28th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year B)

Mersey Leven Catholic Parish

Parish Priest:  Fr Mike Delaney
Mob: 0417 279 437; mdelaney@netspace.net.au

Assistant Priest:  Fr Alexander Obiorah 
Mob: 0447 478 297; alexchuksobi@yahoo.co.uk

Postal Address: PO Box 362, Devonport 7310

Parish Office:
90 Stewart Street, Devonport 7310 
(Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 10am - 3pm)

Office Phone: 6424 2783 Fax: 6423 5160 
Email: mlcathparish-dsl@keypoint.com.au

Secretary: Annie Davies / Anne Fisher  
Pastoral Council Chair:  Mary Davies

Mersey Leven Catholic Parish Weekly Newsletter: mlcathparish.blogspot.com.au

Parish Mass Times: mlcpmasstimes.blogspot.com.au

Weekly Homily Podcast: podomatic.com/mikedelaney    

Parish Magazine: mlcathparishnewsletter.blogspot.com.au

Weekday Masses 13th - 16th October, 2015

Tuesday:          9:30am - Penguin

Wednesday:    NO MASS  - Latrobe

Thursday:      10:30am - Karingal … St Teresa of Jesus

Friday:           11:00am - Mt St Vincent                    

                        

Next Weekend 17th & 18th October, 2015

Saturday Vigil:  6:00pm Penguin … St Ignatius of Antioch

                                       Devonport

Sunday Mass:   8:30am Port Sorell                                                                                                                     9:00am Ulverstone

                       10:30am Devonport

                       11:00am Sheffield   

                         5:00pm Latrobe  

Eucharistic Adoration:

Devonport:  Every Friday 10am - 12noon, concluding with Stations of the Cross and Angelus

Devonport:  Benediction with Adoration - first Friday of each month.

Prayer Groups:

Charismatic Renewal – Devonport Emmaus House Thursdays commencing 7.30pm

Christian Meditation - Devonport, Emmaus House Wednesdays 7pm.

DO YOU LONG FOR SOME SPACE AND STILLNESS IN YOUR LIFE AT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR?   30 minutes of silent prayer could change the rest of your week!  There is opportunity for this each Wednesday evening at 7pm at 88 Stewart Street, Devonport.  Why not come along and meditate with a small group of people and see what happens?     For further information see www.wccm.org or talk with Sr Carmel.

Ministry Rosters 17th & 18th October, 2015

Devonport:

Readers Vigil: P Douglas, T Douglas, M Knight 

10:30am:  F Sly, J Tuxworth, K Von Bibra

Ministers of Communion:

Vigil: T Muir, M Davies, M Gerrand, T Bird, S Innes

10:30am: R Beaton, B & N Mulcahy, L Hollister

Cleaners 16^th October: K.S.C. 

23^rd October:  G & R O’Rourke, M & R Youd

Piety Shop 17^th October:  H Thompson 18^th October: K Hull Flowers: M Breen, S Fletcher

Ulverstone:

Reader: R Locket Ministers of Communion: P Steyn, E Cox, C Singline, J Landford

Cleaners:  V Ferguson, E Cox   Flowers: M Bryan   Hospitality: M & K McKenzie

Penguin:

Greeters: G & N Pearce Commentator:  Y Downes     Readers:  J Garnsey

Procession: Fifita Family   Ministers of Communion: A Guest, J Barker

Liturgy: Sulphur Creek J   Setting Up: T Clayton   Care of Church: J & T Kiely

Latrobe:

Reader: H Lim   Ministers of Communion:  M Kavic, Z Smith   Procession:  Parishioners   Music: Jenny

Port Sorell:

Readers:  P Anderson, D Leaman Ministers of Communion: L Post Cleaners/Flowers/Prepare: K Hampton

Readings this Week: 28^th Sunday in Ordinary Time

First Reading: Wisdom 7:7-11 
Second Reading: Hebrews 4:12-13 
Gospel: Mark 10:17-30

PREGO REFLECTION ON TODAY'S GOSPEL:

Slowly, I become still. I read the text prayerfully. When ready, I imaginatively try to become part of the drama. I watch this man of great wealth running to Jesus and kneeling before him. I sense he wants to be a disciple of Jesus and I see how much Jesus loves him. But I see the pain in both their faces. As I listen, I know Jesus’ words are for me, too. ‘Come, follow me’: what do they mean for me today? Am I any more able than the rich man to opt for Christ without any personal cost? What does it mean to rely completely on God? I ponder on the treasure that Jesus promises for those who follow him. I think of my own possessions and the strength, or the looseness, of my grip on them. What, then, of the words of Jesus: ‘nothing is impossible for God’? As I watch the man go away sad, I wonder how the seed of Wisdom might grow and bear fruit later in his life. Maybe I can recall such an encounter of my own. I conclude by allowing Jesus to look steadily at me and love me. I speak with him in my own words as I feel moved, or I simply gaze back.

Readings Next Week: 29^th Sunday in Ordinary Time

First Reading: Isaiah 53:10-11 Second Reading: Hebrews 4:14-16 

Gospel: Mark 10:35-45

          Your prayers are asked for the sick:

Barbara Hancock, Kevin Bagley, Iolanthe Hannavy, 

Geraldine Roden, Joy Carter, Jenny Morris, 

Christopher Ockwell, Josephine Murray, 

Reg Hinkley, Noreen Burton, Harry Cartwright, 

Shirley Stafford & …

Let us pray for those who have died recently:

          Brigid Fennessy, Vicki Glashower, Dr John Walker, Leonard Hoare, Aileen McHale, Sr Marjorie Boutchard, John Mahoney, Stanley Henderson,  Anne Bailey, John Freeman,  Sr Trish Dance,   Brother Ernest Travers, Fausta Farrow, Charles Barker, Joan Jones, Joan Collins, Ron Finch and Godfrey Matthews.

Let us pray for those whose anniversary occurs about this time: 7^th – 13^th October

Natarsha Charlesworth, Sr Barbara Hateley MSS, Paul Blake, Ashley Dyer, Bridie Murray, Ronald Arrowsmith, Peter Beard, Mary Lube and Mary Guthrie.

May they rest in Peace
                                    

SYNOD OF THE FAMILY 

There is a Daily Blog presented by the Australian Bishops attending the Synod - it would be too difficult to include the whole of the Blog here but I recommend having a look at what is being presented by clicking here https://www.catholic.org.au/synod2015/blog

                                                                     

WEEKLY RAMBLINGS:

Hi! In case you ever wondered or were in doubt, parish Life is never dull or uneventful.  As well as the regular challenges of pastoral care of the sick and the families of the bereaved and funerals and baptisms there are also other events which impact on our time and energies.

Age and Sickness  and movement of people in and out of our parish means that we need to address succession planning for several of our major pastoral activities including our Finance Committee, Sacramental Program, Fundraising activities and Parish Pastoral Council. Generally pleas for assistance for people to become involved in these areas of Parish activity do not get a great deal of response but if we are to move forward as a Parish we need your help.

We also need help with extra musicians, lectors, ‘flower people’ and church cleaners, people to work with youth, parishioners to take communion to the sick and housebound and many other areas of parish life. It would be stupid not to acknowledge the great work done by many in the past but we also need help now and into the future and so I am asking for people to come forward and offer to help now. Please see me after Mass or call the Parish House at some stage and I’ll chat with you.

Kids and staff return to School this week - I pray that everyone has had a good break and is returning for the final act of 2015 – I hope that no one ‘breaks a leg!’ 

So please take care on the roads and in your homes.

                                                                  

ST VINCENT DE PAUL COLLECTION:  This weekend in Devonport, Ulverstone, Port Sorell, Latrobe and Penguin to assist the work of the St Vincent de Paul Society.

Next weekend our parish will be holding the annual Catholic Mission Church Appeal. This year we are invited to reach out and support the life-saving work of Catholic Mission in Madagascar – to help provide clean water and sanitation facilities, as well as formation and spiritual support to children in desperate need.

Please come prepared next weekend and give generously or Freecall: 1800 257 296 or catholicmission.org.au/water

CWL DEVONPORT: Next meeting Wednesday 14th October at 2.00 pm

ST MARY'S CHURCH PENGUIN:

BBQ tea after Mass, Saturday 17th October.   All welcome!

Please bring a salad or dessert to share.

ROSARY PILGRIMAGE:

The Rosary Pilgrimage will be held on Sunday 18^th October. There have been some changes to the programme this year – please see the noticeboard for details or take a pamphlet.

Please note: the pilgrimage will start after Mass at Port Sorell. A free bus (kindly donated by Dr Edillo) will be leaving Our Lady of Lourdes car park at 8:55am. To book please phone Bruce or Mary Peters on 6421:0607.

PARISH LITURGY PLANNING GROUP:

All those who assist in, or are interested in assisting in, the preparation of our Advent and special liturgies are invited to a meeting at Emmaus House on Sunday 25 October at 2.30 pm. Some possible items for our agenda are:

• Co-ordinating overhead/power points across the Parish 
• Organisation of music for Parish Celebrations – 22/11/15, 14/2/16 & 20/11/16
• Our music repertoire
• Advent

For further information or to assist with transport, please contact Peter on 0419 302 435.

NOVEMBER REMEMBRANCE BOOKS:

November is the month we remember in a special way all those who have died. Should you wish anyone to be remembered, write the names of those to be prayed for on the outside of an envelope and place the clearly marked envelope in the collection basket at Mass or deliver to the Parish Office by Thursday 22^nd October.

FOOTY POINTS MARGIN: GRAND FINAL – Hawthorn won by 46 POINTS

Lucky winners of the $500 are: Eileen Halley & unknown

 Winners of $100 (number either side of winning margin);

 Number 45: Sam Derrico & Bill Webb

Number 47: Meryl Hays & Ken Lowry

Normal $2 winners; John Webb, Pat Barker, unknown

We hope you have enjoyed supporting our Footy Margin Fundraiser this season!!!!

Once again on behalf of the Parish office we would like to send a HUGE thank you to Mary Webb for all her time, help, support and most of all her friendship with the sorting, stamping, delivering and selling of tickets each week, Zillah Jones for selling tickets, your friendship and the weekly banter about the footy and thank you to everyone else who helped out in anyway – we appreciated your support!.

……….BRING ON SEASON 2016!!..........

Thursday Nights OLOL Hall D’port. Eyes down 7.30pm.

Callers 15^th October Tony Ryan and Bruce Peters.

NEWS FROM ACROSS THE ARCHDIOCESE:

SOLEMNITY OF ST THERESE: A Sung Mass WILL BE CELEBRATED IN HONOUR OF St Teresa of Jesus (Avila), the foundress of the Discalced Carmelite Order, at Carmelite Monastery, 7 Cambridge Street Launceston Thursday 15th October at 9:30am. Archbishop Julian will be the principal celebrant and homilist. This celebration will also mark the close of the 5th Centenary Teresian Year. Morning tea will follow Mass. All welcome. A Novena of Masses and Prayers will also be offered in preparation for the feast from 6th – 14th October. Intentions may be sent to Mother Teresa-Benedicta at the Monastery.    

   

AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC YOUTH FESTIVAL (ACYF) – REGISTRATIONS CLOSING! Registrations to join young Tasmanians at the ACYF 3rd – 5th December, 2015 in Adelaide are closing Wednesday 14th October. Join with over 3000 young Australians in three jam-packed days of fun, concerts, faith, engaging speakers, interactive workshops, prayer and to celebrate the young Australian Church.  Speakers include: Fr Rob Galea, Steve Angrisano, Jason Evert, Sr Hilda Scott, Genevieve Bryant, Fr Chris Ryan, Australian Bishops and so many more! For more information and to register go to: www.cymtas.org.au or contact Rachelle: rachelle.smith@aohtas.org.au or 0400 045 368 (open to young people from grade 9 – 25 years of age)

WORLD YOUTH DAY 2016 – REGISTRATIONS NOW OPEN!! Registrations to join the Tasmanian Pilgrimage to World Youth Day 2016 Krakow are now open!! Join with like-minded young Tasmanians on this experience of a lifetime as we follow in the footsteps of early Christians through Turkey and Greece, visiting Gallipoli, Istanbul and the ancient city of Ephesus en route to Poland where we will visit Warsaw, Auschwitz concentration camp and Czestochowa before meeting with Pope Francis and millions of young people in Krakow for the main event! Download your application pack at www.wydtas.org.au or contact Rachelle Smith: rachelle.smith@aohtas.org.au or 0400 045 368 (open to those aged 16 – 35 as at 31st December 2016)

FILIPINO MASS:  Saturday 24th October at 3 pm St Paul’s Church Paice Street, Bridgewater. All welcome!

COUPLES FOR CHRIST SEMINAR:  St Paul’s Church Paice Street, Bridgwater 7th November from 9am - 5pm Married couples invited to attend. Lunch and snacks provided. For more information please phone Fr. Leo 6263:6242                        

Laudato Si': On the Care of Our Common Home

Pope Francis' Encyclical Laudato Si':

On the Care for Our Common Home is a call for global action as well as an appeal for deep inner conversion. He points to numerous ways world organisations, nations and communities must move forward and the way individuals -- believers and people of good will -- should see, think, feel and act. Each week, we offer one of the Pope's suggestions, with the paragraph numbers to indicate its place in the Encyclical. “Get down from the ivory tower and stop the rhetoric. Get to know the poor and suffering; it will wake up a numbed conscience and inspire real action.” (Par 49) 

Saint of the Week – St Callistus I, pope, martyr (October 14)

Pope Callistus I is celebrated in churches throughout the world as a saint and martyr on October 14. The saint caused a major controversy, including a schism that lasted almost two decades, by choosing to emphasize God's mercy in his ministry. However, the early Pope's model of leadership has endured, and his martyrdom in the year 222 confirmed his example of holiness. Because no completely trustworthy biography of Pope Callistus I exists, historians have been forced to rely on an account by his contemporary Hippolytus of Rome. Although Hippolytus himself was eventually reconciled to the Church and canonized as a martyr, he vocally opposed the pontificate of Callistus and three of his successors, to the point of usurping papal prerogatives for himself (as the first “antipope”). Nevertheless, his account of Callistus' life and papacy provides important details. According to Hippolytus' account, Callistus – whose year of birth is not known - began his career as a highly-placed domestic servant, eventually taking responsibility for his master's banking business. When the bank failed, Callistus received the blame, and attempted to flee from his master. Being discovered, he was demoted to serve as a manual labourer in Rome. Thus, under inauspicious circumstances, Callistus came as a slave to the city where he would later serve as Pope.

                                                                                           

INNOCENCE, COMPLEXITY, AND SANCTITY

An article by Fr Ron Rolheiser OMI. The original article can be found here

Some years ago, I officiated at a wedding. As the officiating priest, I was invited to the reception and dance that followed upon the church service. Not knowing the family well and having church services the next morning, I left right after the banquet and the toasts, just as the dancing was about to start. When I was seemingly out of earshot, I heard the bride’s father say to someone: “I’m glad that Father has gone; now we can celebrate with some rock music!”

I didn’t take the remark personally since the man meant well, but the remark stung nevertheless because it betrayed an attitude that painted me, and others like me, as religious but naïve, as good to sit at the head table and be specially introduced, but as being best out of sight when real life begins; as if being religious means that you are unable to handle the earthiness and beat of rock music, as if church and earthy celebration are in opposition to each other, as if sanctity demands an elemental innocence the precludes human complexity, and as if full-blood and religion are best kept separate.

But that’s an attitude within most people, however unexpressed. The idea is that God and human complexity do not go together. Ironically that attitude is particularly prevalent among the over-pious and those most negative towards religion. For the both the over-pious and the militant-impious, God and robust life cannot go together. And that’s also basically true for the rest of us as is evident in our inability to attribute complexity, earthiness, and temptation to Jesus, to the Virgin Mary, to the saints, and to other publicly-recognized religious figures such as Mother Theresa.  It seems that we can only picture holiness as linked to a certain naiveté. For us, holiness needs to be sheltered and protected like a young child. As a result we then project such an over-idealization of innocence and simplicity onto Jesus, Mary, and our religious exemplars that it becomes impossible for us to ever really identify with them. We can give them admiration, but very little else.

For example, the Virgin Mary of our piety could not have written the Magnificat. She lacks the complexity to write such a prayer because we have projected on to her such an innocence, delicacy, and childlikeness so as to leave her less than fully adult and fully intelligent. Ultimately this has a negative effect religiously. To identify an unrealistic innocence and simplicity with holiness sets out an unattainable ideal that has too many people believe that their own red blood, with its restless stirrings, makes them bad candidates for the church and sanctity.

In the Roman Catholic Rite of baptism, at a point, the priest or deacon pronounces these words: See in this white garment the outward sign of your Christian dignity. With your family and friends to help you by word and example, bring that dignity unstained into the everlasting life of heaven. That’s a wonderful statement celebrating the beauty and virtue of innocence. But it celebrates an innocence that has yet to meet adult life.

The innocence of a child is stunning in its beauty and holds up for us a mirror within which to see our moral and psychological scars and the missteps we have taken as adults, not unlike the humbling we can feel when we look at bodies in a mirror when we get older. The beauty of youth is gone. But the disquiet and judgment we feel in the presence of a child’s innocence is more a neurosis and misconception than a genuine judgment on our sanctity and moral goodness. Children are innocent because they have not yet had to deal with life, its infinite complexities, and its inevitable wounds. Young children are so beautifully innocent because they are still naïve and pre-sophisticated. To move to adulthood they will have to pass through inevitable initiations which will leave more than a few smudges on the childlike purity of their baptismal robes.

A friend of mine is fond of saying this about innocence: As an adult, I wouldn’t give a penny for the naïve purity of a child, but I would give everything to find true childlike innocence inside the complexity of my adult life.  I think that what he means is this: Jesus went into the singles’ bars of his time, except he didn’t sin. The task in spirituality is not to try to emulate the naive innocence and non-complexity of our childhood. That’s an exercise in denial and a formula for rationalization. The task is rather to move towards a second-naiveté, a post-sophistication which has already taken into account the full complexity of our lives. Only then will we have again the innocent joy of children, even as we are able to stand steady inside the rawness of rock music, the power and complexity of human sexuality, the concupiscent tendencies of the human heart, and the uncanny and wily maneuverings innate inside the human spirit. From there we can write the Magnificat.

                                                                                      

Hinduism: Week 2

A series of reflections taken from a daily email from Fr Richard Rohr. You can subscribe to the email here 

Advaita          

As I mentioned before, Eastern and Western philosophies come from different starting points. With such dissimilar foundations, at core they have very different worldviews. Our Christian problem has been that we assumed Jesus was a Westerner, when his Aramaic language and thought forms would have been much more similar to the East. It is no accident that Jesus lived in what we call "The Middle East," on the cusp and under the control of Greek and Roman cultures, but surely not inside of them. Nonetheless, Western Christianity has understood and even pictured Jesus as if he were a European.

Several central ideas, affirmed by Jesus, were already formed in the ancient Hindu Vedas, then unfolded by the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. In each case, notice that the mind revealed in these scriptures first sees things in their wholeness; whereas Westerners tend to first see things in their diversity. Today I'll briefly introduce advaita, then we'll explore the Hindu themes of karma and maya on Monday and Tuesday.

The word advaita is loosely translated as "having no duality," implying that the proper or spiritual way of understanding things is outside the realm of comparison or judgment. Advaita describes the non-dual or contemplative mind that understands things in their unity and connection before it separates them: not completely one, but not two either. Mirabai Starr says advaita "is not about everything being one big mushy, homogeneous, tasteless thing." [1] Rather, it's the subtle distinction that all things share the same ground of being, the same supreme reality that encompasses great diversity. At root, nothing is separate.

Can you "imagine" that way? Westerners have a very hard time doing this until they are trained: first one, then two; first similarity, then dissimilarity. If you start with two (dissimilarity and distinction) it is almost impossible to ever get back to unitive consciousness or similarity, from which most compassion, or at least tolerance, proceeds. If you start with advaita, you can still go back to making needed and helpful distinctions, but now love and union is prior to knowledge and information. That is the unique starting place of so many Eastern religions!

Karma           

We have moved closer to the Eastern understanding in our more recent use of the term karma, but it is still said like a joke. "Bad karma!" or "Good luck!" or "What goes around comes around" we might say in half jest. For the Hindu, karma is an inviolate law and not just a clever aphorism. It is the nature of the universe and moves people toward purification of motive and honesty about why they are doing what they are doing. Karma is an absolute law of cause and effect. Even thoughts and desires have a predictable karma. You are responsible for your own thoughts and motives, and you cannot avoid the consequences. Thoughts and motives are real and create the Real. You cannot walk around thinking negative thoughts, or they will destroy you.

Conversely, no love is lost in the universe. I believe you are actually punished by your sins; whereas Western religions tend to teach that you are punished for your sins. Goodness is its own reward and evil is its own punishment, karmic law would say. These are two very different world views, and frankly, I am convinced that Jesus taught the karmic one. "You cannot pick grapes from thorns or figs from thistles. A good tree will bear good fruit," he said, "and a bad tree will bear bad fruit" (Matthew 7:17-18). Jesus also said, "If you show mercy, mercy will be shown to you." (Matthew 5:7, Luke 6:37) and "The standard you use will be used for you" (Mark 4:24).

Jesus sought to create a deep sense of personal choice, responsibility, and freedom right now, and not just disconnected payoffs in the afterlife. But we have understood much of the Gospel in terms of divine threats and artificial rewards--a delayed schedule of merits and demerits. This deeply distorted the transformative message of the Gospel and appealed to our self-interest instead of love. In other words, it fed us at the ego level instead of the soul level.

I believe Jesus teaches that rewards and punishments for behavior are inherent and now, and only by karmic implication are they external and later. Karma, rightly understood, creates responsible and self-actualized people instead of fear-based people. Your choices matter now! Threats of punishment or promises of candy later create perpetual adolescents and very well-disguised narcissism at every level of Christianity.

Maya            

The Hindu word maya is often translated as "illusion." But that does not get to the root of the insight and is too easily dismissed by the Western person who prefers to take things for what they are at face value. We might understand deceit, but we do not understand illusion very well. A better translation of maya might be "tricky." This understanding can have a truly transformative effect on how you live and die. When Hinduism (or Buddhism which is a child of Hinduism) says all the world of forms is maya (or emptiness), they are trying to help you look deeper, broader, and in the long term.

If you recognize that what you first see is "tricky," you might be more open to this better seeing. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it actually might not be a duck--it might be a goose, a swan, or a cartoon. The Upanishads illustrate maya using the familiar experience of finding a rope on a path. You jump back, thinking it's a snake, but it isn't. Mirabai Starr says, "Wisdom comes with being able to engage in inquiry with curiosity (with childlike wonderment as Jesus calls it) [in order] to see what really is, and to discover it's not something we have to defend ourselves against." [1] Reality is hard but also benevolent.

Hinduism is saying that all phenomena pass themselves off as total and final in their independent and free existence. But just wait a while, or look deeper, and you will see that all things are parts of much larger ecosystems of connection and life. In their separateness they will pass. Everything is qualified and provisional and contingent on something else. Anything that asserts its completely free and self-formed existence is lying to you. Everything from the "self-made man," to the myth of private property, to "my rights over my body," to the pollution of the earth--these all proceed from a Western hubris which is not willing to admit and face its self-serving illusions. Morally speaking, the illusion of our separateness makes it hard for us to seek the common good.

It is no surprise that the tragedy became the supreme form of both Greek and Shakespearean drama, which always ends in the sad results of human hubris. Yet of the many arts in India, the tragedy is the only form India failed to produce! If you face illusions early, lasting and destructive tragedies are rare. Hubris is undercut at the very start. Jesus, of course, taught the same when he told us to "take up the cross" of this passing world and our own fragile lives.

Sacred Texts             

To begin to understand the ancient and many sources of Indian philosophy and Hinduism (which are often synonymous), and surely at the risk of immense oversimplification, I will briefly introduce their primary sacred texts.

In the next few days, I will elaborate with several key ideas that emerge from centuries of spiritual experience and reflection upon that experience. These ideas amount to the essential differences between Eastern and Western philosophies and show why some ideas of Eastern religions seem new or foreign to Western believers.

The Hindu sources clearly say contradictory things, with what are surely conflicting ideas, but there is no need to perfectly harmonize them in the Eastern mind. They are each contributing their waters to a pool of wisdom that we can swim inside of and thus learn to honestly struggle with the conflict itself--which can be quite broadening, deepening, and enlightening. This is similar to the Jewish idea of midrash and the Christian idea of lectio divina. If only we all could have approached the Bible and the Koran in the very same way, how different history would have been.

Westerners lived in blissful ignorance that holy people and saints were already coming to our own later conclusions centuries before Christ Jesus. One would think that Christians would know that this does not in the least diminish Jesus but in fact supports and affirms him.

The three major texts in Hinduism and Indian philosophy:

• The Vedas are the most ancient Sanskrit writings (as much as three to four thousand years old) containing hymns, philosophy, guidance, and rituals.

• The Upanishads--which means "what is learned sitting at the feet of"--are later (800-400 BC), even more mystical texts which elaborate on many of the ancient themes. There are probably 13 major and many minor Upanishads.

• The Bhagavad Gita emerged in various translations from four centuries before Christ to four centuries afterward. It is an extended dialogue between Prince Arjuna, who is a passenger in a chariot, and Lord Krishna, who is teaching him how to drive the chariot. The 700 classic verses amount to an extended commentary on "action and contemplation."

Hinduism was not even named when these texts were first written. And almost all of the Indian Scriptures were not translated into English or modern languages until the 19th century. Don't dismiss any of these until you have at least tried to read them.

The Bhagavad Gita              

The Bhagavad Gita describes Lord Krishna, one of Hinduism's central gods, as both this and that, totally immanent and yet fully transcendent, physical and yet formless, the deepest inner self and yet the Godself (Bhagavad Gita 10). Krishna has even been called "The Unknown Christ of Hinduism"--the same mystery that Western Christians, with their dualistic minds, could not put together in Jesus.

Krishna, like Jesus, also shows the integration of action and contemplation. The Bhagavad Gita does not counsel that we all become monks or solitaries, but in fact, Lord Krishna tells Prince Arjuna that the true synthesis is found in a life-long purification of motive, intention, and focus--precisely in your world of action--which is what makes it "contemplative." The Bhagavad Gita calls the active person, which most of us are, to a life of interiority and soul discovery, which is still our major concern today.

How can we do "pure action"? Only by gradually detaching from all the fruits of action and doing everything purely for the love of God, Lord Krishna teaches. I think our Christ says the same thing in several places (for example, Mark 12:30: "You shall love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength."). Jesus even counsels the same love toward the neighbor (Matthew 22:39). Jesus is unitive both vertically and horizontally, illustrated in the geometric image of the cross. The only way to integrate action and contemplation is to go ahead and do your action, but every day to ask yourself why you're doing it. Is it to make money? Is it to have a good reputation? Is it to keep busy? Or is it for the pure love of Krishna, for the love of God? Only then do we recognize who the Doer truly is!

Reflect on these passages from The Bhagavad Gita (4:18, 23-24):

The wise see that there is action in the midst of inaction,

and inaction in the midst of action.

Their consciousness is unified,

and every act is done with complete awareness.

When a man has let go of attachments,

when his mind is rooted in wisdom,

everything he does is worship,

and his actions all melt away.

God is the offering. God

is the offered, poured out by God;

God is attained by all those

who see God in every action.

In the Gita, Prince Arjuna is the noble individual soul ("Atman"), and Lord Krishna is the personification of the Divine ("Brahman"). Already in the ancient Vedas, Atman and Brahman were discovered to be one, at least in a foundational sense. This is exactly as Jesus proclaimed when he said "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30). Teresa of Ávila begins her journey through The Interior Castle by proclaiming God's castle and chosen dwelling is precisely "the beauty and amplitude of the human soul" (I, 3). Or as the Sufis say, Ishq'allah mahbud lillah--God is love, lover, and beloved all at once.

Parallel Texts              

Below are a few astoundingly parallel passages between sacred texts from Hinduism and sacred texts from Christianity. I hope this short introduction will encourage you to seek much further on your own.

***

"You are the field. I am the Knower of the field in everyone. Knowledge of the field combined with its Knower is true and full knowledge." --Bhagavad Gita 13:1

"When both your spirit and the Holy Spirit bear a united witness, you will know that you are a child of God." --Romans 8:16

***

"Just as a reservoir is of little use when the whole countryside is flooded, Scriptures are of little use to the illumined man or woman, who sees the Lord everywhere." --Bhagavad Gita 2:46

"You yourselves are our letter . . . not written with ink but with the Spirit of the living God written on your hearts. . . . Written letters bring death, but the Spirit brings life." --2 Corinthians 3:2, 6

***

"My true being is unborn and changeless. I am the Lord who dwells in every creature. Through the power of my own appearance, I manifest myself in finite forms." --Bhagavad Gita 4:5-6

"In the beginning was only Being; One without a second. Out of himself he brought forth the cosmos and entered into everything in it. There is nothing that does not come from him. Of everything he is the inmost Self." --The Chandogya Upanishad, Chapter 6, 2:2-3

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through him all things came to be, and not one thing had its being but through him. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwells among us." --John 1:1, 3, 14

***

"A person is what his deep desire is. It is our deepest desire in this life that shapes the life to come. So let us direct our deepest desire to realize the Self." --The Chandogya Upanishad, Chapter 3, 14:1

"So this is how you should pray. . . . May we do your will on earth as it is done in heaven." --Matthew 6:9-10

***

"There is nothing that does not come from him. Of everything he is the inmost Self. He is the truth; he is the Self Supreme. And you are that! You are that!" --The Chandogya Upanishad, Chapter 6, 2:3

"I give them eternal life, and they will never be lost, and no one can steal them from me. . . . Nor can anyone steal them from the Father. Know that I and the Father are one." --John 10:28, 30

"He is with you, he is in you. . . . On that day you will know that I am in the Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." --John 14:17, 20

                                                                            

REALITY CHECK: 

SIGNS YOUR PARISH MIGHT BE IN MAINTENANCE MODE

From the weekly blog by Fr Michael White. The original blog can be found here

The tug of day-to-day church culture will always be away from Evangelization and Discipleship and toward simple maintenance. Why? Because it’s easier and church people will always try and drive the culture that direction. In maintenance mode parishioners don’t do any of the work and get all the attention, so why wouldn’t they lean that way?

When we came to our parish that was definitely the problem here, but it actually took us a long time to figure it all out. After we finally did, changing that maintenance culture was another exercise entirely. And not one we would ever care to repeat (See chapter 4 in Rebuilt, it’s called “War in Heaven”).

But even after you have built a robust culture of Evangelization and Discipleship the threat of returning to that consumer culture of maintenance is ongoing. Even if you have a healthy, growing church, it is an active threat. We know it is here and we know we have to stand guard against it.

Here are some warning signs:

• The Pastor/parish staff are trying to do everything at church themselves and have stopped raising up member ministers to serve instead.
• The Pastor/ parish staff do all the member care themselves, and are expected to by the parishioners.
• The Pastor is more interested in his phone calls, e-mails, and instant messages than his weekend homily.
• The Pastor/parish staff are reluctant to take on new initiatives or risk disrupting existing programs.
• The staff function in silos.
• No one has a vision for the future.
• No one remembers the mission statement.
• The “lost” are never acknowledged or addressed in the weekend service. Guests are never welcomed.
• Lack of singing.
• Lack of hospitality.
• Lack of joy.
• Complaint is on the increase.
• Gossip in on the increase.

Take a reality check on your church and decide how you’re really doing. And be honest about it. The fact is that any of the above realities should be a source of concern but they really can be fixed.

                                                                

Laudato si’: Concern for our global commons

On Friday 25 September, Pope Francis addressed the UN General Assembly in New York, whose members were discussing many of the issues that the pope addressed earlier this year in Laudato si’. Climate scientists Ottmar Edenhofer and Christian Flaschland give a detailed analysis of the ground-breaking encyclical, its place in church tradition and its dialogue with current climate science. How is Pope Francis challenging the Church and the world?

This article was reprinted from Thinking Faith. The original document can be found here

 

Pope Francis’ long-awaited encyclical Laudato si’ cannot be reduced to an ‘environmental’ or ‘climate’ document.[i] In fact, it discusses key ethical challenges of the 21st century: climate change, poverty and inequality. Climate change hits the poor the hardest and exacerbates inequality within global society. If global commons[ii] such as the atmosphere, the forests, the global water cycle and the oceans are not protected, there will be no just global economic order.

The encyclical was anticipated with both high expectations and great fears: expectations on the part of those seeking support from the pope for a more just globalisation; and fears among those concerned that the pope might side with an ambitious climate and environmental movement. Indeed, even the timing of the release of the encyclical – in June 2015 – was a political statement and reminded the world community of its responsibility. It was published after the G7 Summit that took place at Schloss Elmau in Bavaria in early June, where the decision was taken to decarbonise the global economy; and prior to two United Nations summits (New York in September and Paris in December), where sustainable development goals and a new international climate agreement are to be adopted. On 25 September 2015, Pope Francis will talk about the related challenges at the General Assembly of the United Nations.

According to Laudato si’ (LS), the current generation risks going down as the most irresponsible in the history of mankind. Yet, if it chooses to, it could also be remembered for having courageously lived up to its responsibilities (LS §165). In saying this, Pope Francis is building on the 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, in which John XXIII made an appeal for peace to ‘all people of good will’ at a time when the world was on the brink of nuclear war. Today, Pope Francis sees in climate change, global poverty and deepening inequality a comparable planetary challenge. As such, he addresses his encyclical as an invitation to ‘every person living on this planet’ to engage in dialogue (LS §3).

LS has triggered a worldwide debate. The weeks after its release were marked by predictable reactions: approval from the environmental movement, rejection from parts of the conservative mainstream media, and a deafening silence from the so-called climate sceptics. The corresponding biases are known, and careful readings on the part of commentators appear to have been few and far between.

Far more interesting were the reactions from the scientific community. It is unprecedented in the history of Catholic Social Teaching for renowned scientific journals such as Nature and Science to publish favourable editorials before and after the publication of an encyclical.[iii] These journals commended in particular the pope’s desire for dialogue with the scientific community, such as that which took place at a conference organised by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the spring of 2014.[iv] With a view to climate science, many scientists have confirmed that LS accurately summarises the state of knowledge on the climate problem as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.

Climate change and the Catholic Church

The clarity and decisiveness with which LS acknowledges the ethical challenges of climate change, poverty and inequality can only be appreciated fully when one considers the Vatican’s hesitation to address the topic of climate change in the past. No previous papal encyclical has dealt with climate change in a systematic manner. It has been addressed only by national conferences of bishops, to which the pope pays tribute with no fewer than eighteen citations in his encyclical.

Three reasons may explain the Vatican’s previous difficulties with the issue of climate change.[v] First, it may not have wanted to express an opinion about the cause of climate change as long as there was no consensus in the scientific community. Again and again, interested parties tried to sway the Vatican by highlighting the outstanding scientific uncertainties and disagreements. Without clarification, it was apparently considered impossible for the Church to take a position: to do so would have been to risk damaging its moral authority.

Secondly, the Vatican may have feared that the difficult issue of population policy could resurface in the context of climate change. If the burning of coal, oil and gas, as well as deforestation, are causing an increase in the global mean temperature, then it must be acknowledged that population growth is, alongside economic growth, a driver of climate change. Yet this means that the issue of population policy, largely unresolved in the Church’s social teaching, is again open for discussion.

The third – and presumably main – reason for the Vatican’s hesitant approach to climate change thus far is a concern for the power dynamics in play. However, as no pope before, Francis is questioning the current global economic system. For him, climate change, global poverty and inequality are threatening the foundation of our ‘common home.’

In the past, the Vatican has not denied that there is a ‘natural’ climate change and that this primarily affects the poor. And its response, in the past, was to counter this natural climate change with greater emphasis on international development and support for the poor. This position was reinforced by Catholic think tanks in the United States, who repeatedly insisted on a clear prioritisation: the fight against poverty was to come first, and only afterwards, possibly decades later, might we consider climate change mitigation. They referred to, inter alia, the analysis by the former environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, and the Copenhagen Consensus Centre that he founded.[vi] Lomborg repeatedly tried to demonstrate, and has stated in his commentaries on the encyclical,[vii] that the fight against poverty, such as through investments in medical care, education and access to clean water, should be given preference over the fight against climate change. Yet, this stance tends to legitimise the continued postponement of climate action, by providing purportedly good reasons for doing so and without giving an appearance of cynicism. From that angle, climate policy is framed as a secondary, if not trivial, concern.

Significantly, however, the bishops of the South have been decidedly opposed to such rhetoric. Under Benedict XVI, a remarkable rethinking took place in this regard. The German Catholic bishops’ organisation, Misereor – together with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Institute for Social and Development Studies at the Munich School of Philosophy, and the Munich Re Foundation – initiated in 2007 a project that examines the issues of climate change, poverty and inequality. This project resulted not only in a book but also in dialogue forums where research results were discussed in Africa, Asia and Latin America with local populations.[viii] In addition, Misereor organised several conferences with bishops and others from Brazil, India, the Philippines and Ethiopia, which addressed the poor’s experiences of climate change.[ix] It emerged that in many poorer countries the limits of adaptation to climate change appear to have been reached. Moreover, climate change threatens to undo the progress that has been made in overcoming poverty. The question of who should be tasked, and to what extent, with the mitigation of climate change was thus raised within the Catholic Church and required a response.

With LS, this response has now been given. The clear style of the encyclical is a strong indication that LS was not drafted by ghostwriters from academia or politics but by Pope Francis himself. In unconventionally direct terms, he attacks the denial of climate change as an expression of veiled power interests – ‘veiled’ because such endeavours are not a quest for scientific truth but efforts to protect private interests against those of the common good (LS §54, §135, §188).[x] Francis emphasises that the analysis of and response to the climate problem should not be determined by the interests of the powerful but rather by the demand for global justice.

In principle, the encyclical is structured according to the four steps of see – judge – act – celebrate.[xi] The global environmental problems identified by science are outlined in Chapter I and are then interpreted in light of the biblical message (Chapter II) and explained in the broader context of the papal understanding of globalisation and modernisation (Chapter III). In Chapter IV, LS then discusses ethical orientations, while chapters V and VI discuss the motives and approaches to action.

Below, we examine key issues of the encyclical: the relationship between climate change, poverty and inequality, and the concern for the global commons; the need to tackle poverty reduction and climate protection simultaneously; practical recommendations of the encyclical; the responsibility of humankind in dealing with the power of technology at the ‘end of the modern world’; and the future challenges resulting from LS for the churches.

Climate change, poverty and inequality

The starting point of the encyclical is the scientific knowledge, as summarised in the reports of the IPCC, that climate change is caused by mankind through the burning of coal, oil and gas, through deforestation and through the emissions of other greenhouse gases. That said, the encyclical cannot, understandably, offer as systematic and comprehensive a description of the impacts of climate change as, for example, the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report into the current state of climate change knowledge.[xii] The encyclical emphasises above all the consequences of climate change for the poor. It points out that the poor are affected first and hardest by climate change because, more than other segments of the population, they depend on agriculture, fisheries and other ecosystem resources for their livelihood, and because they are not in the position to protect themselves effectively against increasing extreme weather events and water scarcity (LS §25). Moreover, the lack of access to clean water, loss of biodiversity and air pollution, and their adverse effects on health, are concerns for the pope. He fears that the negative effects of global environmental change and resource use could lead to migration movements or even wars in the future (LS §57).

The carrying capacity of the planet is already being exceeded without the problem of poverty having been solved. Yet it is important to note that the pope does not see population growth as the main culprit. It is not the number of people but the inequitable use of existing natural resources that is the problem. Rich countries consume too much, without adequately sharing with the poor.

Apparently, the pope regards the mitigation of climate change as a prerequisite for an effective fight against poverty, as it threatens to offset the medium- to long-term successes in the fight against poverty and to exacerbate global inequality. The encyclical proposes no specific targets for climate protection; the international community, however, has already set the goal of limiting global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This target has far-reaching consequences as it limits the amount of CO2 that may yet be deposited in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is still, and primarily, used as a carbon sink by rich countries. At present, might makes right, at the expense of the poor.

The struggle over the global commons

Therefore, the pope declares the climate to be a common good ‘belonging to all and meant for all’ (LS §23). The oceans and other natural resources should likewise be considered as global commons and protected by an appropriate system of governance (LS §174). Thus, for the first time in the history of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the principle of the universal destination of the goods of creation is also applied to the global carbon sinks of the atmosphere, oceans and forests. In order to protect the poorest and to avoid dangerous climate change, these sinks must be prevented from overuse.

As shown in the last IPCC report, compliance with the 2°C target requires that the remaining cumulative CO2 emissions stay below about 1,000 gigatons (Gt). As a measure of comparison, annual CO2 emissions in 2013 were at 35 Gt, with an upward trend. Furthermore, an estimated 15,000 Gt of CO2 are still present in the ground in the form of fossil fuels. The majority of these must therefore remain in the ground to avoid the CO2 deposits and climate change that would result from their being burned and released into the atmosphere. Rather than a business-as-usual-scenario – in other words, a scenario without any global climate policy – meeting the 2°C objective requires that some 80 percent of the world’s coal, and 40 percent each of gas and oil, be left in the ground. Finally, if CO2 cannot be captured during combustion and stored geologically, even less fossil resources can be used.[xiii] However, if the great part of the world’s fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground, the assets of the owners of fossil fuel resources are devalued.

This raises the question of whether a climate policy that intervenes in the property rights of owners of coal, oil and gas can be justified.[xiv] But, if the climate is a global commons worth protecting, then private property rights to coal, oil and gas must be designed so that they meet the demands of serving the common good. With this clear positioning, LS is contributing to the development of the notion of property within Catholic Social Teaching.

Historically, the Catholic doctrine of property (especially as it is expressed in the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum) was influenced by the classical liberal tradition founded by John Locke, according to which private property rights to natural resources can be legitimised on the basis of their having been appropriated through land grabbing and enhancement by human labour. The discovery of America and the colonisation of the ‘empty continent’ by the Europeans (through the decimation and displacement of the indigenous population) solidified this practice of the appropriation of natural resources. Land, and later fossil resources such as oil, then belonged to those who were the first to cultivate it or use it. Yet even so, Locke had already formulated an important condition for legitimate land acquisition: the appropriation may take place only if enough resources of equal quality are available to use for others (known as the ‘Lockean proviso’).[xv] Thus, even the liberal concept of ownership does not allow for an unconditional right of appropriation of scarce natural resources.

Catholic Social Teaching reinforces this idea by emphasising that the principle of the ‘universal destination of the world’s goods’ has precedence over the right to private property (LS §93).[xvi] LS refines this principle by recognising the overexploitation of global CO2 sinks as an instance in which the right to private property may be justifiably restricted (LS §23, and especially §93‒95). In this way, the current use of the atmosphere according to the ‘might makes right’ principle is delegitimised.

The recognition of the atmosphere and the climate as a global common good could possibly have international legal consequences. For example, an obligation to protect could be invoked should the atmosphere be threatened. Some parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate appear to fear exactly that, given that they were reluctant to designate climate change as a global commons problem in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. In fact, in a footnote on the topic, the report states that the term ‘global commons,’ as a characterisation of the climate problem, has no implications for an international agreement or for criteria of international effort-sharing when it comes to climate protection.[xvii] With LS, however, the pope had the courage to place the status of the atmosphere as a global commons at the forefront of the collective consciousness of humanity.

Climate protection and poverty reduction – are they mutually exclusive?

The issue of the institutional design of how access to the atmosphere could be restricted, and thus the poorest protected against climate change, is not addressed by the encyclical. From an economic point of view, the pricing of CO2 emissions, through taxes or emissions trading systems, is the most effective means to achieve this objective. The encyclical rightly points to the economic principle that market prices should adequately reflect all social costs (LS §195). Yet currently, considering the shortage of storage capacity in the atmosphere, the market prices fail to do this. If CO2 taxes or emissions trading systems are introduced, these shortages, as well as the cost of overusing the atmosphere, are signalled to the markets. This, in turn, will induce a shift in investment and purchasing practices at both the public and private levels. Essentially, these measures translate the scarcity of the common good atmosphere into the ‘hard’ language of the profit-oriented markets and thereby impose the required ethical framework.

Moreover, limiting the amount of carbon that is stored in the atmosphere by means of CO2 pricing will not only protect the climate, and thus the poorest affected by climate change, but will also provide a new source of income in the form of tax revenues or auctioned emissions permits. When the atmosphere is a common good, these revenues in principle belong to all people, and their distribution should be done in compliance with the principles of justice.

Thus, the revenue from CO2 pricing could be used to provide the poorest with access to basic goods. Such a CO2 tax reform could be carried out by national governments who coordinate internationally.[xviii] For example, were the government of India to charge ten dollars for every ton of CO2 emitted, it could provide electricity, clean water, sanitation and telecommunications for more than 60 million people every year. The same applies to China or Mexico. CO2 pricing could therefore be used to combat poverty.[xix] A first step in that direction would be to abolish subsidies for fossil fuels – that alone would free up at least $550 billion for investments to help the poor.

Indeed, these measures would meet one of the key demands of the pope, namely to fight climate change and poverty together, at the same time. However, from the perspective of the encyclical, not all forms of CO2 pricing are unobjectionable. In this regard, the pope is not afraid to venture into the more complex aspects of environmental economics.

When it comes to practical recommendations, even the pope is not infallible

The pope is against emissions trading, or at least he expresses serious concerns about the use of this tool (LS §171). He fears an ensuing speculation on the carbon markets, which would then undermine the effectiveness of this method. His assessment has been met with opposition by experts. It is, in any case, astonishing that a pope is even reflecting on a specific instrument of environmental policy in such detail. Indeed, unlike almost all other Catholic Social Teaching documents, LS has not resisted the temptation to engage in the discussion of specific reform proposals. In this way, the encyclical is raising the suspicion that the pope is claiming authority on scientific matters. However, Pope Francis is not claiming a doctrinal authority in resolving scientific disputes or other conflicts of interest. Rather, it is understood that the pope, when considering specific recommendations for actions, is not claiming doctrinal authority for the underlying factual judgements.[xx] The statements of the encyclical on emissions trading should therefore be understood as an invitation to the experts to engage in a dialogue and to take the pope’s concerns about the effectiveness of this method seriously, or to prove them groundless.

With his criticism of economic growth, the pope is not likely to attract approval from economists either. LS §193 reads: ‘That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.’ However, the latest IPCC report showed that, and how, economic growth and emissions growth can be decoupled through technological progress. ‘Degrowth,’ as a strategy in climate policy, is a very costly option under which the poor would likely suffer the most. Other measures, such as increasing energy efficiency, use of renewable energies and a structural shift towards less resource-intensive lifestyles, are less costly and allow for growth that is environmentally and socially compatible.[xxi]

Politically, the encyclical sees the solution to the global crisis in the interplay of international cooperation, national politics, municipal engagement and the power of an emerging diverse civil society. Some concerned commentators even wondered whether the pope is proposing in LS a ‘world political authority’ (LS §175). Yet, what the pope means is not a world government but the need for international cooperation and coordination among nation states in order to manage and channel the dynamics of globalisation. The encyclical draws on ideas similar to those developed by Elinor Ostrom,[xxii] who proposed that a polycentric governance of global public goods could, among other benefits, allow civil society actors to play an important role alongside government institutions. The encyclical regards civil society movements as a means by which to put pressure on national-level policy-making. For the pope, such movements are not limited to political protest but include empowered consumers and investors who could and should exert pressure on markets through boycotts and opposition (LS §206). Virtue ethics and social reform are not mutually exclusive but rather mutually dependent. Man’s increased empowerment in modernity, made possible through technology, requires heightened awareness of individuals and new forms of institutional responsibility.

Technology and the ‘end of the modern world’

According to Pope Francis, the roots of the ecological crisis lie in the ambivalence of modernity. With repeated references, in Chapter III, to The End of Modern World by Romano Guardini,[xxiii] the encyclical holds that modernity is creating, through technology, new possibilities to control nature. LS essentially sees technology and its possibilities as positive (LS §102). Yet, from the perspective of Guardini, the problem of modernity is that mankind is in denial of these expanded opportunities for power, and so it denies its responsibility. This often tacit refusal means that technology is not consciously created and designed but only executed, in a technocratic fashion and with a sole focus on economic growth and profitability – this then generates organised irresponsibility.[xxiv]

By contrast, the encyclical emphasises that the increased opportunities for control and power allow for more freedom in decision-making; yet this requires ethical judgment. It is against this background that the reflections of the pope on technology should be understood, such as when he calls for greater energy efficiency and the development of renewable energies (LS § 26) or when he expresses concerns about nuclear energy (LS §104, 184). LS is not technology-hostile but calls for a responsible approach and an ethical design of the new possibilities offered by technology. Technological progress is not a juggernaut to which people should be sacrificed; instead it can help to solve the problems of climate change, poverty and inequality.

In his analysis of modernity, the pope points to the great biblical stories of creation, fall, redemption and salvation. When applied to today’s world, these stories teach us that a disfigured earth is not just an expression of a disturbed relationship between God and mankind, but also an expression of violence among people (LS §70). The biblical stories should remind people that humanity awaits accomplishment by God and that it is not doomed to tragic failure. However, averting tragedy will require mankind to face reality and to change its course. In this sense, the encyclical argues not only from a philosophical or natural law perspective but offers a new theological view of the planetary crisis. Laudato si’ is thereby challenging not only politics but, above all, the Christian churches. This creates opportunities for action by the churches in the following areas.

Challenge to the churches

1. Giving the poor a voice: Already today, church aid agencies such as CAFOD and Misereor are making outstanding contributions to combating climate change, poverty and inequality. They should continue the dialogue with the poor and other stakeholders on climate and development policy, and one hopes that they will be able to do so even more forcefully in the future thanks to the support of the pope. The voice of the Vatican in the international climate negotiations of the United Nations could become more audible. The Holy See could become the voice within the circle of the powerful that points again and again to the requirements of ​​the common good, without which the pursuit of national interests is at risk of degenerating to mere power politics.

2. A global initiative in religious educational institutions: The problems of climate change, poverty and inequality call for a well-rounded education encompassing the natural, social and economic sciences, together forming the basis for engaging in an ethical and theological reflection. The Catholic Church has a global education system that includes, in addition to universities, nearly all types of schools. To carry out such an educational initiative would be an important task and opportunity for religious institutions (LS §209‒215).

3. Further development of the social teaching of the Catholic Church: LS carefully dodged the issue of population policy and has not resolved it. It remains unclear which family planning methods the Catholic Church may condone in the future and which it may not. The implications of a growing, declining or stationary population require ethical reflection. In addition, how to ensure a fair globalisation is one of the key questions raised by the encyclical. Unfortunately, the argumentation in this regard is often too simplistic. For example, it proposes that we depart from an uncritical or exaggerated reliance on the market, yet does not propose the measures required to realise such reforms. It would be good to examine which social and economic reforms might help gradually to overcome the most pressing injustices. It could also make concrete proposals for action, as it has successfully done in the past e.g. for the construction of the German welfare state.[xxv]

4. Revision of ecclesiastical economic activity: In most national governments, the ministers of the environment are responsible for the climate problem, and they usually have less power than the ministers of finance and the economy. Yet the latter ministers in particular should concern themselves with the climate issue. After all, if not they, who is to introduce CO2 pricing, abolish subsidies for fossil fuels and make public investments in infrastructure to reduce emissions and improve the plight of the poor? The Church is in a similar situation: the environmental officers in the dioceses have less power and influence than the vicars general and asset managers, who make decisions about the procurement of goods and services and the investment strategy in the capital markets (LS §206). Although the churches are already playing an important role in ethical investment, they could be more active and have a stronger media presence on these matters.

5. Continue the incipient dialogue between the Church and science (LS §199‒201). The encyclical shows that the dialogue between religion and science is not only bringing ethical challenges to the fore, but that it can also help identifying ways to overcome them. The pope sees history not as tragedy but as drama. And in this drama of salvation, mankind is not doomed to failure. Pope Francis reminds his readers that God wants to perfect humanity and that modern reason must engage in a holistic understanding of reality if it wishes to solve its problems. Freedom can only emerge by interweaving science with world interpretation – without this, justice cannot be attained.

A dialogue between unusual partners

Until now, the Church and its social teaching appeared to be merely reacting to the challenges of modernity, and sometimes to be barely capable of meeting them. By contrast, LS is now challenging the world. This encyclical has initiated a dialogue with partners who are unusual for the Church: scientists, diplomats, activists, politicians and those affected. While the pope acknowledges the various contributions of these parties, he also propels and encourages them to take further steps. In the weeks after the release of Laudato si’, the two authors of this article were impressed to see that, worldwide, scientists (even those who consider themselves to be atheists or agnostics), political conservatives who are sceptical of climate policy, and activists who have long since written off the Church, were talking about Pope Francis and his encyclical. However, they are not just talking about him but also with him, because his concern for the ‘common home’ is also their concern.

Ottmar Edenhofer is Director at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), Vice Director at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at Technische Universität Berlin, and Co-Chair of the Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Christian Flachsland is head of the working group on ‘Governance’ at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) and Assistant Professor for Climate and Energy Governance at the Hertie School of Governance.

This text is a translation of an article published in the September 2015 issue of Stimmen der Zeit.

[i] Available online at:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_commons

[iii] See editorials in: Nature 522 (391), ‘Hope from the Pope’ (25 June 2015); Science 345 (6203), ‘The Pope tackles sustainability’ (19 Sep 2014); and Science 349 (6243), ‘The beyond-two-degree inferno’ (3 July 2015). In the latter editorial, the editor of Science, Marcia McNutt writes: ‘I applaud the forthright climate statement of Pope Francis [in Laudato si’], currently our most visible champion for mitigating climate change.’

[iv] See the following conference report published by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility (Vatican City, 2015). Available at:

www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/extraseries/sustainable.html

[v] These positions were clearly manifested in discussions which Ottmar Edenhofer had in 2008 with the then representatives of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

[vi] See, for example, George Weigel, ‘The Sky is not Falling,’ The Catholic Difference, 31 Jan 2002; ibid., ‘The Sixties, Again and Again,’ First Things, April 2008.

[vii] See Bjorn Lomborg, ‘What Pope Francis should do to really help the poor,’ USA Today, 22 June 2015.

[viii] See Ottmar Edenhofer, Johannes Wallacher, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Michael Reder, Brigitte Knopf, Johannes Müller (Eds.), Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability. Linking Climate and Development Policy (Springer, 2012) .

[ix] CELAM Misereor Conferences, Vatican City, 6-7 March 2008 and 2 Oct 2010 in Domus Sanctae Marthae; and the ‘Conference on Climate Change in Asia’ with Asian bishops on 18-20 Oct 2010 in Bangkok. Ottmar Edenhofer participated in all three conferences as a speaker.

[x] On the position of the so-called climate sceptics, see also Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt. How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (New York, 2010).

[xi] https://leonardoboff.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/the-magna-carta-of-integral-ecology-cry-of-the-earth-cry-of-the-poor/

[xii] See https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5

[xiii] Ottmar Edenhofer, Christian Flachsland, Michael Jakob and Jérôme Hilaire, ‚Den Klimawandel stoppen. Es gibt nicht zu wenig, sondern zu viel fossile Ressourcen ‒ sie müssen in der Erde bleiben,‘ Le Monde diplomatique: Atlas der Globalisierung: Weniger wird mehr (2015).

[xiv] See: Ottmar Edenhofer, Christian Flachsland, Kai Lessmann and Michael Jakob, ‘The Atmosphere as a Global Commons - Challenges for International Cooperation and Governance,’ in Willi Semmler and Lucas Bernard (eds.), The Handbook on the Macroeconomics of Climate Change (Oxford, 2015), pp. 260‒296.

[xv] John Locke, Two Treatises on Government [1689], Essay 2, Chapter V, (New Haven, CT, 2003).

[xvi] The position of Catholic Social Teaching on these questions is articulated in: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium on the Social Doctrine of the Church, Chapters 4-III and 10. Available at:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

[xvii] The exact wording of the footnote is: ‘In the social sciences this [the climate problem] is referred to as a “global commons problem.” As this expression is used in the social sciences, it has no specific implications for legal arrangements or for particular criteria regarding effort sharing.’ See IPCC, ‘Summary for Policymakers’, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Ottmar Edenhofer et al.], (Cambridge, 2014).

[xviii] On the challenges and opportunities of a global CO2 pricing scheme, see Ottmar Edenhofer, Michael Jakob, Felix Creutzig, Christian Flachsland, Sabine Fuss, Martin Kowarsch, Kai Lessmann, Linus Mattauch, Jan Siegmeier and Jan Christoph Steckel, ‘Closing the emission price gap,’ Global Environmental Change 31 (2015) 132‒143.

[xix] Michael Jakob, Claudine Chen, Sabine Fuss, Annika Marxen, Narashima D. Rao and Ottmar Edenhofer, ‘Using carbon pricing revenues to finance infrastructure access’. Presentation at the 21st Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. Manuscript (2015):

www.webmeets.com/eaere/2015/m/viewpaper.asp?pid=504

[xx] Unlike factual statements, ethical standards require a doctrinal authorisation, which is applied according to their degree of generality. However, in the scope of this paper, we cannot address the dogmatic and ecclesiological question of what degree of doctrinal authority is to be applied to ethical standards (e.g., the polluter-pays principle as opposed to the double commandment of love God and thy neighbour), the documents of the Church’s social teaching in general and in Laudato si’ in particular. See Richard R. Gaillardetz, ‘The Ecclesiological Foundation of Modern Social Teaching,’ in Kenneth R. Himes (ed.), Modern Social Teaching: Commentaries and Interpretations (Georgetown, 2005), p.89 f.; see also Oswald v. Nell-Breuning, Soziallehre der Kirche (Vienna, 1977), pp. 28‒31.

[xxi] See also Michael Jakob and Ottmar Edenhofer, ‘Green Growth, Degrowth, and the Commons,’ Oxford Review of Economic Policy 30 (2014) 447‒468.

[xxii] Elinor Ostrom, ‘Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales?,’ Economic Theory 49 (2012), 353‒369.

[xxiii] Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World (Wilmington, 1998).

[xxiv] See Franz-Xaver Kaufmann, Der Ruf nach Verantwortung. Risiko und Ethik in einer unüberschaubaren Welt (Freiburg, 1992).

[xxv] See Oswald v. Nell-Breuning, Soziale Sicherheit (Freiburg, 1979).