World Water Day

A number of investors sat with a management team from Coke regarding this issue on the 18^th of March. This dialogue is part of an SRI process which serves the mutual interest of religious investors and the long term and sustainable goals of our companies. The process serves the interest of religious stakeholders by creating a venue where we can offer our moral position and share the social concerns that we have either from our own missionary experiences or from the public concern that catches our attention. In this way we engaged with our corporate partners in developing a strategy for sustainable and just business practices that relate to the moral concerns that we have.

In representing a Catholic religious community our moral perspective is informed by the social teachings and position of our Catholic Church. There are a number of Catholic social principles involved here and certainly one of them is the “Universal Destination of Goods” which I elaborated in a previous blog post, “Revisiting trade and introducing the ‘Universal Destination of Goods.’” However in a 2003 message prepared by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace to the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto the Catholic moral concern on access to water was primarily addressed through the “Right to Life” principle. Presenting the message Cardinal Martino stated:

Many people living in poverty, particularly in the developing countries, daily face enormous hardship because water supplies are neither sufficient nor safe. Women bear a disproportionate hardship. For water users living in poverty this is rapidly becoming an issue crucial for life and, in the broad sense of the concept, a right to life issue. …

Respect for life and the dignity of the human person must be the ultimate guiding norm for all development policy, including environmental policy. While never overlooking the need to protect our eco-systems, it is the critical or basic needs of humanity that must be operative in an appropriate prioritisation of water access. Powerful international interests, public and private, must adapt their agendas to serve human needs rather than dominate them.

“Right to Life” is usually associated with the issue of abortion but in the recent social teachings of Pope Benedict XVI I have noticed a broadening use of this principle. The “Right to Life” principle is used to defend all social issues that essentially impact human life. In this case the Vatican is concerned with water access because without access to potable drinking water a struggling community is essentially facing extermination.

Our social interest as investors of a company like Coke is that their product requires the steady use of a water supply. In certain water scarce regions the use of this supply may further deplete potable water to a community that is already struggling. This shareholder dialogue began in response to a 2004 concern that was raised when Coca-Cola lost the use of its water license in the water scarce area of Kerala, India. Our own Passionist community has a missionaries and ministries in Kerala and our concern was with the potential negative impact that a company which we invest in may have to a suffering community that we minister to.  

While Coke has defended what they consider their responsible use of water this issue did serve as a wakeup call for Coke to become a corporate leader in sustainable water usage. This incident demonstrates the potential business loss due to water concerns. The loss was felt immediately with the loss of the water license to a plant in India but it was also felt with the negative public relations stemming from this incident.  The purpose of these shareholder dialogues is to further commit our company to demonstrate corporate leadership in this crucial issue which other companies especially in the agro-business sector are causing even greater water scarcity issues. Coke’s leadership here may provide a standard process for measuring its water footprint and achieving a ‘water neutrality’ impact on the local communities where they do business.

We are impressed with Coke’s current involvement with this issue and we are excited about emerging developments in water risk management. Coke is also moving ahead with addressing the water needs of other local communities that it operates in with a number of water recycling technologies. Recently Coke announced its Replenish Africa Initiative (RAIN) where Coke will invest 30 Million dollars for water projects in Africa with the goal of offering potable water to 2 million people in Africa by 2015. Coke’s stated goal on this overall issue is to “safely return to nature and to communities an amount of water equivalent to what we used in all our beverages and their production by 2020.” This is quite a challenge. Our job as a responsible investor is to annually evaluate this goal with Coke while raising any further social considerations.

While Thanksgiving tends to remind us of an American story consisting of pilgrims, Native Americans and a feast that gives thanks we often are not reminded of the actual historical occasion that gave birth to this annual national holiday. The year was 1863 and our country was in the midst of the Civil War. The Civil War was undoubtedly the greatest national experience of suffering that we have ever experienced. In November of 1863 the nation was still reeling over the Battle of Gettysburg which took place on July of that year.

On that month of November President Lincoln declared a proclamation for the nation to give great thanks to God for all the blessings we have because:      

They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.

Thanksgiving then is an act of national humility. In 1863 we recognized our sins before God and, in an act of submissive humility before our merciful Creator, we gave thanks for the blessings we still had in the midst of the great collective suffering that our nation was enduring. In our words our nation was finding meaning in the horrific experience of the Civil War and collectively celebrated it. Looking at it in this light, it becomes quite apparent how Thanksgiving should have a special place for us as Passionist as the original spirituality of this holiday closely resembles our own spirituality which we call Paulacrucian in reference to St. Paul of the Cross, our founder.

