ZENIT in Roswell, Georgia, United States "A Cry for Help From Carmelite Nuns in Aleppo..." for Friday, 5 August 2016
ForwardA Cry for Help From Carmelite Nuns in Aleppo by Marta Petrosillo
“The situation is a complicated and we are hearing many contradictory stories. The only truth we do know is that the people here are suffering and dying.”
The words are those of Sister Anne-Françoise, a French religious of the Enclosed and Apostolic Discalced Carmelite Sisters of Aleppo, Syria. She spoke by telephone with international Catholic pastoral charity Aid to the Church in Need about the agony of Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city, where fighting between the Syrian government and rebel forces has greatly intensified in recent weeks.
The convent of these nuns is on the outskirts of Aleppo, an area seriously affected by the fighting. The nun reported: “When the Syrian army attempts to prevent the opposition and other groups from entering into the city, the bombing and shelling come really close to us. Thanks be to God, they haven’t hit us yet, but we are constantly hearing the shells pass over our heads.”
The Carmelite nuns, four of whom are Syrian and two French, have taken in a number of refugee families in a building adjoining their convent, while also supporting other families with the few resources at their disposal. “By now it is only the poorest of the people who are still left here in Aleppo. So many Christians have left the city during these years of war. We have no water, no electricity, and the fighting is continuing incessantly. Who could possibly come back in these conditions,” the sister asked.
Needless to say, the six nuns are afraid as well, but they are determined to stay close to the people. Sister Anne-Françoise said: “How can we abandon these people in their suffering? The witness of our presence is important for them. We draw strength and courage from prayer; this is our protection. The diplomatic solutions have not worked. We simply pray to the Lord that this war may stop.”
After years of fighting, and of an unceasing Christian exodus, Sister Anne-Françoise is fearful that more and more families will abandon Aleppo, a city that has been a symbol of Christianity in Syria. Since 2011—when the Syrian civil war began—a population of 160,000 Christians in the city had dwindled to barely 40,000.
“The Middle East, the land of Christ, now risks losing its Christians. That is unthinkable, and the situation is truly terrible. And even for those who leave, the crisis does not end. They find themselves uprooted from their own soil and sometimes even lose their spiritual roots,” the sister said.
The sisters’ appeal to the international community and to all Christians throughout the world is this: “Please take pity on these thousands of lives, torn apart by war. Please don’t forget us. We need your prayers and your practical help!”
—
Aid to the Church in Need is an international Catholic charity under the guidance of the Holy See, providing assistance to the suffering and persecuted Church in more than 140 countries. www.churchinneed.org (USA); www.acnuk.org (UK); www.aidtochurch.org (AUS); www.acnireland.org (IRL); www.acn-aed-ca.org (CAN)www.acnmalta.org (Malta)
Why Does Mass Last an Hour? by ZENIT Staff
This reflection is by Mike Eisenbath and was first published at the blogof the Catholic Writers’ Guild.
__
We call the drive time to and from work “rush hour,” but it can seem so much longer. We call social time with friends after the workday a “happy hour,” yet it feels much shorter when we’re having a good time. A college class, a grueling workout at the gym, a kids’ basketball or soccer game, all can last about an hour, though the quality can affect if that hour feels swift or tedious. Most recipes for lasagna call for an hour in the oven, painfully interminable if you’re really hungry.
A TV cop show takes an hour. A session with a mental health therapist lasts for an hour. And, of course, most Roman Catholics in the United States usually plan on an hour for Sunday Mass. Sure, it’s not always the case. Weekday Masses, without long communion lines and music, are shorter. Special Masses, such as Christmas and Easter Vigil, can take a good bit more time.
That leads me to wonder: Why does Mass have to last an hour?
For some people, that is far too time-consuming. I’m sure it did for the teenagers I saw across the aisle from me this morning. Their body language made it exceedingly clear the recessional song couldn’t come soon enough. I’m sure others, of all ages, find themselves thinking the same way while sitting in church pews from Honolulu to New York virtually every week. To them, Mass is insipid and mind-numbing; the prayers, songs and homilies strike them as painfully uninspiring, irrelevant, repetitive.
Wait. Perhaps you have the wrong idea. Allow me to ask that question again, in the way I actually meant: Why does Sunday Mass have to last only an hour? The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the Mass “the source and summit of the Christian life.” As such, it should be the holiest hour of the 168 we receive each week. We should hunger for that hour, maybe even to the point of celebrating the Eucharist during the week.
The average American watches more than five hours of television every day. More than 18 million people spent an average of $84 apiece to watch an NFL game live in 2014, games that last three hours. The average American gamer spends more than six hours a week playing video games. People in the United States – which has been called “the fattest country in the world” – even spend more time weekly exercising (two hours a week) than faithful Catholics do at the most important activity in their lives.
“If it’s important, you’ll find a way,” millionaire entrepreneur Ryan Blair once
said. “If it’s not, you’ll find an excuse.”
I’m not going to lecture anyone about necessary improvements to the way we do liturgy in the American Church. In some respects, the quality of liturgy is in the soul of the beholder. There is no one-style-pleases-all Mass.
But Jesus is the same. The Real Presence is ever there. The faith is unchanging, ubiquitous in every church, at every Mass. Sadly, a fact of modern Catholic life is that not every person knows that faith, understands that faith, manifests that faith. Not only do many Catholics fail to embrace the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence, many don’t even know the Church teaches that. Perhaps most distressing, many Catholics never would claim any genuine relationship with Jesus – including a whole bunch sitting in a pew at a Sunday Mass near you.
Yet again I ask: Why does Mass have to last only an hour? Maybe there were logistical reasons once upon a time, when there were so many scheduled Masses each Sunday that they had to be spaced no more than 1½ hours apart. Our current relative shortage of priests coupled with the dramatically reduced Mass population means many churches have them spaced out two hours apart or more.
For a variety of reasons, the Catholics who do attend Mass consider it important; they found a way to be there. The Church thus has a somewhat captive audience, most of whom never will attend a Scripture study, prayer group, retreat, service project or other outreach of ministry the rest of the week. The Church could capitalize on the face-time opportunity to catechize and evangelize.
I’m not suggesting dramatic measures. How about five minutes before Mass begins to lead people in prayer designed specifically to prepare the hearts and minds for worship and reception of the Eucharist? Seize the moment to water the spiritual garden of thirsty souls. How about five to eight minutes right after distribution of Holy Communion for some catechism and evangelism? Train folks to explain Carmelite spirituality, for instance, or why the subject of religious freedom is so important to the Catholic Church, perhaps share some of the more fascinating stories about saints or elucidate the Church’s doctrine on Purgatory. Invite a recently baptized catechumen to proclaim what they love about their new Catholic faith or a member of a specific ministry to reveal their passion for the work they do.
Done well, the extra 10-15 minutes could lead to better understanding, deeper faith and maybe greater appreciation for the Eucharistic experience. To an engaged Catholic, a Mass lasting an hour and 15 minutes might actually feel shorter than the one-hour version that bores them today.
Syrian Olympic Swimmer Saved 20 Refugees by Swimming Their Sinking Boat to Shore by ZENIT Staff
From Vatican Radio:
The opening ceremony of the Olympic Games kicks off Friday evening in Rio de Janeiro. And for the first time, a team of refugee athletes from around the world will compete in the Games.
Just braving the dangers of escaping oppressive situations of conflict and persecution isn’t enough for some people. They want to show the world their resilience and untapped talent.
And the United Nations refugee agency is giving them that opportunity by hosting the first ever team of refugee athletes to compete in the Olympic Games in Rio.
Ten refugees were chosen from the more than 59.5 million people displaced from their homes around the world to form the Refugee Olympic Athletes team.
The squad is made up of two Syrian swimmers, two judokas from the Democratic Republic of Congo, a marathon runner from Ethiopia, and five middle-distance runners from South Sudan.
Former marathon world record holder Tegla Loroupe is the Mission Head for the Refugee Team.
“I’m seeing the champions here. I’m seeing world records among this people. We just started in October last year, and these people came from very difficult situations. To have refugee status is not easy: You are nobody. You are somebody but you are nobody in the eyes of others.”
One of the team’s swimmers, Syrian Yusra Mardini, saved her own life and those of 20 other refugees as their boat began taking on water off the Greek coast.
She and her sister jumped into the water and began pushing their boat towards the Greek coast.
Miz. Mardini said her participation in the Games represents hope for all refugees.
“I want to represent all the refugees because I want to show everyone that, after the pain, after the storm, comes calm days. I want everyone not to give up on their dreams.”
The Olympic Games run until August 21 and will see some 11,000 athletes participate from 205 countries.
(from Vatican Radio)
Why Does Mass Last an Hour? by ZENIT Staff
This reflection is by Mike Eisenbath and was first published at the blogof the Catholic Writers’ Guild.
__
We call the drive time to and from work “rush hour,” but it can seem so much longer. We call social time with friends after the workday a “happy hour,” yet it feels much shorter when we’re having a good time. A college class, a grueling workout at the gym, a kids’ basketball or soccer game, all can last about an hour, though the quality can affect if that hour feels swift or tedious. Most recipes for lasagna call for an hour in the oven, painfully interminable if you’re really hungry.
A TV cop show takes an hour. A session with a mental health therapist lasts for an hour. And, of course, most Roman Catholics in the United States usually plan on an hour for Sunday Mass. Sure, it’s not always the case. Weekday Masses, without long communion lines and music, are shorter. Special Masses, such as Christmas and Easter Vigil, can take a good bit more time.
That leads me to wonder: Why does Mass have to last an hour?
For some people, that is far too time-consuming. I’m sure it did for the teenagers I saw across the aisle from me this morning. Their body language made it exceedingly clear the recessional song couldn’t come soon enough. I’m sure others, of all ages, find themselves thinking the same way while sitting in church pews from Honolulu to New York virtually every week. To them, Mass is insipid and mind-numbing; the prayers, songs and homilies strike them as painfully uninspiring, irrelevant, repetitive.
Wait. Perhaps you have the wrong idea. Allow me to ask that question again, in the way I actually meant: Why does Sunday Mass have to last only an hour? The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the Mass “the source and summit of the Christian life.” As such, it should be the holiest hour of the 168 we receive each week. We should hunger for that hour, maybe even to the point of celebrating the Eucharist during the week.
The average American watches more than five hours of television every day. More than 18 million people spent an average of $84 apiece to watch an NFL game live in 2014, games that last three hours. The average American gamer spends more than six hours a week playing video games. People in the United States – which has been called “the fattest country in the world” – even spend more time weekly exercising (two hours a week) than faithful Catholics do at the most important activity in their lives.
“If it’s important, you’ll find a way,” millionaire entrepreneur Ryan Blair once
said. “If it’s not, you’ll find an excuse.”I’m not going to lecture anyone about necessary improvements to the way we do liturgy in the American Church. In some respects, the quality of liturgy is in the soul of the beholder. There is no one-style-pleases-all Mass.
But Jesus is the same. The Real Presence is ever there. The faith is unchanging, ubiquitous in every church, at every Mass. Sadly, a fact of modern Catholic life is that not every person knows that faith, understands that faith, manifests that faith. Not only do many Catholics fail to embrace the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence, many don’t even know the Church teaches that. Perhaps most distressing, many Catholics never would claim any genuine relationship with Jesus – including a whole bunch sitting in a pew at a Sunday Mass near you.
Yet again I ask: Why does Mass have to last only an hour? Maybe there were logistical reasons once upon a time, when there were so many scheduled Masses each Sunday that they had to be spaced no more than 1½ hours apart. Our current relative shortage of priests coupled with the dramatically reduced Mass population means many churches have them spaced out two hours apart or more.
For a variety of reasons, the Catholics who do attend Mass consider it important; they found a way to be there. The Church thus has a somewhat captive audience, most of whom never will attend a Scripture study, prayer group, retreat, service project or other outreach of ministry the rest of the week. The Church could capitalize on the face-time opportunity to catechize and evangelize.
I’m not suggesting dramatic measures. How about five minutes before Mass begins to lead people in prayer designed specifically to prepare the hearts and minds for worship and reception of the Eucharist? Seize the moment to water the spiritual garden of thirsty souls. How about five to eight minutes right after distribution of Holy Communion for some catechism and evangelism? Train folks to explain Carmelite spirituality, for instance, or why the subject of religious freedom is so important to the Catholic Church, perhaps share some of the more fascinating stories about saints or elucidate the Church’s doctrine on Purgatory. Invite a recently baptized catechumen to proclaim what they love about their new Catholic faith or a member of a specific ministry to reveal their passion for the work they do.
Done well, the extra 10-15 minutes could lead to better understanding, deeper faith and maybe greater appreciation for the Eucharistic experience. To an engaged Catholic, a Mass lasting an hour and 15 minutes might actually feel shorter than the one-hour version that bores them today.
Syrian Olympic Swimmer Saved 20 Refugees by Swimming Their Sinking Boat to Shore by ZENIT Staff
From Vatican Radio:
The opening ceremony of the Olympic Games kicks off Friday evening in Rio de Janeiro. And for the first time, a team of refugee athletes from around the world will compete in the Games.
Just braving the dangers of escaping oppressive situations of conflict and persecution isn’t enough for some people. They want to show the world their resilience and untapped talent.
And the United Nations refugee agency is giving them that opportunity by hosting the first ever team of refugee athletes to compete in the Olympic Games in Rio.
Ten refugees were chosen from the more than 59.5 million people displaced from their homes around the world to form the Refugee Olympic Athletes team.
The squad is made up of two Syrian swimmers, two judokas from the Democratic Republic of Congo, a marathon runner from Ethiopia, and five middle-distance runners from South Sudan.
Former marathon world record holder Tegla Loroupe is the Mission Head for the Refugee Team.
“I’m seeing the champions here. I’m seeing world records among this people. We just started in October last year, and these people came from very difficult situations. To have refugee status is not easy: You are nobody. You are somebody but you are nobody in the eyes of others.”
One of the team’s swimmers, Syrian Yusra Mardini, saved her own life and those of 20 other refugees as their boat began taking on water off the Greek coast.
She and her sister jumped into the water and began pushing their boat towards the Greek coast.
Miz. Mardini said her participation in the Games represents hope for all refugees.
“I want to represent all the refugees because I want to show everyone that, after the pain, after the storm, comes calm days. I want everyone not to give up on their dreams.”
The Olympic Games run until August 21 and will see some 11,000 athletes participate from 205 countries.
(from Vatican Radio)
The Contribution of Religion to Research and Biomedical Practice by ZENIT Staff
Bioethics Observatory – Catholic University of Valencia
As a general rule, bioethical debates deal with the questions raised by scientific-technical breakthroughs in the field of research and biomedical practice. The swiftness with which these advances take place calls into question whether moral philosophy —and in particular theological ethics— can provide answers to the new questions raised, or whether it should capitulate to strategic ethics.
