Jubilee of Artists and the World of Culture

The days 15-18th February 2025 are being marked as a Jubilee of Artists and the World of Culture. The Press Conference held ahead of the event is reported here.

The Constitution Gaudium et Spes (n.53) explains the idea of culture as follows:

Man comes to a true and full humanity only through culture, that is through the cultivation of the goods and values of nature. Wherever human life is involved, therefore, nature and culture are quite intimately connected one with the other.

The word "culture" in its general sense indicates everything whereby man develops and perfects his many bodily and spiritual qualities; he strives by his knowledge and his labor, to bring the world itself under his control. He renders social life more human both in the family and the civic community, through improvement of customs and institutions. Throughout the course of time he expresses, communicates and conserves in his works, great spiritual experiences and desires, that they might be of advantage to the progress of many, even of the whole human family.

Pope St John Paul II was in his lifetime a strong proponent of a correct understanding of the idea of culture, both in his philosophical studies and in his exercise of his mission as the Successor of St Peter. His address to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) on 2nd June 1980, during a visit to Paris, contains much of his thinking on the subject and offers analyses of different questions arising with regard to the understanding of culture. My excerpts cannot do it justice, in particular with regard to the way in which it responds to the challenges Pope St John Paul II sees in different aspects of the contemporary situation with regard to culture.

[The] fundamental dimension is man, man in his fullness, man who lives at the same time in the sphere of material values and in that of spiritual values. Respect for the inalienable rights of the human person is at the basis of everything. [n.4]

Man is the subject of culture in that it arises from his own activity; and he is the object of culture in that it is through culture that he becomes more fully man. 

One cannot think of a culture without human subjectivity and without human causality; in the cultural field, man is always the first fact: man is the primordial and fundamental fact of human culture.

And man is always that: in the completeness of his spiritual and material subjectivity.

If the distinction between spiritual and material culture is correct in terms of the character and the content of the products in which culture is manifested, it is necessary to note at the same time that, on one hand, the works of material culture make apparent always a "spiritualisation" of the material, a submission of the material element to the spiritual forces of man, that is to say, to his intelligence and to his will; and on the other hand, the works of spiritual culture show, in a specific way, a "materialisation" of the spirit, an incarnation of that which is spiritual.

In cultural works, this double characteristic appears to be equally primordial and equally permanent.[n.8]

In taking note of the educational dimension of culture, Pope St John Paul II argues that man needs to develop his culture both with others and for others, and so culture becomes not only an individual possession but also a shared heritage. In this light, he asserts a right of a Nation in relation to its culture:

The Nation is in effect a large community of men who are united by varied links, but above all, precisely, by culture. The Nation exists "by" culture and "for" culture, and it is therefore the great educator of men that they may "be more" in the community.

It is this community that possesses a history that goes beyond the history of the individual and of the family....

There exists a fundamental sovereignty of a society which is manifest in the culture of a Nation. [n.14]

 In his Letter to Artists of April 1999, Pope St John Paul II speaks more specifically of the vocation of the artist:

A noted Polish poet, Cyprian Norwid, wrote that “beauty is to enthuse us for work, and work is to raise us up”.

The theme of beauty is decisive for a discourse on art. It was already present when I stressed God's delighted gaze upon creation. In perceiving that all he had created was good, God saw that it was beautiful as well. The link between good and beautiful stirs fruitful reflection. In a certain sense, beauty is the visible form of the good, just as the good is the metaphysical condition of beauty. ...

It is in living and acting that man establishes his relationship with being, with the truth and with the good. The artist has a special relationship to beauty. In a very true sense it can be said that beauty is the vocation bestowed on him by the Creator in the gift of “artistic talent”. [n.3]

 After surveying the way in which art and the Gospel have been connected through history, a theme that is also present in the address to UNESCO, the letter ends with an appeal to artists:

Mine is an invitation to rediscover the depth of the spiritual and religious dimension which has been typical of art in its noblest forms in every age. It is with this in mind that I appeal to you, artists of the written and spoken word, of the theatre and music, of the plastic arts and the most recent technologies in the field of communication. I appeal especially to you, Christian artists: I wish to remind each of you that, beyond functional considerations, the close alliance that has always existed between the Gospel and art means that you are invited to use your creative intuition to enter into the heart of the mystery of the Incarnate God and at the same time into the mystery of man.... [n.14]

Beauty is a key to the mystery and a call to transcendence. It is an invitation to savour life and to dream of the future. That is why the beauty of created things can never fully satisfy. It stirs that hidden nostalgia for God which a lover of beauty like Saint Augustine could express in incomparable terms: “Late have I loved you, beauty so old and so new: late have I loved you!”.[n.16]

The Holy See and the United Nations: the Holy See's reservations against the Sustainable Development Goals

 I have already noted (here) that, through its Permanent Observer status at the United Nations, the Holy See can have its documents with respect to the work of the UN circulated as official documents of the organisation, and that it is able to state "reservations" (in effect, objections) with regard to positions adopted by the UN, and to have those reservations circulated.

Some quarters are strident in their criticism of the Holy See for the support that it offers to the UN's sustainable development goals. It is, however, worth looking carefully at the reservations that the Holy See has recorded against those goals and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Holy See's advocacy of the sustainable development goals is explicitly qualified by these reservations, and perhaps more is to be gained by widening knowledge of the reservations than by criticism of the Holy See on grounds that are actually answered by the reservations.

These reservations have been expressed consistently by the Holy See Mission to the UN. In an early form, these reservations were expressed as follows:

(1) With reference to “sexual and reproductive health”, so-called “reproductive rights,” “family planning” and other language on which the Holy See has registered reservations at Cairo and Beijing, we reiterate these reservations as set out more fully in the Report of the ICPD and in the Beijing Platform for Action. In particular, the ICPD rejects recourse to abortion for family planning, denies that it creates any new rights in this regard. 

(2) With respect to so-called “education” or “information” on “sexuality”, my Delegation reaffirms the “primary responsibility” and the “prior rights” of parents, including their right to religious freedom, when it comes to the education and upbringing of their children, as enshrined, inter alia, in the UDHR and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

(3) By “gender” my Delegation understands to mean “male or female” only, and to have no meaning other than the customary and general usage of the term.

 These reservations are expressed in a more developed form in a response to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Firstly, in reference to the language of "sexual and reproductive health" and rights that might derive from it:

Regarding the terms "sexual and reproductive health" and "reproductive rights", the Holy See considers these terms as applying to a holistic concept of health, which embrace, each in their own way, the person in the entirety of his or her personality, mind and body, and which foster the achievement of personal maturity in sexuality and in the mutual love and decision-making that characterize the conjugal-relationship between a man and a woman in accordance with moral norms. The Holy See does not consider abortion or access to abortion or abortifacients as a dimension of these terms.

With reference to the terms "contraception", "family planning", "sexual and reproductive health", "sexual and reproductive rights", “reproductive rights”, and any other terms regarding family-planning services and regulation of fertility concepts in the document, the Holy See reaffirms its well-known position concerning those family-planning methods which the Catholic Church considers morally acceptable and, on the other hand, family-planning services which do not respect the liberty of the spouses, human dignity and the human rights of those concerned.

 And a reservation which refers to the term "gender", and is welcome in providing a basis on which others can engage in a dialogue in wider society from a like position:

With reference to "gender", the Holy See understands the term to be grounded in the biological sexual identity that is male or female.

