Pope’s Morning Homily: Put Away the Cell Phones and Have Real Encounters... from ZENIT in Roswell, Georgia, United States for Tuesday, 13 September 2016

Pope’s Morning Homily: Put Away the Cell Phones and Have Real Encounters... from ZENIT in Roswell, Georgia, United States for Tuesday, 13 September 2016
Like
Tweet
Forward
Pope’s Morning Homily: Put Away the Cell Phones and Have Real Encounters by Deborah Castellano Lubov

Pope Francis has urged faithful to stop looking at our phones, and instead really encounter and listen to one another.
According to Vatican Radio, the Pontiff gave this advice during his daily morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, as he warned against bad habits that prevent us, even within our families, from truly listening to others and empathizing with them.
Overcoming Our Indifference
As the Jesuit Pontiff drew inspiration from today’s Gospel reading where Jesus brought back from the dead the only son of a widow, Francis highlighted that “an encounter with Jesus overcomes our indifference.”
He also lamented that often when people meet each other, “each of them is thinking of themselves, they can see the other person but are not looking at him or her, they can hear that person but are not listening to him or her.”
“An encounter is something different. It is what today’s Gospel proclaims to us: an encounter; an encounter between a man and a woman, between an only living son and an only son who had died; among a joyful crowd because they had encountered Jesus and were following him and a group of people, weeping, accompanying that woman, who had come out from the gate of the city; an encounter between the exit gate and the entry gate. [The sheepfold]. An encounter that makes us reflect on our way of interacting with each other.”
In the Gospel, the Pope continued, we read that Jesus “was moved with pity.”
When Christ observed something unfortunate, Francis pointed out, he encounters and reacts, never remaining indifferent.
“While if we see something sad, we say ‘what a shame!’ Jesus doesn’t pass by, he is moved with pity. He goes up to the woman for a real encounter and then performs the miracle.”
Restoring Dignity
The Pope, reflecting on this Gospel encounter said, we not only see his tenderness but also the fruitfulness of that encounter that restores people and things to their proper place.
“We are accustomed to a culture of indifference and we must strive and ask for the grace to create a culture of encounter, of a fruitful encounter, of an encounter that restores to each person his or her own dignity as a child of God, the dignity of a living person.
“We are accustomed to this indifference,” he continued, noting, “when we see the disasters of this world or small things: ‘What a shame, poor people, look how they are suffering,’ and then we carry on. An encounter. And if I don’t look, it’s not enough to see, no, (we must) look – if I don’t stop, if I don’t look, if I don’t touch, if I don’t speak, I cannot have an encounter and I cannot help to build a culture of encounter.”
Even in Our Families
The message from today’s reading, said Pope Francis, stems from that encounter between Jesus and his people and we all are in need of his Word and need that encounter with Him.
“In our families, at the dinner table, how many times while eating, do people watch the TV or write messages on their cell phones. Each one is indifferent to that encounter. Even within the heart of society, which is the family, there is no encounter. May this help us to strive for this culture of encounter, just as simply as Jesus did so.”
The Pope stressed to look, listen and meet, rather than just see, hear, and pass by.
“Don’t just say ‘what a shame, poor people,’ but allow ourselves to be moved by pity,” Pope Francis concluded, stressing, “Draw near, touch and say in the language that comes to each one of us in that moment, the language of the heart: ‘Do not weep,’ and donate at the very least a drop of life.”
Why We Have Liturgy by Fr. Edward McNamara

Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: Is there a liturgy in heaven? Why do we have a liturgy? What is the finality of the liturgy? — T.G., Salvador, Brazil
A: These are very important questions. Sometimes we can get so caught up in the details of liturgy that we forget the big picture of the great mystery of the liturgy itself.
There are many definitions of liturgy. One famous manual published in the 1960s presented 40 definitions and then added a 41st. For our purposes we can take that offered by the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on the liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” which in turn relies heavily on Pope Pius XII’s 1947 encyclical “Mediator Dei.”
“7. … Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.
“From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.
“8. In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle; we sing a hymn to the Lord’s glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Savior, Our Lord Jesus Christ, until He, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with Him in glory.”
Section one of the second part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church develops these ideas in more detail (nos. 1076-1209).
Therefore, we can distinguish various aspects in liturgy.
