Civic Responsibility for the Common Good

Although he wrote his Pastoral Letter on Civic Responsibility for the Common Good back in 2004, Cardinal Raymond Burke’s words are more than ever relevant for us today – for 2012 and for the years ahead of us.  Here are some extracts from the document:

‘We are morally bound in conscience to choose leaders at all levels of government who will best serve the common good, “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”  “[T]he sum total of social conditions” embraces a wide spectrum of concerns which the Catholic voter must have before his or her eyes, for example, safeguarding the right to life and the sanctity of marriage and the family; securing domestic and international peace; promoting education and public safety; assisting those suffering from poverty; providing sufficient and safe food, health care and adequate housing; eliminating racism and other forms of injustice; and fostering justice in the work place.

‘The “fulfillment” which the common good helps us to attain is not self-fulfillment in the popular sense.  It is, rather, the fulfillment of God’s plan and destiny for us and our world.  […]

‘In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed.  Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration.  The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions.  […]

‘The safeguarding of human life is understandably foundational to all other precepts of the natural law.   […]

‘The Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of procured abortion forbids the destruction of human beings from the moment of fertilization through every stage of their development.  It is intrinsically evil to destroy human embryos, even for some intended good. […]

‘ “This evaluation of the morality of abortion is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos.  This is the case with experimentation on embryos, which is becoming increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and is legally permitted ink some countries. … [I]t must nonetheless be stated that the use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person.” (Evangelium Vitae)   […]

‘Another intrinsic moral evil which seemingly is growing in acceptability in our society is euthanasia.   […] Our thoroughly secularised society fails to understand the redemptive meaning of human suffering, while, at the same time, it views a human life burdened by advanced years, serious illness or special needs as unworthy and too burdensome to sustain. […]

‘Another moral concern of our time touches both upon the inviolability of human life and upon the sanctity of marriage and the family, in which human life has its beginning and receives its first and most important education.  The attempt to generate human life “without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning or parthenogenesis” is a grave violation of the moral law.  […]

‘Another moral concern touching upon marriage and the family, which is of particular urgency in our time, is the movement to recognize legally as a marriage a relationship between two persons of the same sex.  Such legal recognition of a same-sex relationship undermines the truth about marriage, revealed in the natural law and the Holy Scriptures, namely that it is an exclusive and lifelong union of one man and one woman, which of its very nature cooperates with God in the creation of new human life.   […]  Likewise, the legal recognition of a homosexual relationship as marriage redounds to the grave harm of the individuals involved, for it sanctions and even encourages gravely immoral acts.

‘Among the many “social conditions” which the Catholic must take into account in voting, the above serious moral issues must be given the first consideration.  The Catholic voter must seek, above every other consideration, to protect the common good by opposing these practices which attack its very foundations.   Thus, in weighing all of the social conditions which pertain to the common good, we must safeguard, before all else, the good of human life and the good of marriage and the family. […]’

Time and space have prevented me from quoting at greater length from Cardinal Burke’s pastoral.

I would like, however, to direct you to a recent interview that Cardinal Burke gave to EWTN/CNA News, when he stated that it is ‘critical at this time that Christians stand up for the natural moral law’, especially in defence of life and the family.  We should take particular note, too, of the Cardinal’s devotion to and admiration of St. Thomas More, Patron Saint of Lawyers and of Politicians.   Referring to St. Thomas’s last words before his execution – ‘I die the King’s good servant but God’s first’, Cardinal Burke said that by these words St. Thomas showed how he served his king best, and served the law best, by serving God.   What an example to us today, when we are being bombarded on all sides by immoral laws and practices that are so lethal to the common good of society

A celebration of motherhood

The following  reflection was brought to my attention recently, and I would like to share it with you.   It was written by Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty, who was Primate of Hungary in the 1940s.

The most Important Person on earth is a mother.  She cannot claim the honor of having built Notre Dame Cathedral.  She need not.  She has built something more magnificent than any cathedral – a dwelling for an immortal soul, the tiny perfection of her baby’s body … The angels have not been blessed with such a grace.  They cannot share in God’s creative miracle to bring new saints to Heaven.  Only a human mother can.  Mothers are closer to God the Creator than any other creature; God joins forces with mothers in performing this act of creation … What on God’s good earth is more glorious than this: to be a mother?