In the last few months, the Journal of Medical Ethics has reignited the debate about the place of religion in medical ethics. Nigel Biggar, Professor of Moral Theology at Oxford University [1], has criticised the moral ambiguity of secular ethics, which often obliges us “to settle for a somewhat messy compromise” [1]. Biggar denies that religious logic is irrational, and admonishes intellectuals to overcome their “scientistic” prejudices and recognise that moral theology is a repository of genuinely convincing and illuminating principles. Biggar’s theory is contested by Kevin Smith, professor at Abertay University in Dundee [2]; Brian Earp, researcher at Oxford University [3]; and Xavier Symons of Sydney Catholic University [4].
Smith’s criticism of Biggar’s arguments centres on the following: firstly, the principles of theological ethics are not universal, since they appeal to divine authority instead of rational discourse; furthermore, they were formulated when the possibilities of contemporary technology for detecting prenatal disease early on, creating and maintaining embryonic life outside the maternal womb, or eliminating intrauterine life using techniques that are safe for the pregnant woman were still unknown. Only “secular” ethics, he adds, guarantee discussion based on ethical principles open to rational analysis. He concludes that only utilitarianism has the potential to attract a universal consensus, because happiness and suffering are, respectively, highly valued and deprecated by all agents who participate in the debate.
Brian Earp also disagrees that religion should have a place as such in discussion forums on medical ethics. His fear is that the Episcopal Conferences, which citing Mencimer he defines as “a group of celibate older men” [6], can establish health care directives. If so, he warns, non-believers would have to accept the banning of abortion, prescription of contraceptives and voluntary sterilisation, as well as the disregard of the healthcare system for living wills that involve, if necessary, withdrawal of assisted feeding or other life support measures [3]. Nevertheless, Earp recognises that Biggar rules out all appeals to authority, “whether to that of the Bible, or the Pope or the Qur’an” [1], which makes his proposal inoffensive and unnecessary. Ultimately, he explains, the concept of religion proposed by Biggar is analogous to “moral philosophy”, and it manages as an ordinary tool to persuade instead of to impose. As a result, his claim is both uncontroversial and irrelevant [3].
Along the same line, Xavier Symons disputes that religion — understood as a system of divine worship — has a place in the secular medical debate. Negotiation, for Symons, precludes that rival proposals are accused of being blinded by sin. However, theist moral philosophy does merit a place in medical ethics, since its reasonings are rational statements with respect to the moral order inscribed by God in the teleological structure of human nature, i.e. respect for the natural law [4].
Biggar’s response to his detractors has been cordial, but convincing. He reproaches Smith, on one hand, for not properly distinguishing between popular religion and theological ethics. On the other, that he maintains a utopian view of the possibility of reaching a universal ethical consensus from the premises of utilitarianism. Biggar accuses Smith of relying on a strictly empiricist concept of reason that contemporary philosophy, reopened to metaphysics, surpassed some time ago. The divine command and ethical reasons are not opposed, but operate at different levels (foundational and normative, respectively). It is also untrue that theological ethics is out of touch with the advances of contemporary medicine. For more than 50 years, specialists in religious ethics have contributed to reflection on the possibilities of reproductive technology and genetic engineering. With respect to the likelihood of utilitarianism to attract a universal consensus, Biggar appeals to the Kantian objections to utilitarianism, which have been evolving for 200 years and have no sign of subsiding [5].
To Earp he responds that theological ethics does not seek to impose its precepts under the threat of eternal damnation. This is, precisely, the prejudice of utilitarianism against religion, which it considers authoritarian, dogmatic and irrational. This prejudice, Biggar warns him, could also be applied to utilitarianism when expressed in an authoritative and intimidating manner. Specialists in religious ethics, however, use the persuasion techniques typical of philosophy, on the basis of standard ethical concepts such as human flourishing, goods and virtues, rights and obligations, the intention and consequences of our acts. It happens, yes, that religious convictions about the existence of God, the ordered nature of the world, the sinful condition of the human being and post-mortem reward for a virtuous life shape a specific understanding of ethical concepts. Religious ethics are therefore not very different from secular ethics insofar as the method is concerned; they are however in content, since, occasionally, atheist philosophers and moral theologians can reach the same conclusion. In the end, the objective moral order is perfectly accessible to the human intellect not distorted by vices. In any case, an openly liberal public forum will recognise that there are two interpretations on how to access reality: empiricism and metaphysics. Therefore, a particular position must not be confused with reason itself. Secularism, although it thinks that its point of view is the right one, must have sufficient humility and generosity to recognise that theists think exactly the same, and not to colonise “reason” by dismissing religion as simply irrational [5].
Finally, Biggar agrees with Symons that the concept “religion” is too broad to refer to medical ethics. His proposal, rather, refers to a rationally developed ethic that is ultimately based on religious beliefs. These beliefs are rational and can be defended as such, as they entail belief in a moral order that is part of human nature: the natural law. Theist moral philosophy, adds Biggar, makes it clear that “religious belief and philosophical method need not be alternatives”. However, Biggar believes that Symons underestimates the degree and persistence of ethical disagreement that exists in the “secular” forum. Human reason is finite and some of us love the wrong good; furthermore, human reason is vulnerable to sin, i.e. to deliberately choose the bad. This, whatever way Symons looks at it, is not a merely “Augustinian” or “Thomistic” point of view, but an empirical observation [5].
Our assessment
The debate in the preceding paragraphs is both real and artificial. It is real because, in effect, it is happening, but it is artificial because it should have been considered concluded some time ago with a clear outcome: the impugnment of theses that exclude religious ethics from the secular medical debate. In this respect, we believe that Nigel Biggar’s arguments are conclusive. They suggest, first of all, that religious beliefs can be expressed in terms accessible to reason; second, theological ethics uses persuasion and the deliberative method as a tool of expression; third, the immediate experience of consciousness is often based on religious beliefs; fourth, that scientistic empiricism limits the capacity of access to a universal truth; and finally, that utilitarianism has not been able to arouse a global ethical consensus. We understand, therefore, that a medical ethic detached from fundamental beliefs about the reality of its speakers and target audience is doomed to unsustainable solitude. If medical ethics sidesteps the basic metaphysical assumptions, it is left speechless to comprehend human life and the reach that scientific theories have in its general context.
It is true that the experience of moral obligation, i.e. in the opinion of conscience, does not presuppose faith in God. In itself, it is an immediate experience. However, as R. Spaemann notes, that experience can “be dissolved in reflection as in an acid”, and only the idea of a divine mandate backs its unconditionality. For this reason — and although faith in God is not a requirement for true ethical judgements or moral convictions — it ontologically establishes the claims to truth. In any case, opening up to the truth is not beyond the personal experience of he who seeks it, and if this includes a relationship with God, why must it be excluded? It is incomprehensible that experts in ethics who have religious beliefs are reproached for starting from an assumption, as if those who make this criticism do not start from some premise. In his reply to Xavier Symons, Biggar concludes that it would be unjust to reduce the Catholic ethical perspective to Thomism, since it is also the result of empirical observation. We share this view. Furthermore, we would also like to add that empiricism is not entitled to artificially eliminate the spiritual dimension, which belongs to the human experience on which ethics thematically reflects.
References:
Biggar N. Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine. Journal Medical Ethics 2015; 41:229–233.
Smith, K. Religion, secular medicine and utilitarianism: a response to Biggar. Journal Medical Ethics 2015; 41:867–869.
Earp, BD. Does religion deserve a place in secular medicine? Journal Medical Ethics 2015; 41:865–866.
Symons X. On the univocity of rationality: a response to Nigel Biggar’s ‘Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine’. Journal Medical Ethics 2015; 41:870–872.
Biggar N. Religion’s place at the table of ‘secular’ medical ethics: a response to the commentaries. Journal Medical Ethics 2015; 41:873–874.
Mencimer S. Do bishops run your hospital? Mother Jones, 2013.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/catholic-hospitals-bishops-contraceptionabortion-health-care
Spaemann, R. Sobre Dios y el mundo (J. M. Barrio, Trad.). Palabra, 2014.
Enrique Burguete
Bioethics Observatory
Catholic University of Valencia
Bioethics Observatory – Catholic University of Valencia
As a general rule, bioethical debates deal with the questions raised by scientific-technical breakthroughs in the field of research and biomedical practice. The swiftness with which these advances take place calls into question whether moral philosophy —and in particular theological ethics— can provide answers to the new questions raised, or whether it should capitulate to strategic ethics.
In the last few months, the Journal of Medical Ethics has reignited the debate about the place of religion in medical ethics. Nigel Biggar, Professor of Moral Theology at Oxford University [1], has criticised the moral ambiguity of secular ethics, which often obliges us “to settle for a somewhat messy compromise” [1]. Biggar denies that religious logic is irrational, and admonishes intellectuals to overcome their “scientistic” prejudices and recognise that moral theology is a repository of genuinely convincing and illuminating principles. Biggar’s theory is contested by Kevin Smith, professor at Abertay University in Dundee [2]; Brian Earp, researcher at Oxford University [3]; and Xavier Symons of Sydney Catholic University [4].
Smith’s criticism of Biggar’s arguments centres on the following: firstly, the principles of theological ethics are not universal, since they appeal to divine authority instead of rational discourse; furthermore, they were formulated when the possibilities of contemporary technology for detecting prenatal disease early on, creating and maintaining embryonic life outside the maternal womb, or eliminating intrauterine life using techniques that are safe for the pregnant woman were still unknown. Only “secular” ethics, he adds, guarantee discussion based on ethical principles open to rational analysis. He concludes that only utilitarianism has the potential to attract a universal consensus, because happiness and suffering are, respectively, highly valued and deprecated by all agents who participate in the debate.
Brian Earp also disagrees that religion should have a place as such in discussion forums on medical ethics. His fear is that the Episcopal Conferences, which citing Mencimer he defines as “a group of celibate older men” [6], can establish health care directives. If so, he warns, non-believers would have to accept the banning of abortion, prescription of contraceptives and voluntary sterilisation, as well as the disregard of the healthcare system for living wills that involve, if necessary, withdrawal of assisted feeding or other life support measures [3]. Nevertheless, Earp recognises that Biggar rules out all appeals to authority, “whether to that of the Bible, or the Pope or the Qur’an” [1], which makes his proposal inoffensive and unnecessary. Ultimately, he explains, the concept of religion proposed by Biggar is analogous to “moral philosophy”, and it manages as an ordinary tool to persuade instead of to impose. As a result, his claim is both uncontroversial and irrelevant [3].
Along the same line, Xavier Symons disputes that religion — understood as a system of divine worship — has a place in the secular medical debate. Negotiation, for Symons, precludes that rival proposals are accused of being blinded by sin. However, theist moral philosophy does merit a place in medical ethics, since its reasonings are rational statements with respect to the moral order inscribed by God in the teleological structure of human nature, i.e. respect for the natural law [4].
Biggar’s response to his detractors has been cordial, but convincing. He reproaches Smith, on one hand, for not properly distinguishing between popular religion and theological ethics. On the other, that he maintains a utopian view of the possibility of reaching a universal ethical consensus from the premises of utilitarianism. Biggar accuses Smith of relying on a strictly empiricist concept of reason that contemporary philosophy, reopened to metaphysics, surpassed some time ago. The divine command and ethical reasons are not opposed, but operate at different levels (foundational and normative, respectively). It is also untrue that theological ethics is out of touch with the advances of contemporary medicine. For more than 50 years, specialists in religious ethics have contributed to reflection on the possibilities of reproductive technology and genetic engineering. With respect to the likelihood of utilitarianism to attract a universal consensus, Biggar appeals to the Kantian objections to utilitarianism, which have been evolving for 200 years and have no sign of subsiding [5].
To Earp he responds that theological ethics does not seek to impose its precepts under the threat of eternal damnation. This is, precisely, the prejudice of utilitarianism against religion, which it considers authoritarian, dogmatic and irrational. This prejudice, Biggar warns him, could also be applied to utilitarianism when expressed in an authoritative and intimidating manner. Specialists in religious ethics, however, use the persuasion techniques typical of philosophy, on the basis of standard ethical concepts such as human flourishing, goods and virtues, rights and obligations, the intention and consequences of our acts. It happens, yes, that religious convictions about the existence of God, the ordered nature of the world, the sinful condition of the human being and post-mortem reward for a virtuous life shape a specific understanding of ethical concepts. Religious ethics are therefore not very different from secular ethics insofar as the method is concerned; they are however in content, since, occasionally, atheist philosophers and moral theologians can reach the same conclusion. In the end, the objective moral order is perfectly accessible to the human intellect not distorted by vices. In any case, an openly liberal public forum will recognise that there are two interpretations on how to access reality: empiricism and metaphysics. Therefore, a particular position must not be confused with reason itself. Secularism, although it thinks that its point of view is the right one, must have sufficient humility and generosity to recognise that theists think exactly the same, and not to colonise “reason” by dismissing religion as simply irrational [5].
Finally, Biggar agrees with Symons that the concept “religion” is too broad to refer to medical ethics. His proposal, rather, refers to a rationally developed ethic that is ultimately based on religious beliefs. These beliefs are rational and can be defended as such, as they entail belief in a moral order that is part of human nature: the natural law. Theist moral philosophy, adds Biggar, makes it clear that “religious belief and philosophical method need not be alternatives”. However, Biggar believes that Symons underestimates the degree and persistence of ethical disagreement that exists in the “secular” forum. Human reason is finite and some of us love the wrong good; furthermore, human reason is vulnerable to sin, i.e. to deliberately choose the bad. This, whatever way Symons looks at it, is not a merely “Augustinian” or “Thomistic” point of view, but an empirical observation [5].
Our assessment
The debate in the preceding paragraphs is both real and artificial. It is real because, in effect, it is happening, but it is artificial because it should have been considered concluded some time ago with a clear outcome: the impugnment of theses that exclude religious ethics from the secular medical debate. In this respect, we believe that Nigel Biggar’s arguments are conclusive. They suggest, first of all, that religious beliefs can be expressed in terms accessible to reason; second, theological ethics uses persuasion and the deliberative method as a tool of expression; third, the immediate experience of consciousness is often based on religious beliefs; fourth, that scientistic empiricism limits the capacity of access to a universal truth; and finally, that utilitarianism has not been able to arouse a global ethical consensus. We understand, therefore, that a medical ethic detached from fundamental beliefs about the reality of its speakers and target audience is doomed to unsustainable solitude. If medical ethics sidesteps the basic metaphysical assumptions, it is left speechless to comprehend human life and the reach that scientific theories have in its general context.
It is true that the experience of moral obligation, i.e. in the opinion of conscience, does not presuppose faith in God. In itself, it is an immediate experience. However, as R. Spaemann notes, that experience can “be dissolved in reflection as in an acid”, and only the idea of a divine mandate backs its unconditionality. For this reason — and although faith in God is not a requirement for true ethical judgements or moral convictions — it ontologically establishes the claims to truth. In any case, opening up to the truth is not beyond the personal experience of he who seeks it, and if this includes a relationship with God, why must it be excluded? It is incomprehensible that experts in ethics who have religious beliefs are reproached for starting from an assumption, as if those who make this criticism do not start from some premise. In his reply to Xavier Symons, Biggar concludes that it would be unjust to reduce the Catholic ethical perspective to Thomism, since it is also the result of empirical observation. We share this view. Furthermore, we would also like to add that empiricism is not entitled to artificially eliminate the spiritual dimension, which belongs to the human experience on which ethics thematically reflects.