First of all there is the essential action of Christ our high priest who offers his sacrifice to his heavenly Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit. We, as the Church of baptized and confirmed Christians endowed with the royal or common priesthood, in hierarchical communion with the ordained priestly ministry, are enabled to join with Christ in this eternal offering and present our own spiritual gifts alongside his.
Another aspect of liturgy is that this mysterious union with Christ our high priest is carried out through perceptible signs. Some of these signs come from Christ himself such as the use of bread and wine for the Eucharist and of water and the Trinitarian formula for baptism. Most of them, however, such as the rites, songs and prayers used in the liturgy, have been developed over time by the Church. These rites, songs and prayers are usually inspired by Scripture and serve to clarify the deeper meaning of the essential mysteries.
These latter signs, being of human origin, can sometimes lose their meaning over time and can even obscure, rather than facilitate, contact with the mystery. For this reason the Church’s highest authority has the power to make those changes it considers necessary to those elements that do not come directly from Christ.
Thus a first answer to the question as to why we have a liturgy is fundamentally because Christ is the Word Incarnate and he has determined to establish his Church and that he will offer his salvation to all people through this Church and through the sacraments, the signs that he has established as prolongations of the Incarnation in which all are invited to participate.
It is beyond the scope of this reply to enter into the question by what means those outside the Church may be saved. We can say, however, that there are no other visible means of salvation outside of Christ and the Church. However, if anybody is saved outside the visible Church, that salvation has been obtained, in some mysterious way, through Christ and the Church. This is why the Church prays in Eucharistic Prayer IV “for all who seek you with a sincere heart” and for “all the dead whose faith you alone have known.”
The finality of liturgy is also a deep question. In some cases such as baptism the liturgy is an essential means of salvation; in other cases it is a means of sanctification and also a school of prayer and of Christian life. It must be admitted that these are not the primary reasons for doing liturgy in its fullest celebratory form.
In a way we could say that the Church itself, in the common preface to the Eucharistic Prayer, opens up a new horizon for the reason for liturgy. In this dialogue we hear:
“Lift up your hearts”
“We lift them up to the Lord”
“Let us give thanks to the Lord our God”
“it is right and just”
“it is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, at all times to acclaim you, O, Lord …”
Hence the fundamental reason we do liturgy is that it is “right and just.” There is no utilitarian end, and it is done because there is nothing greater in the world that we can do. We also do it because in this way we freely respond to divine love with love and worship and, as a consequence, receive the greatest free gift of all, the life of God himself in our souls.
This is why the great German theologian Romano Guardini (1885-1968) was able to describe what he termed the ludic aspect of the liturgy, or the liturgy as play or game. Just as play is done because it is worthwhile in itself and is not primarily utilitarian, the liturgy is analogous in that it is carried out because it is right and just and worthwhile in itself.
Also, just as a move or a score in a game can be considered as original, brilliant, or beautiful only if achieved by players who follow the established rules and do not cheat, likewise true originality and beauty in liturgy is found within the context of its established norms and rules.
So, is there a liturgy in heaven? We can say yes insofar as in heaven our participation in that joyful union with Christ our high priest in his eternal offering to his Father becomes a permanent possession of the soul.
We can say no if we mean the external aspects of liturgy such as rites and signs which are meant only for our earthly journey as a foretaste of things to come.
These questions are so deep and vast that our present answer will certainly not do them justice, and there is much more that could be added. We hope at least that this opens up the horizons a little.
* * *
Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word “Liturgy” in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.
Aid Official Praises Iraqi Christians’ Resilience by Oliver Maksan on 13 September, 2016

Father Andrzej Halemba is the Middle East projects coordinator for Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), an international Catholic charity. He spoke Sept. 9 about the situation of Christians in Iraq, two years after their flight from ISIS, following the capture of the city of Mosul and the Nineveh Plane. At that time, some 120,000 Christians fled into Kurdish Iraq.
Q: There are now reports that an attempt to liberate Mosul and its surroundings by military means is only a matter of time.
Fr. Halemba: That is correct. And the people are hoping for this. However this could lead to new difficulties. One must bear in mind that Mosul is a city with a million inhabitants. If an assault were launched, hundreds of thousands would flee the fighting. And where would they go? Probably to Kurdistan, which is already bursting at the seams. But it is also likely that many Sunnis from Mosul and its surroundings would enter the empty Christian villages on the Nineveh Plane and seek shelter there. This could create new and unforeseen difficulties; would they be prepared to leave the villages again to allow for the return of Christians to their land and properties? This scenario causes the bishops in Iraq real concern.