This is in stark contrast to the UN CEDAW Committee which is intent on eliminating all traditional stereotypes without any discernment as to which ones may or may not be beneficial to marriage and which ones may be actually harmful.

This committee has in the past criticised many nations for not abolishing stereotypes for women in the role of "Mother" and they want to abolish "Mothers Day" which they see as a "sex role stereotype".

Pope Benedict's address for World Day of Peace

Pope Benedict in his message for World Day of Peace January 1st 2012 addresses the issue of educating young people in Justice and Peace.
In his address Pope Benedict stresses the importance of the family and the parents as the primary educators of their children and he looks at the current threats to family life. We have included some relevant extracts below together with a link to the complete text 

Where does true education in peace and justice take place? First of all, in the family, since parents are the first educators. The family is the primary cell of society; “it is in the family that children learn the human and Christian values which enable them to have a constructive and peaceful coexistence. It is in the family that they learn solidarity between the generations, respect for rules, forgiveness and how   to welcome others.” (1) The family is the first school in which we are trained in justice and peace.

We are living in a world where families, and life itself, are constantly threatened and not infrequently fragmented. Working conditions which are often incompatible with family responsibilities, worries about the future, the frenetic pace of life, the need to move frequently to ensure an adequate livelihood, to say nothing of mere survival – all this makes it hard to ensure that children receive one of the most precious of treasures: the presence of their parents. This presence makes it possible to share more deeply in the journey of life and thus to pass on experiences and convictions gained with the passing of the years, experiences and convictions which can only be communicated by spending time together. I would urge parents not to grow disheartened! May they encourage children by the example of their lives to put their hope before all else in God, the one source of authentic justice and peace.

There is much in the address which must be looked at in depth and the entire text is available on this link

UN Secretary General sees the UN as “the voice of the voiceless and the defender of the defenceless.”

One of my colleagues, Vincenzina Santoro Chief United Nations Representative – American Family Association of New York, writes - Let’s hold UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to his words! and then continues:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s year-end press conference did not exactly make it to the front pages of the world’s newspapers. However, for the occasion, Mr. Ban was keen to remind reporters that he was completing his first five-year term at the end of 2011 and was looking forward to his second mandate. In his remarks, he stated that the world needs the United Nations now more than ever. This is debatable, but he gave us some food for thought. According to Mr. Ban, over the past five years, he tried to “advance a practical, action-oriented vision of the UN as “the voice of the voiceless and the defender of the defenceless.”

Reflecting on his words, who could be more voiceless and defenceless than the unborn? Is this not especially true of the unborn who are to be aborted – their very tiny existence about to be crushed, dismembered and terminated, yet they cannot utter a word or take a stand? They were not part of his “action-oriented vision.” If the Secretary-General were truly sincere about defending the “voiceless and defenceless” he should be a defender of all the unborn. Mr. Ban indicated that in January he would present the outline for his second term, making references to commitments to the rights of women and children with the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development to be center stage among 2012 events. Perhaps he should include the unborn.

While Mr. Ban conducted his news conference, given the season, elsewhere in New York theatre troops were busy presenting the Dickens classic: “A Christmas Carol.” The character of Ebenezer Scrooge early on, in his unrepentant stage, refuses to give alms to the poor and ill so that the “ranks of their populations” could be thinned! Was such an attitude the forerunner of today’s population controllers? Possibly. But Scrooge saw a guiding spirit and soon enough experienced a conversion. Can we be a modern day “ghost of Christmases past” for the Secretary-General and use his very own words to draw their rightful conclusion?

There is something else that could boost a pro-life stance with the Secretary-General. Mr. Ban’s country of birth, South Korea, has the lowest fertility rate among developed countries: 1.15 children per woman, the result of all too successful official family planning policies pursued for decades. Today there is much hand wringing in South Korea about the implications of a shrinking population. Such concern ought to work in favor of the voiceless, defenceless unborn.

Starting with the Secretary-General’s own words, if all pro-lifers – at the UN and elsewhere –began a (massive?) writing campaign and asked him to support the voiceless and defenceless unborn child, would this not be the true meaning of his words and a new, right vision for the UN?

