Peace and Justice Programs
Home
Print Friendly

E Pluribus Unum “Out of Many, One”

Ali, Tala;  Assimon, Alexandra (Alex);  Barlow, Brandon;  Bishop, John (Jack);  Brennan, John (Jack);  Canelas, Anna; Holmes, Kristopher (Chris);  Lukow, Patrick;  McCrillis, John;  Redden, Shaun;  Rinz, Patrick;  Turner, Whitney;  Foster,Tyler (T.J).;  Winegardner, Michelle

UNST 100 01 CRN 96624 Alter 324 Father Benjamin J. Urmston, S.J., PhD

Fall 2009, Mondays and Wednesdays, Aug. 26-Oct. 7, 4-5:15 pm

  • Text: Selected parts of Fr. Ben Urmston’s web-page.
  • Course Goal: To introduce Xavier students to the advantages of cultural diversity and to an awareness of what the human family has in common. To begin to appreciate what the motto E Pluribus Unum can mean for all of us today.  Thus three goals  1. To see the value of diversity  2.  To see the value of cooperating together as one human family  3. To examine what structures we need to better bring about diversity and harmony among all.
  • Course Expectations:
    1. Prompt  and active attendance at Class.  If you are absent, let me know why and ask another class member or members to help you get your Journal up to date.
    2. Interview three people different from you, preferably from a group you know little or nothing about, a Catholic, a Protestant, a Muslim, a Jewish person, a black, a white, a liberal, a conservative, a pro-life person, a pro-choice person, a poor person etc. What special strengths can they add to our world? What do you have in common with them?
    3. Your main assignment is to produce by dates a journal of your main insights, experiences, and interviews.  How have you grown in this brief course?  How can we minimize prejudice, recognize the strengths and talents of one another and work together for a peace with justice?
  • We all are diverse in many positive ways. We have different personalities and strengths. We have read different books and had different experiences. We can combine these strengths and talents and work together for a better Xavier and a better world.
  • Objectives: By the end of the course students should 1. be able to describe stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination, why the latter are wrong, and how to minimize their occurrence. 2. know ways of promoting understanding, unity, and cooperation among people of diverse backgrounds, talents, and strengths 3. Develop a vision of where humankind should be headed, your own talents and strengths, how you can best lead toward your vision.
  • Time: 4-5:15 pm Mondays and Wednesdays, Aug 26 to Oct. 7th. Alter 324
  • Grading: Pass, Fail.   Questions for review.  1.  What is the value of diversity?  2.  What would be the value of cooperating together as one human family? 3.  What structures do we need to make better use of the special strengths of different ethnic and religious groups and work together for a democratic peace with justice?    4. How can we minimize the occurrence of prejudice, sterotypes, and discrimination?.  (  Play my DVD again.  Review on my Web-site:, Interdisciplinary Vision; E Pluribus  Unum;  Read Non-Violence Waging Peace, and World Order.)

    • The grade assigned is my judgment of the quality of your paper.  Eventually I want you to envision your own internal and external structures, but I also want you to listen read, and assimilate the main ideas in the course.  Since the course is pass, fail, the main concern you need to have is whether or not you are below 70.  

    The value of diversity has many answers.  Each individual and each ethic group and most religions have strengths as well as weaknesses.  We always want to emphasize strengths rather than weaknesses.  We gain when we embrace  strengths from many different groups which contribute to the common good.

    Cooperating as one human family instead of finding fault with one another, putting one another down, hoarding resources, lording it over others, fighting with one another could create a more positive, sharing, loving world, able to progress in the arts and sciences, and in knowledge and love of one another.

    My main distinctive gift to you is the offer of a vision of hope, envisioning  external and internal structures that would make this a world more in accord with God’s Word, a new beginning for all of us. If you remember anything from this brief course, I want you to remember and be able to explain briefly my five main external structures:  a common ethic; the various forms of non-violence, especially peace education; getting basic civil, political, economic, and solidarity rights into our legal and constitutional structures; a fair, inclusive form of economic democracy; and a democratic world federation. 

    We can minimize the occurrence of prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination by external laws but also by mixing with other groups and religions, emphasizing their strengths,  listening to their stories, putting ourselves in  their shoes.  Prayer, meditation, discernment of spirits,  examen of consciousness help us to be honest with ourselves and our feelings.