Today we face a different reality. Our struggles are no longer internal and isolated from the rest of the world. We live in a global reality where our economic and security interest are closely tied in with the entire human community and the earth itself. While we still face internal and external sufferings we collectively are not reflecting and recognizing our social sins before God. Without this powerful spiritual exercise we do not allow ourselves to be open to changes we need to make and we doom ourselves to an even darker and more painful future until at some point we can recognize what we, as a society, have done wrong.

Let us begin today to reflect on our own nation’s policies in perspective to the economic, environmental and violent suffering we face. Let us consider the economic and military repressions that have impacted our global society due to our own national policies. Let us then give thanks to the Creator of all life for the continued mercy that is bestowed on us in the midst of our sins and pray that God give us the wisdom to move on.

As a history student I was given a wonderful metaphor to help explain the importance of studying the past as we analyze the policies of the future: the rowboat. The metaphor is simple, in order to move forward one has to be seated in a way that looks behind. In this case, the best signal you have with regards to where you are going is to notice how much you are deviating from where you have been. The 1930’s offered us an amazing lesson, our policies should not be governed by private or market interest alone.   

Early in 2010 the Supreme Court held a controversial ruling in the Citizens United case. It expanded the influence of businesses in politics. Prior to 2010 Businesses could only contribute to campaign ads through Political Action Committees (PAC). This had the effect of making their political campaign contributions transparent. Now, since Citizens United, that is no longer the case. Corporations can now fund their own campaign ads to promote their own political interest and agendas during the election cycles. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) has noticed the massive financial interest that a variety of industries had through the campaign ad contribution by the Chamber of Commerce. Many pharmaceutical industries increased their campaign ads in the 2010 election focusing on the issue of health care. 10 years ago people were concerned about campaign finance reform. One does not hear about campaign finance these days, worst yet, people don’t seem to care about the increasing influence of corporate campaign finance.

Not all people share in this apathy. An increasing group of responsible shareholders have voiced their interest in promoting corporate disclosure of political activity. Responsible shareholders recognize that important interaction that a business should have in promoting their own particular interest within the political landscape, but they also recognize the potential backlash that over and undue political influence can have. The Center for Political Accountability (CPA) has released a “Handbook on Corporate Political Activity.” In light of Citizens United case CPA has created this informative resource for shareholder groups to be actively involved in encouraging businesses to adopt internal policies to increase transparency and to oversee political spending.    

In the 1986 document by the U.S. Bishops, Economic Justice for All, many Catholic communities, like ourselves were introduced to the moral imperative of being a socially responsible investor.      

Individual Christians who are shareholders and those responsible within church institutions that own stocks in U.S. corporations must see to it that the invested funds are used responsibly…  As part owners, they must cooperate in shaping the policies of those companies through dialogue with management, through votes at corporate meetings, through the introduction of resolutions and through participation in investment decisions. We praise the efforts of dioceses and other religious and ecumenical bodies that work together toward these goals. – #354

Through ICCR and the Tristate Coalition for Responsible Investments the Passionist are engaged in promoting our Church’s moral teachings through by being socially active shareholders. Many ICCR members like us have begun engaging with some of our corporate investments with the purpose of promoting greater disclosure on corporate political activities. Recently the Passionist co-filed a resolution with Walden Asset Management asking one of our corporate investments that happens to be a Board member of the Chamber of Commerce for a comprehensive review of political spending policies and oversight processes. We also look forward to a potential dialogue with one of our Pharmaceutical companies on their political activity.

Promoting social justice can be a daunting task and sometimes it may seem like we are facing an uphill battle. The battle may still be uphill but working with coalitions and finding creative solution allows a group to even out the field a bit.

The Passionists have three parishes in Ensley. On the one hand these parishes serve as a spiritual center for the African American Catholic community. But on the other hand they also function to empower the community in creating needed services and programs that can stem the tide of poverty in this area.

Holy Family was the first Passionist parish that was established in 1938. As the parish evolved it gives the new Catholic community the liturgy and sacraments that are part of the universal church while also creating a worship community that celebrates their cultural richness. St. Mary’s was later established in 1943 and in a similar way they also give the local community the ability to integrate this unity of faith with the diversity of culture. The Parishoners of Holy Family saw education as ministry priority in their area. Education is rightfully considered the greatest tool to liberate a group from the endemic cycle of poverty. Holy Family parish began by offering elementary and later high school education. Also, when the main Birmingham hospital denied health services to the African American community, the Parish worked with the local community to create their own hospital to provide for the medical needs of Ensley. Now the High School has been transformed into a Cristo Rey School which is a top academic model for schools in the United States that target low-income communities. This past year, the parishioners of Holy Family have identified another educational issue. In addressing the lack of a high school education with the adult population the Holy Family parish along with Bevill State Community College has been offering Free GED classes at the parish hall.

