"You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich."

With these prophetic words, St. Ambrose eloquently highlighted and linked together the Catholic social teaching principles known today as the "preferential concern for the poor and vulnerable," the "common good," and the "care for creation."

And in our day, Pope Francis has voiced similar concerns; especially in his encyclical letter "Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home" - a must read.

In his own prophetic way, the Holy Father warns: "When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities - to offer just a few examples - it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected."

Yes, everything is connected! We have no time to waste in recognising, healing, and strengthening these connections.

We are linked together in a common bond. And it is crucial to become aware that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Thus, we need to shore up every single link of the Creator's good and wonderful creation.

And there's no better time to begin than now, during this "Season of Creation" which runs from Sept. 1 to Oct. 4 - the feast of St. Francis of Assisi patron saint of ecology.

Season of Creation

More than ever before, much of our planet, and many of our people, are greatly suffering. Here are just two of the many tragic examples: 2023 was the world's hottest year on record and global hunger is at a historic level with 42 million people in 45 countries languishing on the brink of starvation.

A popular phrase from Pope Francis' "Laudato Si" captures this dreadful reality quite well: "We must hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor".

Don't miss the inspiring film featuring Pope Francis called "The Letter: A message for our Earth". Consider making it a parish event.

One of the social justice, peace, pro-life bumper stickers on my car reads: "Make Everyday Earth Day." Yes, indeed, not just one day, and even not just during the "Season of Creation," but furthermore may we remember that each day of life beckons us to cherish, protect, pray for, and celebrate our awesome God's awesome creation!

The inspiring Catholic social justice and peace activist, and "Servant of God" Dorothy Day, said, "Like Dostoevsky, I began to believe that the world would be saved by beauty."

Looking upon the sun, the moon, and the stars, Day said to her atheist live-in partner, "How can there be no God when there are all these beautiful things?" With further reflection she concluded, "It was this beautiful, natural world that slowly led me back to God."

Like Dorothy Day, may each of us allow God's beautiful creation to lead us to a far deeper appreciation of our awesome Creator and his awesome creation!

• First published by Clarion Herald
• Tony Magliano is an internationally syndicated Catholic social justice and peace columnist. He is available to speak at diocesan or parish gatherings.

It means creating the social, economic and ecological conditions which enable all members of society - according to their capacity - to reach their human fulfilment and to contribute to the good of society.

Majority rule, and claims to be acting on the mandate of a majority, do not guarantee the common good. Majority rule can even lead to disadvantaged groups and indigenous peoples being under the domination of majority cultures, indefinitely.

Electoral systems are only a means to higher end. That higher end is the fundamental right of people to participate, and contribute to decisions that affect them.

As ancient wisdom put it: "if it's about us, then not without us". "One person one vote" can need to be supplemented by other measures, especially at local level, to enhance people's ability to participate.

Same Treatment Is Not Always Equality

To safeguard this right, fair-minded people recognise the need to level the playing field for disadvantaged groups. Opposition to this is based on the simplistic view that equality requires everyone to be treated "the same."

In fact, sameness of treatment can prevent equality of opportunity.

Worse still, sometimes that is the agenda: to treat "everybody the same" is convenient for those who want to reinforce the political and economic advantages they already have.

They will call different treatment "divisive." What can look like advocating different treatment based on culture or ethnicity can be, in fact, advocating supplementary measures based on need. Failure to meet those needs is divisive.

Cultural Diversity Matters

However, self-interest is not the only reason for opposing efforts to level the playing field. Opposition can emerge from poor understanding of why cultural diversity matters so much.

One thinks of the decision of Australians to vote down a proposal that would have given First Australians a way of making their needs better understood by the nation's parliament.

In our own country, there has been opposition to extra provision for Maori participation on local body boards, and slowness to allow Maori to manage vaccination roll-outs among their own people when the Ministry of Health's lack of success was evident.

These matters raise an interesting question: why do we readily accept the need to level the playing field for some disadvantaged groups, but resist doing so when the disadvantage relates to cultural or ethnic diversity?

Is this just the typical failure of some within a dominant culture to understand the deep needs of people whose culture is different?

Does it reflect an individualistic culture's tendency to identify need only in individuals, failing to recognise the shared needs of communities?

Or does this zeal for dominance by the majority culture come from something more sinister?

After all, to eliminate te reo from public signage is a gratuitous, needless and mean-spirited thing to do. The more bizarre because it is an official language.

A dominant culture's failure to recognise the needs of other cultural groups can only heighten a tangata whenua's felt need for full self-determination.

Civil Society

Of course, a people's right to self-determination includes their right to enter treaties and agreed forms of partnership. But treaties, legislation and contractual agreements, though important, are not sufficient.

Achieving the common good depends more on those forms of association that bring people together based on goodwill, friendship, loyalty, generosity, shared values and responsibilities.

It is through these relationships that we become our true selves by being there for one another - civil society.

The markets and the state are meant to support that kind of society.

But neo-liberalism has subverted these relationships: society's subjugation to polarising market forces, and the state's subservience to the market's most powerful sectors, are deemed to be normal, acceptable and inevitable; it's even called ‘progress'.

Society has itself to blame for this to the extent that we have farmed out to the state and the markets the consequences of our poor choices.

In discussions on social and economic problems, the glaring absence of any reference to personal virtue, moral formation or social responsibility is commonplace.

We expect the state and the markets to fix what we have broken. They can't.

Pursuing the common good also needs freedom of speech and of association, including religious freedom.

Faith-based values, and respectful faith-based dialogue, have a unique contribution to make to the common good, but can be obstructed by polarising religious fundamentalism at one extreme, and secularism disguised as ‘neutrality" at the other.

The "Logic of Gift"

In some remarkable documents, recent Popes have taught the need for giving what isn't owed.

Lack of compassion was a feature of the pre-Christian cultures of Rome and Greece, and is a feature of post-Christian society today.

In the early Church, compassion made Christians conspicuously different.

Compassion, like God's love for us, isn't owed. That makes it a circuit breaker where otherwise tit-for-tat and getting even would be about as far as the common good could go.

Pope Francis has asked those with institutional and political responsibility, and those charged with forming public opinion, to remain especially attentive to the way they speak of those who think or act differently or those who may have made mistakes.

Courage is needed to guide towards processes of reconciliation. It is precisely such positive and creative boldness which offers real solutions to ancient conflicts and the opportunity to build lasting peace.

Some feel that a society rooted in mercy is hopelessly idealistic.

