Macroeconomics and Humanitarian Obligations

This article, entitled "Macroeconomics: A Vatican view on finer points of global food crisis" appeared recently in the Texas Catholic Herald. It perfectly applies, principles of the Gospel, to this growing humanitarian crisis and social justice issue that requires our immediate attention.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- As world leaders were meeting in Rome to work out a response to the global food crisis, the Vatican weighed in on two levels -- morality and macroeconomics. Pope Benedict XVI laid out the moral principles in a message June 3 to the World Food Security Summit, saying that hunger and malnutrition were unacceptable in a world that has sufficient levels of agricultural production and resources.

The pope said a chief cause of hunger was lack of solidarity with others, and he emphasized that protecting the right to life means helping to feed the hungry. The pope also spoke of structural changes needed in the global agricultural economy, but he didn't get into particulars. Those finer points, however, were examined in unusual detail in a little-noticed briefing paper produced by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

The document offered the Vatican's take on the mechanisms behind the food crisis headlines. On one of the most hotly debated issues today, it came down squarely against developing biofuels from food crops at a time of global hunger. The document made several important points:

-- The current food crisis began in 2005, it said, and is extraordinary because the price increases have affected almost all agricultural products, have hit many countries and have endured over a long stretch of time.

-- The text identified circumstantial causes of the food crisis: bad weather in many cereal-producing countries, the rise in energy prices that make production and transportation more costly, and speculation by commodity investors who have bought low and sold high.

Some exporting countries, including Brazil, China and India, have begun stockpiling food and keeping it off the market, apprehensive that they will not be able to satisfy domestic needs. That practice has also helped drive up prices, the document said.

-- It also examined the structural causes of the crisis, and here things get a bit more complicated. The paper pointed to one important shift in developing countries: a lower demand for cereals and a higher demand for protein-rich foods. That has led to more land used to produce animal feed, and less for foods used in direct human consumption.

It said long-standing subsidies to agricultural producers in richer countries have artificially kept down the international price of food products and thus discouraged farming in poorer countries. The result has been large-scale abandonment of local agriculture and increasing urbanization. Today, most poor countries are net importers of food, making them highly vulnerable as prices continue to rise.

-- The effects of the food crisis are not equal: The weakest suffer the most, especially children and the urban poor. The document cited U.N. statistics showing that for every 1 percent increase in food prices, 16 million more people fall into "food insecurity." The way things are going, the number of chronically hungry in the world could rise to 1.2 billion by 2015.

-- The document called for reconsideration of the rush to biofuel development, at least during the current crisis. Governments are called to protect the right to nourishment, and it is "unthinkable" for them to diminish the quantity of food products in favor of nonessential energy needs, it said.

Moreover, it said, the "hijacking" of agricultural land for production of biofuel crops was being subsidized by governments, which represents an interference with the correct functioning of the global food market.

-- Emergency food aid is a necessary short-term measure, it said. But such aid, if continued for long periods of time, can actually aggravate the root problems of the food crisis by weakening local agricultural markets and the food autonomy of beneficiary countries.

-- On the other hand, the current boom in food prices could turn out to be an opportunity for agricultural growth in poorer countries, as long as farmers have the essentials: land, seed, fertilizer, water and access to markets.

While the food crisis seems to have crept up on much of the world, the Vatican has been warning about the hunger problem and market imbalances for years.

In a 1998 document on land reform, for example, the justice and peace council said the trend toward large landholding was strangling the future of local farming in developing countries.

When introducing their comments on the food crisis, the pope and Vatican offices consistently quote the words of Christ: "For I was hungry and you gave me food." Today, the Vatican is saying that basic task has assumed new simensions that make it more complex, but far from impossible.

The Modern Christological Question: Who Was Jesus?

At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, it was universally confessed throughout all of Christendom that Jesus Christ was the incarnate Logos of God. The Fathers of the Church explicitly wrote:

"Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; 'like us in all things but sin.' He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God. We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis."