St. Mary’s Parish uses their parish center as a base for Metro West Ministries. Metro West Ministries is a faith based organization in Western Jefferson County that provides material and spiritual assistance to people in need. These programs include:

• Operating a food bank that serves between 200 and 300 households per month. 
• Low income heat and energy assistance Program 
• Financial assistance to people who need help with rent and utility bills. 
• Summer day camp

Another community service that is used at St. Mary’s Parish center is the Family Action Network which provides struggling families with professional consultation and therapy to address a variety of stresses and living issues in order to achieve a higher quality of family life.

Here we have Fr. Alex Steinmiller offer a social analysis on the Birmigham experience and the contributions of the Cristo Rey High School.

Passionist Holy Family Cristo Rey High School from John Gonzalez on Vimeo.

Some have asked me why I decided to join the Association and why I am on its Board of Directors. I believe that my participation brings our Monastery into service to our neighborhood.  I believe that we are not divorced from our neighborhood – as if some oasis in the midst of the ebb and flow of the city. We are the largest institution in our neighborhood. We enjoy a good reputation of serving the priests and people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. But what about our neighbors and our neighborhood? Do we have any responsibility to them?  What about the City of Pittsburgh? Do we as residents of this City have any responsibility to Pittsburgh – we who receive police and fire protection, ambulance service, water and sewerage, transportation, DPW and other services from the City? I know we pay some taxes like water and sewerage tax. But for the most part we receive the city services for free.  Of course we render an invaluable service to the city by our ministry to God’s people, encouraging them and motivating them to be honest, respectful and concerned members of society.  Who can put a price on that?

Alexander De Tocqueville, a French statesman, toured our country early in the 19^th century, working on a study of democracy here. He said that he sought the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and ample rivers, in her fertile fields and boundless forests, in her rich mines and vast world commerce, in her public school system and institutions of learning, in her democratic congress and matchless constitution… and he could not explain America’s greatness from any of these sources.  Then he says,

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power… America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

I believe that our Monastery Church and Retreat Center help to support and encourage the moral fiber of our city, motivating people to be good and wholesome citizens by encouraging them to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and be virtuous people in the midst of a society that is unvirtuous so often.

But is there anything more we can in our neighborhood and city? I believe my involvement in our Neighborhood Association broadens and enhances our overall ministry by bringing me into contact with a variety of people who might not be churched, but who also need encouragement and motivation to live a good life.  Many of these people have become friends and I have been blessed by them as together we work to make our neighborhood clean, green and safe.  I now consider this to be a vital part of my Pittsburgh ministry.

St. Paul of the Cross, the founder of the Passionist Community, experienced a time of great social upheaval and turbulence. Europe had just stemmed the tide of the Turkish war which threatened the continent at the Battle of Vienna. The Protestant and Catholic division continued to disrupt European stability. The old aristocratic order was being attacked by the emerging systems of nationalism. Several philosophies attempted to make sense of this new European reality from John Locke’s liberalism to Edmund Burke’s conservatism. And yet, amongst all this activity and development, the poor were in large parts ignored and left to focus on their own survival and left with few options like thievery or brigandry.

Like his philosophical contemporaries St. Paul of the Cross recognized that one of the fundamental problems affecting his turbulent times was a lack of meaningful existence. Unlike his contemporaries Paul did not believe that the emerging social meaning had to come from outside the traditional Christian faith. Rather, as the above quote suggest, Paul believed that the greatest of personal and social messages was in the mystery of the Passion. What better message of empathy could there be to a world steeped in the midst of suffering then the message of the suffering servant. With the powerful meaning that this message could convey one could understand Pope Benedict XIV enthusiasm in making the supportive comment, “This Congregation of the Passion of Jesus Christ should have been the first to be founded and it has arrived at last.”

St. Paul of the Cross did not deny the immense suffering that was afflicting his world. In his massive correspondence we catch a glimpse of the numerous forms of personal and social suffering that he ministers to as a spiritual companion. For Paul one of the great problems of his world is that with all the suffering that was being experienced and the naturally imperfect condition of humanity, especially in its lack of humility, there was a growing tendency towards human arrogance, unbridled anger, and violence. People and society needed to come to an understanding of their suffering and find meaning in what they were experiencing. St. Paul of the Cross, like St. Paul the Apostle, believed that in understanding the suffering of this world through the prism of the Passion would condition humanity towards a compassionate love for one another rather than the antagonistic hate that prevailed. In that sense he would accomplish what St. Paul the Apostle wrote in his letter to the Romans “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

St. Paul of the Cross is well known historically as a mystic and a preacher of the Passion. However another point of his life that should be emphasized is his focus on the poor and marginalized. He wanted his community to minister to the poor and marginalized people who lived in the malaria infected regions of Italy known as the Maremma. He undertook a number of direct service ministries including as a hospital chaplain. We also know that during the Austrian-Spanish battle at Orbetello around the late 1730’s St. Paul of the Cross and his early community tended to the soldiers from both sides and as he developed a trusting relationship with both armies he participated with the negotiation of a truce between the two armies. This truce spared the city from a naval bombardment. As a result the city helped St. Paul of the Cross build his first retreat.