The last reservation is with regard to education:

With respect to "education" or "information" on "sexuality", the Holy See reiterates the "primary responsibility" and the "prior rights" of parents, including their right to religious freedom, when it comes to the education and upbringing of their children, as enshrined, inter alia, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In that sense, the Holy See wishes to underline the centrality of the family, “the natural and fundamental group unit of society,” as well as the role and rights and duties of parents to educate their children. 

International Day of Human Fraternity

Today, the 4th February 2021, marks the first celebration of the International Day of Human Fraternity, following a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in December 2020.

It is interesting on this day to re-read the document on human fraternity adopted by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, on the 4th February 2019, a document which can be seen as a forerunner of the UN resolution. That resolution was introduced by the representative of the United Arab Emirates; and it was during Pope Francis' visit to the UAE that the document on human fraternity was promulgated.

It is important, I think, to read the Pope and Grand Imam's document in its entirety, and not to focus on the one sentence in the whole that provoked criticism. Indeed, a reading of the whole puts that one sentence into a clear context.

Three paragraphs are offered below, chosen in a somewhat random way; but do read the whole.

This Declaration, setting out from a profound consideration of our contemporary reality, valuing its successes and in solidarity with its suffering, disasters and calamities, believes firmly that among the most important causes of the crises of the modern world are a desensitized human conscience, a distancing from religious values and a prevailing individualism accompanied by materialistic philosophies that deify the human person and introduce worldly and material values in place of supreme and transcendental principles....

It is clear in this context how the family as the fundamental nucleus of society and humanity is essential in bringing children into the world, raising them, educating them, and providing them with solid moral formation and domestic security. To attack the institution of the family, to regard it with contempt or to doubt its important role, is one of the most threatening evils of our era....

The first and most important aim of religions is to believe in God, to honour Him and to invite all men and women to believe that this universe depends on a God who governs it. He is the Creator who has formed us with His divine wisdom and has granted us the gift of life to protect it. It is a gift that no one has the right to take away, threaten or manipulate to suit oneself. Indeed, everyone must safeguard this gift of life from its beginning up to its natural end. We therefore condemn all those practices that are a threat to life such as genocide, acts of terrorism, forced displacement, human organ trafficking, abortion and euthanasia. We likewise condemn the policies that promote these practices....

The Holy See and the United Nations: Permanent Observer Status

 The Holy See is a distinctive player when it comes to the world of diplomacy. It is perhaps captured by the role of the Apostolic Nuncio, who is both a representative to the local Church in a country or region and an accredited representative to the civil government of the country (where the Holy See enjoys diplomatic relations with the country). They thus bring a spiritual representation into encounter with a political representation.

The representation of the Holy See at the United Nations is similarly distinctive - it is the status of a Permanent Observer. The purpose of the Permanent Observer Mission at the United Nations is expressed at the website of the Mission: Discover the Mission.

The Holy See Mission at the United Nations in New York follows attentively and with interest the work of the United Nations Organization. In this forum, the Holy See Mission communicates the centuries’ experience of the Catholic Church to humanity, and places this experience at the disposal of the United Nations to assist it in its realization of peace, justice, human dignity and humanitarian cooperation and assistance.....In its activities at the United Nations, the Holy See Mission works to advance freedom of religion and respect for the sanctity of all human life - from conception to natural death - and thus all aspects of authentic human development including, for example, marriage and family, the primary role of parents, adequate employment, solidarity with the poor and suffering, ending violence against women and children, poverty eradication, food, basic healthcare and education.

This mission has been clearly reflected in the speeches to the UN General Assembly of recent Popes: Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. 

 A UN General Assembly Resolution of 16th July 2004 defined the position of the Holy See with regard to the United Nations: The Status of the Holy See at the United Nations with additional explanation here. Roughly speaking, this status allows the representatives of the Holy See to play a part in the debates of the General Assembly similar to that of full member states, but without the possibility of voting or of directly sponsoring draft resolutions in their own right.

There are perhaps two additional points worthy of note, one of which is referred to in the annex of the General Assembly Resolution and the second of which is only implied. The Holy See Mission is allowed to have its communications with regard to the work of the United Nations circulated as official documents of the General Assembly or of the relevant conference held under the auspices of the General Assembly. This engagement with the work of the United Nations is therefore a valuable opportunity for the Holy See to make known Catholic positions to key representatives of the international community of nations. There is within this mechanism a key way in which the Holy See communicates its view if it wishes to record its dissent from a position adopted by the General Assembly or another UN body. It records and publishes "reservations" against the paragraphs or sections of such a position.

And it is important to recall the substance of these reservations when, for example, the Church speaks on a matter such as the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Holy See and the United Nations: Pope Francis video message to the General Assembly September 2020

 On 25th September 2020, a meeting of the UN General Assembly took place to  mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of the UN. It was largely an on-line event as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel restrictions associated with it. Pope Francis poke to the Assembly by way of  a  video message. A report of Pope Francis address can be found at the Vatican News website: Pope to UN: Rethink the future of our common home (though the headline can give a misleading impression of the content of the address). A text in English can be found at the website of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the UN: Address of His Holiness, Pope Francis, to the United Nations General Assembly (2020).

It is certainly worth a careful read of the complete text. Whilst the speech is given in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Pope Francis reflects, in the range of his different subjects, the same underlying concerns that we saw in Pope John Paul II's address to the General Assembly, namely a commitment to the human rights expressed in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the dignity of the human person. We can see Pope Francis' specific remarks on, for example, social and economic questions such as unemployment, as an application of these principles to particular situations. Indeed, it is interesting to read Pope Francis' address alongside the Universal Declaration in order to recognise the implicit references as well as the explicit references. As with Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis' address assumes the Declaration of Human Rights as a key basis for the engagement of the Holy See with the United Nations.

In the context of the response to COVID-19, Pope Francis draws attention to one of the less well known articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, which includes a right to health care:

The pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to promote public health and to make every person’s right to basic medical care a reality.[3]  For this reason, I renew my appeal to political leaders and the private sector to spare no effort to ensure access to Covid-19 vaccines and to the essential technologies needed to care for the sick.  If anyone should be given preference, let it be the poorest, the most vulnerable, those who so often experience discrimination because they have neither power nor economic resources.

An implicit reference to Article 23 can be seen in Pope Francis' remarks on unemployment:

There is an urgent need to find new forms of work truly capable of fulfilling our human potential and affirming our dignity.  In order to ensure dignified employment, there must be a change in the prevailing economic paradigm, which seeks only to expand companies’ profits.  Offering jobs to more people should be one of the main objectives of every business, one of the criteria for the success of productive activity.  Technological progress is valuable and necessary, provided that it serves to make people’s work more dignified and safe, less burdensome and stressful.

There are implicit references to Article 3 (the right to life) and Article 26 (the right to education) in this passage:

Millions of children are presently unable to return to school.  In many parts of the world, this situation risks leading to an increase in child labour, exploitation, abuse and malnutrition.  Sad to say, some countries and international institutions are also promoting abortion as one of the so-called “essential services” provided in the humanitarian response to the pandemic.  It is troubling to see how simple and convenient it has become for some to deny the existence of a human life as a solution to problems that can and must be solved for both the mother and her unborn child. 

The reference here to Article 16 is explicit, and we can clearly see Pope Francis' understanding of the family as being founded in the relationship of a woman and a man:

The first teachers of every child are his or her mother and father, the family, which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society”.[15]  All too often, the family is the victim of forms of ideological colonialism that weaken it and end up producing in many of its members, especially the most vulnerable, the young and the elderly, a feeling of being orphaned and lacking roots.  The breakdown of the family is reflected in the social fragmentation that hinders our efforts to confront common enemies. 

