The Twisted Logic Underlying Abortion

Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk

Many influential people and institutions in our society, including Hollywood and the mass media, strongly support abortion. To justify their position, however, they must adeptly defy logic and ignore certain obvious facts.

One example of this side-stepping is the oft-repeated argument for abortion that it's all about a woman's body. As actress Amy Brenneman, who starred in the TV show Judging Amy, once put it, "Unless a woman really has sovereignty over her own body we really haven't come that far."

The obvious flaw in this argument was cleverly exposed a few years back by supermodel Kathy Ireland (who used to favor abortion) during a televised interview: "Some people say, 'Well it's a woman's body; it should be her choice. There's a 50% chance the baby she's carrying is a male child, and he would have a penis. Women don't have penises. So it's residing in her body; it is not a part of her body." While it should go without saying that babies have their own bodies, abortion advocates seem all too ready to tiptoe around the obvious to promote their agenda.

That tiptoeing is also evident whenever a breaking news story about the murder of an abortionist grabs the headlines. After someone recently gunned down Dr. George Tiller, the late-term abortionist in Kansas, almost every major media outlet extolled the genuine tragedy of his death, while tiptoeing past the tragedy of the 60,000 deaths that Tiller himself had coordinated within his clinics.

Several TV commentators, however, immediately perceived this double standard. Ann Coulter, for example, satirically mentioned, ". . . This one random nut who shot Tiller . . . I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester." She then argued: "I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others."

Coulter also couldn't resist exposing the faulty moral logic behind so much pro-abortion rhetoric and sloganeering, as in: "If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one," to which she replied: "If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot abortionists." Perhaps no one has so clearly summarized the deadly logic of the pro-abortion position as Mother Teresa, when she declared in her 1979 Nobel Peace Prize speech: " . . . If a mother can kill her own child -- what is left for me to kill you and you kill me -- there is nothing between."

The moral chaos of abortion often begins when advocates feign not to know when life begins. George Jonas, in his cleverly entitled essay Thoughts from an Ex-Fetus, observed how advocates must "pretend not to realize that life is an autonomous process, a continuum from zygote to old-age pension, a self-elaborating force that begins when it begins and keeps growing unless it's vacuumed out first. . . . They must pretend not to see that if a fetus were not alive, it wouldn't have to be killed."

Perhaps the most plausible explanation of why abortion advocates will so readily defy logic and ignore the obvious came from writer Dale Vree. He had been invited to a "living-room discussion" on abortion back in 1989 which included six prominent pro-lifers, six prominent pro-choicers, and one or two undecideds.

Vree expected that the heart of the debate would hinge on when life began, but it didn't. It didn't even turn on the hard cases -- rape and incest. When one of the radical feminists argued that abortion is simply about the right to make choices, one of the pro-lifers replied that the choice was made back when the woman agreed to have sex. Then one of the pro-choicers finally blurted out: "We're pro-sex and you're anti-sex," meaning, according to Vree, that "they're for lots of sex in lots of forms while we pro-lifers feel it should be limited to heterosexual marriage. . . . They made it abundantly clear that they're committed to the sexual revolution, and that revolution will wither without the insurance which is abortion and this is their bottom-line concern."

This indeed appears to be the crux of the matter, the central concern that has motivated radical feminists, Hollywood, and many other advocates of abortion to sacrifice untold millions of unborn babies since the early 1970's. George Jonas zeroed in on this same bottom-line explanation: " We invent euphemisms, such as 'choice' for killing, and sophomoric dilemmas, such as pretending not to know when life begins, to ensure that nothing hinders Virginia's quest for Santa Claus. No obstacle must interfere with her goal of self-fulfillment -- least of all an issue (as it were) of her healthy sexual appetite."

In the final analysis, this stands as probably the single greatest tragedy of our time, that the unordered and inordinate sexual desires of men and women have been allowed to twist the most rudimentary moral logic to the point of death for so many of our children.

Who Gets To Speak on Public TV?

Fr. Robert Barron

All individuals and institutions are, to some degree, marked by inconsistency. Not all of our ducks -- conceptual and behavioral -- are ever quite in a row. But sometimes, an inconsistency is so sharp, so jarring, that it crosses the line into hypocrisy.

A case in point is the recent decision of the Public Broadcasting System to exclude any religious programming from its future schedules. The usual reasons are trotted out: religion is divisive; it would be impossible to give equal time to all denominations; the public forum should not be the place for partisan speech but rather for objective exploration of issues, etc. etc.

Well, about three months ago, I was flipping my way through the cable channels and I stumbled upon a PBS program hosted by the British intellectual historian Jonathan Miller. I rather like Miller, having enjoyed his past programs on the history of science and the workings of cultures. But this show, I discovered was part of a multi-episode presentation on atheism. As I watched, it became increasingly clear to me that it wasn't an objective history of the phenomenon of non-belief, nor a balanced presentation on the relative merits of theism vs. atheism. Rather, it was an enthusiastic advocacy of the atheist position; I might even be tempted to call it evangelism on behalf of unbelief. Miller tried, over and again, to show that religion is stupid, a hold-over from a primitive age, and the enemy of intellectual progress. The episode that I watched concluded with Miller's interview of an elderly lady on her death bed. At our kind host's prompting, she assured us that she looked forward to nothing at all after death.

Late on the evening of the very day that I read of PBS's decision to exclude religious programming, I found myself, once again, surfing channels and came upon another interesting PBS offering. This one was an episode in a series on homosexuality in America. Once again, it was not an objective study of same-sex attraction or a sober consideration of the history of the debate concerning gay marriage. It was outright and passionate advocacy. What stayed particularly in my mind was a conversation between Larry Kramer, the well-known gay playwright and activist, and a man dressed as a woman, sporting a three foot blond wig! Kramer laid out his familiar arguments in a relatively disciplined way, but his interlocutor at one point intervened to observe that while there is only one Gay Pride Sunday all year, there are 51 Sundays on which the churches attack gay people. I'll leave aside the laughable insinuation that the Christian churches attack homosexual people every week of the year (in fact, I can't remember even one sermon to that effect in nearly a half century of hearing and giving sermons). But I will observe that this program amounted to a kind of evangelism on behalf of gay rights.