                                                             Vision of Hope Team

    Purpose:  In joy and in the Spirit to favor love over hate, hope over despair, faith over doubt.  To envision internal and external structures that will make our planet sustainable and our human family more ethical and moral; practicing active non-violence, waging peace, seeking to establish security and justice; insisting on basic human rights; working toward economic democracy and committed to forming a democratic world federation to act as a legal governing body for the Family of Nations---(See Love in Truth No. 67 Pope Benedict XVI www.vatican.va)  Envisioning, going forward, searching for old and new ways and structures in a balanced and peaceful manner, through collaboration, negotiation and mediation to promote, refine, and implement a vision of hope."

    Membership:  Any person willing to educate themselves and others and then work in their own situation and in their own way to implement a vision of hope in accord with one's time, energy, relationships, and commitments.

    For my full vision see other parts of this web-site www.xavier.edu/peace-justice/ben.cfm

    Can We Have Non-violence without Adequate Structures?

    Friends in Christian Life Community ask me whether  emphasizing non-violence locally can spread until we have world peace?  Three July 2009 events helped me to conclude that though eminently praiseworthy, non-violence by itself is not enough.

    There are many forms of non-violence, prayer, meditation, meaningful dialogue, conflict resolution, arbitration, education, voting intelligently, giving input to our public representatives, getting basic human rights into our legal and constitutional structures, civil disobedience, arbitration, and many others.  But can these many forms of non-violence work without adequate structures?

    On July 8th Pope Benedict XVI issued an encyclical, Love in Truth.  On July 17th Walter Cronkite passed to the next life.   On July 31st the Society of Jesus world-wide and their partners in over 160 nations, Christian Life Community, celebrated the Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola  At first these three events may seem unrelated.  But Benedict XVI, Walter Cronkite, and St. Ignatius point us to a major issue facing our human family which affects all of the other issues, a democratic world federation.  Is it possible to say we’re non-violent if we don’t even discuss ending the war system?  

    The war system is eating us alive!  A combat veteran myself, I have the greatest respect for those who serve in the armed forces.  However, it’s time to end the war system.  The war system is dangerous, expensive, wasteful of human and natural resources, irrational, unnecessary.  Look at what percentage of taxes goes to supporting military security.  Federal, state, local budgets are a scandal.  Look at the way the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have not only killed and wounded many soldiers but has affected their mental health!  There are four million Iraqi refugees.  More civilians have been killed and wounded than military personnel.

    There are Christians who believe that to work toward a world federation before Christ comes again is the work of the devil.  An Episcopalian, Cronkite responded, “If that’s true, put me at the devil’s right hand.”

    Benedict XVI proceeds from theology and philosophy.  Cronkite concludes the necessity of a democratic world federation from experience in, and observation of, world events.  The Society of Jesus and Christian Life Community follow Jesus and Christian leaders.

    Benedict XVI states that the basic form of poverty is isolation, not being able to love or not being loved, closing in on oneself, thinking one is self-sufficient.  Some go to the opposite extreme, considering  themselves too insignificant to belong to the community.

     There is much interaction now on a world-wide basis.  We need an aha! moment when we recognize we are one human family.  No one can go it alone.  All of us have talents we can contribute to the common good.

    We grow through our relations with others and with God.  Peoples grow in relationship with other peoples.  The family does not submerge the identities of its individual members.   The unity of the human family does not submerge the identities of individuals, peoples and cultures.  Rather individuals and peoples can only grow together when there is security, sharing, and giving of themselves to others and to the common good.

    Each person of the Christian Trinity gives themselves completely to one another in a unique and absolute unity.  Yet each Person remains distinct in profound interpenetration.

    Jesus prays that “they may be one even as we are one.” John 17:22.  The human family can only be enriched by looking toward the Trinity.  True openness and sharing with one another does not mean loss of individual identity but profound unity.

    If a religion leads to selfishness, cutting oneself off from the neighbor or the community, we know this is a false religion.  Respect for the whole person and every person is the criterion for evaluating cultures and religions.

    Just as the thirteen colonies in 1787 became convinced they needed to move from a confederation to a federation, Walter Cronkite knew that national sovereignty in 2009 now means something new.  Even though the US economy and military remain enormous, no nation  can go it alone.  The human family needs to respect and value the whole person and every person.  We need to value all peoples and all cultures.  True openness and sharing with one another does not mean loss of individual identity but profound unity. 

