2005

End of Catholic Liturgical Year

We know the fiscal year is ending when our financial reports are due. We know the calendar year is ending because of New Year's Eve parties. We know the end of the Christian liturgical year only if we are praying the Divine Office or following closely the liturgical cycle. Liturgical time is sacred time, different from calendar time or clock time or from temporality. Sacred time makes the past present in a much more forceful and real way than does a simple commemoration. At the Last Supper Jesus said, "This is my body--this is my blood--do this in memory of me. When the priest says these words at Mass, Christ dies and rises again in a mystical, unbloody, but real way. We join ourselves and all of nature to Christ as He presents all of creation to the Father. The Catholic Church teaches the Mass is a living memorial. The American Revolution is over. We're not fighting the battle of Lexington and Concord. Christ's redemptive act is not over. Christ really dies and rises. Sacred time not only makes the past present, it makes the future present. Through sacred time in seed the full establishment of God's reign is with us now. Christ has come, reconciling all things to Himself. Ending the liturgical year, the feast of Christ the King reminds us of a special kind of kingship, a reign of peace, justice, love, and truth. Christ is our origin and our goal, the infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of our being; the magnetic focus drawing all things to himself.

That we are sinners, often rationalizing ourselves, does not deter us from speaking in love the truth as we see it. Faith-based communities such as Christian Life Communities can help us to discern together and minimize self-deception. We are called to accept the challenge of the Second Vatican Council to scrutinize the signs of the times and interpret those signs in the light of the Gospel. St. Paul says our goal is restoration of all things in Christ. If we are removed and absent from God's physical creation, we are alienated from God. If we are separated from our sisters and brothers made in the image of God, we are separated from God.

Like love, truth begins at home, with greater communication with those close to us, listening and talking to one another. God's reign is built on truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The truth can hurt, but ultimately the truth makes us free. If we listen to others, we have a better chance that they will listen to us. Christ will put all enemies under His feet, and will destroy death itself. God will be all in all.

To some we are only waiting around now in the lobby, waiting for the movie of heaven to start. To me we are co-creators with God, working with God to bring God's act of creation to perfection. We are preparing the world for its final transformation and transfiguration. There is continuity between this life and the life to come. It's this world, these relationships that will be transformed. What we do now has eternal significance.
The gospel for the Feast of Christ the King points to the way we will prepare the world for its final transformation. The Son of Man comes in glory escorted by all the angels of heaven, sits upon his royal throne, and all the nations assemble before Him. Then Jesus reveals who He is. Jesus is those who are hungry, the foreigners, the criminals, those ill and in rags. Those who neglect these least, neglect Jesus. Those who serve these least, serve Jesus. Those who work for peace and justice prepare the world for its final transfiguration. Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again.

The end of the Liturgical Year is an occasion to reflect on our individual and collective light and dark graced stories for 2005.

The liturgical season of Advent is testimony that the first Christians were definitely a Church of the future. The first Christians lived in constant expectation and anticipation of the Parousia, the final coming of Christ, the full establishment of the reign of God. "The community which extended itself through so much of the Roman world was not an eschatological group withdrawn from the world. .To describe this uniquely vital and energetic movement as a tight little eschatological group which was content to let the world go to perdition while it awaited the coming of its savior in the clouds seems to be as great a perversion of Jesus and the Church as anyone has ever proposed." Fr. John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, Parousia.

"The expectation of a new earth must not weaken but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one. For here grows the body of a new human family, a body which even now is able to give some kind of foreshadowing of the new age. . . After we have obeyed the Lord, and in His Spirit nurtured on earth the values of human dignity, solidarity and freedom, and indeed all the good fruits of what we are and what we do, we will find them again, but freed of stain, burnished and transfigured." (Vatican II, "The Church in the Modern World" No. 39) In this life we're not just waiting in the lobby for the movie of heaven to start. We're making the movie. God will edit it and touch it up. God will transform and transfigure our own efforts. But it will be this world and these relationships that will be transformed and transfigured. What we do now makes an eternal difference.

Happy Advent, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Eid Fetr!

I never underestimate the will and power of God for good. Once we had kings and queens. Now democracy is the norm. Once we had slavery, later de jure and de facto segregation. Now we have civil rights legislation. Once women were not permitted to vote. Now we have the League of Women Voters. As St. Paul says, "Where sin abounds, there grace does more abound." (Romans 5.20)

Jewish Voice for Peace

Taken from Jewish Vote for Peace:

"JPN Commentary: The important piece of this article is not so much the platform for Ariel Sharon's new Kadima party. That is merely reflective of familiar Sharon positions. What is of greater interest is how Kadima and Sharon are defining the "road map".

Sharon has repeatedly stated that he "supports the road map". That is, the plan George W. Bush put forth through the Quartet (the group made up of the US, UN, EU and Russian Federation) which called for mutual steps toward a two-state solution. But as Kadima has defined it, Israel has no immediate responsibilities. For Kadima, the process for creating two states is carried out in the following stages: "dismantling terror organizations, collecting firearms, implementing security reforms in the Palestinian Authority, and preventing incitement." The missing piece is obvious--the freezing of settlement construction and the removal of settlement "outposts" that have gone up since 2001. These steps are explicitly called for by the actual road map as immediate actions that Israel must take. Sharon has no intention of doing so, of course. Instead, he is following through on his plan to use the Gaza withdrawal to "put formaldehyde" into the peace process. In this case, Gaza will be the excuse to do no more on the West Bank. Sharon may, in the near future, take down a few meaningless settlements on the West Bank, but his overall ambition is to unilaterally set borders that leave Israel in effective control of movement on the West Bank, leave the major settlement blocs intact and keep Israel in control of much of the key resources, particularly water, on the West Bank.

The actual road map that Bush dreamed up was a futile document that couldn't have worked even if it had been seriously implemented. But now it has devolved into a rhetorical fiction that Sharon can use to cozy up to the Bush Administration and enhance his absurd "peacemaker" image while ensuring that livable conditions for the Palestinians are impossible to achieve. When his policies lead, as they eventually will if they are not stopped, to renewed violence, Sharon will surely follow Ehud Barak's example and shrug and say "I tried my best, the Palestinians just won't settle for anything less than our annihilation." The only question is how many people will be duped by this. One can only hope it is far fewer than were fooled by Barak. -- MP"

As we enter this holiday season and reflect on what gives us joy in our lives, I want to ask you to take just a moment to rekindle Jewish resistance against injustice. We're in a time when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer a regular feature on the front pages. We face the danger of forgetting that homes continue to be demolished at alarming rates; the Wall continues to be built, separating Palestinians from their land and from one another; settlements continue to be expanded on Palestinian land.

Many people who are close to us have found it too painful to face a Palestinian child whose home has been destroyed, or a Palestinian family losing their farm to the Wall. Who can blame them? It's so much easier to lull yourself to sleep to the mainstream media's narrative than to do what you've done? face an uphill battle, often with your community, your family, and the society that we live in. Thank you for supporting us with your courage. I hope that you'll also consider a gift to JVP, to help us build on our work for 2006.

Over the years, it's the tenacity of our supporters and activists that have helped us grow into a powerful voice in the Jewish community. Just last week, we confronted CAMERA, a right-wing Boston-based Jewish organization, for distorting our stance on selective divestment and the Caterpillar campaign. They have issued a harsh critique of the new Spielberg movie, partly because the film's screenwriter, Tony Kushner, is on JVP's Advisory Board. We're proud to be the cause of their criticism? our work is shaking up ossified and out-dated notions of what it means to be Jewish in America.

By supporting us, you've helped Jews all over the world re-evaluate our definition of what it means to be Jewish. By being willing to face the pain that Palestinians and Israelis suffer every day, we take nothing for granted about who we are and what we stand for. When I first started working against injustice in Israel-Palestine, my parents and I found ourselves uncomfortably on opposing sides during a demonstration. Now, years later, they've come to understand that I do this work from a deep commitment to the best in what the Jewish people stand for? justice, human dignity, equal rights for people everywhere, and truth, no matter how painful to disclose.

I have the strength to continue to fight for justice because I know that we have thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish supporters standing with us. The support of both affirms that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just a Jewish problem to solve. I hope that you'll consider giving to JVP in time for the New Year. Thank you in advance for your gift.

Liat Weingart
Co-Director, Jewish Voice for Peace

• JPN Commentary: Israeli settlers have destroyed Palestinian olive trees with abandon during the past five years. This is a form of economic terrorism -- an encouragement of population "transfer" -- as much as it is a direct attempt to gain control of Palestinian land. The destruction usually begins during olive harvesting season, and takes on a ritual quality of destruction accompanied by physical abuse of the farmers, both men and women, who have been repeatedly beaten and even shot. For at least the last two years, Israeli officials have condemned the actions of the settlers, but the destruction has not been halted. Today, the head of Israel's security service, the Shin Bet, pointed a finger at the military leadership, which, he claims, have turned a blind eye to the devastation of Palestinian farmers' livelihood. The Israeli perpetrators are well known, Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin claims, but their detention has been prevented (presumably, again, by the army). For how many more years will this wanton destruction be allowed to continue? The question goes to the heart of the Israeli sense of national identity: shall the nation model itself as a law-flaunting society or a law-abiding one? That question is also the central concern of Steven Spielberg's moody and complex new film, "Munich," about the morality (and efficacy) of the eye-for-an-eye notion of justice. In the case of olive tree destruction, however, the issues are much more stark: Israeli settlers, especially the so-called "hilltop youth," are, with the help of what is now exposed as tacit state consent, carving a path of destruction merely to take what they want without regard for right or wrong. This gives new relevance to the provocative comment of one of the characters in Spielberg's film: "How do you think we got control of the land [of Israel]?by being nice?" -LS

Spielberg's Munich- Myth and Reality

"Steven Speilberg's Munich has already generated considerable controversy. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks said that Spielberg presents a "perpetual motion machine" of violence and that he ignores the "evil" involved-presumably meaning the Palestinians. The right-wing organization, CAMERA, is aghast that Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner depict Palestinians as people rather than as mindless killers. At Jewish Voice for Peace, we work for a lasting and just peace that respects the rights of Israelis and Palestinians equally. We do that by working to change American policy in the region and by raising a Jewish call for policies that treat Israelis and Palestinians equally within the framework of international law.

What's the reality? Munich tells a story of Israel in the persona of one man, Avner, the leader of the team of Israeli assassins sent to kill Palestinians alleged to have masterminded the Munich Olympics massacre. In no way does it justify or excuse to any degree the perpetrators of that horrific act. What it does is raise two questions of concern to anyone, Jewish or not, with a conscience: Is there any hope that the violence we see in the film can possibly lead to peace? Can the violence be justified morally? And one certainly comes away with the feeling that the answer to both questions is a resounding "no!"

In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, eight Palestinian terrorists from the group Black September took nine Israeli athletes hostage. In the end, all the Israelis were killed during a clumsy rescue attempt by German police. Five Palestinians were killed, and three others captured, though they were later freed as ransom for a hijacked plane. It is only briefly mentioned in the film that Israel responded immediately, bombing Palestine Liberation Organization bases inside refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria. Over 200 Palestinians were killed or wounded (precise figures are unavailable, though the movie quotes 60 as being the number killed), the overwhelming majority of them innocent civilian refugees.

