From the moment this encyclical was produced moral theologians have offered their opinion in respect to this delicate matter. It is not my intention to add to that here. The reason I offer this reflection and the excerpt from the encyclical below is because outside of the academic discussion on the issues of Catholic morality I have noticed, and for a long time taken for granted, a singular interpretation of what is considered “intrinsically evil.” I was led to reread this encyclical because again I have heard this term being used in lay Catholic arguments regarding what some consider the absolute importance of certain social issues over others. In the case that affected me, it was considered that abortion and euthanasia was of preeminent importance and that other social issues such as poverty or torture were either secondary or outside the Church’s sphere of social concern. The rational given was because they are “intrinsically evil.” The difficulty with this position was that it stood against the consistent ethic of life principle, which the Church upheld in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Knowing that the position of Intrinsically evil acts was defined in Veritatis Splendor I chose to study this document and to find the difinitive position of the Catholic Church regarding this principle. Below is section 80 of this document.        

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.

It has been my observation that a younger generation of Catholics is emerging that is not happy  with the partisan style of moral Catholicism that has been the recent status quo for American Catholics. The healthy tension between the individual conscience and the teaching authority of the Church will continue being debated as it has for generations before. But if we are to wrestle with valid principles then we must not do disservice to our Church and faith by allowing a divisive misinterpretation of any principle to hold sway. The Church does indeed believe that certain acts are “intrinsically evil.” In the above quote the Church defines these acts as Whatever is hostile to life itself and whatever is offensive to human dignity. Insofar as some of us are engaged with making statements on the Catholic concern of social issues we need to be challenged by the fact that our Church has adopted a consistent ethic in expressing its moral position on all issues that violate the integrity of human life and creation. Even in the principle of “intrinsically evil” acts this consistent ethic is again reiterated.

#1 - Respect for creation is of immense consequence, not least because “creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works”, and its preservation has now become essential for the pacific coexistence of mankind. Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace and to authentic and integral human development – wars, international and regional conflicts, acts of terrorism, and violations of human rights. Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us.

#6 - The world “is not the product of any necessity whatsoever, nor of blind fate or chance… The world proceeds from the free will of God; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, in his intelligence, and in his goodness”… Once man, instead of acting as God’s co-worker, sets himself up in place of God, he ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature, “which is more tyrannized than governed by him”. Man thus has a duty to exercise responsible stewardship over creation, to care for it and to cultivate it.

#7 - The goods of creation belong to humanity as a whole. Yet the current pace of environmental exploitation is seriously endangering the supply of certain natural resources not only for the present generation, but above all for generations yet to come. It is not hard to see that environmental degradation is often due to the lack of far-sighted official policies or to the pursuit of myopic economic interests, which then, tragically, become a serious threat to creation. To combat this phenomenon, economic activity needs to consider the fact that “every economic decision has a moral consequence” and thus show increased respect for the environment. When making use of natural resources, we should be concerned for their protection and consider the cost entailed – environmentally and socially – as an essential part of the overall expenses incurred.

#8 - A greater sense of intergenerational solidarity is urgently needed. Future generations cannot be saddled with the cost of our use of common environmental resources… The ecological crisis shows the urgency of a solidarity which embraces time and space.

#9 - I would advocate the adoption of a model of development based on the centrality of the human person, on the promotion and sharing of the common good, on responsibility, on a realization of our need for a changed life-style, and on prudence, the virtue which tells us what needs to be done today in view of what might happen tomorrow.

#10 - At present there are a number of scientific developments and innovative approaches which promise to provide satisfactory and balanced solutions to the problem of our relationship to the environment. Encouragement needs to be given, for example, to research into effective ways of exploiting the immense potential of solar energy. Similar attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change. Suitable strategies for rural development centered on small farmers and their families should be explored, as well as the implementation of appropriate policies for the management of forests, for waste disposal and for strengthening the linkage between combating climate change and overcoming poverty.

#11 - It is becoming more and more evident that the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our life-style and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view. We can no longer do without a real change of outlook which will result in new life-styles, “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments”.

#12 - The Church has a responsibility towards creation, and she considers it her duty to exercise that responsibility in public life, in order to protect earth, water and air as gifts of God the Creator meant for everyone, and above all to save mankind from the danger of self-destruction.

#14 - Christ, crucified and risen, has bestowed his Spirit of holiness upon mankind, to guide the course of history in anticipation of that day when, with the glorious return of the Savior, there will be “new heavens and a new earth” (2 Pet 3:13), in which justice and peace will dwell for ever. Protecting the natural environment in order to build a world of peace is thus a duty incumbent upon each and all. … For this reason, I invite all believers to raise a fervent prayer to God, the all-powerful Creator and the Father of mercies, so that all men and women may take to heart the urgent appeal: If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation.

