In this book they seek to make a biblical case for same-sex relationships and marriage.

Ending the conservative Christian love affair

"We advocate for full inclusion of believers with differing sexual orientations not because we reject the authority of the Bible," the pair write.

"Far from it: We have come to advocate their inclusion precisely because we affirm the force and authority of the Bible's ongoing story of God's mercy."

Two respected Christian thinkers making a biblical argument for LGBTQ+ relationships and inclusion would have been newsworthy just a decade or two ago; in recent years, many scholars, pastors and lay thinkers have published books drawing similar conclusions.

So while the Hayses add their voices to the chorus and strike some new notes, they are a bit late to the concert.

But the most remarkable thing about this book is not its arguments, interesting and important as they are, but rather Richard Hays' name on its cover.

For the last quarter-century, conservative Christians have been citing Hays to argue against same-sex relationships and marriage.

His 1996 book "The Moral Vision of the New Testament" argued that the Bible explicitly prohibits LGBTQ+ marriage. Homosexuality, he wrote, "is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God's loving purpose."

Since news of the current book broke, the conservative Christian love affair with Hays has ended.

The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has lamented Hays' change of mind as "a cause of grief and sadness."

The Gospel Coalition has declared that the Hayses are "deceiving people when it comes to God's offer" of salvation, and Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary called the book "heresy…. A full doctrinal revolt."

Repentance

One might wonder why Hays, 76-years-old and battling pancreatic cancer, would choose to publish a provocative book years after retiring from Duke Divinity School.

Hays' answer is simple: This book is an effort to engage in an ancient Christian practice that he has taught about in classrooms for years: repentance.

In a video interview, Hays described the book to me as a metanoia, an ancient Greek word meaning "change of mind" and translated as "repentance" in English versions of the New Testament, where it appears 20 times; the verb "repent" appears an additional 27 times.

A recurrent theme in the teachings of Jesus, it's also a fixture in the prophetic cries of John the Baptiser and a main message of the Apostle Paul, who taught that living according to God's will means to be "transformed by the renewing of your mind."

Hays says metanoia denotes more than feeling or saying you are sorry; it means taking action to demonstrate one's new perspective. "The Widening of God's Mercy" is his effort to do just that.

"The present book is, for me, an effort to offer contrition and to set the record straight on where I now stand … I am deeply sorry. The present book can't undo past damage, but I pray that it may be of some help," Hays told me.

Those harmed by Hays' previous work may reply that even the most magisterial volume of repentance won't undo the damage caused by his previous work.

It's impossible to repay the generation that has been psychologically tortured by conservative pastors and parents armed with Hays' "moral vision" for their lives.

However impactful his new book, Hays can't make up for the years of sanity lost to depression, the sense of rejection by one's creator, countless prayers pleading to be changed that went unanswered. No book can pay such a debt.

At the same time, repentance requires us to attempt to seek forgiveness and make repair, no matter how delayed. It takes uncommon courage to make amends for past mistakes in the twilight of one's life, and it's a step that Hays frankly did not have to take.

It has already cost him the respect and accolades of an influential swath of Christianity.

If Christians are nothing else, they are people who know how to change their minds.

Today, however, some types of Christians have come to regard changing one's mind as a sign of spiritual weakness, as if it can only be the fruit of cultural capitulation or compromise.

I've heard pastors and theologians like Mohler brag about believing exactly the same things today as they did when they were mere youths.

They may be models of consistency, but they seem to know very little about the practice of repentance beyond the moment of Christian conversion. By definition, consistency and repentance are forces at odds. To repent is literally to forfeit one's consistency.

The late Christian writer Frederick Buechner said, "To repent is to come to your senses." And, Buechner added, it's not so much something you do as it is something that happens to you. For Hays, at least, this is how it began.

Thinking challenged

Hays goes directly at his critics on this point. In the years after the publication of "A Moral Vision of the New Testament," Hays said in our interview, he began to feel "deeply troubled by the way my chapter has been appropriated as ammunition by some individuals and groups taking the uncompromising ‘conservative' position."

When he penned his book in 1996, he said, he considered the chapter on homosexuality to be "proposals about how to best discern the New Testament's relevance for difficult and contested questions in our time" that could "start a conversation rather than end one."

As conservatives seized upon his words and used them "as a cover for exclusionary attitudes and practices wrapped in more ‘compassionate' packaging," Hays realised he had been naïve.

Hays' thinking was also challenged by the spiritual fidelity of the gay and lesbian people in his life.

He describes his Church as "a grace-filled Church community where gay and lesbian Christians participate fully as members and as leaders, without making it into a Church-defining issue."

The more he considered the many LGBTQ+ students in his classroom who were "both excellent students and gracious, compassionate people," the harder it became "to say that they should have the door slammed on them in terms of admittance to the full range of the Church's sacraments."

If these sexual minorities existed outside of God's good graces, then why was Hays witnessing so much undeniable spiritual fruit in their lives?

It all came to a head at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hays had watched with dismay as Christopher's employer, Fuller Theological Seminary, began expelling homosexuals and allies from their community.

"I was not proud of what had happened at this school where I worked," Christopher told me.

"And I had a hunch, too, that my Dad didn't feel comfortable with what had come of what he'd written, and that his heart was in a different place, too, but we had never really talked it out."

Mercy

Father and son entered into a period of intentional conversations as the pandemic went along, and they wrote out what they had come to believe.

The result was a picture of a God who changes his mind in response to human pain and seeking, and who is always expanding the reach of his mercy.

Through this process Richard Hays realised that in his previous work, he had been "more concerned about my own intellectual project than about the pain of gay and lesbian people inside and outside the Church, including those driven out of the Church by unloving condemnation."

He decided, along with Christopher, to write a book arguing for full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people into the life of faith that includes an epilogue written by Richard in which he profusely apologises for the harm his previous work has caused.

"The Widening of God's Mercy" is a prestigious New Testament scholar's attempt to demonstrate that he has come to his senses.

What remains to be seen, but will soon become apparent, is whether those Christians who are still unconvinced about the faithfulness of sexual minorities will join him.

• First published by Religion News Service
• Jonathan Merritt is senior columnist for Religion News Service

It encourages the healing of divisions between churches.

Divisions rule

In culture, politics and religion, however, division provides most of the news of the day.

The religious headlines emphasise fractures within churches.

They tell of discrepancy between the professed values of churches and the bad behaviour of their representatives.

They headline division between church leaders and people in the congregation.

It is understandable that church leaders focus on holding their own churches together than on their relationship to other churches.

Christian Unity movement

The history of the movement for Christian Unity, and particularly of Catholic attitude to it, however, suggests deeper things at stake.

It may also illuminate the broader tension between unity and division in Western societies.

Catholics came relatively slowly to the ecumenical table.

The roots of the movement for unity lay in the late nineteenth century at a time of vigorous missionary activity by European and American churches in the colonies.

Those involved recognised how far their rivalry and exclusive claims for their own churches had weakened efforts of each to win converts.

Non-Christians among whom they worked were also deterred by the contradiction observed in people who fought with one another while they preached a Gospel of peace and unity.

The Week for Christian Unity was one of many initiatives aimed at healing the divisions of the past, at restoring unity among Christians, and at encouraging shared prayer and action.

It was part of what became known as the ecumenical movement.

Attitudes towards the movement among church leaders and members were ambivalent: in favour in theory but cautious in practice.

The Catholic Church

In the Catholic Church the initial attitude to the ecumenical movement was generally suspicious.

It was seen to downplay the vital importance of unity of belief.

It risked giving the impression that all churches were equally valid, so failing to recognise that the true Church already existed in the Catholic Church.

For it, unity meant abandoning error and returning to the Catholic Church.

Differences vs similarities

In the Second Vatican Council, however, disunity among Christians was seen as a scandal.

The many elements shared with other churches were recognised, and the urgency of church unity was stressed.

Catholic leaders and theologians joined their fellows in other churches in seeking common ground on disputed points of doctrine and practice.

Local congregations of different churches prayed together and sought to cooperate on common projects.

For many of us Catholics this was an exhilarating journey of discovery.

It involved moving beyond the emphasis in Catholic identity of being different and superior to other so-called Churches to find unsuspected similarities, and ideas and practices and expressions of the Gospel commendable in their difference.

We began to centre our identity in the faith that we shared with others, and not in the ways in which we differed from them.

Unity, identity, culture

More recently, however, the passion for Christian unity has waned as church congregations have declined.

The place of Churches in society has diminished, and Churches have become more preoccupied with their own identity and questions of governance, including the scandal of sexual abuse of children.

As all churches cope with more limited resources there is less energy or enthusiasm for deepening relationships with other churches.

Among the few young Catholics for whom faith and Church are central to their lives, too, many emphasise its separateness from the secular world and from other Churches.

These changes have affected all churches in the West.

In the Catholic Church, Vatican II was not their cause. It formed part of a distinctive cultural change that affected all Churches.

The identity of the Catholic Church had been defined by its superiority to other Churches and to the secular world in general.

This distinctive identity was expressed in a strong community cohesive in its understanding of faith and its ritual practice.

The changes of Vatican II were designed to foster an identity defined by openness to the world and other religious bodies, expressed in a strong and cohesive community renewed in its faith and its reformed ritual practice.

In practice, however, the move from superiority and difference to hospitality was accompanied by a widespread loss of cohesion and of commitment to a defined faith and ritual.

For an increasing number of Christians church allegiance and belief were seen in terms of personal history and individual choice, not as a commitment to an authoritative tradition.

The movement for Church union then seemed quixotic to people who felt free to move between churches and to make what they wanted of Christian doctrine. The unity of the Church was seen in spiritual and not in institutional terms.

Wider social change

This change is echoed in the political culture.

Once large political parties with a distinctive, shared and often polemical vision of society and a strong allegiance to it, have been replaced by small parties, united by interests more than by convictions.

These in any case are subordinated to the winning of elections.

Candidates for Parliament are drawn from those for whom politics is a career not a calling.

The current hatred that marks politics seems to flow as much from ambition and entitlement as from policy.

In response, voters are correspondingly more detached from political parties.

They favour individuals who appear to be authentic in their principles or who share their interests.

Pope's challenge

In this situation, Pope Francis' approach to Christian unity may be of wider interest.

He has challenged an inwards-turned vision of Church that identifies itself either by what it is not or as a collection of loosely bound individuals.