    The first US president, George Washington, was against the spirit of parties.  “By this term Washington meant the attitude that one’s own faction was more important than the whole. . .the spirit of party meant to overcome, or even destroy, rather than learn from the opposition.  A reconciling force, as Washington was, can help us regenerate our image of the democratic process and correct our fantasies that a marketplace of egoistic impulses somehow miraculously produces intelligence and harmony.  Washingtonian democracy is not the freedom to try to destroy each other, but the freedom to bring one’s own best thought together with one’s best effort to listen and attend to the other.”  (See Jacob Needleman, The American Soul, Rediscovering the Wisdom of the Founders, pp. 127-129)

    Change in the way we look at our human family and our nation states may lead us to examine and re-examine present attitudes and present structures.  We can’t write without a pencil or pen.  We can’t send an e-mail without a computer.  We can’t make decisions as a human family without adequate structures that will work.  For local decisions we need local government.  For national decisions we need a national government.  For global decisions like ending the war system, confronting global climate change, creating a fair global economy, we need a democratic world community, a global legislature, a global judicial body, a global administrative council, a global police force.

    Inviting the nations of the world to agree on a world constitution with democratic structures, checks and balances, according to the principle of subsidiarity is an enormous challenge.  But leaving us with present structures is like sending a baseball player to the plate without a bat.  Without a democratic world federation, a global ethic, the various forms of non-violence, a fair global economy won’t work.  If we don’t begin to discuss and work toward a democratic world federation, we’re avoiding a necessary structure without which the various forms of non-violence will be in the end ineffective.  I never underestimate the will and power for good of God and the human person.

    Origin of the motto of the US:  E Pluribus Unum was the Latin motto proposed for the first Great Seal of the United States of America by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson in 1776 and approved by the Continental Congress. The Latin phrase meaning “From many, one” expressed the determination of the colonies to make one unified nation of people from many different backgrounds and beliefs. The challenge of seeking unity while respecting diversity has played a critical role in shaping US history, our literature, and our national character.

Just as the thirteen colonies in 1787 became convinced they needed to move from a confederation to a federation, the late "most trusted man in America" Walter Cronkite knew that national sovereignty in 2009 now means something new. Even though our economy and our military is still unsurpassed, the United States cannot go alone. We need to respect and value the whole person and every person. We need to value all peoples and all cultures. True openness and sharing with one another does not mean loss of individual identity but profound unity.
• Our first president, George Washington was not against parties, but he was against the spirit of parties. “ by this term Washington meant the attitude that one’s own faction or part was more important than the whole. . or that one’s own party’s interest were the same as the interests of the whole. .the spirit of party meant to overcome, or even destroy, rather than learn from the opposition. A reconciling force as Washington was, can help us regenerate our image of the democratic process and correct our fantasies that a marketplace of egoistic impulses somehow miraculously produces intelligence and harmony, both in the self and in the society. Washingtonian democracy is not the freedom to try to destroy each other physically or philosophically or morally, but the freedom to bring one’s own best thought together with one’s best effort to listen and attend to the other.” (See Jacob Needleman, The American Soul, Rediscovering the Wisdom of the Founders, pp. 127-129)

President Barack Obama, Cairo University, Egypt, June 4, 2009: "Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. .We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. . We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept; E pluribus unum, 'Out of many, one."

Unity does not mean everyone must agree on non-essential points. Citizens are diverse in race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, disabilities, etc., etc. On the other hand, all must follow civil positive law unless it violates the moral natural law. Segregation was civil law in the South until Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others worked to change this immoral law. But diversity does not imply that anyone can murder, steal, etc.

In the wake of President Barack Obama’s health care address on Sept. 9th, 2009, allow me to share a few  thoughts for your consideration.  Basic health care is part of the First Week of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius.

 The President is  correct in that ordinary health care is a moral issue, a basic human economic right that should be in our legal state and federal constitutions, as stated in my third pillar.

 The attitude of the US people toward providing ordinary health care for each human person is an important sign of our character as a nation.

 The President is  very wrong that our goal is to see that everyone is covered fairly by giant insurance companies who are driven to make money consciously or unconsciously from the vulnerability of the sick and elderly.  It is said that 30% of health care monies go for insurance company and pharmaceutical company profits.  4% goes to Medicare administration.  Giant insurance and pharmaceutical companies, agribusiness, and the corporate media are frequently more powerful than the US President, Congress, and state governments.  They are too big to be regulated by our weak laws.  They often find a way to avoid the law.. Economic democracy is imperative as stated in my fourth pillar.

 Our goal is to provide ordinary health care for each human person.  Many human persons in the US are dying before their time because they are not getting ordinary health care which includes healthy food.  (I suggest you read Michael Pollen’s article in the New York Times for Sept. 10th.  Also look at the full page ad of YesWeStillCan.Org)

Workers from other nations have the responsibility and the right to support their families.  They are the victims of an immoral global economy.  They are not "illegal aliens."  We should change our immoral legal restrictions on workers from other nations.  They are following God's law which is higher than immoral human law.

