ethical dimension to global capitalism?

An ethical dimension to global capitalism? Is that an oxymoron?

Pope Benedict XVI denounced the profit-at-all-cost mentality that he says is behind Europe’s current economic crisis as he arrived in hard-hit Spain on Thursday, and said morals and ethics must play a greater role in formulating economic policy in the future.  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pope-demands-greater-morals-ethics-in-global-economic-policy/

“The economy doesn’t function with market self-regulation [read deregulation of markets] but needs an ethical reason to work for mankind,” he told reporters traveling aboard the papal plane. “Man must be at the center of the economy, and the economy cannot be measured only by maximization of profit but rather according to the common good.” [Emphasis added]  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pope-demands-greater-morals-ethics-in-global-economic-policy/

The thing is, he has been saying that for some time. In July 2009:

The pope today called for a “profoundly new way” of organising global finance and business, calling for a new social and ethical dimension to capitalism and arguing the case for a new world political authority to help champion “the common good”.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/pope-capitalism-abortion

and again:

Pope Benedict XVI today called for reforming the United Nations and establishing a “true world political authority” with “real teeth” to manage the global economy with God-centered ethics.

In his third encyclical, a major teaching, released as the G-8 summit begins in Italy, the pope says such an authority is urgently needed to end the current worldwide financial crisis. It should “revive” damaged economies, reach toward “disarmament, food security and peace,” protect the environment and “regulate migration.”

Benedict writes, “The market is not, and must not become, the place where the strong subdue the weak.”

The encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) is a theologically dense explication of Catholic social teaching that draws heavily from earlier popes, particularly PaulVI’s critique of capitalism 42 years ago. And echoing his predecessor John Paul II, Benedict says, “every economic decision has a moral consequence.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-07-07-pope-encyclical_N.htm

The True Vine

Bellow is a write up on this painting from http://www.lcaruana.com/webtext/mort.html

      The evolution of this painting began in the Spring of 2006, during a two-month trip through Mexico and Guatemala. I came across an Aztec sculpture which struck me to the core of my being; its image seemed to pull me out of a dream. I saw the face of death, but in this case, life’s closure also became the opening to unexpected mysteries.
      By transposing this motif to painting, I freed it of the opaque clay of its earlier incarnation, and so the image acquired a certain transparency. It did not strike me as odd to transpose this motif to European culture since Christ, as far as I’m concerned, is also a mythic image of death and transcendence.
Then, during an all-night ceremony led by Native peoples, I ingested ayahuasca for the first time. Over the course of six hours, I reviewed my life, confronted my own death, and experienced a kind of personal Last Judgment.
      Toward early morning, this personal vision-quest transformed into a more archetypal vision. Wherever I turned my eyes, I saw the sacred patterns which constitute (so it seemed to me) the interconnected space and substance of our very souls.
Weeks later, I was amazed to discover that the Shipibo-Conibo tribes of the Amazon, who treat ayahuasca as a sacrament, sew these same patterns onto all their ceremonial vestments, recognizing them as ‘patterns of the soul’.
In this way, mixing my own experiences with the established motifs of several cultures, the painting achieved its final form.
It was shown in Paris at Galerie Arche de Morphée for an exhibition on Death called La Mort Transfigurée with a marvellous poster by Michel Henricot.

A Litany of Resistance (in the Shadow of Empire)

by Mark Van Steenwyk

http://www.jesusradicals.com/a-litany-of-resistance-in-the-shadow-of-empire/

O Holy Spirit, who at the beginning of creation moved over the face of the waters,
Create us anew with your life-giving power.
O Holy Spirit, who inspired the prophets of old to speak boldly to a stiff-necked generation
Empower us to speak prophetically in our day.
O Holy Spirit, who came as a dove at the Baptism of Jesus,
Strengthen us as the Baptized in our life in the world.
O Holy Spirit, who led Jesus into the wilderness and sustained him during his 40 days of temptation,
Help us to resist the will to power as we follow Christ’s humble path.
O Holy Spirit, who on the day of Pentecost put fire into the lives of the early disciples,
Set us aflame to reveal the Risen Christ in our world.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon us.
We have been anointed to proclaim good news to the poor.
The Spirit of the Lord is within us.
We have been sent to proclaim freedom for the imprisoned.
The Spirit of the Lord is among us.
We have been sent to proclaim recovery of sight for the blind.
The Spirit of the Lord is before us.
We have been sent to set the oppressed free.
The Spirit of the Lord is behind us.
For we have been sent to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

Spirit of God, empower us.
As we struggle against powers of oppression.
Spirit of God, strengthen us.
As we resist the powers of domination.
Spirit of God, dwell among us.
As we seek wholeness in our lives and in our communities.
Spirit of God, guide us.
As we subvert systems of death.
Spirit of God, send us.
To proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

Breathe into us, Spirit of God
Breathe into our mouths
that we might proclaim the Good News
Breathe into our eyes
that we might see your reign in our midst
Breathe onto our hands
so we can build good things,
and tear down things that destroy
Breathe onto our feet
that we might go wherever you send us
Breathe into our hearts so that all of our seeing and speaking and coming and going will be done in love.

Amen.

Iconocast Episode 15: Cornel West

Check out West’s spot on Christian social critique in this podcast: http://www.jesusradicals.com/iconocast-episode-15-cornel-west/

In this episode, co-hosts Eliacin and Mark speak with one of America’s most celebrated and controversial public intellectuals: Dr. Cornel West.