References:
Biggar N. Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine. Journal Medical Ethics 2015; 41:229–233.
Smith, K. Religion, secular medicine and utilitarianism: a response to Biggar. Journal Medical Ethics 2015; 41:867–869.
Earp, BD. Does religion deserve a place in secular medicine? Journal Medical Ethics 2015; 41:865–866.
Symons X. On the univocity of rationality: a response to Nigel Biggar’s ‘Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine’. Journal Medical Ethics 2015; 41:870–872.
Biggar N. Religion’s place at the table of ‘secular’ medical ethics: a response to the commentaries. Journal Medical Ethics 2015; 41:873–874.
Mencimer S. Do bishops run your hospital? Mother Jones, 2013.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/catholic-hospitals-bishops-contraceptionabortion-health-care
Spaemann, R. Sobre Dios y el mundo (J. M. Barrio, Trad.). Palabra, 2014.
Enrique Burguete
Bioethics Observatory
Catholic University of Valencia
Medical and Ethical Problems of Producing Human Organs in Animal Chimeras by ZENIT Staff
From the archives:
From the Bioethics Observatory at the Catholic University of Valencia, Spain
The major medical and social problems in organ transplantation owing to the increasing shortage of donor organs is well known. Solutions must therefore be sought in the fairly near future that can resolve these issues. One of these is the production of animal chimeras in which quasi-human organs can be developed. This has been attempted using human embryonic stem cells injected into mice (Nature 521; 316-321, 2015), but the practice raises significant problems, from both a medical and ethical perspective.
The main difficulty from a medical point of view is that, since this is an allogeneic material, it can give rise to as yet unresolved problems with immune rejection. The use of embryonic stem cells also entails what I would call insurmountable ethical difficulties, since obtaining these types of cells requires the destruction of human embryos. Furthermore, the transplanted human cells can colonise the organs of the recipient animal, so animals may be generated with practically human organs, which means great new ethical challenges.
Aside from the use of human embryonic stem cells, though, new possibilities have now been opened for these types of experiments with the development of adult somatic cell reprogramming from which so-called iPS cells can be derived. Since these can be obtained from somatic cells of the individual requiring the transplant, they minimise immune rejection. This is an attractive therapeutic possibility that looks likely to be implemented in the fairly near future.
An interesting article on this topic was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics last year (41; 970-974, 2015).
The article begins by making extensive reference to the problems that can arise in patients who are awaiting transplants, which, in addition to diminishing their quality of life, can sometimes lead to death.
It also refers to the attempts made by various countries to resolve this issue, particularly with policies that encourage donation and other medical interventions, such as xenotransplantation, the creation of bioartificial organs and construction of bionic organs. Given that all three possibilities present as yet unresolved technical problems, the possibility of producing organs in animals using human iPS cells offers significant advantages.
The article continues by referring to the medical potential of pluripotent cells, since these cells — the aforementioned iPS cells (click HERE) — have been able to be produced in the laboratory since 2006, by reprogramming adult somatic cells.
Recent Japanese studies have shown that organs (thymus and pancreas) can be produced in animal chimeras using iPS cells obtained from rat somatic cells and injected into the blastocysts of mutated mice. The authors confirmed that these cells integrated with the murine embryos, and were able to develop the desired tissues and organs.
However, these types of experiments present major problems that must be resolved (see “Human-animal chimeras for use in regenerative medicine”), one of which could be the risk of zoonosis, i.e. the chance that a mutated animal virus could be transmitted to human beings, with the possibility of creating a pandemic. While the risk of this happening is minimal — lower than in the case of xenotransplantation, as the organs produced would be quasi-human — it must nevertheless be taken into account due to the magnitude of the potential problem.
In conclusion, although producing quasi-human organs in animals offers enormous possibilities for resolving the scarcity of organs for transplantation, all the medical and ethical problems that these techniques entail must be resolved before they can be used in human medicine
Hong Kong Bishop Writes on Communion of Church in China With Universal Church by ZENIT Staff
“The communion of the Church in China with the universal Church” by John Cardinal Tong, Bishop of Hong Kong
Original language: Chinese (An article published in Kung Kao Po, Issue 3781)
Prologue
The Catholic Church is founded by Christ and transmitted through the apostles as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church. From the day Catholicism entered China, China’s
Catholic Church has always kept these four marks. However, since the establishment of
the new China in 1949, the unity between the Catholic Church in China and the universal
Church has become more and more difficult. Following the expulsion of Archbishop
Antonio Riberi, the Apostolic Internuncio of the Holy See to China, in 1951, contact
between the Catholic Church in China and the universal Church has been deeply wounded.
Therefore, it can be said that from this point on the Catholic Church in China lost its communion with the universal Church in an external sense, but in an essential sense, is
not a schismatic Church. On the contrary, it is a Church that actively seeks to resume its
communion with the universal Church.
But communion with the universal Church should not just be a spiritual connection, it
should also be expressed through the concrete action of the Roman Pontiff appointing
local bishops. From the point of view of the Catholic Church, the appointment of bishops
by the pope is an internal and purely religious affair that has nothing to do with politics.
But over the last 60 years this has not been understood by the Chinese government, so it
has been difficult for the pope to formally appoint Chinese bishops and the communion
between the Church in China and the universal Church has not been manifest.
Fortunately, after working for many years on this issue, the Catholic Church has gradually
gained the reconsideration of the Chinese government, which is now willing to reach an
understanding with the Holy See on the question of the appointment of bishops in the
Catholic Church in China and seek a mutually acceptable plan. On one hand, the goal is
not to harm the unity of the Catholic Church and the essential right of the Roman Pontiff
to appoint bishops, and on the other, not to let the pope’s right to appoint bishops be
considered an interference in the internal affairs of China.
While being glad that the effort of the last few popes has finally achieved some early
results, many people in mainland China and in the international arena who are concerned
about the Catholic Church in China are worried. They doubt the possibility of reaching an agreement; they wonder if Vatican officials or the pope himself may go against the principles of the Church and aim their criticism and strong reproaches at certain Vatican officials. They even directly pinpoint their attack on the current pope, claiming that Pope Francis has violated the principles of the Church upheld by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Even though the concrete terms of the mutual agreement have not been made public, we believe that Pope Francis, as the protector of the unity and communion of the universal Church, would not accept any agreement that would harm the integrity of faith of the universal Church or the communion between the Catholic Church in China and the universal Church. He would only sign an agreement that would promote the unity and communion of the Church in China with the universal Church.
Since there are many Chinese priests who are concerned about the Church in China, I
think we ought to give them a clear and comprehensible explanation of these issues of
concern, clearly stating the consistent stance of the Church regarding the following
questions in order to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding:
• Why does the Holy See persistently insist on dialogue rather than confronting the
Chinese government?
• What does it mean by communion between the particular Churches and the universal
Church?
• On what criteria should the bishops in the local Churches of mainland China be
appointed?
• What role does the so-called Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China have? and what is its relationship with individual dioceses?
The significance of Sino-Vatican negotiations
When the gospel enters into any country, ethnic group or culture, it is not to replace, destroy or to harm the country, ethnic group or culture, but to fulfil the primordial purpose of God at the beginning of creation, which is to bring people to participate in the life of God. Pope Francis said during his interview with Asia Times on January 28 this year that it is the responsibility of the Roman Catholic Church to respect all civilisations and this is true also with respect to the Chinese civilisation, which the Catholic Church honours extremely highly. Yet the gospel does not enter into a country, ethnic group or culture in an abstract way, but concretely through the person of Christians. It is these messengers of the gospel that have put human cloaks on the gospel.
People will more easily experience, understand and accept the gospel if Christians themselves live out its spirit and values—charity, peace and mercy. Yet if Christians themselves, due to some constraints that they themselves are facing, have caused the expression of the gospel to become a kind of “threat,” or the Christians themselves have no intention to “threaten,” but due to their identity as “outsiders” are suspected of having “conspired,” then, the spread of the gospel will be hindered.
The reasons the transmission of the Christian gospel into the society and culture of China
have met stumbling blocks and several-times been prohibited from developing are none
other than these. In fact, the spread and development of Catholicism in China still face these challenges; at least some Chinese are still doubtful in their hearts about the spread of Catholicism in China. In dealing with this scepticism of the Chinese people, we should not complain that the kindness of Christians is not being understood, since complaint does not positively transform the doubts of others, and nor should we wait passively for these doubts to automatically disappear sometime in the future. The evangelical mission of the Catholic Church to the people in China urges us to act pro-actively, so that we do not just wait and wander along passively. Therefore, the way to help certain people to let go of their misunderstanding and scepticism about the Catholic Church is through proactive dialogue and communication.
Without doubt, the process from not understanding, misunderstanding to understanding, trust, acceptance and friendship, cannot be achieved overnight. Just as mutual recognition and trust between people are not simply realised through the language each other uses, but is built upon acts of mutual goodwill, our mutual understanding does not rely only on language, but also on how we act towards one another. What is more, mutual trust cannot be completely achieved through a one-time action; the only way is through long-term and consistent goodwill and action. Since the reopening of mainland China in the 1980s, the Catholic Church has countless times, through Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict and the current Pope Francis, actively extended olive branches to China, to communicate its goodwill for dialogue. Both sides have also sent delegations for mutual visits to carry out face-to-face meetings. In its two-decade-long goodwill and patient communication, the Holy See has responded with persistent humility and patience rather than hostile words when being misunderstood. This demonstrates the respect the Catholic Church has for the people of China. She wishes to give time for the people of China to slowly come to know her, so that they will come to understand that she is not an enemy of the country or an outside invader. She has no hostility towards the people of China. She is their friend and is willing to help them to better pursue their own meaning of life. As I have stressed many times, what can unlock the heart is humility, patience and persistent dialogue—this exactly is the road of heaven.
Even though God is the master of the universe, he did not use violence to impose his own plans on humanity. On the contrary, when his plan was misunderstood and rejected by human beings, he spoke patiently with them. The bible records that he first sent the prophets, but they were not accepted by men and were even killed. But God did not give up. In the end he sent his only-begotten Son. But his Son was also killed by men. If we were to think humanly, God is the greatest loser. Yet, it is the death of his Son that is the greatest opportunity for God to reveal his love and the best opportunity for us to know who God is. The death of his Son is the strongest word God has spoken to mankind and is the climax of the dialogue between God and humanity. God does not use violence to
conquer the human race. He uses dialogue, humility and patience to move mankind, so
that it may willingly and whole-heartedly accept the invitation of God.
The method of dialogue between God and humanity is what we Christians should model
ourselves on in seeking dialogue with other parties. The several-decades-long dialogue
between the Holy See and Beijing has also shown these characteristics; gentility, humility, sincerity, patience. The agreement, as a first step between the Holy See and Beijing, is the exact fruit of this kind of dialogue. It is a move from not understanding and not trusting to understanding and trust. It is a win-win situation, for friends will support each other and enrich each other’s lives. The agreement between the Holy See and Beijing is an example of human dialogue, the beginning of the normalisation of a mutual relationship. Dialogue can henceforth continue based on this mutual trust.
The purpose of dialogue:
Religious freedom and the communion between the Catholic Church in China with the
universal Church
As mentioned above, the objective of dialogue between the Holy See and Beijing is to
remove any misunderstanding the Chinese government has and allow the people of China
to know in a more objective manner the positive meaning and value the Catholic Church has to society and to the people of China. In sum, the goal of the dialogue between the Holy See and Beijing is to strive for and protect the rightful religious freedom and rights of the Catholic Church in China that are written in the Chinese Constitution. Through dialogue, the Holy See hopes to point out that the Catholic Church respects the legal sovereignty of the country, the legitimate power and responsibility of its rulers and its laws. Thus, the religious freedom pursued by the Church is not only the natural right of man as man, but what helps mankind strive for truth, kindness, beauty and holiness, as well as improve human relationships together with the harmony and stability of society.[1] What is spread by the Catholic Church in China is not just a gospel for the individual, but also a gospel for the whole of society.
Some people criticise the content and objective of the dialogue between the Holy See and Beijing, claiming that the Holy See has not openly criticised China’s policies on human rights and has not attempted to change certain political policies of the Chinese
government. They say it seems that the Holy See has given up certain values that it has
upheld. This kind of criticism is unfair. Pope Benedict has clearly stated in his 2007 Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China that the Church is certainly concerned about social justice and will not give up striving for social justice, but the Church should not confuse its duty and jurisdiction with that of the government. The mission of the Catholic Church is not to change the institution or administrative agency of nations. It cannot and should not
intervene in political struggles. Rather, it should realise the above targets through rational thought and the awakening of spiritual power. Without giving up its principles, it should resolve problems through communication with the legitimate political power and not through continuous confrontation.[2] Christ the Lord did not use the sword, but in his sacrifice won salvation and true freedom for humanity. Therefore, the Catholic Church should also dialogue with Beijing with an attitude of “respect and charity.” The dialogue is of course not to sacrifice its principles. [3] If it were not for the purpose of protecting the truth and the principles of the Church, why would the Church repeatedly try to dialogue with Beijing?
Communion between the Church in China and the universal Church
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him
should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). As is said in the Gospel of St. John, the salvific plan of God is for all people. Therefore, there is only one people of God and this kingdom is not of an earthly, but heavenly nature. Its citizens come from among all peoples. To realise this plan of the Father, the Lord Jesus has from the beginning called 12 apostles and “he formed them after the manner of a college or a stable group, over which he placed Peter, who was chosen from among them. “He sent them first to the children of Israel and then to all nations (cf. Romans 1:16), so that as sharers in his power they might make all peoples his disciples, and sanctify and govern them. “Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, he gathered together the universal Church, which the Lord established on the apostles and built upon blessed Peter, their chief, Christ Jesus himself being the
From the archives:
From the Bioethics Observatory at the Catholic University of Valencia, Spain
The major medical and social problems in organ transplantation owing to the increasing shortage of donor organs is well known. Solutions must therefore be sought in the fairly near future that can resolve these issues. One of these is the production of animal chimeras in which quasi-human organs can be developed. This has been attempted using human embryonic stem cells injected into mice (Nature 521; 316-321, 2015), but the practice raises significant problems, from both a medical and ethical perspective.
The main difficulty from a medical point of view is that, since this is an allogeneic material, it can give rise to as yet unresolved problems with immune rejection. The use of embryonic stem cells also entails what I would call insurmountable ethical difficulties, since obtaining these types of cells requires the destruction of human embryos. Furthermore, the transplanted human cells can colonise the organs of the recipient animal, so animals may be generated with practically human organs, which means great new ethical challenges.
Aside from the use of human embryonic stem cells, though, new possibilities have now been opened for these types of experiments with the development of adult somatic cell reprogramming from which so-called iPS cells can be derived. Since these can be obtained from somatic cells of the individual requiring the transplant, they minimise immune rejection. This is an attractive therapeutic possibility that looks likely to be implemented in the fairly near future.
