Holy See on Human Rights and Freedoms

Holy See on Human Rights and Freedoms

"Progress in Dialogue Is a Positive Development"

NEW YORK, OCT. 31, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a statement by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, delivered Monday to the 62nd U.N. General Assembly, on the topic of the promotion and protection of human rights.
* * *

Mr Chairman,

At the outset, I wish to thank the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for her report on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance.

My delegation notes with interest the two substantive issues which have been raised within the context of the Special Rapporteur’s activities: first, the particular situation of refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons, and second, the issues relating to blasphemy laws, education, and equality legislation.

We share the Special Rapporteur’s concern for the particularly vulnerable situation in which refugees, asylum seekers and IDPs, as well as women and religious minorities, find themselves in the exercise of their right to freedom of religion or belief. In this vein, my delegation underlines that the right to freedom of religion or belief applies to all human beings everywhere. International refugee law clearly affords refugees specific rights in their country of refuge in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief.

Blasphemy laws existing in some countries or regions have caused much suffering especially among religious minorities, either by the punishments inflicted which include death, or by the indirect consequences of destruction of places of worship or summary justice. In places where such laws are still in force, my delegation urges the public authorities concerned to safeguard those accused of blasphemy and to grant full respect of all their human rights. Religious minorities are fully entitled to enjoy the right to religious freedom, equal treatment before the law and the same civil rights as the general population and members of the majority religion.

My delegation is aware of the laudable initiatives to foster debate on the delicate balance between freedom of speech and expression and respect for religion and religious symbols. Finding a common ground would greatly boost mutual understanding. But while we are still engaged in an honest search and dialogue, everyone must exercise responsibility and respect. My delegation remains convinced that to encourage peace and understanding between peoples, it is necessary that religions and their symbols be respected and that believers not be the object of provocations that vilify their religious convictions. Further, respect for religion does not exclude dialogue and debate among religions and with those who do not adhere to any particular religion, aimed at deepening the search for a common and solid ground. Moreover, intolerance and violence as a response to offences can never be justified, for this type of response is incompatible with the authentic spirit of religion and the effective respect for human dignity.

Mr Chairman,

My delegation continues to be seriously concerned that freedom of religion does not exist for many in different parts of the world. That the Special Rapporteur had to send one communication per week on this matter is indicative that there is still much more to do. Forced conversions, executions, desecration of places of worship, expulsion of religious minorities from their communities and other forms of religious persecution mentioned in the Special Rapporteur’s report are violations of the right to religious freedom as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and allied international instruments, such as The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief. These legal instruments provide that religious freedom includes the right to believe, to worship, to propose one’s faith to others, to accept a faith in total freedom, to associate freely with others in expressing religious convictions, as well as the right to change one’s religion.

Progress in the dialogue among world’s religions is a positive development. It becomes an occasion to exhort one another to a deeper faith, to peaceful coexistence and mutual enrichment, especially when dialogue is practiced as both witnessing to one’s faith and respecting the religious convictions of others. This progress in dialogue among religions has been accompanied by increased interest on the part of civil society, multilateral and national institutions. The Holy See hopes such interest will contribute to a greater respect by all for religious freedom everywhere.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Zenit: Holy See Statement on the Rule of Law

Holy See Statement on the Rule of Law

"Guarantees Respect for Even the Smallest of Nations"

NEW YORK, OCT. 28, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a statement by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, delivered Friday to the 62nd U.N. General Assembly, on the topic of the rule of law at the national and international levels.

* * *

Mr. Chairman,

The mutually reinforcing values of peace, development and human rights are both the guiding principles and the goals of this organization. Their nexus and effectiveness is guaranteed by the proper implementation of the rule of law. It is the rule of law that creates the mechanisms to promote justice and peace, ensures predictability and security to allow for the foundation of a stable economy, and protects the dignity of every person regardless of one’s social, economic, or political status.

In an increasingly globalized society, where people from different cultures meet more frequently, migration occurs on a global scale and international trade propels rapid global development, regulating the relations between and among states is of utmost importance to ensure peaceful coexistence.

At the international level, the rule of law guarantees respect for even the smallest of nations. It safeguards the ability of all states to voice their legitimate concerns as equals in a forum of equals. Its rule restrains powerful nations from lording it over the weaker ones. These principles are very relevant to the ongoing reform of the Security Council and the revitalization of the General Assembly.

The role of the United Nations in the creation and implementation of international treaties is vital. By ensuring that the principles of free consent, good faith and "pacta sunt servanda" are respected, this organization guarantees that relations between states are regulated by applicable international treaties and governed by reason, justice and fair negotiations, rather than by fear, force or manipulation.

In enforcing these treaties, the United Nations must be a neutral arbitrator and must respect the contracting intent and desire of the parties. A treaty body system that becomes opaque and unaccountable to states parties runs the risk of undermining the basic tenants of the rule of law and diminishes the credibility and legitimacy of the United Nations as a promoter and guarantor of international law.

Surely states have a primary duty to ensure that treaties are respected. Selective enforcement and selective observance of treaties are antithetical to the rule of law. It would be preposterous to claim observance of the rule of law at a national level if international treaties and international law are not observed.

Moreover, the benefits and value of faithful treaty implementation go beyond the rule of law. Respect for treaties is also an excellent confidence-building measure, as it promotes trust among parties. This is particularly true in the area of disarmament, in which the fear of treaty noncompliance on the part of even just one state party paralyzes the disarmament and nonproliferation agenda. In fact, it is easier to make others comply with their commitments if one complies with one’s own.

However, not all states have the technical capacity to cope with all their international obligations. There is a growing gap between the development of international law and the capacity of individual states to incorporate it into national legislation and implement it. Thus technical assistance to these countries is of utmost importance if observance of international law and treaties is to be had. To this end, we note with interest the establishment of the Rule of Law Coordination and Resource Group and we look forward to following its work in promoting the rule of law.

Mr. Chairman,

The struggle against terrorism is necessary, but at the same time it must be established through the drafting, adoption and effective enforcement of juridical instruments designed to tackle this violent menace with right reason. The rule of law at times is difficult to apply to terrorists who have little or no respect for it. However, states must not engage in measures antithetical to the very principles that give them legitimacy through the rule of law.

The last few years have seen a greater focus on the rule of law at all levels. Though this focus has not always been accompanied by action, some progress has been achieved, particularly in the area of international criminal justice. Individuals and peoples whose rights have been violated, such as in cases of crimes against humanity, are given access to a justice system that serves the truth and banishes fear, revenge, impunity and inequality before the law.

In the same vein, further progress has also been made in the World Summit Outcome Document by which, among others, all member states affirmed the collective international responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and their willingness to take timely and decisive collective action for this purpose, through the Security Council, when peaceful means prove inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to do it.

My delegation believes there is need to pursue the debate and juridical codification along this very line, wherein sovereignty is not understood as an absolute right and used as a shield against outside involvement, but as a responsibility not merely to protect citizens, but also to promote their welfare. Through the creation of legal norms, arbitration of legal disputes and the establishment of safeguards, especially when states fail in their responsibility to protect, the United Nations is called to be the propulsive forum for the rule of law in all corners of the globe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Text adapted]

Zenit: A Turn to the Fathers: Interview With Father Robert Dodaro

A Turn to the Fathers: Interview With Father Robert Dodaro

ROME, OCT. 28, 2007 (Zenit.org).- There is a need to bridge a gap between the Fathers of the Church and the modern developments in theology, says a patristics scholar.

Father Robert Dodaro, director of the Augustinian Patristic Institute at the Pontifical Lateran University, sees cause for optimism in this field, as he detects a trend toward more scholarly attention on the Church Fathers.

In this interview with ZENIT, Father Dodaro says that the study of the Fathers is the way to discover the answers to the problems the Church faces today.

Q: What are the difficulties limiting the number of students at the Augustinian Institute?

Father Dodaro: The greatest problem is the insufficient knowledge of Greek and Latin, and the lack of familiarity with classical studies. To prepare the students to take on the texts of the Fathers in their original languages, we began a prerequisite course of intensive Latin and Greek three years ago.

This year there are also supplementary classes on ancient Roman history, classical literature and ancient philosophy. As you can imagine, students do not study these subjects adequately in institutes and universities. Thus, the low levels in classical studies are for us the greatest challenge.

Q: What do you think about the relationship between patristic and modern theology?