Dr. West is an African American philosopher, theologian, author, critic, actor, and civil rights activist. West currently serves as the Class of 1943 University Professor at Princeton University, where he teaches in the Center for African American Studies and in the department of Religion. He is the author of a number of books including: Prophesy Deliverance! An Africo-American Revolutionary Christianity, Race Matters, The Future of Race, Democracy Matters, and Hope on a Tightrope.

In the interview, we talk to Dr. West about being disinvited as a keynote to the CCDA conference, his relationship with Barack Obama, the rarity of social movements, the power of love, the difference between charity and justice, and much, much more.

Why evangelicals should stop evangelizing

By Carl Medearis, Special to CNN

via http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/24/my-take-why-evangelicals-should-stop-evangelizing-2/

Let’s do an exercise. I want you to fill in the blank on what you think you know about me based on what I’m about to tell you.

Here goes: Twenty years ago, I became a missionary. My wife and I left our home in Colorado Springs, Colorado to move to Beirut, Lebanon. Our job description was to plant churches and evangelize to Muslims.

Based on what I just said, Carl Medearis is a ______________ .

Depending on your background, the blank may look something like this:

Carl Medearis is a… hero of the Christian faith, a saintly super-man willing to sacrifice the comforts of home in order to share the love of Jesus Christ with those who have never heard the gospel.

Or this:

Carl Medearis is a… right-wing extremist who destroys cultures, tears apart families and paves the way for neo-colonialist crusaders to invade, occupy and plunder the resources of local populations.

 

Quite a range, isn’t it?

For one group of people, the words “evangelist” and “missionary” bring to mind pious heroes performing good deeds that are unattainable for the average Christian. For another group, those same words represent just about everything that’s wrong with the world.

I understand the confusion.

Based on my experiences of living and traveling around the world, I know that religion is often an identity marker that determines people’s access to jobs, resources, civil liberties and political power.

When I lived in Lebanon I saw firsthand how destructive an obsession with religious identity could be. Because of the sectarian nature of Lebanese politics, modern Lebanese history is rife with coups, invasions, civil wars and government shutdowns.

When I tell my Christian friends in America that some of the fiercest militias were (and are) Christian, most are shocked. It doesn’t fit the us-versus-them mentality that evangelism fosters, in which we are always the innocent victims and they are always the aggressors.

This us-versus-them thinking is odd, given that Jesus was constantly breaking down walls between Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, men and women, sinners and saints. That’s why we have the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Jews in Jesus’ day thought of the Samaritans as the violent heretics, much the same way that Christians think of Muslims today. The idea that a Samaritan could be good was scandalous to first century Jews.

Jesus was the master of challenging religious prejudice and breaking down sectarian walls. Why do so many Christians want to rebuild those walls?

Even the Apostle Paul insisted that it’s faith in Jesus that matters, not converting to a new religion or a new socio-religious identity.

What if evangelicals today, instead of focusing on “evangelizing” and “converting” people, were to begin to think of Jesus not as starting a new religion, but as the central figure of a movement that transcends religious distinctions and identities?

Jesus the uniter of humanity, not Jesus the divider. How might that change the way we look at others?

This is more than just a semantic difference.

When I used to think of myself as a missionary, I was obsessed with converting Muslims (or anybody for that matter) to what I thought of as “Christianity.” I had a set of doctrinal litmus tests that the potential convert had to pass before I would consider them “in” or one of “us.”

Funny thing is, Jesus never said, “Go into the world and convert people to Christianity.” What he said was, “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

Encouraging anyone and everyone to become an apprentice of Jesus, without manipulation, is a more open, dynamic and relational way of helping people who want to become more like Jesus — regardless of their religious identity.

Just because I believe that evangelicals should stop evangelizing doesn’t mean that they should to stop speaking of Jesus.

I speak of Jesus everywhere I go and with everyone I meet.

As founder and president of a company called International Initiatives, my work is aimed at building relationships among Christian leaders in the West and among Muslim leaders in the Middle East.

It may come as a surprise to many Christians that Muslims are generally open to studying the life of Jesus as a model for leadership because they revere him as a prophet.

But now that I’m no longer obsessed with converting people to Christianity, I’ve found that talking about Jesus is much easier and far more compelling.

I believe that doctrine is important, but it’s not more important than following Jesus.

Jesus met people where they were. Instead of trying to figure out who’s “in” and who’s “out,” why don’t we simply invite people to follow Jesus — and let Jesus run his kingdom?

Inviting people to love, trust, and follow Jesus is something the world can live with. And since evangelicals like to say that it’s not about religion, but rather a personal relationship with Jesus, perhaps we should practice what we preach.

Poet of Poverty

Love

Favorite Liberals: Jesus Christ; The Founding Fathers; The Buddha

I found an interesting post at http://benafia.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/my-favorite-liberals/

My Favorite Liberals: Jesus Christ; The Founding Fathers; The Buddha

Who are My Favorite Liberals?; the ones who have defined my own liberal philosophical imperative.

# 1

The most inspiring liberal to me by far. The Original Liberal; Jesus Christ

With gratitude to the many women who helped get His Mission going in a big way.