While the attacks on the camps in Syria and Lebanon are mentioned in passing in the film, whether such attacks are justified was not a question Munich chose to deal with. That's not an indictment of the film by any means; Munich is, first and foremost, entertainment, it is already a very long movie, and it takes on enough questions that we need not criticize it for not taking on more.

The film chronicles the Mossad operation undertaken in the wake of the Munich massacre to hunt down and kill leaders of Black September and leading figures of the PLO. The film has been attacked for weakness in historical facts. This is a criticism that falls flat for two reasons: one, the film does not claim to be an accurate historical representation. It is entertainment based on real events, and begins with a disclaimer to that effect. Two, as with virtually any covert operation, verifiable facts are sparse and hard to come by. In this case, not only is there classified information, but Israel has never even admitted this operation took place, making verification even more difficult. Those complaining about the film's inaccuracies are going by testimony of different people than the author of the book on which the film is based did, nothing more.

But to hear the way the film has been characterized by some so-called supporters of Israel, one would believe that Munich featured some exploration of the Palestinian point of view. Indeed, when I saw it, I expected some minor sub-plot where a Palestinian character was somewhat explored. There was none. Again, this is not an indictment of the film-the movie was about Israel and Israelis. But this underscores just how extreme the critics of the film are.

Who was Black September? Black September was an offshoot of the main party of the PLO, Fatah. They took their name from the September, 1970 onslaught by the Jordanian army against a Palestinian uprising in that country. At that time, Fatah and the PLO more generally were trying to become more of a political leadership and distance themselves from terrorist attacks. But the fight against Israel was very popular in the Palestinian street, and Fatah did not believe it could afford to be seen as giving up the violent struggle. So, Black September was created, a group that would take violent action in the name of the Palestinian cause, while allowing the main Fatah leadership to retain a discrete distance from those actions. Black September worked with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group that was much more engaged in violent attacks than Fatah. This gave Fatah the benefit of not only remaining associated with militant actions, but also prevented the PLO from splitting between factions that would have been headed by the PFLP on the one side and Fatah on the other.

Black September's actions were not confined to attacks on Israelis. Their first major action was the assassination of the Jordanian Prime Minister, Wafsi Tal. Many of their attacks were against Jordanian or Saudi targets at first, later focusing on Israeli and also American targets. But it was Munich that really brought the group to prominence. The Israeli operations to hunt down leaders of Black September, along with Black September's own emphasis on international terrorism, as opposed to attacks within Israel and the Occupied Territories, gave birth to what was sometimes referred to as "the War of the Spooks", with covert operatives hunting and killing each other all over the world. In the fall of 1973, the PLO decided that attacks around the world were doing their cause more harm than good and they disbanded Black September. By this time, however, international connections had been made and other, small but well-connected Palestinian groups would carry out more attacks on Israeli and American targets for years. It was not until the first Intifada in 1987 that Palestinian violence was generally confined to Israel and the Occupied Territories.

The Palestinians in Munich

Spielberg and Kushner show in one scene that both Israelis and Palestinians are fighting because they both yearn for a homeland in the same place. One can argue the different points of legitimacy for each side, but it is both incorrect and futile to contend that either side is motivated by hatred of another group. JVP says that it is the conflict that promotes that hatred, not the other way around. Further, Spielberg and Kushner weigh the question of securing the State of Israel through force. It comes as no surprise that conservative columnists like Brooks, Leon Wieseltier in The New Republic and Andrea Peyser in the New York Post are uncomfortable with the repeated acknowledgments in the film that Israel has always had to use force to attain its goals. As Avner's mother says, "They would not give it to us, we had to take it."

Extremists like Brooks and the people at CAMERA would like to believe that the dispossession of Palestinians and the violence Israelis have employed over the long years of conflict do not raise any moral questions. But most of us realize that they do.

Spielberg and Kushner make sure to demonstrate that the Palestinians being killed by the Mossad operatives in Munich were human beings, and this does nothing to exonerate anyone who was connected to the Olympic massacre. What complicates the matter is the fact that the eleven Palestinians targeted for assassination in the film may not all have been involved in the massacre. The movie raises this very question at the end, and, in fact, that question has been raised regarding a number of the Palestinians on the famed list of targets in the past. The trouble with covert operations is precisely that evidence is often scant, and operations often target people associated with a group, whether or not the planners know if they were actually connected with the act they are avenging. Indeed, this is a feature of virtually all acts of vengeance. And it's surely why Kushner and Spielberg seem to take issue with acts of vengeance in general in this film.

But in the end, the movie is about the Israelis, and it is the Israelis whom we get to know. The Palestinians are depicted as more than generic, two-dimensional, pure evil terrorists, but we don't get to know any of them in the movie. We only see one of the Palestinians with his family, and that is more to build tension about his daughter potentially being killed in the operation than for any character development. We hear that the Palestinians yearn for a homeland, but we are never made to understand their lives more deeply, to understand what might drive some of them to such horrific violence. Again, this is not what the film is about, and it is hardly a requirement that Spielberg and Kushner lengthen the film even further to bring these scenes in. But it does show how wildly the extremists we mentioned earlier are overacting to this movie.

Munich raises some important questions, though it's not the movie we would have made. It does an excellent job, however, of showing the Israeli human and moral dilemmas as well as the terrible price they paid, and this is important. It is not only important to humanize Israelis, but it is important that we, as Jews, as Americans, raise the same questions about Israeli actions and operations as Israelis do. That Munich is set in the 1970s, when Israelis were somewhat less cynical about possibilities of the future than they are today (thanks in great measure to the second intifada and to the great lie of Barak's Generous Offer at Camp David in 2000) makes it easier to raise these questions. But they are questions we all need to ask about Israel and the Palestinians; about US support for Israeli policies with both political protection and funding; and also about American policies in the so-called "war on terror."

Munich is not a film that makes any kind of Palestinian case. But it does raise important questions, on top of being a very engrossing and well-made film. That really ought to be enough for anyone.

Iraq

What To Do For Peace Now

Published on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 by https://www.commondreams.org/ by Tom Hayden

Congress should call for a peace envoy to begin immediate peace talks with the Iraqi opposition after this week's historic Cairo summit. The three-day meeting was the first attended by leading Iraqi political parties as well as a delegation linked to the insurgents, organized by former minister Ayham al-Sammarae.

Overcoming the initial opposition of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, the conference ended with a call for American withdrawal and an endorsement of "nationalist resistance" to foreign occupation.

The conference will resume in Baghdad in February, where a stronger call for US withdrawal is likely. The February date is consistent with the four-month period that has been established to re-negotiate the Iraqi constitution to accommodate Sunni demands.

It is clear that US proposals for token Sunni inclusion have failed, and that the peace deal emerging consists of incorporating the opposition into a new power-sharing arrangement.

If the deal is brokered, many Baathist officers will likely be incorporated into the Iraqi security forces to protect their populations. The Mahdi Army of Moktada al-Sadr will be accepted as sharing security responsibilities in areas they represent as well.

As previously reported, Iraqi elected officials have demonstrated their demand for withdrawal twice before, in a letter from 100-plus parliamentarians in July 2005 and a unanimous September 2005 report by the regime's committee on sovereignty.

The US has been forced to accept the beginning of talks under the sponsorship of the Arab League. Sammarae, who invited the insurgent representatives to Cairo, said they were "willing to talk with whomever I can make them meet." His bid received a boost from Iraq's vice-president and highest-ranked Sunni, Ghazi Ajil Yawer, who said "whoever wants to talk politics has to have a political wing. I mean, look at the IRA - they had Sinn Fein, and even the VietCong, they had somebody to negotiate for them."

Not all insurgents will accept a political settlement. But a majority of Iraqis, backed by several militias, will support the peace strategy rather than civil war.

Democrats and Republicans should be competing to support Iraqi talks as the beginning of the peace process. Instead they are losing the initiative to the Iraqis themselves. The steps to consider are these:

• Reduce US troops levels by 25,000 by Christmas.
• Support the Arab League's peace diplomacy, including this week's Call for a near-term withdrawal.
• Assign a US peace envoy to join the peace talks immediately and encourage the February Arab summit.
• Make peace diplomacy a higher priority than military operations.
• Place our allies on notice immediately.
• End offensive American operations in cities.
• Make clear that the US intends to withdraw, keep no permanent bases, and respect Iraqi control of Iraqi natural resources.

Make clear the the US is committed to an internationally-sponsored effort at postwar economic reconstruction, without Halliburtons.

Reduce tensions with Iran and Syria in exchange for their support for a political solution. Adopt these policy guidelines in budget and policy language by January.

Life and Death Issues in the Philippines

by Jim Winkler, United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society, General Secretary

Rev. Raul Domingo died September 4, two weeks after he was shot by suspected military agents on the Philippines island of Palawan. He was a 35-year-old pastor of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines who led a campaign against the labor abuses of mining companies. Rev. Edison Lapuz was killed May 12 by suspected military agents while attending the funeral of his father-in-law in Leyte, Philippines. He, too, was a UCCP preacher. At the time of his death he was supporting the struggle of peasants and fish workers to obtain land.

Last week, six U.S. military personnel were accused of raping a 22-year-old Filipino woman. Word has spread that a United Methodist district superintendent is on the target list of military death squads.

These pastors are just two of the more than 50 church leaders and human rights activists who have been assassinated in the Philippines in recent months. And they are our "cousins," since the United Church of Christ in the Philippines grew out of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, and the EUB merged with the Methodist Church to become The United Methodist Church.

The violence in the Philippines threatens to spin out of control. Poverty is deep. Mounting evidence shows that the President may well have stolen the last election. A wealthy elite, closely allied with the United States, ruthlessly exploits a poor majority.

Twice already this year, members of our board and staff have traveled to the Philippines at the request of the bishops there to witness to and learn more about the dire situation. In early January, I will travel to the Philippines with Bishop John Hopkins, General Board of Global Ministries general secretary Dr. Randy Day and others to meet with Filipino government and military leaders. We will seek to meet with the President and the U.S. Ambassador. We will meet with religious and human rights leaders, as well.

"The battle we are experiencing now is not that between the different groups and sectors positioning themselves and desiring to retain power or to attain it," United Methodist Bishop Leo Soriano wrote recently. "The true struggle is between the powers of this world and the power of the Spirit, which is the Kingdom of God. That Spirit is embodied in the Church to which you and I belong. As a church, we must express our faith in action. I appeal as much as possible that this action must be within the bounds of Christian Faith and democratic principles, be it within or without the bounds of the Constitution. Let it be active and non-violent."

We will go to the Philippines in solidarity with the oppressed and to deliver a clear message to those responsible for killing our people: we know what is going on here and we will not be silent. We worked side-by-side in the 70s and 80s with many others to bring down the dreadful Marcos dictatorship and we have to be vigilant now before the crisis deepens further.

