NOT A SINGLE guilty party being prosecuted or arrested. They are sacked alright, but nothing is confiscated nor is anyone made to pay for their treachery. Bread is the change money he gives away as alms to the poor in the Northeast of the country. Notice that he didn’t solve the problems with the health infrastructure, nor did he build a future for these people by improving education and businesses. He but gave them a little money each month under the premise that they needed it to get out of misery. He didn’t give them jobs, he didn’t give them lessons, he gave them alms. His criterion for the value he gave them? The number of children in the family. You don’t have to be a genius to see where this will lead, do you?
Now Luis’ successor is nothing without his figure. She is not charismatic, nor can she claim to have been poor or ignorant at any point in her life. She is not a feminist, she is not an exemplary mother, she is not even one of the people. She was just a rebel who resorted to crime to keep her failed rebellion going. What is she today? Just another corrupt politician claiming to have brought Brazil out of poverty; claiming to have solved issues that had been already solved for her.
Just the other day her right hand and successor as the Cabinet Minister was implicated in a corruption scandal and sacked. She was the fourth Cabinet Minister that was sacked on corruption scandals. She is still free and Luis claims ignorance yet again. Just the other day a citizen who protested against the first Cabinet Minister (Luis' personal friend) was arrested upon returning to Brazil. No charges were made. He died in prision of a "virulent illness" forty-eight hours latter.
As for Luis’ legacy, that will certainly be the destruction of even the most basic moral values and the corruption of an entire society. Never a statesman, always just another dirty politician.
Presidential elections are up next month in Brazil. Lula has become Brazil's international poster boy for progress and social equity. The forerunner is Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva's successor. Yet, the Internet and the printed press is booming with corruption scandals and a shady past that almost never makes it into the televised media. Why is that?
Scandal after scandal, the present government has managed to stay in power despite a flood of corruption and impunity that reaches down from the presidential palace, through the senate and into the lowest echelons of society. The damage done by leaving unpunished those that were amply proven guilty is permeating every level of our Society and is being perpetuated in our contemporary culture. From shoplifting to abuse of power to fraud, Brazilian Society has learned the lessons taught by the presidential palace in Brasilia.
Yet, the charismatic figure of Luis Inacio – the captivating ignorant immigrant worker that made president – has managed to divorce itself from each and every scandal simply by denying that he had any knowledge of them or even that they happened. On the streets, people are doing the same when they crash their cars or are caught stealing.
Here’s an admirable man, one that was given a great opportunity: the chance to really make a difference and change Brazil for the better. He had everything going for him. He had the presidency, the majority in the senate, the ample support of the people, an economy fixed by the previous administration and ready to boom and everything else a man could ask for in order to become a statesman. He could have changed this country beyond imagination by promoting good education and genuine opportunity by generating infrastructure for further growth.
Instead, Luis wasted it all and gave in to corruption to remain a dirty politician supporting his friends and family within the government. Why? Was it just greed? Was it incompetence? No. He is not the “ignorant immigrant” he wants us to believe. Here’s a fox masquerading as lamb.
His policy? The oldest possible: Bread and Circus. Circus is the cascade of scandals playing out on the tele every night, with NOT A SINGLE guilty party being prosecuted or arrested. They are sacked alright, but nothing is confiscated nor is anyone made to pay for their treachery. Bread is the change money he gives away as alms to the poor in the Northeast of the country. Notice that he didn’t solve the problems with the health infrastructure, nor did he build a future for these people by improving education and businesses. He but gave them a little money each month under the premise that they needed it to get out of misery. He didn’t give them jobs, he didn’t give them lessons, he gave them alms. His criterion for the value he gave them? The number of children in the family. You don’t have to be a genius to see where this will lead, do you?
Now Luis’ successor is nothing without his figure. She is not charismatic, nor can she claim to have been poor or ignorant at any point in her life. She is not a feminist, she is not an exemplary mother, she is not even one of the people. She was just a rebel who resorted to crime to keep her failed rebellion going. What is she today? Just another corrupt politician claiming to have brought Brazil out of poverty; claiming to have solved issues that had been already solved for her.
Just the other day her right hand and successor as the Cabinet Minister was implicated in a corruption scandal and sacked. She was the fourth Cabinet Minister that was sacked on corruption scandals. She is still free and Luis claims ignorance yet again. Just the other day a citizen who protested against the first Cabinet Minister (Luis' personal friend) was arrested upon returning to Brazil. No charges were made. He died in prision of a "virulent illness" forty-eight hours latter.
As for Luis’ legacy, that will certainly be the destruction of even the most basic moral values and the corruption of an entire society. Never a statesman, always just another dirty politician.
Monday 20 September 2010
There should be no separation between what we believe and how we live. When a man forgoes his concience to "belong" in the crowd, he brings dismay to himself and to those he loves. When a leader forgoes his conscience to gain popularity, he leads a whole nation through a short path into chaos and oblivion.
Benedict XVI: Beware of Marginalizing Religion
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” (John 15: 18,19)
Those of you who have been following this blog know very well that I constantly express concern over the breaking of moral values in our present global society. More than a few times have I raised red flags over the fact that religious people are marginalized and sometimes even persecuted because their moral values are inconvenient in a materialistic society bent on consumerism.
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, during his recent ground-breaking visit to London, expressed similar concerns. He urged civil leaders to consider religion a "vital contributor" to nations. He further said to diplomats, academics, entrepeneurs and religious leaders that religion "is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation."
"In this light," he further said, "I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere," affirmed the Holy Father at Westminster Hall.
"There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue - paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination - that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience." He added with concern.
"These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life. Your readiness to do so is already implied in the unprecedented invitation extended to me today," the Pope observed. "And it finds expression in the fields of concern in which your government has been engaged with the Holy See."
The Holy Father further described the role of religion in political debate as "to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. This 'corrective' role of religion vis-Ã -vis reason is not always welcomed," the Pontiff acknowledged, "though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves."
"And in their turn" he added, "these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century."
"This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith - the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief - need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization," he included.
In enphasizing the ongoing cooperation between the UK government and the Holy See in several fields as an example of the aforementioned cooperative effort between religion and government, Benedict XVI stated, "I hope and pray that this relationship will continue to bear fruit, and that it will be mirrored in a growing acceptance of the need for dialogue and respect at every level of society between the world of reason and the world of faith. For such cooperation to be possible, religious bodies -- including institutions linked to the Catholic Church -- need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles and specific convictions based upon the faith and the official teaching of the Church."
"In this way," he asserted, "such basic rights as religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of association are guaranteed."
The Holy Father couldn't be more correct. I think we took millenia to develop moral codes and ethics that enable human society and make it viable for us to live alongside one another in some measure of civility and harmony, and now that is placed in geopardy by the "priests of consumerism"; the radical secularists.
Say what you will, but the moral values proposed by religion have been paramount in this process of creating a viable society. The so-called "liberties" that people take as a novelty today are nothing more than a return to the chaotic demi-societies of the ancient world, when people valued power and worshiped riches and sought only the excuse to pursue their own convenience by force of arms. We evolved from that into something better and now some want to throw it away.
If we want a global society to work: Keep religion. Keep the Faith.
Those of you who have been following this blog know very well that I constantly express concern over the breaking of moral values in our present global society. More than a few times have I raised red flags over the fact that religious people are marginalized and sometimes even persecuted because their moral values are inconvenient in a materialistic society bent on consumerism.
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, during his recent ground-breaking visit to London, expressed similar concerns. He urged civil leaders to consider religion a "vital contributor" to nations. He further said to diplomats, academics, entrepeneurs and religious leaders that religion "is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation."
"In this light," he further said, "I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere," affirmed the Holy Father at Westminster Hall.
"There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue - paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination - that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience." He added with concern.
"These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life. Your readiness to do so is already implied in the unprecedented invitation extended to me today," the Pope observed. "And it finds expression in the fields of concern in which your government has been engaged with the Holy See."
The Holy Father further described the role of religion in political debate as "to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. This 'corrective' role of religion vis-Ã -vis reason is not always welcomed," the Pontiff acknowledged, "though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves."
"And in their turn" he added, "these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century."
"This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith - the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief - need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization," he included.
In enphasizing the ongoing cooperation between the UK government and the Holy See in several fields as an example of the aforementioned cooperative effort between religion and government, Benedict XVI stated, "I hope and pray that this relationship will continue to bear fruit, and that it will be mirrored in a growing acceptance of the need for dialogue and respect at every level of society between the world of reason and the world of faith. For such cooperation to be possible, religious bodies -- including institutions linked to the Catholic Church -- need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles and specific convictions based upon the faith and the official teaching of the Church."
"In this way," he asserted, "such basic rights as religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of association are guaranteed."
The Holy Father couldn't be more correct. I think we took millenia to develop moral codes and ethics that enable human society and make it viable for us to live alongside one another in some measure of civility and harmony, and now that is placed in geopardy by the "priests of consumerism"; the radical secularists.
Say what you will, but the moral values proposed by religion have been paramount in this process of creating a viable society. The so-called "liberties" that people take as a novelty today are nothing more than a return to the chaotic demi-societies of the ancient world, when people valued power and worshiped riches and sought only the excuse to pursue their own convenience by force of arms. We evolved from that into something better and now some want to throw it away.
If we want a global society to work: Keep religion. Keep the Faith.
Sunday 19 September 2010
On Cardinal Walter Kasper’s Comment:
The English media has very vehemently capitalised on Cardinal Kasper’s slip of the tongue, but an objective look at the remark could actually be construed very positively.
Just before the historic Papal visit to the UK this past week, Cardinal Kasper commented to a German magazine something to the effect that “arriving at Heathrow airport was like landing in a Third World country.”
The comment obviously referred to the disarray of incoming passengers arriving into Heathrow and the great volume of them that are made to line up in huge queues according to national origin.
This is a caustic – though otherwise innocent – remark pointing to the fact that the sheer volume of foreign visitors passing through the English airport awards it an untidy feeling not at all unlike the street markets of "Third World" countries.
Nevertheless, parties in the UK media greatly exaggerated the remark and attempted to link it to the Pope’s declaration on how extremisms in secular and atheist movements can be harmful to society in general. Ros Atkins, the host of BBC’s World Have Your Say programme, asked me during his interview on this Friday the 17th weather I thought that the Cardinal thought the UK similar to a Third World Country on account of the secularist tendencies of UK society.
At the time, my wits were insufficient to come up with a particularly good answer in the allotted time, but here’s what I wanted to say then:
First and foremost, the very term “Third World country” is imprecise and completely prejudiced. It was coined to refer to economically underdeveloped societies and latter associated with corruption and social decay. However, there are so-called “Third World” countries like South Africa and Brazil that generate technology ahead of the “First World” in several fields and are amongst the leading world economies (Brazil is the 9th and is economically ahead of many European nations). Hence, it would be incoherent to assume that a “Third World” country is underdeveloped in any particular secularist point of view.
Secondly, nowadays the “Third World” tends to be more spiritually inclined than the “First World”. This is not to say there is no secularism in “Third World” nations or no religion in the "First World", but the truth is there are more religious people in these nations.
It could be argued that spiritualism is more present there because there is greater need, in which case the Vatican would be well aware of it because the Catholic Church is the single largest Humanitarian and Charitable organisation in the globe.
Equally, it could be argued that there is greater religiosity in the “Third World” because there are less materialistic distractions to deviate people from what’s truly important, in which case calling the UK a “Third World” nation would actually be a compliment.
Be that as it may, the largest concentration of Roman Catholics is in Latin America, which itself is composed solely of “Third World” countries. A cardinal of the Vatican would certainly know such facts and would not hint at any link between secularism, social underdevelopment and “Third World” nations.
Finally, secularist nations tend to be more materialistic and very economically developed, which is not to say that all predominantly secularist societies are particularly developed. The United Kingdom is recognised throughout the globe as a developed nation, a “First World” country. It is also recognised as a great nation for all of what its people have achieved over the centuries. A German-born person of Cardinal Kasper’s age, who has grown old in the aftermath of World War II, would know very well the UK’s worth as an economy and as a military power, and would not think it a "Third World" nation. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI has, throughout his discourse whilst in the UK, continually reaffirmed his admiration for the people of the United Kingdom and his respect for the social development of the nation.
Taken together, the three arguments above point to the fact that:
A. The Vatican respects the people of the UK and holds the nation in high regard
B. The Vatican values the peoples of “Third World” countries and hold them in high regard
C. The UK media distorted the cardinal’s comment to generate controversy where there was none. The comment was taken out of context and associated to the Pope’s own lucid message under a different light than that which had been originally meant.
So, if one has even half the wit necessary to understand an attempt at inflammatory rhetoric, it should be plain enough that the entire episode had very little to do with Cardinal Kasper’s slip of the tongue, and very much to do with prompting public opinion against the Catholic Church to further a very persecutory agenda; even as the Pontiff was attempting to improve relations with the people of the UK.
To me the Papal visit happening under such adverse scenario means that some are trying more than others to reach out and establish some common ground; amongst them The Queen and The PM of England and The Pope, all of whom agreed that the visit was necessary; thus making it into a State visit.
Conversely, the blind hatred displayed by certain groups among the English people goes to show how important it was for the Pope to have visited at this particular moment.
The unfortunate fact on all this was that this frivolous inflammatory effort by parties in the UK media found fertile ground in the already disproportioned animosity against the Catholic Faith that has been build into the people of the United Kingdom.
Personally, I feel pity for the share of intolerance and short-sightedness that can sometimes surface in an otherwise great nation, such as the United Kingdom, and I pray that understaing and respect come once more to dominate the hearts and minds of the people of the UK so that they may be called "British" and not "Brutish".