In his vast correspondence one can see St. Paul’s orientation towards the “preferential option for the poor.” He used to say “Look at the poor, there you will find the name of Jesus Christ written on their foreheads.” In fact during his early design for a religious community he initially went with the name “the poor of Jesus.” While the community eventually became known as the Passionist this exhortation to be with the poor always remained as a part of his mission.

Following the teaching of the Prince of the Apostles, and that before everything else holy charity may flourish in the Congregation, especially toward the poor sick, we ordain that these are to be cared for with all charitable attention to the extant that our poverty permits. May 20 1775; letter to the Passionist Religious

We ought to be grateful and correspond to his divine benefits by loving justice, truth, and exercising charity and the works of mercy towards our neighbor, especially to the poor. December 26 1772; letter to a gentleman

As the preaching fame of St. Paul of the Cross developed the founder found himself traveling throughout Italy preaching missions wherever he went. There are a number of testimonies that discuss how he integrated this justice for the poor. One amazing example of this is offered by his own biographer St. Vincent Strambi, CP.

As this true disciple of his Divine Master, all love and charity, could not do alone what he wished for the poor, he labored in their favor as much as he could, making use of the opportunities that the giving of holy missions and similar employments afforded him. On one occasion, when Father Paul was giving the exercises publicly in a city in 1759, he found out that the poor were in distress because they were obliged to pay back the loan of wheat received for their nourishment during the past winter from the public deposit, without having the means of repaying it, as the harvest had been very scanty that year. The law was just going to be carried into effect against them, and the poor creatures were reduced to extreme distress. Father Paul, moved with compassion for them and their misery, recommended so earnestly and forcibly from the platform to those gentlemen that governed this public office to grant some delay. Showing so tender and cordial a compassion, he moved the hearts of the Vice President and all the gentlemen who had anything to do with the affair, and obtained that payment should not be called for until the following year, to the universal consolation of the poor. He grieved deeply when the poor were abandoned.

Here we witness St. Paul of the Cross applying the scriptural mandate for debt relief to a community that was suffering from the social calamity of an arduous debt crisis. This example along with his mediation of the battle at Orbetello and his constant advocacy towards the poor demonstrates how he saw his mystical spirituality resonate with his own social responsibility. On October 18, 1775 St. Paul of the Cross passed on from this world and was canonized a saint in 1867. As we take the time to celebrate the feast of St. Paul of the Cross let us also remind ourselves of the social as well as spiritual implications of his inspiring mysticism.

Times have moved on but the Passionist community has never lost sight of this noble cause to unify the human community through the strategies employed by Bl. Domenic Berberi, CP. Our Church continues to be engaged in further developing its Ecumenical dialogues. But in these days of globalization we have moved further in approaching our relationships with people outside of our Christian faith. Through Pope John Paul II our Catholic Church has officially engaged in interfaith dialogues to bring the truth of unity too all of God’s people.

The Passionists serves the Church in this purpose as well. Today we have the wonderful ministries of Fr. Thomas P. Bonacci, C.P. who is the Interfaith Peace Project’s Executive Director. Tom offers friendly and hospitable programs to help participants cope with inherited stereotypes, innocent misunderstandings, embarrassing questions or general knowledge of the many faith traditions of humankind.

The Interfaith Peace Project seeks to strengthen the community’s religious and spiritual life, and encourage spiritual values and ethical principles. They reach out to all religions of the community, and embrace the American tradition of religious diversity that creates a fertile opportunity for dialogue, understanding, cooperation and peace. The intended outcome is to encourage understanding, respect and connection for participants in all our projects, therefore advancing peace. Respect for differences begins with dialogue, promotes understanding and cooperation, and leads to peaceful co-existence.

The Interfaith Peace Project is helping our world find peace in the midst of conflict and division through prayer, study and reflection. In these days we recognize division and conflict with respect to our Catholic/Christian relationship with the Islamic community. Fr. Tom offers the following insights with respect to our approach in having fruitful and much needed dialogue with the members of the Muslim faith and the question of Park51 Islamic Cultural Center.

DIALOGUE WITH MUSLIMS: A reflection by Fr. Tom Bonacci, CP

The events of the past several days and weeks are no less than heartbreaking and alarming.  The association of Islam with violence and human insensitivity is both dangerous and insensitive.  It is quite important for reasonable people to understand religions as such are abstractions.  What we meet in the religious “other” be they Muslim or Christian is not a religion but a “person” of faith, a particular, living human being.  We cannot meet one another if we label one another with labels based on fears, stereotypes, and prejudices.