An interesting article on this topic was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics last year (41; 970-974, 2015).
The article begins by making extensive reference to the problems that can arise in patients who are awaiting transplants, which, in addition to diminishing their quality of life, can sometimes lead to death.
It also refers to the attempts made by various countries to resolve this issue, particularly with policies that encourage donation and other medical interventions, such as xenotransplantation, the creation of bioartificial organs and construction of bionic organs. Given that all three possibilities present as yet unresolved technical problems, the possibility of producing organs in animals using human iPS cells offers significant advantages.
The article continues by referring to the medical potential of pluripotent cells, since these cells — the aforementioned iPS cells (click HERE) — have been able to be produced in the laboratory since 2006, by reprogramming adult somatic cells.
Recent Japanese studies have shown that organs (thymus and pancreas) can be produced in animal chimeras using iPS cells obtained from rat somatic cells and injected into the blastocysts of mutated mice. The authors confirmed that these cells integrated with the murine embryos, and were able to develop the desired tissues and organs.
However, these types of experiments present major problems that must be resolved (see “Human-animal chimeras for use in regenerative medicine”), one of which could be the risk of zoonosis, i.e. the chance that a mutated animal virus could be transmitted to human beings, with the possibility of creating a pandemic. While the risk of this happening is minimal — lower than in the case of xenotransplantation, as the organs produced would be quasi-human — it must nevertheless be taken into account due to the magnitude of the potential problem.
In conclusion, although producing quasi-human organs in animals offers enormous possibilities for resolving the scarcity of organs for transplantation, all the medical and ethical problems that these techniques entail must be resolved before they can be used in human medicine
Hong Kong Bishop Writes on Communion of Church in China With Universal Church by ZENIT Staff
Original language: Chinese (An article published in Kung Kao Po, Issue 3781)
Prologue
The Catholic Church is founded by Christ and transmitted through the apostles as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church. From the day Catholicism entered China, China’s
Catholic Church has always kept these four marks. However, since the establishment of
the new China in 1949, the unity between the Catholic Church in China and the universal
Church has become more and more difficult. Following the expulsion of Archbishop
Antonio Riberi, the Apostolic Internuncio of the Holy See to China, in 1951, contact
between the Catholic Church in China and the universal Church has been deeply wounded.
Therefore, it can be said that from this point on the Catholic Church in China lost its communion with the universal Church in an external sense, but in an essential sense, is
not a schismatic Church. On the contrary, it is a Church that actively seeks to resume its
communion with the universal Church.
But communion with the universal Church should not just be a spiritual connection, it
should also be expressed through the concrete action of the Roman Pontiff appointing
local bishops. From the point of view of the Catholic Church, the appointment of bishops
by the pope is an internal and purely religious affair that has nothing to do with politics.
But over the last 60 years this has not been understood by the Chinese government, so it
has been difficult for the pope to formally appoint Chinese bishops and the communion
between the Church in China and the universal Church has not been manifest.
Fortunately, after working for many years on this issue, the Catholic Church has gradually
gained the reconsideration of the Chinese government, which is now willing to reach an
understanding with the Holy See on the question of the appointment of bishops in the
Catholic Church in China and seek a mutually acceptable plan. On one hand, the goal is
not to harm the unity of the Catholic Church and the essential right of the Roman Pontiff
to appoint bishops, and on the other, not to let the pope’s right to appoint bishops be
considered an interference in the internal affairs of China.
While being glad that the effort of the last few popes has finally achieved some early
results, many people in mainland China and in the international arena who are concerned
about the Catholic Church in China are worried. They doubt the possibility of reaching an agreement; they wonder if Vatican officials or the pope himself may go against the principles of the Church and aim their criticism and strong reproaches at certain Vatican officials. They even directly pinpoint their attack on the current pope, claiming that Pope Francis has violated the principles of the Church upheld by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Even though the concrete terms of the mutual agreement have not been made public, we believe that Pope Francis, as the protector of the unity and communion of the universal Church, would not accept any agreement that would harm the integrity of faith of the universal Church or the communion between the Catholic Church in China and the universal Church. He would only sign an agreement that would promote the unity and communion of the Church in China with the universal Church.
Since there are many Chinese priests who are concerned about the Church in China, I
think we ought to give them a clear and comprehensible explanation of these issues of
concern, clearly stating the consistent stance of the Church regarding the following
questions in order to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding:
• Why does the Holy See persistently insist on dialogue rather than confronting the
Chinese government?
• What does it mean by communion between the particular Churches and the universal
Church?
• On what criteria should the bishops in the local Churches of mainland China be
appointed?
• What role does the so-called Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China have? and what is its relationship with individual dioceses?
The significance of Sino-Vatican negotiations
When the gospel enters into any country, ethnic group or culture, it is not to replace, destroy or to harm the country, ethnic group or culture, but to fulfil the primordial purpose of God at the beginning of creation, which is to bring people to participate in the life of God. Pope Francis said during his interview with Asia Times on January 28 this year that it is the responsibility of the Roman Catholic Church to respect all civilisations and this is true also with respect to the Chinese civilisation, which the Catholic Church honours extremely highly. Yet the gospel does not enter into a country, ethnic group or culture in an abstract way, but concretely through the person of Christians. It is these messengers of the gospel that have put human cloaks on the gospel.
People will more easily experience, understand and accept the gospel if Christians themselves live out its spirit and values—charity, peace and mercy. Yet if Christians themselves, due to some constraints that they themselves are facing, have caused the expression of the gospel to become a kind of “threat,” or the Christians themselves have no intention to “threaten,” but due to their identity as “outsiders” are suspected of having “conspired,” then, the spread of the gospel will be hindered.
The reasons the transmission of the Christian gospel into the society and culture of China
have met stumbling blocks and several-times been prohibited from developing are none
other than these. In fact, the spread and development of Catholicism in China still face these challenges; at least some Chinese are still doubtful in their hearts about the spread of Catholicism in China. In dealing with this scepticism of the Chinese people, we should not complain that the kindness of Christians is not being understood, since complaint does not positively transform the doubts of others, and nor should we wait passively for these doubts to automatically disappear sometime in the future. The evangelical mission of the Catholic Church to the people in China urges us to act pro-actively, so that we do not just wait and wander along passively. Therefore, the way to help certain people to let go of their misunderstanding and scepticism about the Catholic Church is through proactive dialogue and communication.
Without doubt, the process from not understanding, misunderstanding to understanding, trust, acceptance and friendship, cannot be achieved overnight. Just as mutual recognition and trust between people are not simply realised through the language each other uses, but is built upon acts of mutual goodwill, our mutual understanding does not rely only on language, but also on how we act towards one another. What is more, mutual trust cannot be completely achieved through a one-time action; the only way is through long-term and consistent goodwill and action. Since the reopening of mainland China in the 1980s, the Catholic Church has countless times, through Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict and the current Pope Francis, actively extended olive branches to China, to communicate its goodwill for dialogue. Both sides have also sent delegations for mutual visits to carry out face-to-face meetings. In its two-decade-long goodwill and patient communication, the Holy See has responded with persistent humility and patience rather than hostile words when being misunderstood. This demonstrates the respect the Catholic Church has for the people of China. She wishes to give time for the people of China to slowly come to know her, so that they will come to understand that she is not an enemy of the country or an outside invader. She has no hostility towards the people of China. She is their friend and is willing to help them to better pursue their own meaning of life. As I have stressed many times, what can unlock the heart is humility, patience and persistent dialogue—this exactly is the road of heaven.
Even though God is the master of the universe, he did not use violence to impose his own plans on humanity. On the contrary, when his plan was misunderstood and rejected by human beings, he spoke patiently with them. The bible records that he first sent the prophets, but they were not accepted by men and were even killed. But God did not give up. In the end he sent his only-begotten Son. But his Son was also killed by men. If we were to think humanly, God is the greatest loser. Yet, it is the death of his Son that is the greatest opportunity for God to reveal his love and the best opportunity for us to know who God is. The death of his Son is the strongest word God has spoken to mankind and is the climax of the dialogue between God and humanity. God does not use violence to
conquer the human race. He uses dialogue, humility and patience to move mankind, so
that it may willingly and whole-heartedly accept the invitation of God.
The method of dialogue between God and humanity is what we Christians should model
ourselves on in seeking dialogue with other parties. The several-decades-long dialogue
between the Holy See and Beijing has also shown these characteristics; gentility, humility, sincerity, patience. The agreement, as a first step between the Holy See and Beijing, is the exact fruit of this kind of dialogue. It is a move from not understanding and not trusting to understanding and trust. It is a win-win situation, for friends will support each other and enrich each other’s lives. The agreement between the Holy See and Beijing is an example of human dialogue, the beginning of the normalisation of a mutual relationship. Dialogue can henceforth continue based on this mutual trust.
The purpose of dialogue:
Religious freedom and the communion between the Catholic Church in China with the
universal Church
As mentioned above, the objective of dialogue between the Holy See and Beijing is to
remove any misunderstanding the Chinese government has and allow the people of China
to know in a more objective manner the positive meaning and value the Catholic Church has to society and to the people of China. In sum, the goal of the dialogue between the Holy See and Beijing is to strive for and protect the rightful religious freedom and rights of the Catholic Church in China that are written in the Chinese Constitution. Through dialogue, the Holy See hopes to point out that the Catholic Church respects the legal sovereignty of the country, the legitimate power and responsibility of its rulers and its laws. Thus, the religious freedom pursued by the Church is not only the natural right of man as man, but what helps mankind strive for truth, kindness, beauty and holiness, as well as improve human relationships together with the harmony and stability of society.[1] What is spread by the Catholic Church in China is not just a gospel for the individual, but also a gospel for the whole of society.
Some people criticise the content and objective of the dialogue between the Holy See and Beijing, claiming that the Holy See has not openly criticised China’s policies on human rights and has not attempted to change certain political policies of the Chinese
government. They say it seems that the Holy See has given up certain values that it has
upheld. This kind of criticism is unfair. Pope Benedict has clearly stated in his 2007 Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China that the Church is certainly concerned about social justice and will not give up striving for social justice, but the Church should not confuse its duty and jurisdiction with that of the government. The mission of the Catholic Church is not to change the institution or administrative agency of nations. It cannot and should not
intervene in political struggles. Rather, it should realise the above targets through rational thought and the awakening of spiritual power. Without giving up its principles, it should resolve problems through communication with the legitimate political power and not through continuous confrontation.[2] Christ the Lord did not use the sword, but in his sacrifice won salvation and true freedom for humanity. Therefore, the Catholic Church should also dialogue with Beijing with an attitude of “respect and charity.” The dialogue is of course not to sacrifice its principles. [3] If it were not for the purpose of protecting the truth and the principles of the Church, why would the Church repeatedly try to dialogue with Beijing?
Communion between the Church in China and the universal Church
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him
should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). As is said in the Gospel of St. John, the salvific plan of God is for all people. Therefore, there is only one people of God and this kingdom is not of an earthly, but heavenly nature. Its citizens come from among all peoples. To realise this plan of the Father, the Lord Jesus has from the beginning called 12 apostles and “he formed them after the manner of a college or a stable group, over which he placed Peter, who was chosen from among them. “He sent them first to the children of Israel and then to all nations (cf. Romans 1:16), so that as sharers in his power they might make all peoples his disciples, and sanctify and govern them. “Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, he gathered together the universal Church, which the Lord established on the apostles and built upon blessed Peter, their chief, Christ Jesus himself being the
supreme cornerstone.”[4] In sum, “The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.”[5] It is only through communion with the Roman Pontiff that there is communion with the universal Church and that anyone can become a member of the Catholic Church.
Communion with the Roman Pontiff is a manner of realising communion with the universal
Church and a sign of communion with the universal Church.
The above principles are applicable to the Catholic Church in China too. In both spirit and in form, communion with the universal Church is necessarily achieved through communion with the Roman Pontiff, so that the Catholic Church in China becomes part of the universal Church. Pope Benedict said in his 2007 Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China: “As you know, the profound unity which binds together the local Churches found in China, and which likewise places them in intimate communion with all the other local Churches throughout the world, has its roots not only in the same faith and in a common Baptism, but above all in the Eucharist and in the episcopate. “Likewise, the unity of the episcopate, of which ‘the Roman Pontiff, as the Successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation’, continues down the centuries through the apostolic succession and is the
foundation of the identity of the Church in every age with the Church built by Christ on
Peter and on the other Apostles. “Catholic doctrine teaches that the Bishop is the visible source and foundation of unity in the local Church entrusted to his pastoral ministry. But in every local Church, in order that she may be fully Church, there must be present the supreme authority of the Church, that is to say, the episcopal College together with its Head, the Roman Pontiff, and never apart from him. “Therefore the ministry of the Successor of Peter belongs to the essence of every local Church ‘from within’. Moreover, the communion of all the local Churches in the one Catholic Church, and hence the ordered hierarchical communion of all the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, with the Successor of Peter, are a guarantee of the unity of the faith and life of all Catholics. It is therefore indispensable, for the unity of the Church in individual nations, that every Bishop should be in communion with the other Bishops, and that all should be in visible and concrete communion with the Pope.”[6]
The expression and practice of communion between the Church in China and the universal
Church
The appointment of local bishops is the expression of the communion between local
Churches and the universal Church. The Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium (The
Dogmatic Constitution of the Church) says this about the appointment of a local bishop:
“The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not
been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or
recognised by the same authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any
office.”[7] In other words, local Churches have no authority to appoint their own bishops.
Only under the permission or appointment of the Roman Pontiff can anyone become the
shepherd of a local Church.[8] As a result, it can be seen that the local bishops’
conferences do not have any authority that is independent from that of the Roman Pontiff
to decide on and to appoint local bishops. Local bishops’ conferences can only exercise
their authority to teach and shepherd local Churches with the permission of the pope. [9] Secular political power does not have any authority to appoint local bishops, for “the
apostolic office of bishops was instituted by Christ the Lord and pursues a spiritual and
supernatural purpose. “This sacred ecumenical synod declares that the right of nominating
and appointing bishops belongs properly, peculiarly, and per se exclusively to the
competent ecclesiastical authority. “Therefore, for the purpose of duly protecting the freedom of the Church and of promoting more conveniently and efficiently the welfare of the faithful, this holy council desires that in the future no more rights or privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation for the office of bishop be granted to civil authorities.” [10]
The above principles are applicable to the way the Holy See deals with the Catholic Church in China. Pope Benedict clearly expresses in his Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China that “the claim of some entities, desired by the State and extraneous to the structure of the Church, to place themselves above the Bishops and to guide the life of the ecclesial community, does not correspond to Catholic doctrine, according to which the Church is ‘apostolic’, as the Second Vatican Council underlined. “The Church is apostolic ‘in her origin because she has been built on ‘the foundation of the apostles’ (Ephesians 2:20). She is apostolic in her teaching, which is the same as that of the apostles. “‘She is apostolic by reason of her structure insofar as she is taught, sanctified and guided until Christ returns the
Church and a sign of communion with the universal Church.