-

#2

In the USA, where I was most influenced by their ideas, with some credit to Europe, Ancient Greece, The struggle out of the Dark Ages into the Renaissance, The Algonquin Confederation…

The USA Founding Fathers. At times, the prominent Freemason group called “Firebrand Liberals”.

-

-

#3

From India; The Buddha With much the same message as Jesus Christ, but with more detail to encouraging holiness in consciousness, with all that “struggle” entails.

-

-

These are my top 3 inspirational liberals. Of course, it is apparently easy to be blind to the fundamental liberalism of these subjects. Conservatives, and conservatism of their day, were what these folks had to address; All that “otherness” that was excluded from conscious consideration.

I received a comment once, that Jesus Christ was not a liberal. I had to think: Really? I mean, REALLY! What part of liberal and conservative do you not understand? But I must remember how conservatism corrupts consciousness to privy to ones own advantage, as well as inherent fear of conceptual insecurity. Conservatism sets up an exclusive reality matrix in perception, allowing others to be easily dismissed from consideration. And no. Liberalism does not make everything magically right. Part of why it does not appeal to certain conformist and absolutist mindsets.

-“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.” -Bertrand Russell—

Being a liberal (in theory) requires a kind of intellectual honesty; the ability to question without reservation. This makes the liberal individual (in theory) both inquisitive and vigilant regarding cause and effect–the patterns and connections which the real world manifest. This active and demanding critical thinking is an anathema to conservatives in general.  They are firstly about confirming the conservative biased conceptual absolutes; that what they believe is actually true and not to be questioned.  This opens up a Pandora’s Box of rationalization and cognitive dissonance management and diversion.

Conservatism is, by its very self definition; exclusive of some aspect of the new.  Life is presenting a change or addaptive pressure of some sort, and the response against it is–nothing has really changed, not in us.  Hey.  I’m going to cast stones.  If everyone waited for the first without sin, why we’d be overrun with badness. Someone seems to come along and say question what you are doing before you judge another, and reaction says that is ridiculous—add a leading to reason, or rationalization.

We now have a set up in reality perception; rational vs rationalization.  The difference between the two becomes blurred for opportunistic reason.  One thing that will be pronounced when observing conservative rationalizations is; they do not see them.  To them their thoughts are true, their beliefs are true, it is your questioning that is the source of trouble.  Enter Cognitive Dissonance management and diversion.

Conservatism is then self confirmed; a Confirmation Bias puts the present evidence into backwards explanation, to prove itself right in present challenges by what it claims as a-prior truth.  If you can’t question it, because there is a Consensus Reality saying it is already true and is so; to question becomes questionable itself, and open to negative and shame based ostracism.  A primitive tool of control.  Most conservatism is a mind-frame that likeley shelters privilaege and likely promotes tribalism like divisive divide and conquer interpretations of others.

Now there is an appearance Reality constructed.  People, or unable to question followers, accept what is given to them.  In this way, conservatism can set up inaccuracies, unsubstantiated theories, and any number of allegation towards others as being true.  Followers locked into this paradigm are trapped to self identify with it, this is often loaded with ad-hominem praise for their believers beliefs, and reason to scorn those not apparently on their side.  Ignorance becomes a prime currency in social and political/economic manipulations.  Unfortunately perhaps; not only can what I do not know hurt me, it can effectively imprison me even while I am lead to believe I am free, or at least my own person.

We have now entered the trojan horse of tribalism, willing to grab on near any difference among people (race, ethnicity, hair length, sexual identity, even religion) as reason of those others badness.  The end result is the crippling of ones God given critical thinking ability; something my aforementioned liberals seemed to see as the enlightenment of understanding.  stifled by unquestionable rules, regulations and especially interpretations of universal, or near universal grand abstractions.

-

Just as the Scribes and Pharisee ridiculed Christ for hanging around with the poor, sinners and unwashed; asking why some alleged holy one would choose to engage their time with “losers”, seems incongruous to self sanctified surety. Privilege does not “get” what liberalism is about. They only see it from the subjective, as a threat to their own entitled dreams and fantasies. But as Christ is said to have said; Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

{Interesting; the background message, that the soldiers then through dice and picked over Christ garments. Opportunity knocking for self advantage at the expense of another.}

Conservatives do not seem to get the Golden Rule fully fleshed out into consciousness as a spiritual challenge. The same can be said with any liberating influence that is inclusive to the collective nature of existence. We do not live in our own isolated moral or ethical universe, as much as that appeals, but we re responsible for ourselves in what we believe. Accountability and responsibility sew us all together as the air, the ground, the One Earth we walk on. Yet from economic conservatives? Part up Creation and sell it to the highest bidder. Our way or the highway. It’s mine cause I got here first. Opportunism requires rationalization to feel good to a compromised conscience.

Deconstructing the Whole of Life

And so, for the privilege of entitlement to individual kingdoms, even democracy, and the freedoms and accountability’s implied by the Founding Fathers and our constitution, must be parted out to only the good conforming conservative kinds of people, and what they value. Hence “real Christians” and “real Americans”. Others need earn something in their view. Meaning, be like them or else. For conservatism in any of these ages, it is about following rules that benefit them first and foremost in some way, and challenging inclusive rules which Being seems to imply others are as us as well.
My favorite Liberal song? Amazing Grace.