In modern times, the rise of skepticism and historical criticisms has led to the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth the historical person is identical with Jesus Christ, the Son of God. There is no doubt that the person of Jesus is a mystery to us all. But what can we know about him? Can we know him? The Christian faith invites us to know God through the Messiah who died on the Cross for our salvation. Therefore, in order to accept this invitation, Christians must attempt to encounter an engimatic figure who walked the earth 2,000 years ago...a figure shrouded in mystery and controversy.

Biblical scholar, Howard Clark Kee in his scholarly work What Can We Know About Jesus? posits that much can be known about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. We can know, for example, that Jesus the Christ, as he was known by his followers, died by Roman crucifixion. Kee backs this claiming that it “is confirmed by all evidence available—Jewish, Roman, and Christian.” Kee in his biblical scholarship employs the historical-critical method of analyzing Christian scriptures. According to this approach, in order to understand who Jesus of Nazareth was, one must read the four canonical gospels within their social and historical context.

Pope Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth takes a profoundly different approach to the historical Jesus. The Pope acknowledges that the differences in all the gospels as a “struggle to come to grips with the figure of Jesus,” but recognizes—something Kee would agree with—that there is still “a deep harmony despite their differences.” The Roman Pontiff and Kee diverge ultimately on the fundamental basis that the Holy Father firmly holds that the study of the figure of Christ—a true Christology—cannot be removed from theological tradition that is associated with his person. Though, Benedict XVI and Kee would agree that the four canonical gospels are a source of credible information about Jesus of Nazareth, their competing approaches lead to profoundly different conclusions on who Jesus of Nazareth really was.

Kee approaches the mystery of the historical Jesus using a rigorous scholarly method. He proposes that one must first uncover “source Q”—a hypothetical document containing the earliest tradition of information about Jesus and his teaching—in order to fully know Jesus. Since the Q document is not readily available to us, the surest way to uncover the historical Jesus is to look to the four canonical gospels. For Kee, the letters of Paul—the earliest Christian writings—are not as valuable as the writings of the four Evangelists because Paul’s letters are “plagued” by religious teaching and “suprahistorical” facts about Jesus, e.g. his resurrection from the dead, his Real Presence in the Eucharist, etc. Kee has the same view on other non-canonical works. Despite their value in cross-referencing facts and validating or disproving a hypothesis, these sources offer no substantive information about Jesus. Kee thus concludes that in the “search for knowledge about Jesus, we are led, therefore, to the primary sources: the Gospels of our New Testament.” The four gospels offer a coherent view of the man Jesus, if read without giving attention to the “theological opinions” attached to Jesus. Kee articulates in his book that the person of Jesus is covered, as it were, with doctrine and ideas that were possibly conceivably of after his death. For example, Kee notes that in the Gospel of Mark, the birth narrative of Jesus is ignored. In fact, the Markan tradition doesn’t focus on Christ’s fulfilling messianic prophecies—there is no virgin birth or savior that comes to us from Bethlehem. This reality is not ignored in Luke and Matthew.

The seeming discrepancies in the gospel are realities that Kee is conscious of in his attempt to solve the puzzle that is the person of Jesus. It is Kee’s understanding that all the evangelists present their own theological convictions for a specific audience with specific circumstances leading to the writing of Jesus' gospel message and this will influence how they present Jesus. Kee fears this leads to distortion and disables us from truly, objectively, knowing Jesus. In putting the pieces of the puzzle together, Kee insists that Luke “reproduces more primitive forms of the sayings of Jesus” whereas other gospels like Matthew’s account of the “good news” written primarily to Jews is “adapted…freely to his purposes.” This emphatic pronouncement demonstrates Kee’s commitment to an almost empirical scholarly method. He is interested in where Jesus was born, the surrounding historical events that may have shaped his life, what he said and how his religious beliefs might have influenced him, and so forth. Luke provides information about his birth, a reference to his childhood experience in the Jewish Temple, and a very synoptic view of Jesus’ life that is chronological and historically-based. Kee ultimately does not view Luke as primarily as a historian, noting that Luke tries to show “the continuities and transforming differences between what was announced…in the Old Testament and what happened in the coming of Jesus.”