Now don't get me wrong: I love the fact that we live in a free society where practically all positions can be aired, debated, and argued. I welcome passionate and public advocacy for points of view that I don't share. More precisely, I think it's fine that atheists and gay activists have a televised forum to present their cases. But come on PBS, you can't have it both ways! You can't say that religious evangelism is dangerous and divisive, but other types of evangelism are just fine. You can't say that all voices should be heard in the marketplace of ideas -- except religious voices.

But come on PBS, you can't have it both ways! You can't say that religious evangelism is dangerous and divisive, but other types of evangelism are just fine. You can't say that all voices should be heard in the marketplace of ideas -- except religious voices.

In his trenchant book Democracy and Tradition, Jeffrey Stout argues that there is a healthy construal of liberalism as the set of practices that allow for peaceable conversation and interaction in a society marked by differing understandings of ultimate meaning. Here, tolerance, reason, and openness of spirt are the great practical virtues. Hence it was in the context of a robust liberal American polity that Abraham Lincoln could interpret the Civil War in explicitly religious terms and Martin Luther King could argue for civil rights on the basis of Old Testament prophecy. Both were permitted to speak religious language in the public forum, because both entered that arena with respect and non-violence. However, Stout holds that there is a more destructive and ideological version of liberalism that sees religioius belief as irrational and therefore advocates the exclusion of religion from the public discussion altogether. This mode of liberalism is hoisted on its own petard, precisely in the measure that it becomes deeply intolerant, totalitarian, and exclusive.

So Jonathan Miller can have ten hours on public television to trumpet the value of atheism, but no religious voice can be raised in that forum to counter him. I'll let you decide which type of liberalism PBS is displaying.

Father Robert Barron, "Who Gets To Speak on Public TV?" Word on Fire (July 8, 2009).

Fr. Robert Barron was ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of Chicago in 1986. He has a Masters degree in Philosophy from the Catholic University of America and a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Institute Catholique de Paris. He is currently professor of systematic theology at the University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein Seminary. Fr. Barron is the author of, And Now I See: A Theology of Transformation, Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master, Heaven in Stone and Glass: Experiencing the Spirituality of the Great Cathedrals, Eucharist (Catholic Spirituality for Adults), Priority of Christ, The: Toward a Postliberal Catholicism, and Word on File: Proclaiming the Power of Christ. He also gives frequent talks, retreats and workshops on issues of theology and spirituality.

Father Barron uses his YouTube channel to reach out to people and bring valuable lessons of faith alive by pointing out things that can be learned by watching popular characters of movies and television shows.

Copyright © 2009 Father Robert Barron

Labels Everywhere

David Warren

As anyone who has bought groceries will know, there are elaborate labelling requirements for food in this country, as for most other goods. And as anyone who has travelled abroad may have noticed, Canada is not unique in this regard.

Like our money, the labels are inflationary: constantly growing in quantity, while shrinking in unit value. Or like our taxes, their extent is hidden from us in plain view. That is because we get in the habit of looking around the labels, as around the taxes; of not seeing or hearing what is indefinitely repeated; of anticipating what can only increase.

A package of cigarettes is now half covered by government health warnings alone, but the purchaser hardly cares, he is only looking for the little patch at the bottom with the brand name. It is really no different on this tin of Canada choice whole white potatoes I have before me just now. Between the panel of "Nutrition Facts" on one side of the tin, and standardized prep instructions and ingredients on the other, the wrapper is already half gone. Language requirements leave the capitalists to make their pitch on one-quarter of their own label, to be repeated in the other national language at precisely equal size.

Our "progressive" masters think labelling is important. This is because they think we are stupid, and need to be told, for instance, that a jar of peanut butter has been produced in a factory where peanuts may have been processed; or that neither you nor your children should drink that bottle of stove cleaner. Indeed: were it not for big brother, we would have to keep our wits about us.

Backward-looking mystical Catholic Tory that I am, I consider generic labelling to be the work of the devil, designed to mask the particularity of things, and to subvert wakeful attention. Safety requirements are especially inflationary, and thus predatory. The labels confer a false security, and meanwhile our propensity to kill or injure ourselves regardless, often enough in extremely stupid ways -- or even novel ones when put to the challenge -- provides the nanny state with an ever-broadening ground for new labelling and safety requirements.

I made a desultory remark on political labels in this space last week. They perform the same function as generic labelling on food packages. I was agreeing with the leftists who argue that the labels "left" and "right" may no longer have meaning (since anything that can be labelled "right" is thereby ruled out of discussion). I recommended the immediate replacement of these terms with the more vivid and instructive "martian" and "earthling," respectively, as a preparatory measure for getting rid of the former instead of the latter.

On Monday, Michael Polowin contributed a useful piece to these pages in which he called himself a "liberal," in defiance of those who say he is "slightly to the right of Attila the Hun."

Now, before going a horsehoof farther, let me remind the unthinking reader that Attila was, for all his personal virtues and vices, decidedly a man of the left: a statist and an extreme regulator. So were both Genghis and Kublai Khan, incidentally, and in their various historical contexts, usurping Chinese emperors from Qin Shi Tuang to Mao-Tse Tung, the more innovative Egyptian pharaohs, Vlad the Impaler, Ivan the Terrible, Otto von Bismarck, and Benito Mussolini (thought we'd give Hitler a rest today): a gallery of typical leftist and statist control freaks, who all made their trains run on time.

Polowin reminds us that the term "liberal" was traditionally associated with "individual freedom, the right to personal property, personal responsibility, freedom of speech, and occasionally, state action in the interest of the individual."

Indeed: all desiderata with which I was raised by consciously liberal parents, who might have added the irreducible requirements of chastity, and the need to fight Communists in places like Vietnam. My own reactionary right-wing Toryism still includes all these liberal ideals. They are, as Polowin observes, the precise opposite of the "group rights" and nanny statism now routinely imposed by card-carrying Liberals such as the man he calls "King Dalton" of Ontario.

He makes an error in associating tyranny with monarchy, however -- an error into which he and many have been led by the same fake-liberal propaganda that associates the great leftists of history with the extreme right.

In reality, "leftism" is all about vanguards seizing and extending their power; "rightism" about managing inherited power wisely. Monarchs and aristocrats may be reasonably associated with the "right."