Just before the historic Papal visit to the UK this past week, Cardinal Kasper commented to a German magazine something to the effect that “arriving at Heathrow airport was like landing in a Third World country.”
The comment obviously referred to the disarray of incoming passengers arriving into Heathrow and the great volume of them that are made to line up in huge queues according to national origin.
This is a caustic – though otherwise innocent – remark pointing to the fact that the sheer volume of foreign visitors passing through the English airport awards it an untidy feeling not at all unlike the street markets of "Third World" countries.
Nevertheless, parties in the UK media greatly exaggerated the remark and attempted to link it to the Pope’s declaration on how extremisms in secular and atheist movements can be harmful to society in general. Ros Atkins, the host of BBC’s World Have Your Say programme, asked me during his interview on this Friday the 17th weather I thought that the Cardinal thought the UK similar to a Third World Country on account of the secularist tendencies of UK society.
At the time, my wits were insufficient to come up with a particularly good answer in the allotted time, but here’s what I wanted to say then:
First and foremost, the very term “Third World country” is imprecise and completely prejudiced. It was coined to refer to economically underdeveloped societies and latter associated with corruption and social decay. However, there are so-called “Third World” countries like South Africa and Brazil that generate technology ahead of the “First World” in several fields and are amongst the leading world economies (Brazil is the 9th and is economically ahead of many European nations). Hence, it would be incoherent to assume that a “Third World” country is underdeveloped in any particular secularist point of view.
Secondly, nowadays the “Third World” tends to be more spiritually inclined than the “First World”. This is not to say there is no secularism in “Third World” nations or no religion in the "First World", but the truth is there are more religious people in these nations.
It could be argued that spiritualism is more present there because there is greater need, in which case the Vatican would be well aware of it because the Catholic Church is the single largest Humanitarian and Charitable organisation in the globe.
Equally, it could be argued that there is greater religiosity in the “Third World” because there are less materialistic distractions to deviate people from what’s truly important, in which case calling the UK a “Third World” nation would actually be a compliment.
Be that as it may, the largest concentration of Roman Catholics is in Latin America, which itself is composed solely of “Third World” countries. A cardinal of the Vatican would certainly know such facts and would not hint at any link between secularism, social underdevelopment and “Third World” nations.
Finally, secularist nations tend to be more materialistic and very economically developed, which is not to say that all predominantly secularist societies are particularly developed. The United Kingdom is recognised throughout the globe as a developed nation, a “First World” country. It is also recognised as a great nation for all of what its people have achieved over the centuries. A German-born person of Cardinal Kasper’s age, who has grown old in the aftermath of World War II, would know very well the UK’s worth as an economy and as a military power, and would not think it a "Third World" nation. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI has, throughout his discourse whilst in the UK, continually reaffirmed his admiration for the people of the United Kingdom and his respect for the social development of the nation.
Taken together, the three arguments above point to the fact that:
A. The Vatican respects the people of the UK and holds the nation in high regard
B. The Vatican values the peoples of “Third World” countries and hold them in high regard
C. The UK media distorted the cardinal’s comment to generate controversy where there was none. The comment was taken out of context and associated to the Pope’s own lucid message under a different light than that which had been originally meant.
So, if one has even half the wit necessary to understand an attempt at inflammatory rhetoric, it should be plain enough that the entire episode had very little to do with Cardinal Kasper’s slip of the tongue, and very much to do with prompting public opinion against the Catholic Church to further a very persecutory agenda; even as the Pontiff was attempting to improve relations with the people of the UK.
To me the Papal visit happening under such adverse scenario means that some are trying more than others to reach out and establish some common ground; amongst them The Queen and The PM of England and The Pope, all of whom agreed that the visit was necessary; thus making it into a State visit.
Conversely, the blind hatred displayed by certain groups among the English people goes to show how important it was for the Pope to have visited at this particular moment.
The unfortunate fact on all this was that this frivolous inflammatory effort by parties in the UK media found fertile ground in the already disproportioned animosity against the Catholic Faith that has been build into the people of the United Kingdom.
Personally, I feel pity for the share of intolerance and short-sightedness that can sometimes surface in an otherwise great nation, such as the United Kingdom, and I pray that understaing and respect come once more to dominate the hearts and minds of the people of the UK so that they may be called "British" and not "Brutish".
Friday 17 September 2010
BBC Says Pope is a "Plaintiff"
The following text was extracted from the BBC UK web site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11333448
"The plaintiff also said that a 'dictatorship of relativism' threatened 'to obscure the unchanging truth about man's nature, his destiny and his ultimate good.'"
Notice the word "plaintiff" in place of "pontiff". Does this show what the BBC really thinks of our good Pope Benedict XVI? One can hope not, but in my opinion, it does.
Yesterday I was contacted by the BBC World Service with a new invitation to partake in today’s programme World Have Your Say, which clearly intends to focus on recent controversies preceding the pontiff’s visit to the UK and on the Pope's remark on radical secularism. Can we hope for an objective view, or is it liklier that we'll witness the discontextualisation of quotes again?
In speaking to Ben, one of the producers of the show, one finds a level-headed man who admits having no personal experience of the Catholic Church (or religion) and a man who admits the Church is under attack.But why do people fear the Church in progressive countries?
The answer is simple: Because they have little contact with it, they are easily convinced of the demonization of priests and Popes. They do not see the good that the Church quietly pursues in promoting education, health institutions, charity and spiritual solace around the globe. In speaking to Pearce, a jolly techie visiting the studio from Britain, I found that this is a little our own fault for not making a fuss of what we do, but then again, by doctrine, we're not supposed to.
Here comes the key question: Why? Why is the Catholic Church specifically (and religion in general) under attack? Could it be that Catholics stand against socio-economic tendencies that seek to generate and concentrate wealth in detriment of human dignity and world ecology? Could it be that Christian values and morals are contrary to rampant consumerism and offer a perennial form of fulfilment that far outdoes the ephemeral pleasures of an hedonistic society?
If you can honestly answer this question, then you will be well into understanding why religion is under attack in Western Society. You will then understand the motive behind the banner.
Though yesterday's quick discussion over the phone took us through subjects such as why western laws once attempted to ensure freedom of religion and at the same time governments pressure the Church into giving up some of its values. We analysed ever so briefly why there is animosity against Christian thought and its relation to consumerism and materialism among other power driven agendas. Today's show never even touched the subject, which was a little disappointing. Even when I brought it up to Ros Atkins, the host, he just steered away from it.
The truth of the matter is: We're in all of this together. That's the message Pope Benedict is trying to convey. "Respect" and "tolerance" are key concepts if we are ever to build a world-wide community.
Did the show focus on this? Yeah a little, so there's a pat on the back for the BBC. As for the "Third World" slip of the tong by the Pope's Cardinal, well, after the "plaintiff for pontiff" slip of the keyboard at the very BBC, I think it could have been left out.
At least I'm glad the BBC corrected their "typo".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11333448
"The plaintiff also said that a 'dictatorship of relativism' threatened 'to obscure the unchanging truth about man's nature, his destiny and his ultimate good.'"
Notice the word "plaintiff" in place of "pontiff". Does this show what the BBC really thinks of our good Pope Benedict XVI? One can hope not, but in my opinion, it does.
Yesterday I was contacted by the BBC World Service with a new invitation to partake in today’s programme World Have Your Say, which clearly intends to focus on recent controversies preceding the pontiff’s visit to the UK and on the Pope's remark on radical secularism. Can we hope for an objective view, or is it liklier that we'll witness the discontextualisation of quotes again?
In speaking to Ben, one of the producers of the show, one finds a level-headed man who admits having no personal experience of the Catholic Church (or religion) and a man who admits the Church is under attack.But why do people fear the Church in progressive countries?
The answer is simple: Because they have little contact with it, they are easily convinced of the demonization of priests and Popes. They do not see the good that the Church quietly pursues in promoting education, health institutions, charity and spiritual solace around the globe. In speaking to Pearce, a jolly techie visiting the studio from Britain, I found that this is a little our own fault for not making a fuss of what we do, but then again, by doctrine, we're not supposed to.
Here comes the key question: Why? Why is the Catholic Church specifically (and religion in general) under attack? Could it be that Catholics stand against socio-economic tendencies that seek to generate and concentrate wealth in detriment of human dignity and world ecology? Could it be that Christian values and morals are contrary to rampant consumerism and offer a perennial form of fulfilment that far outdoes the ephemeral pleasures of an hedonistic society?
If you can honestly answer this question, then you will be well into understanding why religion is under attack in Western Society. You will then understand the motive behind the banner.
Though yesterday's quick discussion over the phone took us through subjects such as why western laws once attempted to ensure freedom of religion and at the same time governments pressure the Church into giving up some of its values. We analysed ever so briefly why there is animosity against Christian thought and its relation to consumerism and materialism among other power driven agendas. Today's show never even touched the subject, which was a little disappointing. Even when I brought it up to Ros Atkins, the host, he just steered away from it.
The truth of the matter is: We're in all of this together. That's the message Pope Benedict is trying to convey. "Respect" and "tolerance" are key concepts if we are ever to build a world-wide community.
Did the show focus on this? Yeah a little, so there's a pat on the back for the BBC. As for the "Third World" slip of the tong by the Pope's Cardinal, well, after the "plaintiff for pontiff" slip of the keyboard at the very BBC, I think it could have been left out.
At least I'm glad the BBC corrected their "typo".
Deep Thinker on the BBC
Well, I've been invited by BBC producers to partake on the BBC's World Have Your Say TV programme again today. Again the programme pertained to the Catholic Church, this time on the matter of the Pope's historic visit to the UK.
The host, Ros Atkins, focused on the the Pope's remarks on Radical Secularism and on Cardinal Kasper's criticism of Heathrow airport. Here's a link if you want to watch me make a fool of myself yet again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ9nAB9QOlw&feature=player_embedded - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5sw-9taUas&feature=player_embedded - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4x8m1EcaFU&feature=player_embedded - Part 3
The WHYS website link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/09/whys_on_tv_the_pope_in_britain.html#255126#more
The host, Ros Atkins, focused on the the Pope's remarks on Radical Secularism and on Cardinal Kasper's criticism of Heathrow airport. Here's a link if you want to watch me make a fool of myself yet again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ9nAB9QOlw&feature=player_embedded - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5sw-9taUas&feature=player_embedded - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4x8m1EcaFU&feature=player_embedded - Part 3
The WHYS website link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/09/whys_on_tv_the_pope_in_britain.html#255126#more
Wednesday 15 September 2010
Benedict XVI Besieged
Interview With Author of "Attack on Ratzinger"
By Antonio Gaspari
ROME, SEPT. 14, 2010 (Zenit.org) - From Regensburg to the sexual abuse crisis, the international press has hammered away at Benedict XVI since the beginning of his pontificate.
That is the topic of "Attacco a Ratzinger: accuse scandali, profezie e complotti contro Benedetto XVI" (Attack on Ratzinger: scandalous accusations, prophecies and plots against Benedict XVI), written by noted Vatican watchers Paolo Rodari and Andrea Tornielli (published in Italian by Piemme).
Rodari writes for the Italian newspaper Il Foglio, and Tornielli writes for the Italian newspaper Il Giornale.
Tornielli sat down with ZENIT to discusse how the book reconstructs in great detail and with original and unpublished research the accusations leveled at the Pontiff, and the motivations that led to them.
Tornielli has published numerous successful books, among which the most recent are: "Pio XII: Un uomo sul trono di Pietro" ("Pius XII: A man on the throne of Peter") (Mondatori, 2007) and "Paolo VI: L'audacia di un Papa" ("Paul VI: A Pope's audacity") (Mondatori, 2009).
ZENIT: Who is interested in criticizing the Pope?
Tornielli: I believe that, although an organized plot does not exist nor a single direction, there are groups, lobbies, political and/or economic powers that have an interest in weakening the power of the Church's voice, reducing its international authority and hold on populations for the most disparate ends.
ZENIT: Why do they attack him? Why did they stop him from speaking at La Sapienza University of Rome? What is it that secular power fears from the pontificate of Benedict XVI?
Tornielli: Certain media campaigns are determined by a negative view, by a consolidated prejudice that does not at all correspond to reality, which previously portrayed Cardinal Ratzinger and then Benedict XVI as a retrograde, illiberal and anti-democratic conservative.
The Sapienza case is exemplary because not only did some small groups of ideologue students "judge" Ratzinger on the basis of a mistaken citation taken from Wikipedia, but so did researchers and professors (which should also tell us something about the state of our universities).
Secularized power fears the proclamation of an irreducible truth. There are lobbies and groups with power who are irritated by Christian morality and the Church's ethical teaching, but also her positions on war, globalization, and the protection of creation. In certain situations the Church's voice remains the sole bulwark against an anesthetized conscience.
ZENIT: During his flight to Portugal on May 11, Benedict XVI said: "Today we see in a terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the Church comes from the inside, from the sins that are within the Church herself, and not from external enemies." What are the sins that the Pope is referring to, and who are the groups and the persons who oppose him in the Church?
Tornielli: The question was formulated with an explicit reference to the pedophile scandal that involves some of the clergy. The Pope's answer was dramatic. Benedict XVI explained that the strongest attack comes from within; it is sin in the Church. At bottom, history has taught us that the Church has always emerged strengthened from external attacks, perhaps after long periods of difficulty, if not persecution. It is the attack from within that destroys.