He has encouraged Catholics to go out to the edges of the Catholic Church to engage with disengaged members of the Church.

He's also encouraged Catholics to go out to Christians in other Churches, people of all Churches and none who suffer from poverty and discrimination, and to all to whom Christ came.

Ecumenical mission

This broad sense of mission draws its energy from and encourages a deep faith in Christ who embodied God's love in suffering rejection and rising from death.

It invites an ecumenism in which the faith of members and congregations of different Churches leads them to reach out beyond their doors into the world around them and its needs.

Today our public culture appears largely to have given up hoping for a unity of vision that transcends division.

Perhaps the call to go beyond the comfort of like-minded people to those on the margins of our society and to attend to them and their needs might reinvigorate commitment to the common good and to the democratic habits that sustain it.

• First published in Eureka Street
• Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street, and writer at Jesuit Social Services.

They say that scandals and trivia that dominate public debate shouldn't be on the 2023 election agenda.

The bishops' Election Statement for the 2023 General Election says increasing numbers of people are becoming disillusioned and people are disenfranchised because serious issues are treated as political footballs.

Their statement says in part:

"We are concerned with the growing trivialisation of politics, with the focus of politicians and media being on mistakes, misdemeanours or scandals of individual parliamentarians instead of being on the scandals of poverty, mental health and the diminishment of the sanctity and dignity of life."

Their bishops' statement is being distributed to the country's 470,000 Catholics in six dioceses and 194 parishes.

"We are concerned that so many of the issues affecting all of us are treated as political footballs.

"Successive election-season promises and the changing of policies in line with the agenda of each new government are not working.

"More and more people in our land are becoming disillusioned and feel disenfranchised.

"Our hope is that the politicians who will form the Government ... will focus on the issues that beset us as a nation and work together across party lines to make real progress in finding genuine, lasting solutions."

The bishops ' statement also comments on rising levels of poverty and mental health, the lack of housing in various dioceses, and this year's big storms.

During the past three years, the bishops have called out and complimented the government on several issues.

"We lamented the growing indifference to the sanctity of life. We affirmed our commitment for Te Tiriti o Waitangi as offering us a pathway of unity for our nation.

"And we talked about the rapidly growing toxicity in our communities that is dividing us and that generates anger, hate and even violence. These are but some of the many issues we face."

Love your neighbour

Citing Jesus' command to love your neighbour as yourself, the bishops acknowledge finding a party or candidates that subscribe to Christian behaviour can be difficult.

Nonetheless, they urge all Catholics to be informed. All Catholics should look seriously at the policies of each party and the position of each individual candidate, the bishops say.

"At times we cannot find parties or candidates who subscribe to all we believe. When this happens, we make choices, informed by our conscience guided by the Gospel and Catholic Social Teaching, for the party or candidate which will bring forth the most common good, especially for the poor and vulnerable, and at the same time whose policies will bring forth the least moral harm."

Source

• NZ Catholic Bishops Conference

He happens to be Catholic.

So why did Abbott put razor wire and a floating barrier in the Rio Grande? Do migrant children not have heartbeats?

There is an angry selectivity when it comes to life issues.

Abortion is certainly a tragic reality in too many places in the world.

Without denying the ability of the polity to allow or disallow abortion legally, the better course is to make it unnecessary.

To respect life means just that: the unborn, yes, and the elderly and the stranger, the migrant, and the homeless individual. Respect life includes the "other," no matter how defined — by gender, skin colour, language, ethnicity — the list is endless.

Yet too many so-called pro-life advocates demonstrate an abject denial of others' right to life.

The task of religion is to expand the conversation, model good behaviour and call out the frauds.

On abortion, for example, the leading candidates in the United States' presidential race exhibit distinct approaches to the question. One has said women who suffer abortion should be legally charged; the other supports legalized abortion.

We could call the first a "pro-lifer," but does he in fact respect life?

He has bragged about molesting a woman and has been found guilty of sexual assault. He currently faces 91 felony counts in four different jurisdictions.

He does not pay his own legal bills, including those from one of his lawyers, Rudy Giuliani. (He complained that Giuliani lost. Recall his comments about the former Vietnam POW, Sen. John McCain.)

Since the federal right to abortion was overturned by a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, the other candidate has worked to circumvent the resulting patchwork of state laws.

The complicating factor is his Catholicism, and it is hard to reconcile his position.

Still, he seems to be a decent man. While in the U.S. Congress, he took the train home each night to Delaware. He is said to call his children every day.

So, what to do? The U.S. bishops say not to vote on any candidate because of one position on one issue.

Abortion is important, and Catholic opposition is well known. But what happens when you expand the conversation? What happens when you look at other life issues, and how they fare inside the Catholic Church?

The church has stepped up to house immigrants, and there are some places for unwanted children. But here and there is not everywhere.

Too many questions linger.

Does the pastor pay women employees on the same scale as the men? Or are women workers part-timers without benefits or vacation pay? Does he snicker at the thought of ordaining women deacons? Is he capable of informed discussion? Is he an autocrat, a dictator?

Did the bishop move the pederasts, and cover up his — and their — tracks?

Has he drained diocesan bank accounts to fight rather than settle with the victims? Does he tweet against Pope Francis? Has he paid lip service to the Synod on Synodality? Does he answer letters of complaint?

These are real questions for the Catholic Church, as it continues to bleed money and adherents while it seems to focus only on abortion.

If clerics preach against abortion, they must also preach against the razor wire. If they preach about the value of life, they must respect the people of the church.

Immigration? The death penalty? Workers' rights?

Too many clerics have replaced the Gospel with their personal politics. Until they demonstrate respect for all life, they will continue to be ignored.

• Phyllis Zagano is an American author and academic. She has written and spoken on the role of women in the Roman Catholic Church and is an advocate for the ordination of women as deacons.
• First published in Religion News Service. Republished with permission.

It's almost impossible to know, exactly, how many people sleep in cars. "None", would be the best answer. But this isn't a "best answer" world.

One measure is how many people on the Housing Register (essentially a waiting list of people assessed as eligible for public housing, but not yet in it) give their address as a car.

How many applicants for public housing, Chris Bishop asked, indicated they were living in a car in June 2023, compared with October 2017?

Priyanca Radhakrishnan answered that in June 2023. "There were 480 applicants who put ‘car' down as their accomodation type, compared to 102 in October 2017."

"I refuse to stand by while children are sleeping in cars", Jacinda Ardern said, in the 1 News Leaders' Debate, pre-election in 2017.

It was one of those memorable lines that contained a zeitgeist fury. Back then, sleeping in cars was evidence of the kind of failure that defines a Government.

Now? It gets less attention.

Some of this is down to a paradox. The Housing Register has grown because it has some meaning.

In her answer to Chris Bishop's question, Associate Minister Radhakrishnan reminded us: "This Government has added 12,198 net additional public homes, as compared to that member's Government who left us with 1,500 public homes fewer compared to when they took office."

People who listed 'car' as their accommodation in New Zealand went from 102 in October 2017 to 480 in June 2023. (Source: 1News)

Yes. You only join a queue when you believe it's leading somewhere. Albeit slowly. Besides, the previous National Government appeared to get its State housing policy from Humpty Dumpty.

This is a recurring theme in Labour's response when National attacks its provision and management of public housing.

Housing Minister, Megan Woods, responding to Nicola Willis in 2021, brandished the derisory "they" for National's performance when in Government. A finger-wagging "they".

"They finished Government with 1,500 fewer houses than they started with. If they'd built at even our minimum level of 1,600 houses a year, we would have had 15,000 more public houses in New Zealand."

Fair point.

But Chris Bishop's point is also fair. And important. And if Labour and its supporters were appalled by people sleeping in cars in 2017, surely they'll be appalled by it now?

Won't they? Judging by Twitter traffic - maybe not.

An interesting thing happened on Friday morning.

Bernard Hickey tweeted out the same link to the Parliamentary exchange between Chris Bishop and Priyanca Radhakrishnan that I've attached (above), with an accompanying twelve-word commentary: "This says it all. As the rain comes down. And it's cold."

Had it been 2017, and had National been in power, this would likely have had so many retweets it would have got dizzy. But in the twelve hours that followed it going up, it was retweeted only once. Once. By the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG).

CPAG didn't hold back.

"Touché @bernardchickey", their tweet commenced, ending: "The state of the nation can be summed up in this headline. The children living in cars are not included in @Stats_NZ child poverty data. Abhorrent, outrageous, unacceptable."

Take that!

But no-one did. CPAG, whose commitment to addressing child poverty is rigorous, intelligent and admirably non-partisan, weren't retweeted at all in the following twelve hours.

That despite the excellently Twitter baiting fodder of those three furious words: "Abhorrent, outrageous, unacceptable."

Not even National supporters went near it.

Hundreds of people are living in cars in New Zealand - but does that matter to Kiwis this election?

Indeed, if you go to National's website, there's no mention whatsoever of the information Chris Bishop elicited from Priyanca Radhakrishnan in Parliament on Thursday afternoon.

Instead, as I write this, National's issue of the moment (and obviously their website is constantly updated) is crime.

Yes, a third of National's front twelve "press releases" at the close of the week were on crime, with ram raids mentioned nine times.

Imagine, the power if National had linked the impacts of a childhood in which economic deprivation was so great that their "home" was a car, with the tragically increased likelihood of criminality.

The link is established. Starkly.

"Children born into poverty more likely to become criminals", RNZ headlined a story in 2018, reporting on research by the Ministry of Social Development.

The then Children's Commissioner, and former principal judge of the country's Youth Court, Andrew Becroft, is quoted. "He said children suffering from material hardship were more likely to end up with a poor education and in crime when they grew up."

Yes.

"We know that long-term education is going to be a challenge", Andrew Becroft is reported as saying.

"We know that they are, the kids, especially the boys, are at risk of criminal offending. So this isn't just a theoretical issue, this [has] significant life ramifications."

And here we are. Five years later. Living with them. Continue reading

• John Campbell is TVNZ's Chief Correspondent.

Though EVs emit fewer greenhouse gases than fuel-powered vehicles, their batteries require more minerals - especially lithium, which is also used to make batteries for smartphones and computers.

Unlike its neighbors Chile and Argentina, Bolivia has yet to become a major player in the global lithium market. In part, this is because its high-altitude salt flats aren't suited to the usual extraction method, solar evaporation.