But we should remember that those whose power was inherited have tended, throughout history, to rule lightly, with decorative courts instead of faceless, intrusive, Kafkaesque bureaucracies. And being individuals themselves, they have been far likelier to grant their subjects attention and respect as individual human beings.

Only a few ever swung to the left.

Mission: Impossible?

Sean Murphy

The Gospel of Jesus Christ compels us to bring our faith to bear on public affairs.

The call to holiness

The real Good News -- the Gospel -- is that all of us are called to become holy -- to
live in the presence of God, to put God at the centre of our lives. Some people think this means that we should behave and live like priests, monks and nuns. They're wrong.

Other people think that being an active Christian means being on parish council, or being a lector or extraordinary eucharistic minister, or singing in the choir -- doing 'churchy' things. They're wrong.

It's not that there is anything wrong with these things; they are good things. From them we derive grace and strength. And we need that grace and strength for our mission. But we are laymen, and our primary mission is not in the sanctuary or the choir loft, but in the world outside.

The laity -- that's us -- live in the world, not in the monastery or convent. Priests and religious have their own special responsibilities, their own mission. But our primary mission is in secular duties and activities. Our mission is in the hockey rink, on the soccer road trip, in the hospital, in school and on the job. We are supposed to have Christ at our side in all of these places, and make Him present in these places by acting as He would have us act.

The idea is that we are supposed to blend in like yeast in the dough. Yeast blends into the dough, but it remains yeast, and it changes the dough from inside. We are supposed to become part of the team, the class, the business or the town, but we are to remain Christian, and encourage our class mates, co-workers and friends to live according to the will of God.

Why live according to the will of God?

Well, we can't kick God out of creation. We can't tell God that He has no business in the logging camp or the classroom. We can't hide from God in a courtroom, a bedroom -- not even a closet.

We can't say, "God, you keep out of this. This is between me and the boss."

We can't say, "Get lost, God. This is between me and my wife, between me and my girlfriend."

We can't say, "God, it's Friday night. I want to get a little drunk. Butt out. Come back on Sunday."

We have one conscience, and one conscience only, not one for religious duties and a different one for the party -- whether it's a political party, or the weekend party.

We have one conscience, a Christian conscience, and that is to guide us in everything that we do. Everything. There is no such thing as "I'm personally opposed, but ..."

Pontius Pilate was personally opposed to crucifying Our Lord, but he didn't want to impose his morality on the mob.

So, here we are, ready to live and act as Christians should. What response can we expect? Let's consider what happened to some people who tried to do just that.

Cases

Imagine yourself in the following real-life situations.

You are a university student. You get into some heated debates in class when you defend your religious beliefs against what you perceive to be inaccurate or even hostile claims by your professor and classmates. Your professor reduces the mark on a paper, criticizing it as part of an "agenda of resistance."

You are a student nurse. You refuse to dispense a drug that could cause abortion. Your supervisor has strongly indicated that this may result in a failing grade.
Dr. James Robert Brown, a professor of science and religion of the University of Toronto, has a simple answer for health care workers, like the student nurse, who don't want to be involved with things like abortion or contraception. These "scum" -- that's his word -- these "scum" should "resign from medicine and find another job." His reasoning is very simple.

Religious beliefs are highly emotional -- as is any belief that is affecting your behaviour in society. You have no right letting your private beliefs affect your public behaviour.

Mission: Impossible?

Now you know why I titled this talk "Mission: Impossible?" Christians must take part in worldly affairs, live a vigorous Christian life, and change the world so that all things are ordered to the glory of God. But Christians who actually try to do this may be disciplined, fired, or threatened with other penalties. People like Dr. Brown call us 'scum' and say that we have no right letting our personal or private beliefs affect our behaviour in society.

How do we answer them? The Response

There are a number of possible responses. Today I will give you four.

. Personal and private doesn't mean insignificant.

. All beliefs influence public behaviour.

. Everyone is a believer -- even atheists.

. Proposing is not imposing.

First: personal and private doesn't mean insignificant

Professor Brown and others like to stress that religious beliefs are 'personal' and 'private'. This is intended to belittle us. It's meant to make us feel like we're alone, isolated, even eccentric.

Well, our beliefs are personal, in the sense that we personally accept them. They are private, in that what we believe is primarily our business, not someone else's.

But our beliefs are also shared with hundreds of millions of people, living and dead -- not just a few hundred thousand who happen to be alive and who, like Dr. Brown, occupy positions of power and influence.

We are not alone in our personal convictions. We are not few in number. There are literally billions of religious believers. Don't let people bully you by making you feel like strangers in your own world.

We share our beliefs with some of the greatest minds and imaginations in history. Some I need to introduce: Albertus Magnus -- St. Albert the Great, Great because of his extraordinary learning. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says he deserves "a pre-eminent place in the history of science."

Dante was the "greatest poet of Italy, if not of mediaeval and modern times."

The inventor of the barometer was Blaise Pascal, a genius among modern thinkers, and deeply interested in religion. We measure pressure in pascals, the unit of measure named for him.

And we share our beliefs with J.R.R. Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings.

Not only great intellects, some of the most courageous souls through the ages have been religious believers: St. Joan of Arc, who led the armies of France; St. Thomas More, beheaded because he was "the King's good servant -- but God's first;" and St. Maximilian Kolbe, who volunteered to die in the place of another prisoner in a Nazi death camp.

Most important, we share our beliefs with some of the holiest people who have walked the face of the earth: St. Francis of Assisi, first to bear the wounds of Christ; Blessed Damien of Molokai, who died among the lepers he served near Hawaii; and Mother Teresa, who needs no introduction.

These were Catholics, but non-Catholics and non-Christians can make similar claims, including in their lists names like Sir Isaac Newton, the great scientist, the Muslim physician, Avicenna, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor hanged by the Nazis.

The first point, then: personal and private doesn't mean insignificant. We are not alone in our personal convictions. We are not few in number. There are literally billions of religious believers. Don't let people bully you by making you feel like strangers in your own world.

Second: all beliefs influence public behaviour

Professor Brown says that we must not let our so-called 'private' beliefs affect our public behaviour.

Really?

What about the ancient Indian emperor Asoka? After ten years of bloody wars, he became a Buddhist, and decided that he should rule his people like a father, with "morality and social compassion." Among other things, he provided them with free hospitals and veterinary clinics, and built new roads and rest houses for travellers. In other words, Asoka let his private beliefs affect his public behaviour. If we believe Professor Brown, this must have been bad news for his people.