CONFLICTS ON THE WANE

5-November-2005 -- ZENIT.org News Agency

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, NOV. 5, 2005 (Zenit.org).- A new report reveals that all forms of political violence, except international terrorism, have declined worldwide since the early 1990s. Wars are not only far less frequent today, but also far less deadly.

The first Human Security Report was published Oct. 17 by the recently established Human Security Center, based at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. The center is funded by a number of governments: Canada, Britain, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

The report found that:

• The number of armed conflicts has declined by more than 40% since 1992. The deadliest conflicts (those with 1,000 or more battle-deaths) dropped by a dramatic 80%.
• The number of international crises, often harbingers of war, fell by more than 70% between 1981 and 2001.
• The number of military coups and attempted coups has declined by some 60% since 1963. In 1963, there were 25 coups or attempted coups; in 2004, there were 10, and all failed.
• Most armed conflicts now take place in the poorest countries. But as incomes rise, the risk of war declines.
• The period since World War II is the longest interval without wars between the major powers, in centuries.
• The United Kingdom and France, followed by the United States and Russia/Soviet Union, have fought most international wars since 1946.
• The average number of people reported killed per conflict per year in 1950 was 38,000; in 2002 it was just 600.
• Most of the world's conflicts are now concentrated in Africa. By the end of the 1990s, more people were being killed in sub-Saharan Africa's wars than the rest of the world put together.
• The biggest death tolls do not come from the actual fighting, but from war-exacerbated disease and malnutrition. These "indirect" deaths can account for as much as 90% of the total war-related death toll. For example, the overwhelming majority of the 3.3 million deaths in Congo's 1998-2002 civil war were from malnutrition and disease.

Why conflict declined

The Human Security Report identifies three major political changes that led to a decline in conflicts.

First, there was the end of colonialism. From the early 1950s to the early 1980s, colonial wars made up 60% to 100% of all international conflicts.

Second was the end of the Cold War, which had driven about one-third of all conflicts after World War II.

Third was the rise of international activities designed to stop wars and prevent new ones from starting.
This third element consisted mainly in activities coordinated through the United Nations. They included a sixfold increase in U.N. preventive diplomacy missions; a fourfold increase in U.N. peacemaking missions and peace operations; and an elevenfold increase in the number of states subject to U.N. sanctions. The report estimated the annual cost of these changes to the international community as being extremely modest -- under 1% of world military spending.

Another set of factors help explain the lower mortality in the wars that still occur. Most conflicts today are low-intensity, fought with light weapons. Often they are between weak government forces and ill-trained rebels, without major battles. While brutal enough, these conflicts are far less numerous than those in previous decades.

In addition, the number of nations governed by authoritarian regimes has sharply declined. These governments normally have higher levels of violent internal repression and gross human rights abuses. At the end of the 1970s some 90 countries were governed by authoritarian regimes; by 2003 there were just 30.
Civilian victims

The report also examines the effects of wars on civilians. Between 1980 and 1992 the total number of people estimated to have been displaced by conflicts increased to more than 40 million from 16 million. The quality of the statistics involved for this and other matters is questionable, the report comments. In any case, there is little doubt about the upward trend.

Displacement is a humanitarian tragedy and puts people at greater risk of succumbing to disease and malnutrition. At the same time, it also prevents many violent deaths. Indeed, the report argues that if these millions had not fled their homes, hundreds of thousands, possibly more, would likely have been killed.

The report also pointed out that assessing the vulnerability of civilians to conflict is difficult, due to the lack of reliable data. For example, one of the most frequently cited claims about today's displaced persons is that 80% of them are women and children. A recent analysis cited by the report estimates the figure at 70%. These statistics might be expected, since women and those under age 18 make up at least 70% of the population in many war-affected countries.

Other studies suggest that women are less likely to be victims of mass killing than non-combatant males. And recent surveys found that males are more likely to die from war-induced malnutrition and disease than females.

The problem of sexual assault against women and girls during conflicts is also difficult to assess, given the absence of reliable data, the report states. It is not even possible, the report adds, to determine whether wartime sexual violence is increasing or decreasing.

The report also questioned the data related to child soldiers. Many have affirmed that there has been a dramatic increase in the use of child soldiers over the past three decades. But lack of reliable data confounds attempts to determine whether numbers of child soldiers have recently increased or decreased.

Governments and rebel forces routinely lie about their use of child soldiers, the report noted, and few if any records are kept. The widely cited estimate of 300,000 child soldiers worldwide dates back almost a decade, yet it is repeatedly cited as if it were current. The report opined that, given the dramatic decline in the number of wars since then, it would be surprising if the number of child soldiers had not fallen along with those of regular forces.

In spite of doubts over the data regarding the civilian impact of war, the report does provide ample evidence of the enormous costs resulting from conflicts. Property is destroyed, economic activity disrupted, resources are diverted from health care, and following conflicts there is normally a rise in crime rates. As well, crowded into camps, refugees fall ill from infectious diseases and contribute to the further spread of these diseases.
Terror's scourge

The Human Security Report observes that international terrorism has killed fewer than 1,000 people a year, on average, over the past 30 years. Despite this low death toll it is still a major human security concern.

The U.S.-led counter-terror campaign has been associated with high levels of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, which has increased the number of potential terrorist recruits. And there is the danger that terrorists might at some stage use weapons of mass destruction.

The report also warns that there are no grounds for complacency, despite the positive changes in recent years. Some 60 armed conflicts still rage around the globe. And there are still gross abuses of human rights and widespread war crimes. In addition, the United Nations remains in urgent need of reform if it is to be effective in avoiding future conflicts."

If we had a democratic World Authority instead of the present weak confederation of the United Nations, wars would end.

Justice Conference of US Jesuit Universities

On Oct. 14-16, 2005 a dynamic Commitment to Justice in Jesuit Higher Education Conference was held at John Carroll University in Cleveland. All twenty-eight Jesuit colleges and universities in the US attended even Loyola of New Orleans. Xavier's Justice Across the Campus Committee agreed to initiate a year-long campus discussion of the fruit of the Justice Conference. Log onto www.Loyola.edu/justice to read conference papers and proposals.

Human Rights in Catholic Thought

In the Oct. 31st, 2005 issue of the national Jesuit magazine America Fr. David Hollenbach, Director of the Center for Human rights and international Justice, Flatley Professor of Theology at Boston College, author of The Global Face of Public Faith: Politics, Human Rights, and Christian Ethics describes how the new Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church "affirms the Catholic Church's commitment to human rights as moral standards to which all nations and cultures should be held accountable. . we are a new creation in Christ. The church's work in support of human rights is essentially connected to its mission to proclaim the Gospel. Human rights, the vocation of every Christian and the mission of the church are inseparable. . . Commitment to equal worth for all human persons calls forth a special concern for the poor and the marginalized. All have the right to basic necessities, such as food, housing, just wages and adequate social security (Nos. 301 and 365)."

WHAT COOPERATIVES COULD DO FOR NEW ORLEANS

RALPH NADER, COUNTERPUNCH - The corporate looting of New Orleans is underway. The charges of corruption, political favoritism and poor delivery of services by corporate contractors for government projects are already being leveled by the media and some alert officials. After
all, over $100 billion of taxpayer monies will be flowing to New Orleans and the Gulf area communities in the next several months. Plans for the new New Orleans by the large corporate developers are not including many poor or low income families in their plans. These developers see a smaller ritzier New Orleans with gentrified neighborhoods and acres of entertainment, gambling and tourist industries. In a phrase, the corporatization of New Orleans' renewal.

A different more cooperative scenario needs attention. Here is a flattened major city in America where a cooperative economy can take hold that puts people first, that allows the return of low-income families back home with dignity, self-determination and opportunity

Cooperatives are businesses owned by their consumers. They operate as non-profits. They are all over the United States and are often taken for granted by their customer-owners. There are housing cooperatives. There are health cooperatives like the successful Puget Sound Health Coop in Seattle. There are banking cooperatives called credit unions with 50 million members. There are food store cooperatives and even energy cooperatives in farm country from refineries to pipelines to gas stations. These are electric cooperatives providing electricity to millions of rural Americans. There are student coops in Universities all over the country. . .

New Orleans provides possibly the finest opportunity in many years for the cooperative movement to make itself known and to save New Orleans
from being looted by corporate predators of various stripes who are presently designing the new New Orleans. Cooperatives demand grass
roots organization and customer responsibility or they cannot exist. Cooperators, as customers are called, started these cooperatives in the early days-both consumer and producer cooperatives-throughout farm country USA.

Cooperative principles and member participation have been undermined by the hectic pace of a commuting workforce in a corporate economy that requires two breadwinners or more per family to have a chance at a middle class standard of living. Cooperatives provide many tangible and intangible community values but they need the time of their members to truly flower.

• NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
• CO-OP AMERICA
• NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSN
• NORTH AMERICAN STUDENTS OF COOPERATION

SAM SMITH'S GREAT AMERICAN POLITICAL REPAIR MANUAL

Capitalism and socialism are not the only economic alternatives available to us. There is, for example, the cooperative -- essentially a company in which all shareholders have an equal voice. Because cooperatives must
please all shareholders and not just the big ones, and since shareholders are typically also employees, customers and members of the community, cooperatives tend to be much more socially responsible than the typical corporation. The cooperative has a long history in the United States -- especially in rural communities where the co-op was often the major store. According to Renate Hanauer in the journal Deep Democracy, 30% of American farmers' products are still marketed through coops.

Co-ops can be huge businesses. In Japan, cooperative societies have some 18 million members and 2,300 stores. Co-op Atlantic is a cooperative that is the fourth largest regional business in the Atlantic provinces of Canada -- enjoying 20% of the retail consumer goods market in the region. Co-op Atlantic was started 70 years ago by fishing and farming clubs. According to Jane Livingston in Green Horizon "they organized study clubs to become economically literate and organized co-ops to eliminate exploitive middlemen." Since cooperative values stress equality, equity and mutual self-help, the training to be a Co-op Atlantic manager includes learning both traditional management and the skills of cooperation. Co-Op Atlantic
now has more than a half million members.

TSUNAMI EVERY WEEK

by Ron Sider

"News about the ghastly devastation caused by the Asian tsunami rolled in day after day as I was finishing the revisions for the fifth edition of my RICH CHRISTIANS IN AN AGE OF HUNGER - 20,000 deadâ?¦ then 50,000, 100,000, 175,000. The final count could easily reach 200,000 lives suddenly snuffed out by the raging ocean.

People of the world rightly recoiled in horror and then swiftly launched a massive global effort to save those the sea had spared.

Such an enormous death toll is truly awful. But far more than that number of people die unnecessarily every week - this week, next week, and every week - because of poverty the rich world chooses largely to ignore. Every day 30,000 children die of starvation and diseases we know how to prevent - 210,000 dead (counting only the children) every week. That means that more than 52 times as many children die unnecessarily from poverty every year as those who perished in the year-end tsunami.

According to the World Bank, 1.2 billion people struggle to survive on just one dollar a day. Another 1.6 billion live on less than two dollars a day. That kind of poverty means inadequate food, lack of clean water and sanitation, inadequate or no medical care, and therefore unnecessary disease, brain damage, and illiteracy. In 2004 the World Bank reported that 1 billion people lack access to safe water and 2.5 billion have no access to improved sanitation, and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 6,000 children die every day from these two causes alone. The WHO reports that 13 million people die each year from diseases like diarrhea, malaria, and tuberculosis that we know how to prevent or cure.