I would encourage everyone to see society not as a forum where strangers compete and try to come out on top, but above all as a home or a family, where the door is always open and where everyone feels welcome… (World Communications Day 2016)

Similarly, Pope Benedict XVI dared to hope that compassion, gratuitous giving and forgiving could be brought into economic relationships - the very antithesis of neo-liberal economics.

He thinks of what it would do to trading relationships, business and industrial practices… He sees this as a way of pre-empting the imbalances and inequities that otherwise need to be redressed afterwards. (see Caritas in Veritate, 6, 36-39):

On the one hand, charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples. It strives to build the earthly city according to law and justice.

On the other hand, charity transcends justice and completes it in the logic of giving and forgiving.

The earthly city is promoted not merely by relationships of rights and duties, but to an even greater and more fundamental extent by relationships of gratuitousness, mercy and communion…" (Caritas in Veritate 6.)

• Peter Cullinane is the Bishop Emeritus of the Palmerston North diocese.

Michael Rozier, a Jesuit professor of health management and policy, has reflected on the importance of commitment to health care and identified three significant areas: traditional health care practice; public health; and global health.[1]

We will follow this tripartite approach here.

Traditional health care practice

Throughout Christian history, beginning with Jesus, accompanying the sick and caring for them has been an integral part of the personal and ecclesial life of faith.

Individual believers, confraternities, congregations, and countless women and men religious have made their mark in Christian history with their generosity in the service of those who are sick and in need of help. On every continent and in different ways Christianity has permitted and encouraged the development of hospices, hospitals and clinics, that is to say, of structures and institutions that serve the practice of health care.

In this way, over the centuries, the relationship between healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses, technicians and administrators) and citizens has characterized and guided Christian involvement in promoting health.

Public health

However, when we look at other areas of health, it is more difficult to identify and recognize examples of how we have been involved in promoting other essential and no less important aspects of health promotion, including prevention, hygiene and public health at local, regional and state level, as well as global health.[2]

Promoting each of these additional aspects brings significant benefits to individual and collective health.

Preventing the onset of disease benefits the well-being of individuals, families and society as a whole.

This is done, for example, with vaccinations and regular health checks (from mammograms to weight checks, from growth checks in children and adolescents to checks on blood sugar, lipid levels and blood pressure monitoring).

Promoting public health improves the quality of life in working environments by requiring compliance with regulations that protect workers' conditions, as well as in educational settings and society as a whole.

For example, thanks to regulations aimed at protecting public health, travellers can count on airbags in cars, seatbelts and, in the case of motorcyclists, protective helmets, all of which reduce the consequences of injuries in the event of accidents.

• The regular verification of the quality and freshness of food sold and consumed,
• the purification and ionization of water,
• the control of fine suspended particles and the quality of the air we breathe,
• the standards required in the case of vehicle emissions,
• the ban on smoking in public places and campaigns to limit smoking, the supervision of chemicals used in industry,
• agriculture and the home

are some examples that show how important the protection and promotion of public health is and how it has positive repercussions on traditional health practice, to the benefit of citizens, health professionals and institutions (hospitals and clinics).

One can therefore ask whether the Catholic tradition has become sufficiently involved in promoting public health and, if the answer is uncertain or negative, what needs to be done to ensure further involvement.

Recognizing the importance of public health and working to promote it have positive implications for individuals, for the health system and for society as a whole.[3]

Reflecting on health implies considering injustices, inequalities, leading to striving for greater social justice through concrete forms of solidarity, as the Church's social doctrine teaches and reminds us.[4]

Global health

Along with traditional health and public health, global health is the third approach to expand and complete our commitment.

The Covid-19 pandemic shows how vulnerable humanity is and how much needs to be done to protect citizens.

Global health depends on a combination of social and political factors that affect the quality of life of individuals and communities.

In other words

• how we live,
• how we build our cities, how we educate ourselves and work,
• how we cultivate the land and prepare food,
• how we monitor the outbreak of infectious diseases,
• how we deal with the non-infectious diseases that continue to spread around the world (e.g., the multiple types of cancer),
• how we reduce and strive to eliminate hunger and thirst in the world, and
• how we protect the most vulnerable from the devastating consequences of climate change on the planet.

All of these point to both the urgency and complexity of efforts to promote global health.

Health is a fragile, finite and shared good.

Caring for one's own health and for the health of others - of my neighbour and also of those living in other countries and continents, as well as for the health of the entire planet with its trees, rivers, mountains, oceans and atmosphere - is an urgent necessity that requires generous commitments at the systemic and structural level.

Health practice, public health and global health: there is no conflict between these three approaches; each aims to secure the good health of individuals, nations, humanity and the planet.

With his prophetic voice and his focused and humble actions, Pope Francis is showing how it is possible to be at the service of the health of people, populations, all humanity and the planet.[5]

Pope Francis and vaccinations against Covid-19

From the very beginning of the pandemic, the pope recognized the need for integrated and global responses to deal with what humanity was experiencing.

In multiple instances in national and international ecclesial and political settings, he has called for recognition of the global dimension of the pandemic and, faithful to the biblical, Gospel-based Catholic magisterial experience, has called for special care for the poorest, those with fewer social, political, financial and health resources.

Francis has reaffirmed and supported the generous and heroic commitment of so many healthcare professionals at the service of their patients in the many medical facilities across various continents.

At the same time, he has been attentive to what concerns the health of populations and the complexity of improving global health.

The pope asked that research for a vaccine be supported and facilitated in order to obtain effective vaccines while controlling the spread of the infection with the necessary public health measures (hygiene, protective masks, social distancing, quarantine for infected persons, targeted reduction of free movement and of the various social activities: educational, work and recreational).

In addition to demanding availability and access for all to the necessary diagnostic tests, Francis has not ceased to demand that vaccines, after the necessary scientific verification of their efficacy and safety, be made available to all, everywhere, without patent constraints and, once again, with a preferential option for the poorest and neediest.[6]

To promote vaccination globally, thus showing his commitment to promoting the health of all humanity, the pope appeals to the characteristic element of the Christian life: love.

For Francis, "being vaccinated, with vaccines authorized by the competent authorities, is an act of love.

And contributing to ensure the majority of people are vaccinated is an act of love, love for oneself, love for family and friends, love for all peoples. […]

Vaccination is a simple but profound way of promoting the common good and caring for one another, especially the most vulnerable." [7]

Love is always inclusive and all-embracing, as the Gospel commandment reminds us.[8]

Vaccination is an act of love for oneself and for others, especially for the benefit of the weakest, whose health is more fragile because of pre-existing diseases or conditions or because of age or occupation.