Well, some might say, that was in ancient times. Let's bring it closer to us in time.

Well, we have every reason to demand the same freedom that Professor Brown claims for himself. All public behaviour -- how we treat other people, how we treat animals, how we treat the environment -- is determined by what we believe. All beliefs influence public behaviour.

How many of you have seen Saving Private Ryan? If you were shaken up by the D-Day landing scene in Saving Private Ryan, Dieppe was far worse. Fewer than half the Canadians who landed at Dieppe in 1942 made it back. The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry landed with 582 men; 365 were killed or taken prisoner. John Foote, a Presbyterian minister, was chaplain to the regiment. For an hour, during the retreat, Foote carried wounded men on his back to the boats. He deliberately returned to the beach to be taken prisoner with the men left behind. He was awarded the Victoria Cross. But Professor Brown says that people shouldn't let private beliefs affect their public behaviour. Maybe he thinks that Foote didn't deserve it.

Let's bring it even closer in time, and closer to home. Toronto, a few years ago.
During World Youth Day celebrations, a quarter million young people filled the streets of Toronto. What they did in public -- on the streets, in buses and subways, in the parks -- was influenced by their religious convictions. And you know what? People loved it. They thought it was great. They wished that people behaved like that all the time.

I don't know where Professor Brown was during World Youth Day. Maybe he fled in terror at the thought of all those young people acting as if their faith really meant something.

But let's take an even closer look at what Professor Brown had to say. What was he doing when he gave that interview to the reporter? What was he doing when he proclaimed that no one should be allowed to act in public according to private beliefs?

Professor Brown was -- acting on his beliefs. It was his personal belief, his private conviction, that we should not be allowed to act upon our beliefs and convictions. Well, we have every reason to demand the same freedom that Professor Brown claims for himself. All public behaviour -- how we treat other people, how we treat animals, how we treat the environment -- is determined by what we believe. All beliefs influence public behaviour.

And this brings me to the third point.

Everyone is a believer, even atheists

An atheist believes that God does not exist. He believes it, just as a Christian believes that God does exist. The Christian has a belief about God; the atheist has a belief about God. One is a religious belief; the other a non-religious belief, but both are beliefs. The atheist is as much a believer as a Christian when it comes to the existence of God.

Moreover, belief is absolutely essential to society. Human society can exist without science, without technology. It exists wherever people live together, whether or not they are scientifically or technologically advanced.

But society cannot exist without belief. Everyone here will believe that tomorrow is 31 May -- because that is what you have been told. It won't be because you've done the astronomical observations to prove it. If people believe in human dignity, equality and justice, it will not be because these things are facts proved by scientific experiment. Some of the most important decisions we make in life are based on belief, not certainty. Will I move to Alberta? Will I be a carpenter or a teacher? What woman will I marry? Will this man be a good husband? How many children shall we have? Belief, not certainty, decides these things.

But here's the central point for us today. People who don't believe in God may defend and promote what they believe is good for man and society, and they may do so in public. People who aren't members of a religion may ask their neighbours and the government to respect what they believe is good for people. Atheists may ask for policies and laws to protect what that they believe is good for man and society -- like health care, for example. These are all believers. They don't believe in God, they don't believe in a particular religion, but they are all believers, and they are free to act on their beliefs in public and to promote them.

Well, so are we. We are believers too, and we have the same freedom to act on our beliefs in public and to promote them as non-religious believers. Professor Brown is free to propose his ideas about how people ought to behave in public, even if his ideas come from his personal beliefs. So are we.

Here we come to our final point.

Proposing is not imposing

"It isn't right to impose your beliefs on other people."

All citizens are free to propose ideas about how people should live and work together. All citizens are free to plead, to argue, to lobby, to convince other people to accept their ideas about what is good for people and good for our country. That is not imposing beliefs. That is good citizenship in a democratic society, and we need more of that, not less.

You've heard that, and you know it's not entirely true. Society often impose beliefs by law. We believe that it is wrong to murder, to break into houses, to assault people, to defraud them. If somebody doesn't believe that, and starts breaking into houses or killing people, we will impose our beliefs by throwing him into jail.

So to say, "It isn't right to impose your beliefs on other people" isn't entirely true. But that means it isn't entirely false. We may throw people into jail for murder, but not for refusing to accept Christianity. We may fine people for speeding, but we don't fine them for not going to church on Sunday.

I am not going to talk about how to decide when beliefs should be imposed, for two reasons.

First: you don't want to stay here for the rest of the week.

Second: we are not talking now about imposing beliefs, but about proposing them. All citizens are free to make proposals about laws or social policies. All citizens are free to propose ideas about how people should live and work together. All citizens are free to plead, to argue, to lobby, to convince other people to accept their ideas about what is good for people and good for our country.

That is not imposing beliefs. That is good citizenship in a democratic society, and we need more of that, not less.

Summary

So when we are told that we can't let our personal religious beliefs determine how we behave in public, that we can't impose our religious convictions or ideas on others, what do we say?

First: personal and private doesn't mean insignificant. We share our beliefs with hundreds of millions, if not billions of others.

Second: all beliefs influence public behaviour. The person who tells us we can't let our beliefs influence how we behave is a hypocrite, trying to get us to act according to his belief.

Third: everyone is a believer -- even atheists. Belief is essential. Most of the time we have to act on belief because there isn't time for anything else.
Fourth: proposing is not imposing. It's good citizenship.

Conclusion

I hope these four points will give you more confidence to use your freedom as the Lord would have it used. But don't get the idea that things will be easy.

Henry Morgentaler has demanded that no religious organization -- especially the Catholic Church -- be allowed to operate hospitals, because they won't provide abortions. Others are suggesting that the Church should be deprived of its schools precisely because it is faithful to the Gospel rather than "the public policy of Canada" that is said to support homosexual lifestyles. And the Chief Justice of Canada said that the law claims ultimate and total authority over us. All of these statements are demands that we accept the state as our supreme authority. We shall have no king but Caesar.

"We have no king but Caesar!"

Where have we heard that before? When you hear that, you know what path lies before us. But, after all, St. Thomas More said that the Lord we follow didn't go to heaven in a feather bed, and we should not expect better for ourselves.