In concluding his address, Pope Francis indirectly takes to task the Security Council of the United Nations for its failure to act in some circumstances of recent years (the situation in Syria, for example, where vetoes by permanent members of the Security Council have hindered initiatives):

In addition, our strife-ridden world needs the United Nations to become an ever more effective international workshop for peace.  This means that the members of the Security Council, especially the Permanent Members, must act with greater unity and determination.  In this regard, the recent adoption of a global cease-fire during the present crisis is a very noble step, one that demands good will on the part of all for its continued implementation.  Here I would also reiterate the importance of relaxing international sanctions that make it difficult for states to provide adequate support for their citizens....

The pandemic has shown us that we cannot live without one another, or worse still, pitted against one another.  The United Nations was established to bring nations together, to be a bridge between peoples.  Let us make good use of this institution in order to transform the challenge that lies before us into an opportunity to build together, once more, the future we all desire.

The Holy See and the United Nations: Pope John Paul II addresses the General Assembly in 1979

 Pope John Paul II addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations in October 1979, at the invitation of the organisation's Secretary-General. A full text of his address is at the Vatican website: here. Audio of his address is at the United Nations audiovisual library, in two parts: part 1 and part 2. The language of delivery was English; the spoken form was shortened, but the full original text was published for the members of the United Nations. The observations below are based on the text as published at the Vatican website.

After expressing the historic confidence and support of the Holy See for the work of the United Nations, Pope John Paul II asserts that it is the religious and moral character of the mission of the Church that is the foundation of this confidence:

This confidence and conviction on the part of the Apostolic See is the result, as I have said, not of merely political reasons but of the religious and moral character of the mission of the Roman Catholic Church. As a universal community embracing faithful belonging to almost all countries and continents, nations, peoples, races, languages and cultures, the Church is deeply interested in the existence and activity of the Organization whose very name tells us that it unites and associates nations and States. It unites and associates: it does not divide and oppose. It seeks out the ways for understanding and peaceful collaboration, and endeavours with the means at its disposal and the methods in its power to exclude war, division and mutual destruction within the great family of humanity today.

 There are two key points that can be identified in the body of Pope John Paul's address. The first is what the Pope sees as the absolutely foundational standing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the mission of the United Nations, where, in his words, it is "placed as the basic inspiration and cornerstone of the United Nations Organisation":

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights—with its train of many declarations and conventions on highly important aspects of human rights, in favour of children, of women, of equality between races, and especially the two international covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and on civil and political rights—must remain the basic value in the United Nations Organization with which the consciences of its members must be confronted and from which they must draw continual inspiration.

Pope John Paul takes this Declaration as the reference point for all his remarks, including when he takes up the theme of Paul VI in advocating for peace in the world and in his discussion of some specific contemporary situations.

The second point is the insistence that the specific rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration are all directed towards the dignity of the human person. Referring to the Declaration, Pope John Paul says:

The governments and States of the world have understood that, if they are not to attack and destroy each other, they must unite. The real way, the fundamental way to this is through each human being, through the definition and recognition of and respect for the inalienable rights of individuals and of the communities of peoples....

These rights concern the satisfaction of man's essential needs, the exercise of his freedoms, and his relationship with others; but always and everywhere they concern man, they concern man's full human dimension.

A large section of the Pope's address looks at threats to rights that refer to the material dimensions of the human person and then to threats that refer to the spiritual dimension of the person. 

If then we are looking for principles that seek to define why the Holy See maintains an interest  in the work of the United Nations Organisation, Pope John Paul offers two: a foundational role for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the orientation of the rights contained in that Declaration towards both the material and spiritual dignity of the human person.

[As an incidental comment: the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enjoins on member states of the United Nations to promote the rights contained in the Declaration and "by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance". Legal provisions, therefore, are intended to protect human rights, and not to in some way confer such rights, rights which already exist from the dignity of every human person. In a time characterised by the language of "equalities" rather than of "human rights", where legal provisions are perceived as conferring new rights, Pope John Paul's anchoring of the engagement of the Holy See with the United Nations in the foundational role of the Universal Declaration is of significance.]

The Holy See and the United Nations: Paul VI

 In October 1965, during the meeting of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI paid a visit to the United Nations. The then Secretary General of the United Nations had invited the Holy Father to speak to the General Assembly in marking the twentieth anniversary of the organisation. Paul VI himself described this visit as a moment "bearing the imprint of a unique greatness", both for himself and for the United Nations. The full English text of Pope Paul's address can be found here at the Vatican website; the United Nations website carries a radio report, in English, of his visit here, a report that conveys something of the high expectations surrounding Pope Paul's visit. The address was originally delivered in French: text at the Vatican website here and audio on the United Nations site here. 

Pope Paul's speech is memorable for its impassioned plea for peace:

Here our message reaches its culmination and we will speak first of all negatively. These are the words you are looking for us to say and the words we cannot utter without feeling aware of their seriousness and solemnity: never again one against the other, never, never again!

Was not this the very end for which the United Nations came into existence: to be against war and for peace? Listen to the clear words of a great man who is no longer with us, John Kennedy, who proclaimed four years ago: "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." There is no need for a long talk to proclaim the main purpose of your Institution. It is enough to recall that the blood of millions, countless unheard-of sufferings, useless massacres and frightening ruins have sanctioned the agreement that unites you with an oath that ought to change the future history of the world: never again war, never again war! It is peace, peace, that has to guide the destiny of the nations of all mankind!

 But what I would like to explore is those sections of Pope Paul's address which indicate how he, and in his person the Holy See, understood the nature of the organisation that is the United Nations. 

You offer the many States which can no longer ignore each other a form of coexistence that is extremely simple and fruitful. First of all, you recognize them and distinguish them from each other. Now you certainly do not confer existence on States, but you do qualify each nation as worthy of being seated in the orderly assembly of peoples. You confer recognition of lofty moral and juridical value upon each sovereign national community and you guarantee it an honorable international citizenship.

There are two components in this paragraph. The first is a recognition that each of the individual states is not able to ignore the others; the behaviours of any one state have an influence on the behaviours of other states. And then secondly, in this context, the UN is recognises for each national community a "moral and juridical value" in a relationship to the like value of every other state, what the speech terms "international citizenship". Each national community is recognised as being of account in the consideration of every other national community. "Your vocation is to bring not just some peoples but all peoples together as brothers", to use the words Pope Paul used later in his address. This same paragraph ends with the following sentence which, though it does not require further exposition, is nevertheless significant for its implications for what should govern the relations between states:

You [ie the UN] sanction the great principle that relationships between nations must be regulated by reason, justice, law and negotiation, and not by force, violence, war, nor indeed by fear and deceit.

Pope Paul identifies a mission of working for peace as being characteristic of the nature of the United Nations:

Gentlemen, you have accomplished and are now in the course of accomplishing a great work: you are teaching men peace. The United Nations is the great school where people get this education and we are here in the assembly hall of this school. Anyone who takes his place here becomes a pupil and a teacher in the art of building peace. And when you go outside of this room, the world looks to you as the architects and builders of peace.

As you know very well, peace is not built merely by means of politics and a balance of power and interests. It is built with the mind, with ideas, with the works of peace. You are working at this great endeavor, but you are only at the beginning of your labors.