We must realize, in the current situation, it is almost impossible to engage Muslims in dialogue without the great question looming in the background, “Is Islam a religion of violence?”  Participants in this dialogue should be aware of what motivates the dialogue.  Participants must be open to hearing the other person without defensive or offensive postures.

The “violent verses” found in the Qur’an invite Christians to examine in a fair and honest way the “violent texts” in the Bible.  Together participants in dialogue might explore how violent attitudes can corrupt authentic readings and understandings of their respective Scriptures, beliefs, and teachings.

Participants in the dialogue must examine their own hearts to discover whether or not they harbor unfair attitudes, hostilities, or fears.  If so, one should engage in educational opportunities, personal spiritual direction, sincere reflection, and honest research before engaging in deeper dialogue.

Finally, Muslims, like peoples of other faith traditions, are human beings worthy of respect whose dignity must be recognized.

This is a tragic moment in our histories as religious peoples.  It is also a great opportunity to move forward as the virtues found in our Sacred Writings, the examples found in our great leaders, and the wisdom found in our peoples can contribute to the well-being of all peoples.  Muslims and Christians must be aware of their mutual responsibility to foster peace in the world.  Each must claim the authenticity of their respective traditions as they serve the family of humankind.  These troubled times call for remarkable courage and courageous example so our words of peace may become deeds of justice in the world.

It is my opinion, and I suggest it cautiously, the killing fields must become centers of interfaith justice and peace.  We need to stand together as people of faith exemplifying the power of faith as an important catalyst for forging peace.

With all this development, and with the anniversary of 9-11 approaching, it behooves us in the Passionist JPIC Community to join our Church in engaging with this debate and to again review our own understanding of Religious Freedom.  This is an especially poignant topic for American Catholics since our national identity originated the practice of providing for the Constitutional protection of religious liberty. In making this examination this post will consider three things:

1. The Constitutional protection of religious liberty
2. The American Catholic acceptance of this principle
3. The Catholic Church’s own decree on religious freedom

Our American Constitution provides for the protection of religious freedom. It is enshrined in the first article of the Bill of Rights. However it also true that the founders of this nation were predominantly Christian. Some argue that the Constitutional principles of this nation have its origin in the Judeo-Christian tradition. This may be the case and as can be imagined this consideration did play a role for how to consider the potential problems of religious liberty. The debates of 1788 had much concern with religious liberty but not so much with regards to its protection under the first article of the Bill of Rights as much as the regulation for public office that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office of public Trust under the United States” under Article VI of the Constitution. Two concerns were recorded with regards to this clause: that “Pagans, Deists and Mahometans might obtain offices among us”, and that “the Pope of Rome might be elected President”. These concerns were addressed by a Federalist delegate from North Carolina named James Iredell.

In his response he respects the concerns that have been raised but he believes that the creation of a dominantly pagan society and the threat of Papal rule were both slippery slope fallacies. Instead he argues that the historical reality of religious persecution through the sponsorship of the state to a religious creed is very much a real and valid concern. Delegate Iredell defends the clauses for religious liberty in this way:

But it is objected, that the people of America may perhaps chuse Representatives who have no religion at all, and that Pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmely contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised on every part of the world. The people in power were always in the right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened.  

The Catholic community did not take up these issues at the foundation because we were a minority group. However, by the mid 1900’s the Catholic presence and influence in the American landscape was made felt. No one did as much as Fr. John Courtney Murray, SJ to develop a cohesive relationship between Catholicism and Americanism.  In addressing the Catholic position on religious liberty he starts by striking down two American interpretations that he finds incompatible with Catholicism. Both interpretations treat the first amendment as an article of faith. A religious protestant interpretation integrates the amendment as a form of dogmatic teaching of the “free church” movement that believes that religion and spirituality is highly individualized. Religion has its proper role only in the individual and the constitution is enforcing this principle of faith. The secular liberal movement interprets the first amendment as a law whereby religious authority has no role in the American experience. Through this law the United States has developed a prohibition of commitment from religious institutions and any individual commitment will have no influence on the American pursuit of truth and justice.

The principle of religious liberty is seen by Fr. Murray as an article for promoting peace and he argues that any theological interpretation of a law whose true aim is the promotion of the common good and to protect the domestic tranquility of society is an error. He addresses this point in his seminal work “We Hold These Truths.”

As regards important points of ultimate religious belief, the United States is pluralistic. Any attempt at reducing this pluralism by law, through a process of reading certain sectarian tenets into the fundamental law of the land, is prima facie illegitimate and absurd.   

