Two new saints: Archbishop Oscar Romero and Pope Paul VI

I am delighted with the news of the forthcoming canonisations of Archbishop Romero and Pope Paul VI, which emerged this last week.  Bishop Campbell has posted accounts of both the future saints at his weekly blog: Two new Saints for the Church.

As far as Archbishop Romero is concerned, I think it is important to go to original sources to learn about him as a person and about his work as a Bishop. I am unconvinced by the narrative of "sudden conversion" that is a feature of some accounts of his life.  I have always sensed an absolute continuity of faith, but a faith that responded to his changing mission in the Church. I recall, for example, a number of years ago attending a Paul VI lecture organised by CAFOD at which Maria Lopez Vigil spoke about Archbishop Romero. She was asked a question after her talk (by Peter Hebblethwaite, if I recall correctly - corrections via the comments if I have this wrong) which framed Archbishop Romero within the narrative of "sudden conversion". I remember chuckling to myself as Ms Lopez Vigil's answer to the question declined to take up such a view. Soon after Archbishop Romero's death, I placed him alongside Fr Jerzy Popieluszko in a talk, identifying both of them as martyrs for the truth about the human person (cf now the provisions of Maiorem Hac Dilectionem)

I remain convinced that, in recent decades, we have had Popes who have quite immediately been the most appropriate for their particular times. I include in that Pope Paul VI, who I consider to be very much underestimated, and Pope Francis. The denigration that both receive from certain quarters is, in my view, greatly to the discredit of those responsible for that denigration. There are a number of aspects of Christian life that I take for granted, and which have their modern day roots in the pontificate of Pope Paul VI: a vivid sense of the Christian life as an ecclesial life (witness for, example, Paul VI's Year of Faith and the Credo of the People of God), a vivid sense of the Marian dimension to ecclesial life (witness his proposal of the title Mother of the Church when the Council fathers had not taken it up, a proposal now taken up by Pope Francis in establishing a memoria in the universal calendar with precisely that dedication); and a deep responsiveness to the promptings of the Holy Spirit (it may never be possible to verify it historically, but I like to speculate that, at least in a general sense, that Humanae Vitae was written at a prompting of the Holy Spirit). All of these themes are recognisable in the exercise of his office by Pope Francis.

Pope Paul VI Memorial Lecture 2010 (2): more analysis

I promised some time ago that I would post a more analytical commment on the 2010 Pope Paul VI Memorial Lecture, when a full text was  available. The text has been published on the Tablet website, and I have been prompted to keep my promise by the reference to Haiti in Pope Benedict XVI's Urbi et Orbi address:

May the comforting message of the coming of Emmanuel ease the pain and bring consolation amid their trials to the beloved Christian communities in Iraq and throughout the Middle East; may it bring them comfort and hope for the future and bring the leaders of nations to show them effective solidarity. May it also be so for those in Haiti who still suffer in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake and the recent cholera epidemic.

The first point that can be made about Claudette Werleigh's lecture is what one might call a methodological point. She presents an account of the situation in Haiti, and then applies to that account by way of comment the thought of the magisterium of the Church through citation, for example, of Paul VI's encyclical Populorum Progressio or Benedict XVI's encyclical Caritas in Veritate.

A second key point in the lecture is the idea of "human flourishing", and the application of this idea in evaluating engagement with the disasters of earthquake and cholera in Haiti. Claudette Werleigh refers in particular to a paper by Celia Deane-Drummond to express this idea, but I have not been able to find the text of this paper. I believe that it was one of a number of background papers written to support the publication of the Theos/CAFOD/Tearfund document Wholly Living: a new perspective on international development. Chapter 3 of this publication develops something of the idea of "human flourishing", recognising its religious roots in an idea of man being made in the "image and likeness of God" but also indicating that it is an idea that is not restricted to Christians. I find the philosophical development of this idea in Wholly Living rather weak, though it can I believe be developed much more strongly within the context of a philosophy of the human person. In the context of Wholly Living and of the Paul VI Lecture, it is the application of this idea in the context of international development that is the primary interest, but I think it is nevertheless useful, even in this context, to develop the concept more fully. The application of the idea to just climate change and economic matters, whilst it might be politically attractive to an agency like CAFOD, is a restricted application. A fuller development of the idea of "human flourishing" would allow its application to a much wider range of questions, less directly relevant politically, but nevertheless relevant to international development in its full sense.