Unlike other religious traditions and institutions our Catholic Church is one of the most hierarchical religious systems in our world. While our church is open to the spiritual and cultural diversity of our faith, our own tradition and teachings are ultimately formulated through the highest governing body known as the Magisterium. It is the opinion of the Passionist office of Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation that the Catholic Church does have a unified position on the principle of this issue. Our own Passionist spirituality values this position. While the Catholic Church does have a position on the principle of this issue it does not offer a detail policy for how to carry out this principle, but the position does lend itself to contemplate certain policy direction.

The Catholic Position:
When we compare the various opinions of the Catholic American community on this subject it is noticeable that there is one fundamental question that tends to split the community into two camps that are either in favor or against universal healthcare. Is healthcare a basic human right or not? If you accept that people have the right to good healthcare then you will generally support some model of universal healthcare. On the other hand if you disagree with this position then healthcare is not a social responsibility but an individual’s privilege.

The Catholic Church does have a position with regards to this question. Healthcare is a basic human right. Catholic social teaching affirms this in the encyclical by Pope John XXIII known as Pacem in Terris:

#11: Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.

In 1993 The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops affirmed this basic right and offered a detailed position titled “Comprehensive Health Care Reform” in which they offer the following definitive position:

“Every person has a right to adequate health care. This right flows from the sanctity of human life and the dignity that belongs to all human persons, who are made in the image of God.” Healthcare is more than a commodity; it is a basic human right, and essential safeguard of human life and dignity.

The Catholic Church then does affirm healthcare as a basic human right. While our own Passionist spirituality does not develop itself in terms of defining rights or duties it does promote an ethic of compassion based on a spirituality on the Passion of Christ that identifies with the ongoing suffering of the human community as witness of the New Creation that was revealed to us in the Resurrection. As a lay and vowed community we are called to be in solidarity with those who suffer. While all members of the human community do suffer and we minister to all without any reservation we do acknowledge a fundamental option towards those who suffer injustice at the hand of society. We acknowledge a particular solidarity with the poor who St. Paul of the Cross reminded us had “the name of Jesus written on their foreheads.” This solidarity calls us to offer a compassionate position on issues of social concern. This social ethic was stated very well by our own Pope Benedict XVI in his recent Encyclical Spe Salvi:

#38. The true measure of humanity is essentially determined in relationship to suffering and to the sufferer. This holds true both for the individual and for society. A society unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of helping to share their suffering and to bear it inwardly through “com-passion” is a cruel and inhuman society.

Universal healthcare is an issue because among other things we recognize that there are Americans who are left outside of the private healthcare system. We also recognize that some Americans who have poor insurance still suffer from a healthcare system that has poor or limited quality of access to their own healthcare needs. These are people who are struggling in our midst with a system that is not working at all for them. With the current economic crisis we know that many of our families, neighbors and maybe even ourselves may be facing this struggle as well. Our Passionist spirituality and our Catholic Church call us to promote some form of universal healthcare.

An American universal healthcare system:
Having made this position what should we advocate for in the midst of this healthcare debate? We do not offer a legislative position on this. We recognize that the call for a universal healthcare system in our nation must take into consideration the various economical and social elements that are currently part of the fabric of our own nation. We are a highly capitalistic society with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. We also place a high secular value on the individual’s liberty and are generally nervous about top down government intervention. As challenging as these values and situation might be for promoting the Catholic position we can still be creative in seeing how we can promote a healthcare system that serves the common good while adapting to the situation and values of the American society.

The socialized medicine option of Great Britain may not be the model for America. However we can examine the healthcare system of others that resemble our own social values and economic forces. Switzerland is one such nation that may offer us such a model. It is the idea of a socially regulated insurance where all citizens are required to have coverage. On the one hand Government does set the price for medicine and the insurance company is not allowed to make a profit on basic services. But they are given the freedom to negotiate prices for services with providers and they are allowed to profitable supplemental insurance.

Henry Aaron is a senior fellow in the Economic Studies program at the Brookings Institute. He has adopted a very realistic goal for a healthcare model that he feels can be adopted by the various interests in America and can offer us an excellent first step in promoting a good American style universal healthcare system. In his proposal he advocates for a national healthcare insurance exchange. It would be a place where citizens are given the option of private and public insurance companies. Furthermore a good initial healthcare bill will improve on the information technology of the healthcare system and conduct a study on the comparative effectiveness of various health care models. While this may seem like a slow beginning it does offer a pragmatic base from which a well fitting universal healthcare system can grow in our nation.