As in any of these ages, the system of opportunism is set up to both tempt and to validate itself. Modern world conservatism is being headed by opportunist to program kinds of subjectivist thinking that permanently excludes the others—(“bi-coastal elites”, “eggheads”, “hippies”, “gays”, “illegal immigrants”, and the list of the undeserving goes on and on from the right wing.  Why?) .

The intent is that; They know not what they do. , is to be rendered into a permanent mentality or mind frame to use as capital. Notice conservative paradigms filled with us and them; The good or holy people and the bad ones; The hard working achievers and the lazy etc. Even to point that out to them, will cast you in their eyes, as someone parting out an us and them. To that they say “class war”, unfair!  So you become an easily dismissed hypocrite. Again. Listen to the conservative news sources and hear the exclusivity of worth for yourself.  The brainwashing goes on day and night on pulpits high and low; separation from the Whole.

.
Just as spiritual teachers came to show the way to openness and inclusion, we each are so challenged. I am challenged to see past those bad folks (whomever mine are to me), to see why they believe as they do. If I have food to eat and my neighbor is starving, I am challenged as humans always were; Do I share, even selfishly, knowing that the gesture will be returned when I am in need? Or do I hoard, negativize the other, make them seem inhuman or some kind of failures to not be encouraged. Alienation.

If so, I have retrenched into a subjective paradigm cosmology. I have taken in Life as if it is a threat, and Love as if it is to be hoarded and parted out only to the worthy in my view. My favorite liberals emphasised the imperative for inclusion and union into the nature of all existence.  Takes courage and fortitude to new heights as defined by these favorite Liberals.

The Sacred nature of Being is a threat to self made gods worshiping at the trough’s of materialism’s excess, status and privilege. The new neo-pagans may call themselves Christians, monotheist, Humanist, Buddhist, Liberals or Conservatives, it does not matter. It is about whether I am open to Life as it is now, or have conserved some selective advantage to my own specific survival without concern for others.

Liberalism should be conserved into its own forms of conservatism, as ridiculous as that may sound. The Founding Fathers codified these truths into a statement on government and the human condition. This is what my favorite liberals have shown me. It is like being intolerant of intolerance. It does not make me a hypocrite because I say I am against intolerance and m intolerant myself. It makes me one in harmony with what I believe as truth, as an imperative for an inclusive life in One Life.

.
Liberalism? It is called every negative name under the sun these days. It is for peace and accountability. It is for compassion and empathy. It is for understanding even amidst disagreements. It is for open hearts and open minds. It is not always pretty, nor right in any absolute way. I do not always “get my way”.

I am thankful beyond measure, that the Lights of Liberalism I have displayed here remain beacons when storms gather and ignorance pushes on the gates of wisdom. It is why their Light is eternal, and will not be extinguished.

He must have been a Buddha

This is why the Tibetans love the story of Jesus — when they hear about how he took on everyone’s sins at the moment of his death, they say: “Oh, he was doing the Practice of Giving and Taking! He must have been a Buddha.”

Read More

As We Open Source, So We Believe

An interesting blending of belief and action, walking the walk  from the Open Source Church.

I enjoyed this short post entitled, “As We Worship, So We Believe.” I thought it encapsulated why I encourage the use of open source software verses proprietary software.  It’s not about the details of feature set or which software is really better.  It’s about the concepts of sharing, inclusion, and helping others that the use of free and open source software embodies that show as a tangible example that we support those positive values.  Of course, the opposite is also true whether people would like to admit it or not.  When we use closed, exclusive, expensive software that only serves our own needs, it says something about the type of Christians we are: exclusive and selfish.  Our choices in worship, in personal interactions, in the software we support show things about our beliefs.  It’s just that simple.         http://opensourcechurch.com/2010/11/as-we-open-source-so-we-believe/

Lord of the Harvest

Wow! Very Catholic! I have always known the Lord of the Harvest to be variations on the Horned God or the Green Man.

decide what life is worth

Part of a pro-life stance, a poem, a prayer . . .

To god we hope you don’t mind but we would like to talk to you; there are some things we need to straighten out, it’s about these christians they claim to be from your nation but man you should see the things they do all the time blaming it on you: manifest destiny, genocide, maximized profit, sterilization, raping the earth, lying taking more than they need in all the forms of the greed. we ask them why, they say it’s god’s will.

Damn god they make it so hard. Remember jesus? Would you send him back to them, tell them how to kill him, rather they should listen stop abusing his name and yours.

We do not mean to be disrespectful but you know how it is, our people have their own ways we never even heard of you until not long ago, your representatives spoke magnificent things of you which we were willing to believe, but from the way they acted we know we and you were being deceived.

We do not mean you and your christian children any bad, but you all came to take all we had we have not seen you but we have heard so much it is time for you to decide what life is worth we already remember but maybe you forgot.

Read More . . .