The duty of the Constitution is not to discern what is theologically or morally right or wrong but to provide for the stable peace of society. Quoting Pope Pius XII’s discourse to a group of Italian jurists, John Courtney Murray goes on to tell us:

“The duty of repressing religious and moral error cannot be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to higher and more general norms which in some circumstances permit, and even perhaps make it appear the better course of action, that error should not be impeded in order to promote a greater good.”… In fact, the Pope goes much further when he flatly states that “in certain circumstances God does not give men any mandate, does not impose any duty, and does not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false.” The First Amendment is simply the legal enunciation of this papal statement. It does not say that there is no distinction between true and false religion, good and bad morality. But it does say that in the American circumstances the conscience of the community, aware of its moral obligation to the peace of the community, and speaking therefore as the voice of God, does not give government any mandate, does not impose upon it any duty, and does not even communicate to it the right to repress religious opinions or practices, even though they are erroneous and false.  

At the Second Vatican Council Fr. Murray was brought in to help draft the text for Vatican II’s declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae.

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publically whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.          

In developing its theology for this declaration the Church offers the historical perspective that Jesus Christ and the early Christian Community taught and spread the Gospels through creative means but never through the use of coercion. The Church takes up this tradition of spreading the Gospel message freely and without coercion (although it is mentioned that “there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it”). But with this declaration the Second Vatican Council takes its stand in affirming the role of the State in providing for the “adequate care of genuine public peace” and the right for individuals and religious institutions to be free to establish and govern themselves “for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.” Related to the social issue we find ourselves currently facing with the park51 project the declaration also states:

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of the government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministries, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.    

Every parent wrestles with this in some form or fashion, realizing that a family unit not adequately caring for itself can be burdensome to society at large, while, at the same time, aware that a family too closed in on itself and its own welfare not only isolates itself from advantages accruing from closer attentiveness to the needs of society at large, but also deprives society of contributions it can provide.

This dilemma affects the choice of relationships allowed children, whether with neighbors or with classmates, and also the selection of a neighborhood in which to raise one’s family, with its school system and parish church.

The impact of connectedness, or lack thereof, also affects the extended family, frequently impacted, in this day and age, by the sometimes frequent geographical moves that a family makes, often to distant places, and this can either turn a family’s focus in on itself, or it can induce an openness to its new surroundings and relationships. The saying of Jesus to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mk 12.31) heightens the complexity of this issue by placing love of others and love of self on the same level, by equating love of self and others.

When the U.N. pronounced May 15^th of each year to be International Family Day, it recognized the vital connection between the well-being of family life, and of a thriving society. A society that has not been enriched by vibrant families will be needy. The phenomenon of massive migrations of families, across the globe, illustrates people unable to meet their needs, seeking better conditions elsewhere. The root cause of this problem can be either their inability to provide adequately for themselves, or the failure of society to help them, possibly because support is lacking from those capable of providing it. 

Whom does one take care of? Is the family to nurture itself, or society at large, or both? This same issue resonates with a long-standing debate in American society on states’ rights vs. prerogatives of the federal government. This disagreement reflects the same dynamics operative in the discussion about how best to raise a family: by focusing on its own well-being to the extent possible, thereby relieving society at large from the responsibility of caring for it, or by alerting it to caring for the surrounding society on the score that a strong set of social institutions works to the family’s own advantage. When some argue that all politics is local (states’ rights), they mean that only those on the scene can best know and provide for the needs and benefits of those at home. On the other hand, there are those who argue that balkanizing the body politic into discrete units, with each looking to its own needs and benefits, is harmful even to these smaller segments precisely because oblivious of the whole, and they suggest that the individual family best serves its own interests when it engages in linkages and connections to others (federal government).

Our analysis so far tells us that we are looking for a unifying principle between being responsible for your own local unit and community while forming the family consciousness and behavior with regards to a global and deeply interrelated society. The Church consistently teaches us that the family is the basic unit of society and this teaching is not subject to change. The way the church understands this concept however is evolving, consider Pope Benedict XVI’s 2008 World Day of Peace message. In the first six paragraphs he extols this teaching that indeed the family is still the basic unit of society and must be protected as such. But from paragraph 6 on Pope Benedict XVI redefines the family unit within a more interrelated global reality.

The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based. This is as true for local communities as it is for national communities; it is also true for the international community itself, for the human family which dwells in that common house which is the earth. Here, however, we cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women, and it continues to live from the conscious “yes” of the children who gradually join it. The family community, in order to prosper, needs the generous consent of all its members. This realization also needs to become a shared conviction on the part of all those called to form the common human family. We need to say our own “yes” to this vocation which God has inscribed in our very nature. We do not live alongside one another purely by chance; all of us are progressing along a common path as men and women, and thus as brothers and sisters. Consequently, it is essential that we should all be committed to living our lives in an attitude of responsibility before God, acknowledging him as the deepest source of our own existence and that of others. By going back to this supreme principle we are able to perceive the unconditional worth of each human being, and thus to lay the premises for building a humanity at peace. Without this transcendent foundation society is a mere aggregation of neighbours, not a community of brothers and sisters called to form one great family.