Mission: Impossible?

Humanly speaking, yes. But, humanly speaking, so was the Resurrection. With God, all things are possible.

Forty Years

David Warren

One of Shakespeare's sonnets begins, "When forty winters shall besiege thy brow." I don't know why the line has had such an effect upon me -- has stuck in my mind like a musical jingle that will not leave -- but it has done for almost as long as I can remember. "Almost," I wrote: for I can date my acquisition of this line to a sea journey.

My family was travelling home to Canada, in the early 1960s, after living in Pakistan. On my departure from St. Anthony's School in Lahore, a beloved teacher, a Miss Quinn, had given me an India-paper edition of Shakespeare. (Everyone knew Miss Quinn loved Shakespeare; she would quote him even to kindergartners.) I had been her pet for two years, there was a bond between us, such as can exist only between an old spinster woman and a very young boy. (Today, one must explain that it was not sexual.)

She gave me this book, and said to me something like: "David, I will not see you again. You will grow into a man. If you will keep this book, and read it all your life, you will become wise. Promise me that you will do this; and I promise that as you get older, you will understand it more and more. All the wisdom of the world is in this book. And when you are old you will read Shakespeare, and remember the teacher who loved you."

The book is long since lost. But I have come to consider all editions of Shakespeare to be gifts from Miss Quinn. And I can remember the inscription in it, because it is still written in my heart. It was in Latin: "Et cognoscetis veritatem," from the Gospel of John. "And you will know the truth. ..."

Which takes us aboard the Cilicia -- for this is a romantic memoir. She was a passenger ship of the long-defunct Anchor Line, herself launched in the 1930s, rusting away under fresh paint, on one of her last legs; sailing home from Bombay and Karachi, to Liverpool and Glasgow. (Soon she would be scrap.) If I do not remember, I have reconstructed in memory: trying to read the sonnets of Shakespeare, in my berth at night, and the line from the second sonnet anchoring in my soul.

"When forty winters shall besiege thy brow, / And dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field, / Thy youth's proud livery, so gaz'd on now, / Will be a tatter'd weed ..."

Shakespeare the realist; the Shakespeare who delivered, in the foolishly underestimated late romance of Cymbeline, the most extraordinary and memorable cheap pun in the English language: "Golden lads and girls all must, / As chimney-sweepers, come to dust."

Forty years is a long time, in the generations of mayflies, and even in the course of a human life. I have myself now outlived Shakespeare, by four years. For well more than 40 years his line has been rattling in my skull, so that every time I have had a fountain pen to test -- or a ballpoint, or a typewriter, or a laptop keyboard to tap for the first time -- I have written without thinking: "When forty winters shall besiege thy brow."

It is now forty winters since the moon landing of 1969: an event I could myself once foresee only through the pages of Jules Verne. From the Earth to the Moon, was the title of that book, first published in 1865. Three astronauts in a capsule Verne called the "Columbiad," are fired through the muzzle of an immensely long cannon, towards the moon from a launch site in Florida.

Verne was remarkably accurate and even prescient in all his rough calculations, but one: his astronauts would have been crushed by the force of acceleration. (The problem could have been solved, but not very easily.)

On my children, or on anyone born since, the amazement of that day in 1969 must be lost. It is impossible for the human mind to unwrite history, or travel back in time. Once something is done, it remains done, and the novelty of it can never be recaptured. Not even Jules Verne would write a novel on time travel (though he toyed with the idea in his early notebooks, as I understand). It is impossible to reverse the arrow of time: and Verne, a man of true common sense, did not sweat the impossible.

Yet the flip side of this is profoundly encouraging, even within the limitations of our world. For the truth is, that if we have done something once, it can be done again.

In this respect I am thinking less of the moon venture, than of everything man has ever accomplished in the line of goodness and beauty and truth.

Nothing we ever did was impossible. Through 40 years, it has seemed to me that our whole civilization has been coming apart. But what has come apart, can be put back together; we have only to find the desire to rebuild.

Charity, Truth and Freedom

Robert Royal

Charity is a much used word in the Catholic tradition. After 2000 years, you would think that virtually everything that could be said about it has been. But that would be to judge by mere human standards, and to underestimate the Holy Spirit—and Papa Ratzinger.

If there has been a more pointed and simultaneously expansive treatment of Christian love in the encyclical tradition of the last century or so than we find in the first few pages of Caritas in Veritate, I have not stumbled across it. As we have come to expect from this pope, brilliant aperçus appear as he goes about his business, seemingly without effort:

. "Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality."

. "Truth , in fact, is lógos which creates diá-logos, and hence communication and communion."

. "Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom (cf. Jn 8:32) and of the possibility of integral human development."

. "Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanizing value."
These few sentences light up so much of the landscape that Benedict wants to explore, that they come close to encapsulating, in themselves, this entire encyclical.

You do not need to be a literary critic, however, to notice a change in voice as the encyclical turns from charity to more strictly social concerns. Indeed, it's clear that there are several voices in that part of the text, sometimes working at cross purposes, sometimes almost impossible to decipher—very odd in a document by a man with such a powerful and synthesizing intellect (and unusual even for the typically dense language of an encyclical). Professional Vatican watchers have already begun to parse out which passages may be traced to which of a number of more or less acknowledged consultants. It's an important pastime, because anything that seems to be the voice of the Successor of Peter bears serious consideration.

Notes

Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. Among his books are The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century: A Comprehensive Global History, Dante Alighieri: Divine Comedy, Divine Spirituality, The Pope's Army: 500 Years of the Papal Swiss Guard, 1492 and All That: Political Manipulations of History, The Virgin and the Dynamo: The Use and Abuse of Religion in Environmental Debates, and most recently, The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West. Robert Royal is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Integral Development Requires Love

Joseph Wood

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." - C.S. Lewis

After its beautiful opening paragraphs, the latest encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI can be difficult to read. Capable theologians and philosophers, as well as experts in business, economics, and government, may find points that are unclear or ill-reasoned. The encyclical is striking in its address of a wide range of current policy concerns, from the financial crisis to bioethics. Its success in doing so varies. But it splendidly succeeds in reiterating some critically important themes of this pontificate.