But that looks poised to change: In January 2023, state company YLB signed an agreement with the Chinese consortium CBC, which includes the world's largest producer of lithium-ion batteries, to introduce a new method called direct lithium extraction.

It may prove an economic boon. But since colonial times, the legacy of mineral abundance in Bolivia has also been one of pollution, poverty and exploitation.

While some residents are hopeful about the potential benefits of the growing lithium industry, others are concerned about extraction's local impact. In particular, direct lithium extraction demands a great deal of fresh water, potentially endangering surrounding ecosystems as has happened in other parts of South America's "lithium triangle."

A rapid escalation of lithium extraction in the Bolivian Andes also represents a looming clash between two fundamentally different views of nature: modern industrial society's and that of the Indigenous communities who call the region home - a focus of my current research collaborations and dissertation project.

The Pachamama

Bolivia is home to 36 ethnic groups across its highland and lowland regions. Aymara and Quechua peoples comprise most of the Indigenous communities in the Andes Mountains.

For these cultures, nature is not a means to human ends. Instead, it is seen as a group of beings with personhood, history and power beyond human reach. For example, the female divinity of fertility, to whom people owe respect, is the Pachamama.

Since she sustains and secures the reproduction of life, Andean Indigenous people make offerings to the Pachamama in ancestral rituals known as "challas" that seek to reinforce their connection with her.

Similarly, highland groups recognize mountains not as a set of inert rocks, but as ancestral guardians called "Achachilas" in Aymara and "Apus" in Quechua. Each Andean community praises a nearby mountain whom they believe protects and oversees their lives.

In Uyuni, for example, where one of the two new lithium plants will be constructed, Indigenous communities acknowledge the presence of these sacred beings.

To this day, worshipers in nearby Lipez region explain the salt flat's origin with a traditional legend: It is the mother's milk of their Apu, a female volcano named Tunupa.

However, religious concepts such as "sacred" or "divine" do not necessarily capture the relationships that Andean Indigenous people have long established with these more-than-human beings, who have been known since pre-colonial times as "huacas."

These entities are not considered "gods," or thought of as dealing with otherworldly beliefs. Rather, they are treated as integral to people's earthly everyday life.

For instance, before meals, Quechua and Aymara peoples throw coca leaves or spill their drinks on the ground to share their food with these beings as a sign of gratitude and reciprocity.

Lifeless matter

In industrial societies, on the other hand, nature is understood as something external to humanity - an object that can be mastered through science and technology.

The modern economy turns nature into a source of raw materials: morally and spiritually inert matter that is there to be extracted and mobilized worldwide. Within this framework, a mineral like lithium is a resource to be developed in the pursuit of economic gains for human beings.

In fact, the history of these competing notions is deeply entwined with the history of the colonial era, as different cultures came into violent conflict.

As the Spanish discovered the mineral bounty of the so-called New World, like gold and silver, they began an intensive extraction of its riches, relying on forced labor from local people and imported slaves.

The concept of "raw materials" can be traced to the theological notion of "prime matter." The term originally comes from Aristotle, whose work was introduced to Christianity via Latin translations around the 12th century.

In the way Christians adapted his idea of prime matter, everything was ordered by its level of "perfection," ranging from the lowest level - prime matter, the most basic "stuff" of the world - to rocks, plants, animals, humans, angels and, finally, God.

The Catholic Church and the Spanish Empire later used this medieval understanding of matter as something passive, without spirit, to justify the extraction of resources during colonial times.

The closer things were to prime matter, their argument supposed, the more they needed human imprint and an external purpose to make them valuable.

This notion was also used by Christian colonizers who were intent on destroying traditions that they saw as idolatrous. In their eyes, reverence toward a mountain or the earth itself was worshiping a mere "thing," a false god.

The church and the empire believed it was critical to desacralize these more-than-human beings and treat them as mere resources.

This flattened vision of nature served as the basis for the modern economic concept of raw materials, which was introduced in the 18th century with the birth of economics as a social science.

The road ahead

Bolivia's lithium projects pose a new potential clash of worldviews. However, extraction initiatives have faced severe setbacks in the last few years, including social protests, the 2019 political crisis and a lack of necessary technology.

The Chinese deal represents a new milestone, yet its outcomes are still uncertain: for the economy, for local communities and for the Earth.

Today, electric vehicles are widely considered part of the solution to the climate crisis.

Yet they will necessitate a mining surge to meet their battery demands. If societies really want a greener future, technological shifts such as EVs will be just part of the answer, alongside other changes like more sustainable urban planning and improved public transportation.

But in addition, perhaps other cultures could learn from Andean relations with nature as more-than-human beings: an inspiration to rethink development and turn our own way of living into something less destructive.

• Mario Orospe Hernández, Ph.D. Candidate in Religious Studies, Arizona State University.
• The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.
• First published in RNS
• Republished with permission

Anthony Albanese is a Catholic.

Down the Eastern seaboard, the three state premiers, Dominic Perrottet (NSW), Daniel Andrews (Victoria) and Peter Malinauskas (SA) are Catholics.

There are many other high-profile Catholics at ministerial level and as opposition leaders.

Others, like Queensland Premier, Anastacia Palaszczuk attended a Catholic school.

Given that Catholics make up only a fifth to a quarter of the Australian population, they seem to be overrepresented right now.

That could change quickly.

But federal politics has had a run of Catholic or Catholic-educated leaders, including Liberal prime ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott, Nationals Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, and Labor Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.

Just to list their names makes it blindingly obvious that they are men (almost all men) with very different values.

They are not only spread across the political parties, but within the parties, they occupy very different places on the ideological spectrum.

Turnbull and Abbott are prime examples of deeply different values on matters like climate change and same-sex marriage, within one party.

If you look a little deeper, it is also clear that their adherence to orthodox, institutional Catholicism varies too.

That should not be surprising given the decline of Catholic church adherence in the wider community.

As only 10 per cent of Catholics are regular church attenders, it would be surprising if attendance by Catholic politicians was much different.

As more Catholics depart from official church proclamations, it would surprise if some Catholic politicians didn't too; but when it happens in the public eye, as it did recently over the Thorburn affair with Daniel Andrews and Archbishop Peter Comensoli, it is newsworthy.

All these facts together make for an interesting relationship between church leaders, who have many different political interests to pursue with government and political leaders of the same faith.

They can try to utilise the relationship during campaigns and policy debates, or they can be embarrassed by them if they appear to be neglecting church teaching.

It also raises questions for the political leaders themselves, whose faith can give them the inside running with church leaders and with some Catholic voters during election campaigns.

During the recent federal election campaign, for instance, there was plenty of mutual cosying up between Catholic church leaders and the then Labor Opposition.

Their faith can also be an embarrassment for political leaders at times when they would prefer not to be too aligned with the official church, for example when the latter is in disrepute over institutional responses to child sexual abuse or central to tricky policy debates such as education funding.

The relationship is becoming more complicated in recent times. Continue reading

"Today, there are new colonial forces moving into Fiji," says Archbishop Peter Loy Chong of Suva.

"There is the fear of China and Chinese extractive industries and companies. There are powerful multinational corporations taking their places. Big nations like Australia, USA, New Zealand and China are exerting political influence in Oceania."

The Fijian island chain is home to about a million people. It has mineral deposits including gold and copper and thriving fishing and timber industries.

On Fiji's 52nd anniversary of independence from Great Britain, Chong spoke out about his concerns and fears for the island nation.

Chinese companies have been active in the Pacific region and the United States and Australia are trying to strengthen ties with the area's governments, he says.

Last month, Fiji held military exercises with the U.S., Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

Local communities do not participate in decision-making, he says.

Instead, decisions about trade, foreign debt and capital investments are made with little or no input from the majority of the people affected.

The "divide between the state-elites and local communities hinders true participation,".

Chong says Fiji is experiencing "uncertain times."

"We live in fear. It is dangerous to speak your mind for truth and justice. I have been threatened for speaking out," he says.

"In globalisation, nation states have not disappeared, but they now operate within a different context.

"Nation states retain power, but they must wield that power in collaboration with other powerful nations and multinational corporations. In reality, it is the multinational corporations that rule the world."

Fiji is a religiously diverse country. Two-thirds are Christian, with the predominant denomination being Methodism. About 10 percent of the country is Catholic.

The Catholic Church has two key roles in Fiji's political history, Chong says. These are to:

• set forth the requirements of just social action set forth in the Bible and Catholic social teaching
• denounce social, economic, or political actions and structures in the name of justice and the Kingdom of God.

"The Church wants to build a just society and it seeks to do so on the solid foundation of four fundamental values: truth, freedom, justice and love.

"In its commitment to a just society, the Catholic Church seeks to enhance true democracy in Fiji," he says.

"On behalf of the Fiji Catholic Church, I pray that all Fijians collaborate for a truly independent, democratic and just society where the principles of participation, subsidiarity, human dignity and freedom is practiced."

Source

• Crux Now

"To poison ecclesial relations with the logic of politics is making trouble," says Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, the president of the Italian bishops' conference.

This isn't just a problem in Italy, he adds. It is also evident in "the marked political polarisation seen in the American church.

"But wherever politics has used pseudo-theological or spiritual categories to contaminate ecclesial life, everyone has lost in the end."

Zuppi says we must pay close attention to this issue - partly because of manipulation from the outside and also because of the divisions within.

"Trouble results from falling into these traps, for example, of false conflicts between the social and spiritual (dimensions) or the often-contrived divisions on ethical issues," he added.

Polarisation and the problems it causes are everywhere. It's "ruling supreme on every issue, big and small," he says.

Zuppi points out that taking sides seems like a quick and easy way to respond to the many complexities in the world. There's no requirement to think or tackle too many questions, he says.

"Instead, we have to face complexity without fear, to ask ourselves questions, especially questions concerning ‘who,' that is, putting the human person at the centre" of the discussion.

When it comes to ethical issues, Zuppi says "we cannot simply repeat little lectures from the past, instead we must find new words for new questions".

"To be very frank, if the world is heading (in) the other direction on ethical issues, it certainly means that we must not conform to or say what the world wants to hear, but that we must know how to tell the eternal truths in today's culture" or terminology.

"Otherwise, we repeat a truth that has become hard to accept."