We do now have many more years experience of the work of the United Nations than were available to Pope Paul in 1965, an experience during which the deliberations of the UN Security Council in particular have not infrequently been the scene of exactly the politics of power and individual interests (think, for example, of the lack of action with regard to Syria since the civil war broke out there) to which Pope Paul drew attention. Reading Pope Paul's words today makes us feel that those words need to be repeated again to recall the members of the United Nations to their essential vocation.

To speak of humaneness and generosity is to echo another constitutional principle of the United Nations, its positive summit: you are working here not just to eliminate conflicts between States, but to make it possible for States to work for each other. You are not content with facilitating coexistence between nations. You are taking a much bigger step forward, one worthy of our praise and our support: you are organizing fraternal collaboration between nations..... This is the finest aspect of the United Nations Organization, its very genuine human side....

What you are proclaiming here are the basic rights and duties of man, his dignity, his liberty and above all his religious liberty. We feel that you are spokesmen for what is loftiest in human wisdom - we might almost say its sacred character - for it is above all a question of human life, and human life is sacred; no one can dare attack it.

We do not need to say anything further on this dimension of the work of the United Nations as identified by Pope Paul, beyond perhaps suggesting that Pope Paul is identifying an idea of international fraternity in its work that would later become the subject of Pope Francis' encyclical Fratelli Tutti.

Whilst these passages indicate something of how Pope Paul understood the nature and mission of the United Nations, an earlier part of his address offers what might rather be seen as a prudential judgement of the UN as being "the obligatory path of modern civilization and world peace":

Permit us to say that we have a message, and a happy one, to hand over to each one of you Our message is meant to be first of all a solemn moral ratification of this lofty Institution, and it comes from our experience of history. It is as an "expert on humanity" that we bring this Organization the support and approval of our recent predecessors, that of the Catholic hierarchy, and our own, convinced as we are that this Organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and world peace.

Whilst it may not be perfect - and Pope Paul recognised that the United Nations was setting out on its path rather than having achieved its purpose - this is an organisation to which support should be given.

[Postscript: it is also worth noting that Pope Paul referred, in a very diplomatic way, to some specific issues in his address - disarmament, birth control, the economic and social progress of poorer nations, literacy and culture.]

Pope Francis to the US Congress and to the United Nations

I think Abbey Roads is right - stay away from the "the naysayers, the doomsayers, the schism-mongers, the negative-mean-spirited people who seem to be so convinced of their own righteousness and despise everyone else.  Those who bind up heavy burdens too heavy to carry without lifting a finger to help..... We know who we are."

Go straight to the source.

Pope Francis to the United States Congress.

Pope Francis to the United Nations.

Pope Francis visit to the United States Congress has a parallel to the visit of Pope Benedict to the Palace of Westminster during the visit to the United Kingdom in 2010. The warmth of the reception given to the visiting Pope on both occasions is remarkable. Where Pope Benedict's audience was very strictly non-partisan in responding to his words, it would appear that the members of Congress were very obviously partisan as sections of the audience applauded different parts of the address. I have printed off both addresses to study side by side.

 

I have just read the address to the United Nations. I loved it. I don't think anyone can read that text and not recognise that Pope Francis' teaching on ecological questions is firmly integrated with a teaching on the dignity and rights of each and every human person - the "integral ecology" of Laudato si  - and clearly distinct from any merely ideological or political motivation. The sense of the Holy See's engagement with the Agenda for Sustainable Development has, I think, a clear outline in this address.

 

Viva Papa Franceso!

Ban Ki-Moon's address to Vatican workshop on climate change: reflections on policy, science and the religions

On Tuesday of this week, the Pontifical Academy of Science and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences co-hosted a workshop entitled Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity: The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Humanity. As one of the organisers of the workshop recognised, the workshop engaged the three fields of science, of morality (and therefore of the religions) and of policy.

The General Secretary of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon gave a keynote address to the workshop. Two texts are available, a fuller text at he website of the United Nations and shorter text at the website of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences whose premises hosted the workshop.

From the point of view of science, I think it is fair to say that Ban Ki-moon spoke as if the science on climate change is one single, monolithic body of work:

Together, we must clearly communicate that the science of climate change is deep, sound and not in doubt.

Climate change is occurring – now -- and human activities are the principal cause.

According to this report, however, Martin Rees, a leading UK scientist, did acknowledge elements of uncertainty, or perhaps pluralism, in the science of climate change, though without in any sense advocating a climate change sceptic position. There is a danger that, in discussing the science of climate change as if it is a single entity rather than a phenomenon of multiple dimensions, it becomes an ideology that is imposed rather than a truth that is embraced. [I am no expert on the science of climate change, but it is generally of the nature of science that, even in areas of consensus, there will be different dimensions that make up the whole.]

From the point of view of religion and science, one wonders whether Ban Ki-moon, as a policy maker, reached beyond his competence when he said:

[Climate change] is a moral issue. It is an issue of social justice, human rights and fundamental ethics.

We have a profound responsibility to protect the fragile web of life on this Earth, and to this generation and those that will follow.

That is why it is so important that the world’s faith groups are clear on this issue – and in harmony with science.

Science and religion are not at odds on climate change. Indeed, they are fully aligned.

Whilst one would expect that the exercise of human reason that is the science of climate change does align with the exercise of faith that is religious belief, whether or not there is an alignment in terms of practical measures to respond to climate change - an implication of Ban Ki-moon's statement - is another question altogether. And in any case, the judgement of an alignment in terms of science and faith lies within the competence of scientists and believers, not a policy maker like Ban Ki-moon.

And with my third observation, I may be betraying an over-sensitivity to a philosophical nicety. I think there is only one point in the whole address where Ban Ki-moon refers to the human person, and that is when he quotes Pope Francis:

As His Holiness Pope Francis has said, "We need to see, with the eyes of faith … the link between the natural environment and the dignity of the human person."

 And where he might have made a second reference to the human person, he instead chose to speak of the individual:

The United Nations, too, champions the disadvantaged and the vulnerable.

We share a belief in the inherent dignity of all individuals and the sacred duty to care for and wisely manage our natural capital.

Is the dignity of the "individual" the same thing as the dignity of the "person"?  Is our moral orientation with regard to an "individual" the same as our moral orientation towards a "person"?

International Year of Light: a thought for Easter

In case you have not seen it yet, the United Nations General Assembly has declared 2015 to be an International Year of Light and Light based Technologies, with the acronym IYL2015. A Youtube channel dedicated to the opening ceremony for the year, which took place at UNESCO headquarters in Paris in January, can be found here. The UK Institute of Physics is one of the founding partners for the year - their homepage for the IYL2015 is here.

IYL2015 is clearly of particular interest to the scientific community. But if you look at the home page for the year linked above, it should be clear that the protagonists of the year have much wider interests. The headings as you scroll down the home page certainly include aspects that might be described as being more purely scientific. But there are included among the headings others that clearly indicate a cultural dimension to the use of light and light based technologies. A page  dedicated to Art and Culture, for example, refers to a range of fields in which light or colour plays a part. (Interestingly, this page includes  reference to stained glass, largely used to represent Biblical images). I would also include within the cultural dimension - perhaps because it is more immediately "human" - the page dedicated to Light for Development. The page on Study after Sunset is, I think, of particular significance here, and highlights how new developments in LED lighting make possible, with appropriate commitment of resources, a major impact on the cultural life of less developed nations.

The IYL2015 has a blog: light 2015blog.org.