Father Dodaro: During Vatican II it was decided that the updating of theology and Church praxis demanded a turning toward the wise patrimony of the Fathers of the Church. For this reason, the Servant of God Pope Paul VI wanted an institute of patristic studies in Rome. But today's theology seems to have set out on another path distinct from the ever-more-distant gate of tradition and, therefore, while the scholars of the Church Fathers investigate the historical context of the theology of the Fathers, today's theology withdraws from its origins. The Church today needs to confront the question of the relationship between patristic and dogmatic theology.

Q: Perhaps the Fathers existed too long ago?

Father Dodaro: No, the Fathers are very current. Theirs is a beautiful spirituality, and a liturgical and theological fashion. The general public is fascinated with it, and sales of the patristics -- even with translated texts -- are high. There is a living interest. The problem is that the theologians are unconvinced about the Fathers' teachings.

Q: You confirm that, among readers, there is an interest in the Church's origins and especially in the patristic era, although many of these works are academic and little known. The challenge is, perhaps, maintaining a high academic level while making the content of the Fathers accessible?

Father Dodaro: This is another of the challenges to which we are trying to respond. The question is how we can offer the treasure of Patristic theology and spirituality to Catholics. From this point of view, I feel proud when I see many of our graduates dedicated to translating, even after earning licentiates and doctorates.

These students and alumni work with publishing houses well-known for these types of works. I'm also surprised at the blooming of patristic studies in Italy. Today, Italy is on the forefront in researching, studying and disseminating the patristic authors not only because we find in Rome the Patristic Institute, but also because there is widespread interest among the state universities, where we have friends and collaborators.

For example, Italy's Città Nuova publishes a collection of patristic books, something that doesn't exist in all Western countries, although the trend is spreading throughout the world. Some alumni are dedicated to translating patristic texts even into Korean. I think the spread of these works can help local Churches respond to pastoral demands.

Therefore, we need texts translated into the many languages so people can study and deepen their knowledge of the Fathers. Then, courses are needed in the various spirituality and theology institutes. Bishops should challenge seminarians and young priests to study the Fathers of the Church.

Q: If you had to persuade youth to study the Fathers, what argument would you use?

Father Dodaro: I would speak about St. Augustine. But apart from that example, I would say: Take the 10 greatest and most difficult problems in today's Church, choose whichever ones you want, and then try to compare them to those the Church Fathers develop. In the classic patristics, you will find the roots and responses to whatever controversy the Church must confront today. This is the importance of the Church Fathers.

Pascendi Dominici Gregis

The Encyclical Against the "Modernists" Turns 100 – But Without Fanfare
No official celebrations for the centenary of the "Pascendi" encyclical. The "unworthy methods" used to fight this battle have been discarded. But the questions at the center of that controversy are still open. And the book "Jesus of Nazareth" is proof of this

A bad idea? Even a holy pope is not exempt from prudential mistakes (St. Pius X and the reform of the Roman office?)... But did the offensive against Modernism fail? If so, was it because it was too top-heavy, and reliant upon a overly-centralized papacy? If it didn't fail, then how do we explain its apparent re-emergence later in the 20th century?

Pope Hails von Hildebrand Project

Pope Hails von Hildebrand Project

Conference Remembers Catholic Philosopher

STEUBENVILLE, Ohio, OCT. 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI, expressing his appreciation and support for the work of the Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project, said that it will have fruitful consequences for the evangelization of contemporary culture.

The Pope said this in a letter written to John Henry Crosby, the founder and director of the Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project.

Crosby read the letter from the Holy Father during a conference hosted by the legacy project at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, held Oct. 12-13. Some 150 participants from eight countries gathered to honor the philosopher on the 30th anniversary of his death.

Alice von Hildebrand, widow of the German philosopher and keynote speaker at the conference, commented, "I was extremely happy to see that so many new people are discovering the importance of my husband's message."

Dietrich von Hildebrand was born in 1889, the son of a famous German sculptor. He studied philosophy under the phenomenologist Edmund Husserl and was profoundly influenced by his close friend, German philosopher Max Scheler, who aided von Hildebrand's conversion to Catholicism in 1914.

Von Hildebrand openly criticized Nazism from within Germany and Austria, earning him the contempt of Adolf Hitler. He is also known for his religious and spiritual writings, and his passionate defense of truth and beauty.

Distinctive contribution

Benedict XVI said in his letter: "Following my recent meeting with you and Mrs. Alice von Hildebrand, I wish to express my appreciation for the efforts of the Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project to promote greater knowledge of and esteem for Professor von Hildebrand's distinctive contribution to Christian philosophical thought.

"Drawing inspiration from the Augustinian tradition and its Thomistic reception in the light of Aristotelian philosophy, von Hildebrand sought to advance that tradition by creatively reinterpreting it in the context of modern thought and its concerns.

"He was far from a 'petrified' vision of the teaching of Thomas, based on a narrow and uncritical devotion to the 'words of the Master,' and could well make his own the classic dictum: 'Amicus mihi Thomas, magis amica veritas!'"

"It is this 'legacy' which has motivated your project," the Pontiff added.

Benedict XVI continued: "Grounded in the rich philosophical movement which stretches from the Pre-Socratic's through Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, to Augustine, Thomas and the great thinkers of the modern age, and taking up the challenge set forth in the encyclical 'Fides et Ratio,' the Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project aims to enter into reasoned dialogue with contemporary currents of philosophy, bringing the full scope of reason to bear on fundamental human questions and contributing to the recovery of the sapiential dimension inherent in the 'philosophia perennis.'

"Without such a commitment to the philosophical enterprise, Christian faith would fall prey to a 'fideism' which would deprive it of its grandeur as man's free submission of intellect and will to the splendor of God's truth, and gravely compromise its missionary dynamism, whereby believers are called to offer to all a reasoned account of the hope that is within them.

"I therefore express my appreciation and support for the work of the Dietrich von Hildebrand Project, and my confidence that this praiseworthy initiative will bear abundant fruit for the evangelization of contemporary culture."

2 from Fr. Z

Mutiny on the Loggia of Pontifical Ceremonies
An SSPX priest opines on whether TLM and Novus Ordo are really same Rite: I respond

And from Fr. Schall: On Saying the Tridentine Mass | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | August 16, 2007

Lifework

I remember coming across a book that was popularizing Grisez's account of the 7 basic human goods, but I can't remember if it is this, or if it was another book. I suppose I'll have to take a peek at one of the Lifework books to see... maybe I'm thinking of a different book, one published by OSV... or Scepter? I don't think so...

LifeWork Press
Lifework - Rick Sarkisian, Ph.D. @ Just Catholic
Lifework: Finding Your Purpose in Life - Google Books Result
LifeWork Reviews

Germain Grisez and Catholic Moral Theology

Forthcoming from Alethes Press

website

Vol. 6 of The Works of John Taylor of Caroline

November 2007: The Meaning of Evil // Charles Cardinal Journet
December 2007: The State in Catholic Thought // Heinrich Rommen

Nicholas of Cusa, Learned Ignorance

Jasper Hopkins
intro to his translation


Masters of Learned Ignorance: Eriugena, Eckhart, Cusanus. By ...
The Philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa
old Catholic Encyclopedia

Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon

The Didascalicon of Hugh of St. Victor: A Medieval Guide to the Arts - Google Books Result
Columbia University Press:
The Didascalicon of Hugh of Saint Victor; A Medieval Guide to the ...
The Latin Library edition

Henry of Ghent website

at UNC Ashville

DSPT Symposium on Albert the Great

Albert the Great, Educator

Symposium in celebration of the 75th Anniversary of the Founding of College of St. Albert the Great
In 1932, the friars of the Western Dominican Province formally incorporated in the State of California their new seminary in the Rockridge section of Oakland, which they called the College of St. Albert the Great. Today it is known as Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology. Join us as we celebrate seventy-five years of ministry and study in the service of truth.

November 27, 2007
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

at the

Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology
2301 Vine Street Berkeley, CA 94708

Admission is FREE, but registration is required

Click here to REGISTER

Program

Hmmm... maybe I'll try to attend, but isn't that the week of Thanksgiving?

Zenit: Holy See on Tolerance and Nondiscrimination

Holy See on Tolerance and Nondiscrimination

"Human Rights Must Be Grounded in Human Nature"

WARSAW, Poland, OCT. 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of an address delivered by the Holy See's representative, Monsignor Anthony Frontiero, to the annual meeting of the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The meeting was on the topic "Human Dimension Implementation," and it took place Sept. 24-Oct. 5.