The third point of interest in the lecture lies in what Claudette Werleigh has to say about the part played by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO's) in the response to events in Haiti. Her remarks about the way in which NGO's have become almost an alternative to national sovereignty in Haiti are of interest. In one sense this represents an argument in favour of the partnership working - ie the idea that international development activity should be undertaken by supporting the work of local people in situ rather than by the bringing in of outside agencies - that has become an accepted practice in the work of aid agencies. In another way, it suggests a way of working for an international ecclesial organisation such as the Catholic Church, which of its nature is already in place in a country like Haiti. It also represents a critique of the way of operating of organisations such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund in their relation to NGO activity.

It is interesting to see, if the suggestions of Claudette Werleigh's citations of Paul VI and Benedict XVI are anything to go by, how prophetic Catholic social teaching is in its application to situations such as that in Haiti.

A final thought. At the beginning of her lecture, Claudette Werleigh recalled the founding charisms of both CAFOD and the organisation which she now leads, Pax Christi:

Today’s event is part of the celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of Cafod. I was very pleased to learn that CAFOD holds its roots in Family Fast Day, an event organised by women in support of a mother and child clinic in a far away country in another continent. Coincidentally, it was also a woman, Marthe Dortel-Claudot, who together with Pierre-Marie Théas, Bishop of Montauban, took the initiative to work for reconciliation between France and Germany. This initiative for peace is still being honoured and carried forward by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world as the Pax Christi movement.

Cafod and the organisation that I represent today, Pax Christi International, are determined to keep alive the legacy of Pope Paul VI. There is no doubt that we would be living now in a much better world if the recommendations given in the Encyclical letter, Populorum Progressio, had been put into practice!

CAFOD and condoms

CAFOD have issued a statement entitled: CAFOD welcomes Pope Benedict's comments on the possible use of condoms.

CAFOD welcomes Pope Benedict’s comments on the challenges for people posed by HIV and the possible use of condoms as one aspect of preventing infection.

They resonate with the real challenges that CAFOD has faced in discussion with our partners on the ground for many years and which we know Cardinals, Bishops and moral theologians have also wrestled with; the Pope’s comments will surely prove helpful in moving these discussions forward.

Given that Pope Benedict clearly stated that condom use was not a real or moral way to resolve the spread of HIV/AIDS, it is a bit difficult to work out exactly what it is that CAFOD are welcoming. Some will inevitably read just the "headline" as saying that CAFOD welcome a possible change in the Church's teaching, though the statement itself is worded very cautiously. Pope Benedict's remarks might have acknowledged a form of responsibility on the part of someone who uses a condom with the intention that by doing so the transmission of HIV will be prevented; but he certainly did not teach that such use is morally just and should therefore be advocated.

This is entirely consistent with CAFOD's own statement (January 2005) about condom use:

.... CAFOD neither funds nor advocates the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms. In this CAFOD seeks to exercise a role consistent with its Catholic character.

In the fourth paragraph of their statement, CAFOD refer to a range of economic and social conditions that make people vulnerable to HIV infection. In regions of the world such as Africa, questions of gender inequality and migration have a cultural context that is very different than that in a developed, Western country such as the United Kingdom. CAFOD are quite right to include the addressing of this cultural context within their work on HIV/AIDS, but we should take care reading their statement to recognise that the questions of gender inequality, for example, that are at stake are not the same questions as might be raised under that same heading in a European country.


CAFOD's 2005 statement on HIV prevention and condoms, which can be downloaded from this page on their website, is a helpful statement of CAFOD's position. It is instructive, I think, to re-read this statement alongside Pope Benedict's comments.

A letter to the Press

BBC Radio 4's Today programme, commenting on today's English newspapers, comments that CAFOD, Tearfund and Theos have written a letter (I think to the Times, though I can't recall for certain which newspaper) supporting yesterday's suggestion from the UK Government that a new, less strictly economic, measure of human wellbeing should be used. There is further relevant comment at Bridges and Tangents.

This is not an opportunistic response on the part of these three organisations, as they have just published a paper on precisely this topic: Wholly Living: a new perspective on international development. This can be downloaded from CAFOD's website. The notion of "human flourishing" that it develops has relevance to the Pope Paul VI lecture this year, though, without seeing the original text of that lecture, I am not sure that it was this paper that was being referred to. I expect that the letter will welcome the idea that the measurement of human well being is more than a question of economic indicators - but the paper itself goes further than just recognising this point.

The media, of course, will make of the letter what they want. To ridicule the intention of the letter as supporting some sort of "happiness indicator" is a serious instance of mis-representation. Whether the Government's proposal really does come up to the idea of "human flourishing" being developed in the CAFOD/Tearfund/Theos paper is yet to be seen, but the paper itself suggests much more than a superficial measure of happiness. Indeed, it refers to a rather different notion in talking about "human flourishing", though that notion might be seen as having an aspect that can be termed "happiness". And the context of the paper is that of overseas aid programmes, and how they should be undertaken and evaluated.

Without a detailed study of the CAFOD/Tearfund/Theos paper, I offer the following quotation from the Foreword:

If now is not the time to look beyond material indicators of well-being to an inclusive economic system that improves the quality of our relationships and embeds the practice of virtue in its intellectual and religious forms - then when?

We believe an economy re-stitched with the old, failed concepts of individualism and self-interest will continue to fail the people. We call for a new fabric which weaves into its global patterns the right social conditions for human flourishing.

And the following from the executive summary (in which the explicit reference to the religious forms of virtue of the Foreword is absent - though, of course, that the religious dimension is a vital part of "human flourishing" might well be a key part of a Christian understanding of that idea):

While recognising that money, freedom and choice are important, the report contends that our obsession with them has resulted in a radical devaluation of the social, cultural and environmental relationships that form us and that enable us to flourish as human beings. Human beings are not disconnected atoms, floating free in society, unencumbered by personal commitments, whose only good is to get the best deal for themselves. To treat them as such is to do them and the planet they inhabit a gross disservice. We need a more satisfying and more realistic vision of human flourishing on which to base our political and economic thinking.

Wholly Living argues that this can be located in the Christian understanding of human nature and of what it is to live well. This is a vision in which all humans are intrinsically creative and productive; all have the potential to contribute to our common good; all are relational, formed and fulfilled by a complex web of relationships; all are moral, with an ineradicable responsibility for one another; and that all have a vocation to cultivate the natural world conscientiously and sustainably. Ultimately, we flourish as humans when the conditions that allow us to live in right relationship and contribute generously to our common good are met.

CAFOD: give it up!

Amongst a certain section of the Catholic blogging community, I am afraid the title of this post is going to give the wrong impression of its contents! "Give it up!" is the strap line for CAFOD's fund raising campaign associated with its Lent fast day, not a suggestion for what you should do about CAFOD. The home page of the campaign is here, and a page with a series of videos giving ideas of how to give up something for Lent and donate to CAFOD the money saved or the sponsorship gained, is here. My favourite amongs the videos is the one about converting chocolate into bees. There is a bees nest in the wall of our block of flats which cannot be removed because of protection being given to bees as a result of recent disease causing a decimation in their numbers. But there are times I would quite happily see the back of the bees ...

CAFOD's idea is, of course, a profoundly traditional idea, and pushes two of the three major buttons for Lent, those of self-denial and of almsgiving. Those with a memory will perhaps be a little amused to see the return to "giving something up for Lent", after a certain fashion for "doing something positive instead". Self-denial can, I suspect, take both forms and still retain the character of self-denial - a choice with regard to an action, or a good to which I can justly have access, that requires of me an effort or commitment I might otherwise not make.