Q: What is the situation of the refugees today?
Fr. Halemba: Overall I would say that the people are no longer so lost and aggressive. The Church is doing a great deal for them, both spiritually and psychologically. The priests, and especially the sisters, are close to the people. The people are living with the situation. I am not saying that they want to live with it permanently. Of course not. But they have seen that they are not abandoned. We have set up schools. Soon, secondary schools will also be able to open.
The aim is to prevent a lost generation from growing up here, like in Syria.
Furthermore, most people are no longer living in tents or caravans but in rented apartments and houses. This has restored their dignity and the feeling of having a home again. Our subsidies for food as well as their own labor ensure that they are provided with the basic necessities. But naturally it cannot go on like this forever. The longer this exile lasts, the more people will leave. And many Christians have already left Iraq.
Q: Do you have figures?
Fr. Halemba: Of the approximately 120,000 Christians who originally fled, many have left. At the beginning we helped some 13,500 families. Today there are some 4,000 to 5,000 fewer families. They have gone. That is painful. But without aid it would have been even more. I am impressed over and again by the great inner strength of the people. Given the proper support, many would return to their liberated villages.
Since the summer of 2014, ACN has made more than $20M available for aid in Iraq. Alongside providing humanitarian aid, the organization will also continue to support the pastoral mission of the Church in the region. Besides funding for the training and maintenance of priests and religious sisters, there will also be sponsorship of catechetical initiatives, such as summer camps for young people.
It’s Time to Question the Economic Model Born From WWII, Says Cardinal Ravasi by Sergio Mora

When the economic model born after World War II gives signs of declining, at a time when finance tends to displace the economy, when the model of integration — of an inclusive social State with a social contract that unites social classes toward shared objectives — is in difficulty, the time has come to question the economy, which is not only the GNP, but which should be at the service of man.
These are the topics that will be addressed by the Congress “Towards a More Human and Just Economy: A New Inclusive Economic Paradigm in a Context of Growing Inequalities,” which will be held in Rome on September 21, and which was presented Monday in the Holy See Press Office by Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi; by the Italian economist and former President of the Council of Ministers Giuliano Amato, today President of the “Courtyard of the Gentiles” Foundation, and by Italy’s Ambassador to the Holy See, Daniele Mancini.
The Congress, organized by the Italian Embassy to the Holy See in collaboration with the Pontifical Council for Culture, will be held at the headquarters of the said Embassy, located in Rome’s Parioli neighborhood, and in the context of the “Courtyard of the Gentiles,” an initiative geared to opening an area of high-level dialogue with individuals of other beliefs and non-believers, on subjects of interest for humanity.
Distinguished individuals will take part, such as Professor Angus Deaton, 2015 Nobel Prize for Economics, and docent at Princeton University; French economist Jean-Paul Fitoussi, and Belgian economist Dominique Y van der Mensbrugghe, docent at Purdue University.
Cardinal Ravasi explained that the forum will reflect further on relations between the economy and society, and on the need to articulate “new more human and inclusive economic models. Among the different ideas, Cardinal Ravasi pointed out that the economy is not finance, because finance is an instrument, that we are suffering an anorexia, and that economics is a humanistic science.
Therefore, the Cardinal added that it is important to describe human nature if possible, and identify a basic category, which we can discuss, with the ethical consequences and options, and the concrete questions of 60 journalists from among the 300 present.
”I represent the side of believers in the Courtyard of the Gentiles, who seek answers to the new problems,” said Dr Amato, recalling that the Courtyard of the Gentiles was born of an intuition of Pope Benedict XVI, because “in this search there is no reason to be divided even though with different fundamentals.”
In addition, Italy’s former Minister and former President of the Council stressed that a present-day priority is that “no one remain behind,” because “the most troubling fact of our crisis is the growth of inequalities, not because one who earns more earns even more, but because many lost and fell behind.” “Something like this will happen in the planet if too many stay behind and not only because of the temperature,” he noted.
Therefore, he pointed out that one of the participants in the Congress will be Angus Deaton, who in his recent book took the idea of the film “The Great Escape.” And his question, said Dr Amato, is that there was in the world a great flight from poverty, with good conditions of life as never before in history, but not for all. Meanwhile, the question remains: What happens to those that are left behind? Therefore, it is important that the economy be again a source of progress for many, not just for a few.