To keep the dialogue going on the subject, wathc Paul Krugman’s response on the Universal Healthcare Debate:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMsLhx9coxo

There are two vectors that comprise Catholic social teaching, one are is Church and the other is Society. Catholic social teaching has them intersect as a cross: +. Some However would prefer that they not intersect, but, rather, that they run in parallel courses, visible to one another, but only for consultation purposes, something like this: = so that each can run its own path without interference from the other.

They cross precisely at the point where the church has something to say about what is going on in the world around it. In this scenario, the world takes the initiative, while the church responds. Not all the initiatives underway in the world call for response from the church—only those that affects her own concern about advancing the foundations for God’s kingdom in this world.

Church and secular society will cross each other periodically, sometimes happily, at other times, less so. Sometimes the world would prefer the church to stay within the sanctuary, confining her interests to vestments, candles and incense. At other times the church opposes intrusions of secular society into its hallowed precincts, with tactics discouraging church influence on certain issues.

What might these secular initiatives be that could rouse the church’s interest? In recent times, here in the US, they have consisted of life issues (abortion, capital punishment, warfare, euthanasia), family concerns, environmental developments, global economic affairs (minimum wage, international debt and trade, corporate responsibility), social concerns (healthcare, immigration, access to quality education), international security (development, human rights, nuclear weapons, terrorism and just war, the role and authority of the UN).

The church notes the intersection of these issues with values fundamental to its mission. So, it delves into the treasure trove of its long tradition and pulls out some valuable resources that serve its interests in promoting God’s kingdom in this life, while addressing initiatives that secular society is pursuing.

The spokespersons for the church are both the various national hierarchies of the bishops, and also the central authority center in the Vatican. The U.S. Bishops, disturbed by the nuclear militarization underway in U.S. society, presented its position on this program in their pastoral letter on peace, The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and our Response, (1983). A bit later, observing the enormous influence of U.S. economic activity both on life within this country, and also abroad, the bishops spelled out an economic vision that not only tried to meet secular projections, but also honored the dignity and value of the peoples whose lives unfolded in this climate (Economic Justice for All: Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy, 1986).

On other occasions, especially since the end of the 19^th century, the Popes have shown a marked concern about what is going on in the world around them, noting the propensity for some significant disadvantages accruing to the kingdom of God entrusted to their care. No longer burdened with the material assets, such as the Papal States, that suggested a kingdom too akin to this world’s structures, they enjoy certain disinterestedness in voicing their guidance in secular affairs, more so than in times past.

So Leo XIII, with an eye to the unfolding of Communism across Europe, wrote his RERUM NOVARUM (1891), laying out a Catholic position on property, labor, distribution of wealth, etc. A bit later, in the aftermath of WW I, Benedict XV laid out a blueprint for peace among nations (1920), followed up later by John XXIII’s PACEM IN TERRIS, (1963). With the rise of fascist states in the Europe of the ‘30s, Pius XI defended the individual person against the power of the totalitarian state with his principle of subsidiarity, and later specifically addressed the rise of Nazism (Mit brennender Sorge, 1937). As certain forms of free market capitalism began to cause concern, John XXIII’s MATER ET MAGISTRA (1961), Paul VI’s ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLES (1967), together with John Paul II’s ON HUMAN WORK (1981) and ON SOCIAL CONCERNS (1987) appeared, one by one—contributed from the treasure house of the church’s rich tradition. And Vatican II produced an important statement on church-state relations in its document on RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (1965), that lent church support, somewhat slow in coming, to democratic institutions so dear to the U.S., and so conducive to the spiritual as well as the temporal welfare of people.

This tradition of church involvement with social concerns goes back to the bible and to the positions it voices about issues not too different from those of our day. From the adroitness of Jesus’ response to possible conflicts with civil authorities (Lk 20.25), to His decision to establish His own institution by choosing twelve men to act on its behalf (Mt 10), to the perplexity of Pilate trying to figure out what kind of king Jesus was (Jn 18.33-38), to the fairly early (toward the end of the first century) migration of the burgeoning church’s center from Jerusalem to Rome (the capital of the Roman empire), to the emergence of faith-based groups in the church (the monastic establishment in the sixth century) that began to address social issues otherwise left unattended (hospitality, education, health care), to the criticism Spanish theologians (the 16^th century Bishop Bartholome de Las Casas) began to level against conquistadors exploiting native populations in The New World (and the remarkable appearances, in 1531, of Our Lady of Guadalupe to Juan Diego, galvanizing a new sense of identity among a demoralized and conquered people)—we are beneficiaries of a long history that embodies in flesh and blood terms what corresponds to the texts of national and Vatican magisterial authorities express above.