The above principles are applicable to the Catholic Church in China too. In both spirit and in form, communion with the universal Church is necessarily achieved through communion with the Roman Pontiff, so that the Catholic Church in China becomes part of the universal Church. Pope Benedict said in his 2007 Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China: “As you know, the profound unity which binds together the local Churches found in China, and which likewise places them in intimate communion with all the other local Churches throughout the world, has its roots not only in the same faith and in a common Baptism, but above all in the Eucharist and in the episcopate. “Likewise, the unity of the episcopate, of which ‘the Roman Pontiff, as the Successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation’, continues down the centuries through the apostolic succession and is the
foundation of the identity of the Church in every age with the Church built by Christ on
Peter and on the other Apostles. “Catholic doctrine teaches that the Bishop is the visible source and foundation of unity in the local Church entrusted to his pastoral ministry. But in every local Church, in order that she may be fully Church, there must be present the supreme authority of the Church, that is to say, the episcopal College together with its Head, the Roman Pontiff, and never apart from him. “Therefore the ministry of the Successor of Peter belongs to the essence of every local Church ‘from within’. Moreover, the communion of all the local Churches in the one Catholic Church, and hence the ordered hierarchical communion of all the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, with the Successor of Peter, are a guarantee of the unity of the faith and life of all Catholics. It is therefore indispensable, for the unity of the Church in individual nations, that every Bishop should be in communion with the other Bishops, and that all should be in visible and concrete communion with the Pope.”[6]
The expression and practice of communion between the Church in China and the universal
Church
The appointment of local bishops is the expression of the communion between local
Churches and the universal Church. The Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium (The
Dogmatic Constitution of the Church) says this about the appointment of a local bishop:
“The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not
been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or
recognised by the same authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any
office.”[7] In other words, local Churches have no authority to appoint their own bishops.
Only under the permission or appointment of the Roman Pontiff can anyone become the
shepherd of a local Church.[8] As a result, it can be seen that the local bishops’
conferences do not have any authority that is independent from that of the Roman Pontiff
to decide on and to appoint local bishops. Local bishops’ conferences can only exercise
their authority to teach and shepherd local Churches with the permission of the pope. [9] Secular political power does not have any authority to appoint local bishops, for “the
apostolic office of bishops was instituted by Christ the Lord and pursues a spiritual and
supernatural purpose. “This sacred ecumenical synod declares that the right of nominating
and appointing bishops belongs properly, peculiarly, and per se exclusively to the
competent ecclesiastical authority. “Therefore, for the purpose of duly protecting the freedom of the Church and of promoting more conveniently and efficiently the welfare of the faithful, this holy council desires that in the future no more rights or privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation for the office of bishop be granted to civil authorities.” [10]
The above principles are applicable to the way the Holy See deals with the Catholic Church in China. Pope Benedict clearly expresses in his Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China that “the claim of some entities, desired by the State and extraneous to the structure of the Church, to place themselves above the Bishops and to guide the life of the ecclesial community, does not correspond to Catholic doctrine, according to which the Church is ‘apostolic’, as the Second Vatican Council underlined. “The Church is apostolic ‘in her origin because she has been built on ‘the foundation of the apostles’ (Ephesians 2:20). She is apostolic in her teaching, which is the same as that of the apostles. “‘She is apostolic by reason of her structure insofar as she is taught, sanctified and guided until Christ returns the
apostles through their successors who are the bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter’”; “to implement ‘the principles of independence and autonomy, self-management and democratic administration of the Church’ is incompatible with Catholic doctrine.” [11] Therefore, in realising its communion with the universal Church, the Church in China is not any different from any other local Church. They all need to obey the highest teaching and administrative authority of the Roman Pontiff. But because inside China there are people who are sceptical and worried about the Roman Pontiff having the final decision-making power on the appointment of local bishops in the Catholic Church, the appointment of bishops has become the most sensitive issue in this mutual relationship.
Despite the fact that the Holy See insists on appointing bishops for the sake of protecting
the unity and the community of the Church, when a bishop is appointed, the pope is
exercising his highest spiritual authority and this authority in no way involves interfering in the internal political affairs or violating the sovereignty of the country. Still, the pope understands that the Chinese government is concerned about the influence the Catholic bishops may have on society.
Consequently, the Holy See is willing to dialogue on the issue on the appointment of
bishops in the Church in China and to reach a mutually acceptable consensus under the
premises that the principles of the Catholic faith and of ecclesial communion are not
violated, for dialogue does not run counter to the hierarchical communion of the Church.
[12] On the appointment of Catholic bishops, canon 377 of the Code of Canon Law of the
Catholic Church says:
§1. The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected.
§2. At least every three years, bishops of an ecclesiastical province or, where
circumstances suggest it, of a conference of bishops, are in common counsel and in secret
to compose a list of presbyters, even including members of institutes of consecrated life, who are more suitable for the episcopate.
They are to send it to the Apostolic See, without prejudice to the right of each bishop
individually to make known to the Apostolic See the names of presbyters whom he
considers worthy of and suited to the episcopal function.
§3. Unless it is legitimately established otherwise, whenever a diocesan or coadjutor
bishop must be appointed, as regards what is called the ternus to be proposed to the
Apostolic See, the pontifical legate is to seek individually and to communicate to the
Apostolic See together with his own opinion the suggestions of the metropolitan and
suffragans of the province to which the diocese to be provided for belongs or with which it is joined in some grouping, and the suggestions of the president of the conference of bishops.
The pontifical legate, moreover, is to hear some members of the college of consultors and
cathedral chapter and, if he judges it expedient, is also to seek individually and in secret the opinion of others from both the secular and non-secular clergy and from laity
outstanding in wisdom.
§4. Unless other provision has been legitimately made, a diocesan bishop who judges that an auxiliary should be given to his diocese is to propose to the Apostolic See a list of at least three presbyters more suitable for this office.
§5. In the future, no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or
designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities.
It is clear from the canon on the appointment of bishops in the Code of Canon Law that
the appointment of local bishops by the pope is purely a Church affair. The Church
reserves this privilege and authority to itself, and does not give any privilege or special permission of election, appointment, presentation or designation to the political authority of the country.
There are mainly two ways the pope appoints local bishops. First, the pope himself freely
appoints. Second, the pope approves as bishop the person elected in accordance with legal
provisions. Here, the legal provisions of course refer to those accepted as legitimate by the Catholic Church. [13] If there is no legal provision on which the candidates for the episcopacy ought to be based, then the pope will use his own judgement to appoint
bishops, without being restricted by any civil or religious power. When the pope freely appoints bishops, he will seek the opinion of people within the Church and choose the most suitable person from a list of candidates. People to be consulted include: bishops of the other dioceses of the same province, the national bishops’ conference, the current or previous bishop of the diocese and the pontifical legate. The pontifical legate makes a personal visit to seek the opinion of a local Church. After the investigation, a list of candidates is reported to the pope based on the results of the investigation. The list of names includes the candidates he considers to be suitable and the candidates which the metropolitan of the province, the bishops belonging to the same province or the suffragan entities of the province, consider suitable. Canon Law also requires that the pontifical legate listen to the opinions of members of the college of consultors and cathedral chapter, and if he considers it beneficial, secretly seek the opinion of other clerics serving in the diocese and that of lay people with outstanding wisdom.
The above are the main principles generally followed in the election and appointment of
bishops in the Catholic Church. In concrete practice, they may be adjusted according to
what is feasible in the local situation. In appointing bishops all over the world, the Catholic Church chooses ways that do not violate the principles of faith and communion according to the specific circumstances. For instance, the so-called Vietnam model is what the Apostolic See tailored to suit the situation of the Catholic Church in Vietnam. On the election of bishops by the Apostolic See and the Chinese government, the Apostolic See should not be criticised over the way it decides on the appointment of bishops in the
Church in China, so long as the above principles are not violated. Regarding the
appointment of bishops in the Church in China, the Apostolic See has the right to set up special provisions to target the specific circumstances faced by the Church in China. This does not violate the principles of faith nor destroy the communion and unity of the Church.
Currently, there is still no bishops’ conference accepted by the Apostolic See in the Church in China. If the Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China, after fulfilling the basic requirements of the Church, is in the future accepted by the Apostolic See as legitimate, it, or the bishops in the provinces under it, would have the right and responsibility to recommend episcopal candidates they consider as suitable to the pope.
This is totally in accordance with the tradition of faith of the Church and does not destroy the communion and unity of the Catholic Church. If the agreement reached between the Apostolic See and Beijing included contents regarding the episcopal candidates for China recommended by a pontifically approved bishops’ conference of China, we should not consider that the Church has sacrificed its own communion with and the administrative right of the pope in the Church in China. Certainly, a bishops’ conference in China, once legally constituted and recognised, and the bishops in the provinces under it would only have the power of recommendation, while the power of final decision would still be reserved to the Apostolic See. The Apostolic See has the right to choose from the recommended list the candidates it considers as most suitable and the right to reject the candidates recommended by a bishops’ conference of China and the bishops in the provinces under it. In such cases, the process of consultation would commence again.
On the bishops’ conference in China
A local bishops’ conference has the right to recommend episcopal candidates to the
Apostolic See. Yet, for reasons obvious to all, some bishops of the Catholic Church in
mainland China “under the pressure of particular circumstances, have consented to receive episcopal ordination without a pontifical mandate, but have subsequently asked to be received into communion with the Successor of Peter and with their other brothers in the episcopate. “The Pope, considering the sincerity of their sentiments and the complexity of the situation, and taking into account the opinion of neighbouring Bishops, by virtue of his proper responsibility as universal Pastor of the Church, has granted them the full and legitimate exercise of episcopal jurisdiction. “This initiative of the Pope resulted from knowledge of the particular circumstances of their ordination and from his profound pastoral concern to favour the reestablishment of full communion. “There are certain Bishops—a very small number of them—who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for, or have not yet obtained, the necessary legitimation. “According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they are to be considered illegitimate, but validly ordained, as long as it is certain that they have received ordination from validly ordained Bishops and that the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination has been respected.” [14]
Despite the fact that the Holy See insists on appointing bishops for the sake of protecting
the unity and the community of the Church, when a bishop is appointed, the pope is
exercising his highest spiritual authority and this authority in no way involves interfering in the internal political affairs or violating the sovereignty of the country. Still, the pope understands that the Chinese government is concerned about the influence the Catholic bishops may have on society.
Consequently, the Holy See is willing to dialogue on the issue on the appointment of
bishops in the Church in China and to reach a mutually acceptable consensus under the
premises that the principles of the Catholic faith and of ecclesial communion are not
violated, for dialogue does not run counter to the hierarchical communion of the Church.
[12] On the appointment of Catholic bishops, canon 377 of the Code of Canon Law of the
Catholic Church says:
§1. The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected.
§2. At least every three years, bishops of an ecclesiastical province or, where
circumstances suggest it, of a conference of bishops, are in common counsel and in secret
to compose a list of presbyters, even including members of institutes of consecrated life, who are more suitable for the episcopate.
They are to send it to the Apostolic See, without prejudice to the right of each bishop
individually to make known to the Apostolic See the names of presbyters whom he
considers worthy of and suited to the episcopal function.
§3. Unless it is legitimately established otherwise, whenever a diocesan or coadjutor
bishop must be appointed, as regards what is called the ternus to be proposed to the
Apostolic See, the pontifical legate is to seek individually and to communicate to the
Apostolic See together with his own opinion the suggestions of the metropolitan and
suffragans of the province to which the diocese to be provided for belongs or with which it is joined in some grouping, and the suggestions of the president of the conference of bishops.
The pontifical legate, moreover, is to hear some members of the college of consultors and
cathedral chapter and, if he judges it expedient, is also to seek individually and in secret the opinion of others from both the secular and non-secular clergy and from laity
outstanding in wisdom.
§4. Unless other provision has been legitimately made, a diocesan bishop who judges that an auxiliary should be given to his diocese is to propose to the Apostolic See a list of at least three presbyters more suitable for this office.
§5. In the future, no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or
designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities.
It is clear from the canon on the appointment of bishops in the Code of Canon Law that
the appointment of local bishops by the pope is purely a Church affair. The Church
reserves this privilege and authority to itself, and does not give any privilege or special permission of election, appointment, presentation or designation to the political authority of the country.
There are mainly two ways the pope appoints local bishops. First, the pope himself freely
appoints. Second, the pope approves as bishop the person elected in accordance with legal
provisions. Here, the legal provisions of course refer to those accepted as legitimate by the Catholic Church. [13] If there is no legal provision on which the candidates for the episcopacy ought to be based, then the pope will use his own judgement to appoint
bishops, without being restricted by any civil or religious power. When the pope freely appoints bishops, he will seek the opinion of people within the Church and choose the most suitable person from a list of candidates. People to be consulted include: bishops of the other dioceses of the same province, the national bishops’ conference, the current or previous bishop of the diocese and the pontifical legate. The pontifical legate makes a personal visit to seek the opinion of a local Church. After the investigation, a list of candidates is reported to the pope based on the results of the investigation. The list of names includes the candidates he considers to be suitable and the candidates which the metropolitan of the province, the bishops belonging to the same province or the suffragan entities of the province, consider suitable. Canon Law also requires that the pontifical legate listen to the opinions of members of the college of consultors and cathedral chapter, and if he considers it beneficial, secretly seek the opinion of other clerics serving in the diocese and that of lay people with outstanding wisdom.
The above are the main principles generally followed in the election and appointment of
bishops in the Catholic Church. In concrete practice, they may be adjusted according to
what is feasible in the local situation. In appointing bishops all over the world, the Catholic Church chooses ways that do not violate the principles of faith and communion according to the specific circumstances. For instance, the so-called Vietnam model is what the Apostolic See tailored to suit the situation of the Catholic Church in Vietnam. On the election of bishops by the Apostolic See and the Chinese government, the Apostolic See should not be criticised over the way it decides on the appointment of bishops in the
Church in China, so long as the above principles are not violated. Regarding the
appointment of bishops in the Church in China, the Apostolic See has the right to set up special provisions to target the specific circumstances faced by the Church in China. This does not violate the principles of faith nor destroy the communion and unity of the Church.
Currently, there is still no bishops’ conference accepted by the Apostolic See in the Church in China. If the Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China, after fulfilling the basic requirements of the Church, is in the future accepted by the Apostolic See as legitimate, it, or the bishops in the provinces under it, would have the right and responsibility to recommend episcopal candidates they consider as suitable to the pope.
This is totally in accordance with the tradition of faith of the Church and does not destroy the communion and unity of the Catholic Church. If the agreement reached between the Apostolic See and Beijing included contents regarding the episcopal candidates for China recommended by a pontifically approved bishops’ conference of China, we should not consider that the Church has sacrificed its own communion with and the administrative right of the pope in the Church in China. Certainly, a bishops’ conference in China, once legally constituted and recognised, and the bishops in the provinces under it would only have the power of recommendation, while the power of final decision would still be reserved to the Apostolic See. The Apostolic See has the right to choose from the recommended list the candidates it considers as most suitable and the right to reject the candidates recommended by a bishops’ conference of China and the bishops in the provinces under it. In such cases, the process of consultation would commence again.