Begin with the title, Caritas in Veritate. The first word returns to the pope's first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est. Love is "the force that has its origin in God." Here the focus is on love in truth, and what that love has to say about how we order our efforts to bring about true human development, or human flourishing in our full potential as the image of God. The pope points to the sequence "Veritas in caritate," or "truth in love" in Paul's letter to the Ephesians. He then inverts the sequence to find his title and reminds us "charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed, and practiced in the light of truth."

What is common to all is that anything that is open to, and includes, God's love in truth will aid integral development. Anything without that love destroys such development. This is the central message.

Over and over, the pope speaks to us of the necessity of integral, true human development. In an age of thoroughly disintegrated personalities, lacking an understanding of divine love and thus incapable of integration in that love, as we see at every level of society and often celebrated in the media, this message of integrity is important.

Pope Benedict returns to his assault on relativism and his promotion of cultural dialogue (instead of traditional efforts at religious dialogue). He rejects "cultural eclecticism that is assumed uncritically [whereby] cultures are simply placed alongside one another and viewed as substantially equivalent and interchangeable. This easily yields to a cultural relativism that does not serve true intercultural dialogue." Likewise, he rejects the opposite danger of "cultural leveling and indiscriminate acceptance of types of conduct and life-styles." Both these failures "have in common. . .the separation of culture and human nature."

The pope is thinking in decades and centuries of human development.

In almost all of the current social issues treated in the encyclical, there is an "on the one hand, on the other" sequence that suggests that any human trend or endeavor can be good or bad. International tourism can promote economic development, or degradation. Using the earth's resources can be good for development, or bad. Globalization is neither inherently good nor bad; same for technology; same for the consumer economy. Is the pope caught in the middle on all these issues, wringing his hands? No. What is common to all is that anything that is open to, and includes, God's love in truth will aid integral development. Anything without that love destroys such development. This is the central message.

In the pope's view, the just, integral way forward is always the way of love in truth, the way that points to God. He decries the "types of messianism which give promises but create illusions," for "these always build their case on a denial of the transcendent dimension of development, in the conviction that it lies entirely at their disposal."

Finally, he highlights again the crucial marriage of faith and reason. The "one hand/other hand" approach does so implicitly by noting that reason without faith produces ineffective or counterproductive means towards development. He emphasizes explicitly that "reason always stands in need of being purified by faith," while "religion always needs to be purified by reason. There are oddities in the text. I had never associated microfinance with pawnbroking, for example. But for whatever faults it has, Caritas in Veritate reprises the great themes of Pope Benedict XVI, and it is thus a gift to be used by all.

Notes

Joseph Wood is a former White House official who worked on foreign policy, including Vatican affairs. He is a retired Air Force colonel, and his career included operational and command fighter assignments in Korea and Europe; a faculty position at the U.S. Air Force Academy in the Department of Political Science; and duty at the Pentagon as speech writer and politico-military affairs officer for the Chief of Staff and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

No Charity Without Truth

Fr. James V. Schall, S. J.

After reading Caritas in Veritate, I said to myself that the general Catholic and world population has no idea of the brilliance of this pope. Of course, I said that when I finished Spe Salvi, Deus Caritas Est, Jesus of Nazareth, and about a zillion other writings by Pope Ratzinger. God must be amused that the brightest man of our time is the Pope of Rome.

Though I have always admired him, I have considered Paul VI's Populorum Progressio to be the most nearly ideological of all papal social encyclicals. Caritas in Veritate, which commemorates Paul VI's document forty years later, I must confess, regards it as one of the best. Aside from not touching on labor union corruption or the potential totalitarian nature of the ecology movement, this latest encyclical is simply great. While noting obvious problems, it is amazingly positive about business, its potential, varieties, and openness to ethics.

But the heart of this encyclical is something else. It is a concise re-presentation of what a human person is in his relation to God, the earth, to another person, to the family, to what it is we are meant for, both in this world and in our eternal destiny.

The proposal about a better world international institution goes back to Robert Maynard Hutchins and Jacques Maritain, to the Hague Conventions, to the League of Nations, and even the Holy Roman Empire. The pope defines the need for authority at a higher level, but with sufficient restrictions to prevent it from being either a world government or a tyranny. The American Founding Fathers probably were more concerned with the dangers of tyranny, as was Augustine. Our experience with how easy it is for international institutions to become ideological instruments needs great structural attention, especially if this international authority is armed to enforce itself.

Benedict is eloquent on the defects of modernity, but also on its potential. Like Spe Salvi, which I think is a greater document, it places man within this world in such a way that he is not imprisoned within it. I particularly loved Benedict's initial reminder that everything about us is gift-oriented. As he already indicated in Deus Caritas Est, every political and economic institution needs to be both just and open to what is more than justice.

The Trinitarian and relational understanding of being in this encyclical shows the relation between our head and our deeds. Thinking properly is a precondition to acting properly. Of course, Aquinas said this long ago, but it is nice to see it here. And this pope is a God-oriented person. He knows that what lies behind all our aberrations is what we think of God.

The genius of this document appears in its very title. No "charity" exists without "truth," All truth leads to putting love in our being and in our world, but in the right order. "A Christianity of charity without truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool of good sentiments, helpful for social cohesion, but of little relevance" (#4). It needed to be said.

Communion and Community

Michael Novak

Just after Vatican Council II, Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) joined others in founding a school of thought called "Communio Theology." The inner life of the Revealed God is a Trinity, a Communion of Persons. So should be the inner life of every image of God, every human person.

Thus, the four main ideas in the new Encyclical Caritas in Veritate are communion, gift, caritas, and truth. Undoubtedly, this is the most theological, most specifically Catholic, of all social encyclicals since 1891. Its aim is to show the divine context of political economy and the drama of its upward-leaping tongues of fire: its inspiration, its aspiration.

As Abraham Lincoln pointed out, slavery in the United States could not be overcome by a Lockean fear or self-interest alone, but must be married to a larger and more generous grasp of the reality of the other. Progress and human development always depend upon an upward pull.

Benedict XVI sees political economy today caught in a worldwide updraft, whose possibilities we must read accurately. The world's peoples are becoming ever more pushed together, misunderstanding each other, rubbing against each other. They are called to be one. More and more often, they learn from each other ideas of human rights, protest, free association, free speech, justice, fairness.