An Evening with Dr. Cornel West

One of America’s most provocative public intellectuals, Cornel West has been a champion for racial justice since childhood. His writing, speaking and teaching weave together the traditions of the black Baptist Church, progressive politics, and jazz. West earned two bachelor’s degrees from Harvard in three years, magna cum laude. After earning his Ph.D. at Princeton, he became a professor religion and director of the Afro-American Studies program there. West has also taught at Union Theological Seminary, Yale, Harvard, and the University of Paris. West burst on to the national scene in 1993 with his bestselling book, Race Matters, a searing analysis of racism in American democracy. In his book, Democracy Matters West analyzes the arrested development of democracy both in American and in the crisis-ridden Middle East. In his book, Hope on a tightrope, he offers courageous commentary on issues that affect the lives of all Americans. Themes include race, leadership, faith, family, philosophy, and love and service.

http://seaver.pepperdine.edu/dean/lectureseries/pages/20091008.htm

Cornel West Official Web Site

http://www.cornelwest.com/

Catholic Five Non-negotiables and Catholic Social Teaching

About Vox Nova

http://vox-nova.com/

Vox nova in terra viventium

Christians must be conscious of their specific and proper role in the political community: they should be a shining example by their sense of responsibility and their dedication to the common good; they should show in practice how authority can be reconciled with freedom, personal initiative and with the solidarity and the needs of the whole social framework, and the advantages of unity with profitable diversity.

-Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 75

On the national and international planes the field of the apostolate is vast; and it is there that the laity more than others are the channels of Christian wisdom. In their patriotism and in their fidelity to their civic duties Catholics will feel themselves bound to promote the true common good; they will make the weight of their convictions so influential that as a result civil authority will be justly exercised and laws will accord with the moral precepts and the common good.

-Vatican II, Apostolicam Actuostitatem, 14

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument, and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper…[t]he direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity. So they cannot relinquish their participation ‘in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good’ (John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 42).

-Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, 28a-29

Do away with the obstacles to the Christian spirit; revive and make it strong in the State, and the State will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic society will have ben solidly established under a salutary fear of the divine commands and prohibitions; and so likewise in society at large, the precepts of the natrual law will prevail, which tells us that it is right to respect lawful authority, and to obey the laws, to do no seditious act, nor contrive anything by unlawful association. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance, there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. Christ our Lord must be reinstated as the Ruler of human society. It belongs to Him, as do all its members. All the elements of the commonwealth; legal commands and prohibitions, popular institutions, schools, marriage, home-life, the workshop, and the palace, all must be made to come to that fountain and imbibe the life that comes from Him.

-Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, 12

Vox Nova is a response to the ecclesial mandate to promote the common good in every sphere of human existence. We come from varying backgrounds and carry diverse social outlooks, traversing a wide range of demographics and political sympathies. Vox Nova is free, to the furthest extent possible, from partisanship, nationalism and demagoguery, all of which banish intellectual honesty from rational discourse.

United in our Catholic, pro-person worldview, yet diverging in our socio-political opinions, we seek to provide informed commentary and rigorous debate on culture, society, politics and law, all while unwaveringly adhering to, and aptly applying the principles of Catholic doctrine. We are not intellectually wedded to any single political ideology. Following the example of the rich tradition of Catholic social doctrine from Pope Leo XIII to Pope Benedict XVI, we do not forge artificial blockades between “faith and morals” and “social judgments.” We do not and will not filter Catholic doctrine and morality through contrived categories in order to morph our Catholic faith and practice into some ideologically acceptable form.

We understand that the grace of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of humanity, extends to and permeates every human act, however private or public, and that the only viable path to peace, prosperity and justice in the world is to recognize that grace saturates, sanctifies and perfects every aspect of nature. Thus, faith informs and grace affects the full scope of human effort, from the deepest devotion of spirituality to the most mundane activity in the social sphere. Vox Nova seeks to be a herald of this glorious truth and its manifold implications for culture, society and politics.

Let us close by considering the words of Karol Wojtyla on the social implications of Jesus Christ, delivered in the presence of Pope Paul VI. Without ever reducing Christ to a mere social liberator, the soon-to-be Pope John Paul II nevertheless speaks powerfully of the social impact of the Gospel:

“Who is Jesus Christ for all the different continents of the world, for all the different societies, traditions, cultures, political structures? Jesus is the symbol of liberation from unjust structures both social and economic, but he is also the sign of liberation for people who are denied freedom of conscience and religious freedom, or who have those freedoms drastically curtailed at crucial points. He is in every way a reproach to affluent, acquisitive consumer societies. But he is the touchstone of identity for the African nations which are moving towards independence. He is a Word of divine wisdom for the ancient spiritual traditions and cultures of the East. Here in the Vatican, we are at the very centre of the Church, at the point where Peter’s reply to the question: “Who is Jesus Christ?” is formulated. Let us first listen to what is said by individual men and women and by whole peoples. They all testify to the fact that in Jesus ‘the way, the truth and the life’ are wide open, that great highway ‘along which–as the Council asserts–life and death are sanctified and take on fresh meaning’ (Gaudium et spes, 22).” -Karol Wojtyla, Sign of Contradiction, 109

Visit Vox Nova

Liberation theology: a challenge to the church

Via http://www.religionlink.com/tip_050808.php

As an influential cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI stifled liberation theology, which called on the church to help the poor and oppressed by challenging political power, particularly in Latin America. While liberation theology has faded as a movement, it is still practiced in some areas and studied widely. Some say it has influenced feminist, Latino, black and Asian theologies throughout the world.

Despite the rising number of Latin immigrants in the United States, scholars say liberation theology exists more in academia than in congregations. As Pope Benedict settles into leading a church in which nearly half its billion members live in Latin America, the evolution of liberation theology raises an enduring question: What is the role of churches in addressing injustice, inequity and oppression that result from political power?