Monsignor Frontiero, an official of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, gave the address Sept. 25 on the theme of tolerance and nondiscrimination.

* * *

Mr. Chairman,

The delegation of the Holy See joins the previous delegations in congratulating you for chairing this session, and expresses its gratitude for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion.

In particular, the Holy See welcomes the addition of the new Web page on Discrimination Against Christians that the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the OSCE has recently posed on TANDIS (Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Information System). Be assured that the Holy See will do its part in assisting the ODIHR in following and updating this new and important resource in the fight against the discrimination of Christians.

In this regard, the Holy See would like to recommend that the OSCE continue to advance its pro-active concern for this important matter in clear and concrete ways, including monitoring and reporting data on incidents of discrimination and intolerance against Christians, and by sponsoring upcoming data to address this issue among the participating states of the OSCE.

The consideration of tolerance and nondiscrimination at the outset of this meeting is a positive indication of the political will in the OSCE region to face squarely the problems between the interaction of cultures and peoples, which constitute serious political and security issues, and ultimately enables us to relate to one another peacefully and contribute to the advancement of the human race.

The delegation of the Holy See continues to be concerned with the all-too-often and flagrant violations against the right to freedom of religion throughout the OSCE region. Despite the decisions adopted by OSCE participating states to ensure and facilitate the freedom of the individual to profess and practice a religion or belief, alone or in community with others, through transparent and nondiscriminatory laws, regulations, practices and policies, the realization of this commitment remains yet to be seen.

Recent examples of such violations include: the unacceptable intolerance demonstrated in an OSCE country, where some months ago three Christians were brutally murdered; the condemnation, and in many cases detention and arrest, of "unauthorized" religious minorities for "illegal religious activities" because believers pray or go to church; and state-introduced restrictions on religious freedom, including restrictions on missionary activity. In some cases, despite the indications of religious-motivated violence, local police forces fail to intervene to stop attacks on religious minorities.

These episodes of religious violence highlight the underlying tension in the OSCE region around religious freedom. They also are evidence of a certain discrimination and intolerance against Christianity, and in some cases a mockery of Christianity.

Deliberately mocking and undermining central tenets of the Christian faith as a means to promoting the rights of other groups is a flagrant contradiction to the religious freedom and mutual respect that all people should enjoy, not to mention to the work of building a more just and peaceful community. Such practices attempt to dismantle the progress made thus far in the promotion of tolerance and nondiscrimination.

In his message for the celebration of the 2007 World Day of Peace, Pope Benedict XVI recalled the urgent need, even within the framework of current international difficulties and tensions, for a commitment to a human ecology that favors the promotion of mutual respect and understanding among peoples, which is a key to ending intolerance and discrimination, and, ultimately to peaceful coexistence.[1] Such a commitment must be guided by a vision of the person untainted by ideological and cultural prejudices or by political and economic interests, which can often instill hatred and violence.

Notwithstanding the reality of differences that exist within the various cultures of man, one element that cannot be admitted is the cultivation of seeds of hostility and violence against fellow human beings. "Equally unacceptable are conceptions of God that would encourage intolerance and recourse to violence against others."[2]

Peaceful coexistence among people is not only threatened by the conflicts between ideologies, but also by indifference as to what constitutes man's true nature.[3] Many in contemporary society actually deny the existence of a specific human nature, which only adds to confusion and, in many cases, hinders authentic dialogue. Clarity in this regard is needed so that a weak vision of the person will not open the door to authoritarian impositions and leave people defenseless and easy targets for oppression and violence.

A true human community where people can live together in peace and security presupposes respect for human rights. Yet, if these rights are grounded on a false conception of the person, how can they promote and safeguard a society built on mutual respect and understanding? Relativistic notions of what it means to be a person offer insufficient justification and defense of human rights; because if rights are absolute, how can they be founded on a notion that is merely relative?

Human rights, therefore, must be grounded in the objective requirements of human nature. Otherwise, in some cases the human person is marked by a permanent dignity, and rights that are always and everywhere valid; in other cases a person may not have a permanent dignity, and negotiable rights.[4] This state of affairs is what we witness everyday in acts of intolerance and discrimination.

Without a clear and strong awareness of who we are as persons, it will always be easier to claim that some people are worthy of respect and others are not; some people have the right to life, liberty, and religious belief, and others do not. Objective truth about the dignity of the human person created by God, and the rights and subsequent duties and responsibilities that flow from that dignity, must be the basis for any authentic discussion of every issue that is facing the human family.

Yet, the task at hand is not simply to condemn actual injustices in the light of an adequately understood concept of the human person and human dignity, but to work together for a meaningful new future.[5]

Somehow, hopefully in part through our discussions in these days, we must break through the collective individualism that so often fuels discrimination and intolerance, and find our way to a new imagination based on solidarity. Such a new imagination will lead to a fundamental reinterpretation of social frameworks enabling them to truly foster mutual respect and understanding, and authentically defend human rights as basic conditions for life in community with others.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1] Cf. Benedict XVI, 2007, Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, No. 10.
[2] Ibid.

[3] Cf. Ibid., No.11.
[4] Cf. Ibid., No.12.

[5] Cf. John Paul II, "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis," No. 42.

[Original Text: English]

[Text adapted]

Zenit: Address of Holy See on Religious Liberty

Address of Holy See on Religious Liberty

"There Are Needs That Find Fulfillment in God Alone"

WARSAW, Poland, OCT. 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of an address delivered by the Holy See's representative, Monsignor Anthony Frontiero, to the annual meeting of the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The meeting was on the topic "Human Dimension Implementation," and it took place Sept. 24-Oct. 5.

Monsignor Frontiero, an official of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, gave the address Sept. 26 on the theme of religious liberty.

* * *

Mr. Chairman,

The Holy See reiterates its firm conviction that the dignity of the person and the very nature of the quest for God require that all people should be free from every constraint in the area of religion. Society and the state must not force a person to act against his conscience or prevent him from acting in conformity with it.[1]

This said, the Holy See stresses that the right to religious freedom ought to be part of the juridical order and recognized as a civil right. The Holy See also wishes to stress that such norms are required by the need for the effective safeguarding of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also by the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when people live together in good order and in true justice.[2]

Although a religious community may, because of historical and cultural ties to a nation, be given special recognition on the part of the state, such recognition should never create discrimination within civil or social order for other religious groups. Unfortunately, however, such a vision of relations between states and religious organizations seems not always to be shared by all and the right to religious freedom is, as we have seen, being violated, "even to the point that imparting catechesis, having it imparted, and receiving it become punishable offences.[3]

In his recent address to the Executive Committee of the Centrist Democratic International (CDI), Pope Benedict XVI recalled that the right to religious liberty is fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable. Moreover, the exercise of this freedom includes the right to change religion, which should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice.

"In fact, religious liberty corresponds to the human person's innate openness to God, who is the fullness of truth and the supreme good. An appreciation for religious freedom is a fundamental expression of respect for human reason and its capacity to know the truth. Openness to transcendence is an indispensable guarantee of human dignity since within every human heart there are needs and desires that find their fulfillment in God alone. For this reason, God can never be excluded from the horizon of man and world history! That is why all authentically religious traditions must be allowed to manifest their own identity publicly, free from any pressure to hide or disguise it."[4]

As we witness the varied religious reactions to the social problems of our day, there is evidence that the significant world religions, including Christianity, are promoting peace and justice as essential dimensions of their religious commitment. Men and women involved in these movements recognize an intrinsic connection between their religious faith and the active concern for the wellbeing of society. There is evidence of a universal solidarity on the horizon.

Christian discipleship and the quest for personal holiness include responsibility for the world. Faith traditions and religious experience based on reason and truth offer the promise and hope that the spiritual life is to be realized in a sustained, practical involvement for the well-being of God's world.

In 1971, in his apostolic letter "Octogesima Adveniens," Pope Paul VI argued that utopia can be an unrealistic dream that prevents people from effective action. But utopia, rightly understood, is a positive vision that criticizes the existing order, generates a forward-looking imagination, recognizes the as yet unrealized possibilities of the present, and supplies energy for the creation of a new future.[5]

Religion will continue to serve as a meaningful, substantial and positive part in the quest for such a new future, especially if religions are delivered from their possible shortcomings and failures, and if they respect authentic aspirations. Religion, in the service of peace, human rights and social justice will be effective to the extent that it embraces the Holy Spirit's inspiration to be faithful to its deepest values.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

* * *

[1] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, No. 421.
[2] Cf. Ibid.