Furthermore, every act of love depends on the love of God, given freely, forever and unconditionally, to everyone everywhere.

Finally, every act of love makes us capable of loving, of living out God's love here and now, in our daily life in its ordinariness.

From the beginning of his pontificate, Francis has continually exhorted us to live our reality as disciples, enlightened, inspired, nourished and strengthened by God's love, which we experience in multiple ways in Jesus, in the Church and in the world, thanks to the Spirit and his countless gifts.

In doing so, the pope encouraged and inspired scientists, health workers, leaders, national and international organizations, and people of goodwill around the world who are urging people to get vaccinated and working to make vaccination possible everywhere.

Global vaccination is proceeding at different rates: in the global North at a faster pace, and in the South at a slower pace.

The causes of this difference are multiple and include the availability of vaccines, distribution strategies, the presence and efficiency of health structures, information processes, involving local communities, as well as the authorities who need to responsibly put themselves at the service of citizens, ecclesial communities and the various religious denominations present in the territory.

Addressing the issue of global vaccination, the Holy Father has called for this procedural outreach to be respectful and to take place in the context of the growth of a local health culture: "Knowledge must be shared, expertise must be shared, science must be pooled.

Science, I say, not just the products of science which, if offered on their own, remain band-aids that can dress the wound but not cure it in depth.

This applies to vaccines, for example.

There is an urgent need to help countries that have fewer of them, but this must be done with far-sighted plans, not just motivated by the haste of wealthy nations to become safer.

Remedies must be distributed with dignity, not as alms on a pitiful scale.

To truly do good, we need to promote science and its integral implementation: understanding the contexts, identifying treatment, nurturing the healthcare culture."[9]

Undoubtedly, trust in scientific research and medical practices in general, and vaccination in particular has and continues to play an important role, affecting individuals and communities.

Anyone who has suffered as a result of scientific research projects or health practices - for example, in the case of ethnic, racial, cultural, religious and linguistic minorities - will rightly be alert to and critically examine what is being proposed, including the case of Covid-19 vaccination.

However, in ways that continue to surprise, and even scandalize, there is now worldwide resistance, even aggressive and violent resistance, to the vaccines now available and to the possibility of being vaccinated, and thus protecting oneself against the infection caused by Covid-19 or, if one contracts the infection, of having reduced symptoms.[10]

The repeated interventions by the pope as well as by authoritative ecclesial, social, cultural, political and scientific voices do not seem to be able to promote a completely positive reception of available vaccines, as well as to invite a critical reflection on the positions taken.

Too often, disinformation campaigns and false information seduce us into thinking that we are experiencing a global conspiracy, that Covid does not exist, that vaccines introduce computer chips into our bodies.

Families in which some members are vaccinated and others have no intention of vaccinating are not uncommon, with individuals citing various reasons, creating divisions and separations and making dialogue and critical reflection difficult.

In these situations, health and what can protect it seem to have become a personal, subjective and individual good, which is threatened by what aims to promote global health.

It seems that individuals worry about their own health - and only about their own - autonomously and independently as if their health did not depend on the health of others and of the entire planet.

In addition, the search for truth, for prudent and wise decisions, together with self-critical reflection and careful examination of information sources no longer seem in many cases to be shared values.

Regretfully, it is observed that those who try to live these values are attacked verbally on social media and even physically. Finally, in many cases health is politicized.

Thus protecting and promoting the health of individuals, of populations, and of the most vulnerable, indeed humanity as a whole is reduced to a partisan choice, informed by party strategies, confusing health choices with approaches proposed by ideologically motivated parties or pressure groups.

Global health as a common good

In the ecclesial sphere, calling for the production and availability of vaccines capable of stimulating the immune defences of citizens in order to achieve worldwide immunity does not imply superficiality or lack of attention to consider and deal with possible ethical problems associated with the production of vaccines.

With clarity and competence, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has repeatedly reaffirmed the theological-moral approach previously developed with regard to the production and administration of vaccines. In particular, it has helped to reflect on the ways in which some vaccines had been tested in laboratories, with the intention of reassuring the scrupulous, the doubters and the skeptics in the Catholic Church and in wider society.[11]

Unfortunately, on a global level, this has not been enough.

In the present social, cultural, political and ecclesial context, it is necessary to reflect on how global health can be promoted by re-establishing a serious, respectful, informed and civil dialogue.

Obviously, authentic dialogue implies generous, shared and benevolent listening, enabling us to seek the truth together in a rigorous and demanding way, verifying what we consider to be our own truth.

The Gospel, by reminding us that truth is a person - Jesus Christ - makes us understand that no one can control or possess it.[12] For the Gospel, the only access to truth is relational, interacting with Jesus, living a dynamic of encounter, discovery and conversion in our incarnate reality.

The social doctrine of the Church affirms the importance of dialogue and, through it, fosters the commitment of every person of goodwill to achieve the common good in inclusive ways and with a preference for the weakest, the frailest, the poorest and the most vulnerable.[13]

Moreover, for Francis, "underlying the principle of the common good is respect for the human person as such, endowed with basic and inalienable rights ordered to his or her integral development.

It has also to do with the overall welfare of society and the development of a variety of intermediate groups, applying the principle of subsidiarity. […]

Finally, the common good calls for social peace, the stability and security provided by a certain order which cannot be achieved without particular concern for distributive justice; whenever this is violated, violence always ensues. Society as a whole, and the state in particular, are obliged to defend and promote the common good" (LS 157).

Global health is an emblematic example of the "universal common good,"[14] for humanity and for the planet.[15] Following the example of the pope and his "concern for integral human development" (FT 276), many seek to remain in an attitude that welcomes and listens to those who do not recognize the vaccines against Covid-19 as a means - limited, like any means - to protect and promote health together as a common good of humanity. One hopes that it is possible to seek together and promote what serves the good of all.

Science in the service of global health

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Pope Francis' commitment to the service of global health also prompts reflection on how to evaluate the role of science, pointing out when and how it can be at the service of the common good.

In this regard, in the recent magisterium we note another circumstance in which a pontiff reflected on scientific progress in the service of humanity and global health and considered it an act of love.

On August 29, 2000, Pope John Paul II, addressing the participants at the 18th International Congress of the Transplantation Society, affirmed that "every organ transplant has its source in a decision of great ethical value: ‘the decision to offer without reward a part of one's own body for the health and well-being of another person.'