Zuppi notes that St Paul VI called for increased participation of the laity, church reform and outreach to the marginalised in the years ahead of the Second Vatican Council. The large numbers who have left the Church aren't the problem, he says.

"The problem is not them, it is us."

People are implicitly calling for "a Church that is more evangelical, more motherly and, for this reason, demanding and engaging, that does not play the (wicked) stepmother and says, ‘I told you so,'" he added.

Source

• Crux Now

The decision was met with enthusiasm by those opposed to abortion here, including opposition National MP for Tamaki Simon O'Connor.

Pro-choice groups such as Abortion Rights Aotearoa (ALRANZ) expressed alarm, not only for American women but for what this might signal for our country.

This has left Opposition Leader Christopher Luxon with a dilemma. He found himself caught up in questions that put a spotlight on his pro-life values, politics and integrity.

Luxon's anti-abortion beliefs are not news. In the days following his election as party leader late last year, when asked to confirm if, from his point of view, abortion was tantamount to murder, he clarified "that's what a pro-life position is".

Yet, in recent days, Luxon has repeatedly and emphatically sought to reassure voters National would not pursue a change to this country's abortion laws should it win government.

Abortion is legal in Aotearoa, decriminalised in 2020 within the framework of the Abortion Legislation Act. It's clear Luxon hopes his assurances will appease those of a pro-choice view, the position of most New Zealanders according to polling in 2019.

Principle and pragmatism in leadership

It has long been argued good leadership is underpinned by strength of character, a clear moral compass and integrity - in other words, consistency between one's words and actions.

Whether a leader possesses the prudence to gauge what is a practically wise course of action in a given situation that upholds important values, or simply panders to what is politically safe and expedient, offers insights into their character.

Over time, we can discern if they lean more strongly toward being values-based or if they tend to align with what Machiavelli controversially advised: that to retain power a leader must appear to look good but be willing to do whatever it takes to maintain their position.

Of course both considerations have some role to play as no one is perfect. We should look for a matter of degree or emphasis. A more strongly Machiavellian orientation is associated with toxic leadership.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has characterised herself as a "pragmatic idealist". Her track record indicates a willingness to accept considerable political heat in defence of key values. This is seen, for example, in her sustained advocacy of COVID-related health measures such as vaccine mandates and managed isolation, even when doing so was not the politically expedient path to follow.

Luxon's leadership track record in the public domain is far less extensive. Much remains unknown or untested as to what kind of leader he is. Being leader of the opposition is, of course, a very different role to that of prime minister.

However, in his maiden speech Luxon described his Christian faith as something that anchors him and shapes his values, while also arguing politicians should not seek to force their beliefs on others.

His response to this week's controversy proves he is willing to set aside his personal values for what is politically expedient. This suggests he is less of an idealist and more a pragmatist.

This may be a relief to the pro-choice lobby, given his anti-abortion beliefs. But if the political calculus changes, what might then happen?

The matter is not settled

New Zealand's constitutional and legal systems differ from those of the US, but the Supreme Court decision proves it's possible to wind back access to abortion.

Even if Luxon's current assurance is sincerely intended, it may not sustain should the broader political acceptability of his personal beliefs change. And on that front, there are grounds for concern.

The National Council of Women's 2021 gender attitudes survey revealed a clear increase in more conservative, anti-egalitarian attitudes. Researchers at the disinformation project also found sexist and misogynistic themes feature strongly in the conspiracy-laden disinformation gaining influence in New Zealand.

If these kinds of shifts in public opinion continue to gather steam, it may become more politically tenable for Luxon to shift gear regarding New Zealand's abortion laws.

In such a situation, the right to abortion may not be the only one imperilled. A 2019 survey in the US showed a strong connection between an anti-abortion or "pro-life" stance and more general anti-egalitarian views.

It's clear Luxon is aiming to reassure the public he has no intentions to advance changes to our abortion laws. But his seeming readiness to set aside personal beliefs in favour of what is politically viable also suggests that, if the political landscape changes, so too might his stance.

A broader question arises from this: if a leader is prepared to give up a presumably sincerely held conviction to secure more votes, what other values that matter to voters might they be willing to abandon in pursuit of political power?

• Suze Wilson Senior Lecturer, School of Management, Massey University.
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission

The question of abortion may be decided politically, but the real test is if morality is taught.

The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson changes our politics. For nearly 50 years, Roe v. Wade allowed abortion across the land.

Now it doesn't.

For nearly 150 years before that, U.S. states made their own determinations about abortion.

Now they do again.

Because the court has ordered that "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," a pastiche of state laws will kick in, some more restrictive than others.

Ever since the May leak by Politico of the draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, pro-abortion groups pressed their positions, for example, suggesting overturning Roe would put in vitro fertilization at risk, even arguing that pregnancy is bad for your health.

Both are key to pro-abortion strategy.

Since September 2021, a bill called the "Women's Health Protection Act of 2022" has been sitting in the Senate.

The proposed legislation allows all abortions before fetal viability and those "after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant."

Strongly supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the law passed the House of Representatives by a narrow (218-211) margin.

Three Representatives did not vote.

When it went to the Senate, the vote to proceed failed 49-51. Senator Manchin of West Virginia crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans.

The Catholic Church has always allowed the "life of the mother" exception under the concept of double effect, for example, termination of an ectopic pregnancy or removal of the uterus to treat cancer of the womb.

But the "life or health of the person who is pregnant" presents possibilities for wide interpretation.

On the one hand, the sentence protects the practitioner who determines whether the baby is dead or dying in the womb. On the other hand, it seems to allow for abortions up until the moment of birth where the mother claims a traumatic psychological condition. Or maybe she's not ill, just worried about her health.

So, what now?

The Catholic Communion rail controversy can only increase.

A few bishops have banned Speaker Pelosi from the sacrament in their dioceses. A few others steadfastly remain silent, about her and, perhaps more importantly, about President Biden.

US President, Joe Biden has said he is not sure when human life begins.

Before you send him a biology book, consider that he is perhaps thinking about the Catholic concept of ensoulment — not conception, implantation, quickening or viability.

The Church prefers to recognize the sanctity of all human life, and there is no argument that every stage is human.

The controversy will not end soon, but if the bishops address "invincible ignorance," there may be fewer Catholic politicians supporting laws allowing abortion.

Maybe the bishops can redouble their efforts to teach Gospel values.

Maybe they can teach that "respect life" includes Catholic social teaching, which in turn requires just wages and proper working conditions.

Maybe they can expand Church efforts to assist the poor.

Politics is not the point. The point is to make abortion unnecessary.

• Phyllis Zagano is senior research associate-in-residence and adjunct professor of religion at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. Her most recent book is "Women: Icons of Christ."

The past several weeks surely have been extremely frustrating for Pope Francis.

First of all, his tireless and ever more urgent appeals for an end to the fighting in Ukraine, which began in late February with Russia's invasion of the country, have been completely ignored.

And he's had absolutely no success in convincing Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, to denounce the war or convince Vladimir Putin to agree to an Easter ceasefire.

Francis keeps repeating that he's willing to do everything he can to help stop the war, but he has to know in his heart of hearts that (as it's been said here before) there is no role for the Roman pope in the Russia-Ukraine mess.

That must also be extremely frustrating for him.

But whether the war ends tomorrow or drags on for a very long time, there is another issue that is bogging him down. It's his advanced age and questionable health.

Cancelled appointments and scaled-back ceremonies

The head of the Holy See Press Office on Friday told journalists that Francis had cancelled all his pre-scheduled appointments for the day in order to have some necessary medical check-ups.

The press officer did not give any details, but in an interview with an Argentine newspaper that was published on the same day, the 85-year-old Jesuit pope revealed that the nagging problem he's been having with his right knee is a torn ligament.

The knee ailment has hobbled him for several weeks and it even forced him to skip or scale down processions and certain other physical activities during the liturgies of Holy Week.

Most notably, Francis did not even preside at the Easter Vigil, but sat among the assembly. The next day he was able to lead the Mass in St. Peter's Square but had to sit for most of the "Urbi et Orbi" Message that he delivered afterwards.

And a few weeks earlier, during an April 2-3 trip to Malta, the pope had to use hydraulic lifts to board his flights and even to visit a below-ground shrine.

Extra weight and major surgery

The bum knee is not the only health issue that is dogging him. Francis also has said that he suffers from sciatic nerve pain, and it is obvious to all that he's a lot heavier than he was nine years ago when he was elected Bishop of Rome.

In addition to all that, he underwent a major operation last July when surgeons removed about one-fifth (13 inches) of his large intestine. He remained hospitalized for ten days but was quick to resume normal activities without further convalescence.

The exact state of the pope's health is not clear because Francis doesn't like to reveal any more than required. He was extremely secret last July, for example, over releasing details about his surgery.

But he impressively soldiers on under obvious physical limitations, giving little indication of the aches and pains he feels.
Doing more and keeping people off balance

This pope clearly likes to keep people guessing — and off balance -, which appears to be part of his way of governing and surviving as a total outsider in ecclesiastical Rome and the Vatican.

For instance, after last July's surgery there were rumors floating around that Francis had cancer and some surmised that they did not originate with the pope's "enemies", but with the pope himself!

And his response was to give more live and recorded addresses, meet more people, hold more audiences and get back to traveling.

He's made three international trips since the surgery (Hungary-Slovakia, Iraq and Malta) and has four more on his calendar for the coming months — Lebanon in mid-June, South Sudan and DR-Congo in early July, Canada a few weeks later, and Kazakhstan in September.

Is this just another way to show that he is healthy or is the sign of someone who is in a race against the clock?

If it is the latter, then expect Francis to do a lot more than just hopscotch around the globe.
Major appointments to be made

One of the most urgent matters of business is revamping the top leadership in the Roman Curia in order to ensure the reform that goes into effect on Pentecost Sunday (June 5) is carefully and enthusiastically implemented.

The pope will also be creating new cardinals soon. There are currently 117 electors, but that number falls to 110 by the end of the year. If he sticks to the 120-limit set by Paul VI, he will have ten slots to fill.

But popes are free to change the number of electors if they choose and they can also modify the rules and protocols in place during the sede vacante (interregnum between one pontificate an another) and the conclave.

Just about every pope who has lived more than 33 days has done so and it is expected that Francis will also. There is an urgent need to precisely define the process by which a Roman Pontiff freely resigns and codify the rights and duties of a former pope.