According to the WHO, it would only take about $3 billion more invested each year in preventive care in poorer nations to save 5 million people. Can Americans, who spend $30-$50 billion each year on weight-loss diets, not give one-tenth of that to save 5 million people a year?

AIDS is one of the most deadly killers of the poor. In rich nations, most people with AIDS receive expensive drugs that can enable them to live largely normal lives. But in Africa, where half of the world's 48 million AIDS victims live, only three to four percent of those who need these life-saving drugs receive them. Why? Because even though the price of these drugs in Africa has dropped enormously in the last two to three years, most people still cannot afford them. A careful study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimated that just $27 billion (far less than the rich world spends on golf each year) spent over eight years would prevent 30 million poor people from getting infected with HIV/AIDS.

According to the United Nations, 20 percent of those living in the richest nations are at least 74 times as rich as 20 percent of those living in the poorest nations. In fact, the richest 25 million Americans enjoy as much income as the poorest 2 billion people in the world.

Part of the tragedy is that American citizens think we are far more generous than we are. A 2001 poll by the University of Maryland discovered that most Americans believe that the United States spends 24 percent of the annual federal budget on foreign aid! In reality, it is only a tiny fraction of that. In fact, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, we are dead last (0.14 percent) among all industrialized nations in official development assistance. (Thankfully, the large amount of American private relief and development funds improves that figure a little, but only a little.)

What can be done? We can make changes in our personal lifestyles, our churches, and our public policy. Each of us can, in the words of a Catholic saint, "begin to live more simply so that others may simply live." Less money spent on new clothes, new cars, large houses, and expensive vacations can mean life rather than death if we share those resources through effective Christian development organizations. If we used just 1 percent of global Christian income for micro-loans, we could raise the income of the poorest 1 billion people in the world by 50 percent - within one year!

Our churches need to preach on more texts like Proverbs 19:17 - "He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord" - and then reallocate church budgets so they are consistent with the hundreds of biblical texts that talk about God's concern for the poor.

Finally, we need to change public policy: forgiving much more of the debt of the most heavily indebted countries; increasing economic foreign aid to combat poverty, AIDS, and other preventable diseases; and making international trade more fair.

The huge amount of farm subsidies in rich nations is another thing that must change. Just one example: Farmers in Africa can produce cotton for about one-third the cost of producing cotton in the United States. But in a recent year, the U.S. government gave out $3.9 billion in subsidies to 25,000 American cotton farmers - more than the entire GDP for the African country of Burkina Faso, where more than 2 million people depend on cotton for their livelihood.

It would take only a small percent of our incredible wealth to dramatically reduce poverty in our world. As you (rightly) support the victims of the Asian tsunami, remember that a quiet, largely hidden tsunami kills well over 200,000 people every week. And that will continue year after year after year unless you and I decide to change it."

I could add that if we had a democratic world authority, a progressive tax could eliminate poverty. The New York Times 6/6/05 indicates we don't have a progressive tax in the US, a rate of taxation according to ability to pay as the main line churches teach.

If we gave a fair price to US farmers, they wouldn't need such huge subsidies. The latter go to the rich corporate farmers as it is.

To me the answers are relatively clear, What does it take for us as a nation to form a positive vision and move toward a world more in accord with God's Word?

Children of Iraq: A Face of Grief as War Takes Toll

by Cã©sar Chelala, Published on Thursday, June 2, 2005 by the Philadelphia Inquirer

More than two years after the start of the war in Iraq, children continue to be its main victims. At the same time, the health of the majority of the population continues to deteriorate. In the 1980s, Iraq had one of the best health-care systems in the region; today, it cannot respond to the health needs of the population.

This is the third time in the last 25 years - after the war with Iran from 1980 to 1988 and the Gulf War in 1991 - that Iraqi civilians, mostly children, have suffered the consequences of war. This is happening in a country where almost half of the inhabitants are younger than 18.

In 1991, there were 1,800 health-care centers in Iraq. More than a decade later, that number is almost half, and almost a third of them require major rehabilitation. On the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Index, the country has fallen from 96 to 127, one of the most dramatic declines in human welfare in recent history.

According to Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Human Rights Commission's special expert on the right to food, the rate of malnutrition among Iraqi children has almost doubled since Saddam Hussein's ouster in April 2003. Today, at 7.7 percent, Iraq's child malnutrition rate is now roughly equal to that of Burundi, an African nation ravaged by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than the rates in Uganda and Haiti, countries also devastated by unrelenting violence.

The population health problems are dramatically different from those facing young Iraqis a generation ago, when obesity was one of the main nutrition-related public health concerns. High rates of malnutrition started in the 1990s, following U.N. sanctions to punish the Saddam Hussein regime for invading Kuwait in 1990. But following the 2003 invasion by the coalition forces, a constant cycle of insurgent violence and occupation forces' counterattacks have significantly damaged the basic health infrastructure in the country.

Lack of dependable electricity and shortages of potable water throughout the country compound the deterioration of the population's health, along with outbreaks of cholera and typhoid fever, particularly in southern Iraq. The collapse of the water and sewage systems has also been the probable cause of an outbreak of hepatitis, particularly lethal to pregnant women.

According to one estimate, 60 percent of rural residents and 20 percent of urban dwellers have access only to contaminated water. In the hardest hit regions, more than 70 percent of primary-school buildings lack potable water. (According to World Bank statistics, 25 percent of primary school-age children in Iraq do not go to school. Ministry of Education statistics state that 80 percent of the schools need repair and 9 percent are in need of demolition.

Hundreds of thousands of children born since the beginning of the present war have had none of their required vaccinations, and routine immunization services in major areas of the country are all but disrupted. Destruction of refrigeration systems needed to store vaccines have rendered the vaccine supply virtually useless.

Even antibiotics of minimal cost are in short supply, increasing the population's risk of dying from common infections. Hospitals are overcrowded, and many hospitals go dark at night for lack of lighting fixtures. The Iraqi minister of health claims that 100 percent of the hospitals in Iraq need rehabilitation.

To compound the problem, international aid organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and CARE International have closed their operations in Iraq because of the threat of violence. Both groups have traditionally had a high tolerance for risk and a remarkable record of cooperation with public-health authorities in the country.

The Center for Strategic and International studies, a Washington research group, recently assessed five sectors of Iraq's reconstruction: security, governance and participation, economic opportunity, services and social wellness. The center concluded that health care is the sector deteriorating most rapidly. As a result of all these public-health failures, Iraq is the country that has progressed least in reducing child mortality since the 1990s.

Adults play their perverse war games, and children suffer. This is a severe indictment of any war - and of those who orchestrate war without assessing its potential consequences on the most vulnerable of civilian populations.

Pope Benedict XVI

"I wanted to call myself Benedict XVI to bind myself to the venerated Pope Benedict XV, who guided the church in the troubled period of the First World War. He was a courageous and authentic prophet of peace and worked with valiant courage first to prevent the drama of war and then to limit its nefarious consequences. In his footsteps, I want to place my ministry at the service of reconciliation and harmony among individuals and peoples, deeply convinced that the great good of peace is, first of all, a gift of God, a fragile and precious gift to invoke, safeguard and build day after day with the help of everyone."

Repeating a theme frequent in Scripture, Jesus considers fear as an obstacle to peace. It's hard to grow in our understanding of others or of ourselves when fear dominates over courage and creativity.

Although I have always tried to live the peace of Christ, I don't identify the peace of Christ with political and economic peace. I look upon integral peace as grace and mystery. Comprehending peace can be as elusive as God, the author of peace, or the human person, who never fully reaches peace, or the human family, who at this stage groans and is in agony as it searches for peace. I don't think we should be too quick to conclude that we fully understand what the peace of Christ is or can be.

I do believe, however, that we can trace the basic outline of the peace of Christ. I think Jesus wants us to form a global world ethic such as do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Jesus wants us to affirm basic human rights; pursue non-violence; work toward participation by each human person in basic economic decisions; strive day and night, night and day to establish a democratic world order that will outlaw war, poverty, and oppression.

A democratic World Authority, economic democracy, a culture of basic human rights, non-violence, a global ethic are pillars of a new world mansion, a mansion more in accord with God's Word. Details of course need to be worked out and developed by small faith-filled communities such as Pax Christi or Christian Life Community, but God certainly wants a more humane world.

How do we proceed toward the vision? There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. Some seem to think if we bring God into it, we don't need research, dialogue, and communal discernment. We need to get in touch with our light and dark graced stories. How has God loved us in good times and in bad? How have we taken that love to others?

We need to expand our experience by contact with the materially poor and marginalized. When we see in justice we need to ask "why?" We need to do research and social analysis. "Who is making the decision? Who is benefiting from the decision? Who is paying the cost of the decision?

We need to engage in theological reflection, having the values of Scripture and the churches interface with the world in which we live. We pray at Catholic Mass: "Keep the church alert in faith to the signs of the times and eager to accept the challenge of the gospel."

Writers as far apart ideologically as St. Ignatius of Loyola and the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre agree that we need to be honest with ourselves. St. Ignatius developed skills in discerning positive drives within us from negative inner movements.

Small faith groups such as Pax Christi and Christian Life Community embody this process today. Small religious communities need to make decisions for social action within a definite time line. None of us can do everything. All of us can do something. We need to evaluate how faithful we have been to the process. We will not always experience immediate external success.

If we strengthen the local church, we can protect the larger Church from excessive over-centralization. The Church will not grow unless all are invited to develop church life and teaching. Unity in essentials, responsible freedom in the fallible and uncertain, charity in all. None of us has absolute certitude in all things! We walk humbly together toward the truth of Jesus, listening to others even those with whom we disagree.

The Church of Jesus is grace and mystery, different certainly from government or a corporation. But for ordinary functioning and interaction among members of the Church, does not the principle of subsidiarity make sense? Aren't there issues that are best handled by regional and local units?

The world is filled with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The earth is threatened with war, genocide, global warming, terrorism, glaring economic inequalities, concentrations of power, unsustainable deterioration of our food and water delivery systems. The world needs .a prophetic voice to vision a world more in accord with God's Word.

The Pope took the name Benedict XVI as a sign he wanted to work for world peace. The Pope has said the Church cannot retreat from world problems. How can we support positive initiatives from the Vatican and listen respectfully to Papal teaching? If we believe the Church is all of us, can we retreat from the world or from the church as a whole? Retreat will result in more dysfunctional ghettos. I don't feel we can squander the richness of the peace of Christ.