Italy’s Ambassador to the Holy See, Daniele Mancini, pointed out that there will be talk on the globalization of the economy and its ethical dimensions. And although such a complex topic cannot be covered in one afternoon, this will be – as Mother Teresa said – “our contribution, our drop of water in the vast sea.”
Mancini said it is a subject of absolute priority at the global level “because that winning model that began at the end of World War II is yielding to the idea of an inclusive social State with a social contract that unites the social classes towards shared objectives.” The issue is to question oneself on an economy placed at the service of man.
The Italian Ambassador added that economists, academics, members of international commissions working with the North and South of the world will take part in the event, with the idea that development is much more than the growth of the GNP.
Pope to Celebrate Morning Mass in Fr Hamel’s Memory by Deborah Castellano Lubov

Pope Francis will celebrate his morning Mass tomorrow in memory of Father Jacques Hamel.
In a statement released today, Director of the Holy See Press Office, Greg Burke, made the announcement, noting that the Eucharistic celebration will be filmed and broadcast live by the Vatican Television Center.
It will be a “gesture as a sign of closeness to Father Jacques Hamel and his family and the whole community of Rouen,” the communique stated, noting that 80 pilgrims of the French diocese, together with Bishop Monsignor Dominique Lebrun of Rouen, France, will attend the Mass for the 86-year-old priest killed by an Islamic terrorist, on July 26, in the church of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, where he was pastor.
Pope Francis, through Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, sent a message of condolences to Archbishop Lebrun, following the dramatic events this morning in the church of nearby Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, where two men armed with knives entered and took hostage the priest, two nuns and two faithful. They subsequently killed Fr. Hamel, by cutting his throat, and seriously wounded another hostage.
US Bishops Respond to Govt Official’s ‘Reckless’ Statements on Freedom by ZENIT Staff

Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, responded to a statement issued last week by the chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights upon the issuance of its report on “Peaceful Coexistence.”
Archbishop Lori’s statement follows:
Faith and the Full Promise of America
For the current Chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, religious liberty is reduced to “nothing except hypocrisy,” and religion is being used as a “weapon… by those seeking to deny others equality.” He makes the shocking suggestion that Catholic, evangelical, orthodox Jewish, Mormon, and Muslim communities are comparable to fringe segregationists from the civil rights era. These statements painting those who support religious freedom with the broad brush of bigotry are reckless and reveal a profound disregard for the religious foundations of his own work.
People of faith have often been the ones to carry the full promise of America to the most forgotten peripheries when other segments of society judged it too costly. Men and women of faith were many in number during the most powerful marches of the civil rights era. Can we imagine the civil rights movement without Rev. Martin Luther King, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel? In places like St. Louis, Catholic schools were integrated seven years before the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Jesus taught us to serve and not to count the cost.
Our record is not perfect. We could have always done more. Nevertheless, we have long taught that the one God, maker of heaven and earth, calls each and every individual into being, loves every individual, and commands believers to love and show mercy to every individual. The idea of equality, which the Chairman treats as a kind of talisman, is incomprehensible apart from the very faith that he seeks to cut off from mainstream society.
Today, Catholic priests, religious and laity can be found walking the neighborhood streets of our most struggling communities in places abandoned by a “throwaway culture” that has too often determined that quick profits matter more than communities. We are there offering education, health care, social services, and hope, working to serve as the “field hospital” Pope Francis has called us to be. We wish we were there in even greater numbers, but we are there to humbly offer the full promise of America to all. Rest assured, if people of faith continue to be marginalized, it is the poor and vulnerable, not the Chairman and his friends, who will suffer.
Catholic social service workers, volunteers and pastors don’t count the cost in financial terms or even in personal safety. But, we must count the cost to our own faith and morality. We do not seek to impose our morality on anyone, but neither can we sacrifice it in our own lives and work. The vast majority of those who speak up for religious liberty are merely asking for the freedom to serve others as our faith asks of us. We ask that the work of our institutions be carried out by people who believe in our mission and respect a Christian witness. This is no different from a tobacco control organization not wishing to hire an advocate for smoking or a civil rights organization not wanting to hire someone with a history of racism or an animal rights group wishing to hire only vegetarians.