The right to employment is also a basic economic right which should be in our legal and constitutional structures.  If we observed this moral law, the fear that workers from other nations would impact on our own security would be lessened.

 As a nation we do have to be able to distinguish ordinary basic care from exotic, highly sophisticated and extremely expensive procedures.  We have the right and responsibility to take ordinary care of our health, but St. Ignatius in the Principle and Foundation says we should be spiritually free to accept a shorter life rather than a longer life if that leads to God’s greater glory.  Death is a result of our group sin.  We should work to make death more humane and easier, but it would be difficult to eliminate the fact of death at this time.

Why is the single-payer system not on the table for discussion?  As a nation aren’t we spiritually free enough to dialogue about a structure that makes good sense and is successful in other nations?

I realize that the above is not where our nation is.  But I feel that God calls me to say it like I think it is.   When we aim an arrow at a target, we have to aim a little above the bull’s-eye in order to hit it.

 

Decree 2 , No. 22 of International meeting of the Society of Jesus, Spring, 2008. “God has created a world with diverse inhabitants, and this is good. Creation expresses the rich beauty of this lovable world: people working, laughing, and thriving together are signs that God is alive among us. (See Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, no. 106-108.) However, diversity becomes problematic when the differences between people are lived in such a way that some prosper at the expense of others who are excluded in such a way that people fight, killing each other, and are intent on destruction. Then God in Christ suffers in and with the world, which he wants to renew. It is here that we must discern our mission according to the criteria of the magis and the more universal good. (Ibid. No. 97) God is present in the darkness of life intent on making all things new. God needs collaborators in this endeavour. ‘nations’ beyond geographical definitions await us, ‘nations’ that today include those who are poor and displaced, those who are profoundly lonely, those who ignore God’s existence and those who use God as an instrument for political purposes. These are new ‘nations’ and we have been sent to them.”

 

Practicing Leadership: Principles & Applications Third Edition, Arthur Shriberg-David Shriberg-Richa Kumari. P. 9 “Vision, the Human Condition, and Leadership” What is the goal of the leader? Does it advance humankind? Is the content (the outcome) the key? Is the vision about a process (the ‘I have a dream’ speech)? Many leadership books and approaches center on a vision of improving some element of the human or organizational condition. Can a leader lead if there is no goal to lead toward? In the last quarter of the twentieth century the field of visioning came into vogue. Individuals, organizations, and societies are challenged to set noble goals that enhance the quality of life for all. Leaders that both articulate and move society toward that future are widely admired. We urge our readers to create their own vision for themselves.”

191 4. “The Ability to Inspire a Shared Vision Differentiates Leaders from Other Credible Sources. Although credibility is the foundation, leaders must envision an uplifting and ennobling future. People want leaders who are honest, inspiring, competent, and forward-looking. We expect leaders to take us to places we have never been before—to have clearly in mind an attractive destination that will make the journey worthwhile. Leadership isn’t telling people what to do. Leadership is painting a picture of an exciting possibility of how we can achieve a common goal. Equally important is the leader’s capacity to enlist others to transform the vision into reality.”

The very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision. It's got to be a vision you articulate clearly and forcefully on every occasion." Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame.

Stereotypes: A stereotype is when attributes commonly associated with a group are assigned to an individual. For example, A person is classified into a group on the basis of one piece of information, such as age or gender. Characteristics commonly associated with the group are then assigned to the individual. What is generalized about the group (e.g. “Young people dislike authority” may or may not be true about the individual) Gender stereotypes: “He’s talking with co-workers.” Interpretation: He’s discussing a new deal. “She’s talking with co-workers.” Interpretation: She’s gossiping.

Discrimination: treating differently on a basis other than individual merit, e. g. not employing a black applicant or a native American applicant because of a prejudice against blacks and/or native Americans.

Prejudice: an opinion without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge, an irrational attitude of hostility against a group because of their supposed characteristics, e.g. detaining Arab Muslims at airports because of presumed proclivity to hi-jack planes.

Is a reasoned or faith conviction different from bias? After years of study, experience, faith, vision, should one start from zero as she/he approaches an issue? Is anyone completely objective? 