A Passionist concern:

Within the various aspects of Passionist ministries and service we often find ourselves engaging with families. Whether it is in the parishes, retreat houses, schools, missions or any one of our social missions, we almost always find ourselves at the service of the family unit. The family, like our own community, is feeling the pressures of a changing world. Whether they are conscience of it or not they are addressing issues that relate to an emerging cosmology and at minimum they can identify aspects of globalization that is making an impact on the family unit. Consider for example some of the frustration and disconnect that an older generation has with their adult children whose lifestyles and values seem markedly different then their own. Consider also the young married couple that is entering a lifestyle of commitment and self-sacrifice in the midst of a globalized society of massive interrelationships. It becomes our responsibility to offer the family unit a perspective of hope, understanding and possibly some tools or resources that will help their community integrate within this all encompassing phenomenon.  

The family is both self-sufficient and interdependent. It cannot meet all its needs. But if it is too dependent on others, it will find that the available common goods do not always meet its particular needs. By doing for itself what it can, it avoids becoming a drain on public resources. By reaching out to society in solidarity, with others, to provide common goods, it helps form a social bonding with others that meet both its own needs, and the needs of all others. The Passionist JPIC Office and the Passionist Earth and Spirit Center are developing tools and resources to help families integrate this both/and reality. Through methodologies of Christian simple living and sustainable practices like the Lent 4.5 Program of the Passionist Earth and Spirit Center and the “Live Simply so Others May Simply Live” retreat of the Passionist JPIC Office Families can learn how to value their own time together as a safe and protected social unit while growing into a deeper conscience of global solidarity. The mantra that we offer the family is the same that is being said all over the world: Think Globally, Act Locally.  

Finally let us also address the primary issue that we will face if we have not done so already with regards to the family: The issue of identity. The emerging social order is at present giving us a crisis of identity. This is a natural crisis that always accompanies major sociological and cosmological shifts. Our own community is in the midst of this crisis as we try to comprehend the place of our charism, spirituality and community within this globalized reality. We will notice that Catholic families are also being stretched in their identity. The older generation will not know how to cope or relate with a younger generation that is far more technological and interconnected then they ever were. The younger married couples are going to struggle with how they are to identify their own roles while respecting the other members of their intimate family community. Some young men for example will attempt to impose a familiar family male role only to find that their spouse has other hopes and expectations. In many ways our task again will be to listen and to walk with the members of the family that try to comprehend their role and identity within this new reality. But we must also be able to offer guidance, encouragement and a perspective of patience and understanding as they journey on this difficult transition.      

Our Passionist spirituality offers a powerful perspective for the crisis of identity. To begin with we offer an ethic of compassion. The family unit, as with the rest of society, is going through a massive transition and this will require the members of the family to be patient and understanding of the journey that they and their family members are taking. Compassion is the principle by which we endure and share in the suffering of others based on the fact that they do not walk it alone. We are all together on this journey and by sharing our own difficult transition into this emerging reality we become a suffering companion to them. By placing their own crisis within a larger social framework we offer them the ability to see God’s work in all this. Our other great gift of course becomes the spirituality of mystical transition that is at the heart of our own Passionist charism. We are dying to new life. That is the Passionist principle that Fr. Thomas Berry used to offer a spiritual perspective to the massive cosmological transition that we are facing. Within the context of globalization we can also use this principle to help see that God’s hand in this. Individually, socially, we are at the foot of the Cross wondering where all this is headed. This is an opportunity for families, as it is for us, to reflect on the core values and message of our faith and to creatively reintegrate them into the emerging family dynamic.

Subsidiarity states that the smaller segments of society, such as the family, must be duly recognized and allowed to function separately and independently at the level of their own competence. Whenever a task can be done at a lower level of organization, let it be done there, without interference from above. The principle of solidarity represents those benefits and necessities that are only attainable collaboratively, and that pertain to every segment of society in order to live well. This is the common good for which society as a whole is responsible, on whose behalf everyone must work in solidarity. In this scenario, the family unit illustrates subsidiarity at work providing many of its needs. But the common goods, to which every family aspires as well, exceed the reach of the individual family, and so families must join in solidarity with others to gain them. While the family achieves many of its personal or private goods by dint of its own resources, access to the goods common to all requires it to reach out in solidarity with others, both by helping to provide them, and then to enjoy them.