What is noteworthy about this development of the church’s social doctrine is that it gradually began to address not only its Catholic base, nor even a Christian fellowship, but all men and women of good will (cf. the opening words of John XXIII’s PACEM IN TERRIS ), comparable to the Good News announced by the angels on Christmas day, over the fields of Bethlehem (Lk 2.14 & note in Catholic Study Bible ed). This occurred because it gradually became evident that a primary source of church teaching on social issues like war, poverty, family, abortion, etc., was not only scriptural, but also a vision of the common good. The common good is the crystallization of the best wisdom humankind has been able to formulate, over the ages, regarding those “goods” common to everyone: not just to the powerful and influential, but to the least and lowliest among us (the common good is …”the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD, n. 26). It has been the confluence of biblical and cultural developments that combine to form a body of doctrine on social justice, under church auspices, that likely outweighs, especially during the past century and a half, any comparable corpus of ecclesiastical teaching, whether that be on the sacraments, the church, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption, heaven, hell, death, etc.

Catholic social teaching would seem to be of special interest to those for whom the Passion of Christ is important. Christ’s sufferings on the Cross furnish front and center memories for His followers, who understand them not only in the terms of His own death on the cross, but also of all those down the ages who have experienced their share of suffering, and whom we can properly identify as The Crucified of the World Today.

These constitute the heart of the social doctrine of the church. Can we think of any social concern that the church has addressed, over the centuries that did not involve some element of suffering: persecution, torture, imprisonment, execution, hunger, ill health, broken families, abandoned children, homelessness, unemployment? These constitute secular situations that intersect the interests of the church. What emerges assumes the form of the Cross. Not only is this significant to us because of the reconciling power of the Cross of Christ, but for us Catholics we also recall the cross on which St. Peter died. St. Peter, the first pope, embodies the human face of the church as it began its course down the annals of history. He initiates the rich symbolism of the cross that marks Catholic social doctrine which has developed under the patronage of the church, on behalf of the Crucified of the World Today.

I was personally saddened when the Economic Stimulus debate and subsequent vote ended up bolstering the ongoing partisanship that has defined Washington all these years. Amidst this reality I continue to work and pray for a collaborative ecumenical social agenda that can move this country and the world forward in the midst of this ongoing economic, social and environmental crisis.

For us in the Catholic Community the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good is a movement that aims to build this model. Below I will again past their wonderful video where they share their consistent position on all  Catholic social issues.

Their collaboration with Christian Churches Together (CCT) in addressing the issues of poverty also demonstrate this move by the Christian community from addressing only liberal or conservative issues to just being Christian.

Poverty is a very central Christian issue. The concern for the poor is found throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Even when St. Paul and St. James argued about the direction of the early church with regards to the Gentiles they both conceded on importance of “remembering the poor,” (Gal. 2:10)

Poverty was also an issue of preeminent importance to St. Paul of the Cross. He reminded the members of his community to always look to the poor, “For the name of Jesus is written on their foreheads.”

Today the Passionist community continue to serve this mandate and to promote both our services to the poor and to advocate on their behalf. In doing this we not only fulfill the vision of our founder but a basic tenet of the Catholic faith.

A consistent theme of Catholic social teaching is the option or love of preference for the poor. Today, this preference has to be expressed in worldwide dimensions, embracing the immense numbers of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care, and those without hope. – Sollicitudo Rei Socialis by Pope John Paul II, 1987

www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fa1yRh-WM

Senator Robert Casey from Pennsylvania has moved the abortion issue into a new dimension of political discussion and I for one applaud him for this.  Senator Casey is a Pro-Life Democrat and his recent contribution is to develop a bill in congress known as the Pregnant Women Support Act.  The following link will offer you details on this bill.

Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. | Senator for Pennsylvania: Newsroom – Press Release.

With this bill Senator Casey moves the issue of abortion from the narrow sexual arguments used by both camps and into the social arena. This bill would offer better health care to expecting mothers and help pregnant college and high school students stay in school as well as provide counseling and shelter to women in abusive relationships. For more information on this please visit the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good site. Also you may want to visit the USCCB site on this Bill.

On a related issue Congress and the President are moving to Promote the Freedom of Choice Act. This act would eliminate many laws that help regulate this issue including informed consent laws, parental involvement laws, maternal health laws and regulation of abortion clinics. The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops has spoken against this deregulation. To view their site on this Act please click here.