"Here precisely lies the nobility of the gesture, a gesture that is a genuine act of love. It is not just a matter of giving away something that belongs to us but of giving something of ourselves."[16]

Moreover, in the same speech, John Paul II showed how a prudent reception of specific contributions of science is possible in situations where they are not in accord with an anthropological vision that manifests respect for human dignity. In considering the evaluation offered by neurology concerning the "complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity (in the cerebrum, cerebellum and the brain stem).

This is then considered the sign that the individual organism has lost its integrative capacity."[17]

John Paul II specifies that "with regard to the parameters used today for ascertaining death - whether the ‘encephalic' signs or the more traditional cardio-respiratory signs - the Church does not make technical decisions.

"She limits herself to the Gospel duty of comparing the data offered by medical science with the Christian understanding of the person, bringing out the similarities and the possible conflicts capable of endangering respect for human dignity.

"Here it can be said that the criterion adopted in more recent times for ascertaining the fact of death, namely, the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity if rigorously applied, does not seem to conflict with the essential elements of a sound anthropology."[18]

We can add that in the current pandemic, in the light of the global social situation, as well as on anthropological criteria, Pope Francis manifests a welcoming and constructive approach to science, making use of the richness of the Church's social doctrine.

Thus he shows that the contribution of scientific research in the field of health - which has made it possible to develop safe, effective vaccines with minimal and identifiable undesirable effects, tested clinically in an extensive and rigorous way - can be at the service of health as a common and global good.

In this way, the pope articulates a moral perspective that, in addition to being anthropological, is also social, at the service of the common good of all humanity.

Thus, both anthropological criteria and those inspired by Catholic social morality indicate fruitful and ethically significant ways of discerning and acting in the service of humanity, both in the case of healthcare practice and in the sphere of public and global health.

• Andrea Vicini, SJ is Professor of Moral Theology and Bioethics at Boston College, MA, USA
• First published in La Civilta Cattolica; reflecting the mind of the Vatican since 1850.
• Republished with permission.

DOI: La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 5, no.12 art. 8, 1221: 10.32009/22072446.1121.8

[1]. See M. Rozier, "Religion and Public Health: Moral Tradition as Both Problem and Solution", in Journal of Religion and Health 56 (2017/3) 1052-1063; Id., "When Populations Become the Patient", in Health Progress 98 (2017/1) 5-8; Id., "Collective Action on Determinants of Health: A Catholic Contribution", in Health Progress 100 (2019/5) 5-8; Id, "A Catholic Contribution to Global Public Health", in Annals of Global Health 86 (2020/1) 1-5; Id., "Global Public Health and Catholic Insights: Collaboration on Enduring Challenges", in P. J. Landrigan - A. Vicini (eds), Ethical Challenges in Global Public Health: Climate Change, Pollution, and the Health of the Poor, Eugene, OR, Wipf & Stock, 2021, 63-74.

[2]. Cf. M. Rozier, "A Catholic Contribution to Global Public Health", op. cit.

[3]. A specific example can help us. In the United States, one of Boston's hospitals, the Boston Medical Center with its 514 beds, is a "safety-net" hospital, whose mission is to provide health care to people regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. Thus this healthcare facility serves all citizens, especially those most in need. In reflecting on the services offered to patients, the health care staff realized that most of the costs incurred by the hospital were for emergency medical services. In particular, homeless individuals and families repeatedly used the emergency department for necessary treatment. It turned out that lack of stable housing increases the risk of health problems and burdens the entire healthcare system. Through dedicated funding and local partnerships, Boston Medical Center has taken action to reduce housing instability and homelessness. In 2017, the hospital invested 6.5 million in housing, creating housing for individuals and families in need. In doing so, it promoted the well-being and health of a substantial number of individuals and families in need, making work and school engagement possible and reducing the number of emergency room visits of those citizens. See www.bmc.org/mission/social-determinants-health/housing-security

[4]. "In the present condition of global society, where injustices abound and growing numbers of people are deprived of basic human rights and considered expendable, the principle of the common good immediately becomes, logically and inevitably, a summons to solidarity and a preferential option for the poorest of our brothers and sisters" (Francis, Laudato Si' [LS], No. 158).

[5]. For reflections on Pope Francis' thinking about health care practice, see T. A. Salzman - M. G. Lawler, Pope Francis and the Transformation of Health Care Ethics, Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press, 2021; C. Kaveny, "Pope Francis and Catholic Healthcare Ethics", in Theological Studies 80 (2019/1) 186-201.

[6]. Cf. Francis, General Audience, August 19, 2020; Id., Address to the Members of the "Banco farmaceutico" Foundation, September 19, 2020; Id., Message to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 7, 2020; Id., Message for the 54th World Day of Peace 2021, No. 1; Id., Message "Urbi et Orbi", Christmas 2020; Id., Address to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See, February 8, 2021; Id., Apostolic Journey to Iraq (March 5-8, 2021): Meeting with Authorities, Civil Society and the Diplomatic Corps, March 5, 2021; Id., Message "Urbi et Orbi," Easter 2021; Id., Video message on the occasion of the 75th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, September 25, 2020. All these documents can be found at www.vatican.va.

[7]. Id., Video message to the Peoples on the Covid-19 Vaccination Campaign, August 18, 2021.

[8]. Cf. Matt 22:37-40.

[9] . Francis, Audience to the Members of the Biomedical University Foundation of the University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, October 18, 2021.

[10]. Cf. C. Fino, "Les vaccins: questions éthiques", in Revue d'éthique et de théologie morale 311 (2021/3) 61-71.

[11]. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Note on the Morality of the Use of Certain Covid-19 Vaccines (2020), at
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html /. Cf. also Vatican Covid-19 Commission - Pontifical Academy for Life, Vaccine for All: 20 Points for a More Just and Healthy World (2020), C. Casalone, "Vaccines: Making Responsible Decisions", in Civ. Catt. En March 2021: For earlier documents, see Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction "Dignitas Personae": on Some Questions of Bioethics (2008), Nos. 34-35, Pontifical Academy for Life, Note about the Use of Vaccines (2017).

[12]. Cf. John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth and the life."

[13]. " It follows from this ever closer interdependence, which is gradually being extended to the whole world, that the common good - that is, the sum total of those conditions of social life which enable both groups and individual members to attain their own perfection more fully and more rapidly - is today increasingly becoming universal, involving rights and duties which concern the whole human race" (Gaudium et Spes, No. 26). See also D. Hollenbach, The Common Good and Christian Ethics, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

[14]. John XXIII, Mater et Magistra (1961), No. 57; Francis, Fratelli Tutti (FT) (2020), No. 260.