On the bishops’ conference in China
A local bishops’ conference has the right to recommend episcopal candidates to the
Apostolic See. Yet, for reasons obvious to all, some bishops of the Catholic Church in
mainland China “under the pressure of particular circumstances, have consented to receive episcopal ordination without a pontifical mandate, but have subsequently asked to be received into communion with the Successor of Peter and with their other brothers in the episcopate. “The Pope, considering the sincerity of their sentiments and the complexity of the situation, and taking into account the opinion of neighbouring Bishops, by virtue of his proper responsibility as universal Pastor of the Church, has granted them the full and legitimate exercise of episcopal jurisdiction. “This initiative of the Pope resulted from knowledge of the particular circumstances of their ordination and from his profound pastoral concern to favour the reestablishment of full communion. “There are certain Bishops—a very small number of them—who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for, or have not yet obtained, the necessary legitimation. “According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they are to be considered illegitimate, but validly ordained, as long as it is certain that they have received ordination from validly ordained Bishops and that the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination has been respected.” [14]
In mainland China, there are also some bishops of the clandestine Churches not yet
recognised by the Chinese government. Some may still be living in situations deprived of
freedom and are unable to exercise their ministry as bishops. Therefore, there is currently no legitimate bishops’ conference recognised by the Apostolic See in mainland China, for “the ‘clandestine’ Bishops, those not recognised by the Government but in communion with the Pope, are not part of it; it includes Bishops who are still illegitimate, and it is governed by statutes that contain elements incompatible with Catholic doctrine.” [15]
Consequently, a future bishops’ conference in China would have to include all the
recognised by the Chinese government. Some may still be living in situations deprived of
freedom and are unable to exercise their ministry as bishops. Therefore, there is currently no legitimate bishops’ conference recognised by the Apostolic See in mainland China, for “the ‘clandestine’ Bishops, those not recognised by the Government but in communion with the Pope, are not part of it; it includes Bishops who are still illegitimate, and it is governed by statutes that contain elements incompatible with Catholic doctrine.” [15]
Consequently, a future bishops’ conference in China would have to include all the
legitimate bishops of the open Church as well as the clandestine bishops, to form an
integral bishops’ conference in China. Currently in mainland China, there are still bishops
not yet recognised by the pope who ought to fulfil the statutes of the Catholic Church for legitimate bishops so that they can subsequently be recognised by the pope as legitimate.
The Apostolic See earnestly desires: “What great spiritual enrichment would ensue for the
Church in China if, the necessary conditions having been established, these Pastors too
were to enter into communion with the Successor of Peter and with the entire Catholic episcopate!” [16]
To strive for and protect the legitimate authority of the bishops of the clandestine
Churches in China, Rome should also conduct a dialogue in order that these bishops be
recognised by the Chinese government as legitimate. Some people are worried that the
illegitimate bishops are being treated with excessive leniency in Sino-Vatican negotiations puts the principles of faith and communion of the Church in second place. Such worries are unnecessary. In its unceasing insistence on dialogue with the Chinese government, the Apostolic See aims not to sacrifice the principles of faith and communion of the Church, but to help the Chinese government understand the real meaning of the principles of faith and communion of the Church through dialogue and negotiation, so that the Chinese government will no longer be sceptical and remove its various unnecessary administrative measures imposed upon the Church in China. In this way, the integrity of faith and communion of the Church would be protected. If the Holy See has any intention of forsaking the principles of faith and communion of the Church, there would actually be no need for it to dialogue and negotiate with the Chinese government. The unceasing dialogue actually represents the unwavering stance of the Holy See towards this question.
Some people are concerned that the dialogue between the Holy See and the Chinese
government may sacrifice the legitimate rights of the clandestine Churches. Some are
worried that the clandestine bishops in prison may be forgotten by the negotiators
representing Rome. I believe that this worry could represent a mistrust of the love of the
Holy See towards the Church in China. This way of thinking may indeed be an offence
against the Holy See and its delegated representatives in the negotiations; it should not come from the hearts of us Catholics. The sacrifice made by the clandestine Churches in their perseverance in the faith of the Church is universally acknowledged. The universal Church also demonstrates its concern for the struggle for survival of the clandestine Churches by trying to lend a helping hand to it in all sorts of ways. The dialogue between the Holy See and Beijing in fact aims to change the clandestine Churches’ abnormal condition for survival, so that they may soon practice their religious faith under the protection of the law.
The previous Pope Benedict begins his Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons
and lay faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China by stating that his heart is deeply concerned about his brothers and sisters in the Church in China, and that he prays for the Catholic Church in China every day.[17] The current Pope Francis also “prays for China” every day in front of a statue of Our Lady of Sheshan that he keeps in his private chapel.[18] We should not doubt the deep concern of the pope towards our brothers and sisters in the clandestine Church in China.
The dialogue and negotiation between the Apostolic See and the Chinese government is a
long-term process. Coming to know each other, mutual understanding, mutual acceptance
and mutual recognition take time. We do not expect that the problems accumulated over
several decades between China and the Vatican can be solved in one go. We have to allow
time and patience on both sides. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
As long as both sides have begun to establish a relationship of mutual trust, there is no
reason that we should make a pessimistic forecast or give a premature death sentence to the negotiations. We dare to positively hope for fruitful results in the dialogue with each other because of our pursuit and perseverance in faith. We believe that goodness and not evil is the world’s ultimate ruling power. The Catholic Church perceives the people and the rulers of China as friends who also seek goodness, justice and other similar universal values. “Friendship is nourished by contacts, by a sharing in the joy and sadness of different situations, by solidarity and mutual assistance.” [19] Let us keep the smooth continuation of negotiations between the Apostolic See and Beijing in our prayer. A Sino-Vatican agreement will certainly be a win-win outcome and not a zero-sum game.
Conclusion
Needless to say, some people still have certain “serious difficulties, misunderstandings and hostility” about the communion mechanism of the Catholic Church.
Thus, the Catholic Church continuously stresses that “in the course of a respectful and open dialogue between the Holy See and the Chinese Bishops on the one hand, and the
governmental authorities on the other, the difficulties mentioned may be overcome”,
hoping “that an accord can be reached with the Government so as to resolve certain
questions regarding the choice of candidates for the episcopate, the publication of the
appointment of Bishops, and the recognition—concerning civil effects where necessary—of
the new Bishops on the part of the civil authorities.” [20] Since the resumption of dialogue
between the Apostolic See and the Chinese government got underway in recent years,
many people have positive expectations for the development of Sino-Vatican relations, and
hope that Sino-Vatican dialogue can change the survival conditions of the Church in China.
Moreover, we are aware that our many brothers and sisters in the clandestine Church are
also supportive of the dialogue between the Apostolic See and Beijing. They “[do] not see
a potential agreement between the legitimate authority of the People’s Republic of China
and the Holy See as a political compromise or even as a form of giving in.” They believe
that the normalisation of Sino-Vatican relations “is the direction we are headed in”, it
“could bring ‘good things for the Chinese people and not just for Catholics’”, “it brings
[them] joy”, for “it would make the everyday life of Catholics in China much easier”, “the
people of God in China will be given more space and freedom to practice the faith”, thus
“we follow the Pope and trust any decision he takes with regard to relations with China.”
[21] We hope these good wishes for the Church in China will soon be realised.
__________[1] cf. Gaudium et Spes, prologue, nn.7, 11.
[2] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.4.
[3] Ibid., n.7.
[4] Lumen Gentium, n.19.
[5] Ibid., n.23.
[6] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.5.
[7] Lumen Gentium, n.24.
[8] cf. Christus Dominus, nn.4, 18.
[9] cf. Lumen Gentium, n.21.
[10] Christus Dominus, n.20.
[11] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.7.
[12] Ibid. n.9.
[13] Lumen Gentium, n.24.
[14] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.8.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.1.
[18] See the website of the Vatican Radio.
[19] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.4.
[20] Ibid., nn.3, 9, 12.
[21] See the website of the Vatican Insider, 28/01/2016.
The Ends Are Better Than the End by Archbishop Francesco Follo
Roman Rite
Wis 18.6 – 9; Ps 33; Heb 11, 1-2.8-19; Lk 12.32 – 48
Ambrosian Rite
2 Kings 25.1 – 17 [short form 25.1 – 6. 8-12]; Ps 77; Rm 2, 1-10; Mt 23.37 – 24.2
Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost
1) The ends and the end.
The Gospel of this XIX Sunday in Ordinary Time shows Jesus who is still preaching to the crowds on the attitude to have in daily life, trusting the providence and keeping a proper responsibility towards the goods of the earth. At the same time the Messiah reminds them and us that there is a very demanding master to whom we will have to be accountable. This master, upon his return, will ask us account for the goods that he has entrusted to us. To manage rightly the assets of the Earth we should take seriously his call: “Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy””(Lk 12, 33). To do so and to be able to live the “freedom of poverty” (Mother Teresa of Calcutta), we need to acquire a more secure and firm faith, to be prepared and vigilant and to have openness of mind and heart to eternity.
In today’s Gospel Jesus teaches us not only how “to use” things but how “to use” time. He tells us that we have to live our daily lives in the light of to the final horizon light, which is eternity. This horizon is not the end but the ends of life to be reached walking and serving.
To walk without tripping, it was necessary, at that time, to tight the belt at the hips so that the tunic would be a little raised to avoid tripping over it. This was the way of dressing of one who was ready to start a journey, like the Jews during the celebration of the Passover in Egypt (see. Ex 12, 11). Christ calls us to be “ready, with loin dressed and lamps burning” (Lk 12, 35). The raised tunic was not only the travel code but also that for work and, therefore, the way to serve. Of course, at that time the servants were mostly slaves.
The Jews then, and we today, are called to do the exodus journey to serve God, worshiping Him and serving Him in the neighbor. The exodus to which we are called is a path of freedom that does not mean to do what we like. This is not freedom, it is selfishness. True freedom is to love and to serve. We are called to serve, not to enslave or to subdue others using them.
The fact that Christ asks to have lighted lamps means that we are called to walk in the night and to live vigilantly awaiting for someone, for the return of Him who does not warn us on when he arrives.
Only He knows the day and the hour in which he will invite us to the last, and not the least painful, part of our earthy life journey, to begin the eternal one: “Let burn in our hearts, O Lord, the same faith that led Abraham to live on earth as a pilgrim, and let not shut our lamp so that, vigilant waiting for your time, we are introduced by you into the eternal homeland “(today’s Mass prayer). Christ asks us to have open hearts and eyes that the burning lamps allow to see the One who comes and knocks on the door. If we open, He comes in and has dinner with us, and we with Him (Rev 3,20).
2) Watchful and faithful waiting.
With the parable of the master who returns at night, Jesus presents life as a vigil. The image of the earthly life as a night vigil waiting for the day, indicates that man is waiting and that the “night” of earthly life is not an empty time during which one can only try to resist the fear of looming threats and dangers. It is an active time in which to be busy at the best of one’s abilities.
After this brief parable of the master who returns from the wedding and the Lord who comes unexpectedly as a thief, Jesus tells the parable of the faithful administrator (vv. 41-48). The theme of the watch is enhanced by that of the “loyalty” in the administration of the master’s goods and of the sense of responsibility.
The servant is “faithful” because the master is one who calls us friends. He is one who became a slave of his servants whom, at his sudden return, he found still awake and vigilant. Then he girded his hips and began to serve them (see Lk 12, 37).
Therefore, it is not in the logic of fear of the master or the fear of his likely punishment that we must live waiting for the Kingdom, but in the loving and active wake, in the simple belief that the true usefulness and the real progress of ourselves and of the others is made effective only with faithful constant and vigilant service. We must have active hands and open hearts. Giving is more convenient than receiving, because it sets us free from every constraint in view of the love of Christ.
Like travelers and pilgrims, we are unaware of the moment and time of departure, but pretty sure of having to leave with God.
Like the ten virgins waiting in the middle of the night, we do not know the time of the arrival of the bridegroom, but expect to walk with Christ the bridegroom.
Like the servants who await the return of the landlord, unaware of when he will arrive, let’s be vigilant.
Like simple believers who feed on hope, let raise in the sky (in God) our look, because the future is guaranteed by the faithfulness to the Lord. May Christ, who came to make us faithful and returns to make us blessed, help us?
Let’s keep in mind that the Lord’s return is not a whatsoever episode of our existence. It is there that our hope merges, it is at that moment that we risk our salvation, the eternal life. We should not be vigilant only in view of a departure or a final meeting, but also be ready to seize the moment – that we cannot decide – of grace and of conversion, or even the daily opportunities to do good . God’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt took place in the middle of the night, a night which was foretold by the prophets, but of which no one knew the precise moment. This is the need for vigilance and expectation. We will become capable of it when our faith in God results in complete abandonment to his will and in the certainty of his loyalty that never fails. In the ever faithful heart of God our allegiance has its nest.
3) A theft?
We servants become friends and await Christ who comes suddenly like a thief that does not take anything but our heart (it is the third image of today’s Gospel).
Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus wrote: “It is said in the Gospel that the Lord will come like a thief (Mt. 24, 43).He will come soon to steal me. How I would like to help the thief! “
If we are ready to this theft, He will “rob” us of all that hinders our encounter with God, to go from the slavery of the law to the service of love, from the night of liberation to the light of the Promised Land, and we will put our heart there where is the real treasure.
The Consecrated Virgins not only let themselves be robbed by Christ, but with joy help this “thief” offering happily everything: body and soul and material and spiritual goods. They strive to live a real poverty of spirit.
In addition to that, with life and prayer they practice the invitation of Jesus the Bridegroom: “Keep your lamps burning” (Lk 12:35): the lamp of faith, the lamp of prayer, the lamp of hope and of love. It is true that this is an invitation addressed to all Christians, but it is important to remember that the consecrated virgins in the world represent in a special way all the faithful waiting and aiming towards the Kingdom. Like lighted lamps, they are a symbol of vigilance. It is a wedding vigilance, therefore industrious and joyful.
This women show that the Christian walks in the darkness of the world, bringing light and keeping watch, for he who loves, is vigilant.
The fact that on the day of their consecration they also received a lamp, indicates our condition as Christians on a bridal journey: we need light, and at the same time, we are called to become light, irradiating it.
—
not yet recognised by the pope who ought to fulfil the statutes of the Catholic Church for legitimate bishops so that they can subsequently be recognised by the pope as legitimate.