Kee sums up the entirety of his Christological approach when he writes, “…historians in this period were not interested…in reporting events of the past, but saw their role as providing the meaning of those past events for readers in the present…They did not adopt the pose of objectivity, as though they were merely telling ‘how it really happened’”. Ultimately, Kee reaffirms his earlier thesis that in order to know the person of Jesus of Nazareth one must approach the scriptures with a critical eye that filters out the theological add-ons and search for solid facts based on the historical and cultural context of the life of Jesus and the written accounts of his life.

Pope Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth announces within a few lines that there is a growing chasm between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. This is a pressing problem to Christians especially. If the Jesus of the Christian faith is not the same person as the historical person they believe to be God incarnate—the eternal Logos united with human consciousness and flesh—then their faith is in vain. The Pope poses the inevitable question: what would it mean “if the man [Benedict’s emphasis] Jesus was so completely different from the picture that the Evangelists painted of him and that the Church, on the evidence of the Gospels, takes as the basis of her preaching?” The Holy Father then proceeds to answer the question, first, with a closer examination of the historical-critical method. He does not discredit the approach, saying, “the historical-critical method…is an indispensable tool, given the structure of the Christian faith.” However, the Pope cautions Christians on the weakness of relying solely on such a method, saying it “considers the individual books of Scripture…and then analyzes them…according to their sources. The unity of all of these writing as one ‘Bible’…is nothing it can recognize as an immediate historical datum.”

Benedict XVI takes the position—in opposition to Howard Kee—that to know the person of Jesus is impossible by divorcing him from the Christian faith. The historical-method only shows a single dimension that perhaps can be seen as a new “movement” in Judaism that eventually splintered into a new religious tradition based on the beliefs of the followers of a man called Jesus—whether or not these beliefs are actually the teachings of Christ is not known, or just irrelevant. The Pope seems to identify this stance as the modern stance and why the world has come to see a gap between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith. Benedict XVI posits that the authentic way to know the historical Jesus—and thus, the Christ of faith—is by what he refers to as “canonical exegesis.” The reading of the scriptures as a whole, he writes, “is an essential dimension” to understanding what the writers of the gospels are trying to convey about Jesus Christ and thus it illuminates more clearly who Jesus of Nazareth is. This approach “does not contradict historical-critical interpretation” but rather leads it to fruition.

Jesus of Nazareth, in the Pope’s view, cannot simply be a moral teacher or a Jewish revolutionary. Rather, he was a man and “he truly was [Benedict’s emphasis] God, and…he communicated his divinity in parables, yet with increasing clarity.” Most importantly, the Pope goes further declaring that such a reality “exceeds the scope of the historical method.” Thus, Benedict XVI contradicts Kee’s assertion that the way to know Jesus is to look at the theological traditions of the gospel writers without taking such religious convictions seriously. Benedict XVI argues the contrary. According to this line of thinking, one cannot know the historical Jesus without adhering to the teachings of the Gospel. To have faith in Christ, to know the Jesus of faith is how we know the historical Jesus.