I am prompted to post on the subject by the "Critical Point" article in the April 2015 issue of the Institute of Physics' magazine Physics World, which discusses the reaction to Isaac Newton's 1704 publication of Opticks. The article opens:

Until the end of the 17th century, writes art historian Kenneth Clark, artists thought of light as "an act of love", for it seemed to reveal, brighten and intensify nature. Light was the principle of epiphany, the self-disclosure of the world and its beauty.

Isaac Newton's famous 1704 book Opticks seemed to massacre that picture. Subtitled A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of Light, it saw Newton treat light as just a mechanical phenomenon governed by mechanical laws. Colour is subjective, a sensation produced after light rays strike the eye. Sunsets, rainbows and moonbeams are explained by geometry in action, followed by the brain in motion.

The article continues to consider a response to Newton's work: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's Theory of Colours. If one can attempt to summarise Goethe's intent it was to preserve something of the human, or cultural, understanding of the nature of light that had preceded Newton's work. The article ends with the following paragraph, to which I have added the bold:

Still, Goethe's polemics fascinate because he seems to champion a way of doing science that is different from the "usual sense". Science, then and now, is often pictured as an activity that's mostly about postulating "correct" mechanisms underneath phenomena, rather than about discerning phenomena in the first place. As the philosopher Ernst Cassirer wrote, "The mathematical formula strives to make the phenomena calculable, that of Goethe to make them visible". The problem is that the first way threatens to drive out the second. Goethe inspired those who viewed his anti-reductive approach - colour is a human, not a spectroscopic, phenomenon - as rescuing not only the science of colour, but an entire way of being a scientist.

The thought for Easter? Perhaps the most vivid moment of the Easter Vigil liturgy comes when the new light of the Easter Candle is processed into a Church that is otherwise in darkness - the symbol of the light of the Divine life of the risen Christ overcoming the darkness of sin. In the Liturgy of the Hours, there is another dynamic of darkness overcome by light that is played out daily. At Night Prayer, the Nunc Dimittis with its antiphon sends the Christian people to sleep after the manner of Christ's sleep in the darkness of the tomb represented by the darkness of night. And it is the moment of the next dawn - the coming of light - that they rise again to mark the time of the day that is particularly identified with that of the Resurrection.

For the Christian believer, light is at once a scientific phenomenon and a human phenomenon; and as a human phenomenon it has a supernatural dimension in our culture as well as a "secular" dimension, a supernatural dimension that is determinative in consequence of some two millennia of history.

A "Special Adviser" and "British Values".

There has been some concern expressed at the moves by the Department for Education with regard to the teaching of "British values" in schools (including nurseries) in the United Kingdom. News reports and comment can be found here: DfE consultation,  BBC news, and more recently, here and here; Christian Institute and, perhaps more considered, Catholic Voices.

Alan Craig brings to light another dimension to this question: Rising Gay Christian: Bright, Able and Wrong. Read Alan's post before continuing.

Two thoughts immediately come to mind. What are the implications of Luke Tryl's appointment for the "British values" agenda, particularly for its implementation in schools with a religious designation? And, if instead of Luke Tryl, Nicky Morgan had chosen an orthodox Christian believer as a special adviser, would there have been an uproar? The particular concern about Luke Tryl's appointment is that Nicky Morgan might well receive and act on advice that claims to be consistent with Christian belief when, as Alan points out, it is not.

As the Catholic Voices comment points out:

It is questionable to what extent the state can and should be the arbiter of British values. Values are the wellspring of a society rich in traditions, including mature religious belief, which is at the forefront of the fight against extremism. Faith schools which reflect that mature religion are not the problem, and should be a major part of the solution.

Catholic Voices end their comment with the observation:

The answer to extremism and sectarianism is not secularism, which is a state-imposed attempt to flatten society and shape it in the image of a minority belief. The national educational vision needs to challenge and sift faith traditions; intolerance and violence are distortions and perversions of true religion. This endeavour eschews “top down” solutions to defining the correct values. The challenge requires hard work, listening, and crucially the expertise held within religious traditions. Our values are important, but values do not proceed from the state – they are supported by the state as manifestations of a pluralistic society. Where extremism is an issue, the criticism of a religion lived in a pluralist society is the best, and only coherent, response. 

What strikes me as providing a basis for a common set of values, or principles, for successful living in a religiously diverse society is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is this Declaration that can provide the basis for the criticism of religion suggested by the Catholic Voices comment - and its terms provide an effective response to extremism (which, in the media coverage, largely remains an undefined term) without representing an imposition by the state of its own values. I cannot see any reason why the UN Declaration should not be part of the expected school curriculum.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

War crimes in Gaza

According to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, in its Constitution Gaudium et Spes n.80:

The horror and perversity of war is immensely magnified by the addition of scientific weapons. For acts of war involving these weapons can inflict massive and indiscriminate destruction, thus going far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense....

With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes, and issues the following declaration.

Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

The images of destruction currently coming from Gaza surely lie within the scope of this condemnation, even before consideration is given to the high level of casualties, the majority of whom are civilians. 

The Statement by H.E. Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, Permanent Representative of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva at the 21st Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory including East Jerusalem (Geneva, 23 July 2014), reported by Catholic Voices here, is worth reading.

The perpetration of injustices and the violation of human rights, especially the right to life and to live in peace and security, sow fresh seeds of hatred and resentment. A culture of violence is being consolidated, the fruits of which are destruction and death.

Appreciating Paul VI: Part 3

The biography of Pope Paul VI written by Alden Hatch has the title "Pope Paul VI: Apostle on the move". Particularly since the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, we have become accustomed to a Papacy that travels to encounter the peoples of the world rather than a Papacy that resides in Rome and, to some extent at least, waits for the world to travel to meet it. In comparison to Pope John Paul II, Pope's Benedict XVI and Francis were and are not great travellers.

However, it is worth recognising that Pope Paul VI set the precedent for modern Pope's who travel. The Vatican website contains the texts associated with his visits, though not all of the texts are available in English. See Paul VI: Travels. Among these visits, history perhaps takes most note of the visits to the Holy Land and to the United Nations as being of particular significance at their own times and of continuing significance for future times.

Reading Alden Hatch's account of Pope Paul's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is very striking. From the reaction of the Bishops of the Second Vatican Council who first heard of the proposed visit on the last day of the Second Session (they had no inkling beforehand and went wild as they realised the implications of Pope Paul's rather quiet words); to the reaction of the people of Jordan (Pope Paul's vehicle procession had to move at a crawl through the streets of Amman on the way to the River Jordan); to his being completely engulfed by the crowd in East Jerusalem as he followed the Via Dolorosa (the area was then part of Jordanian controlled territory); to the unbelievably moving meetings with the Patriarch of Constantinople; and ending with a rapturous return to Rome (people lined the Via Appia well out into the country towards Ciampino airfield, and Pope Paul was cheered by crowds all the way to the Vatican).

"... we wish to go to Palestine in January to honour personally - in the holy places where Christ was born, lived, died, and ascended to heaven after His Resurrection - the first mysteries of our faith, the Incarnation, and the Redemption.... We shall see that blessed land whence Peter set forth and where not one of his successors has returned. Most humbly and briefly we shall return there as an expression of prayer, penance, and renovation to offer to Christ His Church, to summon to this one holy Church our separated brethren ... to beseech Christ our Lord for the salvation of the entire human race."