[3] Ibid., No. 423.
[4] Benedict XVI, Address to the Executive Committee of the Centrist Democratic International, Sept. 21, 2007.

[5] See Paul VI, "Octogesima Adveniens," No. 37.

[Original text: English]

[Text adapted]

Matthew Roberts, The Wrongs of "Rights"

The Wrongs of “Rights”

Posted by Matthew Roberts on October 16, 2007

Is this akin to the criticism of ideology by conservatives (such as Russell Kirk)? Or cannot [at least some] rights be grounded in laws universally applicable? What is missing in the article is the connection between right and justice and law, and the historical argument seems to have been overthrown by the research of people like Brian Tierney and Annabel Brett. I will have to finish Fr. Lachance's book on droit and find out what he says about subjective active right.

The necessity of the elements

Elements as understood as referring to whatever is most basic, that which cannot be broken down further, and out of which all higher-level substances are constituted.
("Atom" as understood in its original sense, and not referring to a certain kind of substance that is made of protons, electrons, and neutrons.)

If it cannot be broken down, then it cannot be destroyed. And if it cannot be destroyed, it must exist? The only way it would go out of existence is if the First Cause were to withdraw His act of conservation. However, even if it exists necessarily, and cannot be destoyred by natural agents, it cannot be therefore concluded that it is eternal? It seems not.

So what is the permament substrate that underlies all material things? Matter-energy is what contemporary physicists refer to, but are they mistaken in putting energy on the same level of reality as substance?

Is it possible for there to be more than one type of element? It would seem so, in order to account for the diversity of things in the world--if there were only one type of element, how could there be difference? Is it possible for one kind of element to be transformed into another kind of element? (If so, how, if there are no parts? How can there be changes in quality without subordinate parts? --How can there be accidents inhering in a substance if there are no parts?)

New website for the Societas Scholasticorum

via NLM

website

Apparently it is the same Societas Scholasticorum, first brought to our attention by Ite ad Thomam--just a new url and look for the website.

Locke Lectures by Christine Korsgaard

From the SEP entry for Practical Reason and Structure of Actions:


Korsgaard, C., The Locke Lectures 2002:
Lecture One: The Metaphysical Foundations of Normativity [PDF]
Lecture Two: Practical Reason and the Unity of the Will [PDF]
Lecture Three: Autonomy, Efficacy, and Agency [PDF]
Lecture Four: Expulsion from the Garden: The Transition to Humanity [PDF]
Lecture Five:The Constitutional Model, and Bad Action [PDF]
Lecture Six: Integrity and Interaction [PDF]


Harvard page; interview; Philosophy Dept. page
Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals


(Ok so I did see her at the Broadie lectures this past Spring. I did wonder if she was a hippie in the 70s, or if she picked up her look being an academic at Harvard in Cambridge, MA.)

New name for CAI

Catholic Apologetics International has been renamed the Bellarmine Theological Forum. Same url though.

Why St. Robert Bellarmine? Apologist... and also because of the geocentrism connection?

Letter from Cardinal Bellarmine to Galileo (May 1616)
The Galileo Affair
The Galileo Project | Christianity | Robert Cardinal Bellarmine

The book by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett can be found here:
www.geocentrism.com
or at the BTF website.

Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right
Vol. 1 : The Scientific Case for Geocentrism
Hardcover Book + Free CD-ROM* : $45.50

Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right
Vol. 2 : The HistoricalCase for Geocentrism
Hardcover Book + Free CD-ROM* : $40.50

Zenit interview with Fr. Schall, part 3

Regensburg Revisited (Part 3): Interview With Father James Schall

WASHINGTON, D.C., OCT. 11, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture not only pinpoints the heart of the current international situation, but also reality itself, says Father James Schall.

In the third and final part of this interview with ZENIT, Father Schall, a professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University, comments on what he says is one of the most important discourses of modern times.

He is the author of "The Regensburg Lecture," published by St. Augustine's Press. Part 1 of this interview appeared Tuesday, Part 2 on Wednesday.

Q: How do you see the Regensburg lecture in relation to John Paul II's encyclical "Fides et Ratio"?

Father Schall: What Benedict XVI sees is the fundamental importance of "Fides et Ratio" on a world scale, not just with Islam, which was something new in John Paul II's time.

John Paul II was rightly taken up with fascism, Marxism and the moral status of the West. John Paul did collaborate with Muslims in several U.N. conferences -- Cairo, Beijing -- especially about the family, in spite of the differences between Muslim and Christian views on what the family is.

"Fides et Ratio" is the consequence, as it were, of the other two stages of de-Hellenization in Western thought. The second step was with von Harnack who took the consequences of denying that Jesus was divine. He was just human, a nice man. He was a leader or prophet or voice, but he was not the God-man, not the incarnate "Logos." Thus we did not need theology to understand him; rather, we need the social and historical sciences.

Benedict XVI, as he indicates in his book "Jesus of Nazareth," is often concerned with the claim of scholarship to unearth the fundamentals of faith by science's own methods alone. All it can unearth is what is known by the methods, so more and more fundamental things are left out as such scholarship claims priority.

"Fides et Ratio" is a long, incisive analysis of modern philosophy alongside of the question of what kind of philosophy will enable us to understand what is really revealed.

The very notion of a "Christian philosophy" arises from the need to understand in terms of reason just what was said in revelation. The use of a Greek word, not a scriptural word, at the Council of Nicaea, as the Pope said, indicated that under the pressure of understanding revelation, the philosophical experience could be fundamental.

Faith and philosophy are not in contradiction, but are related to grasp the whole of reality. Both are necessary. This is why pure Scripture is not enough even to understand Scripture's own positions. As Chesterton remarked at the end of "Heretics," it would be revelation, not reason, which, in the end, said that the grass is green, that reason in faith alone would affirm the ordinary things of reality that the modern philosophers could no longer comprehend.

Q: In your book, and in the Holy Father's lecture, there is no effort to "turn back the clock" and deny the achievements of modernism. In what ways do you see an integration of the old and the new?

Father Schall: First of all the term "modernism" is generally meant to be a declaration of independence of modern thought from what is past, Greek or scholastic. However, thought in modernity more and more loses its moorings in an ordered reality.

As the Pope points out, the third de-Hellenization is what we call "multiculturalism," a belief that there is no real truth in any culture so that there are no fundamental issues between civilizations or religions, only a kind of tolerance about truth's impossibility.

Despite the claim that multicultural tolerance does not involve violence, its very system contains within itself a tradition within history that does claim that violence is in fact justified by voluntarist premises. In other words, on a purely multicultural theory, there is no reason why voluntarism is not a legitimate position as there is really nothing to oppose it except power.

The Pope repeats several times that he does not want to "go back," but he does wish to distinguish what is good and what is not in modern thought and culture.

Rommen said that the natural law is perennial, that is, it keeps coming back when we reach positions within a culture that normal men of common sense can see clearly wrong. The objective standard keeps calling disorder and injustice to our attention. The Regensburg lecture is an intellectual challenge. This is why it is precisely an academic lecture and not an encyclical; it insists we face the truth and falsity in any culture on the basis of "logos," of reason.

You will notice that the Pope brings in the notion of the fascination with mathematics that we found in Plato. He addresses the scientific mind directly and tells it that its discoveries are based on the fact that mathematics and its many sophistications work in reality. There must be a correspondence between principles of reality and principles of mathematics.

Why is there this correspondence if there is not a realistic philosophy to explain why? And if there is this correspondence, why is there not an ultimate mind that orders all things found with mathematics as well as with its own systems? Much current literature is based on the claims of a new kind of atheism, one that often lacks the intellectual rigor of more classic forms. The confidence of modern atheism does not face the strange correspondences between mind and reality that even science cannot avoid.

The problem with science is not only what it is, but what are we going to do with it? The classic Greeks were said to have known all sorts of inventions but chose not to pursue them because they understood the dangers they might entail for human living itself.

The Regensburg lecture gives science and technology their due by pointing out that they are not everything, but what they do is valid for a certain aspect of things. They can only explain what falls to their competence.