We need to listen to all voices and listen well.  One answer to self-deception is what process theologieans like Fr. Joseph Brachen, S.J. call intersubjectivity.  "Our best chance for being truthful and objective in what we say and do is to be willing to share our thoughts and desires with other people and to listen to their response, to learn what they think and how they feel about the same issues.  Through the give-and take of dialogue with other people, we will gradually come to see the inevitable limits of our own customary perspective on life.  In listening carefully to the views of other people, especially those from a different cultural background, we will come to recognize our unconscious biases and prejudices in a way that would be virtually impossible simply through extended self-reflection on our part."  Christianity and Process Thought, Spirituality For a Changing World, pp. 66, 67/

Another answer is to follow Ignatian Spirituality, especially his Discernment of Spirits.  (See Ignatian Spirituality and Theological Reflection on this web-site).

Faith, religion, reflection, meditation, examen of consciousness are helps in minimizing prejudice, discrimination, stereotypes.

Pope Benedict XVI Love in Truth July 2009

CHAPTER FIVE: THE COOPERATION OF THE HUMAN FAMILY

From vatican.va

53. One of the deepest forms of poverty a person can experience is isolation. If we look closely at other kinds of poverty, including material forms, we see that they are born from isolation, from not being loved or from difficulties in being able to love. Poverty is often produced by a rejection of God's love, by man's basic and tragic tendency to close in on himself, thinking himself to be self-sufficient or merely an insignificant and ephemeral fact, a “stranger” in a random universe. Man is alienated when he is alone, when he is detached from reality, when he stops thinking and believing in a foundation [125]. All of humanity is alienated when too much trust is placed in merely human projects, ideologies and false utopias [126]. Today humanity appears much more interactive than in the past: this shared sense of being close to one another must be transformed into true communion. The development of peoples depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side [127].

Pope Paul VI noted that “the world is in trouble because of the lack of thinking” [128]. He was making an observation, but also expressing a wish: a new trajectory of thinking is needed in order to arrive at a better understanding of the implications of our being one family; interaction among the peoples of the world calls us to embark upon this new trajectory, so that integration can signify solidarity [129] rather than marginalization. Thinking of this kind requires a deeper critical evaluation of the category of relation. This is a task that cannot be undertaken by the social sciences alone, insofar as the contribution of disciplines such as metaphysics and theology is needed if man's transcendent dignity is to be properly understood.

As a spiritual being, the human creature is defined through interpersonal relations. The more authentically he or she lives these relations, the more his or her own personal identity matures. It is not by isolation that man establishes his worth, but by placing himself in relation with others and with God. Hence these relations take on fundamental importance. The same holds true for peoples as well. A metaphysical understanding of the relations between persons is therefore of great benefit for their development. In this regard, reason finds inspiration and direction in Christian revelation, according to which the human community does not absorb the individual, annihilating his autonomy, as happens in the various forms of totalitarianism, but rather values him all the more because the relation between individual and community is a relation between one totality and another [130]. Just as a family does not submerge the identities of its individual members, just as the Church rejoices in each “new creation” (Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17) incorporated by Baptism into her living Body, so too the unity of the human family does not submerge the identities of individuals, peoples and cultures, but makes them more transparent to each other and links them more closely in their legitimate diversity.

54. The theme of development can be identified with the inclusion-in-relation of all individuals and peoples within the one community of the human family, built in solidarity on the basis of the fundamental values of justice and peace. This perspective is illuminated in a striking way by the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity within the one divine Substance. The Trinity is absolute unity insofar as the three divine Persons are pure relationality. The reciprocal transparency among the divine Persons is total and the bond between each of them complete, since they constitute a unique and absolute unity. God desires to incorporate us into this reality of communion as well: “that they may be one even as we are one” (Jn 17:22). The Church is a sign and instrument of this unity [131]. Relationships between human beings throughout history cannot but be enriched by reference to this divine model. In particular, in the light of the revealed mystery of the Trinity, we understand that true openness does not mean loss of individual identity but profound interpenetration. This also emerges from the common human experiences of love and truth. Just as the sacramental love of spouses unites them spiritually in “one flesh” (Gen 2:24; Mt 19:5; Eph 5:31) and makes out of the two a real and relational unity, so in an analogous way truth unites spirits and causes them to think in unison, attracting them as a unity to itself.

55. The Christian revelation of the unity of the human race presupposes a metaphysical interpretation of the “humanum” in which relationality is an essential element. Other cultures and religions teach brotherhood and peace and are therefore of enormous importance to integral human development. Some religious and cultural attitudes, however, do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing authentic human development. There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favor this kind of syncretism [132] by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.