Now, there are not only the major, "terrifying" episodes of the abominable crime of pedophilia. There is also the advance of non-Catholic thought within the Catholic Church: a reality that was denounced with extreme lucidity already by the great Pope Paul VI, and which unfortunately persists today. I was struck, for example, by certain strong reactions against Benedict XVI's decision to liberalize the traditional Mass. There were public reactions, even by bishops. But there would be many examples.
ZENIT: The Pontiff, in the homily of the Mass that concluded the Year for Priests on June 11, spoke very explicitly of heresies and of the necessity of using the rod ("bastone") against the wolves who want to destroy the flock. To whom was he referring? Who are the wolves who want to destroy the flock? What are the modern heresies at work in the Church?
Tornielli: In our book we analyze the crises of the first five years of the pontificate of Benedict XVI; we do not make a list of heresies. I would like, however, to recall that unfortunately ideas and interpretations are spreading, in a more or less subterranean way, that end up threatening the faith of the average Catholic, and more generally the Catholic faith, not in regard to some consequence -- where perhaps a debate and the coexistence of different interpretations would be understandable -- but precisely in regard to the essentials of the faith.
In this sense, as the then Cardinal Ratzinger explained at the beginning of his service as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the magisterium has the task of protecting the faith of the average Catholic, of those who do not write for the newspapers and go on TV. In this sense the magisterium has a "democratic" task, he said. I believe that one radical change that the Pope asks of everyone is that of being aware that the Church is not "made" by us, it cannot be thought of like we think of a company, everything cannot be reduced to claims about functions and ministries; the Church's life cannot be planned only by pastoral strategies. If we were to learn from this constant appeal of the Pope, then maybe many of the open and secret members of the opposition would understand that the Pope is not an absolute monarch, but that he too obeys Jesus Christ in transmitting the "depositum fidei."
ZENIT: According to the Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi of Trieste, there exists a parallel magisterium among ecclesiastics, professors of theology in the seminaries, priests and laypeople who "muffle Benedict XVI's teachings, do not read the documents of his magisterium, write and speak arguing exactly the opposite of what he says, launch pastoral and cultural initiatives, on the terrain of bioethics or in ecumenical dialogue, for example, in open divergence with what he teaches." Is this true or is Archbishop Crepaldi mistaken?
Tornielli: I believe that Archbishop Crepaldi is right. It is obvious -- just take a look at many parishes, participate at conferences, cultural gatherings, etc., and you will see how Benedict XVI's magisterium (but this happened before too, with other Popes) is not transmitted to the faithful, but is instead sometimes openly contradicted.
ZENIT: The book that you wrote with Paolo Rodari, "Attack on Ratzinger," claims that through journalistic polemics there is an attempt to confuse the faithful, hiding the true meaning of the words and actions of Benedict XVI, presenting the Pontiff as an elderly conservative, traditionalist, anti-modern, out of touch with history. And yet this Pontiff is accomplishing wonders, such as, for example, the recovery of faith by secularized people, the good relations with the other Christian confessions, above all with the Anglicans and Russian Orthodox, the renewal in the obedience and fidelity of the clergy, the practice of the new evangelization. In sum, they attack him because he is revitalizing the Catholic Church for the better. Is this not what is happening?
Tornielli: This is part of what is happening, but it is not just this. They attack him because he reasserts certain teachings about bioethics, but also because he speaks about poverty and globalization. They attack him because of the deep-rooted cliché, but also because, unfortunately, sometimes the media is not prepared to present certain messages or to interpret them in the right context. They attack him because on more than one occasion -- I hate to say it but it is true, and I believe that we have documented it in the book -- even those who are nearest to Benedict XVI could help him most to avoid the springing up of unnecessary polemics or to eliminate them as soon as they arise.
[Translation by ZENIT]
By Antonio Gaspari
ROME, SEPT. 14, 2010 (Zenit.org) - From Regensburg to the sexual abuse crisis, the international press has hammered away at Benedict XVI since the beginning of his pontificate.
That is the topic of "Attacco a Ratzinger: accuse scandali, profezie e complotti contro Benedetto XVI" (Attack on Ratzinger: scandalous accusations, prophecies and plots against Benedict XVI), written by noted Vatican watchers Paolo Rodari and Andrea Tornielli (published in Italian by Piemme).
Rodari writes for the Italian newspaper Il Foglio, and Tornielli writes for the Italian newspaper Il Giornale.
Tornielli sat down with ZENIT to discusse how the book reconstructs in great detail and with original and unpublished research the accusations leveled at the Pontiff, and the motivations that led to them.
Tornielli has published numerous successful books, among which the most recent are: "Pio XII: Un uomo sul trono di Pietro" ("Pius XII: A man on the throne of Peter") (Mondatori, 2007) and "Paolo VI: L'audacia di un Papa" ("Paul VI: A Pope's audacity") (Mondatori, 2009).
ZENIT: Who is interested in criticizing the Pope?
Tornielli: I believe that, although an organized plot does not exist nor a single direction, there are groups, lobbies, political and/or economic powers that have an interest in weakening the power of the Church's voice, reducing its international authority and hold on populations for the most disparate ends.
ZENIT: Why do they attack him? Why did they stop him from speaking at La Sapienza University of Rome? What is it that secular power fears from the pontificate of Benedict XVI?
Tornielli: Certain media campaigns are determined by a negative view, by a consolidated prejudice that does not at all correspond to reality, which previously portrayed Cardinal Ratzinger and then Benedict XVI as a retrograde, illiberal and anti-democratic conservative.
The Sapienza case is exemplary because not only did some small groups of ideologue students "judge" Ratzinger on the basis of a mistaken citation taken from Wikipedia, but so did researchers and professors (which should also tell us something about the state of our universities).
Secularized power fears the proclamation of an irreducible truth. There are lobbies and groups with power who are irritated by Christian morality and the Church's ethical teaching, but also her positions on war, globalization, and the protection of creation. In certain situations the Church's voice remains the sole bulwark against an anesthetized conscience.
ZENIT: During his flight to Portugal on May 11, Benedict XVI said: "Today we see in a terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the Church comes from the inside, from the sins that are within the Church herself, and not from external enemies." What are the sins that the Pope is referring to, and who are the groups and the persons who oppose him in the Church?
Tornielli: The question was formulated with an explicit reference to the pedophile scandal that involves some of the clergy. The Pope's answer was dramatic. Benedict XVI explained that the strongest attack comes from within; it is sin in the Church. At bottom, history has taught us that the Church has always emerged strengthened from external attacks, perhaps after long periods of difficulty, if not persecution. It is the attack from within that destroys.
Now, there are not only the major, "terrifying" episodes of the abominable crime of pedophilia. There is also the advance of non-Catholic thought within the Catholic Church: a reality that was denounced with extreme lucidity already by the great Pope Paul VI, and which unfortunately persists today. I was struck, for example, by certain strong reactions against Benedict XVI's decision to liberalize the traditional Mass. There were public reactions, even by bishops. But there would be many examples.
ZENIT: The Pontiff, in the homily of the Mass that concluded the Year for Priests on June 11, spoke very explicitly of heresies and of the necessity of using the rod ("bastone") against the wolves who want to destroy the flock. To whom was he referring? Who are the wolves who want to destroy the flock? What are the modern heresies at work in the Church?
Tornielli: In our book we analyze the crises of the first five years of the pontificate of Benedict XVI; we do not make a list of heresies. I would like, however, to recall that unfortunately ideas and interpretations are spreading, in a more or less subterranean way, that end up threatening the faith of the average Catholic, and more generally the Catholic faith, not in regard to some consequence -- where perhaps a debate and the coexistence of different interpretations would be understandable -- but precisely in regard to the essentials of the faith.
In this sense, as the then Cardinal Ratzinger explained at the beginning of his service as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the magisterium has the task of protecting the faith of the average Catholic, of those who do not write for the newspapers and go on TV. In this sense the magisterium has a "democratic" task, he said. I believe that one radical change that the Pope asks of everyone is that of being aware that the Church is not "made" by us, it cannot be thought of like we think of a company, everything cannot be reduced to claims about functions and ministries; the Church's life cannot be planned only by pastoral strategies. If we were to learn from this constant appeal of the Pope, then maybe many of the open and secret members of the opposition would understand that the Pope is not an absolute monarch, but that he too obeys Jesus Christ in transmitting the "depositum fidei."
ZENIT: According to the Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi of Trieste, there exists a parallel magisterium among ecclesiastics, professors of theology in the seminaries, priests and laypeople who "muffle Benedict XVI's teachings, do not read the documents of his magisterium, write and speak arguing exactly the opposite of what he says, launch pastoral and cultural initiatives, on the terrain of bioethics or in ecumenical dialogue, for example, in open divergence with what he teaches." Is this true or is Archbishop Crepaldi mistaken?
Tornielli: I believe that Archbishop Crepaldi is right. It is obvious -- just take a look at many parishes, participate at conferences, cultural gatherings, etc., and you will see how Benedict XVI's magisterium (but this happened before too, with other Popes) is not transmitted to the faithful, but is instead sometimes openly contradicted.
ZENIT: The book that you wrote with Paolo Rodari, "Attack on Ratzinger," claims that through journalistic polemics there is an attempt to confuse the faithful, hiding the true meaning of the words and actions of Benedict XVI, presenting the Pontiff as an elderly conservative, traditionalist, anti-modern, out of touch with history. And yet this Pontiff is accomplishing wonders, such as, for example, the recovery of faith by secularized people, the good relations with the other Christian confessions, above all with the Anglicans and Russian Orthodox, the renewal in the obedience and fidelity of the clergy, the practice of the new evangelization. In sum, they attack him because he is revitalizing the Catholic Church for the better. Is this not what is happening?
Tornielli: This is part of what is happening, but it is not just this. They attack him because he reasserts certain teachings about bioethics, but also because he speaks about poverty and globalization. They attack him because of the deep-rooted cliché, but also because, unfortunately, sometimes the media is not prepared to present certain messages or to interpret them in the right context. They attack him because on more than one occasion -- I hate to say it but it is true, and I believe that we have documented it in the book -- even those who are nearest to Benedict XVI could help him most to avoid the springing up of unnecessary polemics or to eliminate them as soon as they arise.
[Translation by ZENIT]
Friday 10 September 2010
Pope Benedict XVI and the Sex Abuse Crisis
By Elizabeth Lev:
ROME, SEPT. 9, 2010 (Zenit.org): I must have looked pretty bizarre on the beach this summer with "Pope Benedict XVI and the Sex Abuse Crisis" in hand. Indeed, through the first chapters it seemed like Hurricane Earl had come to ruin my summer, but persevering through the book, the clouds cleared and left me with a brighter outlook on this very difficult time for the Church.
Written by Gregory Erlandson and Matthew Bunson (president of Our Sunday Visitor and Catholic Almanac editor respectively), “Pope Benedict XVI and the Sex Abuse Crisis” presents a clear, objective and comprehensive view of sexual abuse among the clergy. Besides presenting the hard worldwide facts and figures of the scandal, it focuses on Benedict XVI’s actions and reactions from his time as bishop to the years heading the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and through his reign as Pope.
After six months of confusing news reports and general hysteria in the media and in the public square, this dispassionate and fact-laden book does much to organize one’s thoughts and present verifiable truths. While the secular media continues to raise its “clerical sex abuse” flag at every turn, especially as they attempt to frame the upcoming papal visit to Britain singularly in these terms, this book demonstrates that Pope Benedict should be hailed as a hero in this tragic chapter of the Church, not assailed for “crimes against humanity” (as radical atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have proposed).
By no means is this an easy read. Opening with a report of vandalism at Pope Benedict’s childhood home, the authors invite the reader to delve into the hostility and divisiveness of the issue. As the authors trace the life of Joseph Ratzinger from that home through the turbulent waters of the 20th century, it becomes clear that our Pope is no stranger to hard issues. But he could not have expected the tidal wave of sex abuse reports that would flow into his office as head of the CDF in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s 2001 apostolic letter, “The Safeguarding of the Sacraments.” This document required bishops to report sexual violations “committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of 18 years.” Cardinal Ratzinger knew at once he would have a battle on two fronts: (1) the problem of sex abuse itself and (2) the ensuing scandal and its effects on the Church.
The authors quote a 2005 New York Times article to illustrate how seriously Cardinal Ratzinger took this task. Reviewing the reports every Friday, the Times reported, Ratzinger “found the cases so disturbing he called the work his Friday penance.”
The length and breadth of sexual abuse data is daunting. Erlandson and Bunson take the reader through the many reforms the Church has made over the centuries to combat ever-present sexual sin, illustrating that the problem is not endemic to the Church but rather, in a post-Fall world, a human failing that requires constant vigilance and renewal within the Church. From the dawn of the second millennium, the Church has written, legislated and preached to protect its flock especially in this area.
Interestingly, the issue of the correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality was far more overtly examined in the 11th century than in the 21st, despite the fact that in the 3,000 cases reported to the CDF, 60% percent involved homosexual activity.
The most difficult part of the book is the descent into the inferno of the modern crisis. From the breaking story in 2002 to the Murphy report in Ireland, the facts and figures of sexual abuse are devastating. It is difficult to read about the suffering of the victims, let alone imagine being the person required to clean up this sea of sin and scandal.
Erlandson and Bunson offer a few unusual pieces of information. They consulted the “Insurance Journal” of the companies that insure Protestant Churches for some comparative numbers and discovered that there were more reports of sex abuse per year than in the Catholic Church. Since very few entities besides the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have commissioned a study like the John Jay Report to comprehend the scope and nature of the problem of sex abuse, the problem has sometimes mistakenly been perceived as specific to the Catholic Church.