Facts and trends
• Liberation theology emerged in the late 1960s in Latin America, where Catholics began reading the Gospel as a call to free people from oppression and to challenge political systems in countries where poverty was widespread. Scholars embraced this new theology with fervor.
• Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) became one of liberation theology’s staunchest critics in the 1980s as head of the Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He silenced theologians associated with such scriptural interpretations and appointed traditional bishops. Some scholars believe it’s because he objected to Marxist-inspired political analysis that some theologians embraced. Others say Ratzinger objected to the independence of base communities, small groups formed to study the Bible and relate it to their own experience of oppression.
• Some scholars say Ratzinger and others successfully stifled a movement that was already headed toward extinction because it addressed specific historical and economic situations that have been altered by global capitalism and other factors. Some also say that it was weakened because it relied on a method of scriptural interpretation that has been overtaken by new developments in biblical criticism.
• Liberation theology is still practiced in rural and middle-class villages in Latin America, and it is studied widely in seminaries in the United States and elsewhere. Some scholars say it has taken new life in feminist, Latino, black and Asian theologies throughout the world. The emphasis has shifted from the poor to those marginalized by race, ethnicity or gender. The focus is less on supporting socialist revolution than critiquing mainstream civil society.

Why it matters
Liberation theology provides a useful lens for looking at the challenge of how members and leaders of a global church respond to changing political and social environments.

Questions for reporters
• Is liberation theology a waning movement that will die a natural death – or a vital and evolving theology that calls on believers to relate the Bible to their experience?
• What is the “classic definition” of liberation theology?
• What were Ratzinger’s main objections to liberation theology? Do observers say he was justified?
• What actions did he take to suppress it?
• How do observers and experts define liberation theology today – or would you say liberation theologies? Is the emphasis less on poverty than on race and ethnicity? What are the central concerns today?
• How has liberation theology changed mainstream theology?
• How will the election of Pope Benedict affect such theological movements?

Read More . . .

Catholics Come Home

Wow, cool! I am and have been on an interesting journey for some time now. I have recently been drawn more and more to my Catholic upbringing. This is of course a ling story, but I wanted to bring it up as I came across this interesting commercial while listening to Catholic talk radio. I looked up the website when I got home and found the video that goes with the commercial that I heard.

That’s really cool, Catholics have done a lot right? I was really taken in by all the cultural aspects that are brought up. I am largely drawn to the church for its culture and the folk religion as is practiced around the world, so its cool that they didn’t bring up all the issues that actually keep me officially out.

Then I happened upon this video that gave me such a grin, because this guy actually addresses many of the issues that came to my mind as I listened to the commercial . . .

I don’t have the time now, but I have some pretty unique, cultural, theological, historical, mystical and personal issues to bring up on this issue. If this kind of thing interests you, stay tuned for more on Catholics coming home and my version of the story, not as a Catholic coming home, but as one that has never left, yet believes and lives according to his God (יְהֹוָה) given conscience.

An Open Letter to Dove World Outreach, Before they Burn the Korans

by Scott Robinson

via http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/09/an-open-letter-to-dove-world-outreach-before-they-burn-the-korans/

We know this is not just the decision of a church. It is the decision of the president and the entire United States.  –Abdul Shakoor, a protester in Kabul.

Dear Pastor Terry Jones:

I saw your interview on Nightline, and it gave me a slim hope that you might possibly be dissuaded from carrying out your plan to burn Korans on September 11. Please allow me to try.

I will not appeal to you on behalf of our troops in Afghanistan, as you have already acknowledged the danger into which your planned actions may put them;

I will not tax you with First Amendment hypocrisy, as you have already stated that, if Muslims were to burn Bibles here, you would respect their right to free speech;

I will not bother to point out that much of the Muslim world, which has no First Amendment, does not understand that you could possibly do such a thing without the collusion of the President and the blessing of the American people, as you have already condemned those who object to your plans as “cowards” anyway;

I will not suggest that there are some things you don’t know about Islam, as I suspect you would not care to learn them.

You say that you want to send a “clear message” to the Islamic world.  So do I. Religious law has no place in a secular republic. Anybody who wants foot-washing stations in public universities can jolly well pay for them themselves, and people who think their religion forbids exercising in the same room with people of the opposite sex can exercise at home. As Bill Maher said, America is the melting pot—melt a little. I do not object to that message.

You said, in response to Terry Moran’s question about whether Jesus would approve your plan to burn Korans, that while Jesus was “nice,” he was also capable of “radical things.” There is a fundamental error in this statement, and it is on this ground that I will base my appeal.

I take it that by contrasting “nice” with “radical,” you mean to define the former as innocuous, inoffensive, and blandly kind. Pastor Jones, on these terms, the Jesus of the Gospels was never “nice.” The Jesus I find in Scripture was always challenging people, always pushing them to go deeper—to move beyond outward observance to true conversion of the heart, and to make themselves radically vulnerable.

Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5: 39-45a)

Every “nice” action of Jesus was radical at the same time. Why did Jesus heal the man born blind? To expose the spiritual blindness of the religious authorities. If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but because you claim you can see, your guilt remains. (John 9:41)

Why did He heal the man with the withered hand, on the Sabbath, in the part of the synagogue from which a crippled person would be barred as “unclean”? To expose the callousness of the wealthy and pious, who “went away and met with the supporters of Herod to plot how to kill Jesus,” (Mark 3:6) not because He violated the Sabbath, but because He violated their position of privilege.