The Apostolic See earnestly desires: “What great spiritual enrichment would ensue for the
Church in China if, the necessary conditions having been established, these Pastors too
were to enter into communion with the Successor of Peter and with the entire Catholic episcopate!” [16]
To strive for and protect the legitimate authority of the bishops of the clandestine
Churches in China, Rome should also conduct a dialogue in order that these bishops be
recognised by the Chinese government as legitimate. Some people are worried that the
illegitimate bishops are being treated with excessive leniency in Sino-Vatican negotiations puts the principles of faith and communion of the Church in second place. Such worries are unnecessary. In its unceasing insistence on dialogue with the Chinese government, the Apostolic See aims not to sacrifice the principles of faith and communion of the Church, but to help the Chinese government understand the real meaning of the principles of faith and communion of the Church through dialogue and negotiation, so that the Chinese government will no longer be sceptical and remove its various unnecessary administrative measures imposed upon the Church in China. In this way, the integrity of faith and communion of the Church would be protected. If the Holy See has any intention of forsaking the principles of faith and communion of the Church, there would actually be no need for it to dialogue and negotiate with the Chinese government. The unceasing dialogue actually represents the unwavering stance of the Holy See towards this question.
Some people are concerned that the dialogue between the Holy See and the Chinese
government may sacrifice the legitimate rights of the clandestine Churches. Some are
worried that the clandestine bishops in prison may be forgotten by the negotiators
representing Rome. I believe that this worry could represent a mistrust of the love of the
Holy See towards the Church in China. This way of thinking may indeed be an offence
against the Holy See and its delegated representatives in the negotiations; it should not come from the hearts of us Catholics. The sacrifice made by the clandestine Churches in their perseverance in the faith of the Church is universally acknowledged. The universal Church also demonstrates its concern for the struggle for survival of the clandestine Churches by trying to lend a helping hand to it in all sorts of ways. The dialogue between the Holy See and Beijing in fact aims to change the clandestine Churches’ abnormal condition for survival, so that they may soon practice their religious faith under the protection of the law.
The previous Pope Benedict begins his Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons
and lay faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China by stating that his heart is deeply concerned about his brothers and sisters in the Church in China, and that he prays for the Catholic Church in China every day.[17] The current Pope Francis also “prays for China” every day in front of a statue of Our Lady of Sheshan that he keeps in his private chapel.[18] We should not doubt the deep concern of the pope towards our brothers and sisters in the clandestine Church in China.
The dialogue and negotiation between the Apostolic See and the Chinese government is a
long-term process. Coming to know each other, mutual understanding, mutual acceptance
and mutual recognition take time. We do not expect that the problems accumulated over
several decades between China and the Vatican can be solved in one go. We have to allow
time and patience on both sides. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
As long as both sides have begun to establish a relationship of mutual trust, there is no
reason that we should make a pessimistic forecast or give a premature death sentence to the negotiations. We dare to positively hope for fruitful results in the dialogue with each other because of our pursuit and perseverance in faith. We believe that goodness and not evil is the world’s ultimate ruling power. The Catholic Church perceives the people and the rulers of China as friends who also seek goodness, justice and other similar universal values. “Friendship is nourished by contacts, by a sharing in the joy and sadness of different situations, by solidarity and mutual assistance.” [19] Let us keep the smooth continuation of negotiations between the Apostolic See and Beijing in our prayer. A Sino-Vatican agreement will certainly be a win-win outcome and not a zero-sum game.
Conclusion
Needless to say, some people still have certain “serious difficulties, misunderstandings and hostility” about the communion mechanism of the Catholic Church.
Thus, the Catholic Church continuously stresses that “in the course of a respectful and open dialogue between the Holy See and the Chinese Bishops on the one hand, and the
governmental authorities on the other, the difficulties mentioned may be overcome”,
hoping “that an accord can be reached with the Government so as to resolve certain
questions regarding the choice of candidates for the episcopate, the publication of the
appointment of Bishops, and the recognition—concerning civil effects where necessary—of
the new Bishops on the part of the civil authorities.” [20] Since the resumption of dialogue
between the Apostolic See and the Chinese government got underway in recent years,
many people have positive expectations for the development of Sino-Vatican relations, and
hope that Sino-Vatican dialogue can change the survival conditions of the Church in China.
Moreover, we are aware that our many brothers and sisters in the clandestine Church are
also supportive of the dialogue between the Apostolic See and Beijing. They “[do] not see
a potential agreement between the legitimate authority of the People’s Republic of China
and the Holy See as a political compromise or even as a form of giving in.” They believe
that the normalisation of Sino-Vatican relations “is the direction we are headed in”, it
“could bring ‘good things for the Chinese people and not just for Catholics’”, “it brings
[them] joy”, for “it would make the everyday life of Catholics in China much easier”, “the
people of God in China will be given more space and freedom to practice the faith”, thus
“we follow the Pope and trust any decision he takes with regard to relations with China.”
[21] We hope these good wishes for the Church in China will soon be realised.
__________[1] cf. Gaudium et Spes, prologue, nn.7, 11.
[2] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.4.
[3] Ibid., n.7.
[4] Lumen Gentium, n.19.
[5] Ibid., n.23.
[6] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.5.
[7] Lumen Gentium, n.24.
[8] cf. Christus Dominus, nn.4, 18.
[9] cf. Lumen Gentium, n.21.
[10] Christus Dominus, n.20.
[11] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.7.
[12] Ibid. n.9.
[13] Lumen Gentium, n.24.
[14] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.8.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.1.
[18] See the website of the Vatican Radio.
[19] Letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay faithful of the Catholic
Church in the People’s Republic of China, n.4.
[20] Ibid., nn.3, 9, 12.
[21] See the website of the Vatican Insider, 28/01/2016.
The Ends Are Better Than the End by Archbishop Francesco Follo
Roman Rite
Wis 18.6 – 9; Ps 33; Heb 11, 1-2.8-19; Lk 12.32 – 48
Ambrosian Rite
2 Kings 25.1 – 17 [short form 25.1 – 6. 8-12]; Ps 77; Rm 2, 1-10; Mt 23.37 – 24.2
Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost
1) The ends and the end.
The Gospel of this XIX Sunday in Ordinary Time shows Jesus who is still preaching to the crowds on the attitude to have in daily life, trusting the providence and keeping a proper responsibility towards the goods of the earth. At the same time the Messiah reminds them and us that there is a very demanding master to whom we will have to be accountable. This master, upon his return, will ask us account for the goods that he has entrusted to us. To manage rightly the assets of the Earth we should take seriously his call: “Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy””(Lk 12, 33). To do so and to be able to live the “freedom of poverty” (Mother Teresa of Calcutta), we need to acquire a more secure and firm faith, to be prepared and vigilant and to have openness of mind and heart to eternity.
In today’s Gospel Jesus teaches us not only how “to use” things but how “to use” time. He tells us that we have to live our daily lives in the light of to the final horizon light, which is eternity. This horizon is not the end but the ends of life to be reached walking and serving.
To walk without tripping, it was necessary, at that time, to tight the belt at the hips so that the tunic would be a little raised to avoid tripping over it. This was the way of dressing of one who was ready to start a journey, like the Jews during the celebration of the Passover in Egypt (see. Ex 12, 11). Christ calls us to be “ready, with loin dressed and lamps burning” (Lk 12, 35). The raised tunic was not only the travel code but also that for work and, therefore, the way to serve. Of course, at that time the servants were mostly slaves.
The Jews then, and we today, are called to do the exodus journey to serve God, worshiping Him and serving Him in the neighbor. The exodus to which we are called is a path of freedom that does not mean to do what we like. This is not freedom, it is selfishness. True freedom is to love and to serve. We are called to serve, not to enslave or to subdue others using them.
The fact that Christ asks to have lighted lamps means that we are called to walk in the night and to live vigilantly awaiting for someone, for the return of Him who does not warn us on when he arrives.
Only He knows the day and the hour in which he will invite us to the last, and not the least painful, part of our earthy life journey, to begin the eternal one: “Let burn in our hearts, O Lord, the same faith that led Abraham to live on earth as a pilgrim, and let not shut our lamp so that, vigilant waiting for your time, we are introduced by you into the eternal homeland “(today’s Mass prayer). Christ asks us to have open hearts and eyes that the burning lamps allow to see the One who comes and knocks on the door. If we open, He comes in and has dinner with us, and we with Him (Rev 3,20).
2) Watchful and faithful waiting.
With the parable of the master who returns at night, Jesus presents life as a vigil. The image of the earthly life as a night vigil waiting for the day, indicates that man is waiting and that the “night” of earthly life is not an empty time during which one can only try to resist the fear of looming threats and dangers. It is an active time in which to be busy at the best of one’s abilities.
After this brief parable of the master who returns from the wedding and the Lord who comes unexpectedly as a thief, Jesus tells the parable of the faithful administrator (vv. 41-48). The theme of the watch is enhanced by that of the “loyalty” in the administration of the master’s goods and of the sense of responsibility.
The servant is “faithful” because the master is one who calls us friends. He is one who became a slave of his servants whom, at his sudden return, he found still awake and vigilant. Then he girded his hips and began to serve them (see Lk 12, 37).
Therefore, it is not in the logic of fear of the master or the fear of his likely punishment that we must live waiting for the Kingdom, but in the loving and active wake, in the simple belief that the true usefulness and the real progress of ourselves and of the others is made effective only with faithful constant and vigilant service. We must have active hands and open hearts. Giving is more convenient than receiving, because it sets us free from every constraint in view of the love of Christ.
Like travelers and pilgrims, we are unaware of the moment and time of departure, but pretty sure of having to leave with God.
Like the ten virgins waiting in the middle of the night, we do not know the time of the arrival of the bridegroom, but expect to walk with Christ the bridegroom.
Like the servants who await the return of the landlord, unaware of when he will arrive, let’s be vigilant.
Like simple believers who feed on hope, let raise in the sky (in God) our look, because the future is guaranteed by the faithfulness to the Lord. May Christ, who came to make us faithful and returns to make us blessed, help us?
Let’s keep in mind that the Lord’s return is not a whatsoever episode of our existence. It is there that our hope merges, it is at that moment that we risk our salvation, the eternal life. We should not be vigilant only in view of a departure or a final meeting, but also be ready to seize the moment – that we cannot decide – of grace and of conversion, or even the daily opportunities to do good . God’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt took place in the middle of the night, a night which was foretold by the prophets, but of which no one knew the precise moment. This is the need for vigilance and expectation. We will become capable of it when our faith in God results in complete abandonment to his will and in the certainty of his loyalty that never fails. In the ever faithful heart of God our allegiance has its nest.
3) A theft?
We servants become friends and await Christ who comes suddenly like a thief that does not take anything but our heart (it is the third image of today’s Gospel).
Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus wrote: “It is said in the Gospel that the Lord will come like a thief (Mt. 24, 43).He will come soon to steal me. How I would like to help the thief! “
If we are ready to this theft, He will “rob” us of all that hinders our encounter with God, to go from the slavery of the law to the service of love, from the night of liberation to the light of the Promised Land, and we will put our heart there where is the real treasure.
The Consecrated Virgins not only let themselves be robbed by Christ, but with joy help this “thief” offering happily everything: body and soul and material and spiritual goods. They strive to live a real poverty of spirit.
In addition to that, with life and prayer they practice the invitation of Jesus the Bridegroom: “Keep your lamps burning” (Lk 12:35): the lamp of faith, the lamp of prayer, the lamp of hope and of love. It is true that this is an invitation addressed to all Christians, but it is important to remember that the consecrated virgins in the world represent in a special way all the faithful waiting and aiming towards the Kingdom. Like lighted lamps, they are a symbol of vigilance. It is a wedding vigilance, therefore industrious and joyful.
This women show that the Christian walks in the darkness of the world, bringing light and keeping watch, for he who loves, is vigilant.
The fact that on the day of their consecration they also received a lamp, indicates our condition as Christians on a bridal journey: we need light, and at the same time, we are called to become light, irradiating it.
—
Patristic Reading
Saint Augustine of Hippo
Sermon LVIII. [CVIII. Ben.]
On the words of the gospel, Lc 12,35 “Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning; and be ye yourselves like,” etc. And on the words of the 34th psalm, 5,12, “what man is he that desireth life,” etc.
1). Our Lord Jesus Christ both came to men, and went away from men, and is to come to men. And yet He was here when He came, nor did He depart when He went away, and He is to come to them to whom He said, “Lo, I am with you, even unto the end of the world.”1 According to the “form of a servant” then, which He took for our sakes, was He born at a certain time, and was slain, and rose again, and now “dieth no more, neither shall death have any more dominion over Him;”2 but according to His Divinity, wherein He was equal to the Father, was He already in this world, and “theworld was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.”3 On this point ye have just heardthe Gospel, what admonition it has given us, putting us on our guard, and wishing us to be unencumbered and prepared to await the end; that after these last4 things, which are to befeared in this world, that rest may succeed which hath no end. Blessed are they who shall be partakers of it. For then shall they be in security, who are not in security now; and again then shall they fear, who will not fear now. Unto this waiting, and for this hope’s sake, havewe been made Christians. Is not our hope not of this world? Let us then not love the world. From the love of this world have we been called away, that we may hope for and love another. In this world ought we to abstain from all unlawful desires, to have, that is, “our loins girded;” and to be fervent and to shine in good works, that is, to have “our lights burning.” For the Lord Himself said to His disciples in another place of the Gospel, “No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that it may give light unto all that are in the house.”5 And to show of what He was speaking, He subjoined and said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”6
Therefore He would that “our loins should be girded, and our lights burning.”7 What is, “our loins girded”? “Depart from evil.”8 What is to “burn”? What is to have our “lights burning”? It is this, “And do good.” What is that which He said afterwards, “And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He will return from the wedding:”9 except that which follows in that Psalm, “Seek after peace, and ensue it”?10 These three things, that is, “abstaining from evil, and doing good,” and the hope of everlasting reward, are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, where it is written, that Paul taught them of “temperance and righteousness,”11 and the hope of eternal life. To temperance belongs, “let your loins be girded.” To righteousness, “and your lights burning.” To the hope of eternal life, the waiting for the Lord. So then, “depart from evil,” this is temperance, these are the loins girded: “and do good,” this is righteousness, these are the “lights burning;” “seek peace, and ensue it,” this is the waiting for the world to come: therefore, “Be ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He will come from the wedding.”
Having then these precepts and promises, why seek we on earth for “good days,” where we cannot find them? For I know that ye do seek them, when ye are either sick, or in any of the tribulations, which in this world abound. For when life draws towards its close, the old man is full of complaints, and with no joys. Amid all the tribulations by which mankind is worn away, men seek for nothing but “good days,” and wish for a long life, which here they cannot have. For even a man’s long life is narrowed within so short a span to the wide extent of all ages, as if it were but one drop to the whole sea. What then is man’s life, even that which is called a long one? They call that a long life, which even in this world’s course is short; and as I have said, groans abound even unto the decrepitude of old age. This at the most is but brief, and of short duration; and yet how eagerly is it sought by men, with how great diligence, with how great toil, with how great carefulness, with how great watchfulness, with how great labour do men seek to live here for a long time, and to grow old. And yet this very living long, what is it but running to the end? Thou hadst yesterday, and thou dost wish also to have to-morrow. But when this day and to-morrow are passed, thou hast them not. Therefore thou dost wish for the day to break, that may draw near to thee whither thou hast no wish to come. Thou makest some annual festival with thy friends, and hearest it there said to thee by thy well-wishers, “Mayest thou live many years,” thou dost wish that what they have said, may come to pass. What? Dost thou wish that years and years may come, and the end of these years come not? Thy wishes are contrary to one another; thou dost wish to walk on, and dost not wish to reach the end.