Pope Francis' visit to the Holy Land this year was precisely conceived to mark the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul's earlier visit. Like that earlier visit, it had at its centre point a meeting with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The text of Pope Paul's address to the General Assembly of the United Nations in October 1965 can be found in the original French on the Vatican website; an English translation can be found here. The Catholic Church is unique in the nature of its representation at the United Nations, as a Permanent Observer; and it maintains an extensive engagement with the different organs of the United Nations (as I write I have before me a book containing texts from a visit of Pope John Paul II to UNESCO, and a conference co-hosted by the Holy See and UNESCO to mark the 25th anniversary of that visit). It is useful to read the address given by Pope John Paul II to the UN General Assembly in October 1979 alongside that of Pope Paul.

I would recommend reading the whole of Pope Paul's address. The extracts below are just the passages that particularly strike me, and which indicate something of Pope Paul's specific character.

We are the bearer of a message for all mankind. And this We are, not only in Our own personal name and in the name of the great Catholic family, but also in the name of those Christian brethren who share the sentiments We express here, and particularly of those who kindly charged Us explicitly to be their spokesman here. Like a messenger who, after a long journey, finally succeeds in delivering the letter entrusted to him, We are conscious of living through a privileged moment, however brief, which fulfills a desire cherished in Our heart for nearly twenty centuries. For, you remember, We have been journeying long and We bring with Us a long history; We here celebrate the epilogue of a toilsome pilgrimage in search of a conversation with the entire world, from the day the command was given to Us: "Go and bring the good tidings to all peoples." And it is you who represent all peoples.

Pope Paul's moving appeal in favour of peace was cited again by Pope John Paul II, and more recently by Pope Francis during the vigil of prayer for peace in St Peter's Square in September 2013:

And now We come to the high point of Our message: Negatively, first: the words which you expect from Us and which We cannot pronounce without full awareness of their gravity and solemnity: Never one against the other, never, never again. Was it not principally for this purpose that the United Nations came into being: against war and for peace? Listen to the clear words of a great man, the late John Kennedy, who declared four years ago: "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." ....  No more war, war never again. It is peace, peace which must guide the destinies of peoples and of all mankind. Our thanks to you, glory to you, who for twenty years have labored for peace and who have even suffered the loss of illustrious men in this sacred cause. Thanks and glory to you for the conflicts which you have prevented and for those which you have brought to an end. 

It is Pope Paul's final paragraph that appears to me full of prescience for the future, perhaps having a foresight to the situation of the culture of our modern times. These times combine an increasing secularisation and abandonment of an objective sense of moral conscience at the level of culture with an emergence of the question of religion and its relation to culture as never before. We can recognise in this final paragraph a theme developed in much more detail by Pope John Paul II in his address to the General Assembly, a theme typical of Pope Benedict XVI in his understanding of the importance of religious freedom, and a theme to which Pope Francis has also returned.

Today, as never before, in an era marked by such human progress, there is need for an appeal to the moral conscience of man. For the danger comes, not from progress, nor from science on the contrary if properly utilized, these could resolve many of the grave problems which beset mankind. The real danger comes from man himself, who has at his disposal ever more powerful instruments, which can be used as well for destruction as for the loftiest conquests.

In a word, then, the edifice of modern civilization must be built upon spiritual principles; the only principles capable not only of supporting it but also of enlightening and animating it. And these indispensable principles of superior wisdom can only rest - it is our conviction, you understand - on faith in God.  That unknown God of whom Saint Paul spoke to the Athenians on the Areopagus? Unknown to them, although without realizing it, they sought Him and He was close to them, as happens to so many men of our times? For Us, in any case, and for all those who accept the ineffable revelation which Christ has given us of Him, He is the living God, the Father of all men. 

Alden Hatch points out an interesting sentence in the address - again, full of prescience for what has happened since in terms of the activity of the United Nations:

C'est dans votre Assemblée que le respect de la vie, même en ce qui concerne le grand problème de la natalité, doit trouver sa plus haute profession et sa plus raisonnable défense. Votre tâche est de faire en sorte que le pain soit suffisamment abondant à la table de l'humanité, et non pas de favoriser un contrôle artificiel des naissances, qui serait irrationnel, en vue de diminuer le nombre des convives au banquet de la vie.  

Respect for life, even with regard to the great problem of the birth rate, must find here in your Assembly its highest affirmation and its most rational defence. Your task is to ensure that there is enough bread on the tables of mankind, and not to encourage an artificial control of births, which would be irrational, in order to diminish the number of guests at the banquet of life.

Pope Francis appeal: "Humanity needs to see these gestures of peace and to hear words of hope and peace!"

Reuters would appear to be carrying the story: Pope asks other faiths to join day of prayer for peace in Syria. So far as I can tell, the main stream news outlets in the UK are still running with the build up to American led attacks on Syria. [UPDATE: The Times is reporting the Pope's appeal on an inside page.] The BBC news front page, for example, is here (but if you are reading this retrospectively it will obviously have changed).

The full English text of Pope Francis address at the Angelus yesterday, Sunday 1st September 2013, is at the Vatican website. Reading the Italian text alongside the English is worthwhile, since there is a certain force expressed in the Italian grammar that does not quite come through in the English - though that is powerful enough in itself. Do read it in its entirety, and also watch the CTV video report that is linked from the page with the text.

This Angelus address strikes me as being one of those moments that will be seen as a key moment of Pope Francis' pontificate. It is an impassioned plea for peace and an unqualified condemnation of the evil of war, and in particular of the use of chemical weapons.

Pope Francis words ...

War never again! Never again war! Peace is a precious gift, which must be promoted and protected.

... have a profound echo of Pope Paul VI speaking to the United Nations in October 1965:

..jamais plus la guerre, jamais plus la guerre! C'est la paix, la paix, qui doit guider le destin des peuples et de toute l'humanité!  [War never again! War never again! It is peace, peace, that must direct the future of peoples and of all humanity!]

It is tempting to think that an appeal such as this from the Pope is unrealistic and will not have any influence on events that are instead being determined by major political powers. However, history has, many years after the event, revealed the influence that a similar appeal made on the radio by Pope John XXIII had on the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita  Kruschev, at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis: John XXIII and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The other major content of Pope Francis Angelus address was his call for a day of prayer and fasting on Saturday, for peace in Syria, the Middle East and throughout the world:

I have decided to proclaim for the whole Church on 7 September next, the vigil of the birth of Mary, Queen of Peace, a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria, the Middle East, and throughout the world, and I also invite each person, including our fellow Christians, followers of other religions and all men of good will, to participate, in whatever way they can, in this initiative.

On 7 September, in Saint Peter’s Square, here, from 19:00 until 24:00, we will gather in prayer and in a spirit of penance, invoking God’s great gift of peace upon the beloved nation of Syria and upon each situation of conflict and violence around the world. Humanity needs to see these gestures of peace and to hear words of hope and peace! I ask all the local churches, in addition to fasting, that they gather to pray for this intention.

At another level, Pope Francis Angelus address can be studied as an exercise of the Papal Office, both ad intra, towards the Church and ad extra, towards the whole world. Ad intra, he has called the universal Church to a time or prayer, fasting and penitence in repentance for the evil of war that is committed and threatened at a particular moment in time. In this context, the use of an inclusive "we" in the wording of the address, a use which does not remove the fact that moral responsibility for the use of chemical weapons rests with those immediately involved, indicates at the same time a certain duty of penance for others. As Pope Francis indicates, citing John XXIII's encyclical Pacem in Terris, it brings to the fore that the building of peace is a responsibility at the level of the individual human person in relation to his or her neighbour, and so involves all of us, not just those immediately involved in the events of warfare.