Why did He drive the moneychangers from the Temple? Not because they were doing legitimate business, but because they were defrauding the poor by falsifying their weights and measures and lying about exchange rates. It is written,” he said to them, ‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’ (Luke 19:46)

Most radically of all, why did Jesus first reveal His Divine identity to a Samaritan woman? As you know, the Samaritans, whose religion combined elements of Judaism with Canaanite practices, were the lowest of the low in Jewish eyes. Which is, of course, why Jesus used the “Good Samaritan” as a model of neighborliness and self-sacrificing love for strangers.  The pious priest and religious lawyer walked past, while the apostate foreigner stopped to help. What a radical nose-rubbing in a story about how to be “nice”!

Like Samaritanism, Islam contains elements of both the Hebrew Bible and extra-biblical Middle Eastern beliefs. And there is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus were telling stories today, He would be rubbing our noses in “The Parable of the Good Muslim.”

You have said that Islam is “of the Devil”—but what did Jesus say to the Samaritan woman about her faith? Only that Samaritans, in their devotion to the same God as the Jews, worshipped what they “do not know.” Would He say anything worse to Muslims, who revere Him as “The Seal of the Saints”?

Yes, of course you have the Constitutional right to do what you plan to do. But while the First Amendment proscribes any privileging of religion, the legal framework of this country is meant, as Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, to “comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

Everyone is welcome here—and if we take the Bible seriously, we will make everyone feel welcomed.

You must not oppress foreigners. You know what it’s like to be a foreigner, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt. (Exodus 23:9)

So this is my appeal to you: before you decide to do anything “radical” by way of sending a “clear message,” think about the precise nature of your “radical” act, and what exactly the “message” will be.  Because while burning Korans may be considered “radical,” it can in no way be considered “nice,”—and Jesus was always both.

But if you want your message to be neither clearly American nor clearly Christian, then I suppose you should go ahead.

Wrong Then, Wrong Now

What Yesterday’s Anti-Catholicism Has in Common with Today’s Islamophobia

“Sunday, October 31, 1880. All the “right” people—former President Ulysses S. Grant, for example—filled the pews of Protestant churches to hear accusations from a multitude of ministers that the pope was poised to take over New York if William R. Grace, a Democrat, was elected several days later as the city’s first Catholic mayor.

At Central Methodist Episcopal Church on Fourteenth Street, the Rev. J. P. Newman argued that if Grace was a good Catholic (he attended daily Mass), he was unfit to be mayor. “The Catholic candidate for Mayor is the shadow of a man who is the shadow of another man,” he said, meaning the pope.
Advertisement

At Washington Square Methodist Church, the Rev. W. F. Hatfield proclaimed, “The Roman hierarchy should be dealt such a blow at this time that its encroaching power in this city will be destroyed.”

At the Church of the Disciples of Christ on 28th Street near Broadway, the Rev. Joseph Bradford Cleaver spoke under the title “Crucifix Smiting the Cross; or shall the Papacy govern New York City?” He was among those who saw the opening of the magnificent new St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue in midtown Manhattan the previous year as a dangerous sign of Catholic power and warned that Cardinal John McCloskey, who was “enthroned” there, would rule America as the pope’s viceroy and bring on a new Inquisition if Grace were elected mayor.

At the Church of the Holy Trinity at Madison Avenue and 42nd Street, Rev. Stephen H. Tyng Jr. insisted that the pope would take over New York’s public schools.

A few voices tried to respond. In his homily on the Sunday before the 1880 election, the Rev. Michael J. O’Farrell, pastor of St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church on Barclay Street, maintained, “The man who declares it to be a Protestant country is a traitor to the Constitution.”

more…

“West Wing” – Biblical Quotes

Catholic Five Non-negotiables and the Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching

How do the Catholic Five Non-negotiables measure up to the Churches teaching on Social Teaching? Is it possible to vote for the same candidate and follow both of these ideologies?

I have posted an entry here on the Catholic Five Non-negotiables. So as not to repeate myself, I shall only list the Catholic Five Non-negotiables in this post. If you need background info please visit the above mentioned blog post.

Catholic Five Non-negotiables

• abortion
• euthanasia
• embryo stem cell research
• same-sex marriage
  
• human cloning

Major Themes from Catholic Social Teaching

via: http://www.ccfj.org/catholic.htm

1. Dignity of the Human Person

Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God. All people are sacred. People do not lose dignity because of disability, poverty, age, gender, or lack of success, race or ethnicity.

2. Community and the Common Good

Human dignity is realized in community with others and with all of creation. The human person is both sacred and social. Society must be shaped to contribute to the individual and the common good through our economic, political and social institutions. Promoting the common good is not compatible with homelessness, hunger, unemployment, and injustice.

3. Rights and Responsibilities

People have a fundamental right to life, food, shelter, health care, education and employment. People have a right to participate in the decisions which affect their lives.

4. Option for the Poor

The moral test of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. We are called to look at public policy decisions through the eyes of persons who are made poor and kept poor. A just society is achieved only when the needs of the poor in society are given first priority.

5. Solidarity

We are one human family. Our responsibilities to each other cross national, racial, economic and ideological differences. The interconnection among all peoples calls us to value and respect the experience of all. We are called to work globally for justice.