The tragic stories and data from Germany, Australia, Canada and other countries leave the reader asking, “Where do we go from here?” The rest of the book addresses that question. First, it underscores the decisive response of United States bishops in 2002 with the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.” These new directives as well as the expeditious system for dealing with a sex abuser, however, came from the direction of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, who identified and began addressing the issue pointedly in 2001. The British newspaper Daily Telegraph wrote in March 2010 that thanks to this Pope, "There is no safer place for a child today to be than with a Catholic priest.”
Pope Benedict’s frequent encounters with victims of sex abuse are recorded, as well as his extensive comments on the topic in interviews and homilies. By the last page, one wonders why it is that one of the most dramatic turn-around stories in history has been so ignored. Last year in the United States, there were a mere six allegations of abuse of children under age 18 out of a population of 42,000 priests and 70 million Catholics. One wonders why the Catholic Church hasn’t become the model of how to deal with this kind of crisis, instead of a synonym for sex abuse.
I personally found Erlandson and Bunson too gentle with the secular press as well as the contingency fee for lawyers who have exploited the sins of Catholics to their own greatest advantage. On the other hand, the authors’ restraint bolsters their argument, which focuses on the problem and the solutions implemented by Pope Benedict. They do, however, drop one interesting number regarding the total settlement amounts thus far (about $2 billion) and the 30% pocketed by the lawyers under the American system of lawsuits of this nature.
British papal detractors have harped on the sex abuse scandal to justify their hooligan-like attitude toward Benedict’s visit. Six months ago British columnist Christopher Hitchens wrote: “The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime.” In the face of such rhetorical vitriol, the calm facts and historical data presented by Erlandson and Bunson go a long way toward soothing troubled spirits.
Elizabeth Lev teaches Christian art and architecture at Duquesne University’s Italian campus and University of St. Thomas’ Catholic Studies program.
ROME, SEPT. 9, 2010 (Zenit.org): I must have looked pretty bizarre on the beach this summer with "Pope Benedict XVI and the Sex Abuse Crisis" in hand. Indeed, through the first chapters it seemed like Hurricane Earl had come to ruin my summer, but persevering through the book, the clouds cleared and left me with a brighter outlook on this very difficult time for the Church.
Written by Gregory Erlandson and Matthew Bunson (president of Our Sunday Visitor and Catholic Almanac editor respectively), “Pope Benedict XVI and the Sex Abuse Crisis” presents a clear, objective and comprehensive view of sexual abuse among the clergy. Besides presenting the hard worldwide facts and figures of the scandal, it focuses on Benedict XVI’s actions and reactions from his time as bishop to the years heading the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and through his reign as Pope.
After six months of confusing news reports and general hysteria in the media and in the public square, this dispassionate and fact-laden book does much to organize one’s thoughts and present verifiable truths. While the secular media continues to raise its “clerical sex abuse” flag at every turn, especially as they attempt to frame the upcoming papal visit to Britain singularly in these terms, this book demonstrates that Pope Benedict should be hailed as a hero in this tragic chapter of the Church, not assailed for “crimes against humanity” (as radical atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have proposed).
By no means is this an easy read. Opening with a report of vandalism at Pope Benedict’s childhood home, the authors invite the reader to delve into the hostility and divisiveness of the issue. As the authors trace the life of Joseph Ratzinger from that home through the turbulent waters of the 20th century, it becomes clear that our Pope is no stranger to hard issues. But he could not have expected the tidal wave of sex abuse reports that would flow into his office as head of the CDF in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s 2001 apostolic letter, “The Safeguarding of the Sacraments.” This document required bishops to report sexual violations “committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of 18 years.” Cardinal Ratzinger knew at once he would have a battle on two fronts: (1) the problem of sex abuse itself and (2) the ensuing scandal and its effects on the Church.
The authors quote a 2005 New York Times article to illustrate how seriously Cardinal Ratzinger took this task. Reviewing the reports every Friday, the Times reported, Ratzinger “found the cases so disturbing he called the work his Friday penance.”
The length and breadth of sexual abuse data is daunting. Erlandson and Bunson take the reader through the many reforms the Church has made over the centuries to combat ever-present sexual sin, illustrating that the problem is not endemic to the Church but rather, in a post-Fall world, a human failing that requires constant vigilance and renewal within the Church. From the dawn of the second millennium, the Church has written, legislated and preached to protect its flock especially in this area.
Interestingly, the issue of the correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality was far more overtly examined in the 11th century than in the 21st, despite the fact that in the 3,000 cases reported to the CDF, 60% percent involved homosexual activity.
The most difficult part of the book is the descent into the inferno of the modern crisis. From the breaking story in 2002 to the Murphy report in Ireland, the facts and figures of sexual abuse are devastating. It is difficult to read about the suffering of the victims, let alone imagine being the person required to clean up this sea of sin and scandal.
Erlandson and Bunson offer a few unusual pieces of information. They consulted the “Insurance Journal” of the companies that insure Protestant Churches for some comparative numbers and discovered that there were more reports of sex abuse per year than in the Catholic Church. Since very few entities besides the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have commissioned a study like the John Jay Report to comprehend the scope and nature of the problem of sex abuse, the problem has sometimes mistakenly been perceived as specific to the Catholic Church.
The tragic stories and data from Germany, Australia, Canada and other countries leave the reader asking, “Where do we go from here?” The rest of the book addresses that question. First, it underscores the decisive response of United States bishops in 2002 with the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.” These new directives as well as the expeditious system for dealing with a sex abuser, however, came from the direction of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, who identified and began addressing the issue pointedly in 2001. The British newspaper Daily Telegraph wrote in March 2010 that thanks to this Pope, "There is no safer place for a child today to be than with a Catholic priest.”
Pope Benedict’s frequent encounters with victims of sex abuse are recorded, as well as his extensive comments on the topic in interviews and homilies. By the last page, one wonders why it is that one of the most dramatic turn-around stories in history has been so ignored. Last year in the United States, there were a mere six allegations of abuse of children under age 18 out of a population of 42,000 priests and 70 million Catholics. One wonders why the Catholic Church hasn’t become the model of how to deal with this kind of crisis, instead of a synonym for sex abuse.
I personally found Erlandson and Bunson too gentle with the secular press as well as the contingency fee for lawyers who have exploited the sins of Catholics to their own greatest advantage. On the other hand, the authors’ restraint bolsters their argument, which focuses on the problem and the solutions implemented by Pope Benedict. They do, however, drop one interesting number regarding the total settlement amounts thus far (about $2 billion) and the 30% pocketed by the lawyers under the American system of lawsuits of this nature.
British papal detractors have harped on the sex abuse scandal to justify their hooligan-like attitude toward Benedict’s visit. Six months ago British columnist Christopher Hitchens wrote: “The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime.” In the face of such rhetorical vitriol, the calm facts and historical data presented by Erlandson and Bunson go a long way toward soothing troubled spirits.
Elizabeth Lev teaches Christian art and architecture at Duquesne University’s Italian campus and University of St. Thomas’ Catholic Studies program.
Thursday 26 August 2010
Liberalism or Fanaticism?
How incoherent and incongruent the modern world would have us be. On one hand, we are called to accept our differences. On the other hand, we are called into the norm even when it is not our own.
Today we are called to celebrate our disparities and forget our cherished values. We are called to forgo religion, family and honoured tradition in exchange for some sort of magical “freedom” proposed by liberalism, anthropocentrism, consumerism and science.
We are told that traditional belief systems and values are ignorant and blind and inflexible and do us no good. We are called to destroy the old wisdoms and seek out modern “enlightenment”. Where exactly? In equally intolerant extremisms like blind patriotism, rampant materialism and scientific fanaticism. Some even seek renewal in even older and more primitive concepts, like animism, polytheism & even witchcraf.
These "freedoms" are no more than prisons of a different kind. Through them, modern liberals would lead us against concience in a straight path to disaster. If we were to follow what so called “liberals” would have us do, we would be prisoners to fear and slaves to lust in but an instant of madness and sociological chaos.
By their rule, freedom is to promote pornography, but not monogamy; to forgo traditional wedlock, but endorse gay marriage; to welcome free sex, but not celibacy; to seek myriad partners, but not infidelity; to accept abortion of children, but not their punishment when it is due; we are to accept working women, but not women who wish to be mothers and housewives. It is completely inconsistent. It doesn't make sense. Where is the freedom? Where is the celebration of disparities? It doesn't exist.
This only makes sense in the light of an agenda. One based on applied proven socio-economic dynamics through marketing and social communications techniques. This is an agenda of greed and manipulation that would have us exchange fulfillment and happiness for material pleasures that result in renewable sales. Yes, it is about money. Not yours or mine, someone else's.
Think of it: An empty heart spends more money in search of solace. An empty womb can work more to generate riches and then spend them. An empty soul can seek filling in wealth and hedonism. If you take away something that rewards people, then people look for a substitute.
Religion, family, moral conduct and other such supposedly "obsolete" concepts are indeed very fulfilling on their own right. They were created after centuries of the same sorts of "freedoms" as are now proposed as something new.
As self nurturing sources of fulfilment, they are not commercially interesting because they don't directly generate continuous purchases. Hence, we are made to break with them and then we are offered alternatives that provide only ephemeral fulfilment. These substitutes are better not for you, but for the people that market them.
Next time someone tells you you're a fool for being true to your beliefs and your heritage, think of this. Think of the motive behind the banner. Then perhaps you may hold firm to timeless values you know are good.
Today we are called to celebrate our disparities and forget our cherished values. We are called to forgo religion, family and honoured tradition in exchange for some sort of magical “freedom” proposed by liberalism, anthropocentrism, consumerism and science.
We are told that traditional belief systems and values are ignorant and blind and inflexible and do us no good. We are called to destroy the old wisdoms and seek out modern “enlightenment”. Where exactly? In equally intolerant extremisms like blind patriotism, rampant materialism and scientific fanaticism. Some even seek renewal in even older and more primitive concepts, like animism, polytheism & even witchcraf.
These "freedoms" are no more than prisons of a different kind. Through them, modern liberals would lead us against concience in a straight path to disaster. If we were to follow what so called “liberals” would have us do, we would be prisoners to fear and slaves to lust in but an instant of madness and sociological chaos.
By their rule, freedom is to promote pornography, but not monogamy; to forgo traditional wedlock, but endorse gay marriage; to welcome free sex, but not celibacy; to seek myriad partners, but not infidelity; to accept abortion of children, but not their punishment when it is due; we are to accept working women, but not women who wish to be mothers and housewives. It is completely inconsistent. It doesn't make sense. Where is the freedom? Where is the celebration of disparities? It doesn't exist.
This only makes sense in the light of an agenda. One based on applied proven socio-economic dynamics through marketing and social communications techniques. This is an agenda of greed and manipulation that would have us exchange fulfillment and happiness for material pleasures that result in renewable sales. Yes, it is about money. Not yours or mine, someone else's.
Think of it: An empty heart spends more money in search of solace. An empty womb can work more to generate riches and then spend them. An empty soul can seek filling in wealth and hedonism. If you take away something that rewards people, then people look for a substitute.
Religion, family, moral conduct and other such supposedly "obsolete" concepts are indeed very fulfilling on their own right. They were created after centuries of the same sorts of "freedoms" as are now proposed as something new.
As self nurturing sources of fulfilment, they are not commercially interesting because they don't directly generate continuous purchases. Hence, we are made to break with them and then we are offered alternatives that provide only ephemeral fulfilment. These substitutes are better not for you, but for the people that market them.
Next time someone tells you you're a fool for being true to your beliefs and your heritage, think of this. Think of the motive behind the banner. Then perhaps you may hold firm to timeless values you know are good.
Tuesday 24 August 2010
Is Happiness Your Right?
People say they "have a right to be happy", but happiness isn't a birthright. Happiness is an objective to be achieved through wisdom and hard work.
Before you say that wisdom is contrary to happiness and that "ignorance is bliss", a statement with which I do fully agree, please be reminded that wisdom is not the same as knowledge.
According to Wikipedia: Wisdom is a deep understanding and realizing of people, things, events or situations, resulting in the ability to choose or act to consistently produce the optimum results with a minimum of time and energy. Wisdom is the ability to optimally (effectively and efficiently) apply perceptions and knowledge and so produce the desired results. Wisdom is comprehension of what is true or right coupled with optimum judgment as to action. Synonyms include: sagacity, discernment, or insight. Wisdom often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that one's principles, reason and knowledge prevail to determine one's actions.
Again according to Wikipedia: Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject; (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information; or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. (...) The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate.
Hence, knowledge is but the birth of wisdom, and ignorance is not the opposite of widsom, though it is the opposite of knowledge. Thus, while happiness abhores knowledge, it requires wisdom.
Before you say that wisdom is contrary to happiness and that "ignorance is bliss", a statement with which I do fully agree, please be reminded that wisdom is not the same as knowledge.
According to Wikipedia: Wisdom is a deep understanding and realizing of people, things, events or situations, resulting in the ability to choose or act to consistently produce the optimum results with a minimum of time and energy. Wisdom is the ability to optimally (effectively and efficiently) apply perceptions and knowledge and so produce the desired results. Wisdom is comprehension of what is true or right coupled with optimum judgment as to action. Synonyms include: sagacity, discernment, or insight. Wisdom often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that one's principles, reason and knowledge prevail to determine one's actions.
Again according to Wikipedia: Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject; (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information; or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. (...) The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate.
Hence, knowledge is but the birth of wisdom, and ignorance is not the opposite of widsom, though it is the opposite of knowledge. Thus, while happiness abhores knowledge, it requires wisdom.