Philosophy, ethics, theology and poetry all reach to realities that are not direct objects of science, to things that are essentially spiritual and nonmaterial. The human intellect transcends its own being to be concerned with all that is.

We are bewildered if we think that science can explain everything, but this does not mean that what it cannot explain is therefore not explicable. It rather means that other insights and ways of knowing have their own validity.

The word of the Pope to science is not "don't be scientific" in the proper sense. It is rather to stop limiting itself to only one concept of reason, a very narrow concept. This concept is good as far as it goes. But it is one that excludes by definition most of the important things men are concerned with.

The Regensburg lecture takes us to the heart not only of current events, but also to the heart of reality itself. Philosophy and revelation are not enemies of each other, but are directed at one another. The exaltation of man by revelation does not imply that he is not what he is created to be, a rational animal, one who does all he does by "logos," by reason.

Man is the glory of God in the sense that God can address his word to him and he can know and comprehend because he is created with the power to know the truth of things. The moral and political life of man is designed to enable us to know what is addressed to us from reason and even, if it happens, from revelation.

What seems clear about the Regensburg lecture is that the best place to understand our times is in the heart of Rome itself. Here, in the native tongues of recent Popes, in Polish, or German, and, yes, Latin, they speak to us of what it means to be human, to be beings addressed by God in both reason and revelation.

Zenit interview with Fr. Schall, part 2

Regensburg Revisited (Part 2): Interview With Father James Schall

By Carrie Gress

ROME, OCT. 10, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture, given Sept. 12, 2006, was not only directed at the question of Islam, but also the weaknesses of modern Western philosophy, says Jesuit Father James Schall.

The professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University is the author of "The Regensburg Lecture," published by St. Augustine's Press.

In Part 2 of this interview with ZENIT, Father Schall comments on what he says is one of the most important discourses of modern time.

Part 1 of this interview appeared Tuesday. Part 3 will appear Thursday.

Q: The Holy Father included in his lecture a discussion of the roots of voluntarism, a theological idea that attempts to put no limits on God, defying even reason. What role does this factor play in Islam as well as in non-Muslim thought?

Father Schall: This question, of course, was already in Greek and medieval philosophy. It exists as a perennial issue for the human mind to resolve. Voluntarism did not originate with Islam, except perhaps in the sense that nowhere else has it been carried out with such logical consistency and backed by such force. "Voluntarism" here means not the spontaneous effort to do something to help others of which the Pope spoke in "Deus Caritas Est," but the philosophic and theological idea that the will is superior to the intellect and is not subject to reason.

The Pope is quite careful to note that the same problem exists in the West via Duns Scotus, the great medieval philosopher and theologian. It goes from him to William of Ockham, to Niccolò Machiavelli and to Thomas Hobbes, and onward into modern political philosophy. I have just been reading with a class Heinrich Rommen's most insightful book "The Natural Law," which spells out in much detail why legal voluntarism stands at the basis of modern positivism and historicism, subjects that Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin were concerned with.

From this point of view, the Regensburg lecture was directed at the heart of Europe and America, to those "justifications" that are in fact used by its laws and customs to justify the killing of the innocent. The Socratic principle that "it is never right to do wrong" still remains the bedrock of a philosophy not based on pure will.

Pure will can justify anything because it has evaporated any nature or order from man and the universe. Voluntarism allows no grounding for absolute principles of human dignity. If it is asked, if I might surmise a guess, why the Pope chose to begin his lecture with the conversation of the Greek Byzantine Emperor in the 1300's with a Persian gentleman, it was because it enabled him graphically to state the most pressing issue of our time, not merely "is it reasonable to extend religion by violence," but is it reasonable to use this violence on any innocent human being.

This is where the Islamic problem, in fact, is substantially the same as the Western problem. Both systems have to resort to a voluntaristic theory of state and being to explain why they are not immoral for using violence against those who are innocent and protected by the divine and natural law itself.

We miss the point if we think voluntarism is not a theoretic system that seeks to praise God in the highest possible way. Voluntarism means that there is no nature or order behind appearances. Everything can be otherwise. Everything that happens occurs because God or Allah positively chose it, but who could have chosen the exact opposite.

Some philosophers, not just Muslim, think that God cannot be limited in any way, even by the principle of contradiction. He can make right wrong, or even make hatred of God his will. It sounds strange to hear this position at first. But once we grant its first principle, that will is higher than intellect, and governs it, everything follows.

This theory is why so-called Muslim terrorists claim and believe that they are in fact following Allah's will. They might even be acting on a good, if erroneous, conscience. Allah wants the whole world to worship him in the order laid down in the Koran.

The world cannot be settled until this conversion to Islam happens, even if it takes centuries to accomplish. This submission to Allah is conceived to be a noble act of piety. There is in voluntarist principles nothing contradictory if Allah orders the extension of his kingdom by violence, since there is no objective order that would prevent the opposite of what is ordered from being ordered the next day.

Again, I must say, that behind wars are theological and philosophical problems that must be spelled out and seen for what they are. This spelling out is what the Regensburg lecture is about.

Q: Explain why the Pope cites the recovery of a particular kind of reason? He speaks of a "re-Hellenization," or a return to Greek philosophy, as the solution to the current crisis of civilization.

Father Schall: Actually, the central part of the lecture was rather on the "de-Hellenization" of western culture and what it meant.

The Pope indicated three states: 1) the Reformation position that there was too much philosophy in Catholicism, so that what was needed was a return to the pure Jesus, without the philosophy.

2) The second was the result of the denial of the divinity of Christ, so that, with Adolf von Harnak, Christ was just a man to be studied by science in the universities.

3) The third was in effect multiculturalism, that there was no possible unity on the basis of principle or reason. Everyone was right within his own system.

The tradition from even the Old Testament, as the Pope sketched out, was rather that revelation itself pointed to Greek philosophy. In the case both of Genesis and the Prologue of John, the very term "Logos" was the form in which God chose to speak to us, in the word.

The very definition of God -- "I Am" -- was clearly something that was comprehensible in a philosophy itself based on reason. The Pope is quite careful to note that Paul's turning to Macedonia and not to some other culture had to do with a providential decision about what it means to comprehend revelation, particularly the Incarnation and the Trinity, the two basic doctrines that are denied in all other religions and philosophies.

It is because of the unique contribution of Europe that this relation was hammered out, particularly by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and their heritage. To receive revelation of the word, of the inner life of the Godhead, we must have a preparation, a philosophy that allows us to comprehend what it being revealed to us. Not all philosophies do this, which is why it makes a difference what philosophy we understand to be true.

The Pope pointed out that for Kant, reason and revelation are not any longer directly related as being addressed to each other. Faith and reason are two separate things, with no possibility of mutual comprehension, however minimal. Kant is the origin of much subsequent philosophy that has been perplexed, as Gilson showed in his famous "Unity of Philosophic Experience," by how to put things back together again.

The small error in the beginning leads to a large error in the end, as Aristotle taught us. This Kantian, and before it Cartesian, background too is the origin of the two different concepts of "reason" that the Pope made the key question of modern intelligence and of intelligence itself. The logic of the Reformation's position on philosophy and its relation to theology led to an attempt to have a pure human Jesus without any real basis in reason to explain why it is credible to believe in him.

The Pope wants to do two things. First he wants to defend science within its own competency, and second he wants science to abandon the "self-limitation" of itself that cannot see the reality of nonmathematical things because being is not limited only to things that can be measured.

This broader openness to human truths that can be known by intuitive reason, love, friendship, suffering or hope is why the Eastern and other religions think the West because of its scientific narrowness has lost its soul, as it appears from their vices, that they have.

Scientific reason, which is not coextensive with reason in its fullness, cannot speak to what really counts in human existence. This distinction between two kinds of reason gives an even greater insight into what this Pope is about. What he is really doing is seeking for grounds, which have to be reason, by which we can approach all religions and cultures, including Europe itself, busily losing not only its soul but its very bodies, as population decline shows.

Zenit interview with Fr. Schall, part 1

Regensburg Revisited (Part 1): Interview With Father James Schall

By Carrie Gress

ROME, OCT. 9, 2007 (Zenit.org).- When one interprets Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture, which he delivered more than one year ago, as simply an address on Islam, one misses the point, says Father James Schall.

The professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University is the author of "The Regensburg Lecture," published by St. Augustine's Press.