In a small way, this campaign also gives us an opportunity to reflect on the value of poverty in the Christian life, and this is can be more easily seen if something is given up. I refer here to a poverty that is chosen as a style of life, not the grinding poverty that is an offence to human dignity and which an organisation such as CAFOD works to overcome. This chosen poverty is an evangelical sign - it is rooted in the Gospel - and it is an eschatological sign - it indicates that our final home is not one here on earth but in heaven. It gives a supernatural dimension to the self-denial and almsgiving that are the most obvious positive points about CAFOD's Lenten campaign.

H/T Madame Evangelista.

Thinking faith on livesimply

Thinking Faith, the Jesuit on-line journal, has an interesting article entitled The Challenge to Live Simply. This is a very well articulated account of the livesimply project, and I think anyone who wishes to comment on that project should read this article. It is very easy to get drawn into commenting on livesimply without understanding its real basis - commenting on the comments, rather than on the original! If you read this article, I think that you will see that some genuinely Catholic insights are involved in the project; indeed, I would suggest that one can see in it elements of a genuine charism in the Church.

You need to read the Thinking Faith article to make sense of the following observations:

livesimply tends to express its approach to relationships in the order of relationships with other people followed by relationship with God (eg in the third paragraph) - Deus Caritas Est presents these two the other way round, the relationship with God being treated before that with other people. According to Cardinal Cordes, the drafting of Deus Caritas Est by the Pontifical Council Cor Unum put them the same way round as the livesimply project, and Pope Benedict deliberately changed the order round when he wrote the encyclical. This isn't to say that livesimply has got it wrong, since the essential point is that the two go together. But it may indicate a certain development in doctrine.

livesimply might be criticised for lacking a Christological reference in much of its work. The Thinking Faith article contains the following paragraph:

We have an incarnational faith. We believe that God became human in Jesus and therefore God became poor, powerless and vulnerable. The gospels tell the story of the life, mission and death of Jesus and this sets an example of how we should act towards others. Jesus stood out against the social and cultural expectations of his times in the way he interacted with the Pharisees, in the way his disciples understood him, and most of all on the cross. So it is with us; in a world of greed, selfishness and consumerism we are called to be good news for the poor.

I think this paragraph does give a ground for suggesting that the practise of the livesimply project should articulate a more explicit Christological reference. I think that reference can be developed more fully than this paragraph's presentation of Jesus as the example we follow, perhaps along the lines of Jesus as a redeemer of poverty through his assuming of poverty.

I think the paragraph headed "Living sustainably" recognises that the environmentalist aspect of livesimply does not really have its origins in Populorum Progressio, the encyclical that is the inspiration of the project as a whole. It is a "later insertion", though that does not necessarily make it erroneous. I think we should be cautious about accepting "kinship" with creation as a replacement for "subjugation". Whilst the latter word might not communicate successfully to contemporary sensitivities, the idea that the material created world is for the service of humankind and for him to use towards his own good (cf Genesis) is not necessarily adequately communicated by the word "kinship" either. Pope Benedict, when he is "talking green", presents creation as something to be valued and protected because of its being a manifestation of its Creator. His environmentalism has a Trinitarian and Christological reference, which could perhaps be drawn into the livesimply project as part of a development of its Christological reference.

The paragraph headed "Living simply" contains a one sentence reference to the evangelical counsel of poverty as lived out in consecrated life in the Church. Again, I think this allows us to see in livesimply a modern presentation of the evangelical counsel of poverty, without that being against the inspiration of the project. This would go hand in hand with a development of the Christological reference of livesimply. Towards the end of the article, a suggestion is made that livesimply could give rise to "basic Christian communities". This choice of terminology has a certain historical, ecclesial and political context. But the idea of people living life together under a chosen condition of poverty seems to me a profoundly Christian idea. Leaving aside a vocabulary with a particular political or social overtone, this could be seen, as are the new movements in the Church, as a contemporary way of living what would previously have been called religious life.