Monday 9 August 2010
Philosophy has no place in the courts of princes and the chambers of government, for in philosophy austerity is greater than greed. Wise council on deaf ears but profits the councillor his own death.
Meanwhile the people suffer. Most men of power ignore the fact that it is greater in dignity to be poor and rule over a rich people than to be rich and rule over the needy.
Meanwhile the people suffer. Most men of power ignore the fact that it is greater in dignity to be poor and rule over a rich people than to be rich and rule over the needy.
Monday 2 August 2010
We are More
Human life is not a "commodity" and human dignity is not a "convenience". We must remind ourselves that we are more than the sum of our belongings.
It brings me much dismay to see the way people sell themselves cheaply nowadays. Girls exchanging modesty and dignity for a few moments of popularity and fame, men defiling their self esteem and tarnishing their honour for the sake of a few extra bucks.
Irresponsible behaviour has become the norm in our Society. We are watching the corruption of our children and applauding it. We are decaying into sodomy and animalism and relishing in it. We are killing our unborn hopes and revelling in their blood. We are all of us responsible for our own downfall.
It is time we strive to bring conscience back to our midst. It is time we teach our children to bear themselves honourably and with dignity so that they may set an example worth following for our grandchildren.
It brings me much dismay to see the way people sell themselves cheaply nowadays. Girls exchanging modesty and dignity for a few moments of popularity and fame, men defiling their self esteem and tarnishing their honour for the sake of a few extra bucks.
Irresponsible behaviour has become the norm in our Society. We are watching the corruption of our children and applauding it. We are decaying into sodomy and animalism and relishing in it. We are killing our unborn hopes and revelling in their blood. We are all of us responsible for our own downfall.
It is time we strive to bring conscience back to our midst. It is time we teach our children to bear themselves honourably and with dignity so that they may set an example worth following for our grandchildren.
Tuesday 20 July 2010
Transportation Issues of the 21st Century
If you still think your car is useful to you, try driving through Sao Paulo traffic for an afternoon. It took me 3 hours to travel a distance of only 25Km.
Honestly, we should go back to the transportation model of the 19th Century: Horses, chariots & trains. I warrant a horse's fuel is as biodegradable and sustainable as what comes out of its tail pipe.
Besides, there will be no worrying about drunken driving... Your horse will not crash onto another because you're drunk!
Honestly, we should go back to the transportation model of the 19th Century: Horses, chariots & trains. I warrant a horse's fuel is as biodegradable and sustainable as what comes out of its tail pipe.
Besides, there will be no worrying about drunken driving... Your horse will not crash onto another because you're drunk!
Friday 16 July 2010
The Church is the Church
When the Catholic Church reinforced today that the ordination of women will continue not to be acceptable by raising the gravity of the offence, it meant to answer the continued pressure from groups not always of the Church, chiefly but not only in the United States of America, for the ordination of women.
It had nothing to do with the pedophile scandals that were made very public in the recent past, and which received prompt and decisive attention from the Vatican, and which continue to be resolved in as constructive and practical a manner as is possible.
However, the media (and those who have a personal agenda against the Catholic Church) choses to focus on the equation of the punishment for the ordination of women to the crime of violation of children.
In any case, if you so choose to focus on this side-effect of the Church's response to the public call for the ordination of women, you must first understand that - unlike civil law - Canon Law does not have a whole lot of prescribable punishments. Once you have grasp of this, you must then understand that the whole issue has to do with the Norms and that these Norms have to do with delicts(offenses)by the clergy such as:
1. Against the faith (Heresy, Schism) [art 2]
2 Against the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (desecration etc) [art 3]
3. Agains the Sacrament of Confession (soliciting in the confessional, breaking the sacramental seal of confidence)[art4]
4. Against the Sacrament of Ordination (attempted ordination of women which does not go against a discipline of the church - like priestly celibacy - but against a Sacrament in itself - Holy Order - which the church has no power to change [art 5].
5. Against morals (offences against the 6th commandment commited against a minor below 18 by a cleric, acquisition and distribution of child porn by a cleric) [art 6]
The Church has always been clear about the gravity of attempted ordination of a woman. What new is the raising of the gravity of the offenses in Art 6 to the level of Articles 2-5 which are offenses which strike at the essence of the Church itself. This was done to put an end to the continued pressure for a more "democratic" system of ordaining both men and women.
The point is made frequently throughout History; often with confidence in change. There is a common assumption in modern democracies that the Catholic Church's persistance on an exclusively male priesthood is an anomaly, which endures only because a Polish pope has, in the 1990s, refused to move with the times. This is ignorance, plain and simple.
Historically, female priesthood has been favoured and never more so than in the Classical World. When Christ ordained His first priests, nearly 2,000 years ago, this was so. Virtually all the pagan religions of His day had priestesses, and it would have been unsurprising and natural for Him to elect women for this task. In light of His excellent potential candidates. From the Virgin Mary, His own Mother, who stood with Him even as He suffered on the cross, to Mary Magdalene or the women of Bethany, Jesus Christ did not have to go far to choose a priestess if he wanted one. Instead, He chose only men, and He remained immovable on this. From those twelve men that he trained a direct line of apostolic succession has given the Catholic Church the bishops and priests it has today.
In the Church's previous official statement on this matter, Pope John Paul II, using his full authority as the successor of Peter, states categorically that the Church cannot (not will not, but cannot)ordain women, now or ever. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets it out clearly, quoting the decree Inter insigniores:
Only a baptized man receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.
We must always remember the Catholic Church is NOT a democracy and never can be. It has a holy duty to defend and divulge its Faith, as it was handed by God. If you don't accept this, you shouldn't even be concerned with what the Church does with its laws, rules and regulations. I can understand Catholics debating the issue, what I cannot abide is all the non-Catholics complaining about what the Church chooses to do with Canon Law.
The Catholic Church must construe its internal regiments as it sees fit. Whether you want to belong to the Catholic Church and share Its views is your own to decide.
It had nothing to do with the pedophile scandals that were made very public in the recent past, and which received prompt and decisive attention from the Vatican, and which continue to be resolved in as constructive and practical a manner as is possible.
However, the media (and those who have a personal agenda against the Catholic Church) choses to focus on the equation of the punishment for the ordination of women to the crime of violation of children.
In any case, if you so choose to focus on this side-effect of the Church's response to the public call for the ordination of women, you must first understand that - unlike civil law - Canon Law does not have a whole lot of prescribable punishments. Once you have grasp of this, you must then understand that the whole issue has to do with the Norms and that these Norms have to do with delicts(offenses)by the clergy such as:
1. Against the faith (Heresy, Schism) [art 2]
2 Against the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (desecration etc) [art 3]
3. Agains the Sacrament of Confession (soliciting in the confessional, breaking the sacramental seal of confidence)[art4]
4. Against the Sacrament of Ordination (attempted ordination of women which does not go against a discipline of the church - like priestly celibacy - but against a Sacrament in itself - Holy Order - which the church has no power to change [art 5].
5. Against morals (offences against the 6th commandment commited against a minor below 18 by a cleric, acquisition and distribution of child porn by a cleric) [art 6]
The Church has always been clear about the gravity of attempted ordination of a woman. What new is the raising of the gravity of the offenses in Art 6 to the level of Articles 2-5 which are offenses which strike at the essence of the Church itself. This was done to put an end to the continued pressure for a more "democratic" system of ordaining both men and women.
The point is made frequently throughout History; often with confidence in change. There is a common assumption in modern democracies that the Catholic Church's persistance on an exclusively male priesthood is an anomaly, which endures only because a Polish pope has, in the 1990s, refused to move with the times. This is ignorance, plain and simple.
Historically, female priesthood has been favoured and never more so than in the Classical World. When Christ ordained His first priests, nearly 2,000 years ago, this was so. Virtually all the pagan religions of His day had priestesses, and it would have been unsurprising and natural for Him to elect women for this task. In light of His excellent potential candidates. From the Virgin Mary, His own Mother, who stood with Him even as He suffered on the cross, to Mary Magdalene or the women of Bethany, Jesus Christ did not have to go far to choose a priestess if he wanted one. Instead, He chose only men, and He remained immovable on this. From those twelve men that he trained a direct line of apostolic succession has given the Catholic Church the bishops and priests it has today.
In the Church's previous official statement on this matter, Pope John Paul II, using his full authority as the successor of Peter, states categorically that the Church cannot (not will not, but cannot)ordain women, now or ever. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets it out clearly, quoting the decree Inter insigniores:
Only a baptized man receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.
We must always remember the Catholic Church is NOT a democracy and never can be. It has a holy duty to defend and divulge its Faith, as it was handed by God. If you don't accept this, you shouldn't even be concerned with what the Church does with its laws, rules and regulations. I can understand Catholics debating the issue, what I cannot abide is all the non-Catholics complaining about what the Church chooses to do with Canon Law.
The Catholic Church must construe its internal regiments as it sees fit. Whether you want to belong to the Catholic Church and share Its views is your own to decide.
As with all sins, we are invited to see the act of sinning as regrettable, but the sinner deserves compassion, love and understanding, which does not in turn translate to approval. This is a Christian standing on all things of social conduct.
On all matters of social behaviour and personal choice, judgement shall be given by Him, not by us. Yet we are human, just as any sinner who would offer contestation to our consistency with our own Faith. We too sin. We too need kindness and compassion.
Thursday 15 July 2010
Argentina Legalised Same-Sex Marriages
Today Argentina legalised gay-marriages by a margin of 6 votes, in a move contrary to 200,000 protesters shouting against it on the streets of Buenos Aires.
The very next minute my anti-Catholic interlocutors started writing/calling to rub the issue in my face, which was an act I found regrettable and prejudiced. Funnily enough, my gay friends and acquaintances didn't. What does that tell you?
In all honesty I am tired of hearing the same fallacious arguments over and over again by people who aren't interested in listening to the reality of the situation and seek only to reinforce their own opinions. Even so, I'll have a go one last time:
1. First and foremost, the Catholic Church does not condone violent behaviour of any sort, nor does it condone prejudice of any kind. Regrettable historical moments notwithstanding, the Catholic Church remains universally open to take-in any who would like to be with us, and to live peacefully alongside any who would not.
2. Second, the Church’s official view toward homosexuality is that the ACT is condemnable, but the DRIVE isn’t. In any case, the homosexual himself/herself is seen as a person worthy of fraternal love and solidarity like any other person. We see the act of seeking the sexual partnership of the same sex as a sin, but the sinner deserves love and understanding.
3. Third, the Church does not impose this view by rule of force on any Government or State. It is the governments of some countries that have been imposing their rule on the Church, even when it is contrary to the Church’s legal right to think otherwise and to speak its mind on moral and religious issues. Furthermore, it is quite obvious to me that no one should be forced to accept and incorporate homosexuality just as no one should be forced not to accept it or incorporate it.
In other words, this should not be a legal matter at all, but a matter of individual choice, just as a person’s religion is a matter for individual choice.
Forcing the issue in the way it is being forced indicates to me that there is a political/socioeconomic agenda (emphases on the “economic” bit) behind the entire charade.
The very next minute my anti-Catholic interlocutors started writing/calling to rub the issue in my face, which was an act I found regrettable and prejudiced. Funnily enough, my gay friends and acquaintances didn't. What does that tell you?
In all honesty I am tired of hearing the same fallacious arguments over and over again by people who aren't interested in listening to the reality of the situation and seek only to reinforce their own opinions. Even so, I'll have a go one last time:
1. First and foremost, the Catholic Church does not condone violent behaviour of any sort, nor does it condone prejudice of any kind. Regrettable historical moments notwithstanding, the Catholic Church remains universally open to take-in any who would like to be with us, and to live peacefully alongside any who would not.
2. Second, the Church’s official view toward homosexuality is that the ACT is condemnable, but the DRIVE isn’t. In any case, the homosexual himself/herself is seen as a person worthy of fraternal love and solidarity like any other person. We see the act of seeking the sexual partnership of the same sex as a sin, but the sinner deserves love and understanding.
3. Third, the Church does not impose this view by rule of force on any Government or State. It is the governments of some countries that have been imposing their rule on the Church, even when it is contrary to the Church’s legal right to think otherwise and to speak its mind on moral and religious issues. Furthermore, it is quite obvious to me that no one should be forced to accept and incorporate homosexuality just as no one should be forced not to accept it or incorporate it.
In other words, this should not be a legal matter at all, but a matter of individual choice, just as a person’s religion is a matter for individual choice.
Forcing the issue in the way it is being forced indicates to me that there is a political/socioeconomic agenda (emphases on the “economic” bit) behind the entire charade.
Wednesday 7 July 2010
Pricing
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"The price of greatness is responsibility." - Sir Winston Churchill
"The price of inner peace is oblivion." - Noel-Morgan
"The price of greatness is responsibility." - Sir Winston Churchill
"The price of inner peace is oblivion." - Noel-Morgan
Is Helping Enough?
No. Helping is not enough. Nor is the desire to help someone ever sufficient basis for contentment. If you want to truly help someone, you must bear in mind the following:
1. The form of your aid will ultimately influence its result. Unwanted help or unwelcome help is no help at all in the end.
2. Is your help long-term? Must it be? If so, is your help sustainable?
3. Is your "help" actually helpful, or will it turn that someone into someone dependent on you? If so, your help is not very efficient and may not be any help at all.
Helping someone is a worthy thing, but we must first understand what true help is.
1. The form of your aid will ultimately influence its result. Unwanted help or unwelcome help is no help at all in the end.