In a pluralistic society, there will be institutions with views at odds with popular opinion. The Chairman’s statement suggests that the USCCR does not see the United States as a pluralistic society. We respect those who disagree with what we teach. Can they respect us? We advocate for the dignity of all persons, a dignity that includes a life free from violence and persecution and that includes fair access to good jobs and safe housing. People of faith are a source of American strength. An inclusive and religiously diverse society should make room for them.
‘United for Peace’ Soccer Match Just Under a Month Away by ZENIT Staff

The soccer game “United for Peace” will be held in Rome’s Olympic Stadium on October 12, announced Jose Maria del Corral, Director of the Pontifical Foundation Scholas Occurrentes, during a press conference held at Vatican Radio last week.
In the presentation, Monsignor Sanchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences, pointed out that one of the greatest goods in societies is peace and that, at a time when a third world war is unfolding in pieces, as Pope Francis has often said, it is very important to hold a game of this sort, which gives a concrete example, especially to the young.
This charitable event will help the educational programs of several institutions: the Scholas Occurrentes Foundation, the Italian Sports Center, UNITALSI and AMLIB.
These projects will focus, in particular, on the integration of young people, such as UNITALSI’s, which will be geared to adolescents and children of families affected by sicknesses and by the recent earthquake in Amatrice, in central Italy.
Scholas Occurrentes will also work in Colombia, to help to integrate young people after the Peace Agreement is signed between the country’s Government and FARC.
This is the second soccer game, with the Pope’s approval, in which famous players will take part, some active and others retired of different countries and religions.
Attending the presentation were Daniele Pasquini, Director of CSI Lazio; Alessandro Pinna, Director of UNITALSI; Father Matteo Galloni, President of AMLIB, and Rome’s players Leandro Paredes, Diego Perotti, Juan Manuel Iturbe and the midfield player of Lazio, Lucas Biglia.
Diego Perotti said: “we soccer players must be on the Pope’s side and take advantage of the event to help,” adding that they hope to fill the Olympic Stadium and that “having an Argentine Pope is a point in <our> favor and we invite all for the 12th to a game that will be lovely.”
So, after the suspension of the game last June in Buenos Aires, given the bicentenary of Argentina’s Independence, the new date and place of the game have now been confirmed.
The suspension happened shortly after Scholas Occurrentes declined a US$16.6 million donation by the government of President Mauricio Macri on June 9, to avoid — as explained in a press release — “confusion and division among Argentines.”
Cardinal Turkson’s Address on Pope’s Vision of Social Market Economy by ZENIT Staff

Here is the Vatican Radio-provided text of the address given yesterday by President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Cardinal Peter Turkson, who will lead the Vatican’s new dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development, at an international conference entitled ‘The Economy according to Pope Francis – a case study of social market economy.’ The conference was held at Rome’s Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, was organized by the embassies of Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands to the Holy See:
***
Pope Francis Questions the Economy
On behalf of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, thank you for this initiative and invitation to raise questions, in the spirit of Pope Francis, about the economy.
In his 6 May address on receiving the Charlemagne Prize, the Holy Father called three times “for moving from a liquid economy to a social economy…[This] would involve passing from an economy directed at revenue, profiting from speculation and lending at interest, to a social economy that invests in persons by creating jobs and providing training.”
In the light of Catholic social teaching, then, I would like to consider the contrast between:
i) The problem of the liquid economy; and
ii) The solution of a social economy.
And then I could sketch three challenges which such a move must confront, namely,
iii) Challenges facing any economy which wants to serve not itself but those who live in our common home
After this brief opening address, the other distinguished speakers will raise the question, “What is social market economy and what is the impact on Europe and globally?”
1. The problem: the liquid economy
When Pope Francis talks about a liquid economy, he calls it “an economy directed at revenue, profiting from speculation and lending at interest”. He means one in which financial flows are deemed paramount, in which technical efficiency and productivity trump human dignity and the ability of all to live flourishing lives. The financial bottom line is seen as more important than the human bottom line. Numbers matter more than people.
This is a theme Pope Francis has emphasized again and again, in Evangelii Gaudium, in Laudato Si’—and indeed in many homilies and extemporaneous remarks over the past few years. He repeatedly warns of the dangers of an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills, he says. He goes on to ask: “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?…Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving?” (EG 53).
As evidence, the Holy Father mentions “a ‘liquid’ economy that – in Italy, for example – results in young people under twenty-five not finding work: 40% of them.”