The world, in short, groans for inner communion. And some of the most important secrets of human communion spring from the realities of Person and Communion in the free, gratuitous Creator of all. Persons, even in communion with one another, subsist in their uniqueness.

In the distinctively Catholic view of the cosmos, everything begins in the inner personal, communal life of the Godhead. This tallies with our own personal experience that the two most "divine" experiences in our lives, the two that are most God-like, are the kind of love that is perfect communion with another, and the sweet sense of self-control and personal responsibility in moments of great stress. ("Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law.")

From this, the Catholic vision concludes that "Everything we look upon is gift." Creation itself flows from a superabundant gift. A shopkeeper who moves into a neighborhood to bake fresh bread and sweets in the morning brings a great gift to one's life. Those who spend their lives bringing such goods to one another bear gifts, especially if their human manner in so doing is kind and considerate. The pope asks us to look at economic life in the light of gift-giving, even when it is conducted according to conventions of exchange and price. It is the human generosity of the thing -- the human dimension of commerce -- that should not be lost sight of, if the world is to remain (or to become) more human.

Unofficial Synopsis

H. H. Benedict XVI

"Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness" is "the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity": Thus begins Caritas in Veritate, the encyclical addressed to the Catholic world and "to all people of good will."

In the introduction, the Pope reminds us that "charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine." On the other hand, given "the risk of being misinterpreted, detached from ethical living," it is linked with truth. And he cautions us: "A Christianity of charity without truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool of good sentiments, helpful for social cohesion, but of little relevance" (§ 1-4).

Truth is necessary for development. Without it, says the Pope, "the social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation" (§ 5). Benedict XVI dwells upon two "criteria that govern moral action" that come from the "charity in truth" principle: justice and the common good. Every Christian is called to love through an "institutional path" which has an incidence on the life of the pólis, of life in society (§ 6-7). The Church, he insists, "does not have technical solutions to offer"; however, she has "a mission of truth to accomplish" for "a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation" (§ 8-9).

The first chapter of the document is about Paul VI's message of Populorum Progressio. "Without the perspective of eternal life -- the Pope warns us -- human progress in this world is denied breathing space." Without God, development becomes negative, "dehumanized" (§ 10-12).

Paul VI, one can read, stressed on "the indispensable importance of the Gospel for building a society according to freedom and justice" (§ 13). In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI "shows the strong ties between life ethics and social ethics" (§ 14-15). He explains the concept of vocation in Populorum Progressio. "Development is vocation" because "it derives from a transcendent call." He goes on to underline that it is thus "integral," that is, it has to "promote the good of every man and of the whole man." "Faith -- he adds -- does not rely on privilege or positions of power," "but only on Christ" (§ 16-18). Paul VI shows that "the causes of underdevelopment are not primarily of the material order." They are above all in the will, thought and even more "in the lack of brotherhood among individuals and peoples." "As society becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbors but does not make us brothers." We must, therefore, mobilize ourselves so that economics evolves "towards fully human outcomes" (§ 19-20).

In the second chapter, the Pope deals with human development in our time. Profit as the exclusive goal, "without the common good as its ultimate end, risks destroying wealth and creating poverty." He goes on to mention some distortions of development: financial dealing that is "largely speculative," migration of peoples "often provoked" and then insufficiently attended to, and "the unregulated exploitation of the Earth's resources." Before such interconnected problems, the Pope calls for "a new humanistic synthesis." The crisis "obliges us to replan our journey" (§ 21).

Development today, says the Pope, "has many overlapping layers." "The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase," with new forms of poverty emerging. Corruption, he fears, is present in countries rich and poor; too often, multinational enterprises do not respect the rights of the workers. Besides, "international aid has often been diverted from its proper ends, through irresponsible actions" both of donors and of beneficiaries. At the same time, says the Pope, "there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge on the part of rich countries, through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care" (§ 22).

Since the end of the "blocs," John Paul II had been asking for a global "re-examination of development," but this "has been achieved only in part." There is today "a re-evaluation" of the roles of the "state's public authorities," and one can foresee an increase in the "political participation in civil society, nationally and internationally." The Pope then turns his attention to the search, by rich countries, for areas in which to outsource production at low cost. "These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems," with "grave danger for the rights of workers." To this, one has to add that "the cuts in social spending, often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks." In any case, one can observe that "governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom of labor unions." Those who rule are reminded that "the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity" (§ 23-25).

On a cultural level, the possibility of interaction opens new perspectives of dialogue, but with a double danger. First, there can be a cultural eclecticism in which all cultures are viewed as "substantially equivalent." The opposite danger is that of "cultural leveling," "the indiscriminate acceptance of types of conduct and lifestyles" (§ 26). The Pope then turns his attention to the scandal that hunger represents. What is missing is a "network of economic institutions" capable of confronting this emergency. One must hope for "new possibilities" in the techniques of agriculture and land reform in developing countries (§ 27).

Benedict XVI then underlines that the respect for life "cannot in any way be detached" from the development of peoples. Various parts of the world still experience practices of demographic control which "go as far as to impose abortion." In economically developed countries, there is "an anti-birth mentality, frequent attempts (being) made to export this mentality to other states as if it were a form of cultural progress." In addition, there is "reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked" to "specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition" of birth control. The "laws permitting euthanasia" are another matter for concern: "When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's true good" (§ 28).

There is another aspect connected to development: the right to religious freedom. Violence "puts the brakes on authentic development," and this "applies especially to terrorism motivated by fundamentalism." At the same time, promotion of atheism in many countries "obstructs the requirements for the development of peoples, depriving them of spiritual and human resources" (§ 29), for development needs the interaction of the various levels of knowledge, put in harmony through charity (§ 30-31). One must hope that the economic choices continue "to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment" for everyone. Benedict XVI warns us against "short-term -- sometimes very short-term -- economy, which leads to "lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers" in order to "increase the country's international competitiveness." For this, he exhorts us to correct some dysfunctions of the development models, as is required today by the "Earth's state of ecological health." He concludes with globalization: "Without the guidance of charity in truth, this global force could cause unprecedented damage and create new divisions." Therefore, we have to deal with "a new and creative challenge" (§ 32-33).

Fraternity, economic development and civil society is the theme of the third chapter of the encyclical, opening with a praise of the experience of giving, often unrecognized "because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life." The conviction that economics are free from the "influences of a moral character" "has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way." Development, "if it is to be authentically human," must "make room for the principle of gratuitousness" (§ 34). This is particularly relevant regarding the market.