In this part 1 of this interview with ZENIT, Father Schall comments on the Pope's remarks regarding Islam question, but then more importantly, the deeper point of the lecture.

Parts 2 and 3 of this interview will appear Wednesday and Thursday, respectively.

Q: Just over a year has passed since Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture was delivered, followed by an international outcry from some Muslim circles. Was it the Islamic response that prompted you to write this book or was there something else?

Father Schall: Actually, I had read the address before the Islamic response, which took some time to orchestrate. I do not think it was a "spontaneous" reaction.

When I first read the lecture, a day or so after it was available to the public, I went to my class and told them frankly that it was the most important address in modern times. It put everything together. I was not exaggerating.

The Islamic context of the lecture was merely an introduction to what has proved to be an insight into Benedict XVI's overall agenda, namely, the grounds on which we approach all religions, cultures and philosophies in the name of their truth, in the name of all truth, including the truth of revelation.

Benedict XVI's sights are by no means narrow. He knows that besides the world of Islam, where most Christians have either left or been driven out, Christianity has only a minimal presence in the great Chinese, Hindu, Buddhist and modern philosophical worlds.

The Pope is seeking a way to see what these worlds have in common and to establish a basis from which each can be addressed in well-grounded terms that cannot be ignored.

Of course, the Islamic reaction quickly made this lecture known throughout the world, something the militants might have had second thoughts about had they realized what they were doing. Many wanted to chastise Benedict XVI for being "imprudent" or "insensitive." But he was neither.

He addressed an issue that did, to be sure, come to world attention because of Islamic militancy. This issue was stated succinctly: "Is it reasonable, or does God will, to spread one's religion by violence?" This was a question asked by practically everyone in the world who thought of the implications of "suicide bombings," or about the earlier holy wars -- jihad -- in Islamic history, wars largely, though not exclusively, against Christian lands. The issue is the deliberate choice of violent means as the proper way to propagate a religion, together with a theological justification to do so.

The Pope pointed out that within the Koran itself we can find two different answers to the question: one that says "no," one that says "yes." The current turmoil in the world is caused by those in Islam who answer "yes" to this question.

The Pope showed a singular courage in his response to the uproar. He did not back down. He merely said that if anyone was offended by the very posing of the question, he was sorry. But it is not legitimate to be "offended" by a serious question, formally posed, in search to the truth of an issue in an academic setting.

But what first interested me in this lecture was Benedict XVI's more basic concern. This was Europe and the modern scientific mind.

To think that Islam was his main target misses the more penetrating issue that the lecture raised, namely, is the same root cause that justifies suicide bombings at work among us theoretically justifying, by the same philosophic principles, the widespread violent killing of innocent lives?

Militant Islam makes no bones about the idea that it intends to conquer the world for Allah. Thus, there is something starkly simple about Islam, its constant effort since its beginning to submit the whole world to Allah. We tend to think this is fanatical or outlandish. But to many Muslim minds, it is perfectly logical and indeed a basis of action. What the Pope was concerned about was the basis of this claim.

Q: In the book, you compare Benedict XVI's visit with Pope John Paul II's first visit back to Poland. What are the similarities?

Father Schall: John Paul II's first visit to Poland was the revelation of the power of truth against a tyrannical system. It was more than that.

Together with U.S. President Ronald Reagan's insistence of showing the Soviets that they could not keep up in the area of military balance, and the internal decline of morals and will in the Soviet citizens, the Polish Pope's brave and firm presence was something that Poles and the world simply wanted to see, wanted to be there. It was a sign that there was something else in the world but political power. Very few western thinkers predicted the collapse of the Soviet system.

By the time of Benedict XVI's Regensburg visit the whole focus of the world had shifted to suicide bombers, to efforts to pacify Islamic terrorism, either by war or by covert or political action.

The initial political reaction to 9/11 was one that sought to find the terrorists who irrationally caused this astonishing feat of blowing up, before our very eyes, two of the world's largest and most famous buildings in one of the most famous cities in the world.

Subsequent bombings in Madrid, London, Bali, Paris and elsewhere suddenly made the war not between opposing armies but, like the famous raids of the Barbary Coast pirates, sudden incursions out of almost anywhere on almost any target.

A new form of war has been developed which cannot really be explained in traditional western sociological or moral terms. This situation suggests, as the Pope understood, that a much more fundamental analysis of what is going on is required.

What is of importance is that what he found to be the central cause was not something peculiarly Islamic, though it was that too. Islamic philosophy and western philosophy, not to mention Eastern philosophy, often had similar intellectual roots and presuppositions. This is why it is not correct to view this lecture as simply concerned with Islam. It strikes very much closer to home.

Just as John Paul II's first visit to Poland was a kind light in the darkness of despair about ever doing anything about Marxism, so the Regensburg visit of Benedict XVI was a brilliant flash over the whole of intellectual history telling us what was really at stake. Good politicians trying to do something about terrorism cannot proceed, really, until they know exactly what it is they are opposing.

The fact is, it is not terrorism, a sort of vague abstraction. In this sense politics depends on mind. The Regensburg lecture, as Socrates reminded us in the "Gorgias," addresses real politics by addressing the issue of why men act as they do and their reasons for doing so.

Q: You called the lecture "one of the fundamental tractates of our time." Why is that?

Father Schall: The Regensburg lecture has this quality of suddenly illuminating whole fields of knowledge because it knows what belongs where, what the issues are, what is at stake in understanding our times in theoretical terms.

I have even suggested that this lecture brings up again the medieval issue of the harmony of the two swords. That is, what is lacking in the civil discussion is intelligibility of what is at stake, of what in fact is going on.

If we reduce the issue to one of violence by fanatics, we will never understand why political or military solutions, however also needed, as here, will not get to the heart of the problem.

This heart consists in understanding what is going on from a theoretical and theological point of view. The political order is disordered because the order of the soul is disordered, as Plato taught us. It is no accident that Benedict cited Socrates twice in the lecture and found the heart of what he has to say on the side of reason coming from classical Greek philosophy.

Holy See on Religious Liberty and Peace

Holy See on Religious Liberty and Peace

"Openness to Transcendence a Guarantee of Human Dignity"

NEW YORK, OCT. 7, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Archbishop Dominique Mamberti gave Friday to the general assembly at the United Nations about the role of religion in the peace effort.

* * *

Address by H.E. Archbishop Dominique Mamberti
Secretary for the Holy See’s Relations with States

62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly

High-level Dialogue on Interreligious and
Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace

New York, 5 October 2007

Mr. President,

Three times in the last two decades, leaders of the world’s religions gathered at the invitation of the late Pope John Paul II in Assisi, the City of Saint Francis, a person recognized by many as a symbol of reconciliation and brotherhood. There they prayed and offered a common witness for peace. In 1986, they reflected on the roots of peace in the common origin and destiny of humankind. In 1993, they stressed, in particular, that violence in the name of religion is an offence against God. In January 2002, following 9/11, they reaffirmed that violence and terrorism are incompatible with authentic religion. In the recent words of Pope Benedict XVI, Assisi tells us that faithfulness to one’s own religious convictions is not expressed in violence and intolerance [according to whom?], but in sincere respect for others, in dialogue and in an announcement that appeals to freedom and reason while remaining committed to peace and reconciliation.

Religion as a factor of peace

Religion, in fact, is essentially a herald of peace.

The use of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such, but to the cultural limitations in which religions are lived and develop in time. For instance, it is well known that, in recent history, political leaders have sometimes manipulated religious identity and that some nationalist movements have utilized religious differences to garner support for their causes. Religion has also been used as a vehicle for violent protest where states have failed to provide development and justice for their people and have blocked other channels of dissent.

However, historic traditions of spiritual discernment, asceticism and service contribute to directing religious fervor away from violence and toward the good of the larger society. Theological reflection submits to critique views tending toward extremism. Philosophical questioning and historical scholarship help religion to deepen its search for truth and show its reasonableness, thus facilitating dialogue and consolidating the impact of religion on peace building and on society as a whole.

Mr. President,

There cannot be peace without understanding and cooperation among religions. There cannot be understanding and cooperation among religions without religious liberty.

The safeguarding and promotion of religious liberty for all requires both state action and religious responsibility.

The role of political authorities

States and International Organizations are called to adhere to and enforce the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and allied international instruments, such as "The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief."