This paragraph, in the section headed "Living in solidarity", is perhaps unfortunate in opposing the religious practise of going to Mass to charitable mission. Completely resolvable, though, if the Christological reference implicit in livesimply is fully developed:

The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 reminds us that the final judgement will not be concerned with the things that usually enter our heads when we think of our religion – for example, how many times we attended Mass – but rather with how we behaved to Jesus when we encountered him in our brothers and sisters in need. Our prayer life and religious devotions are things that have to help and sustain us in our desire for the common good.

I think it is possible to see in livesimply elements of a genuine charism in the Church, to see things that could lead to genuine renewal in the living of the evangelical counsel of poverty in the Church. Its call to turn away from materialism, from the desire for more and more things, and towards a more spiritual life is something that I think Pope Benedict would support wholeheartedly.

The Splendour of Charity - Cardinal Cordes to the Bishops of England and Wales

I have just read (one month late!) the address that Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum gave to the meeting of the Bishops of England and Wales in Leeds in April. The full text can be found on the website of the Bishops Conference. The Pontifical Council Cor Unum is the Vatican office "entrusted by the Holy Father with giving concrete signs of love and charity". Cardinal Cordes showed himself to be very familiar with the situation in England and Wales, referring to legislative pressures on Catholic institutions in the areas of adoption and education, and making an indirect reference to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor's action with regard to the Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth and to the challenge

At one point in his address, Cardinal Cordes gives the following account of how the encyclical Deus Caritas Est came into being:

"Since Cor Unum is directly concerned with the praxis of the Church’s love for our fellow human beings, Pope John Paul II had asked that I prepare for him a preliminary draft of a papal writing on charity. My intention was to begin with an inductive presentation: reflections on the general willingness of people to provide help today, followed by a description of Christian initiatives that exist, moving in the end to the rooting of love of neighbour in God. The former Cardinal Ratzinger was aware of my writings. When he was elected Pope, he decided to publish an Encyclical on charity, but he totally reversed my intended order. His starting point is Revelation’s central message: “God is love.” He initiates the Encyclical with a drumbeat, proclaiming the absolute precedence of Him “Who has first loved us” (1Jn 4:10), both in the order of time and in the scale of values."

With hindsight, this God-centredness of the encyclical appears very obvious; but Cardinal Cordes account of the background to the encyclical brings it into a new relief. Cardinal Cordes also draws attention to an idea that was completely new to me. This is the idea that Deus Caritas Est is an encyclical that needs to be implemented, that there is a course of action to be followed in response to the encyclical. Whilst this is something in which all members of the Church have a part to play, Cardinal Cordes believes a primary responsibility rests with the Bishops of the church:

"There is no doubt that Deus caritas est directs itself to various groups in the Church. Nevertheless, the main burden of responsibility for its implementation in dioceses and parishes is placed squarely on the shoulders of the Bishops. It is not only the pastoral realism of the Pope, but also theological reasons that make the ordained Pastors the principle target group for the Encyclical."

The theological reasons referred to are the threefold mission of the Church, particularly entrusted to a Bishop at the time of his episcopal consecration: of teaching the word (martyria, or witness), of celebrating the mystery of redemption (leitourgia) and of active charity (diakonia). The Bishop has an obligation of oversight in all three of these areas.

"Some Catholic aid agencies actively avoid acknowledging this fact and sometimes Bishops themselves fail to exercise their legitimate and necessary oversight, leading to approaches that are predominantly political or economic to the neglect of revealing through love of neighbour the love of the God of Jesus Christ."

In a section headed Christ: the Model of Charity, Cardinal Cordes says:

"The attentive reader of Sacred Scripture clearly sees that the charitable gestures of Jesus and the compassion of the first Christians were always intended to point to the loving-kindness of the heavenly Father."