[15]. Pope Francis reminds us that the climate is also a common good: cf. LS 23.

[16]. John Paul II, Address to the 18th International Congress of the Transplantation Society (August 29, 2000), No. 3. Italics in the original. About the quotation, cf. Id., Address to Participants at a Congress on Organ Transplant (June 20, 1991), No. 3.

[17]. Id., Address to the 18th International Congress of the Transplantation Society, op. cit., No. 5. Italics in the original.

[18]. Ibid. Italics in the original.

Our freedoms are a precious commodity.

Society must not become the domain of permanent policing and it is to the credit of democracy that these debates are allowed.

Nevertheless...

There is something worrying about the conjunction of opposition coming from all walks of life on the issue of vaccination.

No, individual freedom cannot be the only criterion to be taken into account in public health matters. It never has been.

Otherwise, we would all be dead — of polio or, even before that, of the plague!

It is also surprising to see how much reluctance there is in the ranks of ecologists, who are so concerned about protecting us with regulatory bans on pollution from cars, pesticides from farmers or fuel from aeroplanes, towards mandatory vaccination.

Any health decision requires ethical discernment. And ethics cannot stop at our person. We are beings in relationship with others, and this is the meter we must use to examine such measures.

In Christian theology, we speak of concern for the "common good".

Health is a matter of collective responsibility, especially for those who are most at risk. There is a form of "preferential option for the weakest".

It is not a question of blindly accepting just any scientific advance from a society ready to throw itself into the arms of transhumanists.

But it is up to us to show reason, to examine if, in the current state of knowledge, the medical or biomedical proposals are indeed at the service of the human being, a human being in relationship.

Discernment is the duty of every citizen.

This is not about getting vaccinated just so it will be easier to go to the movies.

As France's chief of defence, General François Lecointre, has noted: Fraternity is arguably the most beautiful but most misunderstood part of the French Republic's motto.

• Isabelle de Gaulmyn is a senior editor at La Croix and a former Vatican correspondent.
• First published in La Croix International. Republished with permission.

Why did some U.S. Catholic leaders rush to issue warnings about this vaccine even though the Vatican has already said that it can be morally acceptable to receive it?

Most importantly, why did these statements not start, as would be entirely compatible with Catholic moral teaching and the Vatican guidance, with a summary that said:

"All of these vaccines are safe, effective and morally acceptable under present circumstances, even if not perfect. Solidarity, especially with those at increased risk from Covid-19, calls us to cooperate in getting as many people vaccinated as soon as we can"?

Caveats, of course, must follow immediately: The actual statements were more nuanced than the headlines; the statements in question were issued by individual dioceses and chairs of committees at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and other bishops and dioceses have not universally adopted this approach; and the statements, properly understood, only counsel avoidance of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine relative to other options.

Nonetheless, the headlines these statements drew make the risk and cost of such statements clear:

• "Covid-19 Vaccines Draw Warnings From Some Catholic Bishops";
• "Catholic Archdiocese Bans COVID Vaccine Over Tenuous Link to Abortion";
• "U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says to avoid Johnson & Johnson vaccine if possible."

Compare the impression those headlines give with the Vatican guidance on this issue: "When ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available...it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process" (emphasis in original).

Recent statements from some U.S. bishops, properly understood, only counsel avoidance of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine relative to other options.

If you have been following these issues closely and are carefully focused on the caveats, then you already know how to explain the nuance that is missing from most of the headlines. (The corollary, of course, is that if—like most Catholics—you are not thoroughly well-versed on the technicalities of these issues, you are more likely to just be confused.)

There is a moral difference between the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which only used cell lines derived decades ago from abortions for tests during their development process, and the new Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which uses such cell lines as part of its production.

That difference means that the new vaccine is less remotely connected to the evil of abortion than other currently approved vaccines—though, as the Vatican guidance makes clear, still morally acceptable when "ethically irreproachable" vaccines are not available.

There is no fundamental disagreement between the Vatican's guidance and the recent statements within the U.S. church on the underlying moral teaching, and certainly no formal theological error in any of them.

Instead, the confusion around this recent vaccine guidance arises from differing priorities given to the various parts of the moral calculus outlined in the Vatican's guidance, combined with what seems to be a pastorally irresponsible failure to plan for the predictable ways a Catholic recommendation to "avoid the Johnson & Johnson vaccine" would be covered and communicated in the secular press. Continue reading

"We won't properly absorb the lessons from the coronavirus crisis if we fall back into the traditional Republican and Democratic model of politics. We need a new vision to create a more resilient economy," the Florida Republican said in an April 20 column in the New York Times.

"The economy should be at the service of the common good," Rubio said. "It should work for us, not people for the economy."

The senator called for a renewed focus on the common good, a shift in priorities from short-term economic efficiency to long-term resiliency, and a better model of manufacturing to evaluate and address shortcomings in the response to the COVID-19 virus.

As of Tuesday, the spread of the coronavirus has killed more than 45,400 people in the U.S., with more than 810,000 known to be infected since early March. The virus usually causes mild or moderate flu-like symptoms, but severe cases can require hospitalization and become fatal.

Civil authorities, fearing that rapid increase in severe cases could overwhelm hospitals, ordered public health measures including orders for most people to stay at home.

Both the arrival of the virus and its response have had major effects on the U.S. economy, with 22 million Americans known to have filed for unemployment claims in recent weeks, CNN reports.

Only last week did the Trump administration release a three-stage plan to remove restrictions on social and economic life while also limiting contagion and responding to new cases.

The coronavirus medical response has been severely hindered by a shortage of appropriate protective gear and other medical equipment.

Rubio argued that some of the problems revealed in the epidemic are the consequences of decades-long trends.

"Over the past several decades, our nation's political and economic leaders, Democratic and Republican, made choices about how to structure our society — choosing to prize economic efficiency over resiliency, financial gains over Main Street investment, individual enrichment over the common good," Rubio said.

"Any prudent policymaker should recognize that both efficiency and resiliency are values we should prioritize and seek to balance. But that's not what we have done in recent decades," he said.

The senator warned that in a crisis, a lack of resilience in the economy can be "devastating."

"Though I believe resilience is one of the defining traits of an American, I also believe it's been absent from our public policy for too long. And this has become devastatingly clear in the current crisis," he said. Continue reading

Rubio argued from a basis in Catholic social teaching that businesses should be obliged "to act in the best interests of the workers and the country that made their success possible" and that "unguided" markets "may lead to GDP growth and record profits" but not to "the creation of dignified work."