In his inaugural Mass, Benedict XVI said, "My real program of governance is not to do my own will, not to pursue my own ideas, but to listen, together with the whole church, to the word and the will of the Lord." I think we should encourage him in such thoughts. The Pope's e-mail is benedictxvi@vatican.va

In a televised interview eight years ago, cited in John Allen's book Conclave (Doubleday, 2002), one high-ranking Catholic official gave a rather minimal view of what Catholics should automatically assume about a newly chosen pope. Asked whether "the Holy Spirit plays a role in the election of the pope," the official replied, "I would not say so in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope, because there are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit would obviously not have picked." "The Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense," the official added. "Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined." That official was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. (NYTimes, Peter Steinfels. Beliefs, 4/25/05))

As a Cardinal, the new pope was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. "Certainly not," he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save." "All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to meâ?¦" The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

Even after the war, Ratzinger did not cease criticism of U.S. violence and imperialism: "it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction...It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world."

Yet perhaps the most important insight of Ratzinger came during a press conference on May 2, 2003. After suggesting that perhaps it would be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of war Iraq:

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."

Cardinal Ratzinger was skeptical of the view that politics can be done without reference to the Gospel. We cannot forget some of the "hard sayings" of Jesus that don't seem quite "rational" enough for public discourse. Sayings like "Love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" and "put away the sword." The new pope signals an invigorated continuance of the Church speaking the truth to power.

He follows his namesake in refusing to let the Gospel become irrelevant to politics. Elected directly after the outbreak of WWI, Benedict XV sent a representative to each country to press for peace. On August 1, 1917, he delivered the Plea for Peace, which demanded a cessation of hostilities, a reduction of armaments, a guaranteed freedom of the seas, and international arbitration. Unreserved obedience to the State was not endorsed by Benedict XV, nor is it by Benedict XVI. This was perhaps what upset U.S. neoconservatives most, that John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did not show more deference to the state. Perhaps because of their own experience with violent regimes, they seemed to grasp the biblical axiom from the Acts of the Apostles: "we must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

Our world, Pope Benedict XVI knows well, has had enough of war. We join the chorus of hopes that his ministry as pope will help put an end to war and hasten along God's kingdom of peace.

• "No to "Preventive War" An Interview from September 2002 with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger by Lucio Brunelli

Pope Benedict XV

"As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline--in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See--there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline." Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, 1914, Pope Benedict XV.

Holy Week, 2005

God does not want us to suffer. Suffering is rooted in finitude and freedom. God wants us to use our freedom to reduce and eliminate suffering. God did not require the death of Jesus as compensation for what we make of our history. Jesus ransoms us from sin and death. Jesus reconciles us to His Father. But the Father is a God of compassion and non-violence, the God of Jesus. We are redeemed by the message and mission of Jesus. Jesus fulfilled his mission and was crucified. We are redeemed not just by the death of Jesus but despite it. Jesus had a message of non-violence. "Those who use the sword are sooner or later destroyed by it." (Matthew 26.53; Luke 22.51) Despite the message of non-violence that Jesus offered, he suffered a violent death. I think the general outlines of this web-page, developing and living a global ethic; promoting a culture of non-violence in all its forms; ensuring basic human rights including economic and solidarity rights; establishing economic democracy and a democratic world authority is part of the message of Jesus today.

Paschal Lamb, 2005

by Bill Scheurer

"Once again, the politicians and media have offered the yearly spectacle of surrogate virtue to redeem our collective soul. This time in the form of a helpless woman, made childlike and beautiful in her affliction. She is the token of our culture of life.

Before going on, let me say that if I were in Congress, I would have voted to save her, too. (Not that this absurd legislation will actually do that - it merely passes the issue to another set of courts, which are unlikely to intervene and save her life.)

I would have voted to save Terry Schiavo because my conscience cannot turn aside from the burden of saving life, no matter what the stage or perceived quality of that life. This is the same conscience that compels me to oppose war and capital punishment, and to work for a more humane and just society - a world where no one starves to death, a world where no one dies for lack of medical care. This is a hard order, I know.

Is this why our government and press do not work for it - because it is impossible? Or, is it because it is too difficult - too expensive, politically and economically?

With the trillions of dollars we spend on war and luxury, how many lives could we save? Like Otto Schindler at the end of SCHINDLER'S LIST, when he wanted to throw away his ring and fancy car, crying out - how many could these have saved?

Is it true that 50 million people die each year from hunger and disease? Things we could invest our fortunes in, instead of consumption and war. 50 million people! 8 Holocausts every year! Avoidable, preventable deaths. Bigger than the Twin Towers. Bigger than the Tsunami. The holocaust of poverty. The tsunami of greed.

Instead, we anoint a scapegoat, a sacrificial lamb, a token, every year. We invest this victim with the burden of our humanity - drive it into the wilderness, sprinkle its blood on our doors - and count ourselves among the elect, the ones chosen to live.

Whether we genuflect at the mythical story of Jessica Lynch, or the Iraqi boy flown to our finest hospitals for medical care - all of these poster-child stories stand in silent proxy for the thousands of other veterans and civilian victims of our war, who receive no such attention from our government, our press, or our economy. These observances show that we are good people, that we care, that we value life.

This year, it is Terry Schiavo, who beams with the beauty of a saint, an icon of helpless love. Yes, let us save her (for real, not for show). But let us also save the millions of others we kill with our indifference and greed. We rip the feeding tubes from their veins with our callous priorities, the same as hers.

Only by changing these priorities will we save our collective soul, will we become the 'beloved community' of the truly elect. Peace be with you."

(Bill Scheurer is the national coordinator of www.PeaceMajority.org and the author of a small book of interfaith inquiry - US and THEM: BRIDGING THE CHASM OF FAITH .)

Archbishop Romero Assassinated on March 25, 1980

March 25, 2005 is the 25th anniversary of the assassination of Archbishop Romero. Below I describe what "thinking with the Church" meant to him.

Archbishop Oscar Romero's episcopal motto was Sentir con la Iglesia "to feel or to think with the church." Romero often made the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Romero, however, led the Archdiocese of San Salvador as he saw fit. He was often in trouble with the Vatican and always in trouble with other Salvadoran bishops. What, then, did it mean to Romero to think with the Church? To think with the church meant to identify with the Body of the Risen Christ in history, sacrament of salvation in the world. To identify with the Church meant to embrace its mission, the mission of the Risen Jesus, to proclaim the Reign of God to the poor.

The power of the Gospel is revealed in particular historical circumstances. In 1980 thinking with the Church demanded discernment that was attentive to the particular circumstances of the local Catholic community. Romero had a great capacity to listen, as though he wanted to be sure of the sensus fidelium, to see what the people thought. To think with the church meant to evangelize in concrete circumstances of the poor and powerless, exposing personal sin and sinful structures that pushed the poor aside, proclaiming and promoting the love and justice of the Reign of God, undeterred by repressive forces that served under another standard. It wasn't necessary to tell the campesinos that they were oppressed or who their oppressors were. Both were obvious.

A great influence on Archbishop Romero was Fr. Rutilio Grande, S.J., leader of the Jesuit Pastoral team in Aguilares. Rutilio Grande followed the Fathers of the Church and Jesus himself by describing the reign of God as a banquet. The material world is like the table of the Eucharist, a common table, beautifully adorned, with room for everyone to pull up a chair.

Monsenor Romero found himself with a choice: to continue to please the nuncio, whose reactions were informed by the reactionary sector of Salvadoran society, or to support his clergy, whose concerns were those of the suffering people. Romero opted for unity with the priests and with the poor majority of the people. When the clergy wrote in support of the archbishop, they entitled their statement "To touch the Archbishop is to Touch the Heart of the Church."

Romero clearly condemned the institutionalized violence of an unjust society, the repressive violence of the state, and terrorist violence. In the pulpit Romero was transformed, captured by the Spirit, another man, completely different. The hospital where Romero stayed was a place of prayer, of consulting with God. Romero was manipulated; he was manipulated by God.

"The teaching of the Church demanded of Romero intellectual assent and much more. The teaching of the Church demanded that he read the signs of the times in the light of the Gospel. The teaching of the Church demanded that he pay attention to the concrete circumstances of the communities of the archdiocese and to the needs of Salvadoran society as a whole. The teaching of the Church called him to put himself on the line, to overcome his natural timidity, to identify himself with the church, the people of God, the Body of Christ in history. It called him to preach good news to the poor and to accept whatever conflict that might entail. Sometimes those conflicts were with members of the Church who understood its teaching differently, with the nuncio, who 'lives very far from the problems of our clergy and our humble people', with Vatican officials who were often misinformed, with oligarchs who absolutized their wealth, with solders who absolutized their power, or with members of political movements who absolutized their organizations.. . St. Ignatius's 'to be of one mind with the Church' would be 'to be of one mind with the Church incarnated in this people who stand in need of liberation.'" Fr. Douglas Marcouillere, S.J. "Archbishop with an Attitude, Oscar Romero's Sentir con la Iglesia." Studies in the Spirituality of Jesuits, 35/3, May 2003, p. 51.

Frontpage Article

An article in Frontpagemag.com (Search Archives "Indoctrination at Xavier" 3/8/05) has attacked this web-page, Xavier Peace Studies, and Xavier Peace and Justice Programs. We have received much support from alumni, parents, students, and faculty, but I want to respond in a more thorough way.

One of the teachers attacked was Dr. John Sniegocki. I give his analysis below:

A response to the Frontpage article "Indoctrination at Xavier"

(by John Sniegocki)

What this article in effect amounts to is simply a 'critique' that the peace and justice program at Xavier exposes its students to Catholic values. Each of the main issues that are criticized in the article, such as emphases on the value of nonviolence, economic justice, ecology, and solidarity with workers, a critical view of aspects of capitalism and current forms of globalization, a critical perspective towards war, a call for the strengthening of international institutions, etc. are all in fact central features of the social teaching of the Catholic Church. Each can be seen strongly emphasized in the quotes from Pope John Paul II given below. Similar values have been strongly expressed by Jesuit Superior General Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach in outlining his vision of the nature of Jesuit education. For Xavier not to expose students to these values would in fact be to betray its very mission as a Catholic, Jesuit university. At the same time, what the article also fails to highlight is that these are not the only perspectives explored in these classes. Contrasting views also are examined. In the "Challenge of Peace" course mentioned in the article, for example, students also read various speeches of President Bush, the Bush administration' s "National Security Strategy" document, an overview of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis written by the Israeli government, an overview of the global economic system written by the World Trade Organization (WTO), writings by Jeane Kirkpatrick, Alan Dershowitz, etc. Students are encouraged to engage critically and thoughtfully with the realities of our world and with various perspectives on these realities.

Below is a list of some of the values explicitly criticized in the article and examples of how these values are reflected in Catholic church teaching:

War and nonviolence

The article criticizes what it terms a 'reflexive aversion to war' and an emphasis on promoting a 'culture of nonviolence.' Such attitudes, however, are what all Catholics (and all people of good will) are encouraged to embrace by Catholic teaching.