Kee in trying to reconstruct the source Q, in Benedict’s view, missed the actual source he was looking for. One such source is the earliest Christian writer, Paul the Apostle. Paul in his letters quotes from early traditions of the Christian church, e.g. a hymn that presents a clearly developed Christology that was developed within approximately ten years of Christ’s death as Paul converted in the 30s A.D. and began writing his letters possibly as early as the 40s A.D. This seems to be in fact superior to a possible “Q” source if such a hypothetical document exists. It readily presents who Jesus’ followers believed him to be with the source of the information being as close to Jesus’ life as history thus far has enabled. Therefore, Kee in dismissing Paul’s letters as too concerned with Christology and theological teachings simply because it goes beyond the scope of history misses the mark. In fact, Benedict XVI points out that modern biblical scholars should see the truth of history—the earliest believers as St. Paul’s letters demonstrates believed that Jesus of Nazareth was God in the flesh and the continuity of this is unbroken by other writings Kee dismissed as too far from Christ’s earthly life. For example, Pope Clement I’s Letter to the Corinthians (96? A.D.) or the seven epistles (including a Letter to the Romans) written by Ignatius of Antioch (d. 110 A.D.), disciple of the St. John the Apostle and Bishop of Smyrna, as he was en route to be martyred in Rome—these letters address topics such as ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops clearly indicating the Church, based on the teachings of Jesus, was well-established. Thus, in the search for “objectivity” Kee missed what Pope Benedict XVI introduces to the reader in his book—it is objectively, historical true that the earliest Christians believed the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth to be God and that belief is alive and well in the present today.

In contrast to Kee, Catholic theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar begins Does Jesus Know Us? Do We Know Him? approving the Evangelists’ gospel approach. Within a few pages, his attention turns to the miraculous works of Jesus particularly in regard to exorcisms. He boldly claims that the nature of demonic possession is not what needs attention, but the fact that Jesus of Nazareth had the power to remove people from such spiritual imprisonment. The underlying question for von Balthasar is—what does this say about this historical person? He goes further to say that Jesus is the God-man, the representation of God to us and mankind to God. Literally, Jesus of Nazareth is the covenant of God and Israel personified. The position is not at all unlike Pope Benedict XVI’s position that Jesus, as God and man, “is a historically plausible and convincing figure.” Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth apologetically asserts that historical Jesus is reconcilable with the Jesus of faith. He takes on the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah—prophecies that he believes Jesus, a person, a historical figure fulfilled. Von Balthasar takes the same position that Jesus, a Jew, was not merely a man that lived in the first century, but he too, was the saving God that created the cosmos.

St. Anselm emphasized that the Christian life is about “fides quarens intellectum”—faith seeking understanding. Von Balthasar picks up rather quickly on the implicit statement behind this assertion: no faith leads to no understanding. Jesus in the Gospels discusses with his apostles who people think he is and St. Peter with faith professes the true answer, “You are the Son of the living Lord.” As if in recollection of this profound scene from Scripture, von Balthasar makes his approach go beyond a purely historical-critical exegesis and allows him to offer a faithful theological presentation of Jesus, true to Christian theology and true to history. Von Balthasar affirms this mission when he writes clearly his vision of the incarnate God in the historical person of Jesus is the result of “the greatest Trinitarian love.” Furthermore, the “terrible possibility and reality—finite freedom rejecting infinite love—cannot simply be wiped away with a harmless act of forgiveness. Anselm was right to say that it demands…the remaking of the covenant between heaven and earth.”

Similar to the approach of Pope Benedict XVI, von Batlthasar makes use of all resources available to him. Analogous to human disciplines—all having to do with the human condition—he doesn’t focus on one, but incorporates all. Psychology without constraint reduces man to a complex mechanism driven by his interpretation of events. Biology reduces man to an animal that ponders; while physics reduces man to the interaction of matter. But, von Balthasar employs theology, history, and the modern interest of psychology to obtain a clear vision of the whole. He rejects the solely historical-critical empirical method of studying Jesus. He quotes from the scriptures frequently to evince the reality that all of the Bible is inspired by God and is a way in itself to know Jesus. He reaffirms this himself, writing, “He is the measure of everything human in all its dimensions. When we read that all knees in heaven, on earth, and under the earth must bow before him (Phil 2:10), this applies to all areas of human life.”