For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal [133]. Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of respect for the common good. Such discernment has to be based on the criterion of charity and truth. Since the development of persons and peoples is at stake, this discernment will have to take account of the need for emancipation and inclusivity, in the context of a truly universal human community. “The whole man and all men” is also the criterion for evaluating cultures and religions. Christianity, the religion of the “God who has a human face” [134], contains this very criterion within itself.

56. The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions. The Church's social doctrine came into being in order to claim “citizenship status” for the Christian religion [135]. Denying the right to profess one's religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true development. The exclusion of religion from the public square — and, at the other extreme, religious fundamentalism — hinders an encounter between persons and their collaboration for the progress of humanity. Public life is sapped of its motivation and politics takes on a domineering and aggressive character. Human rights risk being ignored either because they are robbed of their transcendent foundation or because personal freedom is not acknowledged. Secularism and fundamentalism exclude the possibility of fruitful dialogue and effective cooperation between reason and religious faith. Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to show its authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue comes only at an enormous price to human development.

57. Fruitful dialogue between faith and reason cannot but render the work of charity more effective within society, and it constitutes the most appropriate framework for promoting fraternal collaboration between believers and non-believers in their shared commitment to working for justice and the peace of the human family. In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the Council fathers asserted that “believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordered towards man as to their centre and summit” [136]. For believers, the world derives neither from blind chance nor from strict necessity, but from God's plan. This is what gives rise to the duty of believers to unite their efforts with those of all men and women of good will, with the followers of other religions and with non-believers, so that this world of ours may effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family under the Creator's watchful eye. A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity [137], an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans. Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way [138], if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.

8. 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. This general rule must also be taken broadly into consideration when addressing issues concerning international development aid. Such aid, whatever the donors' intentions, can sometimes lock people into a state of dependence and even foster situations of localized oppression and exploitation in the receiving country. Economic aid, in order to be true to its purpose, must not pursue secondary objectives. It must be distributed with the involvement not only of the governments of receiving countries, but also local economic agents and the bearers of culture within civil society, including local Churches. Aid programmes must increasingly acquire the characteristics of participation and completion from the grass roots. Indeed, the most valuable resources in countries receiving development aid are human resources: herein lies the real capital that needs to accumulate in order to guarantee a truly autonomous future for the poorest countries. It should also be remembered that, in the economic sphere, the principal form of assistance needed by developing countries is that of allowing and encouraging the gradual penetration of their products into international markets, thus making it possible for these countries to participate fully in international economic life. Too often in the past, aid has served to create only fringe markets for the products of these donor countries. This was often due to a lack of genuine demand for the products in question: it is therefore necessary to help such countries improve their products and adapt them more effectively to existing demand. Furthermore, there are those who fear the effects of competition through the importation of products — normally agricultural products — from economically poor countries. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that for such countries, the possibility of marketing their products is very often what guarantees their survival in both the short and long term. Just and equitable international trade in agricultural goods can be beneficial to everyone, both to suppliers and to customers. For this reason, not only is commercial orientation needed for production of this kind, but also the establishment of international trade regulations to support it and stronger financing for development in order to increase the productivity of these economies.

59. Cooperation for development must not be concerned exclusively with the economic dimension: it offers a wonderful opportunity for encounter between cultures and peoples. If the parties to cooperation on the side of economically developed countries — as occasionally happens — fail to take account of their own or others' cultural identity, or the human values that shape it, they cannot enter into meaningful dialogue with the citizens of poor countries. If the latter, in their turn, are uncritically and indiscriminately open to every cultural proposal, they will not be in a position to assume responsibility for their own authentic development [139]. Technologically advanced societies must not confuse their own technological development with a presumed cultural superiority, but must rather rediscover within themselves the oft-forgotten virtues which made it possible for them to flourish throughout their history. Evolving societies must remain faithful to all that is truly human in their traditions, avoiding the temptation to overlay them automatically with the mechanisms of a globalized technological civilization. In all cultures there are examples of ethical convergence, some isolated, some interrelated, as an expression of the one human nature, willed by the Creator; the tradition of ethical wisdom knows this as the natural law [140]. This universal moral law provides a sound basis for all cultural, religious and political dialogue, and it ensures that the multi-faceted pluralism of cultural diversity does not detach itself from the common quest for truth, goodness and God. Thus adherence to the law etched on human hearts is the precondition for all constructive social cooperation. Every culture has burdens from which it must be freed and shadows from which it must emerge. The Christian faith, by becoming incarnate in cultures and at the same time transcending them, can help them grow in universal brotherhood and solidarity, for the advancement of global and community development.