The full exercise of the right to religious freedom is based on respect for human reason and its capacity to know the truth; it ensures openness to transcendence as an indispensable guarantee of human dignity [this can be found in DH]; it allows all religions to manifest their own identity publicly, free from any pressure to hide or disguise it. Religious freedom includes the right to disseminate one’s own faith and the right to change it. [And so do Catholics have the right to push for changes as well? Or is there an ultimate standard of truth by which all such changes must be measured?] Respect for religious liberty would unmask the pretense of some terrorists to justify their unjustifiable actions on religious grounds.

If violence still arises between religious groups, anti-incitement programs in civil society should be supported, especially when they are initiated by local groups in cross-religious alliances. Anti-incitement activities include education, mobilization of religious leaders, mass movements opposing hate speech and other public acts calculated to spur sectarian violence.

Religious minorities do not pretend special protection or status, as long as their right to religious freedom is fully guaranteed and they are not discriminated against on religious grounds. In fact, they should enjoy the same civil rights as the general population and members of the majority religion, e.g., for the construction and repair of places of worship.[Does this part go beyond DH though?]

Interreligious responsibilities

Mr. President,

Fruitful high-level international gatherings of religious leaders aimed at praying for and promoting peace should be replicated at national and local levels. Indeed, prayer and good intentions are authentic only if they translate into practical gestures at all levels.

If religions want to build peace, they must teach forgiveness. In fact, there is no peace without justice, and there is no justice without forgiveness.

Religious communities can also make a positive contribution to peace by educating their own members in their teachings on peace and solidarity.

The promotion of interreligious programs focused on development cooperation can also foster dialogue and make significant contributions to peacemaking in societies afflicted by conflict, working with local groups in anti-incitement, peace and nonviolence education, conflict transformation and negotiation.

Mr. President,

At a time when the so-called clash of civilizations is gaining currency in some quarters, religions have a special role to play in blazing new paths to peace, in union with one another and in cooperation with states and international organizations. To empower religions to fully assume this role, all of us must work together to ensure that religious freedom is recognized, safeguarded and fostered by all and everywhere. If this high-level dialogue is to bear fruit, our message today must get out of the confines of this hall to reach and touch each and every person and community of believers throughout the world.

Thank you, Mr. President.

[Text adapted]

How many questionable assertions can one find in this? And with this sort of rhetoric concerning religious freedom being issued from the Curia, is it any wonder that people have a confused notion of what genuine religious liberty is?

Zenit: Cardinal Lozano Barragán on Future of Health Care

Cardinal Lozano Barragán on Future of Health Care

"Putting Technology at the Service of Man"

ROME, OCT. 6, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address delivered by Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, the president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, during a conference co-sponsored by the Vatican dicastery and the Acton Institute, titled "Health, Technology and Common Good." It was held at the Pontifical Gregorian University on Oct. 28.

* * *

My Dear Friends, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have been honored to welcome all of you into this one-day conference which reflects themes based on Health, Technology, and Common Good. Well, I shall do this duty with pleasure, on behalf of the joint organizers of this Conference: The Acton Institute and the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care.

First of all, it is my duty to welcome all the distinguished speakers of the day. We have a wide spectrum of topics as well as experts for each session. So let us give all of them a hearty welcome and wish that they will enlighten us throughout the day. Then, to all the participants so that the reflections of today will lead us to more fruitful action in the future.

I have been asked to present "The Future for Health Care: Putting Technology at the Service of Man." Well, I am to do that presentation in two divided sessions, one in the beginning as I am doing now, and the other at the end of the day as closing remarks.

Part I: Introduction

Therefore, at this moment I shall try to introduce briefly the day's theme: Health, Technology and the Common Good. First of all, there needs to be a clear understanding of what health is; because technology must be oriented to health, and to the future of care health. I am sure Monsignor Jean Laffite is an expert to explain it to us in detail. It has been my experience as the president of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care that there is a lot of confusion regarding health, even among political leaders as well as Church leaders. Many bishops from all over the world, when they come to visit the Pontifical council, had asked me to present for them what does it mean health today, especially when there are lot of technological developments. So I prepared especially for them a short volume called "Metabioethics and Biomedicine."

My point is there are people who seriously want to understand clearly what health is, especially at this period of globalization, when they are bombarded with partial or unclear information, especially from various international organizations, NGOs and other associations who are involved in health care. There is clearly a paradigm shift in the ethical reflection on health. This so called "New Paradigm" is supposed to be the official thought of the United Nations and its various bodies like WHO and UNESCO.[1] It is supported by four NGOs in particular: "Women's Environment and Development Organization," "Earth Council," "Green Peace" and "International Planned Parenthood Federation."

According to its proponents the objective of the new global ethics is to achieve global well-being within the confines of sustainable development. This global well-being is what forms the target also known as World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) and is defined as: "the perception by the individual of his position in life, within the context of the culture and system of values in which he finds himself, and in relation to his goals, expectations, models and interests."

It covers six areas: 1. Physical health, 2. Psychological health, 3. Level of independence, 4. Social relations, 5. Context (economy, freedom, security, information, participation, environment, traffic, climate, transport…) 6. Spirituality. Aside from social duties, the basic factors are autonomy and self-determination.

One of the precepts of this new paradigm is "Health For All". Health for all is defined as at Alma Ata: "the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."

It requires ten aspects: health education, adequate nutrition, clean drinking water, basic health care, maternal infant care, immunization against the major contagious diseases, prevention and control of local endemic diseases, suitable treatment in the event of common disasters and illnesses, access to basic medicines and reproductive health.

Although apparently there are values in this new paradigm shift what is basically wrong is an ideology that is "closed to the transcendent." First of all, there is an ethical subjectivism and relativism. Since there no objective validity in their argument those who hold to this thinking concentrate their activities above all in "lobbies," to seek or buy consensus. Their thinking is based on a distinction made between the human being or individual and the person. In any case, there are only rights for the person, not for the human being or the individual.

One is a person only when he acts as such in the complex world of interrelationships of sensorial, mental, conscious, social activities, symbolic gestures, etc. If, at any given moment, someone is not capable of acting as such, he ceases to be a person and is simply a human being or an individual, deprived of any right that could be described as human right. This gives rise to questions related to health issues of the individual in relation to technological advancement, especially concerning the right to life of the fertilized egg, the human state of the "pre-embryo" or the embryo, the right to abortion, the ban on eugenics, euthanasia, etc.

As background of this way of thinking we find the confusion between well-being and happiness. And also the concept of liberty as something absolute and closed in itself.

In contrast with the position of the New Paradigm, we can approach to the authentic concept of health such as is described by the servant of God John Paul II: According him health is a tension towards harmony at the physical, psychological, spiritual and social level, and not mere absence of illness, and which enables man to fulfill his God-given mission in the stages of life he finds himself.[2]

Part II: The Future of Health-Care: Putting Technology at the Service of Man.

Following this pontifical description of health, what will be the future of the technology in the field of health, if it will be authentic progress?

Addressing the participants of the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, Pope Benedict XVI said: "The health of the human being, of the whole human being, was the sign chosen by Christ to manifest God's closeness, his merciful love, which heals the mind, the soul and the body…. Going to the aid of the human being is a duty: both in response to a fundamental right of the person and because the care of individuals redounds to the benefit of the group. Medical science makes progress to the extent that it is willing to constantly discuss diagnosis and methods of treatment, in the knowledge that it will be possible to surpass the previous data acquired and the presumed limits. Moreover, esteem for and confidence in health-care personnel are proportionate to the certainty that these official guardians of life will never condemn a human life, however impaired it may be, and will always encourage endeavors to treat it. Consequently, treatment should be extended to every human being, meaning throughout his or her entire existence. The modern conception of health care is in fact human advancement: from the treatment of the sick person to preventive treatment, with the search for the greatest possible human development, encouraging an adequate family and social environment."[3]

Therefore, when we speak about putting technology at the service of man we are considering humanity as such and for the common good in general. As the Second Vatican Council had observed, "Every day human interdependence grows more tightly drawn and spreads by degrees over the whole world. As a result the common good, that is, the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment, today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family."[4]

In today's globalized world we need to think in terms of human connectivity. Some of the modern technologies in health care themselves are connecting human race. An example is "eHealth" or health-care delivery supported by information technology, of digital data -- transmitted, stored and retrieved electronically -- in support of health care, both at the local level and at a distance.