2. Is your help long-term? Must it be? If so, is your help sustainable?
3. Is your "help" actually helpful, or will it turn that someone into someone dependent on you? If so, your help is not very efficient and may not be any help at all.
Helping someone is a worthy thing, but we must first understand what true help is.
Tuesday 6 July 2010
On the FIFA World Cup 2010
The BBC interviewed me on the results of this year's World Cup and the impact it had in Brazil.
After watching all the play-acting by players and their pretense injuries, after witnessing the incongruencies perpetrated by referees, the attempt by FIFA to ban the very technologies that were revealing these mistakes and the overall injustice that resulted on the fields of South Africa, I have only this to say:
The way fairplay was abused during the FIFA World Cup 2010 only reflects the (lack of) moral standards by which Western Society is steering.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/07/forgive_and_forget.html#comments
After watching all the play-acting by players and their pretense injuries, after witnessing the incongruencies perpetrated by referees, the attempt by FIFA to ban the very technologies that were revealing these mistakes and the overall injustice that resulted on the fields of South Africa, I have only this to say:
The way fairplay was abused during the FIFA World Cup 2010 only reflects the (lack of) moral standards by which Western Society is steering.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/07/forgive_and_forget.html#comments
Friday 18 June 2010
Reconciliation & Justice Leads to Peace
I read an article on Zenit on Cardinal Marchetto's address to the Conference of European University Chaplains, and it impacted me so completely with the truth contained in it, that I had to reproduce an exerpt fom what I've read. Zenit will publish the entire text this Saturday, so if this pricks your interest, do take the time to seek out the entire text: http://www.zenit.org
COVENTRY, England, JUNE 17, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Promoting dialogue and social justice are needed in order to build a lasting peace, says the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers, Cardinal Marchetto.
The cardinal began his address to the event ending this Friday by noting the importance of the chosen theme and its application in the context of education, especially universities. The "intellectual, spiritual and human formation of young minds and hearts is so fundamental to create a better world," he said.
The cardinal noted that the Church has constantly held to the view that peace is possible "through social justice and reconciliation."
"Mankind will not succeed in 'building a truly more human world for everyone, everywhere on earth, unless all people are renewed in spirit and converted to the truth of peace,'" the cardinal stated, quoting "Guadium et Spes."
Quoting Benedict XVI, he continued, "Peace is an irrepressible yearning present in the heart of each person, regardless of his or her particular cultural identity. The truth of peace calls upon everyone to cultivate productive and sincere relationships; it encourages them to seek out and to follow the paths of forgiveness and reconciliation."
In cases of terrorism, he explained, the Church upholds the view that government and religious leaders must work toward eliminating the social oppression and economic injustices that make the recruitment of terrorists easier.
"In this regard," he continued, "interreligious understanding and cooperation is also very important," especially with regard to "promoting a culture of forgiveness and reconciliation."
Cardinal Marchetto noted as well that "poverty is often a contributory factor or a compounding element in conflicts. These conflicts, in turn, fuel further tragic situations of poverty"
"Of course nowadays, fighting poverty requires attentive consideration of the complex phenomenon of globalization," he said. "Certainly globalization on its own is incapable of building peace, and in many cases, it actually creates divisions and conflicts.
"Globalization should be rather guided as a good opportunity to achieve something important in the fight against poverty, and to place at the disposal of justice and peace resources which were scarcely conceivable previously."
The cardinal said that a form of building peace is through working for the "universal common good." But before that can happen, he noted, "there needs to be a strong sense of global solidarity between rich and poor countries, as well as within individual countries, including affluent ones."
"All of this would indicate," Cardinal Marchetto explained, "that the fight against poverty requires cooperation both on the economic level and on the legal level, so as to allow the international community, and especially poorer countries, to identify and implement coordinated strategies to deal with the problems, thereby providing an effective legal framework for the economy."
COVENTRY, England, JUNE 17, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Promoting dialogue and social justice are needed in order to build a lasting peace, says the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers, Cardinal Marchetto.
The cardinal began his address to the event ending this Friday by noting the importance of the chosen theme and its application in the context of education, especially universities. The "intellectual, spiritual and human formation of young minds and hearts is so fundamental to create a better world," he said.
The cardinal noted that the Church has constantly held to the view that peace is possible "through social justice and reconciliation."
"Mankind will not succeed in 'building a truly more human world for everyone, everywhere on earth, unless all people are renewed in spirit and converted to the truth of peace,'" the cardinal stated, quoting "Guadium et Spes."
Quoting Benedict XVI, he continued, "Peace is an irrepressible yearning present in the heart of each person, regardless of his or her particular cultural identity. The truth of peace calls upon everyone to cultivate productive and sincere relationships; it encourages them to seek out and to follow the paths of forgiveness and reconciliation."
In cases of terrorism, he explained, the Church upholds the view that government and religious leaders must work toward eliminating the social oppression and economic injustices that make the recruitment of terrorists easier.
"In this regard," he continued, "interreligious understanding and cooperation is also very important," especially with regard to "promoting a culture of forgiveness and reconciliation."
Cardinal Marchetto noted as well that "poverty is often a contributory factor or a compounding element in conflicts. These conflicts, in turn, fuel further tragic situations of poverty"
"Of course nowadays, fighting poverty requires attentive consideration of the complex phenomenon of globalization," he said. "Certainly globalization on its own is incapable of building peace, and in many cases, it actually creates divisions and conflicts.
"Globalization should be rather guided as a good opportunity to achieve something important in the fight against poverty, and to place at the disposal of justice and peace resources which were scarcely conceivable previously."
The cardinal said that a form of building peace is through working for the "universal common good." But before that can happen, he noted, "there needs to be a strong sense of global solidarity between rich and poor countries, as well as within individual countries, including affluent ones."
"All of this would indicate," Cardinal Marchetto explained, "that the fight against poverty requires cooperation both on the economic level and on the legal level, so as to allow the international community, and especially poorer countries, to identify and implement coordinated strategies to deal with the problems, thereby providing an effective legal framework for the economy."
Thursday 13 May 2010
Is the Pill our Undoing?
On the subject of the contraceptive pill and the institution of marriage, I was startled to see someone of the stature of Raquel Welch provide a no-compromise comment on the defence of marriage. Amongst other things, she declared:
"These days, nobody seems able to "keep it in their pants" or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option? I'm ashamed to admit that I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.
In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, "sexual freedom," has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune."
She is totally correct. The pill is but a product; a means to an end, but in my opinion, the end is what harbours the malice.
What endangers the institution of marriage and many other valuable institutions in our culture is a systematic and general erosion of our moral values. Western cultures have been progressively destroying traditional ethical systems such as Virtue Ethics and even modern ones such as Deontology and Consequentialism in exchange for greater quarterly profits.
Some would call me a sexist and I agree that promiscuity is harmful whether it comes from women or men. Yet one must concede to the fact that, coincidence or not, promiscuity has increased many fold after the introduction of the pill and other contraceptive and abortive means. Nowadays people do take less care in choosing their partners and this has had a destructive impact on how easily people break their marital commitments.
It seems to me that women once tendered themselves more dearly and that, by their example, men were invited to do the same to achieve their partners. It also seems to me that, important as it may be, the economic independence of women has come at unforeseen costs to society. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for independent women, but the supposed "sexual freedom" that was endeared to our society in the 1960's and 1970's has actually imprisoned us in a cycle of "irresponsible sex" and its myriad socioeconomic consequences instead.
If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that the concept of "free sex" is a fallacy in itself. Let's not kid ourselves that getting sexually involved has no emotional impact attached to it. Let's not kid ourselves that there is no moral and social responsibility involved in giving this step. It's not just pleasure. Regardless of the "options" medical science affords us today, sex is still the doorway to new life and the continuation of our species, our families and our values. By distorting sex into a mere plaything, we are making it into just one more pastime and it has to be more than that. I know that to me it is.
The truth is that nowadays we seem to turn a blind eye to immorality so long as it brings us fame and fortune. Then we follow the rich and famous into moral decay; seeking to become rich and famous like them. We do this at the expense of our self respect, our marriages, our families and our children.
If you'd like to see the full enterview with Raquel Welch, here's the link:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/07/welch.sex.pill/index.html
"These days, nobody seems able to "keep it in their pants" or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option? I'm ashamed to admit that I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.
In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, "sexual freedom," has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune."
She is totally correct. The pill is but a product; a means to an end, but in my opinion, the end is what harbours the malice.
What endangers the institution of marriage and many other valuable institutions in our culture is a systematic and general erosion of our moral values. Western cultures have been progressively destroying traditional ethical systems such as Virtue Ethics and even modern ones such as Deontology and Consequentialism in exchange for greater quarterly profits.
Some would call me a sexist and I agree that promiscuity is harmful whether it comes from women or men. Yet one must concede to the fact that, coincidence or not, promiscuity has increased many fold after the introduction of the pill and other contraceptive and abortive means. Nowadays people do take less care in choosing their partners and this has had a destructive impact on how easily people break their marital commitments.
It seems to me that women once tendered themselves more dearly and that, by their example, men were invited to do the same to achieve their partners. It also seems to me that, important as it may be, the economic independence of women has come at unforeseen costs to society. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for independent women, but the supposed "sexual freedom" that was endeared to our society in the 1960's and 1970's has actually imprisoned us in a cycle of "irresponsible sex" and its myriad socioeconomic consequences instead.
If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that the concept of "free sex" is a fallacy in itself. Let's not kid ourselves that getting sexually involved has no emotional impact attached to it. Let's not kid ourselves that there is no moral and social responsibility involved in giving this step. It's not just pleasure. Regardless of the "options" medical science affords us today, sex is still the doorway to new life and the continuation of our species, our families and our values. By distorting sex into a mere plaything, we are making it into just one more pastime and it has to be more than that. I know that to me it is.
The truth is that nowadays we seem to turn a blind eye to immorality so long as it brings us fame and fortune. Then we follow the rich and famous into moral decay; seeking to become rich and famous like them. We do this at the expense of our self respect, our marriages, our families and our children.
If you'd like to see the full enterview with Raquel Welch, here's the link:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/07/welch.sex.pill/index.html
Tuesday 20 April 2010
Modern Genocide.
It sometimes horrifies me to witness the duality of our society. We suffer from such moral inconsistency nowadays that it startles me that some of us can navigate through this sea of opposing waves of rationalizations. Perhaps, like in natural physics, our conflicting relativistic “moral waves” do not really interfere with one another. That is to say that we allow ourselves to be morally dulled out of convenience.
Take for instance the matter of abortions. Why is it controversial? It shouldn't be. All that needs to be done is to decide - as a society - whether life is precious or not. All we need do is decide - as a society - whether we condone murder and genocide in "certain cases".
How can we, as a society of conscience, as a society that claims to cherish the welfare of children, justify the killing of innocents? Don’t kid yourself thinking otherwise, for no matter how you paint elective abortion that is what it really is in the end.
To call an abortionist a “pro-choicer” is an euphemism. By the time there is a child in the womb, the moral choice has already been made and a responsible person should be committed to the result of that choice. If the choice was not yours, it was even less so the child’s and the babe should not be made to pay for the sins of the father. To call abortion “surgery” is another euphemism. Morally, it is just as much surgery as euthanasia with the aggravation that the subject of the murder has not had the opportunity to live a full life before dying and is not aware that he/she has been selected to die. Besides, let’s not be hypocritical: more than 75% of elective abortions have nothing to do with risk of death or forced intercourse. They are elective, pure and simple.
To deem the act of electing abortion on the premise that a pregnancy is “unwanted” CAN be compared to murder. It isn’t even all that hard because there are recent Historical precedents where some social groups have been deemed "unwanted" and have been expunged – which is another euphemism by the way. They have been persecuted and killed in genocide during recent historical events in places such as Nazi Germany and occupied Europe, Rwanda and Srebrenica, Algeria, Zanzibar, Uganda, Nigeria, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Cambodia, East Timor under Indonesian occupation, Sabra-Shatila in Lebanon, in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Ethiopia, against Iraqi Kurds, Communist Mao's China, Tibet, Democratic Republic of Congo, Azerbaijan, West New Guinea & West Papua, Sri Lanka, Bosnia & Herzegovina and the list goes on.
We tell ourselves we abhor these horrendous acts of yesterdays’ tyrants, we promote wars and trials against them and then we see people condoning abortion. Why the double standard? If we are unwilling to accept genocide thousands of kilometers away, why are we so willing to allow it to happen under our very noses?
We see people manifesting strong opinions against the death penalty, and then we see them vouching for abortion. Why the double standard? If one is unwilling to kill a condemned man, why murder one that hasn’t even been allowed the opportunity to chose between crime and an honest life?
We see people raising their voices against pedophilia, but defending abortion. I ask them: how can that be? Why the double standard? Is it not worst to kill a child than to molest him/her? A child should be defended against ALL evils, including murder through abortion.
We see people vouching for abortion and birth control WHILST vouching for artificially induced pregnancy on varying grounds that reach from population control to the right to bear offspring. How conflicting can one be?
Our society has become completely morally inconsistent. We must return to the standpoint where we defend ALL life, or at least face the fact that NONE is safe.
I would appeal to individual conscience, except there seems to be none. Moral conscience is a rare commodity in our contemporary society. It has long since been replaced by relativism.
Take for instance the matter of abortions. Why is it controversial? It shouldn't be. All that needs to be done is to decide - as a society - whether life is precious or not. All we need do is decide - as a society - whether we condone murder and genocide in "certain cases".
How can we, as a society of conscience, as a society that claims to cherish the welfare of children, justify the killing of innocents? Don’t kid yourself thinking otherwise, for no matter how you paint elective abortion that is what it really is in the end.