"Without internal forms of solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfill its proper economic function." The market "cannot rely only on itself"; it "must draw its moral energies from other subjects" and must not consider the poor as a "burden, but a resource." The market must not become "the place where the strong subdue the weak." Commercial logic needs to be "directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility." The market is not negative by nature. Therefore, what is to be challenged is man, his "moral conscience and responsibility." The present crisis shows that the "traditional principles of social ethics like transparency, honesty and responsibility cannot be ignored or attenuated." At the same time, the Pope reminds us that economics do not eliminate the role of the state and requires "just laws." Calling to mind Centesimus Annus, he points to the "necessity of a system with three subjects: the market, the state and civil society" and calls for ways of "civilizing the economy." We need "economic forms based on solidarity." The market and politics need "individuals who are open to reciprocal gift" (§ 35-39).

In the fourth chapter, the encyclical deals with the development of people, rights and duties, and the environment. One can notice the "claims to a ‘right to excess'" in the affluent societies, while food and water are lacking in certain underdeveloped regions. "Individual rights when detached from a framework of duties can run wild." Rights and duties are in connection to an ethical context. If, on the other hand, their basis is only "to be found in the deliberations of an assembly of citizens," they are liable to be "changed at any time." Governments and international bodies must not forget "the objectivity and ‘inviolability' of rights" (§ 43). On this matter, one can dwell upon the "problems associated with population growth." It is a "mistake" to "consider population increase as the primary cause of underdevelopment." The Pope reaffirms that sexuality cannot be "reduced merely to pleasure or entertainment." One cannot regulate sexuality through "strategies of mandatory birth control." He then goes on to underline that "morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic resource." "States are called to enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family" (§ 44).

"The economy," he adds, "needs ethics in order to function correctly -- not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centered." The same centrality of the human person must be the guiding principle "in development programs" of international cooperation, in which the beneficiaries should always be involved. "International organizations might question the actual effectiveness of their bureaucratic machinery," "often excessively costly." The Pope notices that too often "the poor serve to perpetuate expensive bureaucracies." Hence his call for a "complete transparency" concerning funds received (§ 45-47).

The last paragraphs of the chapter are devoted to the environment. For the believer, nature is a gift of God to be used in a responsible way. In this context, our attention is brought to consider the energy problem. The fact that some states and power groups "hoard nonrenewable energy resources" constitutes "a grave obstacle to development in poor countries." Therefore, the international community should "find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of nonrenewable resources." "The technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption," while at the same time "encourage research into alternative forms of energy."

Basically, "what is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new lifestyles." A style which, up to now in most parts of the world, "is prone to hedonism and consumerism." The decisive issue, therefore, is "the overall moral tenor of society." The Pope goes on to caution: "If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death," "the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology," including that of environmental ecology (§ 48-52).

The cooperation of the human family is at the heart of the fifth chapter, in which Benedict XVI shows that "the development of peoples depend above all on a recognition that the human race is a single family." On the other hand, one can read that the Christian religion can contribute to development "only if God has a place in the public realm." By "denying the right to profess one's religion in public," politics "takes on a domineering and aggressive character." The Pope warns: "Secularism and fundamentalism exclude the possibility of fruitful dialogue" between reason and religious faith, a breach that "comes only at an enormous price to human development" (§ 53-56).

The Pope then examines the principle of subsidiarity, which offers a help to the human person "via the autonomy of intermediate bodies." Subsidiarity "is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state" and is well-suited to direct globalization towards its authentic human development. International aids "can sometimes lock people into a state of dependence," hence all subjects of the civil society, and not only the rulers, should be involved. "Too often, aid has served to create only fringe markets for the products" of these countries (§ 57-58). The Pope exhorts the economically developed nations to "allocate larger portions" of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations undertaken. He then advocates a greater access to education and more towards "the complete formation of the person," for relativism makes everyone poorer. An example is given by the perverse phenomenon of sex tourism. "It is sad to note that this activity takes place with the support of local governments, with silence from those in the tourists' countries of origin, and with the complicity of many of the tour operators" (§ 59-61).

The Pope then deals with the phenomenon of migration, with "epoch-making" proportions. "No country can be expected to address today's problems of migration by itself." Every migrant is "a human person" who "possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance." The Pope asks that the foreign workers not be considered as merchandise and shows the "direct link between poverty and unemployment." He pleads for a decent employment for all and invites the authorities other than those in politics to focus their attention on the workers of countries where their social rights are violated (§ 62-64).

Finance, "after its misuse which has wreaked such havoc on the real economy, needs to go back to being an instrument directed towards development." "Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity." In addition, the Pope calls for a "regulation of the financial sector" to safeguard weaker parties (§ 65-66).

The last paragraph of the chapter deals with the "strongly felt need" for a "reform of the U.N." and of the "economic institutions and international finance." There is an "urgent need of a true world political authority," which seeks to "observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity," an authority vested with "effective power." The Pope concludes with a call to establish "a greater degree of international ordering" for the management of globalization (§ 67).

The sixth and final chapter is centered on the development of peoples and technology. The Pope cautions us against the "Promethean presumption" which would have us believe that "humanity can re-create itself through the wonders of technology." Technology cannot have an "absolute freedom." "The process of globalization could replace ideologies with technology" (§ 68-72). Connected with technological development are the "means of social communications," called to promote "the dignity of persons and peoples" (§ 73).

A particularly crucial battleground in "today's cultural struggle between the supremacy of technology and human moral responsibility is the field of bioethics." The Pope goes on to add: "Reason without faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own omnipotence." The social question has become an "anthropological question." Research on fetuses and cloning is "being promoted by today's culture," believing it has "mastered every mystery." The Pope expresses his fear of a "systematic eugenic programming of births" (§ 74-75). He adds: "Development must include not just material growth but also spiritual growth." And he concludes by exhorting us to have a "new heart" in order to rise "above a materialistic vision of human events" (§ 76-77).

In his conclusion, the Pope underlines that development "needs Christians with their arms raised towards God in prayer"; it needs "love and forgiveness, self-denial, acceptance of others, justice and peace" (§ 78-79).