Ad extra, the Angelus address is an activity of diplomacy on the part of the Holy See, and it is quite fascinating to analyse it in this context. No doubt it is also being followed up by activity on the part of the Papal representatives in different parts of the world. The use of the language of an inclusive "we" has a completely different significance seen in this context. It has allowed Pope Francis to condemn evil actions with all due force whilst at the same time not naming names. The moral condemnation of those responsible for the use of chemical weapons is unmistakeable; and the urgency of the appeal against foreign interventions is equally clear.

Adam, where are you? ... Where is your brother?

It is somewhat late to comment on Pope Francis' visit to Lampedusa. It is of interest, though, to reflect on the significance of this journey for the Church and the world at large. I have been inclined, precisely because of the significance of this journey as an appeal to the consciences of peoples and of nations, to place it alongside the visit that Pope Paul VI made to the United Nations in 1965. As L'Osservatore Romano expressed it, the intention of Pope Francis' journey was

... to reach out from that centre which must be exemplary in presiding “in charity over all the Churches”, as the Pope recalled, presenting himself to the world, to one of the geographical and existential peripheries of our time.

Just as Pope Francis in his homily issued a resounding appeal to the consciences of the peoples and nations of the world, an appeal all the more forceful for being made in the very place that epitomises the failure of those consciences, so did Pope Paul VI suggest at the end of his address to the UN that the work undertaken by the United Nations is built upon human consciences.

First the words of Pope Francis in his homily on the island of Lampedusa:

This morning, in the light of God’s word which has just been proclaimed, I wish to offer some thoughts meant to challenge people’s consciences and lead them to reflection and a concrete change of heart....  

How many of us, myself included, have lost our bearings; we are no longer attentive to the world in which we live; we don’t care; we don’t protect what God created for everyone, and we end up unable even to care for one another! And when humanity as a whole loses its bearings, it results in tragedies like the one we have witnessed.  

"Where is your brother?" His blood cries out to me, says the Lord. This is not a question directed to others; it is a question directed to me, to you, to each of us. These brothers and sisters of ours were trying to escape difficult situations to find some serenity and peace; they were looking for a better place for themselves and their families, but instead they found death. How often do such people fail to find understanding, fail to find acceptance, fail to find solidarity. And their cry rises up to God! Once again I thank you, the people of Lampedusa, for your solidarity. I recently listened to one of these brothers of ours. Before arriving here, he and the others were at the mercy of traffickers, people who exploit the poverty of others, people who live off the misery of others. How much these people have suffered! Some of them never made it here.  

Today too, the question has to be asked: Who is responsible for the blood of these brothers and sisters of ours? Nobody! That is our answer: It isn’t me; I don’t have anything to do with it; it must be someone else, but certainly not me. Yet God is asking each of us: "Where is the blood of your brother which cries out to me?" Today no one in our world feels responsible; we have lost a sense of responsibility for our brothers and sisters. We have fallen into the hypocrisy of the priest and the levite whom Jesus described in the parable of the Good Samaritan: we see our brother half dead on the side of the road, and perhaps we say to ourselves: "poor soul…!", and then go on our way. It’s not our responsibility, and with that we feel reassured, assuaged. The culture of comfort, which makes us think only of ourselves, makes us insensitive to the cries of other people, makes us live in soap bubbles which, however lovely, are insubstantial; they offer a fleeting and empty illusion which results in indifference to others; indeed, it even leads to the globalization of indifference. In this globalized world, we have fallen into globalized indifference. We have become used to the suffering of others: it doesn’t affect me; it doesn’t concern me; it’s none of my business!

Then the words with which Pope Paul VI ended his address to the United Nations:

.... Messieurs, un dernier mot: cet édifice que vous construisez ne repose pas sur des bases purement matérielles et terrestres, car ce serait alors un édifice construit sur le sable; il repose avant tout sur nos consciences. Oui, le moment est venu de la « conversion », de la transformation personnelle, du renouvellement intérieur. Nous devons nous habituer à penser d'une manière nouvelle l'homme; d'une manière nouvelle aussi la vie en commun des hommes, d'une manière nouvelle enfin les chemins de l'histoire et les destins du monde, selon la parole de saint Paul: « revêtir l'homme nouveau créé selon Dieu dans la justice et la sainteté de la vérité » (Eph. 4, 23). Voici arrivée l'heure où s'impose une halte, un moment de recueillement, de réflexion, quasi de prière: repenser à notre commune origine, à notre histoire, à notre destin commun. Jamais comme aujourd'hui, dans une époque marquée par un tel progrès humain, n'a été aussi nécessaire l'appel à la conscience morale de l'homme. Car le péril ne vient, ni du progrès, ni de la science, qui, bien utilisés, pourront au contraire résoudre un grand nombre des graves problèmes qui assaillent l'humanité. Le vrai péril se tient dans l'homme, qui dispose d'instruments toujours plus puissants, aptes aussi bien à la ruine qu'aux plus hautes conquêtes.
[...Gentlemen, a last word: this edifice that you are building does not rest on purely material or earthly foundations, since that would be an edifice built on sand; it rests before all on our consciences.   Yes, the moment has come of "conversion", of personal transformation, of interior renewal. We must become accustomed to thinking  of man in a new way; in a new way, too, of the shared life of men, in a new way in the end of the roads of history and of the fate of the world, according to the word fo St Paul: "put on the new man created according to God in justice and holiness and truth" (Eph. 4:23). Here is the hour which imposes a stop, a moment of recollection, of reflection, almost of prayer: think again of our common origin, of our history, of our common destiny. Never like today, in a time marked by so much human progress, has it also been necessary to appeal to the moral conscience of man. Because the danger does not come from progress or from science, which, used well, are able on the contrary to solve a great number of the serious problems which assail humanity. The true danger is found in man, who has instrument ever more powerful, which can be used both for ruin or for ever higher conquests.]

Here in the UK the question of immigration has a high political profile. But do we ever hear in that debate considerations of our duty to be neighbours to those who arrive here from overseas? Pope Francis' appeal to consciences should surely be recognised for its significance to our own country.

UNESCO recognises the Christian heritage of Europe?

It being the feast of St James, Apostle, today; and Zero and I having talked from time to time about walking to Compostella ... I thought, in this day of online gaming and the like ... there must, somewhere in the WWW, be a "virtual Way to Compostella" that one can "walk" in cyberspace.

Instead, I found out that, in 1998, UNESCO recognised a number of buildings on the routes through France to Compostella as World Heritage sites. This is the page on the UNESCO website that records this. Most of the buildings are Churches of one form or another - I am not clear that all of them are still used as Churches.

The reason given for the inscription is as follows - the criteria refer to the UNESCO criteria for judging a site to be a World Heritage site:

Justification for Inscription
Criterion ii: The Pilgrimage Route of Santiago de Compostela played a key role in religious and cultural exchange and development during the later Middle Ages, and this is admirably illustrated by the carefully selected monuments on the routes followed by pilgrims in France.

Criterion iv: The spiritual and physical needs of pilgrims travelling to Santiago de Compostela were met by the development of a number of specialized types of edifice, many of which originated or were further developed on the French sections.

Thus far, one can read the justification in a secular way - a religious phenomenon being assimilated or reduced to that of "cultural exchange and development" and the meeting of "spiritual and physical needs". But it is the last sentence, under criterion vi which is most interesting in recognising the role of Christian faith in the history of Europe. UNESCO's criterion vi reads, with my emphasis on "outstanding universal significance" added:

to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria);

And the citation for the Route to Santiago:

Criterion vi: The Pilgrimage Route of Santiago de Compostela bears exceptional witness to the power and influence of Christian faith among people of all classes and countries in Europe during the Middle Ages.