Bound and determined

Finally, keep an eye out for further changes to the Synod of Bishops, possibly to give it a more deliberative role in universal Church governance or even transform it into a body that is not just for the hierarchy and the ordained.

Francis has launched an audacious experiment called "synodality" in an effort to truly awaken all the baptized (i.e. the so-called laity) and make them active participants in how the Church operates.

The Synod itself will likely have to be further modified to enhance and facilitate this development.

The pope is getting old and his health is naturally declining. But he is trying mightily not to show signs of slowing down.

Though the clock is ticking, Francis is convinced there is still a lot more do. And he seems bound and determined to get it done.

• Robert Mickens is La-Croix International Editor in Chief. He has lived, studied and worked in Rome for 30 years. Over that time he has studied at the Gregorian University, worked at Vatican Radio and been the Rome correspondent for the London Tablet. He regularly comments on CNN, the BBC and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

There are features of our Western world's culture that seem to fit the image.

Important aspects of our lives seem to have become disconnected from what gives them meaning. If this is true, it is hardly healthy. I offer the following examples.

"Me" disconnected from "we"; and "my" from "our"

To say modern culture suffers from acute individualism is by now a truism.

Clamours for "my rights" often involve little or no sense of "my responsibilities".

It seems incredible that some would regard public health requirements as infringements of their rights - it's as silly as regarding the road rules as violations of their freedom.

During the pandemic, some have been willing to put other people's lives at risk for no better reason than to enjoy themselves. Obviously, legal restrictions are no substitute for moral formation.

But all is not lost:

• Catastrophes can still bring out the best in people.
• It is still easy to admire individuals who are generous, even risking their own lives for others.
• It is still easy to dislike gross forms of self-centredness and self-aggrandisement.
• People still give generously to charitable causes.
• And it is still easy to pity individuals caught up in over-anxious self-concern.

But there are also subtler forms of disconnect that we can become used to; they become ‘normalised'.

For example, in most if not all cultures, marriage has been a moment of celebration for whole communities. Now, "what we do is nobody else's business". Within an individualist culture, it isn't easy to see anything wrong with this. It's the culture that has become reductionist.

Work used to be regarded as an expression one's person and relationships with others. Now, within the culture we are regarding as ‘normal', it is reduced to a commodity and business transaction. Commercial value attaches to the work, not the person doing it, so work becomes unmoored from its own deepest meaning.

The common denominator to all forms of self-centredness is failure to realise that we can become our own true selves only through being "for others".

This paradox is at the centre of Jesus' teaching.

The drift away from his Gospel has become a drift away from what we need to become our own true selves. This will show up in the uglier kinds of self-centredness.

Facts' unmoored from truth

When truth is reduced to whatever we say to get whatever we want - whether it is true or not - we are targets for manipulation. We become vulnerable to every kind of spin - commercial spin, political spin, and agenda-driven ideologies.

Scientists work hard to establish facts.

They know we need to act on what is objectively true.

Solving crimes, the judicial system, and research in every field are all based on the premise that truth matters.

All these, and most of life, would be turned up-side-down if it were enough to say: "truth is whatever the individual thinks it is - it is true for her/him" and "right is whatever the individual chooses - it is right for him/her".

How could we even say rape or sexual abuse are wrong if it might be "right" for the person doing it?

So, we cannot escape the need to acknowledge an objective difference between true and false, and right and wrong.

Conspiracy theories during the pandemic duped some people into believing claims that were far more bizarre than anything the sciences ever present us with.

What kind of culture is it when they are so gullibly believed?

Parroting cliches is a lazy alternative to serious thinking. For example: lazy thinkers don't distinguish between judging a person's actions (which we may do, and sometimes must), and judging their conscience (which we may not - because we cannot know whether or how much they are guilty before God.)

That is the meaning of the saying: "who am I to judge?"

"Who am I to judge", doesn't mean we can't judge their actions!

But even when we rightly judge that another's actions are wrong, it is often necessary to look further.

Their offending can have deep roots in early experience of abuse or deprivation or cultural alienation.

If we are personally attached to truth, we will look more deeply, and avoid superficial judgments and demonising.

Lazy thinking also buys the slogan used to justify abortion: "it's my body," even though the sciences leave no doubt that the embryo is actually someone else's body.

Sexual activity unmoored from sexuality's meaning

I recently heard some young people say they felt it was wrong to send sexual imagery online, but they didn't know why.

They will not come any closer to knowing through "consent education".

"Consent education" is right to teach the need to avoid activities that are not legal or consensual or safe. But that is as far as it can go because it is unconcerned with sexuality's meaning - other than it being a source of pleasure.

That kind of ‘education' allows, if it doesn't promote, the idea that anything goes provided it is legal, consensual and safe.

But is it?

A more holistic education would allow young people to learn about virtue.

Modesty is the virtue that protects chastity.

Of course, if society has given away the virtue of chastity, then it won't feel any need for modesty. Chastity is the virtue that applies self-respect, restraint and respect for others, to sexuality.

Unchastity involves a lack of self-respect, restraint and respect for others.

The Department of Internal Affairs' statistics regarding the extent of attempts in NZ to access child sex sites, and the increasing demand for younger children, and more violent forms of abuse, show where we go when the meaning of sexuality is ignored, or reduced to pleasure.

There have been strong, organized and determined cultural movements whose agenda has been to "liberate" sexuality from all previous restraints.

We look back incredulously to the 1960's through 1990's when some activists described themselves as ‘victims' of harsh laws aimed at preventing "man-boy love"; and children as ‘victims' because harsh parents didn't want them to have that kind of loving care!!

"Inter-generational sex" and "man-boy love' were euphemisms intended to promote the acceptability of what society calls pederasty.

For some, the aim was to shed categories such as ‘heterosexual' and ‘homosexual' in favour of more fluid and non-binary language. Even though by the 1990's those movements had mostly lost their credibility, the underlying ideologies have a way of re-surfacing.

So sooner or later, we do need to come to the question: what is sexuality's meaning?

What is its purpose?

Yes, it is for pleasure.

But so is unchastity. So, there must be some meaning beyond that.

Honest reflection recognises two purposes that are entwined and come together uniquely in marriage: they are sexuality's potential for deeply nurturing the love of two people, and in a way that is also designed to generate new life as the fruit of their love. And because new life needs to be protected and nurtured, the child's parents need to be in a relationship that is stable, committed and faithful.

Whatever allowances we rightly make for people of various orientations or preferences (see below), ultimately it is marriage that can fulfil sexuality's deepest meanings.

Detached from marriage, sexual activities are detached from sexuality's meaning.

Gender identity unmoored from sexual identity

Gender identity is not a label that is put on us, by ourselves or by others. It is given by nature long before we start making our own decisions.

But what about the tensions between biological reality and psychological/emotional reality that some people experience?

We move closer to an answer when we allow both faith and the sciences to be part of our thinking: the world is a work in progress, and we are part of this evolving world.

This means that none of us is a finished product. We are all at one stage or another of being unfinished.

We can be born with deficiencies, or incur disabilities, some of which last through life.

In fact, we are never finished while death is still in front of us.

When there is something that cannot be resolved or fulfilled within our present span of life, it helps to remember that our life was not something we had a right to in the first place; it is simply a gift. And our present life is not the whole of it.

In that kind of world, personal development does not always take place at the same pace or even follow the usual pattern.

Those who are caught in any of the dilemmas resulting from different stages of, or lines of, development have a right to the same respect and unconditional love as everyone else.

Still, as Professor Kathleen Stock, herself a lesbian, writing about "Why Reality Matters for Feminism," reminds us, there are only two biological sexes and no amount of hormonal or surgical treatment can change that.

She is aware that by seeking surgical or hormonal treatment to support gender change, people are implicitly acknowledging the link between gender identity and sexual identity.

But she is also aware, and critical of, the more recent claim that they should not need to; it should be enough simply to declare that you are male or female, regardless of biological reality.

Is that where the separation of gender identity and sexual identity can take us?

If reality matters, then it matters to acknowledge that, both socially and biologically, male and female find a certain completion in each other, precisely by being each other's ‘opposite' - which is what the ancient Genesis story has been saying all along.

Politics unmoored from the common good

Politics unmoored from the common good is politics unmoored from its own purpose.

The purpose of political involvement is to create a social and economic environment in which everyone has the opportunity to progress towards achieving their own potential and a fulfilling life.

In a true democracy, political parties differ over how to do this, while being united in a common pursuit of the common good.

Partisan self-interest placed above the common good is a throw-back to tribalism, and like ancient forms of tribalism, it undermines the unity that is needed for achieving the common good.

The alternative to the common good is mere partisan power.

This gives rise to all kinds of inequalities and absurdities (e.g. being duped by misinformation and lies that have been discredited by the courts; basing decisions about masks and social distancing not on science but on which political party you belong to!)

We might be surprised at such fickleness, though perhaps less surprised that it happens in a country where States can still pass anti-democratic laws, and that does not yet have a proper separation of powers.

But the lesson for ourselves is how foolish and self-destructive we too could become through unmooring rights from responsibilities. ‘facts' from truth, and politics from pursuit of the common good.

"Religion" unmoored from ordinary life

Early in the Christian tradition, St Iraneus said the glory of God is human beings coming alive through seeing God in all that God has made and all that God is doing in human lives.

We are being drawn to God through the experience of created beauty, goodness and truth.

Popes St John Paul II and Benedict XVI have picked up Iraneus' theme, emphasising that since human beings becoming fully alive is God's agenda in creating and redeeming us, it is also "the route the Church must take."

So, religion is not somehow running alongside our ordinary lives; it is our ordinary lives being made extraordinary, being sanctified, graced - family life, civic life, industrial and commercial life, political life…

Of course, this is unfinished work, and so it will be until God is "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28).

In the meantime, people for whom life's shortfalls create a sense of insecurity are the ones more likely to seek escape into "religion" perceived as some kind of separate sphere, or construct built on to life, or, worse, a kind of bubble (even having its own separate language).

This perception of ‘religion" being alongside ordinary life is the assumption of some bloggers, and it seems, even some bishops (in Britain, Ireland, France and USA) who resent government restrictions affecting church gatherings even during a pandemic.

It is as if the sciences and good government don't apply to "religion's" separate sphere.

