Some Thoughts

I realize that my posts are very idealistic. Our world is complicated and heavily involved on many levels, from the local to the international sphere. But Catholics are not called to be simply realistic; we are called to witness to the mission of Jesus and the message of the Gospel. In doing so, we must always demand of ourselves a better way of life for everyone on earth, but more importantly, live out the call to reconciliation. We can't simply look past the faults and hurts in our lives. Instead, we must recognize how interrelated our lives are, and cherish our relationships with others. At a global scale, this takes on a far more profound meaning: we must be willing to be aware of the evils in our world, and take a stand against them, while striving to see those in other countries as neighbors and equals.

Gaudium et Spes speaks about weapon disarmament, fairness and equality in economic systems, and multilateralism in nation-building and peacekeeping. However, the document hints at the responsibility that each person owes to one another. Just as one person is responsible for the good and welfare of his neighbor, so are countries responsible for the good and welfare of other countries. Being that presence of good is more than mindless service, but rather, is a committed practice of mindfully seeking common ground and fellowship. It is in this mindset that reconciliation is required. To build these friendships between countries, there must be a sense of relationship that supersedes forgiveness by working to better the other, rather than absolving guilt and moving ahead with one's own affairs. To speak in metaphor, a friend would forgive another that breaks his window, but would practice reconciliation by working with this person to build a new window together.

Weapons of mass destruction stand between this goal. How do you completely and totally trust someone that has inordinate power? There would be no way to get around the fact that one can leverage the other. There is no reconciliation. In the same way, current practices of multilateralism, especially in international crises, such as the one in Ukraine, address political issues and demand concessions, rather than seek permanent solutions by working to directly address the needs of the people. Countries still seem hesitant to become truly committed to the good of one another. While many signs point towards a more peaceful world, we are far from the reconciliation the Church asks for. The guidelines of Gaudium et Spes may be dated, but the message is clear: to accomplish the good of one another, we must be fully invested in that mission, and be prepared to not only set aside all differences and hurts, but establish a lasting means for all to exist in peace and harmony. In doing so, we must have that mindset of relationship, and be ever vigilant that the fate of one country impacts the other. Let us hope that we never lose sight of that goal, and push towards a better unity of hearts and minds towards the well-being of all.

The Pope as an Agent of Reconciliation

I have already explored how the least of member of the Catholic Church can bring about reconciliation, through charitable work and bringing about peace in the community that they live in.  Moving from the least powerful to the most powerful, it is important to look at how the Pope can act as a force for reconciliation in the world.  In particular, I would like to focus on the efforts of two recent popes that brought about reconciliation, Pope John Paul II and the current Pope Francis.  These popes have thrived on the world stage, and have brought Catholics together, peoples of different countries together, and peoples of different religions together.  They have also worked to improve the Church’s standing in the eyes of the world.  These actions are direct exemplifications of the values of reconciliation that are expressed in Gaudium et Spes. 

Pope John Paul II came to the papacy after the monumental changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council, and he is often regarded as the pope that helped to cement the changes and documents that were presented by the Council, including Gaudium et Spes.  When looking at the change that Pope John Paul II brought about, it is not a stretch to suggest that he was very familiar with the tenants of Gaudium et Spes.  The document speaks of the great need to “eliminate the danger of war” wherever it is found (82).  Pope John Paul II is generally recognized as a key leader who helped bring an end to the Cold War, putting an end to one of the tensest periods in recent memory.  In particular, the Pope’s visit to Soviet Bloc Poland is remembered as a turning point in pressuring Russia to release its grip on Poland.  This trailer clip of a produced by Newt Gingrich documents the Pope’s trip and highlights the importance of this visit. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av5rc5IPavs