With strong adjectives and concrete examples, Pope Francis is laying out the moral defects of a liquid economy, one that refuses to put the human being at the centre of economic life. The problem stems from a “new idolatry of money”. “We have created new idols,” he says, “The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose” (EG 55).
A real problem with the liquid economy is that it elevates the financial sector to a position whereby it rules rather than serves the real economy.
“The financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an opportunity to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles and new ways of regulating speculative financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not include rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world.” (LS 189)
For Pope Francis, a liquid economy goes hand-in-hand with a throwaway culture. This is the ultimate economy of exclusion: “those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers” (EG 53).
In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis goes deeper into the roots of this throwaway culture: he points to a technocratic paradigm, a cult of unlimited human power, and “a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests” (LS 122). The technocratic paradigm, so dominant in our global economy today, invites people to think of economic intervention solely in terms of utility, productivity, and efficiency—negating any inherent dignity or value either in the human person or in creation. This is inherently confrontational, replacing virtues like care, compassion, and cooperation with an ethic of “possession, mastery and transformation” (LS 106). In turn, it leads to the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, a dominant idea in economics and finance, but ultimately “based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods.” It leads to a “disordered desire to consume more than necessary” (LS 123). Profit maximization becomes the unquestioned economic motive, which contributes to both economic exclusion and environmental degradation. And it leads to practical relativism that gives absolute priority to immediate convenience and a “self-centred culture of instant gratification” (LS 162), which causes people to treat their fellow human beings—and indeed all of creation—as mere objects to be taken advantage of and then thrown away.
2. The solution: a social economy
What, then, is the solution? A social economy invests in persons by creating jobs and providing training. Pope Francis’ answer is that we need a different type of progress, one that is “healthier, more human, more social, more integral.” (LS 112).
Addressing the popular movements gathered in Santa Cruz de la Sierra in July 2015, the Pope argues that priority must shift from economic growth and financial health to human flourishing and the ability to “live well”—so that all people can “find meaning, a destiny, and to live with dignity.”
“A just economy must create the conditions for everyone to be able to enjoy a childhood without want, to develop their talents when young, to work with full rights during their active years and to enjoy a dignified retirement as they grow older. It is an economy where human beings, in harmony with nature, structure the entire system of production and distribution in such a way that the abilities and needs of each individual find suitable expression in social life.”
In the aftermath of the Second World War, the then social economy responded well to the particular challenges of its day. Likewise, we need a new social economy to meet the challenges of the present day, one in which the human being is firmly at the centre, where all are included in economic social life, and where creation is cherished and protected.
To make this vision a reality, a social economy would need to apply principles like solidarity, subsidiarity, and the common good to the challenges of the modern market economy.
Pope Francis argues that the idea of the common good is “a central and unifying principle of social ethics” (LS 156). For “underlying the principle of the common good is respect for the human person as such, endowed with basic and inalienable rights ordered to his or her integral development” (LS 157).
“In the present condition of global society, where injustices abound and growing numbers of people are deprived of basic human rights and considered expendable, the principle of the common good immediately becomes, logically and inevitably, a summons to solidarity and a preferential option for the poorest of our brothers and sisters” (LS 158).
In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis expounded on this idea of solidarity. It “presumes the creation of a new mind-set which thinks in terms of community and the priority of the life of all over the appropriation of goods by a few” (EG 188). And it “must be lived as the decision to restore to the poor what belongs to them” (EG 189). Laudato Si’ presents us with an even more expansive notion of solidarity—solidarity within generations, solidarity between generations, and even solidarity with creation itself.
In Catholic social teaching, solidarity is always balanced by subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is concerned with identifying the right level of authority for undertaking decisions that affect the common good. It seeks to protect the freedom, initiative, and responsibility of lower levels, while making sure that higher levels (which tend to have the most power) provide proper assistance to these lower levels.
Subsidiarity “grants freedom to develop the capabilities present at every level of society, while also demanding a greater sense of responsibility for the common good from those who wield greater power” (LS 196). Of course, when it comes to global problems that do not respect national boundaries, the appropriate level of authority is the supranational level.
Climate change is an obvious example. The same is true for other environmental problems, including the loss of biodiversity; the strain on water supplies; and pollution of the air, the soil, the water. “Interdependence obliges us to think of one world with a common plan” (LS 164).
3. Three challenges
So far, I have critiqued the liquid economy and proposed the social economy in terms of principles. I would now like to focus on three practical implications of moving from a liquid to a social economy: (i) employment; (ii) inequality; (iii) climate change and environmental degradation.