I wonder whether this recognition of a universal significance of Christian faith for the history of Europe will be allowed an expression in European legislation?

Oh, and if you do know where I can find a "virtual Camino", please drop me a note in the Comments Box.

New City Magazine: July 2008

Each month, the magazine New City prints the "Word of Life". This is the meditation on a short Scripture quotation prepared by the Focolare movement, and used by its members and friends throughout the world.

The Word of Life for July is the "golden rule": In everything do to others as you would have them do to you: for this is the law and the prophets (Mt 7:12). This rule is reflected in the thought of the other world religions, and can also be lived in a completely non-religious way.

On the page opposite Chiara Lubich's meditation on this Scripture text, New City reproduces a mosaic from the United Nations building in New York that expresses this "golden rule". It strikes me that this "golden rule" is an excellent and entirely appropriate motif for the idea and purpose of the United Nations as an organisation. It is a motif that has the possibility of uniting in common purpose those of different religious beliefs and those of no religious beliefs.

However, this uniting in common purpose of those of different beliefs cannot be successfully achieved on the basis of indifferentism. The essential motivation behind the mosaic at the United Nations should not be one that is indifferent to the differences between its members, treating those differences as if they do not matter. On the contrary, it should be a motivation that is anxious to find and build on what is common, among the differences (if that does not seem a contradiction).

When Pope Benedict XVI visited the United Nations in April 2008, I commented on the welcome given to him by the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, and contrasted this with the welcome given by President Bush. In this context I would suggest that there is a need to recall the United Nations, as represented by its Secretary General, to the original sense of the "golden rule" mosaic. Trying to attribute "faith" to those of no religious belief, and referring to religious "faith" as being something that a non-believer can have a share of - I really cannot grasp what the word "faith" means when it is used in this way. And this indifference between belief and non-belief undermines the idea of a commonality-across-difference (by doing away with any genuine idea of difference) that is essential to correctly understanding the universal appeal of the "golden rule".

Welcoming Benedict XVI in USA

One of the interesting things about Pope Benedict XVI's visit to America is that of comparing the different speeches that have been given to welcome him. I have already posted on President George Bush's welcome speech at the White House. Below I compare that welcome to the welcome given by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon when Pope Benedict visited the UN.

The welcome speeches given by Archbishop Wuerl and Cardinal Egan at the beginning of the celebrations of Mass at the National's Stadium and the Yankee's Stadium are of rather a different nature. It appears to be the fashion to offer a welcome/introduction at the beginning of special celebrations like this - but I am not convinced that the style of welcome speeches offered on these two occasions really sits within the meaning of the rubric that allows a brief introduction to the Mass.

President George Bush: welcome to Benedict XVI at the White House

“Most of all, Holy Father, you will find in America people whose hearts are open to your message of hope. And America and the world need this message. In a world where some invoke the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and hate, we need your message that ‘God is love.’”

The reference to Pope Benedict’s encyclical letter Deus Caritas Est is key to understanding President Bush’s words.

“The United States is the most innovative, creative and dynamic country on earth -- it is also among the most religious.”

Subtly, President Bush affirms the religious character of US society, clearly intending by that belief in revealed religions (perhaps primarily Christianity).

“Here in America you'll find a nation of prayer. Each day millions of our citizens approach our Maker on bended knee, seeking His grace and giving thanks for the
many blessings He bestows upon us. Millions of Americans have been praying for your visit, and millions look forward to praying with you this week.”

“Here in America you'll find a nation of compassion. Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. So each day citizens across America answer the universal call to feed the hungry and comfort the sick and care for the infirm. Each day across the world the United States is working to eradicate disease, alleviate poverty, promote peace and bring the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair.”

These two paragraphs reflect the two-fold structure of Deus Caritas Est - an analysis of the nature of human loving, and of God’s character as Love, followed by charity as the living out of God’s love in the world.

“Here in America you'll find a nation that welcomes the role of faith in the public square. When our Founders declared our nation's independence, they rested their case on an appeal to the ‘laws of nature, and of nature's God.’ We believe in religious liberty. We also believe that a love for freedom and a common moral law are written into every human heart, and that these constitute the firm foundation on which any successful free society must be built.”

The idea of a common moral law, rooted in God and manifested in nature and in the human heart; and thereby, the possibility that the laws of the land should defend such basic values as the good of human life.

“Holy Father, Laura and I are privileged to have you here at the White House. We welcome you with the ancient words commended by Saint Augustine: ‘Pax Tecum.’
‘Peace be with you.’”

An attitude of profound courtesy from someone who is not a Catholic, and a demonstration of what Benedict XVI would term “dialogue”.

UN Secretary-General: greeting to Benedict XVI at the United Nations

“Whether we worship one God, many or none -- we in the United Nations have to sustain and strengthen our faith every day. As demands on our Organization multiply, we need more and more of this precious commodity. I am profoundly grateful to his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for bestowing some of his faith on us -- and for placing his trust in us. He possesses both of these in abundance. May we be strengthened by his visit today.”

This concluding paragraph sums up Ban Ki-moon’s address: religious indifferentism, and the use of the word “faith” indiscriminately with regard to those who have and those who do not have religious belief, as if the word means the same for both groups,

“I am deeply grateful to His Holiness for accepting my invitation to visit the United Nations -- home to all men and women of faith around the world. Your
Holiness, welcome to our common home.

The United Nations is a secular institution, composed of 192 States. We have six official languages but no official religion. We do not have a chapel -- though we do have a meditation room.”

The absence of an official religion is the expression of an appropriate secular/lay character of the United Nations, but see above for the use of the word "faith".

“Before leaving the UN today, you will visit the Meditation Room. My great predecessor, Dag Hammarskjöld, who created that room, put it well. He said of the stone that forms its centerpiece: ‘We may see it as an altar, empty not because there is no God, not because it is an altar to an unknown God, but because it is dedicated to the God whom man worships under many names and in many forms.’”

The absence of chapels for the different religions in favour of a common “meditation room” goes beyond appropriate secularity to treating the different religions as themselves non-religious phenomena which must conform to non-religious criteria; and Dag Hammarskjold expresses again the religious indifferentism already noted.

“But if you ask those of us who work for the United Nations what motivates us, many of us reply in a language of faith. We see what we do not only as a job, but as a mission. Indeed, mission is the word we use most often for our work around the world -- from peace and security to development to human rights.”

Again, the word “faith” is used indiscriminately to refer to the faith of religious belief and to a secular meaning, though I feel the use of the word “mission” has here greater possibilities of genuine commonality of meaning.

“Your Holiness, in so many ways, our mission unites us with yours.

You have called for an open and sincere dialogue, both within your Church and between religions and cultures, in search of the good of humankind.”

I think there is a fairness in the use of the word “mission”, and a genuine commonality of meaning for the word. Ban Ki-moon listed in his speech some of the ways in which the UN and the Holy See share common purpose (in working to relieve poverty and achieve nuclear disarmament, for example).

But, it has to be said, the outlook of the United Nations, as represented by the General Secretary, goes counter to much of what Pope Benedict XVI stands for. Where President Bush shows a clear appreciation of Pope Benedict's mission, General Secretary Ban Ki-moon appears to be deliberately presenting a form of secularism as an alternative. The frustrating thing about this is the attempt to present it as if it is similar to the mission of Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church!