6. Dignity of Work

People have a right to decent and productive work, fair wages, private property and economic initiative. The economy exists to serve people, not the other way around. Work provides a person with an opportunity to contribute to the common good and to participate in the social and economic order. Living wages with benefits and good working conditions are essential.

7. Care for God’s Creation

Our stewardship of the Earth is a kind of participation in God’s act of creating and sustaining the world. In being responsible partners with the Earth, we learn about and respect its resources and systems. In our use of resources, we must be guided by our concern for the welfare of others, both around the world and for generations to come.

It is my opinion that if the Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching are followed, the Catholic Five Non-negotiables become  a moot point. I also see the Catholic Five Non-negotiables as a  way to try to align Catholics with the Right Wing politics of the United States, which is ultimately in support of corporate rule and the exploitation of humans and the environment for short term profits. How are all these things reconcilable?

A People’s History of American Empire

Catholic Five Non-negotiables

I was listening to Catholic radio this afternoon and heard a presentation on what they are calling the “Five Non-negotiables.” Very interesting I thought. Something always troubles me though when Catholics align themselves or are encouraged to align with Global Corporate Rule. Something tells me that the policies that create the conditions so many of the worlds population finds itself in are aided by those candidates who would be aligned with these Five Non-negotiables.

I can’t help but think that if there were a more socially just regime in power, that the conditions that are encouraging these Five Non-negotiables would lift and then  the Five Non-negotiables would be a moot point.

I did a quick search and found an interesting little blurb on Wikipedia concerning the Controversy of the Five Non-negotiables;

Before the 2004 presidential election, Catholic Answers published the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics. It was produced both in pamphlet form and as an insert to the newspaper USA Today. This publication promoted five “non-negotiable” issues that were also major political questions in the election cycle. The five non-negotiable issues explained and discussed were abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage and human cloning. The term “non-negotiable” is used by Catholic Answers to describe issues that are “intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by law.” ^[2] Catholic Answers maintains that there are many more “non-negotiable” issues but these were “selected because they involve principles that never admit of exceptions and because they are currently being debated in U.S. politics.”^[2]

“The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics” was criticized for correlating with a Republican agenda. Critics^[who?] argued that the publication did not take into account the full breadth of Catholic Social Teaching, including economic, social justice, or other life issues. Catholic Answers responded that political candidates can have a range of policy stances on issues that are not “non-negotiable” and still be in line with Church teaching. On the other hand, Catholics must not vote for candidates who take the wrong stance on “non-negotiable” issues.

While “The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics” made no endorsements of any candidate or political party, the organization came under strong attack by liberal organizations and Democratic Party candidates as a partisan publication. In 2004 complaints were filed by Catholics for a Free Choice with the IRS claiming that it was in “blatant violation of its charitable status”^[3] in an attempt to revoke Catholic Answers tax exempt status.

An IRS investigation resulted in no action against Catholic Answers, the IRS ruled that the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics could be safely distributed by religious organizations because it did not comprise political intervention:

“[Catholic Answers, Inc.] created, published and distributed the “Voters Guide for Serious Catholics” (“VGSC”). The VGSC asserts that it is intended to help the reader vote for candidates for public office in a manner consistent with Catholic moral teachings. The VGSC identifies five issues it deems to be “non-negotiable” issues and instructs the reader on how to narrow down the list of candidates to those who are acceptable based on the non-negotiable issues. The VGSC does not directly or indirectly make reference to any specific candidate, political party or election. Therefore, the content of the VGSC, standing alone, is not political campaign intervention because the VGSC does not support or oppose any specific candidate for public office [Addendum to Letter 3609P, May 2, 2008].”^[4]

Nevertheless, a new legal entity called Catholic Answers Action was created which has a separate 501(c)(4) tax status. Donations to Catholic Answers Action, unlike those to Catholic Answers, are not tax deductible.

Debate continues as to the effectiveness of the campaign on educating Catholic voters, but Catholic Answers plans to continue the campaign in future elections.^{[citation needed]} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Answers

Now I am not saying that I am pro-abortion, euthanasia, embryo stem cell research, same-sex marriage and human cloning. I am can see the inherent horror in some of these and others I don’t get at all, and still others are various shades of gray.  What I don’t understand is the encouragement of inhuman regimes to remain in power to exploit Gods people and his creation.

Here is an interesting take that I found on a forum;

Five Non-negotiables and Catholic Dictators

This may seem like a ridiculous question, but I am trying to get a broader social and political context for the doctrine of five non-negotiables. Weren’t the regimes of Catholic strongmen like Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet, Papa Doc Duvalier and Ferdinand Marcos just about perfect in terms of the five non-negotiables, for example, no abortions, no euthanasia, no homosexual “marriage” ( no open homosexuality at all) and so on? Does this make such regimes desirable and are such harsh governments worth the cost in social inequalities, lack of free speech, damage to the reputation of the Catholic gospel, etc.?–Rumil                                                http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=6962496

This is a more extreme and outdated version of what I though upon hearing this presentation. I am thinking more along the lines of Corporate Globalization and exploitation of God’s creation. Same general idea though, it seems that the Five non-negotiables are sorely shortsided and incomplete.

I would love your input and to discuss these ideas further. How do the Five non-negotiables fit in with the Churche’s social teachings and life in general?

The YouTube Prophet?