Employment
It is no exaggeration to say that the world is going through a jobs crisis. According to the ILO, about 200 million people in the world are unemployed today. This includes about 70 million young people. We all know that unemployment has pernicious social consequences—it leads to worse health, lower educational attainment for children, and a loss of trust and social cohesion.
This is because employment is not just about earning one’s daily bread—it is actually an essential route to human flourishing and fulfilment, an essential source of human dignity. In the words of Pope Francis, “work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment” (LS 128). He goes on: “It follows that, in the reality of today’s global society, it is essential that ‘we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone,’ no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning.” (LS 127)
What does the future hold in store? We are living through a period of immense technological advance, but this technology is raising some real problems for employment, especially for those with fewer skills. More and more people are being discarded as machines take up their tasks. And as technology gets more and more advanced, what will a “robot economy” mean for workers?
In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis warns about too much faith in the power of technology, because “immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience,” (LS 105). This is part and parcel of the throwaway culture.
This is why Pope Francis argues that when we replace workers with machines, we work against ourselves. “To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society,” he says (LS 128). To fully serve the common good, business is called upon to put the creation of employment ahead of a fixation of profits. This is essential to a social market economy and it is one of the areas where we really have lost our way as a society.
In the former social market economy, unions played a vital role. Catholic social teaching has always supported the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively, both on grounds of subsidiarity (they are an indispensable element of social life) and solidarity (they protect the just rights of workers vis-à-vis the owners of the means of production). Nowadays unions have lost a lot of power in this globalized economy. Perhaps part of the answer revolves around reinvigorated unions for the 21st century that look not only at wages and working conditions but also at “integral human development”—placing the world of work within the bigger perspective of human flourishing in all its aspects, in the civitas humana.
How we can involve our young people in this building project if we fail to offer them employment, dignified labour that lets them grow and develop through their handiwork, their intelligence and their abilities? How can we tell them that they are protagonists, when the levels of employment and underemployment of millions of young Europeans are continually rising? How can we avoid losing our young people, who end up going elsewhere in search of their dreams and a sense of belonging, because here, in their own countries, we don’t know how to offer them opportunities and values?
Inequality
Let me now turn to the second issue: inequality. The rise in inequality over the last 30 years has been stark. Oxfam now tells us that a mere 62 people own as much wealth as half of the world’s people.
There is a huge ongoing debate about the sources of inequality, which I will not get into. Suffice it to say that many economists point to technology and globalization as the main culprits. However, these trends will not be easily reversed, and it is hard to argue that they should be. Technology has brought great benefits. The fact that hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in countries like China and India, thanks to their integration into the global economy, is certainly positive
The real problem is that government policies, instead of trying to dull the edges of inequality driven by these economic forces, actually made it worse. I am thinking here of policies like tax cuts for the wealthy and financial deregulation on one side, and fraying social safety nets and weakening unions on the other. A contributing factor, as many economists have pointed out, is that inequality gives the wealthy too much influence over policy. This is an insight that goes back to Aristotle.
Why is inequality so bad? Some economists argue that it is natural and healthy, the inevitable outcome of a competitive market economy. In recent years, however, there seems to be more and more evidence that excessive inequality is bad for economic growth, bad for economic opportunity, bad for financial stability, and bad for trust and social cohesion. I actually think there is even a deeper reason why inequality is harmful. Adam Smith might be most famous as the intellectual godfather of the free market, but he also had a profound insight that inequality undermines virtue because it leads people to admire wealth, prestige, and privilege—and to disdain the poor.
Pope Francis connects these dots, tying together inequality, the economy of exclusion, and the pathologies of the throwaway culture. Ultimately, he suggests that inequality spawns violence and destroys peace: “This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root,” he says (EG 59).
A further point is that when societies become too unequal, they lose a sense of shared purpose necessary for deliberating on the common good. This glue of “civic virtue” was an important reason why the original social market economy proved so successful. To solve today’s problems, we need a new injection of civic virtue—and this in turn means taking inequality seriously and doing what we can to combat it. After all, Pope Francis calls inequality the “root of social ills” (EG 202).
Environment
Let me now turn to my third and final example: environmental degradation.