60. In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all. What aid programme is there that can hold out such significant growth prospects — even from the point of view of the world economy — as the support of populations that are still in the initial or early phases of economic development? From this perspective, more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard. One way of doing so is by reviewing their internal social assistance and welfare policies, applying the principle of subsidiarity and creating better integrated welfare systems, with the active participation of private individuals and civil society. In this way, it is actually possible to improve social services and welfare programmes, and at the same time to save resources — by eliminating waste and rejecting fraudulent claims — which could then be allocated to international solidarity. A more devolved and organic system of social solidarity, less bureaucratic but no less coordinated, would make it possible to harness much dormant energy, for the benefit of solidarity between peoples.

One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for development as well.

61. Greater solidarity at the international level is seen especially in the ongoing promotion — even in the midst of economic crisis — of greater access to education, which is at the same time an essential precondition for effective international cooperation. The term “education” refers not only to classroom teaching and vocational training — both of which are important factors in development — but to the complete formation of the person. In this regard, there is a problem that should be highlighted: in order to educate, it is necessary to know the nature of the human person, to know who he or she is. The increasing prominence of a relativistic understanding of that nature presents serious problems for education, especially moral education, jeopardizing its universal extension. Yielding to this kind of relativism makes everyone poorer and has a negative impact on the effectiveness of aid to the most needy populations, who lack not only economic and technical means, but also educational methods and resources to assist people in realizing their full human potential.

An illustration of the significance of this problem is offered by the phenomenon of international tourism [141], which can be a major factor in economic development and cultural growth, but can also become an occasion for exploitation and moral degradation. The current situation offers unique opportunities for the economic aspects of development — that is to say the flow of money and the emergence of a significant amount of local enterprise — to be combined with the cultural aspects, chief among which is education. In many cases this is what happens, but in other cases international tourism has a negative educational impact both for the tourist and the local populace. The latter are often exposed to immoral or even perverted forms of conduct, as in the case of so-called sex tourism, to which many human beings are sacrificed even at a tender age. It is sad to note that this activity often takes place with the support of local governments, with silence from those in the tourists' countries of origin, and with the complicity of many of the tour operators. Even in less extreme cases, international tourism often follows a consumerist and hedonistic pattern, as a form of escapism planned in a manner typical of the countries of origin, and therefore not conducive to authentic encounter between persons and cultures. We need, therefore, to develop a different type of tourism that has the ability to promote genuine mutual understanding, without taking away from the element of rest and healthy recreation. Tourism of this type needs to increase, partly through closer coordination with the experience gained from international cooperation and enterprise for development.

62. Another aspect of integral human development that is worthy of attention is the phenomenon of migration. This is a striking phenomenon because of the sheer numbers of people involved, the social, economic, political, cultural and religious problems it raises, and the dramatic challenges it poses to nations and the international community. We can say that we are facing a social phenomenon of epoch-making proportions that requires bold, forward-looking policies of international cooperation if it is to be handled effectively. Such policies should set out from close collaboration between the migrants' countries of origin and their countries of destination; it should be accompanied by adequate international norms able to coordinate different legislative systems with a view to safeguarding the needs and rights of individual migrants and their families, and at the same time, those of the host countries. No country can be expected to address today's problems of migration by itself. We are all witnesses of the burden of suffering, the dislocation and the aspirations that accompany the flow of migrants. The phenomenon, as everyone knows, is difficult to manage; but there is no doubt that foreign workers, despite any difficulties concerning integration, make a significant contribution to the economic development of the host country through their labour, besides that which they make to their country of origin through the money they send home. Obviously, these labourers cannot be considered as a commodity or a mere workforce. They must not, therefore, be treated like any other factor of production. Every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance [142].

63. No consideration of the problems associated with development could fail to highlight the direct link between poverty and unemployment. In many cases, poverty results from a violation of the dignity of human work, either because work opportunities are limited (through unemployment or underemployment), or “because a low value is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her family”[143]. For this reason, on 1 May 2000 on the occasion of the Jubilee of Workers, my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II issued an appeal for “a global coalition in favour of ‘decent work”'[144], supporting the strategy of the International Labour Organization. In this way, he gave a strong moral impetus to this objective, seeing it as an aspiration of families in every country of the world. What is meant by the word “decent” in regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living.