Poignantly, he insisted that "our nation does not exist to serve the interests of the market. The market exists to serve our nation and our people."

These are bold words for social justice Catholics to hear.

Should we imagine, then, that Rubio is now persuaded by the church's many warnings regarding what Pope Francis once termed "the dung of the devil" — the logic of unbridled capitalism? That remains unclear, but what is certain is that something Trumpian is also afoot.

Still, it must be recognized that the senator is making a telling and possibly important pivot. Let me put this in perspective.

In 1986, led by Richard Nixon's former secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and zealous free marketeer William Simon, American Catholic political conservatives submarined the U. S. bishops' pastoral letter, "Economic Justice for All."

"The nation does not exist to serve the interests of the market. The market exists to serve our nation and our people."

Eerily anticipating current social justice concerns, the pastoral letter had raised alarms about the supply-side economics favoured by the Reagan administration, which was seen leading to "extreme inequalities" and a growing "gap between rich and poor in our nation" that weakened families and marginalized those in poverty.

The bishops counselled that the economy needed to be better guided for the "common good" of all.

Opposing the bishops, Simon and other conservatives promoted an opposite thesis — that freeing markets from governmental and similar constraints was actually the only cure for economic injustice, not its cause.

Rejecting the bishops' call for more intervention in markets, the conservatives argued that the church should instead focus on instilling personal virtue in economic actors.

While not quite repeating the Wall Street catchphrase of the '80s that "greed is good" then, Simon and all nevertheless maintained that thanks to the magic of self-interested competition, the free market system would automatically remedy any concerns the bishops might have about poverty and economic justice.

In the decades after the bishops' economic letter, conservatives went on invariably to recommend market solutions for nearly every concern in the purview of Catholic social teachings — poverty and pollution, health care and education.

That's why Rubio's pivot is curious.

Here's a Catholic conservative who not only thinks that the market is not the solution; he thinks the unguided market is a problem.

Free marketeers are put on notice.

Rubio's common-good capitalism ostensibly proposes active intervention in the economy both to advance the common good and to promote human dignity.

t's not to be confused with socialism, though. Continue reading

"It is idolatry, like idolatry of money … We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil."1

We are seeing something close to a global epidemic of fundamentalism. Pope Francis is right: "Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions."

And it strikes at the heart of the common good, because it prevents people from growing as individuals and contributing to the welfare of others.2

Fundamentalism is "a religion of rage."3 Fundamentalists are people who are outraged when they see the world around them disregarding their revered religious values.

They respond in dangerously simplistic but militant ways to fears that they will lose their identity.

They use words, or recourse to the ballot box, or, in extreme instances, bullets and bombs. Those who dare to question them are intolerantly scapegoated as enemies of the truth.

REACTING TO CULTURAL CHAOS
Fundamentalist movements are most active and culturally apparent whenever there are periods in which radical political, social or economic changes cause cultural trauma in a nation as a whole or in smaller institutions or communities.4

These changes threaten to devastate treasured personal and cultural identities and respected moral values. Feelings of bewilderment and frustration result.

People then search for quick explanations of what is happening and ways out of their overwhelming confusion.

The atmosphere is ready for the unsophisticated solutions offered by fundamentalist populist and often demagogic leaders.

For most people, fundamentalism in the modern world has become synonymous with a radical form of Islam. Islamic fundamentalism has replaced communism as the specter plaguing Western minds.

It is a menace that looms ever larger following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C.5 and the more recent terrorist assaults in London, Paris, Brussels, Orlando, Istanbul, Baghdad, Dhaka, Nice and Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray and the ostensible inability of the Western nations to destroy the clandestine and brutal al-Qaeda network and the Islamic State (ISIS).

In the Middle East, Islamic extremists are killing fellow Muslims and persecuting, even murdering, Christians and other minorities. Continue reading

Sources

• Catholic Health Association of the United States; award winning article by Fr Gerald Arbuckle SM Ph.D. He is a cultural anthropologist and author.
• Image: Chafraud Depravitch

The talk - a surprise for all in the audience - recapitulated the key themes of the Argentinian pope's view of the human person: We are all related and interconnected; scientific and technological progress must not be disconnected from social justice and care for the neighbor; and that the world needs tenderness.

I am a scholar of modern Catholicism and its relations with the world of today. From my perspective, there are two essential elements of this talk that are important to understand: the message of the pope and his use of the media.

Emphasizing Catholic social teaching
The message of the pope delivered in nontheological language for a larger audience comes at a time of extreme individualization of our lives. What the pope focused on is the Catholic social teaching of the "common good."

The principle of common good, as described by the Vatican, indicates "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."

This principle proposes a society "that wishes and intends to remain at the service of the human being at every level," to have its primary goal in the "good of all people and of the whole person."

For the human person cannot find fulfillment in himself, that is, apart from the fact that he exists "with" others and "for" others."

In fact, there is nothing new about what the pope is teaching, except that he is talking among others to Catholics who have lost the sense of the common good and its importance.

The recent debates among Catholic politicians about the repeal of health care reform is an example of this.

The plan to repeal "Obamacare" included the undermining of the Affordable Care Act's essential benefits, requirements and protections for people with preexisting conditions: a proposal of the Republican Party under the leadership of House Speaker Paul Ryan, a politician who has never hidden his Catholic faith. Continue reading

• Massimo Faggiolini is Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at Villanova University.

We are seeing something close to a global epidemic of fundamentalism. Pope Francis is right: "Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions."

And it strikes at the heart of the common good, because it prevents people from growing as individuals and contributing to the welfare of others.

Fundamentalism is "a religion of rage." Fundamentalists are people who are outraged when they see the world around them disregarding their revered religious values.

They respond in dangerously simplistic but militant ways to fears that they will lose their identity. They use words, or recourse to the ballot box, or, in extreme instances, bullets and bombs. Those who dare to question them are intolerantly scapegoated as enemies of the truth.

REACTING TO CULTURAL CHAOS
Fundamentalist movements are most active and culturally apparent whenever there are periods in which radical political, social or economic changes cause cultural trauma in a nation as a whole or in smaller institutions or communities.

These changes threaten to devastate treasured personal and cultural identities and respected moral values. Feelings of bewilderment and frustration result. People then search for quick explanations of what is happening and ways out of their overwhelming confusion. The atmosphere is ready for the unsophisticated solutions offered by fundamentalist populist and often demagogic leaders.

For most people, fundamentalism in the modern world has become synonymous with a radical form of Islam. Islamic fundamentalism has replaced communism as the specter plaguing Western minds.