And the implication of this is drawn in the next section, headed Protecting the Heritage:

"For this reason, it falls still today to Christians, and, in a special way the Church’s Pastors, to be attentive. In other words: Catholic charitable organisations should be careful not to forget the meaning of their activity, influenced perhaps by the present climate or excessive reliance on public funds. The question is one of fostering the Christian roots of the Church’s activity and so preserving the “splendour” of our identity as Catholic charitable institutions."

To express this in a language more familiar to those of us involved in Catholic education, this is to see charitable activity as a first step of evangelisation, that is, the stage of presence in charity to our neighbours. It certainly should not be explicitly prosletysing, but it nevertheless has a Christian identity.

Cardinal Cordes also highlights a Change of Paradigm that he sees in Deus Caritas Est:

"Until now, the Church’steaching on the struggle against misery – like the social encyclicals – dealt with public defects, goals and programs; they addressed factual problems and they insisted on concrete changes outside of oneself. Besides all this, Deus caritas est turns now decisively to committed persons: the Pope wishes to shape the life of the actors through a “formation of the heart” (n. 31a). So, for the first time, he formulates basic guidelines for a “spirituality” of those working in help-agencies.

"Clearly the first preoccupation of Caritas cannot intend to change society and
unjust structures. It is the human heart that makes the structures. Therefore, the essential requirement for action – as the Pope says – is to “be persons moved by Christ’s love, persons whose hearts Christ has conquered with his love, awakening them with a love ofneighbour” (n. 33)."

So, what are the issues for the implementation of Deus Caritas Est here in England and Wales? I suggest the following two, one at the level of an organisation the other at the level of individuals:

1. CAFOD's annual review for 2006-7 records £7.6m of income as coming from "Government and other grants"; £13.4m came through the Disasters Emergency Committee; £26.0m directly from CAFOD supporters; £3.7m from the Caritas Network; £1.4m from trading and interest earned. The questions for implementation here are about if there are any conditions attached to the income from Government and other grants. But there does seem to be a strong voluntary support base to reflect a Christian identity and so withstand any loss of Government income should that become necessary.

2. The Catholic Herald of 6th May reports that the Nottingham diocesan adoption agency will cut its ties with the diocese because it cannot follow Catholic teaching and comply with gay rights legislation: "From October it will merge with Family Care, the adoption agency of the Anglican Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham, to form a new agency, but one which will not be formally linked to the Churches and will be able to place children in the care of gay couples." This does leave unanswered the question of how the staff of the agency will live up to the God-ward orientation of Christian charity, as presumably any Catholic staff will face the possibility of being expected to act against Catholic teaching.

A Newsletter Notice: continued continued

I have just posted the following comment to a post at hermeneutic of continuity. Fr Tim has posted some background on CAFOD and the Lent Fast Day. I re-post my comment here, and link to Fr Tim's post, because the catechetical implications of Fr Tim's background reflect those in my earlier posts on A Newsletter Notice (here and here).

Thank you for a useful and informative post. I had not recognised the drift away from "Family" via "CAFOD" to a branding that uses "Lent" as a cultural term somewhat detached from its specifically Christian meaning. Your post, and our earlier discussion on the "conversio ad creata", suggest that, even expressed in just human terms, this branding of what should be an exercise in Christian charity [ie where the act of alms giving grows out of an act of faith in Christ - cf Deus Caritas Est] is off beam.

Fr Tim also indicates some other charities to which you might contribute if you share concerns about CAFOD.

A Newsletter Notice

I am having difficulty understanding the following notice which I saw in a parish newsletter this weekend, and was wondering whether anyone could help shed some light on it.

Friday 15th February is Family Fast Day when we are encouraged to FAST [I can understand what this means, though I am not very good at it] and PRAY [I can understand this as well, and might be a bit better at it than I am at fasting, because I try it more often] and think about our relationship with creation. [This is the bit that defeats me.] A retiring collection will be taken up at all Masses next weekend for CAFOD. [I can understand this sentence in isolation, but am struggling to see its connection with thinking about my relationship to creation.]