64. While reflecting on the theme of work, it is appropriate to recall how important it is that labour unions — which have always been encouraged and supported by the Church — should be open to the new perspectives that are emerging in the world of work. Looking to wider concerns than the specific category of labour for which they were formed, union organizations are called to address some of the new questions arising in our society: I am thinking, for example, of the complex of issues that social scientists describe in terms of a conflict between worker and consumer. Without necessarily endorsing the thesis that the central focus on the worker has given way to a central focus on the consumer, this would still appear to constitute new ground for unions to explore creatively. The global context in which work takes place also demands that national labour unions, which tend to limit themselves to defending the interests of their registered members, should turn their attention to those outside their membership, and in particular to workers in developing countries where social rights are often violated. The protection of these workers, partly achieved through appropriate initiatives aimed at their countries of origin, will enable trade unions to demonstrate the authentic ethical and cultural motivations that made it possible for them, in a different social and labour context, to play a decisive role in development. The Church's traditional teaching makes a valid distinction between the respective roles and functions of trade unions and politics. This distinction allows unions to identify civil society as the proper setting for their necessary activity of defending and promoting labour, especially on behalf of exploited and unrepresented workers, whose woeful condition is often ignored by the distracted eye of society.

65. Finance, therefore — through the renewed structures and operating methods that have to be designed after its misuse, which wreaked such havoc on the real economy — now needs to go back to being an instrument directed towards improved wealth creation and development. Insofar as they are instruments, the entire economy and finance, not just certain sectors, must be used in an ethical way so as to create suitable conditions for human development and for the development of peoples. It is certainly useful, and in some circumstances imperative, to launch financial initiatives in which the humanitarian dimension predominates. However, this must not obscure the fact that the entire financial system has to be aimed at sustaining true development. Above all, the intention to do good must not be considered incompatible with the effective capacity to produce goods. Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers. Right intention, transparency, and the search for positive results are mutually compatible and must never be detached from one another. If love is wise, it can find ways of working in accordance with provident and just expediency, as is illustrated in a significant way by much of the experience of credit unions.

Both the regulation of the financial sector, so as to safeguard weaker parties and discourage scandalous speculation, and experimentation with new forms of finance, designed to support development projects, are positive experiences that should be further explored and encouraged, highlighting the responsibility of the investor. Furthermore, the experience of micro-finance, which has its roots in the thinking and activity of the civil humanists — I am thinking especially of the birth of pawnbroking — should be strengthened and fine-tuned. This is all the more necessary in these days when financial difficulties can become severe for many of the more vulnerable sectors of the population, who should be protected from the risk of usury and from despair. The weakest members of society should be helped to defend themselves against usury, just as poor peoples should be helped to derive real benefit from micro-credit, in order to discourage the exploitation that is possible in these two areas. Since rich countries are also experiencing new forms of poverty, micro-finance can give practical assistance by launching new initiatives and opening up new sectors for the benefit of the weaker elements in society, even at a time of general economic downturn.

66. Global interconnectedness has led to the emergence of a new political power, that of consumers and their associations. This is a phenomenon that needs to be further explored, as it contains positive elements to be encouraged as well as excesses to be avoided. It is good for people to realize that purchasing is always a moral — and not simply economic — act. Hence the consumer has a specific social responsibility, which goes hand-in- hand with the social responsibility of the enterprise. Consumers should be continually educated[145] regarding their daily role, which can be exercised with respect for moral principles without diminishing the intrinsic economic rationality of the act of purchasing. In the retail industry, particularly at times like the present when purchasing power has diminished and people must live more frugally, it is necessary to explore other paths: for example, forms of cooperative purchasing like the consumer cooperatives that have been in operation since the nineteenth century, partly through the initiative of Catholics. In addition, it can be helpful to promote new ways of marketing products from deprived areas of the world, so as to guarantee their producers a decent return. However, certain conditions need to be met: the market should be genuinely transparent; the producers, as well as increasing their profit margins, should also receive improved formation in professional skills and technology; and finally, trade of this kind must not become hostage to partisan ideologies. A more incisive role for consumers, as long as they themselves are not manipulated by associations that do not truly represent them, is a desirable element for building economic democracy.

67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect [146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good [147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights [148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization [149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.

Current Events 2009 August

The US is beginning to have a more positive view of the International Criminal Court. Those wishing to be involved, please e-mail.l Outreach@globalsolutions.org

President's Barack Obama's Commencement Address at Notre Dame

May 17, 2009

This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit - an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work.

We must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity - diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.

It is this last challenge that I'd like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century - whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease - do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.
Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.
Unfortunately, finding that common ground - recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" - is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man - our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

It's a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "...differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's ceremony.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago - also with the help of the Catholic Church.

I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.
It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help - to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.
And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads - unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched minds and hearts."
My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I'd like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they're talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame - by the last count, upwards of 80% -- have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens - when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another - all things are possible.