Here are some reflections on these themes from Pope John Paul II, who himself has been one of the most prominent international critics of war in Iraq:

"I wish to address and request everybody to withstand the logic of violence, revenge, and hatredâ?¦Especially those who come from countries whose soil is stained with blood know well that violence constantly generates violence. War throws open the doors to the abyss of evilâ?¦.This is why war should always be considered a defeat: the defeat of reason and of humanityâ?¦.War never again! I was convinced of this in October 1986 in Assisi, when I asked people belonging to all religions to gather side by side to invoke God for peace. I am even more convinced of it today." (Papal statement on September 3, 2004)

"It is essential, therefore, that religious people and communities should in the clearest and most radical way repudiate violence, all violence....There is no religious goal which can possibly justify the use of violence by man against man. (Address to representatives of the world's religions gathered at Assisi, Italy on January 24, 2002)

"Today, the scale and horror of modern warfare B whether nuclear or not B makes it totally unacceptable as a means of settling differences between nations. War should belong to the tragic past, to history; it should find no place on humanity's agenda for the future.@ (Homily at Bagington Airport, 1982)

"I myself, on the occasion of the recent tragic war in the Persian Gulf, repeated the cry: Never again war!= No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war.@ (Centesimus Annus 52)

It seemed that the European order resulting from the Second World War and sanctioned by the Yalta Agreements [which included Soviet control of Eastern Europe] could only be overturned by another war. Instead, it has been overcome by the nonviolent commitment of people who, while always refusing to yield to the force of power, succeeded time after time in finding effective ways of bearing witness to the truth. This disarmed the adversary, since violence always needs to justify itself through deceit, and to appear, however falsely, to be defending a right or responding to a threat posed by others...I pray that this example will prevail in other places and other circumstances. May people learn to fight for justice without violence...@ (Centesimus Annus 23)

Capitalism and Globalization

The article is critical of those who raise concerns about the impacts of capitalism or of current forms of globalization, especially any suggestion that globalization is contributing to poverty or social conflict. Again, these themes are in fact prominent in Catholic social thought, especially the writings and speeches of Pope John Paul II:

"The Church, since Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum (in 1891), has always distanced herself from capitalist ideology, holding it responsible for grave social injustices." (Pope John Paul II, Speech during trip to Latvia, 1993)

"Special interests and the demands of the market frequently predominate over concern for the common good. This tends to leave the weaker members of society without adequate protection and can subject entire peoples and cultures to a formidable struggle for survival. Moreover, it is disturbing to witness a globalization that exacerbates the conditions of the needy, that does not sufficiently contribute to resolving situations of hunger, poverty, and social inequality, that fails to safeguard the natural environment. These aspects of globalization can give rise to extreme reactions, leading to excessive nationalism, religious fanaticism and even acts of terrorism." (Pope John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, 2003)

"More and more, in many countries of America, a system known as 'neoliberalism' prevails; based on a purely economic conception of man, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust." (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America, 56)

The importance of solidarity with workers

The article is critical of Fr. Urmston's emphasis on the rights of labor and the development of programs to expose students to the perspectives of workers. Once again such programs respond directly to central themes of Catholic social thought:

"In order to achieve social justice in the various parts of the world, there is the need for ever new movements of solidarity of the workers and with the workers. This solidarity must be present whenever it is called for by the social degrading of the subject of work, by exploitation of the workers, and by the growing areas of poverty and even hunger. The Church is firmly committed to this cause, for it considers it to be its mission, its service, its proof of fidelity to Christ, so that it can truly be the 'Church of the poor.'" (Pope John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 8)

The importance of international institutions

The article is critical of calls for a strengthening of international institutions such as the United Nations. Catholic teaching, in contrast, strongly supports such measures:

"There have always been wars, persecutions, poverty, disasters and epidemics but because the world's increasing interdependence has given them a global dimension, they require new ways of thinking and new types of international cooperation if they are to be effectively met. At the dawn of the new millennium, humanity has the means to do this. The United Nations, in fact, and the large family of specialized organizations represented by [the United Nations] are the natural forum for developing such a mentality and strategy of international solidarity. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the challenge is to build a world in which individuals and peoples fully and unequivocally accept responsibility for their fellow human beings, for all the earth's inhabitants. Your work can do much to empower the multilateral system to bring about such international solidarity." (Pope John Paul II, Address to the U.N., 2000)

Ecological Concern

The article is critical of emphasis on 'ecological sustainability'. Concern for the environment, however, is seen in Catholic teaching as an integral part of Christian faithfulness:

"Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyle....Simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life, lest all should suffer the negative consequences of the careless habits of a few. An education in ecological responsibility is urgent: responsibility for oneself, for others, and for the earthâ?¦.Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyoneâ?¦.Christians, in particular, realize that their responsibility within creation and their duty towards nature and the Creator are an essential part of their faith." (Pope John Paul II, "The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility")

It should be evident from the above that what the authors of the article "Indoctrination at Xavier" fundamentally object to is the social teaching of the Catholic Church. To criticize Xavier, a Catholic school, for exposing its students to the Catholic Church's teaching, however, hardly constitutes much of a critique. For Xavier faculty not to raise these issues (while also exploring other perspectives) would be to fail to embody the very mission that Xavier is called to as a Catholic university.

I begin my own response below:

This web-page contains my vision and hope following my experiences, my reading and research, my faith. If I mis-represent anyone or any group mentioned, I will gladly correct what is said. I believe in freedom of speech, but I cannot represent all opinions in this small space. I do treat of other points of view. If you read my section on "Global Democratic Authority" for example, you will see that I treat of common objections to the concept.

As a medical doctor believes in health rather than sickness, I believe in a peace with justice rather than war, violence, and injustice. As St. Ignatius says in the beginning of the Spiritual Exercises, it is presupposed that one is more ready to put a good interpretation on another's statement rather than to condemn it. If one cannot save his neighbor's statement, he should ask him how he means it.

I don't think that labeling or name-calling furthers rational and loving discourse, I try to consider a particular position on its intrinsic merits rather than who is saying it although I obviously believe in God's Word and my Catholic Faith.. I critique structures and policies as I think any responsible citizen should, but I certainly don't attempt to judge the conscience of individual persons. I am not politically partisan, but I feel free to praise or criticize particular programs. I don't think I'm too old to grow, and I welcome dialogue.

Although I know some of the general themes of socialism and capitalism, my general background is the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church. I think we should take the best of socialism and capitalism and create a new vision more in accord with God's Word.

We live, work, and breathe in a culture of capitalism. It's hard to critique a way of life that we are so much a part of and which is so much a part of us. Ignatian discernment described on this web-page can help. I suggest we ask what capitalism is doing for the human family and the planet on which we live. What is capitalism doing for the dignity, value, and worth of each human person? How democratic is capitalism? Are all of us able to participate in basic decisions that affect all of us? What groups within capitalism are doing most for the above?

Those who agree with the vision presented on this web-page are welcome to help develop it. It's hard for me to believe that Jesus does not encourage non-violence, basic human rights, the participation of each citizen in basic economic decisions that affect all of us, a democratic world entity that will outlaw war, genocide, poverty, and oppression. All are welcome to develop details of a general vision of peace. One book to stimulate your thought and vision is America Beyond Capitalism, Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy by Dr. Gar Alperovitz. Another is Confronting War, An Examination of Humanity's Most Pressing Problem by Dr. Ronald Glossop.

In the Front Page article I am described as "contemptuous of the idea of a nation state." I have a combat infantry medal from service in General Patton's Third Army in Europe during World War II. I was also in the Philippine Islands. As a priest, an educator, and active citizen, I have served my country all my life. Because I am a patriotic citizen of the United States, doesn't mean that I am not also a citizen of the state of Ohio. The social teaching of the Catholic Church, many philosophers, political and religious leaders have said the nation state, even a group of nation states is not enough. There are global problems like war, terrorism, fair trade, basic human rights, environmental integrity, that can only be solved on a global level. Following the principle of subsidiarity, a new democratic global entity will not eliminate the important role of the nation state nor eliminate local democracy. Besides patriotism I favor humatriotism, service of the common good of the whole human family.

In the early days of socialism the Catholic Church was naturally critical because socialism often presented itself as materialistic and atheistic. In the years after World War II Communists dominated Eastern Europe and even had a strong presence in France and Italy. Pope Pius XII resisted Communism and forbade Catholics to join the Communist party or to encourage it in any way.

Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council put less emphasis on the meta-historical natural law approach of German theologians and more emphasis on the historical and inductive views of the French. In Mater and Magister (nn. 59-68) Pope John XXIII used the term "socialization" In Peace on Earth n. 159 John XXIII distinguished between "historical movements" containing positive and deserving aspirations within them and the "false philosophical teachings" from which these movements arose. Christian and Marxist philosophers engaged in dialogue during this period. In 1971 in "80 years After" n. 26 Pope Paul VI said a Christian "cannot adhere to the Marxist ideology, to its atheistic materialism, to its dialectic of violence and to the way it absorbs individual freedom in the collectivity" But neither can a Christian adhere, the Pontiff continues, to the ideology which promotes individual freedom without limits. Pope Paul VI in Octogesima Adveniens n. 31 says: "Distinctions must be made to guide concrete choices between the various levels of expression of socialism: a generous aspiration and a seeking for a more just society, historical movements with a political organization, and an ideology." n. 33 "at times Marxism presents itself in a more attenuated form, one more attractive to the modern mind: as a scientific activity, as a rigorous method of examining social and political reality."

In the 1970's in Europe and in Latin America some groups called themselves Christians for Socialism or Christian Marxists. In 1976 the Catholic Bishops of the Antilles in "Justice and Peace in a New Caribbean" Latin America Documentation Vol. VI, no. 33 stated: "The Catholic Church does not condemn indiscriminately all forms of socialism. In the past it denounced three particular aspects of socialism: the denial of God and the spiritual, the need for class warfare, the suppression of all types of private property. In so far as these are to be found in some forms of socialism, a true Christian cannot accept them. But today there are other forms of socialism in the world and the very word "socialism" is used in many different ways. Past Church statements referring to socialism must be understood in the light of new developments. When looking at socialism, or Marxism, or capitalism for that matter, it is important to distinguish carefully between a) basic aspirations b) ideologies or systems of thought and c) concrete historical movements."

To see some of the positive aspects of socialism and Marxism I suggest John Cort's Christian Socialism and Fr. Arthur F. McGovern, S.J. Marxism: An American Christian Perspective.

The Catholic Church has been the main opposition to the Cuban government. Yet the Cuban Bishops have praised the positive aspects of the Revolution, growth in health care, education, an adequate diet for all, etc. If you are a capitalist and have some axe to grind, considering socialists and leftists as intrinsically evil is convenient but not intellectually honest. God gave us hearts and ears to listen carefully but minds to distinguish. At times I hear arguments like "Environmentalists are for clean air and pure water. But Communists are for clean air and pure water. Therefore clean air and pure water are bad. And environmentalists are Communists." Such sloppy logic is unworthy of thinking citizens or responsible journalists. When we have enough economic interests, dogmatism about socialism doesn't stop the US from extensive trade relations with countries like Communist China.

I am outraged by the feeble response of the United States Government to the Pope's visit to Cuba in 1998. The Pope called for the end of the US embargo of Cuba. "In our day no nation can live in isolation. The Cuban people therefore cannot be denied the contacts with other peoples necessary for economic, social and cultural development, especially when the imposed isolation strike the population indiscriminately.. All can and should take practical steps to bring about changes in this regard. .oppressive economic measures--unjust and ethically unacceptable--are imposed from outside Cuba." US policy toward Cuba is likewise opposed by the Cuban Catholic Bishops, the US Catholic bishops, the European Parliament and the United Nations. If the US is successful in starving the people of Cuba into submission, will that prove the US has a better system?