The former social market economy was very much based on old-school industrialization—powered by oil, coal, and gas. Given the effects of economic activity on the planet, this is no longer viable. This is indeed a major theme of Laudato Si’: the old economic model is leading to extreme pollution, runaway climate change, severe water stress, a destruction of biodiversity and vital ecosystems—overall, a legacy of “debris, desolation and filth” (LS 161). “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last two hundred years,” says Pope Francis (LS 53).
As the Pope noted so simply and poignantly in his recent Message for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation: “When we mistreat nature, we also mistreat human beings” —especially the poor and vulnerable. These are the people least responsible for the ecological crisis, and yet who are most affected by it—because their livelihoods are most at risk and because they lack the resources available to others to cushion themselves. The World Bank estimates that climate change alone will push 100 million people into extreme poverty by 2030, if we fail to act.
A new social economy, therefore, needs to do a better job of respecting nature. It needs to be built, not on fossil fuels, but on renewable energy. As Pope Francis said in Laudato Si’, “technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels – especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas – needs to be progressively replaced without delay” (LS 165). This is why last year’s Paris Agreement on climate change—endorsed by 196 countries and pledging to peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, with the goal of moving to net-zero carbon emissions in the second half of the century—is so important. It is indeed the foundation of a new social market economy. I am glad to see that both China and the United States have recently announced signing onto the Agreement, and I encourage other countries to follow without delay.
A complete shift from fossil fuels to renewables by 2070 or thereabouts will not be easy. To put things in perspective, though, neither was rebuilding Europe after World War II! It took heroic effort, and it brought out humanity’s best. We need that kind of heroic effort once again: to harness the virtues that propelled the original social market economy—but on a global scale. This includes coming to grips with climate change and achieving sustainable agriculture, plus efforts to make sure that all have access to food, healthcare, education, clean water, clean energy, and communications.
A 21st century social economy must not only prioritize solidarity and subsidiarity—but also sustainability, equality, and human dignity.
Conclusion
To conclude, then, let me say that finding solutions to these challenges and building a social economy requires all stakeholders to take responsibility and play their part. Let’s not fall into the trap of assuming that the state alone is responsible for the common good while “the business of business is business”.
Under the original social market economy, business accepted its social responsibility, its duty to the common good. It realized that it was beholden to a wider array of stakeholders than shareholders alone—this was especially notable in Germany. This ethos needs to be restored and reinvigorated. This is how business can live up to its calling as (in the words of Pope Francis) a “noble vocation”. How might it accomplish that today? By prioritizing jobs over short-term profits; by respecting the environment and investing in sustainable development; by paying its workers well and paying its fair share of taxes, instead of exploiting globalization to once again maximize profits.
May I end with a parable? It starts, “A man was going down Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead.” The first two passers-by evidently had more important business to attend to.
But now, with Laudato Si’, let us identify the victim as all who are in social or environmental peril and those likely to fall into such dangers in our lifetimes; and let us identify the ones who pass by as too preoccupied with banking and business, commerce and technology, governmental and political affairs …
The original parable continued, “A Samaritan while travelling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity”. In our update, the Samaritan represents all those whose compassion leads them to displace their previous priorities and make the great social and environmental perils of our day their first concern ….
At the end, Jesus said to his questioner and to us, “Go and do likewise.”
[Vatican Radio provided text]
Pope Francis Confirms Sick Young Man by ZENIT Staff

Pope Francis has administered the Sacrament of Confirmation on a seriously ill young man.
According to Vatican Radio, before Saturday’s Jubilee Audience, Pope Francis confirmed 16-year-old Giuseppe Chiolo, a patient of the oncological department of the Meyer Hospital in the Italian city of Florence, who traveled to the Vatican for the papal event that morning aboard an ambulance.

Before confirming Giuseppe, the Pope embraced him. The Pontiff also gave him a rosary and requested the young man’s prayers.
Recently, Giuseppe wrote the Pope a letter revealing his strong desire to meet with the Pope; he was immediately invited to come to the Vatican.
Moreover, the Holy Father’s encouraging words also comforted Giuseppe’s parents and for his sister and aunt who were present in the Square together with the Chaplain of the Meyer Hospital and with the vice-director of the local Florentine Caritas office.
Pope Francis also thanked the three volunteers of Mercy who accompanied Giuseppe on his journey to Rome.
In addition, during the audience, Francis greeted other sick and disabled persons.
Innovative Media Inc.
30 Mansell Road, Suite 103
Roswell, Georgia 30076, United States
-------