The staff of the Passionist Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Office support these two Catholic positions in promoting the Pregnant Women Support Act and advocating against the Freedom of Choice Act.

Peace,

John

The very reason we have hope is because we believe in a better world than the one we are experiencing now. If there was no suffering and nothing was wrong, then there would be no reason for us to even have hope. Hope does not just affirm that there is pain and suffering in our world, it also chooses to believe that we can do something positive about it. Through hope we pledge to take responsibility for the personal and social suffering we witness in the aspiration that a better world is possible. As Pope Benedict reminds us in his recent Encyclical:

The true measure of humanity is essentially determined in relationship to suffering and to the sufferer. This holds true both for the individual and for society. A society unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of helping to share their suffering and to bear it inwardly through “com-passion” is a cruel and inhuman society.

In his inaugural speech President Obama shifted the focus from his message of hope to the pragmatic realities of a suffering world. The goal of hope is still there, but now as we venture forth to accomplish this hope we must do so by taking compassionate responsibility to the suffering in our society:

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow, to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

The hope for our future is based on this new era of responsibility to the suffering of our world. As a Catholic and as a Passionist I very much welcome this vision to usher in this new era that is so consistent with our Catholic social tradition and Passionist spirituality.

Peace,

John

BBC NEWS | Europe | Pope laments global instability.

Lamenting all the violence that exists in our world but particularly in Africa and the Middle East the Pope has rightfully identified “self-interest” as one of the most harmful causes that has led to many of these current tragedies. The United States, for its part, has also been culpable of exerting a foreign policy based on self-interest, specifically economic self-interest.

In a couple of days the Pope will issue a message on World Day of Peace which is January 1st. I invite you take time to read this message and perhaps you can use it as a reflective document for the Christmas season. In it the Pope highlights five areas of concern:

1. Campaigns that promote the extermination millions of unborn because of the demographic situation.
2. The spread of pandemic diseases especially of AIDS and the lack of accessibility of medicines that can treat these diseases
3. The ongoing growth of child poverty and the lack of services that promote education, healthcare and opportunities for children and families.
4. Promoting disarmament and using those funds to increase development.
5. A global policy to address the current global food crisis.

After the Pope mentions these issues he goes on to say:

One of the most important ways of building peace is through a form of globalization directed towards the interests of the whole human family. In order to govern globalization, however, there needs to be a strong sense of global solidarity between rich and poor countries, as well as within individual countries, including affluent ones. A “common code of ethics” is also needed, consisting of norms based not upon mere consensus, but rooted in the natural law inscribed by the Creator on the conscience of every human being (cf. Rom 2:14-15). Does not every one of us sense deep within his or her conscience a call to make a personal contribution to the common good and to peace in society? Globalization eliminates certain barriers, but is still able to build new ones; it brings peoples together, but spatial and temporal proximity does not of itself create the conditions for true communion and authentic peace. Effective means to redress the marginalization of the world’s poor through globalization will only be found if people everywhere feel personally outraged by the injustices in the world and by the concomitant violations of human rights. The Church, which is the “sign and instrument of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race” will continue to offer her contribution so that injustices and misunderstandings may be resolved, leading to a world of greater peace and solidarity.

This again leads us to celebrate, as members of a Catholic religious community, our commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I invite you to examine our reflection on the declaration in one of my earlier posts or if you like, visit our email archives and read our reflection on Passionist Spirituality and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Peace,

John

Christmas is a time for many of us to reflect and assess our lives in relationship to the Incarnate Word. In the spirit of giving and sharing I would like to offer you, the readers, two resources that I have recently found valuable in my own journey.

The first resource comes from our own Passionist Earth and Spirit Center. It is a simple flyer that offers practical steps for us in pursuing a Christian lifestyle that is in harmony with creation. I find this practical guide very helpful in guiding me towards a holistic life where I can fully celebrate and respect the dignity that is God’s creation. I find these guides especially helpful when I consider the environmental and economic challenges that we face in our society.  

Living in Harmony with Creation.

The Second resource that I would like to share with you is a book that I found to be spiritually formative. It is a fictional book that engages the reader in a journey with an amazing and challenging image of God. This journey guides the reader towards an  understanding of the power of forgiveness and reconciliation in our world. I found it especially useful in helping me, as a father of two little children, to find meaning behind what I can only imagine is the ultimate experience of pain and suffering. During this Christmas season I invite you to visit “The Shack.”

I hope you all have a peaceful and joyful Christmas,

John