Christian Scripture speaks of the principalities and powers, the world as opposed to the values of Jesus. Those who are making the decisions today have an ideology. To recognize and analyze the dominant culture today we need to have the spiritual freedom to acknowledge our own immediate vested interests. To change our attitude isn't easy. To have a complete change of attitude is a spiritual challenge. I think a long-term vision more in accord with God's Word is in everyone's interest. But to even consider such a change requires spiritual discernment.

The present principalities and powers use "globalization" as an ideology. To them, the operation of the market has an absolute value. The market is not for people, but people are subordinated to the market. The unrestricted "free" market assumes a religious character, as greed becomes a virtue, competition a commandment, and profit a sign of salvation. Dissenters are dismissed as non-believers at best, and heretics at worst. Economic fundamentalism is as bad as religious fundamentalism.

In the present structures capital flow across borders is rapid and uncontrolled. Trade relationships may be "free" but whether they are fair depends on factors of power, size, experience, skills, etc.

(See Africa in the Age of Globalisation: What is Our Future? Presentation by Fr. Peter J. Henriot, S.J., Arrupe College, Harare, Zimbabwe, 31 March 2001)

One way to give the people a voice in global trade decisions is by democratic international law. The common good cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces. Although the market can be a useful tool, it is not a god. Made up of all of us sinners, the market can often be motivated by greed and selfishness. (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus No's 35 and 52) A companion direction would be community ownership of the means of production. (See my section on Economic Democracy) Smaller units of production would provide sufficient checks and balances and better serve local, national and world trade. (Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, No. 23, 24 See also Making a Place for Community. Local Democracy in a Global Era, Thad Williamson, David Imbroscio, and Gar Alperovitz, Routledge, 2003. Dr. Gar Alperovitz, America Beyond Capitalism, Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy)

Do we take our values from the dominant culture? Or do we taking our values from God, the churches, common decency? Do we have enough spiritual freedom to see alternatives to the present structures?

Dr. John Fairfield of the History Department stated that although he would never equate the two or argue that McCarthyism equaled the gulag, in fighting communist totalitarianism we sometimes become more like the thing that we are fighting.

Can There be Peace Without Justice?

There Will Be No Middle East Peace Without Justice; At No Point Yesterday Did Anyone Mention Occupation

By Robert Fisk The Independent, 9 February 2005 https://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=609177

"So, the Palestinians will end their occupation of Israel. No more will Palestinian tanks smash their way into Haifa and Tel Aviv. No more will Palestinian F-18s bomb Israeli population centers. No more will Palestinian Apache helicopters carry out "targeted killings" : murders - of Israeli military leaders.

The Palestinians have promised to end all "acts of violence" against Israelis while Israel has promised to end all "military activity" against Palestinians. So that's it, then. Peace in our time.

A Martian - even a well-educated Martian - would have gathered that this was the message, supposing he dropped in on the fantasy world of Sharm el-Sheikh yesterday. The Palestinians had been committing "violence", the Israelis carrying out "innocent" operations. Palestinian "violence" or "terror and violence" - the latter a more popular phrase since it carried the stigma of 11 September 2001 - was now at an end. Mahmoud Abbas - who told a close Lebanese friend this year that he wore a suit and tie so that he would look "different" to Yasser Arafat - went along with all this. Just which people were occupying the homes of which other people remained a mystery.

Silver-haired and wisdom-burdened, Mahmoud Abbas looked the part. We had to forget that it was this same Abbas who wrote the Oslo Accords, who in 1,000 pages failed to use - even once - the word "occupation", and who talked not of Israeli "withdrawal" from Palestinian territory, but of "redeployment".

At no point yesterday did anyone mention occupation. Like sex, "occupation" had to be censored out of the historical narrative. As usual - as in Oslo - the real issues were put back to a later date. Refugees, the "right of return", East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital: let's deal with them later.

Never before have we been in such need of the caustic voice of the late Edward Said. Settlements - Jewish colonies for Jews, and Jews only, on Arab land - were not, of course, discussed yesterday. Nor was East Jerusalem. Nor was the "right of return" of 1948 refugees. These are the "unrealistic dreams" that were referred to by the Israelis yesterday.

All this will be discussed "later" - as they were supposed to be in Abbas's hopeless Oslo agreement. As long as you can postpone the real causes of war, that's OK. "An end to violence," that has cost 4,000 deaths - it was all said yesterday, minus the all-important equation that two-thirds of these were Palestinian lives. Peace, peace, peace. It was like terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. It was the sort of stuff you could buy off a supermarket shelf. If only.

At the end of the day the issues were these. Will the Israelis close down their massive settlements in the West Bank, including those which surround Jerusalem? No mention of this yesterday. Will they end the expansion of Jewish settlements - for Jews, and Jews only, across the Palestinian West Bank? No mention of this yesterday. Will they allow the Palestinians to have a capital in Arab East Jerusalem? No mention of this yesterday. Will the Palestinians truly end their "intifada" - including their murderous suicide bombings - as a result of these non-existent promises?

Like the Iraqi elections - which were also held under foreign occupation - the Israeli-Palestinian talks were historic because they were "historic". US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, "warned" Palestinians that they must "control violence" but there was, as usual, no request to "control" the violence of the Israeli army.

Because the sine qua non of the equation was that the Palestinians were guilty. That the Palestinians were the "violent" party -hence the admonition that the Palestinians must end "violence" while the Israelis would merely end "operations". The Palestinians, it seems, are generically violent. The Israelis generically law-abiding; the latter carry out "operations". Mahmoud Abbas went along with this nonsense.

It was all too clear in the reporting of yesterday's events. What was on offer, said CNN, was "an end to all violence" - as if occupation and illegal colonization was not a form of violence. The American Associated Press news agency talked gutlessly about "towns that, for now, continue to be under Israeli security control" - in other words, under Israeli occupation, although they would not tell their readers this.

So Mahmoud Abbas is going to be the Hamid Karzai of Palestine, his tie the equivalent of Karzai's green gown, "our" new man in Palestine, the "tsunami" that has washed away the contamination of Yasser Arafat, whose grave Condoleezza Rice managed to avoid. But the tank-traps remain: East Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and the "right of return" of 1948 Palestinians to the homes they lost.

If we are going to clap our hands like the Sharm El-Sheikh "peacemakers" yesterday, we'd better realize that unless we are going to resolve these great issues of injustice now, this new act of "peacemaking" will prove to be as bloody as Oslo. Ask Mahmoud Abbas. He was the author of that first fatal agreement."

Pope JohnPaul II, World Day of Peace 2005

Pope's Message for 2005 World Day of Peace "Do Not Be Overcome by Evil but Overcome Evil With Good"

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 16, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Here is John Paul II's Message for the World Day of Peace, to be observed Jan. 1. The Vatican press office released it today.

* * *

Message of the Holy Father John Paul II for the 2005 World Day of Peace

January 1, 2005

Do Not Be Overcome by Evil, but Overcome Evil With Good

1. At the beginning of the New Year, I once again address the leaders of nations and all men and women of good will, who recognize the need to build peace in the world. For the theme of this 2005 World Day of Peace I have chosen Saint Paul's words in the Letter to the Romans: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (12:21). Evil is never defeated by evil; once that road is taken, rather than defeating evil, one will instead be defeated by evil.

The great Apostle brings out a fundamental truth: peace is the outcome of a long and demanding battle which is only won when evil is defeated by good. If we consider the tragic scenario of violent fratricidal conflicts in different parts of the world, and the untold sufferings and injustices to which they have given rise, the only truly constructive choice is, as Saint Paul proposes, to flee what is evil and hold fast to what is good (cf. Romans 12:9).

Peace is a good to be promoted with good: it is a good for individuals, for families, for nations and for all humanity; yet it is one which needs to be maintained and fostered by decisions and actions inspired by good. We can appreciate the profound truth of another saying of Saint Paul: "Repay no one evil for evil" (Romans 12:17). The one way out of the vicious circle of requiting evil for evil is to accept the Apostle's words: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21).

Evil, good and love

2. From the beginning, humanity has known the tragedy of evil and has struggled to grasp its roots and to explain its causes. Evil is not some impersonal, deterministic force at work in the world. It is the result of human freedom. Freedom, which distinguishes human beings from every other creature on earth, is ever present at the heart of the drama of evil. Evil always has a name and a face: the name and face of those men and women who freely choose it. Sacred Scripture teaches that at the dawn of history Adam and Eve rebelled against God, and Abel was killed by Cain, his brother (cf. Genesis 3-4). These were the first wrong choices, which were succeeded by countless others down the centuries. Each of these choices has an intrinsic moral dimension, involving specific individual responsibilities and the fundamental relationship of each person with God, with others and with all of creation.

At its deepest level, evil is a tragic rejection of the demands of love.(1) Moral good, on the other hand, is born of love, shows itself as love and is directed towards love. All this is particularly evident to Christians, who know that their membership in the one mystical Body of Christ sets them in a particular relationship not only with the Lord but also with their brothers and sisters. The inner logic of Christian love, which in the Gospel is the living source of moral goodness, leads even to the love of one's enemies: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink" (Romans 12:20).

The "grammar" of the universal moral law

3. If we look to the present state of the world, we cannot help but note the disturbing spread of various social and political manifestations of evil: from social disorders to anarchy and war, from injustice to acts of violence and killing. To steer a path between the conflicting claims of good and evil, the human family urgently needs to preserve and esteem that common patrimony of moral values bestowed by God himself. For this reason, Saint Paul encourages all those determined to overcome evil with good to be noble and disinterested in fostering generosity and peace (cf. Romans 12:17-21).

Ten years ago, in addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations about the need for common commitment to the service of peace, I made reference to the "grammar" of the universal moral law,(2) to which the Church appeals in her various pronouncements in this area. By inspiring common values and principles, this law unites human beings, despite their different cultures, and is itself unchanging: "it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. ... Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies."(3)

4. This common grammar of the moral law requires ever greater commitment and responsibility in ensuring that the life of individuals and of peoples is respected and advanced. In this light, the evils of a social and political nature which afflict the world, particularly those provoked by outbreaks of violence, are to be vigorously condemned. I think immediately of the beloved continent of Africa, where conflicts which have already claimed millions of victims are still continuing. Or the dangerous situation of Palestine, the Land of Jesus, where the fabric of mutual understanding, torn by a conflict which is fed daily by acts of violence and reprisal, cannot yet be mended in justice and truth. And what of the troubling phenomenon of terrorist violence, which appears to be driving the whole world towards a future of fear and anguish? Finally, how can we not think with profound regret of the drama unfolding in Iraq, which has given rise to tragic situations of uncertainty and in security for all?

To attain the good of peace there must be a clear and conscious acknowledgment that violence is an unacceptable evil and that it never solves problems. "Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings."(4) What is needed is a great effort to form consciences and to educate the younger generation to goodness by upholding that integral and fraternal humanism which the Church proclaims and promotes. This is the foundation for a social, economic and political order respectful of the dignity, freedom and fundamental rights of each person.