In the section of his book dedicated to the question of whether man can know Jesus, von Balthasar answers firmly with a “yes.” He writes, “Jesus interprets God to man. He does it in his teaching, which links up with what man knows from the Law and the Prophets. Thence it proceeds in two directions, revealing the heart of God and man’s heart and their direct encounter in the New and Eternal Covenant.” Pope Benedict XVI takes an identical position, as he writes:

Unless there had been something extraordinary in what happened, unless the person and the words of Jesus radically surpassed the hopes and expectations of the time, there is no way to explain why he was crucified or why he made such an impact. As early as twenty or so years after Jesus’ death, the great Christ-hymn of the Letter to the Philippians…offers us a fully developed Christology, stating that Jesus was equal to God….and that to him now belongs the worship of all creation, the adoration that God, through the Prophet Isaiah, said was due to him alone.

Both the Holy Father and von Balthasar agree, not with Howard Clark Kee, but on the fact that Jesus is the historical confirmation—an embodied linking—of the Old and New Covenant. Therefore, the historical mystery of the person of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be solved by separating him distinctly from the religious tradition of the Jews or the radical Gospel truth he was said to have taught. Rather, a clear and coherent vision of Jesus of Nazareth can only best be seen in the context of the Christian faith, which, as historical criticism shows, arose from a very complex time period in the history of Judaism and the Roman empire. Jesus then is more than a man or a Jewish rabbi. The truth that the Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI and the German theologian, both eloquently articulate is this: the Second Person of the Holy Trinity entered mysteriously into the human condition and “dwelt among us” as a person, whom was called Jesus of Nazareth and to us “he brings love and salvation from God.” And this is the truth of the Roman Catholic faith.

Quotations from Pope Benedict's Address to the U.S. Bishops

Secularism
“While it is true that this country is marked by a genuinely religious spirit, the subtle influence of secularism can nevertheless color the way people allow their faith to influence their behavior. Is it consistent to profess our beliefs in church on Sunday, and then during the week to promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs? Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and the marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death? Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel.”

Materialism
“For an affluent society, a further obstacle to an encounter with the living God lies in the subtle influence of materialism, which can all too easily focus the attention on the hundredfold, which God promises now in this time, at the expense of the eternal life which he promises in the age to come (cf. Mk 10:30). People today need to be reminded of the ultimate purpose of their lives. They need to recognize that implanted within them is a deep thirst for God. They need to be given opportunities to drink from the wells of his infinite love. It is easy to be entranced by the almost unlimited possibilities that science and technology place before us; it is easy to make the mistake of thinking we can obtain by our own efforts the fulfillment of our deepest needs. This is an illusion. Without God, who alone bestows upon us what we by ourselves cannot attain (cf. Spe Salvi, 31), our lives are ultimately empty. People need to be constantly reminded to cultivate a relationship with him who came that we might have life in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10). The goal of all our pastoral and catechetical work, the object of our preaching, and the focus of our sacramental ministry should be to help people establish and nurture that living relationship with "Christ Jesus, our hope" (1 Tim 1:1).”

Individualism
“In a society which values personal freedom and autonomy, it is easy to lose sight of our dependence on others as well as the responsibilities that we bear towards them. This emphasis on individualism has even affected the Church (cf. Spe Salvi, 13-15), giving rise to a form of piety which sometimes emphasizes our private relationship with God at the expense of our calling to be members of a redeemed community.”

Formation
“In an age that is saturated with information, the importance of providing sound formation in the faith cannot be overstated.”

Leaven
“Crucial in this regard is the role of the lay faithful to act as a "leaven" in society. Yet it cannot be assumed that all Catholic citizens think in harmony with the Church's teaching on today's key ethical questions. Once again, it falls to you [bishops] to ensure that the moral formation provided at every level of ecclesial life reflects the authentic teaching of the Gospel of life.”

Sacrament of Matrimony
“To some young Catholics, the sacramental bond of marriage seems scarcely distinguishable from a civil bond, or even a purely informal and open-ended arrangement to live with another person. Hence we have an alarming decrease in the number of Catholic marriages in the United States together with an increase in cohabitation, in which the Christ-like mutual self-giving of spouses, sealed by a public promise to live out the demands of an indissoluble lifelong commitment, is simply absent. In such circumstances, children are denied the secure environment that they need in order truly to flourish as human beings, and society is denied the stable building blocks which it requires if the cohesion and moral focus of the community are to be maintained.”

Priestly sex-abuse crisis
“Among the countersigns to the Gospel of life found in America and elsewhere is one that causes deep shame: the sexual abuse of minors. Many of you have spoken to me of the enormous pain that your communities have suffered when clerics have betrayed their priestly obligations and duties by such gravely immoral behavior. As you strive to eliminate this evil wherever it occurs, you may be assured of the prayerful support of God's people throughout the world. Rightly, you attach priority to showing compassion and care to the victims. It is your God-given responsibility as pastors to bind up the wounds caused by every breach of trust, to foster healing, to promote reconciliation and to reach out with loving concern to those so seriously wronged.”

Moral sexual formation
“If they are to achieve their full purpose, however, the policies and programs you have adopted need to be placed in a wider context. Children deserve to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships. They should be spared the degrading manifestations and the crude manipulation of sexuality so prevalent today. They have a right to be educated in authentic moral values rooted in the dignity of the human person. This brings us back to our consideration of the centrality of the family and the need to promote the Gospel of life. What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today? We need to reassess urgently the values underpinning society, so that a sound moral formation can be offered to young people and adults alike. All have a part to play in this task - not only parents, religious leaders, teachers and catechists, but the media and entertainment industries as well.”

Imitation of Christ
“If you [bishops] yourselves live in a manner closely configured to Christ, the Good Shepherd, who laid down his life for his sheep, you will inspire your brother priests to rededicate themselves to the service of their flocks with Christ-like generosity. Indeed a clearer focus upon the imitation of Christ in holiness of life is exactly what is needed in order for us to move forward. We need to rediscover the joy of living a Christ-centred life, cultivating the virtues, and immersing ourselves in prayer. When the faithful know that their pastor is a man who prays and who dedicates his life to serving them, they respond with warmth and affection which nourishes and sustains the life of the whole community.”

Personal Piety
“Time spent in prayer is never wasted, however urgent the duties that press upon us from every side. Adoration of Christ our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament prolongs and intensifies the union with him that is established through the Eucharistic celebration (cf. Sacramentum Caritatis, 66). Contemplation of the mysteries of the Rosary releases all their saving power and it conforms, unites and consecrates us to Jesus Christ (cf. Rosarium Virginis Mariae, 11, 15). Fidelity to the Liturgy of the Hours ensures that the whole of our day is sanctified and it continually reminds us of the need to remain focused on doing God's work, however many pressures and distractions may arise from the task at hand. Thus our devotion helps us to speak and act in persona Christi, to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful in the name of Jesus, to bring his reconciliation, his healing and his love to all his beloved brothers and sisters. This radical configuration to Christ, the Good Shepherd, lies at the heart of our pastoral ministry, and if we open ourselves through prayer to the power of the Spirit, he will give us the gifts we need to carry out our daunting task, so that we need never "be anxious how to speak or what to say" (Mt 10:19).”

Secularism
“Perhaps America's brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things "out there" are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living "as if God did not exist". This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to "thinking with the Church", each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.”

Catechesis
“What is needed, I am convinced, is a greater sense of the intrinsic relationship between the Gospel and the natural law on the one hand, and, on the other, the pursuit of authentic human good, as embodied in civil law and in personal moral decisions. In a society that rightly values personal liberty, the Church needs to promote at every level of her teaching - in catechesis, preaching, seminary and university instruction - an apologetics aimed at affirming the truth of Christian revelation, the harmony of faith and reason, and a sound understanding of freedom, seen in positive terms as a liberation both from the limitations of sin and for an authentic and fulfilling life. In a word, the Gospel has to be preached and taught as an integral way of life, offering an attractive and true answer, intellectually and practically, to real human problems. The "dictatorship of relativism", in the end, is nothing less than a threat to genuine human freedom, which only matures in generosity and fidelity to the truth.”