Internet has helped connect so many medical personnel by providing information on the latest achievements in health technologies, thanks to servers installed by medical faculties and medical journals. Another example would be "Telemedicine."

When the patient and doctor are in far away places, they could use modern communication technologies (two way interactive consultation and digital image/data transmission) to send radiology images, laboratory reports, medical records, etc.

Telemedicine has proven very efficient, especially in emergency situations like NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration) intervening in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, or the 1988 earthquake in Armenia. In 1994 they have improved it into ACTS or Advanced Communication Technology Satellite.

In 1996 TIP (Portable Telemedicine Instrumentation Pack) was made available for easy transportation by health care personnel. Today we can speak of telesugery, teleradiology, teledentistry, teledermitology, telepathology, teleoncology, telepsycology, telecardiology, teleneurology, telenursing, etc.

The European Health Telematics Observatory's (EHTO) assertion is illustrative: health telematics activities are used by hospitals (34%), telephone utilities (14%), academic institutions (12%), clinicians (12%), governments (7%) and social services (4%).[5]

Some of the technologies enhance the past groundbreaking achievements in health care science: the concept about "public health", Epidemiology and its branches like Neuron Epidemiology, Cardiovascular Epidemiology, Cancer Epidemiology, etc., Health Economics and Health Management and so on. This last one branch has helped form health policies where there is awareness that spending on health care "is not an expenditure but an investment." This has also helped strategies of preventive and promotive measures in health care.

During my pastoral visits around the world, it is very heartening for me to see dozens of immaturely born children being cared in the incubators by well-trained, diligent and gentle health care personnel; or hundreds of children born to HIV infected mothers saved due to the timely administration of AZT. In the same way the news coming from a country in Africa that the death toll could be reduced to 1 from an average of 26 every month, thanks to the assistance they are getting from the Good Samaritan Foundation for the purchase of anti-retroviral medicine as well as basic nutrients.

Technology and Bioethics

What are the main principles that must lead the future of health technology? We try to answer regarding the biomedical field. As a general principle we can establish this; that which builds man is good, and that which destroys him is bad.

We know that Biomedical technology holds a great deal of promise in the areas of diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Strong health care systems invariably rely heavily on access to and use of health technologies. But we must also be aware of the fact that technology and medicine are only a part of the health care system and undue insistence on their capabilities may give more emphasis in meeting the demands of the providers than that of the human persons. The ultimate criterion in the use of all technologies must be the good of man. Everything technologically possible need not be ethically oriented. For this, ultimately we need a bioethics that is open to the transcendent.

In discussing the sciences of life and reflecting on the experimental sciences that manipulate life, one wonders about correct human behaviour in relation to human life, deficiency in human life, increase in human life, improvement in human life, procedures to be followed to obtain this improvement and deviations to be avoided. As a final condition, we find ourselves before the binomial necessity-satisfaction. This means that there is a living subject that aspires at improving himself, to do this he must journey along a path, and to do this he must plot the path, and to do this he must first know where he is heading for. Within the context of life, it is necessary to know what life is, what is the better life that one desires, the path to be followed and the path to be avoided in this journey, for instead of donating life, it could be taken away. In other words, biotechnology appears as a project for the building of man through the life and health sciences, that can build or destroy.

The horizon for Ethics in itself is finality. The horizon of Technology is only the possibility. The technology itself, is neuter, can build or destroy man. All depends from its direction, and the direction is given to Technology by Ethics. Therefore, in order to have a true code of bioethics, which provides us with rules of behaviour in the area of health and life, the first, question we must ask ourselves concerns the project for man, which involves the manipulation of life and health. Authentic Bioethics must appear as the project to improve human life and includes all the life and health sciences as its base, as that "intus legere" (inte-lecto, reading from inside) which in any analysis always concerns the final synthesis of what cannot be anything other than the construction of human life.

For a vital project to function (like any other project), it is necessary to understand the living reality that expects improvement as much as possible. This is a path that belongs to Bioethics. Here, we find rules which cannot simply be formulations or imperatives external to the person, instead they are real constructions of the same person and which little by little bring it nearer to the "better person", thereby increasing its density.

This complexity brings him to a consciousness of his reality which means being relational, open and thus embarking on his journey, that is, freely opening himself up to the Other, which in this case is the fulfillment of the Power of Truth and Love, which is precisely God. To attain freedom, Man in his project for development, opens himself up to the force of genuine progress in Biotechnology in order to ascertain, each time ever more that his vital completeness is in constant harmony with God, with all of humanity and with the whole surrounding environment.

And now, if we try to pass over the natural way of thinking to Revelation of God, in Catholic thought, this Ethics that is open, "objective", real, and with no constrictions, opens up to full communication with God the Almighty Father who brings about in us the Truth of His Son through His Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection. He fulfils all our aspirations by bringing us along the Way that is Christ, in the fullness of the Love of His Spirit. Catholic Ethics and Bioethics are the Christ's journey within us, to His Father through His death and resurrection, in the Love of the Holy Spirit. In this way, Bioethics will be the journeying within us of the Spirit along the paths of the life and health sciences. "Those led by the Spirit are the children of God" (Romans 8,14). The Spirit infuses in man the ability to journey towards the total construction of Christ -- this ability are the virtues -- and directs him into the comprehension of Christ Himself as a way, by means of the Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.

We Christians know that the only possibility for the true vital construction of man is the resurrection. Stated in concrete historic terms, the only possibility for vital construction is union with Christ, who died and rose from the dead. This is the only Ethics that is objectively valid and to which all the authentic values found in non-Christian ethics come close to and as such are indicators of the sole reality which goes beyond illusions of vital permanence.

According to the Roman Catholic view, the construction of man is a theandric construction where divine and human actions intertwine. In translating these actions into principles of valid action for guiding Biomedicine, we can state the following:

1. The human being is a creation of God, it is from Him he comes and to whom he must tend as his exemplary and final Cause. The person is in the image of God, member of the Body of Christ, citizen of the people of God.

2. Human life is received from humanity, not as property but to be administered. Human life is inviolable from its very conception to its natural end. The dignity of the human person is inviolable. It is on this that all Anthropology and Bioethics is based.

3. The origin to human life must lie solely in marriage and solely as the fruit of the marital act.

4. Spouses are not the cause of human life but the instruments of God in
communicating life.

5. From Christ, the human person is capable of reflection, is an end in himself and can never be considered as a means.

6. The human person has his freedom and responsibility that he must put to practice in order to attain fulfillment. There is no freedom without responsibility that in turn implies respect for the freedom of others.

7. The totality is above the part and sometimes the part must be sacrificed in favor of the totality. The human person is in solidarity and must tend towards the common good.

8. The only explanation of life and its single source is Christ who died and was raised to life. If death and suffering are considered in unity with the death of Christ they are the only source of life.

9. In this context, the three principles of subjective Bioethics: autonomy, beneficence and justice, can be accepted and justified.

10. The human person is the synthesis of the universe and is the reason for everything that exists. Biomedical science and technology must be at the service of human life and not vice versa, namely, such knowledge should be used to develop man and never to destroy him.

Conclusion

If then we make an attempt to define Catholic Bioethics and so, try to synthesize principles that lead the authentic future of health Technology we can enounce the following as conclusion of this paper: The Bioethics is "The systematic and detailed study of the conduct that constructs man through the health and life sciences in order to walk in Christ towards the Father, the fullness of life, by the power of the Holy Spirit".

This theological vision implies a profound structural dialogue with all sciences and technologies involved, with all the unifying ideas from the analyses, made by the different philosophical and theological schools, also in dialogue with other religions, bearing in mind that it is a behavioral study and therefore cannot be solely a line of reflection but must be concretized as a guiding light to resolve the difficult problems raised by science and technology.

Javier Cardinal Lozano Barragán
president
Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care
Vatican City

[1] See Kim Yersu, 1999. "A Common Framework for Ethics of the Twenty-First Century." UNESCO, Division of Philosophy and Ethics. Cited Nov. 15, 1999, at www.unesco.or.kr/ethics/yersu_kim.htm.

[2] See John Paul II, "Message for the World Day of the Sick for the Year 2000," "Dolentium Hominum," 42 (3, 1999), No. 13.

[3] Benedict XVI, Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, March 22, 2007.

[4] "Gaudium et spes," No. 26.

[5] See Department of Essential Health Technologies (WHO), "Information Technology in Support of Health Care", p. 2 at http://www.who.int/eht.