The good of peace and the common good

5. Fostering peace by overcoming evil with good requires careful reflection on the common good(5) and on its social and political implications. When the common good is promoted at every level, peace is promoted. Can an individual find complete fulfillment without taking account of his social nature, that is, his being "with" and "for" others? The common good closely concerns him. It closely concerns every expression of his social nature: the family, groups, associations, cities, regions, states, the community of peoples and nations. Each person, in some way, is called to work for the common good, constantly looking out for the good of others as if it were his own. This responsibility belongs in a particular way to political authorities at every level, since they are called to create that sum of social conditions which permit and foster in human beings the integral development of their person.(6)

The common good therefore demands respect for and the integral promotion of the person and his fundamental rights, as well as respect for and the promotion of the rights of nations on the universal plane. In this regard, the Second Vatican Council observed that "the increasingly close interdependence gradually encompassing the entire world is leading to an increasingly universal common good ... and this involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups and the common good of the entire human family."(7) The good of humanity as a whole, including future generations, calls for true international cooperation, to which every nation must offer its contribution.(8)

Certain reductive visions of humanity tend to present the common good as a purely socio-economic state of well-being lacking any transcendent purpose, thus emptying it of its deepest meaning. Yet the common good has a transcendent dimension, for God is the ultimate end of all his creatures.(9) Christians know that Jesus has shed full light on how the true common good of humanity is to be achieved. History journeys towards Christ and in him finds its culmination: because of Christ, through Christ and for Christ, every human reality can be led to complete fulfillment in God.

The good of peace and the use of the world's goods

6. Since the good of peace is closely linked to the development of all peoples, the ethical requirements for the use of the earth's goods must always be taken into account. The Second Vatican Council rightly recalled that "God intended the earth and all it contains for the use of everyone and of all peoples; so that the good things of creation should be available equally to all, with justice as guide and charity in attendance."(10) As a member of the human family, each person becomes as it were a citizen of the world, with consequent duties and rights, since all human beings are united by a common origin and the same supreme destiny. By the mere fact of being conceived, a child is entitled to rights and deserving of care and attention; and someone has the duty to provide these. The condemnation of racism, the protection of minors, the provision of aid to displaced persons and refugees, and the mobilization of international solidarity towards all the needy are nothing other than consistent applications of the principle of world citizenship.

7. The good of peace should be seen today as closely related to the new goods derived from progress in science and technology. These too, in application of the principle of the universal destination of the earth's goods, need to be put at the service of humanity's basic needs. Appropriate initiatives on the international level can give full practical implementation to the principle of the universal destination of goods by guaranteeing to all - individuals and nations - the basic conditions for sharing in development. This becomes possible once the barriers and monopolies that marginalize many peoples are removed.(11)

The good of peace will be better ensured if the international community takes on greater responsibility for what are commonly called public goods. These are goods which all citizens automatically enjoy, without having consciously chosen them or contributed to them in any way. Such is the case, for example, at the national level, with such goods as the judiciary system, the defense system and the network of highways and railways. In our world the phenomenon of increased globalization means that more and more public goods are taking on a global character, and as a result common interests are daily increasing. We need but think of the fight against poverty, the promotion of peace and security, concern for climate change and disease control. The international community needs to respond to these interests with a broader network of juridical accords aimed at regulating the use of public goods and inspired by universal principles of fairness and solidarity.

8. The principle of the universal destination of goods can also make possible a more effective approach to the challenge of poverty, particularly when we consider the extreme poverty in which millions of people are still living. The international community, at the beginning of the new millennium, set the priority of halving their number by the year 2015. The Church supports and encourages this commitment and invites all who believe in Christ to show, practically and in every sector, a preferential love for the poor.(12)

The tragedy of poverty remains closely linked to the issue of the foreign debt of poor countries. Despite significant progress in this area, the problem has not yet been adequately resolved. Fifteen years ago I called public attention to the fact that the foreign debt of poor countries "is closely related to a series of other problems such as foreign investment, the proper functioning of the major international organizations, the price of raw materials and so forth."(13) Recent moves in favor of debt reduction, centered mainly on the needs of the poor, have certainly improved the quality of economic growth. Yet, because of a number of factors, this growth is still quantitatively insufficient, especially in relation to the millennium goals. Poor countries remain trapped in a vicious circle: low income and weak growth limit savings and, in turn, weak investments and an inefficient use of savings do not favor growth.

9. As Pope Paul VI stated and as I myself have reaffirmed, the only really effective means of enabling States to deal with the grave problem of poverty is to provide them with the necessary resources through foreign financial aid -- public and private -- granted under reasonable conditions, within the framework of international commercial relations regulated with fairness.(14) What is urgently needed is a moral and economic mobilization, one which respects agreements already made in favor of poor countries, and is at the same time prepared to review those agreements which have proved excessively burdensome for some countries. In this regard, new impulse should be given to Public Aid for Development, and new forms of financing for development should be explored, whatever the difficulties entailed.(15) Some governments are already looking carefully at promising mechanisms for this; these significant initiatives should be carried out in a spirit of authentic sharing, with respect for the principle of subsidiarity. The management of financial resources destined to the development of poor countries should also entail scrupulous adherence, on the part of both donors and recipients, to sound administrative practices. The Church encourages and contributes to these efforts. One need only mention the significant contribution made by the many Catholic agencies dedicated to aid and development.

10. At the end of the Great Jubilee of the year 2000, in my Apostolic Letter "Novo Millennio Ineunte," I spoke of the urgent need for a new creativity in charity,(16) in order to spread the Gospel of hope in the world. This need is clearly seen when we consider the many difficult problems standing in the way of development in Africa: numerous armed conflicts, pandemic diseases aggravated by extreme poverty, and political instability leading to widespread insecurity. These are tragic situations which call for a radically new direction for Africa: there is a need to create new forms of solidarity, at bilateral and multilateral levels, through a more decisive commitment on the part of all, with complete conviction that the well-being of the peoples of Africa is an indispensable condition for the attainment of the universal common good.

May the peoples of Africa become the protagonists of their own future and their own cultural, civil, social and economic development! May Africa cease to be a mere recipient of aid, and become a responsible agent of convinced and productive sharing! Achieving this goal calls for a new political culture, especially in the area of international cooperation. Once again I wish to state that failure to honor the repeated promises of Public Aid for Development, the still unresolved question of the heavy foreign debt of African countries and the failure to give those countries special consideration in international commercial relations, represent grave obstacles to peace which urgently need to be addressed and resolved. Today more than ever, a decisive condition for bringing peace to the world is an acknowledgement of the interdependence between wealthy and poor countries, such that "development either becomes shared in common by every part of the world or it undergoes a process of
regression even in zones marked by constant progress."(17)

The universality of evil and Christian hope

11. Faced with the many tragic situations present in the world, Christians confess with humble trust that God alone can enable individuals and peoples to overcome evil and achieve good. By his death and resurrection, Christ has redeemed us and ransomed us "with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23), gaining salvation for all. With his help, everyone can defeat evil with good.

Based on the certainty that evil will not prevail, Christians nourish an invincible hope which sustains their efforts to promote justice and peace. Despite the personal and social sins which mark all human activity, hope constantly gives new impulse to the commitment to justice and peace, as well as firm confidence in the possibility of building a better world.

Although the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Thessalonians 2:7) is present and active in the world, we must not forget that redeemed humanity is capable of resisting it. Each believer, created in the image of God and redeemed by Christ, "who in a certain way has united himself to each human being,"(18) can cooperate in the triumph of good. The work of "the Spirit of the Lord fills the earth" (cf. Wisdom 1:7). Christians, especially the lay faithful, "should not, then, hide their hope in the depth of their hearts, but rather express it through the structures of their secular lives in continual conversion and in wrestling 'against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of iniquity' (Ephesians 6:12)."(19)

12. No man or woman of good will can renounce the struggle to overcome evil with good. This fight can be fought effectively only with the weapons of love. When good overcomes evil, love prevails and where love prevails, there peace prevails. This is the teaching of the Gospel, restated by the Second Vatican Council: "the fundamental law of human perfection, and consequently of the transformation of the world, is the new commandment of love."(20)

The same is true in the social and political spheres. In this regard, Pope Leo XIII wrote that those charged with preserving peace in relations between peoples should foster in themselves and kindle in others "charity, the mistress and queen of all the virtues."(21) Christians must be convinced witnesses of this truth. They should show by their lives that love is the only force capable of bringing fulfillment to persons and societies, the only force capable of directing the course of history in the way of goodness and peace.

During this year dedicated to the Eucharist, may the sons and daughters of the Church find in the supreme sacrament of love the wellspring of all communion: communion with Jesus the Redeemer and, in him, with every human being. By Christ's death and resurrection, made sacramentally present in each Eucharistic celebration, we are saved from evil and enabled to do good. Through the new life which Christ has bestowed on us, we can recognize one another as brothers and sisters, despite every difference of language, nationality and culture. In a word, by sharing in the one bread and the one cup, we come to realize that we are "God's family" and that together we can make our own effective contribution to building a world based on the values of justice, freedom and peace.

From the Vatican, 8 December 2004.

JOHN PAUL II

NOTES

1. In this regard, Saint Augustine observed that "two loves have established two cities: love of self, carried to contempt for God, has given rise to the earthly city; love of God, carried to contempt for self, has given rise to the heavenly city" ("De Civitate Dei," XIV:28).
2. Cf. Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations for its Fiftieth Anniversary (5 October 1995), 3: Insegnamenti XVIII/2 (1995), 732.
3. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1958.
4. John Paul II, Homily at Drogheda, Ireland (29 September 1979), 9: AAS 71 (1979), 1081.
5. The common good is widely understood to be "the sum of those conditions of social life which enable groups and individuals to achieve their fulfillment more completely and readily." Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et Spes," 26.
6. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter "Mater et Magistra": AAS 53 (1961), 417.
7. Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et Spes," 26.
8. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter "Mater et Magistra": AAS 53 (1961), 421.
9. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Centesimus Annus," 41: AAS 83 (1991), 844.
10. Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et Spes," 69.
11. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Centesimus Annus," 35: AAS 83 (1991), 837.
12. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis," 42: AAS 80 (1988), 572.
13. Address to Participants in the Study Week of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (27 October 1989), 6: Insegnamenti XII/2 (1989), 1050.
14. Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter "Populorum Progressio," 56-61: AAS 59 (1967), 285-287; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis," 33-34: AAS 80 (1988), 557-560.
15. Cf. John Paul II, Message to the President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace: L'Osservatore Romano, 10 July 2004, p. 5.
16. Cf. No. 50: AAS 93 (2001), 303.
17. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis," 17: AAS 80 (1988) 532.
18. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et Spes," 22.
19. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium," 35.
20. Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et Spes," 38.
21. Encyclical Letter "Rerum Novarum": Acta Leonis XIII 11 (1892), 143; cf. Benedict XV, Encyclical Letter "Pacem Dei": AAS 12 (1920), 215.