Youth
“I think in particular of our need to speak to the hearts of young people, who, despite their constant exposure to messages contrary to the Gospel, continue to thirst for authenticity, goodness and truth.”

Loss of the practice of the faith
“The issue clearly involves factors such as religious individualism and scandal. Let us go to the heart of the matter: faith cannot survive unless it is nourished, unless it is "formed by charity" (cf. Gal 5:6). Do people today find it difficult to encounter God in our Churches? Has our preaching lost its salt? Might it be that many people have forgotten, or never really learned, how to pray in and with the Church?”

“I think we are speaking about people who have fallen by the wayside without consciously having rejected their faith in Christ, but, for whatever reason, have not drawn life from the liturgy, the sacraments, preaching. Yet Christian faith, as we know, is essentially ecclesial, and without a living bond to the community, the individual's faith will never grow to maturity. Indeed, to return to the question I just discussed, the result can be a quiet apostasy.”

“We need to discover, as I have suggested, new and engaging ways of proclaiming this message and awakening a thirst for the fulfillment which only Christ can bring. It is in the Church's liturgy, and above all in the sacrament of the Eucharist, that these realities are most powerfully expressed and lived in the life of believers; perhaps we still have much to do in realizing the Council's vision of the liturgy as the exercise of the common priesthood and the impetus for a fruitful apostolate in the world.”

“Suffice it to say that faith and hope are not limited to this world: as theological virtues, they unite us with the Lord and draw us toward the fulfillment not only of our personal destiny but also that of all creation. Faith and hope are the inspiration and basis of our efforts to prepare for the coming of the Kingdom of God. In Christianity, there can be no room for purely private religion: Christ is the Savior of the world, and, as members of his Body and sharers in his prophetic, priestly and royal munera, we cannot separate our love for him from our commitment to the building up of the Church and the extension of his Kingdom. To the extent that religion becomes a purely private affair, it loses its very soul.”

Vocations
“Let us be quite frank: the ability to cultivate vocations to the priesthood and the religious life is a sure sign of the health of a local Church. There is no room for complacency in this regard. God continues to call young people; it is up to all of us to to encourage a generous and free response to that call. On the other hand, none of us can take this grace for granted.

“In the Gospel, Jesus tells us to pray that the Lord of the harvest will send workers. He even admits that the workers are few in comparison with the abundance of the harvest (cf. Mt 9:37-38). Strange to say, I often think that prayer - the unum necessarium - is the one aspect of vocations work which we tend to forget or to undervalue!

“Nor am I speaking only of prayer for vocations. Prayer itself, born in Catholic families, nurtured by programs of Christian formation, strengthened by the grace of the sacraments, is the first means by which we come to know the Lord's will for our lives. To the extent that we teach young people to pray, and to pray well, we will be cooperating with God's call. Programs, plans and projects have their place; but the discernment of a vocation is above all the fruit of an intimate dialogue between the Lord and his disciples. Young people, if they know how to pray, can be trusted to know what to do with God's call.

“It has been noted that there is a growing thirst for holiness in many young people today, and that, although fewer in number, those who come forward show great idealism and much promise. It is important to listen to them, to understand their experiences, and to encourage them to help their peers to see the need for committed priests and religious, as well as the beauty of a life of sacrificial service to the Lord and his Church. To my mind, much is demanded of vocation directors and formators: candidates today, as much as ever, need to be given a sound intellectual and human formation which will enable them not only to respond to the real questions and needs of their contemporaries, but also to mature in their own conversion and to persevere in life-long commitment to their vocation. As Bishops, you are conscious of the sacrifice demanded when you are asked to release one of your finest priests for seminary work. I urge you to respond with generosity, for the good of the whole Church.

“Finally, I think you know from experience that most of your brother priests are happy in their vocation. What I said in my address about the importance of unity and cooperation within the presbyterate applies here too. There is a need for all of us to move beyond sterile divisions, disagreements and preconceptions, and to listen together to the voice of the Spirit who is guiding the Church into a future of hope. Each of us knows how important priestly fraternity has been in our lives. That fraternity is not only a precious possession, but also an immense resource for the renewal of the priesthood and the raising up of new vocations. I would close by encouraging you to foster opportunities for ever greater dialogue and fraternal encounter among your priests, and especially the younger priests. I am convinced that this will bear great fruit for their own enrichment, for the increase of their love for the priesthood and the Church, and for the effectiveness of their apostolate.”

Religious Freedom and Same-sex "Marriage"

Homosexuality is a very sensitive issue. Rightly so, it involves a very intimate aspect of humanity for many men and women. The moral position one takes in regard to same-sex attractions either invites homosexuals to love one another romantically or a life of mandated celibacy (or change of sexual orientation for certain fundamentalist Christian groups).

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, reminded Catholics of the authentic Christian position on the question of marriage and homosexuality. He said in an interview back in 2004, "Above all, we must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people."

At present, one U.S. state legally recognized same-sex unions. Two more may join in as California and Connecticut battle it out in their Supreme Courts where judicial activists are legislating from the bench (despite the fact this violates their constitutional powers). The article below shows us what the Holy Father warned us about in regard with the legalization of same-sex "marriage." There are unforseen side-effects that undermine religious liberty and perpetuate moral depravity in secular society.

The Unintended Consequences of "Same-Sex Marriage"

Also read the Pope Benedict's Interview:

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: An Aggressive Secular Ideology Which Is Worrying

"The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels. This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality." - Pope Benedict XVI

Truly "Progressive" Catholics Will Love Pope Benedict

I am a political progressive, which unfortunately has become a loaded term that is almost synonymous with liberal. I might very well be a liberal too—if it means concern for the other guy (including the unborn). But what is even more important than all of this is simple: I am wholeheartedly with and for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I have a deep love for the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. I came across this article (below) a long while ago. I skimmed it, thought it was interesting and moved on. Now, I think it is something that all Catholics should read. The position of the author as he describes the challenges he faces, what many Catholics face, I unquestionably identify with.

I remember my dark, shameful days of “cafeteria Catholicism.” Praise be to God, I was not baptized yet, and thus, not actually Catholic. Through his servant, Pope Benedict XVI, God showed me what true progressivism is. I have frequently heard it posited that Pope Benedict XVI is more conservative than Pope John Paul II. Perhaps this is true. I have heard many recount how liberal Jesuits they knew were angered by the election of Pope Benedict XVI.

I personally don't like the common tendency to politicize the Church as liberal or conservative. I think Pope Benedict XVI is progressive; he is continuing a beautiful and priceless legacy that Pope John Paul II gave to God, to the Church, and to the human race and like Joshua stepping forward as Moses’ time ends, Benedict XVI now leads the faithful into the third millennium, ever closer to the promised lands.

I applaud this article and I think any true, progressive Catholic should love Pope Benedict XVI.

I would recommend reading Crossing the Threshold of Hope by Pope John Paul II and Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures by Pope Benedict XVI. These two works show how these Catholic intellectual giants are neither "liberal" or "conservative," but rather they are simply orthodox and in being orthodox they desire to see humanity progress toward fulfillment in accordance with the truth.

Truly "Progressive" Catholics Will Love Pope Benedict XVI.

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion

General Principles
by Pope Benedict XVI

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin. [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

St. Paul expressed similar sentiments here:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:23-32)