To call an abortionist a “pro-choicer” is an euphemism. By the time there is a child in the womb, the moral choice has already been made and a responsible person should be committed to the result of that choice. If the choice was not yours, it was even less so the child’s and the babe should not be made to pay for the sins of the father. To call abortion “surgery” is another euphemism. Morally, it is just as much surgery as euthanasia with the aggravation that the subject of the murder has not had the opportunity to live a full life before dying and is not aware that he/she has been selected to die. Besides, let’s not be hypocritical: more than 75% of elective abortions have nothing to do with risk of death or forced intercourse. They are elective, pure and simple.
To deem the act of electing abortion on the premise that a pregnancy is “unwanted” CAN be compared to murder. It isn’t even all that hard because there are recent Historical precedents where some social groups have been deemed "unwanted" and have been expunged – which is another euphemism by the way. They have been persecuted and killed in genocide during recent historical events in places such as Nazi Germany and occupied Europe, Rwanda and Srebrenica, Algeria, Zanzibar, Uganda, Nigeria, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Cambodia, East Timor under Indonesian occupation, Sabra-Shatila in Lebanon, in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Ethiopia, against Iraqi Kurds, Communist Mao's China, Tibet, Democratic Republic of Congo, Azerbaijan, West New Guinea & West Papua, Sri Lanka, Bosnia & Herzegovina and the list goes on.
We tell ourselves we abhor these horrendous acts of yesterdays’ tyrants, we promote wars and trials against them and then we see people condoning abortion. Why the double standard? If we are unwilling to accept genocide thousands of kilometers away, why are we so willing to allow it to happen under our very noses?
We see people manifesting strong opinions against the death penalty, and then we see them vouching for abortion. Why the double standard? If one is unwilling to kill a condemned man, why murder one that hasn’t even been allowed the opportunity to chose between crime and an honest life?
We see people raising their voices against pedophilia, but defending abortion. I ask them: how can that be? Why the double standard? Is it not worst to kill a child than to molest him/her? A child should be defended against ALL evils, including murder through abortion.
We see people vouching for abortion and birth control WHILST vouching for artificially induced pregnancy on varying grounds that reach from population control to the right to bear offspring. How conflicting can one be?
Our society has become completely morally inconsistent. We must return to the standpoint where we defend ALL life, or at least face the fact that NONE is safe.
I would appeal to individual conscience, except there seems to be none. Moral conscience is a rare commodity in our contemporary society. It has long since been replaced by relativism.
Consumerism is NOT Capitalism
No, I am NOT a communist. Neither am I an anarchist. I’ve sometimes been accused of such things; mainly by colleagues in Social Communication, Marketing and Advertising. I assume it is because nowadays I often speak against Consumerism.
I see Consumerism as a form of Radical Capitalism, and as most radicalisms, it produces important distortions from the initial proposition. What this means is that, though I am favourable to Capitalism – mainly because no one came up with a better option yet – I am indeed opposed to the concept of Consumerism as an answer to contemporary socioeconomic problems.
Why? Because I don’t think we can make the world a better place by pushing things people don’t need into their lives and into their homes. I don’t think we can make this a better world by ravishing its natural resources with increasingly greater velocity to make these products that no one really needs. I don’t think we are building a better future by selling mobile phones, credit cards and bank accounts to our children just as soon as they can learn to speak.
What I do think is that we exacerbate our social problems by creating social distinctions based on wealth. I do think we endanger our planet by exploiting its natural resources irresponsibly to generate products that serve mainly the purpose of setting people apart as tokens of wealth and poor replacements for true hapiness. I do think our kids deserve to be looked at not as convenient consumers, but as innocent children deserving of our love.
So, while I think commerce and the industry play an important socioeconomic role, I also think we have allowed greed to permeate these activities to the last degree. This same greed is what taints our contemporary society and it is the source of various important evils of our time. This greed is congruent with the words "insatiable", "waste", "pollution", "inequity" and ultimately "Consumerism".
Think what you like of me, but I am no communist/anarchist. What I am is responsible.
I see Consumerism as a form of Radical Capitalism, and as most radicalisms, it produces important distortions from the initial proposition. What this means is that, though I am favourable to Capitalism – mainly because no one came up with a better option yet – I am indeed opposed to the concept of Consumerism as an answer to contemporary socioeconomic problems.
Why? Because I don’t think we can make the world a better place by pushing things people don’t need into their lives and into their homes. I don’t think we can make this a better world by ravishing its natural resources with increasingly greater velocity to make these products that no one really needs. I don’t think we are building a better future by selling mobile phones, credit cards and bank accounts to our children just as soon as they can learn to speak.
What I do think is that we exacerbate our social problems by creating social distinctions based on wealth. I do think we endanger our planet by exploiting its natural resources irresponsibly to generate products that serve mainly the purpose of setting people apart as tokens of wealth and poor replacements for true hapiness. I do think our kids deserve to be looked at not as convenient consumers, but as innocent children deserving of our love.
So, while I think commerce and the industry play an important socioeconomic role, I also think we have allowed greed to permeate these activities to the last degree. This same greed is what taints our contemporary society and it is the source of various important evils of our time. This greed is congruent with the words "insatiable", "waste", "pollution", "inequity" and ultimately "Consumerism".
Think what you like of me, but I am no communist/anarchist. What I am is responsible.
The Path to Harmony Isn't Wealth
Today’s Western Society rewards financial success. That isn’t wrong in any way, but it is rather limited and it carries with it an inherent danger that is already manifest in our midst. When one rewards financial success only, the danger is that everyone will do whatever it takes to achieve that single rewarding experience. If in pursuing this course of action one commits acts of malice, cruelty or even lunacy but is STILL rewarded with basis on one’s measurable financial success, everyone else around that individual will feel compelled to do likewise.
It goes without saying that what follows is chaos and disaster. Nevertheless, this is EXACTLY the pickle in which we find ourselves today. One need do little more than look around and into the contemporary icons of our Society’s regard for success to realise this very simple fact. What are the symbols our Society identifies with success? Who are today’s heroes? If you look honestly into these, you will be as baffled as I to discover we have been rewarding greed, corruption and unscrupulousness for quite some time now.
I sometimes refer to the past for a comparative reference, and I like using what is regarded presently as "controversial periods" to achieve maximum effect. One such period is the Dark Ages.
What is funny to me is that many of my interlocutors who are self proclaimed “free thinkers” frown on the values proposed by European medieval societies; saying that they were retrograde and enslaving of the human mind and the human heart. My interlocutors hold that the Middle Ages offered nothing but ignorance and bigotry. I beg to differ.
There was a time when adhering to the chivalric code of honour was the aim of every reputable public figure, and by proxy, of everyone else. This was a code of conduct based on Aristotle's concept of Virtue Ethics and on pre-Islam Middle Eastern Society. It was proposed by the Catholic clergy as a means of enabling a sustainable basis for society to grow. In all fairness, I warrant that the code was seldom fully followed and never at all times, but it was an icon of civility and purity that was cherished universally.
Part of this code were the knightly virtues, which were a set of standards that served as guidelines for the warrior class, the Knights and Dukes of the High Middle Ages, in their daily living and interactions with others. Though there was no definitive list of virtues, the most common were embraced by pan-European organisations. These were the cardinal virtues – Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude – and the beatitudes – Humility, Compassion, Courtesy, Devotion, Mercy, Purity, Peace and Endurance. Other proposed virtues widely embraced by knightly orders included: Courage, Sagacity, Charity, Generosity, Faith, Valour, Hope, Diligence, Chastity, Truth and Integrity.
Albeit one can’t claim that all knights followed this code, the fact that the code existed and that it had been proposed as something to be prized and pursued by all men and women of good will was, in my understanding, a much more advanced social code than what we’ve been procuring today. Disagree? Then follow my reasoning through:
If, however imperfectly, we seek to follow, as a Society, the path of Integrity, Prudence, Temperance, Justice, Compassion, Courtesy, Purity, Peace, etc, what must follow is an understanding between and amongst the peoples of the Earth. This is coherent because, in seeking to be prudent and just and courteous etc, it follows that we achieve at the very least the semblance of it. By doing so, the recipient of this effort will be positively impressed and pressed toward reciprocity. If this, at any point, becomes the general rule, we will have a world of charitable, prudent, honest people. To me, this is a goal heartily to be cherished.
In contrast, if we should follow the path of Ambition, Greed, Competition, Consumerism, Self Determination, Egotism, Hedonism, Relativism and Success without Remorse, it will follow – as it has been following – that Machiavellianism will prevail over even the most basic concepts of contemporary Ethics such as Deontology (ethics of fulfilling duty) and Consequentialism (ethics of attracting good consequences). If wealth is ALWAYS rewarded, then the ends justify the means so long as you become rich. This is evident in the lives of public figures, who are often involved in abhorrent scandals of pornography, disloyalty, corruption and even crime; yet they endure in the limelight and continue to gather fans and followers.
It's all a question of what your aims are. That's the point! We often fall short of our aims, but if the aim itself falls short, what hope do we have then? We should aspire to better things. We should strive to be better as a people. Instead we are divided by greed and individualism.
If we persist in rewarding only Financial Success and the display of its trappings as the maxim for our contemporary Society, and if we continue to do so in detriment of Virtue Ethics, then we must realise that Deontology and Consequentialism will not be enough to hold the social fabric together. In reality, if wealth is all that is rewarded, we become enslaved by it.
We must stop rewarding material wealth and we must resume the reward of the man/woman behind it and his/her conduct before his/her peers. We must stop to revolve around THINGS and we must start looking at PEOPLE. Only then will we be able to live in a harmonious and sustainable society. Only then will we be really free.
It goes without saying that what follows is chaos and disaster. Nevertheless, this is EXACTLY the pickle in which we find ourselves today. One need do little more than look around and into the contemporary icons of our Society’s regard for success to realise this very simple fact. What are the symbols our Society identifies with success? Who are today’s heroes? If you look honestly into these, you will be as baffled as I to discover we have been rewarding greed, corruption and unscrupulousness for quite some time now.
I sometimes refer to the past for a comparative reference, and I like using what is regarded presently as "controversial periods" to achieve maximum effect. One such period is the Dark Ages.
What is funny to me is that many of my interlocutors who are self proclaimed “free thinkers” frown on the values proposed by European medieval societies; saying that they were retrograde and enslaving of the human mind and the human heart. My interlocutors hold that the Middle Ages offered nothing but ignorance and bigotry. I beg to differ.
There was a time when adhering to the chivalric code of honour was the aim of every reputable public figure, and by proxy, of everyone else. This was a code of conduct based on Aristotle's concept of Virtue Ethics and on pre-Islam Middle Eastern Society. It was proposed by the Catholic clergy as a means of enabling a sustainable basis for society to grow. In all fairness, I warrant that the code was seldom fully followed and never at all times, but it was an icon of civility and purity that was cherished universally.
Part of this code were the knightly virtues, which were a set of standards that served as guidelines for the warrior class, the Knights and Dukes of the High Middle Ages, in their daily living and interactions with others. Though there was no definitive list of virtues, the most common were embraced by pan-European organisations. These were the cardinal virtues – Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude – and the beatitudes – Humility, Compassion, Courtesy, Devotion, Mercy, Purity, Peace and Endurance. Other proposed virtues widely embraced by knightly orders included: Courage, Sagacity, Charity, Generosity, Faith, Valour, Hope, Diligence, Chastity, Truth and Integrity.
Albeit one can’t claim that all knights followed this code, the fact that the code existed and that it had been proposed as something to be prized and pursued by all men and women of good will was, in my understanding, a much more advanced social code than what we’ve been procuring today. Disagree? Then follow my reasoning through:
If, however imperfectly, we seek to follow, as a Society, the path of Integrity, Prudence, Temperance, Justice, Compassion, Courtesy, Purity, Peace, etc, what must follow is an understanding between and amongst the peoples of the Earth. This is coherent because, in seeking to be prudent and just and courteous etc, it follows that we achieve at the very least the semblance of it. By doing so, the recipient of this effort will be positively impressed and pressed toward reciprocity. If this, at any point, becomes the general rule, we will have a world of charitable, prudent, honest people. To me, this is a goal heartily to be cherished.
In contrast, if we should follow the path of Ambition, Greed, Competition, Consumerism, Self Determination, Egotism, Hedonism, Relativism and Success without Remorse, it will follow – as it has been following – that Machiavellianism will prevail over even the most basic concepts of contemporary Ethics such as Deontology (ethics of fulfilling duty) and Consequentialism (ethics of attracting good consequences). If wealth is ALWAYS rewarded, then the ends justify the means so long as you become rich. This is evident in the lives of public figures, who are often involved in abhorrent scandals of pornography, disloyalty, corruption and even crime; yet they endure in the limelight and continue to gather fans and followers.
It's all a question of what your aims are. That's the point! We often fall short of our aims, but if the aim itself falls short, what hope do we have then? We should aspire to better things. We should strive to be better as a people. Instead we are divided by greed and individualism.
If we persist in rewarding only Financial Success and the display of its trappings as the maxim for our contemporary Society, and if we continue to do so in detriment of Virtue Ethics, then we must realise that Deontology and Consequentialism will not be enough to hold the social fabric together. In reality, if wealth is all that is rewarded, we become enslaved by it.
We must stop rewarding material wealth and we must resume the reward of the man/woman behind it and his/her conduct before his/her peers. We must stop to revolve around THINGS and we must start looking at PEOPLE. Only then will we be able to live in a harmonious and sustainable society. Only then will we be really free.
Monday 19 April 2010
Secularism vs. Religion: What's Behind It?
So why is spirituality contrary to secularism? Couldn’t both coexist as they have for the past several millennia? Why not? What’s changed so much that would make the proposition unviable? This is something of a provocative problem, but all of us already know the answer to it, don’t we? The answer is “yes”.
Hang on a minute, if the answer is quite simply “yes, secularism and spirituality can coexist”, then why is it that there is so much conflict between the two in modern society? The answer to that question is twofold:
The first element is this: Spirituality is source of comfort and self-sufficient fulfilment to most spiritual/religious people. It is more times than not independent from one’s financial status and it requires little or nothing in the way of monetary investment (some even preach against awarding wealth too much stock). It simultaneously gives a person a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself and it distinguishes you quite individually before one’s faith in the sense that it is a personal experience. It entices an individual to seek to better himself in terms of what he is. It prompts you toward valour, charity and understanding. It requires dedication and altruism. It rewards with consolation, self awareness and connection to a community. Happiness becomes a function of this reward.
The other element is this: Secular Western Society has grown away from its traditional values to embrace a newer and different set. Whereas a man was once defined by origin, commitment and achievement, today a man is defined mostly by appearance and financial achievement alone. Per the current social requirement, we are expected to seek wealth as a means to achieve happiness. We work to prove our worth and to seek the means to procure contentment. In our present capitalist society, gratification is sought through consumerism. The concept is simple: we make money to spend money rewarding ourselves in a cyclic pattern of satisfaction and longing. The more money we make, the better we are before the eyes of our peers. It matters more that we have money than how we’ve made it. That’s because we are judged by how we appear in public. With more money, we can present ourselves better; with better garments and with posh cars and stamped passports. This is an ingenious social system insofar as economics are concerned.
So, if you don’t yet grasp the conflict, I’ll make it plain for you: The concept of self-sufficient fulfilment present in spiritualism is in stark contrast to the concept of renewable gratification proposed by consumerism. It makes sense, if you think of it.
While spiritualism is a personal search that beckons the shedding of material attachment in exchange for timeless bliss, consumerism is a socioeconomic order that is dependent on the systematic creation and fostering of a desire to purchase commodities in ever greater amounts. It isn’t meant to be fulfilling as much as it is purposefully meant not to be. It generates only temporary gratification whereby it becomes economically renewable. If that gratification were ever to become perpetual contentment, the entire system proposed by consumerism would collapse, as there would be no renewal on consumption. In other words, at the same time as spiritualism is more an internal search for happiness, consumerism proposes an external source of gratification dependent on social acceptance through material wealth.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if I were a greedy tycoon whose power and recognition came from the maintenance of consumerism, I might feel threatened by any alternative system of fulfilment; especially one that proved viable.
Hereby do we find the source of the conflict. While genuine spiritualism is happy to coexist with other systems, rampant capitalism, which we call consumerism, isn’t. Yet, consumerism doesn’t offer strong enough arguments against spiritualism on its own. You can’t just tell people they have to let go of God just for the sake of a new car or a new trip (or the wealth of the industrialist behind these desirable items). Where does consumerism seek support then? In relativism and in secular radicalism.
By blaming the ills of Humanity on spiritualism (or rather the mistakes and values of different religious sects), and by breaking with religious aspirations and codes of conduct, the promotion of secularist thinking offers only consumerism as a replacement source of fulfilment; thereby triggering the consumption cycle that fuels consumerism.
Make no mistake: radical capitalism is using secular relativism to fight spiritualism. It is competing with religion because its promoters know that spiritual fulfilment can outdo the fleeting gratifications offered by consumerism.
Hence, radical secularists are actually the priests of consumerism preaching against spiritualism to promote ephemeral happiness and the decay of modern society.
Hang on a minute, if the answer is quite simply “yes, secularism and spirituality can coexist”, then why is it that there is so much conflict between the two in modern society? The answer to that question is twofold:
The first element is this: Spirituality is source of comfort and self-sufficient fulfilment to most spiritual/religious people. It is more times than not independent from one’s financial status and it requires little or nothing in the way of monetary investment (some even preach against awarding wealth too much stock). It simultaneously gives a person a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself and it distinguishes you quite individually before one’s faith in the sense that it is a personal experience. It entices an individual to seek to better himself in terms of what he is. It prompts you toward valour, charity and understanding. It requires dedication and altruism. It rewards with consolation, self awareness and connection to a community. Happiness becomes a function of this reward.
The other element is this: Secular Western Society has grown away from its traditional values to embrace a newer and different set. Whereas a man was once defined by origin, commitment and achievement, today a man is defined mostly by appearance and financial achievement alone. Per the current social requirement, we are expected to seek wealth as a means to achieve happiness. We work to prove our worth and to seek the means to procure contentment. In our present capitalist society, gratification is sought through consumerism. The concept is simple: we make money to spend money rewarding ourselves in a cyclic pattern of satisfaction and longing. The more money we make, the better we are before the eyes of our peers. It matters more that we have money than how we’ve made it. That’s because we are judged by how we appear in public. With more money, we can present ourselves better; with better garments and with posh cars and stamped passports. This is an ingenious social system insofar as economics are concerned.
So, if you don’t yet grasp the conflict, I’ll make it plain for you: The concept of self-sufficient fulfilment present in spiritualism is in stark contrast to the concept of renewable gratification proposed by consumerism. It makes sense, if you think of it.
While spiritualism is a personal search that beckons the shedding of material attachment in exchange for timeless bliss, consumerism is a socioeconomic order that is dependent on the systematic creation and fostering of a desire to purchase commodities in ever greater amounts. It isn’t meant to be fulfilling as much as it is purposefully meant not to be. It generates only temporary gratification whereby it becomes economically renewable. If that gratification were ever to become perpetual contentment, the entire system proposed by consumerism would collapse, as there would be no renewal on consumption. In other words, at the same time as spiritualism is more an internal search for happiness, consumerism proposes an external source of gratification dependent on social acceptance through material wealth.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if I were a greedy tycoon whose power and recognition came from the maintenance of consumerism, I might feel threatened by any alternative system of fulfilment; especially one that proved viable.
Hereby do we find the source of the conflict. While genuine spiritualism is happy to coexist with other systems, rampant capitalism, which we call consumerism, isn’t. Yet, consumerism doesn’t offer strong enough arguments against spiritualism on its own. You can’t just tell people they have to let go of God just for the sake of a new car or a new trip (or the wealth of the industrialist behind these desirable items). Where does consumerism seek support then? In relativism and in secular radicalism.
By blaming the ills of Humanity on spiritualism (or rather the mistakes and values of different religious sects), and by breaking with religious aspirations and codes of conduct, the promotion of secularist thinking offers only consumerism as a replacement source of fulfilment; thereby triggering the consumption cycle that fuels consumerism.
Make no mistake: radical capitalism is using secular relativism to fight spiritualism. It is competing with religion because its promoters know that spiritual fulfilment can outdo the fleeting gratifications offered by consumerism.
Hence, radical secularists are actually the priests of consumerism preaching against spiritualism to promote ephemeral happiness and the decay of modern society.
Wednesday 14 April 2010
Ed Koch: "Catholics ARE Under Persecution"
If you are Catholic and have of late felt that it is open season on us, you are not alone. Though if your read my diary you know that I feel as you do, we are joined also by Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York, who has declared that "continuing attacks" by the media on the Church and Benedict XVI have become manifestations of anti-Catholicism. The Jewish former mayor, who also served as a U.S. Congressman from 1969 to 1977 and is presently a political commentator, published his very objective statement in blog belonging to the Jerusalem Post.
He said: "The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate." He further asserted that "many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the Pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice."
If you've been reading my blog these latter years, then you known how I stand before the scrutiny of Western Society over the precepts of the Catholic Faith. You already know that I believe in our taking responsibility over the choices we make and their consequences; even though most individuals try to shun the latter whilst retaining the former. You already know that I think we - as a Society of arrogant hedonists - have sought to make religion a convenience, but we neglected the fact that it is not so. Though we are not obliged to follow a particular religion, the religious precepts that guide it are not ours to change or modify to suit our own economies, conveniences, urges and desires. In this, Edward Koch seems to agree with me.
He added: "The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce." Who can dispute those claims? Not I, for this is indeed the very same comments I have been making here for the past years.
We live in a Society that has degraded its values of honour, family and charity into greed, corruption and consumerism. To that end, we - as a Society - found the need to attack and destroy that which impeded the progress of our conveniences. We dismantled values and beliefs to make them suitable to our socioeconomic ends. Yet, in our collective blindness, we have forgotten that the Catholic Faith is not the Church's property to meddle with. Our Faith was entrusted to the Church to be guarded and proclaimed with fielty, not liberalism. Hence, the Church is most assuredly not a democracy. It cannot be.
Though the politician offered evidence that he does not personally agree with the Catholic position on these issues, Ed Koch seems to agree with this assessment when he mentions that the Church "has a right to hold these views in accordance with its religious beliefs." He went further to declare: "Orthodox Jews, like the Roman Catholic Church, can demand absolute obedience to religious rules. Those declining to adhere are free to leave." He went on to deliver: "My good friend, Cardinal John O'Connor, once said, 'The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you.' The Church has the right to demand fulfillment of all of its religious obligations by its parishioners, and indeed a right to espouse its beliefs generally."
Koch offered his belief that "the Roman Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, not evil." As well, he said, "the existence of 1 billion, 130 million Catholics worldwide is important to the peace and prosperity of the planet. (...) Of course, the media should report to the public any new facts bearing upon the issue of child molestation," held Koch, "but its objectivity and credibility are damaged when the New York Times declines to publish an op-ed offered by New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the issue of anti-Catholicism and offers instead to publish a letter to the editor, which is much shorter and less prominent than an op-ed.(...)Enough is enough," he affirmed. Koch continued: "Yes, terrible acts were committed by members of the Catholic clergy. The Church has paid billions to victims in the United States and will pay millions, perhaps billions, more to other such victims around the world. It is trying desperately to atone for its past by its admissions and changes in procedures for dealing with pedophile priests." What more can be expected by a Society that is itself also guilty of the same offenses?
I could go on, but I fear it is painful to feel that so much antagonism could be aimed at this, that is my Church and simultaneously the largest humanitarian and charitable organisation in the planet. Inconvenient as we may be to consumerism, I can say that - at least for my part - we will continue to uphold our Faith in all its beauty and in defence of life, ethics and moral values that make us freer persons than the supposed liberalism that is preeched by radical captalists and their consumerism.
If you are interested, the full text of former mayor Ed Koch can be found here: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sin
He said: "The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate." He further asserted that "many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the Pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice."
If you've been reading my blog these latter years, then you known how I stand before the scrutiny of Western Society over the precepts of the Catholic Faith. You already know that I believe in our taking responsibility over the choices we make and their consequences; even though most individuals try to shun the latter whilst retaining the former. You already know that I think we - as a Society of arrogant hedonists - have sought to make religion a convenience, but we neglected the fact that it is not so. Though we are not obliged to follow a particular religion, the religious precepts that guide it are not ours to change or modify to suit our own economies, conveniences, urges and desires. In this, Edward Koch seems to agree with me.
He added: "The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce." Who can dispute those claims? Not I, for this is indeed the very same comments I have been making here for the past years.
We live in a Society that has degraded its values of honour, family and charity into greed, corruption and consumerism. To that end, we - as a Society - found the need to attack and destroy that which impeded the progress of our conveniences. We dismantled values and beliefs to make them suitable to our socioeconomic ends. Yet, in our collective blindness, we have forgotten that the Catholic Faith is not the Church's property to meddle with. Our Faith was entrusted to the Church to be guarded and proclaimed with fielty, not liberalism. Hence, the Church is most assuredly not a democracy. It cannot be.
Though the politician offered evidence that he does not personally agree with the Catholic position on these issues, Ed Koch seems to agree with this assessment when he mentions that the Church "has a right to hold these views in accordance with its religious beliefs." He went further to declare: "Orthodox Jews, like the Roman Catholic Church, can demand absolute obedience to religious rules. Those declining to adhere are free to leave." He went on to deliver: "My good friend, Cardinal John O'Connor, once said, 'The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you.' The Church has the right to demand fulfillment of all of its religious obligations by its parishioners, and indeed a right to espouse its beliefs generally."
Koch offered his belief that "the Roman Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, not evil." As well, he said, "the existence of 1 billion, 130 million Catholics worldwide is important to the peace and prosperity of the planet. (...) Of course, the media should report to the public any new facts bearing upon the issue of child molestation," held Koch, "but its objectivity and credibility are damaged when the New York Times declines to publish an op-ed offered by New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the issue of anti-Catholicism and offers instead to publish a letter to the editor, which is much shorter and less prominent than an op-ed.(...)Enough is enough," he affirmed. Koch continued: "Yes, terrible acts were committed by members of the Catholic clergy. The Church has paid billions to victims in the United States and will pay millions, perhaps billions, more to other such victims around the world. It is trying desperately to atone for its past by its admissions and changes in procedures for dealing with pedophile priests." What more can be expected by a Society that is itself also guilty of the same offenses?
I could go on, but I fear it is painful to feel that so much antagonism could be aimed at this, that is my Church and simultaneously the largest humanitarian and charitable organisation in the planet. Inconvenient as we may be to consumerism, I can say that - at least for my part - we will continue to uphold our Faith in all its beauty and in defence of life, ethics and moral values that make us freer persons than the supposed liberalism that is preeched by radical captalists and their consumerism.
If you are interested, the full text of former mayor Ed Koch can be found here: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)