A concept of religion unmoored from the needs of the common good is unmoored from the ordinary processes of becoming more truly human and fully alive, which is what gives glory to God.

Conclusion

A culture in which so many aspects of life have become unmoored from what gives them meaning is a culture that is reductionist, superficial, utilitarian…

The question is: within that kind of culture, how well equipped can we be to deal with the epic issues of our time - those that degrade human life, human dignity, human rights and the planet itself?

• Peter Cullinane is Emeritus Bishop of Palmerston North. He has a Licentiate in Sacred Theology from the Angelicum, Rome and a Master of Theology from Otago University. Bishop Cullinane is a former President of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference and between 1983 and 2003 he was a member of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL).

Journalists, here's your answer: This is a stupid story for canonical, theological and political reasons.

First, and foremost, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops does not have the canonical authority to tell Biden that he cannot go to Communion.

During the papacy of John Paul II, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, emphasised the limited authority of bishops' conferences.

Who can or cannot go to Communion in a diocese is to be decided by the local bishop, not the bishops' conference. The most the conference can do is make recommendations to local bishops.

If the USCCB wants the authority to decide such matters, it will need to request an exception to church law from Rome.

This request requires a two-thirds vote of the conference bishops and Rome's approval for the exception.

It is highly unlikely that the pope would approve such an exception. The odds are that the Vatican would not even respond to the request while Biden is in office.

As a result, as long as Biden resides in Washington, D.C., and goes to church there, it will be Cardinal Wilton Gregory who determines whether he can go to Communion.

Gregory has said he will not stop Biden from going to Communion.

When Biden is in his home state of Delaware, it will be up to the local bishop there.

Delaware has just gotten a new bishop, and while his predecessor allowed Biden to go to Communion, the new bishop has not yet made his position known.

Likewise, when Biden is travelling around the country, it will be the local bishop wherever he goes to Mass who decides whether he can go to Communion or not.

Biden's aides are smart enough to avoid scheduling him for Mass in a diocese with an unfriendly bishop.

Biden and his staff have also been smart enough to avoid being pulled into a debate over his worthiness for Communion.

He says this is a personal matter, and his staff keeps the news cameras out when he goes to church.

Second, theologically, no one is worthy to go to Communion. We are all sinners, and it is God's gracious kindness and love that invites us to the Lord's table. We do not earn the right to Communion.

As Pope Francis would say, the church is a field hospital for the wounded. It is not a country club for the elite. This attitude has led Francis to make it easier for divorced and remarried Catholics to go to Communion.

Every Catholic is asked to reflect on their attitude as they approach Communion, but it is exceptional when church officials block an individual from Communion.

Some bishops believe that certain issues are so grave that they should be grounds for stopping someone from going to Communion.

Putting aside the merits of the debate, there are practical problems. For example, which issues should make the list?

Some say abortion and gender issues, but it should be noted that Biden has never challenged the church's position on the morality of abortion.

He believes that it should be legal, which is the position of more than half of Catholics. If Biden should be banned from Communion, then so should more than half of American Catholics.

But what about other issues?

• What about politicians who lie about the results of the election and encourage their followers to overturn the will of the people?
• What about politicians who support racism through voter suppression laws?
• What about politicians who fight policies to deal with global warming?
• What about politicians who deny refuge to those fleeing oppression and want, who do nothing to save those dying in the desert or drowning at sea?
• What about politicians who deny Medicaid to the poor?

Everybody has their list of people who should be denied Communion. Who is to decide?

When he was archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George, no liberal, put it succinctly when he said he did not want his priests playing cop at the Communion rail.

We should also remember that St John Paul II gave Communion to pro-choice politicians, notably former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (not even a Catholic at the time). He also gave Communion to the mayor of Rome.

All of this leads to my third conclusion, that this is all about politics, not the Eucharist.

The bishops who are talking about having the bishops' conference at its June meeting deny Biden Communion are not stupid.

They know canon law.

They know that the bishops' conference does not have the authority to ban Biden from Communion.

The pro-life groups pushing this agenda also know this.

So, what is going on? It is politics.

The Democratic Party has abandoned any semblance of giving space to opponents of abortion.

During the 2020 presidential primaries, no serious Democratic candidate even supported the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal spending on abortion.

Biden, who had supported the amendment during his entire political career, changed his position before the campaign, even though a majority of Americans oppose federal funds for abortions.

Opponents of abortion see no alternative to the Republican Party, and they are willing to wage war on Democrats no matter what.

The Communion wars are part of this political strategy, not any spiritual one.

Republicans know that the Communion wars are catnip to journalists, and Republicans and their episcopal allies prefer these stories to those describing Biden's efforts on COVID-19, infrastructure, climate change and jobs.

Stories about the bishops' conference denying Communion to Biden are about as realistic as stories about the National Governors Association impeaching the president.

• Thomas Reese SJ is a senior analyst at Religion News Service, and a former columnist at National Catholic Reporter, and a former editor-in-chief of the weekly Catholic magazine America. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

Reforming law in relation to hate speech offences is also on the agenda.

If the hate speech law passes, offenders will face a larger maximum sentence than if they were found guilty of rioting, assaulting a child or providing explosives to commit a crime!

Child-abuse

The Transforming Justice Foundation's petition focused on ensuring witnesses give evidence in child abuse cases.

Scott Guthrie led the petition. He says the silence around the 2006 deaths of 11-week old twins Chris and Cru Kahui show why the law needs changing to ensure witnesses give evidence.

The family initially did not cooperate with police investigations.

Although the twins' father was charged with murder, he was later acquitted. No other charges were laid.

Guthrie's petition asks the House of Representatives to:

"amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to remove the right to refrain from making any statement for persons who are arrested or detained on charges relating to child abuse."

When presenting the 4548-signature petition to the Justice Select Committee, Guthrie said refraining from making a statement, or the right to silence, allows people to keep quiet when questioned by police.

Nor can a defendant be compelled to be a witness in the prosecution of any criminal law.

These rights shouldn't be allowed for any witness to cases involving child abuse, violence, or death, he argued.

If we can remove the right to silence in some cases of serious fraud, surely we can look at that for child abuse, he said.

Religious freedoms

In the petition she led for the Barnabas Fund, the Fund's Chief Executive's Steph Johnston told the Justice Committee that protecting religious freedoms needs reviewing as New Zealand becomes more secular.

"People who have chosen a form of religion must not be marginalised or disadvantaged," she said.

Johnston's 4872-signatory petition seeks a formal government review of two issues:

• how well the seven fundamental aspects of freedom of religion are being protected in New Zealand today and
• whether any group, for example, Christians, may be falling through the cracks and their rights neglected, sidelined or undermined."

Adoption

Christian Newman's petition asks Parliament to "amend the Adoption Act 1955 to simplify and speed up the process for adoption".

Newman spoke to the Justice Committee about his 32,239-signature petition that covers a range of issues including amending the Act to:

• enable male-same-sex couples' eligibility to in vitro fertilisation treatment funding
• allow intending parents' legal rights to be automatically updated at the point the child is born
• include a child's right from birth to know their parents, birth and biological, and to recognise the rights of children to know their genetic origins.

Hate speech

Parliament has released details of a Cabinet Paper about hate speech law reforms.

The paper proposes hate speech offences be moved from the Human Rights Act to the Crimes Act.

Penalties could see offenders facing three years' imprisonment.

Protections against incitement and hate speech would be extended to include rainbow communities, religious minorities and those targeted for age or disability.

Source

• Newsroom
• RNZ
• Image: Wikipedia

These days, many media outlets are talking only to segments of the population.

For the New Zealand media, 2021 has been a year of cancellations.

Finance minister Grant Robertson cancelled his weekly MagicTalk interview slot with Peter Williams. Presenter Sean Plunket left the station before there was a chance to cancel him.

Recently, the Herald cancelled historian and former Labour cabinet minister Michael Bassett after publishing (and unpublishing) a column of his. And finally, the Prime Minister cancelled her weekly interview slot with Newstalk's Mike Hosking.

Each incident is different, yet they all point to ongoing political polarisation.

You do not have to agree with Williams, Plunket, Bassett or Hosking to know that many New Zealanders do. That is why Mike Hosking reaches a large segment of society with his morning show.

Hosking's audience will now miss out on the weekly interview with the Prime Minister. That is a pity for them and for Hosking.

But the greater damage is that this cancellitis creates more echo chambers in our media.

Where politicians only speak to audiences close to them, there will be no tough questions, no hard talk and little to learn. And where journalists only interview politicians they like, they are in danger of becoming acolytes.

It gets worse. As a growing segment of online and print news is now serving left-of-centre audiences, this leaves a diverse group to their right homeless.

Yes, these groups could still listen to Hosking. They could also resort to reading international newspapers like The Times, The Australian or the Wall Street Journal. But they would struggle to find similar written content here.

According to the mediabias.co.nz research project, all mainstream media outlets in New Zealand show a left-wing bias. Continue reading

• Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of the New Zealand Initiative

According to a PBS report in CathNews, VoteCast declared that 50 percent of Catholics backed Trump, while 49 percent voted for Biden.

Many Catholics, like many other Christians, appear to be predominantly guided by their preferred political leaders, nationalistic tendencies, the culture, conservative or progressive leanings, their wallet and their often unconscious prejudices. These unhealthy tendencies are not conducive to building unity within Catholicism, nor overall Christianity. It doesn't have to be this way.

Let's really try to live our lives in such a way that everything we think, feel, say and do faithfully reflects what Jesus taught us as recorded in the four Gospel accounts of our Lord.

And let's also go the extra mile: Let's apply the words and actions of Jesus to the cultural, economic, and the political areas of our nation and world. Now you might be thinking how on earth - especially in today's highly fractured societies - can we possibly do this?

Well, let's consult the angel Gabriel. When this messenger from the Almighty visited the teenage Jewish woman Mary and conveyed to her God's desire to take on human nature by being conceived in her virgin womb, Gabriel put to rest her natural query saying, "For nothing will be impossible for God."

But while of course, this is true, we like Mary need to give our wholehearted "yes" to God. We need to cooperate with God's life of grace in order for grace to be fully operative in our lives - and by extension in our suffering world.

But how can we translate this into public policies and civil laws with so many different contrasting opinions?

Let's let the Gospel lead the way!

In the last judgment scene of Matthew's Gospel, Jesus rewards with eternal life those who have loved him by feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, consoling the sick and imprisoned.

And so, the Gospel mandate is for us to fully address the legitimate needs of the many Americans and countless human beings around the world lacking sufficient nutritious food and clean water, decent clothing and housing, quality comprehensive healthcare, humane restorative prison reform and a warm welcome.

It is necessary to remember that as important as it is for us to individually respond to these needs, it is also absolutely essential for governments to fully respond to these needs as well.

And certainly, Jesus' total nonviolent example calls us to convert our high tech swords into instruments of peace. Thus Catholics and all Christians - if we are to be faithful to the Gospel - need to take the Gospel of peace to heart.

Exactly what types of laws, budgets and public policies that need to be enacted is open to honest, respectful and compassionate debate. But that debate needs to lead to timely and fully adequate comprehensive solutions.

If each one of us starts and finishes with the Gospel mandate that every single human being - born and unborn - deserves not only to live, but deserves to live with dignity in a world where people come before profit, where the care of the earth outweighs corporate greed and where nonviolent solutions replace war, we will surely find ways to move governments, corporations and economies toward the right way - the Gospel way!

• Tony Magliano is an internationally syndicated Catholic social justice and peace columnist. He is available to speak at diocesan or parish gatherings. Tony can be reached at tmag6@comcast.net.

People who think mixing religion with politics is wrong are 'in denial', he suggests.

Loy Chong - who is the head of the Catholic Church in Fiji - was chief guest the opposition National Federation Party (NFP) Annual General Meeting in Suva last week.

He has since been criticised for accepting the NFP's invitation.

Loy Chong's response to the criticism has been to explain to his critics what the church's role in politics is - and is not - in Fiji's political life.

It is not to decide on policies, he says.

Rather, it is to promote care and ensure there was a just society.

This means the church can push for sustainable development and care for the environment, he says.

"Whether people call it mixing church and religion - but definitely the church has a voice and that needs to be aired when it concerns society and where injustice or the exploitation of the environment is concerned," he says.

Loy Chong says the church and religion should be the moral compass for any society.

The government should allow full participation of its people in the consultative processes and not just a few chiefs, he says.

This is important, as some people have been to him with concerns that they are not being informed of consultations taking place and about the areas they are from.

Source

• RNZ
• Image: Fiji Village

The document focuses on fraternity and social friendship as the ways to build a better, more just and peaceful world - with the contribution of all: people and institutions.

The official summary follows, with a link to download the full document at the end.

What are the great ideals but also the tangible ways to advance for those who wish to build a more just and fraternal world in their ordinary relationships, in social life, politics and institutions?

This is mainly the question that Fratelli tutti is intended to answer: the Pope describes it as a "Social Encyclical" which borrows the title of the "Admonitions" of Saint Francis of Assisi, who used these words to "address his brothers and sisters and proposed to them a way of life marked by the flavour of the Gospel" (1).

The Poverello "did not wage a war of words aimed at imposing doctrines; he simply spread the love of God", the Pope writes, and "he became a father to all and inspired the vision of a fraternal society" (2-4).

The Encyclical aims to promote a universal aspiration toward fraternity and social friendship. Beginning with our common membership in the human family, from the acknowledgement that we are brothers and sisters because we are the children of one Creator, all in the same boat, and hence we need to be aware that in a globalized and interconnected world, only together can we be saved.

Human Fraternity

Fraternity is to be encouraged not only in words, but in deeds.

Deeds made tangible in a "better kind of politics", which is not subordinated to financial interests, but to serving the common good, able to place the dignity of every human being at the centre and assure work to everyone, so that each one can develop his or her own abilities.

A politics which, removed from populism, is able to find solutions to what attacks fundamental human rights and which aims to definitively eliminate hunger and trafficking.

At the same time, Pope Francis underscores that a more just world is achieved by promoting peace, which is not merely the absence of war; it demands "craftsmanship", a job that involves everyone.

Linked to truth, peace and reconciliation must be "proactive"; they must work toward justice through dialogue, in the name of mutual development.

This begets the Pontiff's condemnation of war, the "negation of all rights" and is no longer conceivable even in a hypothetically "justified" form, because nuclear, chemical and biological weapons already have enormous repercussions on innocent civilians.

There is also a strong rejection of the death penalty, defined as "inadmissible", and a central reflection on forgiveness, connected to the concepts of remembrance and justice: to forgive does not mean to forget, the Pontiff writes, nor to give up defending one's rights to safeguard one's dignity, which is a gift from God.

In the background of the Encyclical is the Covid-19 pandemic which, Francis reveals, "unexpectedly erupted" as he "was writing this letter". But the global health emergency has helped demonstrate that "no one can face life in isolation" and that the time has truly come to "dream, then, as a single human family" in which we are "brothers and sisters all" (7-8).

Global problems, global actions

Opening with a brief introduction and divided into eight chapters, the Encyclical gathers - as the Pope himself explains - many of his statements on fraternity and social friendship, arranged, however, "in a broader context of reflection" and complemented by "a number of letters, documents" sent to Francis by "many individuals and groups throughout the world" (5).

In the first chapter, "Dark clouds over a closed world", the document reflects on the many distortions of the contemporary era: the manipulation and deformation of concepts such as democracy, freedom, justice; the loss of the meaning of the social community and history; selfishness and indifference toward the common good; the prevalence of a market logic based on profit and the culture of waste; unemployment, racism, poverty; the disparity of rights and its aberrations such as slavery, trafficking, women subjugated and then forced to abort, organ trafficking (10-24).

It deals with global problems that call for global actions, emphasizes the Pope, also sounding the alarm against a "culture of walls" that favours the proliferation of organized crime, fuelled by fear and loneliness (27-28).

Moreover, today we observe a deterioration of ethics (29), contributed to, in a certain way, by the mass media which shatter respect for others and eliminate all discretion, creating isolated and self-referential virtual circles, in which freedom is an illusion and dialogue is not constructive (42-50).

Love builds bridges: the Good Samaritan

To many shadows, however, the Encyclical responds with a luminous example, a herald of hope: the Good Samaritan.

The second chapter, "A stranger on the road", is dedicated to this figure.

In it, the Pope emphasizes that, in an unhealthy society that turns its back on suffering and that is "illiterate" in caring for the frail and vulnerable (64-65), we are all called - just like the Good Samaritan - to become neighbours to others (81), overcoming prejudices, personal interests, historic and cultural barriers.

We all, in fact, are co-responsible in creating a society that is able to include, integrate and lift up those who have fallen or are suffering (77).

Love builds bridges and "we were made for love" (88), the Pope adds, particularly exhorting Christians to recognize Christ in the face of every excluded person (85).

The principle of the capacity to love according to "a universal dimension" (83) is also resumed in the third chapter, "Envisaging and engendering an open world".

In this chapter Francis exhorts us to go "'outside' the self" in order to find "a fuller existence in another" (88), opening ourselves up to the other according to the dynamism of charity which makes us tend toward "universal fulfilment" (95).

In the background - the Encyclical recalls - the spiritual stature of a person's life is measured by love, which always "takes first place" and leads us to seek better for the life of the other, far from all selfishness (92-93).

Rights have no borders

A fraternal society, therefore, will be one that promotes educating in dialogue in order to defeat the "virus" of "radical individualism" (105) and to allow everyone to give the best of themselves.

Beginning with protection of the family and respect for its "primary and vital mission of education" (114).

There are two 'tools' in particular to achieve this type of society: benevolence, or truly wanting good for the other (112), and solidarity which cares for fragility and is expressed in service to people and not to ideologies, fighting against poverty and inequality (115).

The right to live with dignity cannot be denied to anyone, the Pope again affirms, and since rights have no borders, no one can remain excluded, regardless of where they are born (121).

In this perspective the Pontiff also calls us to consider "an ethics of international relations" (126), because every country also belongs to foreigners and the goods of the territory cannot be denied to those who are in need and come from another place.

Thus, the natural right to private property will be secondary to the principal of the universal destination of created goods (120).

The Encyclical also places specific emphasis on the issue of foreign debt: subject to the principle that it must be paid, it is hoped nonetheless that this does not compromise the growth and subsistence of the poorest countries (126).

Migrants: global governance for long-term planning

Meanwhile, part of the second and the entire fourth chapter are dedicated to the theme of migration, the latter, entitled "A heart open to the whole world".

With their lives "at stake" (37), fleeing from war, persecution, natural catastrophes, unscrupulous trafficking, ripped from their communities of origin, migrants are to be welcomed, protected, supported and integrated.

Unnecessary migration needs to be avoided, the Pontiff affirms, by creating concrete opportunities to live with dignity in the countries of origin. But at the same time, we need to respect the right to seek a better life elsewhere.

In receiving countries, the right balance will be between the protection of citizens' rights and the guarantee of welcome and assistance for migrants (38-40).

Specifically, the Pope points to several "indispensable steps, especially in response to those who are fleeing grave humanitarian crises": to increase and simplify the granting of visas; to open humanitarian corridors; to assure lodging, security and essential services; to offer opportunities for employment and training; to favour family reunification; to protect minors; to guarantee religious freedom and promote social inclusion.

The Pope also calls for establishing in society the concept of "full citizenship", and to reject the discriminatory use of the term "minorities" (129-131).

What is needed above all - the document reads - is global governance, an international collaboration for migration which implements long-term planning, going beyond single emergencies (132), on behalf of the supportive development of all peoples based on the principle of gratuitousness.

In this way, countries will be able to think as "human family" (139-141).

Others who are different from us are a gift and an enrichment for all, Francis writes, because differences represent an opportunity for growth (133-135).

A healthy culture is a welcoming culture that is able to open up to others, without renouncing itself, offering them something authentic. As in a polyhedron - an image dear to the Pontiff - the whole is more than its single parts, but the value of each one of them is respected (145-146).

Politics: valuable form of charity

The theme of the fifth chapter is "A better kind of politics", which represents one of the most valuable forms of charity because it is placed at the service of the common good (180) and recognizes the importance of people, understood as an open category, available for discussion and dialogue (160).

In a certain sense, this is the populism indicated by Francis, which counters that "populism" which ignores the legitimacy of the notion of "people", by attracting consensuses in order to exploit them for its own service and fomenting selfishness in order to increase its own popularity (159).

But a better politics is also one that protects work, an "essential dimension of social life", and seeks to ensure everyone the opportunity to develop their own abilities (162).

The best help to a poor person, the Pontiff explains, is not just money, which is a provisional remedy, but rather allowing him or her to have a dignified life through work.

The true anti-poverty strategy does not simply aim to contain or render indigents inoffensive, but to promote them in the perspective of solidarity and subsidiarity (187).

The task of politics, moreover, is to find a solution to all that attacks fundamental human rights, such as social exclusion; the marketing of organs, tissues, weapons and drugs; sexual exploitation; slave labour; terrorism and organized crime.

The Pope makes an emphatic appeal to definitively eliminate human trafficking, a "source of shame for humanity", and hunger, which is "criminal" because food is "an inalienable right" (188-189).

The marketplace, by itself, cannot resolve every problem. It requires a reform of the UN

The politics we need, Francis also underscores, is one that says 'no' to corruption, to inefficiency, to the malign use of power, to the lack of respect for laws (177).

It is a politics centred on human dignity and not subjected to finance because "the marketplace, by itself, cannot resolve every problem": the "havoc" wreaked by financial speculation has demonstrated this (168).

Hence, popular movements have taken on particular relevance: as true "social poets" with that "torrent of moral energy", they must be engaged in social, political and economic participation, subject, however, to greater coordination.

In this way - the Pope states - it will be possible to go beyond a Policy "with" and "of" the poor (169).

Another hope present in the Encyclical regards the reform of the UN: in the face of the predominance of the economic dimension which nullifies the power of the individual state, in fact, the task of the United Nations will be to give substance to the concept of a "family of nations" working for the common good, the eradication of indigence and the protection of human rights.

Tireless recourse "to negotiation, mediation and arbitration" - the Papal Document states - the UN must promote the force of law rather than the law of force, by favouring multilateral accords that better protect even the weakest states (173-175).

The miracle of kindness

From the sixth chapter, "Dialogue and friendship in society", further emerges the concept of life as the "art of encounter" with everyone, even with the world's peripheries and with original peoples, because "each of us can learn something from others.

No one is useless and no one is expendable" (215).

True dialogue, indeed, is what allows one to respect the point of view of others, their legitimate interests and, above all, the truth of human dignity.

Relativism is not a solution - we read in the Encyclical - because without universal principals and moral norms that prohibit intrinsic evil, laws become merely arbitrary impositions (206).

From this perspective, a particular role falls to the media which, without exploiting human weaknesses or drawing out the worst in us, must be directed toward generous encounter and to closeness with the least, promoting proximity and the sense of human family (205).

Then, of particular note, is the Pope's reference to the miracle of "kindness", an attitude to be recovered because it is a star "shining in the midst of darkness" and "frees us from the cruelty … the anxiety … the frantic flurry of activity" that prevail in the contemporary era.

A kind person, writes Francis, creates a healthy coexistence and opens paths in places where exasperation burns bridges (222-224).

The art of peace and the importance of forgiveness

The value and promotion of peace is reflected on in the seventh chapter, "Paths of renewed encounter", in which the Pope underlines that peace is connected to truth, justice and mercy.

Far from the desire for vengeance, it is "proactive" and aims at forming a society based on service to others and on the pursuit of reconciliation and mutual development (227-229).

In a society, everyone must feel "at home", the Pope writes.

Thus, peace is an "art" that involves and regards everyone and in which each one must do his or her part. Peace-building is "an open-ended endeavour, a never-ending task", the Pope continues, and thus it is important to place the human person, his or her dignity and the common good at the centre of all activity (230-232).

Forgiveness is linked to peace: we must love everyone, without exception - the Encyclical reads - but loving an oppressor means helping him to change and not allowing him to continue oppressing his neighbour.

On the contrary: one who suffers an injustice must vigorously defend his rights in order to safeguard his dignity, a gift of God (241-242).

Forgiveness does not mean impunity, but rather, justice and remembrance, because to forgive does not mean to forget, but to renounce the destructive power of evil and the desire for revenge.

Never forget "horrors" like the Shoah, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, persecutions and ethnic massacres - exhorts the Pope.

They must be remembered always, anew, so as not be become anaesthetized and to keep the flame of collective conscience alive. It is just as important to remember the good, and those who have chosen forgiveness and fraternity (246-252).

Never again war, a failure of humanity

Part of the seventh chapter, then, focuses on war: it is not "a ghost from the past" - Francis emphasizes - "but a constant threat", and it represents "the negation of all rights", "a failure of politics and of humanity", and "a stinging defeat before the forces of evil" which lies in their "abyss".

Moreover, due to nuclear chemical and biological weapons that strike many innocent civilians, today we can no longer think, as in the past, of the possibility of a "just war", but we must vehemently reaffirm: "Never again war!"

And considering that we are experiencing a "world war fought piecemeal", because all conflicts are interconnected, the total elimination of nuclear arms is "a moral and humanitarian imperative".

With the money invested in weapons, the Pope suggests instead the establishment of a global fund for the elimination of hunger (255-262).

The death penalty inadmissible, to be abolished

Francis expresses just as clear a position with regard to the death penalty: it is inadmissible and must be abolished worldwide, because "not even a murderer loses his personal dignity" - the Pope writes - "and God himself pledges to guarantee this".

From here, two exhortations: do not view punishment as vindictive, but rather as part of a process of healing and of social reintegration, and to improve prison conditions, with respect for the human dignity of the inmates, also considering that "a life sentence is a secret death penalty" (263-269).

There is emphasis on the necessity to respect "the sacredness of life" (283) where today "some parts of our human family, it appears, can be readily sacrificed", such as the unborn, the poor, the disabled and the elderly (18).

Guarantee religious freedom

In the eighth and final chapter, the Pontiff focuses on "Religions at the service of fraternity in our world" and again emphasizes that violence has no basis in religious convictions, but rather in their deformities.

Thus, "deplorable" acts, such as acts of terrorism, are not due to religion but to erroneous interpretations of religious texts, as well as "policies linked to hunger, poverty, injustice, oppression".

Terrorism must not be supported with either money or weapons, much less with media coverage, because it is an international crime against security and world peace, and as such must be condemned (282-283).

At the same time the Pope underscores that a journey of peace among religions is possible and that it is, therefore, necessary to guarantee religious freedom, a fundamental human right for all believers (279).

The Encyclical reflects, in particular, on the role of the Church: she does not "restrict her mission to the private sphere", it states.

She does not remain at the margins of society and, while not engaging in politics, however, she does not renounce the political dimension of life itself.

Attention to the common good and concern for integral human development, in fact, concern humanity, and all that is human concerns the Church, according to evangelical principals (276-278).

Lastly, reminding religious leaders of their role as "authentic mediators" who expend themselves in order to build peace, Francis quotes the "Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together", which he signed on 4 February 2019 in Abu Dhabi, along with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyib: from that milestone of interreligious dialogue, the Pontiff returns to the appeal that, in the name of human fraternity, dialogue be adopted as the way, common cooperation as conduct, and mutual knowledge as method and standard (285).

Blessed Charles de Foucauld, "the universal brother"

The Encyclical concludes by remembering Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Mahatma Gandhi and above all Blessed Charles de Foucauld, a model for everyone of what it means to identify with the least in order to become "the universal brother" (286-287).

The last lines of the Document are given to two prayers: one "to the Creator" and the other an "Ecumenical Christian Prayer", so that the heart of mankind may harbour "a spirit of fraternity".

Fratelli Tutti - Encyclical of the Holy Father, Francis, on the fraternity and social friendship

The encyclical calls for a new kind of politics and emphasises social friendship as a way to build a more just and peaceful world.

It encourages the contribution of all people and institutions and seeks to build a global movement of fraternity.

In many cases the encyclical is a condensation of the issues Francis has tacked during his pontificate.

The document covers a range of topics, for example, from digital culture, migrants, economics, war and nuclear weapons, the death penalty, religious freedom, peace, forgiveness, the markeplace, Christian charity, love, trafficking, racism, unemployment, excessive profits, culture walls and the role of christians in politics.

Among many of the topics Francis traverses, he observes that currently humanity seems to be the midst of a worrying regression and is intensely polarized.

He says people are talking and debating without listening, and global society seems to have devolved into a "permanent state of disagreement and confrontation."

In some countries, leaders are using a "strategy of ridicule" and relentless criticism, spreading despair as a way to "dominate and gain control," Francis observes.

Although beginning to write the encyclical before the outbreak of COVID-19, Francis argues the world's response to the crisis shows the depth of humanity's mistrust and fractures.

In this light, Francis says that Christians have a key role in political life and despite all the difficulties should not bow out of political engagement.

Christians, he said, must act at a local level to build relationships of trust and assistance and support politicians and political platforms that promote the common good.

"Whereas individuals can help others in need when they join together in initiating social processes of fraternity and justice for all, they enter the ‘field of charity at its most vast, namely political charity,'" he said.

Getting practical, Pope Francis explained that "if someone helps an elderly person cross a river, that is a fine act of charity. The politician, on the other hand, builds a bridge, and that too is an act of charity" but on a larger scale.

Focussing on one of society's most visible items of mistrust, Francis dwells on the fractious issue of immigration, saying that unnecessary migration needs to be avoided by creating concrete opportunities to live with dignity in the countries of origin. But at the same time, humanity needs to respect the right to seek a better life elsewhere.

Focussing on receiving countries, Francis says there needs to be a right balance between the protection of citizens' rights and the guarantee of welcome and assistance for migrants.

Saving harsh words for politicians who have "fomented and exploited" fear over immigration, Francis observes a healthy culture is a welcoming culture, one that does not have to renounce itself.

The pope observes that despite all our hyper-connectivity, we are witnesses to a global fragmentation making it difficult to resolve problems that affect us all.

The encyclical also offers some developments to Catholic social teaching, including on war where he writes that due to nuclear chemical and biological weapons that strike many innocent civilians, today we can no longer think, as in the past, of the possibility of a "just war", but we must vehemently reaffirm: "Never again war!"

The pope also expands another area of Catholic social teaching; the death penalty.

Francis says that not even a murderer loses their personal dignity and the death penalty must be abolished worldwide.

Sources

• Washington Post
• Catholic News Service
• Image: Our Father's House Soup Kitchen