It is a menace that looms ever larger following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C.5 and the more recent terrorist assaults in London, Paris, Brussels, Orlando, Istanbul, Baghdad, Dhaka, Nice and Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray and the ostensible inability of the Western nations to destroy the clandestine and brutal al-Qaeda network and the Islamic State (ISIS).

In the Middle East, Islamic extremists are killing fellow Muslims and persecuting, even murdering, Christians and other minorities. Continue reading

Sources

• Catholic Health Association of the United States, article by Rev. Gerald A. Arbuckle, SM, Ph.D., a cultural
  anthropologist and author.
• Image: Oduor Oduku

Released by the bishops' Commission for Family, Youth and Life, the letter highlights the meaning of marriage and also spells out implications of redefining marriage.

The bishops state that in issuing the letter, they want to engage with the debate, present the Church's teaching to the faithful and "explain the position of the Catholic faithful to the wider community".

The letter came in the wake of the recent referendum in Ireland and statements by Australian politicians that they plan to introduce same-sex marriage legislation.

In the bishops' letter, the dignity of every person is affirmed, including those who experience same-sex attraction.

"They must be treated with respect, sensitivity, and love."

But the bishops critique the notion that marriage is "nothing more than a commitment to love".

"On this view, marriage is essentially an emotional tie, enhanced by public promises and consensual sexual activity."

In the Church's view, marriage includes an emotional union, but it goes further than that.

"It involves a substantial bodily and spiritual union of a man and a woman."

Among the letter's warnings about the consequences of redefining marriage are possible threats to freedom of conscience, belief and worship.

". . . [P]eople who adhere to the perennial and natural definition of marriage will be characterised as old-fashioned, even bigots, who must answer to social disapproval and the law."

If "civil law ceases to define marriage as traditionally understood, it will be a serious injustice and undermine that common good for which the civil law exists", the letter stated.

In a press release, Archbishop Anthony Fisher warned of the grave injustice of legitimising "the false assertion that there is nothing distinctive about a man and a woman, a father or a mother".

"Children have a right to grow up with their natural mother and father, where possible," he said.

"Surely there are other ways of honouring the friendships of same-sex attracted and other people without further deconstructing marriage and the family," Archbishop Fisher said.

Sources

• Sydney Catholic Archdiocese
• Image: Daily Telegraph

Stamping of feet and shouting of slogans - unity - is a woefully inadequate response.

We are not Charlie

We are not Charlie, and we need to explain why.

Soon after the tragic event in Paris I was reading the coming Sunday's gospel reading and was struck with how different our Christian understanding of unity is from that of French politics.

The passage described the emergence of the first disciples.

They stood out from the crowd through their recognition of who Jesus is which they expressed with titles: Lamb of God, Rabbi, Teacher, Messiah, Christ, the anointed one, Son of God (Jn. 1:35-42).

The titles are not rewards or achievements.

In fact they point beyond Jesus to an external source of authority which lay outside Jesus himself; the Father in heaven (cf. Mt. 28: 18).

Why is this important?

It reminds us that unity is not achieved through slogans, policy statements, or decrees.

It also reminds us that unity is not primarily about uniformity or conformity let alone assimilation.

True unity in fact respects diversity and places within a dynamic of dialogue widely differing values.

How?

By recognizing that the source or principle of unity lies beyond individuals or groups or nations in God the Creator, in whose image and likeness every man and woman is created and endowed with inviolable dignity.

An authentic understanding of unity is of particular importance in an increasingly globalized society.

Most migrant communities are "welcomed" because of a perceived economic advantage to the host country.

Often the welcome is accompanied by a twist of exploitation, and exaggerated individualism and nationalism emerge as the doomed principles of unity or integration. Think of seasonal workers in NZ who are legally paid below the minimum wage and welcome only for certain months of the year.

And in Europe, Muslim migrant workers and their families are being welcomed as long as they adopt European values (whatever that means) with the implication in France being that freedom of speech is far more important than respect for a religious leader or a religious community's sensibilities.

Satire has its place; but it's not an absolute right

The right to freedom of speech is certainly a good to be cherished and protected. And, yes, satire does have a long and even noble tradition in the pursuit of democracy.

Think of the conscience and satire characters in 15 th and 16th century morality plays, or the role of the Jester in many of Shakespeare's works.

But freedom of speech is not an absolute right.

Freedom of speech sits within something beyond itself, something deeper, something truly unifying, namely, the principle of the common good, which stands at the heart of Catholic Social Teaching.

Liberte, égalité, fraternité

This it seems French President Monsieur Francois Hollande and the je suis charlie campaigners do not understand or certainly do not accept liberte, égalité, fraternité , are not in the first instance political achievements or legislators' milestones (cf. Book of Wisdom chapter 6).

Rather, liberte, égalité, fraternité , stem from the inherent God given dignity of every man and women which corresponds in every human being to a duty to respect and desire the common good of society; something which transcends individual, group and even national interests.

The principle of the common good places rights, like the freedom of speech, and goals, like unity, in correlation with duties by which every person is called to assume responsibility for his or her choices made always in relation with others in the community in which we live.

• What contribution does crass mockery (hardly satire) make to the freedom, equality, and community of everyone?
• What common good is served by arrogant provocation of the Parisian Muslim community many of whose members are already suffering from sub-standard housing and unemployment?
• What kind of leaders exploit a tragic and violent event in the community for individual political self- interest?

Among others parading on the streets of Paris were political leaders from Egypt, Turkey, Russia, and United Arab Emirates which according to the organization 'Reporters Without Borders' are ranked (out of 180) 159th, 154th, 148th, and 118th for press freedom of speech.

Tui's billboard writers might well have something satirical to say about that. And vive our National and Diocesan interreligious faith groups and commissions who drawing on the treasure of our social teaching endeavour to help build authentic unity in our multicultural land.

+ Charles Drennan
Bishop of Palmerston North
Originally appeared in Welcom and submitted to CathNews by + Charles

Preaching at an evensong service in New York in January, Archbishop Welby said Jesus' life "challenges every assumption" about society.

"He does not permit us to accept a society in which the weak are excluded - whether because of race, wealth, gender, ability, or sexuality.

"Nor did he permit us and does he permit us to turn religion into morality.

"The old sermons that we have heard so often in England, which I grew up with, which if you boiled them down all they effectively said was: ‘Wouldn't the world be a nicer place if we were all a bit nicer?'

"That is the kind of moral claptrap that Jesus does not permit us to accept."