But if, as I have said, there is so great care in men, as to desire with daily, great and perpetual labours, to die somewhat later: with how great cause ought they to strive, that they may never die? Of this, no one will think. Day by day “good days” are sought for in this world, where they are not found; yet no one wishes so to live, that he may arrive there where they are found. Therefore the same Scripture admonishes us, and says, “Who is the man that wisheth for life, and loveth to see good days?”12 Scripture so asked the question, as that It knew well what answer would be given It; knowing that all men would “seek for life and good days.” In accordance with their desire It asked the question, as if the answer would be given It from the heart of all, “I wish it;” It said thus, “Who is the man that wisheth for life, and loveth to see good days?” Just as even at this very hour in which I am speaking to you, when ye heard me say, “Who is the man that wisheth for life, and loveth to see good days?” ye all answered in your heart, “I.” For so do I too, who am speaking with you, “wish for life and good days;” what ye seek, that do I seek also.
Just as if gold were necessary for us all, and we all, I as well as you, were wishing to get at the gold, and there was some anywhere in a field of yours, in a place subject to your power, and I were to see you searching for it, and were to say to you, “What are ye searching for?” ye were to answer me, “Gold.” And I were to say to you, “Ye are searching for gold, and I am searching for gold too: what ye are searching for, I am searching for; but ye are not searching for it where we can find it. Listen to me then, where we can find it; I am not taking it away from you, I am showing you the spot;” yea, let us all follow Him, who knows where what we are seeking for, is. So now too seeing that ye desire “life and good days,” we cannot say to you, “Do not desire ‘life and good days;’“ but this we say, “Do not seek for ‘life and good days’ here in this world, where ‘good days’ cannot be.” Is not this life itself like unto death? Now these days here hasten and pass away: for to-day has shut out yesterday; tomorrow only rises that it may shut out to-day. These days themselves have no abiding; wherefore wouldest thou abide with them? Your desire then whereby ye wish for “life and good days,” I not only do not repress, but I even more strongly inflame. By all means “seek” for” life, seek for good days;” but let them be sought there, where they can be found.
For would ye with me hear His counsel, who knoweth where “good days” and where “life” is? Hear it not from me, but together with me. For One says to us, “Come, ye children, hearken unto Me.” And let us run together, and stand, and prick up our ears, and with our hearts understand the Father, who hath said, “Come, ye children, hearken unto Me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord.”13 And then follows what he would teach us, and to what end the fear of the Lord is useful. “Who is the man that wisheth life, and loveth to see good days?” We all answer, “We wish it.” Let us listen then to what follows, “Refrain thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile.”14 Now say, “I wish it.” Just now when I said, “Who is the man that wisheth for life, and loveth to see good days?” we all answered, “I.” Come then, let some one now answer “I.” So then, “Refrain thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile.” Now say, “I.” Wouldest thou then have “good days” and “life,” and wouldest thou not “refrain thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile”? Alert to the reward, slow to the work! And to whom if he does not work is the reward rendered? I would that in thy house thou wouldest render the reward even to him that does work! For to him that works not, I am sure thou dost not render it. And why? Because thou owest nothing to him that does not work! And God hath a reward proposed. What reward? “Life and good days,” which life we all desire, and unto which days we all strive to come. The promised reward He will give us. What reward? “Life and good days.” And what are “good days”? Life without end, rest without labour.
Great is the reward He hath set before us: in so great a reward as is set before us, let us see what He hath commanded us. For enkindled by the reward of so great a promise, and by the love of the reward, let us make ready at once our strength, our sides, our arms, to do His bidding. Is it as if He were to command us to carry heavy burdens, to dig something it may be, or to raise up some machine? No, no such laborious thing hath He enjoined thee, but hath enjoined thee only to “refrain” that member which amongst all thy members thou dost move so quickly. “Refrain thy tongue from evil.” It is no labour to erect a building, and is it a labour to hold in the tongue? “Refrain thy tongue from evil.” Speak no lie, speak no revilings, speak no slanders, speak no false witnesses, speak no blasphemies. “Refrain thy tongue from evil.” See how angry thou art, if any one speaks evil of thee. As thou art angry with another, when he speaks evil of thee; so be thou angry with thyself, when thou speakest evil of another. “Let thy lips speak no guile.” What is in thine heart within, be that spoken out. Let not thy breast conceal one thing, and thy tongue utter another. “Depart from evil, and do good.” For how should I say, “Clothe the naked,” to him who up to this time would strip him that is clothed? For he that oppresses his fellow-citizen, how can he take in the stranger? So then in proper order, first “depart from evil,” and “do good;” first “gird up thy loins,” and then “light the lamp.” And when thou hast done this, wait in assured hope for “life and good days.” “Seek peace, and ensue it;” and then with a good face wilt thou say unto the Lord, “I have done what Thou hast bidden, render me what Thou hast promised.”
1 (Mt 28,20
2 (Rm 6,9
3 (Jn 1,10
4 The troubles through the incursions of the barbarian tribes, as heralds of the end. See St. Cyprian, Ad Demetr. 2, p. 201, Oxf. tr.; De Mort. 5,2, p. 216, 7.
5 (Mt 5,15
6 (Mt 5,16
7 (Lc 12,35
8 (Ps 34,14
9 (Lc 12,36
10 (Ps 34,14
11 (Ac 24,25).
12 (Ps 34,12
13 (Ps 34,11
14 (Ps 34,13).
Innovative Media Inc.
30 Mansell Road, Suite 103
Roswell, Georgia 30076, United States
---------------------
Saint Augustine of Hippo
Sermon LVIII. [CVIII. Ben.]
On the words of the gospel, Lc 12,35 “Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning; and be ye yourselves like,” etc. And on the words of the 34th psalm, 5,12, “what man is he that desireth life,” etc.
1). Our Lord Jesus Christ both came to men, and went away from men, and is to come to men. And yet He was here when He came, nor did He depart when He went away, and He is to come to them to whom He said, “Lo, I am with you, even unto the end of the world.”1 According to the “form of a servant” then, which He took for our sakes, was He born at a certain time, and was slain, and rose again, and now “dieth no more, neither shall death have any more dominion over Him;”2 but according to His Divinity, wherein He was equal to the Father, was He already in this world, and “theworld was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.”3 On this point ye have just heardthe Gospel, what admonition it has given us, putting us on our guard, and wishing us to be unencumbered and prepared to await the end; that after these last4 things, which are to befeared in this world, that rest may succeed which hath no end. Blessed are they who shall be partakers of it. For then shall they be in security, who are not in security now; and again then shall they fear, who will not fear now. Unto this waiting, and for this hope’s sake, havewe been made Christians. Is not our hope not of this world? Let us then not love the world. From the love of this world have we been called away, that we may hope for and love another. In this world ought we to abstain from all unlawful desires, to have, that is, “our loins girded;” and to be fervent and to shine in good works, that is, to have “our lights burning.” For the Lord Himself said to His disciples in another place of the Gospel, “No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that it may give light unto all that are in the house.”5 And to show of what He was speaking, He subjoined and said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”6
Therefore He would that “our loins should be girded, and our lights burning.”7 What is, “our loins girded”? “Depart from evil.”8 What is to “burn”? What is to have our “lights burning”? It is this, “And do good.” What is that which He said afterwards, “And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He will return from the wedding:”9 except that which follows in that Psalm, “Seek after peace, and ensue it”?10 These three things, that is, “abstaining from evil, and doing good,” and the hope of everlasting reward, are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, where it is written, that Paul taught them of “temperance and righteousness,”11 and the hope of eternal life. To temperance belongs, “let your loins be girded.” To righteousness, “and your lights burning.” To the hope of eternal life, the waiting for the Lord. So then, “depart from evil,” this is temperance, these are the loins girded: “and do good,” this is righteousness, these are the “lights burning;” “seek peace, and ensue it,” this is the waiting for the world to come: therefore, “Be ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He will come from the wedding.”
Having then these precepts and promises, why seek we on earth for “good days,” where we cannot find them? For I know that ye do seek them, when ye are either sick, or in any of the tribulations, which in this world abound. For when life draws towards its close, the old man is full of complaints, and with no joys. Amid all the tribulations by which mankind is worn away, men seek for nothing but “good days,” and wish for a long life, which here they cannot have. For even a man’s long life is narrowed within so short a span to the wide extent of all ages, as if it were but one drop to the whole sea. What then is man’s life, even that which is called a long one? They call that a long life, which even in this world’s course is short; and as I have said, groans abound even unto the decrepitude of old age. This at the most is but brief, and of short duration; and yet how eagerly is it sought by men, with how great diligence, with how great toil, with how great carefulness, with how great watchfulness, with how great labour do men seek to live here for a long time, and to grow old. And yet this very living long, what is it but running to the end? Thou hadst yesterday, and thou dost wish also to have to-morrow. But when this day and to-morrow are passed, thou hast them not. Therefore thou dost wish for the day to break, that may draw near to thee whither thou hast no wish to come. Thou makest some annual festival with thy friends, and hearest it there said to thee by thy well-wishers, “Mayest thou live many years,” thou dost wish that what they have said, may come to pass. What? Dost thou wish that years and years may come, and the end of these years come not? Thy wishes are contrary to one another; thou dost wish to walk on, and dost not wish to reach the end.
But if, as I have said, there is so great care in men, as to desire with daily, great and perpetual labours, to die somewhat later: with how great cause ought they to strive, that they may never die? Of this, no one will think. Day by day “good days” are sought for in this world, where they are not found; yet no one wishes so to live, that he may arrive there where they are found. Therefore the same Scripture admonishes us, and says, “Who is the man that wisheth for life, and loveth to see good days?”12 Scripture so asked the question, as that It knew well what answer would be given It; knowing that all men would “seek for life and good days.” In accordance with their desire It asked the question, as if the answer would be given It from the heart of all, “I wish it;” It said thus, “Who is the man that wisheth for life, and loveth to see good days?” Just as even at this very hour in which I am speaking to you, when ye heard me say, “Who is the man that wisheth for life, and loveth to see good days?” ye all answered in your heart, “I.” For so do I too, who am speaking with you, “wish for life and good days;” what ye seek, that do I seek also.
Just as if gold were necessary for us all, and we all, I as well as you, were wishing to get at the gold, and there was some anywhere in a field of yours, in a place subject to your power, and I were to see you searching for it, and were to say to you, “What are ye searching for?” ye were to answer me, “Gold.” And I were to say to you, “Ye are searching for gold, and I am searching for gold too: what ye are searching for, I am searching for; but ye are not searching for it where we can find it. Listen to me then, where we can find it; I am not taking it away from you, I am showing you the spot;” yea, let us all follow Him, who knows where what we are seeking for, is. So now too seeing that ye desire “life and good days,” we cannot say to you, “Do not desire ‘life and good days;’“ but this we say, “Do not seek for ‘life and good days’ here in this world, where ‘good days’ cannot be.” Is not this life itself like unto death? Now these days here hasten and pass away: for to-day has shut out yesterday; tomorrow only rises that it may shut out to-day. These days themselves have no abiding; wherefore wouldest thou abide with them? Your desire then whereby ye wish for “life and good days,” I not only do not repress, but I even more strongly inflame. By all means “seek” for” life, seek for good days;” but let them be sought there, where they can be found.
For would ye with me hear His counsel, who knoweth where “good days” and where “life” is? Hear it not from me, but together with me. For One says to us, “Come, ye children, hearken unto Me.” And let us run together, and stand, and prick up our ears, and with our hearts understand the Father, who hath said, “Come, ye children, hearken unto Me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord.”13 And then follows what he would teach us, and to what end the fear of the Lord is useful. “Who is the man that wisheth life, and loveth to see good days?” We all answer, “We wish it.” Let us listen then to what follows, “Refrain thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile.”14 Now say, “I wish it.” Just now when I said, “Who is the man that wisheth for life, and loveth to see good days?” we all answered, “I.” Come then, let some one now answer “I.” So then, “Refrain thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile.” Now say, “I.” Wouldest thou then have “good days” and “life,” and wouldest thou not “refrain thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile”? Alert to the reward, slow to the work! And to whom if he does not work is the reward rendered? I would that in thy house thou wouldest render the reward even to him that does work! For to him that works not, I am sure thou dost not render it. And why? Because thou owest nothing to him that does not work! And God hath a reward proposed. What reward? “Life and good days,” which life we all desire, and unto which days we all strive to come. The promised reward He will give us. What reward? “Life and good days.” And what are “good days”? Life without end, rest without labour.
Great is the reward He hath set before us: in so great a reward as is set before us, let us see what He hath commanded us. For enkindled by the reward of so great a promise, and by the love of the reward, let us make ready at once our strength, our sides, our arms, to do His bidding. Is it as if He were to command us to carry heavy burdens, to dig something it may be, or to raise up some machine? No, no such laborious thing hath He enjoined thee, but hath enjoined thee only to “refrain” that member which amongst all thy members thou dost move so quickly. “Refrain thy tongue from evil.” It is no labour to erect a building, and is it a labour to hold in the tongue? “Refrain thy tongue from evil.” Speak no lie, speak no revilings, speak no slanders, speak no false witnesses, speak no blasphemies. “Refrain thy tongue from evil.” See how angry thou art, if any one speaks evil of thee. As thou art angry with another, when he speaks evil of thee; so be thou angry with thyself, when thou speakest evil of another. “Let thy lips speak no guile.” What is in thine heart within, be that spoken out. Let not thy breast conceal one thing, and thy tongue utter another. “Depart from evil, and do good.” For how should I say, “Clothe the naked,” to him who up to this time would strip him that is clothed? For he that oppresses his fellow-citizen, how can he take in the stranger? So then in proper order, first “depart from evil,” and “do good;” first “gird up thy loins,” and then “light the lamp.” And when thou hast done this, wait in assured hope for “life and good days.” “Seek peace, and ensue it;” and then with a good face wilt thou say unto the Lord, “I have done what Thou hast bidden, render me what Thou hast promised.”
1 (Mt 28,20
2 (Rm 6,9
3 (Jn 1,10
4 The troubles through the incursions of the barbarian tribes, as heralds of the end. See St. Cyprian, Ad Demetr. 2, p. 201, Oxf. tr.; De Mort. 5,2, p. 216, 7.
5 (Mt 5,15
6 (Mt 5,16
7 (Lc 12,35
8 (Ps 34,14
9 (Lc 12,36
10 (Ps 34,14
11 (Ac 24,25).
12 (Ps 34,12
13 (Ps 34,11
14 (Ps 34,13).
Innovative Media Inc.
30 Mansell Road, Suite 103
Roswell, Georgia 30076, United States
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment