Tag: responsibility

  • Reading Pope Francis

    Reading Pope Francis

    Recently a friend of mine sent me a link to an Associated Press article about Pope Francis’ recent message for Lent.  The link is here and the article is on a relative basis not bad for something written about Pope Francis.  However, I then read Pope Francis’ own words and was reminded again of the inadvisability of reading about Pope Francis when it is so easy to read Pope Francis!

    The problem with reading about Pope Francis in the press lies in the reality that everything written there is presented through an ideological political left-right prism. This prism through which we tend to view almost every event and circumstance in America (and the West) can only warp the words of our Holy Father who calls each of us to re-examine the way we live our lives both as individuals and as members of society.

    As an example, the AP article states that “Francis has riled some conservative Americans for his denunciation of capitalism and trickle-down economic theory…”

     

    Before “conservative Americans” allow themselves to get too riled and before everyone else spends too much time basking in the warm fuzziness of the general absolution granted by the Associated Press, let us keep in mind that our Holy Father challenges ALL of us to use whatever economic clout we have to combat poverty and to promote justice.  So let none of us give himself a pass but rather let each of us engage in an economic examination of conscience:

    Do I spend each dollar thoughtfully, with the full realization that one dollar spent well is very possibly more effective than my vote in a national election?

     

    ·         To the greatest extent possible do I spend my dollars at businesses that seek to operate on a human scale with justice and moderation:

     

    o   Businesses run by folks who work hard, expect their employees to work hard and seek to treat all their constituents (managers, owners or shareholders, suppliers, employees, customers) with a balanced fairness.

     

    o   Businesses whose practices demonstrate their recognition of the equal dignity of all participants in the economy (and of those at the margins of or largely excluded from the economy).

     

    o   Businesses whose focus is to serve society by providing quality goods and services.

     

    o   Businesses that avoid the temptation to amass economic power.

     

    o   Business who let their work be their work and do not seek to use their economic power to bring about various social changes, particularly those detrimental to society (i.e. donations and other influence peddling aimed at destruction of life, destruction of marriage, destruction of freedom).

     

    o   Businesses willing to take an economic hit in order to better care for their employees.

     

    o   Businesses willing to take an economic hit in order to employ more employees (perhaps at the cost of “efficiency”).

     

    o   Businesses that seek to understand and minimize any detrimental impact their work may have on the environment.

     

    ·         Do I realize that until I am willing to “vote” with my dollars in support of this kind of business then no political vote will relieve me of this responsibility and no political top-down solution will effect positive change?

     

    o   Do I embrace BOTH this economic freedom and this economic responsibility that God has given me?

     

    o   Do I reject the temptation to embrace my freedom while delegating my responsibility to others or (worse) to some corporate or government authority.

     

    ·         Am I willing when necessary to give my dollars away freely to those whose needs are immediate and real?

     

    o   Do I understand that no government program can free me of my responsibility to love and care for my brother?

     

    ·         Am I willing to consume less because “voting” with my dollars will almost certainly mean that my well-spent dollars will not go as far as my dollars do when I simply seek to maximize my buying power?

     

    ·         Do I seek economic power in order that I might do good with it or, rather, do I seek to do good by not accumulating economic power, by embracing poverty?  The second is the way of Christ who “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.”

     

    o   Do I express my frustration toward the cult of the big and powerful by seeking to become big and powerful?

     

    ·         Is financial security a driving force in my economic life?

     

    o   Do I seek to save/plan for MY future needs and MY family’s future (illness, job loss, retirement, children’s education) to the exclusion of generously and sacrificially helping the poor with their imminent needs?

     

                   

     

    While I am grateful the press has taken such a fancy to Pope Francis, I regret their continued attempts to relieve the great majority of us of our individual responsibility to embrace the challenges our good Pope continues to provide to us.  The Pope’s words are meaningless if we view them as being directed to some corporate body rather than being directed to us as individuals (and as individual participants in those same corporate bodies).

  • Are we "Human Capital" or are we Actors Working Out our Own Destiny?

    Are we "Human Capital" or are we Actors Working Out our Own Destiny?

    The Vatican (via the VIS – can be found at www.news.va) released today comments from the Holy Father treating directly with one of the core principles of A Sensible Life: human dignity. I have not yet completed my article on the Six Principles for a Sensible Life but it is in the works and you can be sure that human dignity will be there.

    Following are the words of the Holy Father. Emphases are mine as are italicized comments.

    “Man is nowadays considered in predominantly biological terms or as ‘human capital’, a ‘resource’, part of a dominant productive or financial mechanism. Although we continue to proclaim the dignity of the person, new ideologies – the hedonistic and egotistic claim to sexual and reproductive rights, or unregulated financial capitalism that abuses politics and derails the true economy – contribute to a concept of the worker and his or her labour as ‘minor’ commodities and undermine the natural foundations of society, especially the family. In fact, the human being, …. transcendent by comparison to other beings or earthly goods, enjoys true supremacy and responsibility for himself and for creation. … For Christianity, work is fundamental for man, for his identity, socialisation, the creation of a family and his contribution to peace and the common good. For precisely this reason, the aim of access to work for all is always a priority, even in periods of economic recession.

    Responsibility is another of the Six Principles for a Sensible Life!

    “From new evangelisation of the social sphere, we can derive a new humanism and renewed cultural and prospective commitment”, the Pope continued. The new evangelisation “helps to dethrone modern idols, replacing individualism, materialistic consumerism and technocracy with a culture of fraternity and gratuity, and with mutual love. Jesus Christ summarised these precepts and gave them the form of a new commandment – ‘Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another’ – and here lies the secret of every fully human and pacific social life, as well as the renewal of politics and of national and global institutions. Blessed John XXIII motivated efforts to build a world community, with a corresponding authority precisely on love for the common good of the human family”.

    I have already written elsewhere at A Sensible Life about the central theme of gratuitousness and its importance in understanding ordered relationships between man and man and between man and God. We uphold the dignity of our brothers and sisters by working to ensure they have jobs, by helping them when they are in need, by giving without expectation of return – in this way we live a culture of fraternity and gratuity. We do not live fraternity or gratuity when we abdicate our responsibility to take care of our brothers and sisters or when we attempt to pass this responsibility along to government.

    “The Church certainly does not have the task of suggesting, from a judicial or political point of view, the precise configuration of an international system of this type, but rather offers a set of principles for reflection, criteria for judgement and practical guidelines able to guarantee an anthropological and ethical structure for the common good. However, it is important to note that one should not envisage a superpower, concentrated in the hands of the few, dominating all peoples and exploiting the weakest among them, but rather that such an authority should be understood primarily as a moral force, a power to influence according to reason, or rather as a participatory authority, limited in competence and by law”, concluded the Holy Father.

    Confirmation! No superpower government is going to take on our responsibility for upholding the dignity of our brothers and sisters. We must do it. We must work to teach and convert those around us; convince our culture of the need to take human dignity seriously and, in the U.S., work to restore to individuals those freedoms and responsibilities that will allow individuals to serve each other in fraternity and gratuity.

  • Thrift vs. the Green Movement

    Thrift vs. the Green Movement

    The modern Green Movement represents a profound departure from man’s ancient obligation to practice Thrift. In fact, one might almost say that the two ideas are diametrically opposed. This may seem odd given that Thrift with its impetus towards moderation in using the resources gifted to man in creation as well as by its focus on stewardship and guardianship of these same resources shares many common goals or objectives with the Green Movement.

    The root of the distinction between Thrift and the Green Movement lies just there, at the root and source of these ideals. That is, the distinction flows from beliefs about the nature of things (and people). Thrift finds its roots in its understanding of man, who man is, what his relationship is with nature and, therefore, what his responsibilities are toward nature. The Green Movement, on the other hand, finds its roots in a denial of man, a denial of man’s relationship with nature and a denial of man’s role as guardian. One might almost say that the Green Movement is the Anti-Thrift.

    Are my ideas too strongly stated? Let’s look at a couple examples.

    How about the way we should treat animals? Thrift (and its associated virtues) would tell us we should treat animals well because they are gifts to us from a Creator who expects us to care for them. Thrift would also tell us that animals have use to us as human beings (whether it be as companions, beasts of burden or sources of food and clothing) and that by being good guardians of these creatures we will, in addition to doing the right thing, be enhancing their usefulness to us and ensuring they will continue to live and prosper and continue to fulfill our needs (physical, aesthetic, spiritual) and those of our children. The Green Movement, on the other hand, would tell us that our obligation toward animals derives from the animals’ equal status with us as co-inhabitants of nature. Therefore we have no rights where they are concerned and our obligations to them are limited to a sort of non-interference. This view of our relationship with animals is not only illogical but it results in a very impoverished understanding of our relationship to nature, an impoverished understanding of our obligations to nature. Rather than the robust and positive view proposed by Thrift, the Green Movement proposes a neutral or even negative view of our obligation. Rather than cultivating, beautifying and enriching, our role is simply to do as little damage as possible.

    Let’s look at the related example of the care of our forests, and the animals in them. Thrift would tell us to enjoy our forests, use the abundant resources to be found in them, live in them, ensure the endurance and prosperity of at least large sections of them and maintain (or increase) their beauty and health. Thrift would tell us to care for the streams and rivers within our forests both because of their beauty and goodness and for their value as a source of water and fish. What of the Green Movement? Well, the predecessors of the Green Movement (those who practiced conservation) have stopped all logging in our forests and have spent years doing their best to put out all forest fires within their eaves. And now these same folks and their big government allies are moving to limit all human access to the forests. Rather than following the path of Thrift that would have led to a rational planned use of our forests, including thinning the forests and using the lumber gained from the thinning for legitimate human needs, we now have overly dense forests (many times more dense than they were 100 years ago) that are subject to devastating fires that simply destroy the timber. Additionally, of course, they kill countless animals and wreak havoc on the forest streams. This is what happens when we practice conservation rather than Thrift.

    I will not go on. I will simply conclude by saying that in A Sensible Life we will propose ideas aimed at living Thrift – sensibly, rationally and with an eye toward goodness and beauty.

    And because we cannot end without a word from Chesterton, here is one from What’s Wrong with the World, “If a man could undertake to make use of all things in his dustbin he would be a broader genius than Shakespeare.” I’m sure he meant no disrespect to Shakespeare…