He told the congregation "we are to get involved, we are to get our hands dirty".

But too often churches had just "circled the wagons in order to keep the enemy out".

Archbishop Welby also cautioned against Christians making the "mistake of identification with the world as all there is".

This is "a mistake we often make today in the way we speak and live".

Speaking about deprivation and inequality, he detailed his experiences in Liverpool, where he served as Dean of the Anglican cathedral for four years, insisting it was imperative for churches to be involved in their communities.

Archbishop Welby added that Christians are to be "caught up in a revolution of expectation and of implementation".

"Were it not for the fact that [Jesus] is in title Prince of Peace, and lived out his mission in service and foot-washing, ending it in crucifixion and resurrection, this would be a call to violent revolution; but even that option is removed from our hands by the way in which he lived his life and calling."

The Archbishop was visiting New York to speak at the "'Creating the Common Good" conference organised by the Trinity Institute.

Sources

• The Telegraph
• Christian Today
• Lambeth Palace
• Image: The Guardian

That was Garcia-Ashley's first taste of community organizing, and it was a success. She learned that when people with a common cause work together, they can achieve great things.

Garcia-Ashley continued her activism after moving to the United States, and upon graduating from the University of Colorado she became a full-time community organizer for the Archdiocese of Denver. Eventually, her work led her to her current role as executive director of Gamaliel, a national community organizing network.

Through it all she has remained a fearless advocate who will take risks to help those in need, just like her grandmother taught her. "That's how I have lived my life," she says. "You have to put your values and your Catholic beliefs on the front line to get something done."

What exactly is community organizing, and how does it work?

One of the stories that got me to really understand the role of community organizers, including church leaders, came when I was working in the Archdiocese of Denver. I was assigned to work in an area called Westwood, which is a low-income neighborhood of mostly Mexican Americans and African Americans in southwest Denver. Continue reading

Sources

• U.S. Catholic
• Image: Popular Resistance

"Everyone should have a nice life," she tells a small audience at a Wellington bar. "Small actions, multiplied, can lead to big change," she says.

Laura, 25, outlines her pitch for RockEnrol, a movement to increase youth voter turnout.

The audience is a mix of smartphones and activists wearing knitted jumpers; committed environmentalists and social media addicts.

Laura talks about crowd-funding the campaign, getting musicians and artists on board, and convincing people that government is cool. "I grew up in the age of Paris Hilton and the Kardashians," she says, and government just isn't glam.

She describes RockEnrol as a "crowd-fuelled youth-led movement to try and build and activate political power for young people in Aotearoa".

"We use the cultural mediums that young people are already engaged in to try to make politics more relevant and resonant - so that's popular culture, music, events, art, things like that."

The idea is to hold events - gigs, house parties, festivals, a carnival - for which the price of admission is a promise to vote in September's election. They'll also be running marketing and education campaigns.

These measures are necessary because fewer than half of 18-29 year olds voted in the last election.Turnout has been declining in much of the world for decades.

New Zealand's numbers sit in about the middle of the OECD, so there's no crisis yet.

We're one of the easiest countries in the world to enrol to vote and cast your ballot. And yet, people are worried about what the decline means for our democracy. Continue reading.

Source: The Wireless

Image: NewsTalkZB

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

219. Nor is peace "simply the absence of warfare, based on a precarious balance of power; it is fashioned by efforts directed day after day towards the establishment of the ordered universe willed by God, with a more perfect justice among men".[179] In the end, a peace which is not the result of integral development will be doomed; it will always spawn new conflicts and various forms of violence.

220. People in every nation enhance the social dimension of their lives by acting as committed and responsible citizens, not as a mob swayed by the powers that be. Let us not forget that "responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation".[180] Yet becoming a people demands something more. It is an ongoing process in which every new generation must take part: a slow and arduous effort calling for a desire for integration and a willingness to achieve this through the growth of a peaceful and multifaceted culture of encounter.

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

"In a world that has made great strides in improving food production and distribution, far too many of God's children still go to bed hungry or suffer from a lack of nutrition, a tragedy that has lifelong consequences for health and educational achievement," they said.

The leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States will hold their 2013 summit in the UK on June 17 and 18.

Continue reading

"Money has to serve, not to rule," he told a group of diplomats.

He called for ethical financial reform that would "benefit everyone" and for the world of finance and economics to make people a priority and take into account the importance of ethics and solidarity.

Highlighting the root causes of today's economic and social troubles, the Pope pointed to policies and actions that stem from a "gravely deficient human perspective, which reduces man to one of his needs alone, namely, consumption".

In this "culture of disposal", he said, "human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away".

The Pope criticised economic inequality caused by "ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to states, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good".

In the absence of adequate economic regulation or oversight, "a new, invisible and at times virtual, tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules".

Ethics, like solidarity, is seen as "a nuisance" and rejected, he added. Ethical principles and policies of solidarity are "often considered counterproductive, opposed to the logic of finance and economy".

Pope Francis said a major reason behind the increase in social and economic woes worldwide "is in our relationship with money and our acceptance of its power over ourselves and our society".

"The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly human goal," he said.

Pope Francis called on the world's political and financial leaders to consider the words of St John Chrysostom: "Not to share one's goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs."

Sources:

Catholic News Service

Vatican Information Service

Image: Vatican News

Peace involves the human person as a whole, the Pope says, so true peacemakers defend human life at every stage of its existence and promote the common good through their economic policies and activities.

Among the points the Pope makes are:

• In growing sectors of public opinion, "the ideologies of radical liberalism and technocracy are spreading the conviction that economic growth should be pursued even to the detriment of the state's social responsibilities and civil society's networks of solidarity".

One of the social rights and duties most under threat today is the right to work. A fresh understanding of work, as a fundamental good for the individual, for the family and for society, is required so that a policy of universal employment can be realised.

• At this stage in history, it is becoming increasingly important to promote the right to religious freedom "not only from the negative point of view, as freedom from — for example, obligations or limitations involving the freedom to choose one's religion — but also from the positive point of view, in its various expressions, as freedom for - for example, bearing witness to one's religion, making its teachings known, [and] engaging in activities in the educational, benevolent and charitable fields".

• Every offence against life, especially at its beginning, "causes irreparable damage to development, peace and the environment", so those who support abortion "will never be able to produce happiness or peace".

• There is also a need to "acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union".

Such principles, the Pope says, are inscribed in human nature itself and the Church's efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character but addressed to people of all religious affiliations.

Sources:

Catholic News Service

AsiaNews

Text of Pope's message

Image: Brainflash