Our question is what value and relationship do these two principles have in light of the globalization and the new cosmology. During the Medieval era, Prior to Newtonian cosmology, the individual was subsumed (although not completely) by the collective identity. In Medieval European society your own value was measured by how it served the body politic or Christendom. Since the Newtonian cosmology the tables were turned and the collective identity was replaced by individual freedom and achievement. From what we can gauge the new cosmology is moving us towards a holistic relationship between these two social forces.

The current laws governing the universe exist in two distinct frameworks. General relativity explains the apparent universal interrelationships that exist in large inter-planetary bodies. Under this framework the Universe is an ordered collective system out there and we all fit neatly into it. But if we look at the law governing the subatomic particles general relativity no longer makes sense. Instead we move towards the field of quantum mechanics and under this system each individual particle exists almost independently and very chaotic with its surroundings. Under this framework the universe seems very random and pointless. But theories such as string theory are emerging as the unifying principle that will bring the individual and the collective together through infinitesimal filaments of energy that have distinct vibrations for every particle but which keeps them all in harmony as a collective whole.

For our theology, subsidiarity is the principle governing the very basic family/social unit (quantum mechanics) while solidarity is the principle that governs the collective interrelationship (general relativity). We are looking for a holistic theological unifying theory that can bring these two principles together.  

Early Christianity may offer us a model for how to integrate these two principles, especially within the religious and family dynamic. As the young Christian faith grew, it found its membership coming from both Judaism and the gentile world. Under the initial influence of St. James, Jewish practices such as circumcision, near and dear to a significant portion of the early converts to Christianity, were also proposed for the gentile converts to the faith, because they meant so much, at least to the Jewish portion of the new Christians, who wanted to preserve a significant presence of their mother religion (Judaism) in their new surroundings. However, it would require the gentile converts to Christianity to reach out to something new and different for them, and St. Paul was less than enthusiastic about this prospect. This expresses the issue of staying with familiar surroundings, or reaching out to the strange and different. A compromise was worked out allowing the Jewish converts to retain certain features of their familiar heritage, such as their Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), while the gentile element among the new converts was dispensed from circumcision, though they were challenged to accept the Hebrew scriptures (the (Old Testament) as their spiritual sustenance, while being allowed to celebrate the Christian Mysteries (the Eucharist) in the familiar setting of their own homes, since at this early stage the Christian church building was neither conceptualized, or constructed. The best interests of both groups were met by allowing them to continue enjoying the benefits of their origins while stretching them to reach out to new social experiences. The growing Christian family both honored the familiar background of each group, and urged a new social setting on them. 

Later on, St. Paul was to touch on something similar from another angle, that of the growing internal development of Christianity as it flourished and developed. St. Paul noted that, in any organization, some positions are more prominent, enjoying status and outreach, attracting attention, and enjoying new relationships. Such enterprise benefits the entire operation. At the same time, any well-functioning program also depends on smaller and less socially oriented units within itself. St. Paul was anxious to avoid any conflict between the larger and smaller segments of the Christian churches he founded, so he broached the human body as an example of how parts and wholes work together, to their mutual benefit. (1 Cor 12) He contrived a fictitious conversation in which the foot should say: “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body”. Paul remarks: “it does not for this reason belong any less to the body”. And he goes on: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I do not need you’”, and again comments “…indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary…” And he concludes: “If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it…” St. Paul presents parts and whole as mutually benefitting each other, both by remaining what they are and performing within their own area of competence, and also enriching another part, which would otherwise suffer without help from other parts of the body. This too helps to reflect about fostering the welfare of the family, both by caring for itself, as well as by contributing to society at large. So the family is at one and the same time to look to itself by pursuing its own interests, even while reaching out to engage others: the neighbor, the parishioner, the fellow-worker, the professional and business world, the political scene. Pursuing its own interests need not harm the public sphere but can even benefit it, and showing concern about public affairs need not be so demanding that the family’s private affairs suffer. Indeed, they may be enriched.

A further illustration of this dual concern is assembling a jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle comprises pieces designed to fit together into a whole. The whole is the final product, and it directs the placement and alignment of the various pieces. Each placement is so unique that only one special piece can fit into a given space. There is no way to substitute one piece for another. Each piece is suitable for only one space. The part and the whole go together, since, without the large space, there won’t be any place for the piece to fit, just as no final picture will emerge until each piece finds the space where it belongs.  The family is like one of these puzzle pieces, appreciated for its own qualities, as well as for the part it plays in the whole (society at large) that provides it the big picture, where it finds a fit.

Catholic social teaching has and continues to advance both principles. In the recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI he specifically describes the importance of integrating both principles into a cohesive relationship. In focusing on the issue of International aid the Holy Father describes the danger of an absolute approach to either principles under paragraph 58.

The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.