The address is:
Hon. Ban Ki-moon
Secretary-General of the United Nations
United Nations Headquarters
New York, NY 10017

Polish freedom and the victory of hope and truth

Brian Burch, of Catholic Vote (USA), gives us the following interesting story, by Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College. The story relates to two champions of life:

It was 30 years ago, December 13, 1981, that martial law was imposed upon Poland by the communist government.  Poles were aghast, horrified, frightened.  And so was the man in Rome, a Polish native named John Paul II, and so was another man thousands of miles away in Washington, DC, President Ronald Reagan.

When word of the communists’ actions reached the White House, President Reagan was furious.  He wanted to help the people of Poland in any way he could.  At that very moment, Reagan committed to save and sustain the Polish Solidarity movement as the wedge that could splinter the entire Soviet bloc, as the first crack in the Iron Curtain.

One of Reagan’s first responses was to call someone he deeply respected: John Paul II.  On December 14, he told the Holy Father: ‘Our country was inspired when you visited Poland, and to see their commitment to religion and belief in God.  It was an inspiration. … All of us were very thrilled.’

At that point, Reagan had not yet met John Paul II in person.  Reagan had been president only for 11 months.  Both he and John Paul II had been shot earlier in the year.  Reagan told the Pope that he looked forward to a time when the two men could meet in person.  […]

Reagan followed up  with two letters to John Paul II […] neither of which was declassified until July 2000.  In the December 17 letter, he asked the Pope to urge Poland’s General Jaruzelski to hold a meeting with Lech Walesa and Poland’s Archbishop Glemp.  In the second letter, Reagan explained the counter-measures his administration was taking against the USSR; he also asked the Pope to use his influence with the Polish Church to lift martial law, to gain the release of detainees, and to resume a dialogue with Solidarity; and he requested that John Paul II press other Western countries to join the United States.  ‘If we are to keep alive the hope for freedom in Poland,’ said Reagan, ‘it lies in this direction.’

Another account given by Professor Kengor tells of a meeting between Ronald Reagan and Romuald Spasowski, the Polish Ambassador, on 23 December 1981.  The ambassador and his wife had just defected to the United States.  

Michael Deaver, a close Reagan aide, witnessed the meeting. Deaver later recorded:

The ambassador and his wife were ushered into the Oval Office, and the two men sat next to one another in plush-leather wingback chairs.  Vice President Bush, and the ambassador’s wife, sat facing them on a couch.

[…] The ambassador […] begged the president never to discontinue Radio Free Europe.  […]  ‘Please, sir, do not ever underestimate how many millions of people still listen to that channel behind the Iron Curtain.’

Then, almost sheepishly, he said, ‘May I ask you a favor, Mr. President?  Would you light a candle and put it in the window tonight for the people of Poland?’

And right then, Ronald Reagan got up and went to the second floor, lighted a candle, and put it in the window of the dining room.

That candle might have brought to mind those lit after Mass by a young Karol Wojtyla.  Then and now, they burned bright for Russia’s conversion.

But Reagan did more than that.  That evening, with Christmas only two days away, the president gave a nationally televised speech watched by tens of millions of Americans.  He connected the spirit of the Christmas season with events in Poland: ‘For a thousand years,’ he told his fellow Americans.  ‘Christmas has been celebrated in Poland, a land of deep religious faith, but this Christmas brings little joy to the courageous Polish people.  They have been betrayed by their own government.’  He made an extraordinary gesture.  The president asked Americans that Christmas season to light a candle in support of freedom in Poland.   […]

Thirty years ago, December 1981, the communists tried to turn out the lights in Poland.  But like a candle in the White House window, Ronald Reagan and John Paul II and the people of Poland kept a flicker of hope alive.

It may seem like a long time ago, distant to the interests of Americans today.  In truth, this was a crucial turning point for the world, for freedom, and for faith.   It is a history lesson worth taking to heart, especially this Christmas.

Indeed, that lesson can equally be taken to heart in Western European countries today.

It brings to mind, too, the Irish custom of leaving a candle lighting in the windows of houses on Christmas Eve night to welcome the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph who were looking for some suitable shelter for the birth of the Saviour of the world.

Christmas 2011