Pope Francis has also come to the papacy at a pivotal time in Catholic history.  The Church is facing declining Church attendance in areas like Western Europe and the United States, and at the same time is rapidly growing in areas like Asia and South America.  The very fact the Pope Francis is from South America shows that these changes are making a real impact on the Church.  Francis has in many ways taken an active role to bring about change in the Church, and has taken a distinctive turn away from the ways of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI.  His more open ways and humble attitude has given him devout following that resembles the enthusiasm that was showed for John Paul II at his peak.  Pope Francis has in particular focused on worldly wealth, and has criticized the excesses of capitalism and greed in the world.  He has advocated for greater attention to be paid to the poor of the world and has asked for greater generosity to the poor.  Gaudium et Spes looks at the how greater generosity and a curtailing of the abuses of capitalism can bring about peace.  Section 85 begins by saying “The present solidarity of mankind also calls for a revival of greater international cooperation in the economic field”.  It also states that in order for peace to take place on the global stage, “radical changes are made in the established procedures of modern world commerce”.  Pope Francis has covered this same message in speeches and interviews, criticizing the “idolatry of money” and how “unfettered capitalism is tyranny”.   This criticism ruffled some feathers across the world, particularly by conservatives and the wealthy.  The Wall Street Journal in particular was critical, and their coverage of the issue can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6TTSpuX1-0

Thus it is clear that Gaudium et Spes is a document whose message is still relevant today, and the leadership of the Church is intimately aware of its message on peace and reconciliation.   

Reconciliation by Love

So, I spent my Spring Break on a Nun Run. And, for those of you who think that is a 5k in habits, it is, thank the Lord, most certainly not. Five young women from CUA rented a van (which I got to drive through Manhattan, the Bronx, and Times Square. Thank you, Father James Brent, for blessing our car!) and drove up the Northeastern seaboard to visit five convents in a week as a step in the process of discernment. We visited with Polish Franciscan sisters in Maryland and the Hawthorne Dominicans outside of New York. We stayed with the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal in the Bronx and with the Sister Servants of the Lord and the Virgin of Matara as well as the Precious Blood Sisters, who live together in a cloister in the Jewish quarter of Brooklyn.

You are probably wondering what this has to do with reconciliation, and the answer is found in our last stop. We had a retreat over the final weekend of Spring Break with the Sisters of Life in Stamford, Connecticut. If you don't know, what the Sisters of Life do is work with women facing the trial of abortion, and those who have suffered its effects, and breathe life back into their hearts and their lives through God's grace and love.

One of the results of this is that the women who are lost, deciding whether to abort their unborn children or trying to figure out why no one told them abortion would hurt so much, are reconciled with their Father. It's a process of healing through love, and that is really what reconciliation is all about. Love.

I discovered this week that my vocation is not the religious life, not because I didn't feel drawn to any of the communities; I knew already that would be the case, because I am, at the core of my spirituality, Orthodox. Rather, because I paid attention to the sort of calling they had, where there ministry was rooted, and I could tell that my ministry is too pastoral to allow me to be in an Orthodox convent. At least, not for a very long time. I had already known that I was called to the ecuminical movement-- the reunification of the Church. Which brings me back to the question I asked of God this weekend-- How do you heal the broken Church?

His answer was that, first, you had to heal it within yourself. In order to affect order in the world, you must have it inside your own heart. The trick to that is to love every part of the broken Church. Only through love can reconciliation come about. Love is the root of all reconciliation-- of a woman to herself and her past, of families, of Christians, and of the world. The only thing powerful enough to affect the change that peace amounts to is through love.

Catholic Peace Efforts Worldwide

The story of Catholicism itself is an interesting case study for the idea of reconciliation as a force of creating compatibility in the world.  In the span of just 100 years after the death of Christ, the religion had managed to break out of its foundations in heavily Jewish regions like Nazareth and Jerusalem, and had spread west into Greek and Latin speaking regions, as well as East into traditionally Persian areas, and the result was that Catholicism was a world religion from its very beginning.  It existed under a variety of different rulers and forms of government, was worshipped among people of different languages and backgrounds, and was embraced by the rich and poor alike.  This history lead directly into Section 83 of Gaudium et Spes that speaks of “Setting Up an International Community”. 

This section relates that “it is absolutely necessary for countries to cooperate more advantageously and more closely together tan to organize international bodies to work tirelessly for the creation of organizations which will foster peace”.  In many ways, the Church is an organization that works tirelessly for peace.  The Church has been criticized over the years for problems with its bureaucracy and rigid social conservatism, but there is no doubt that the Church as an organization has always stood for peace.  Even apart from the Vatican, the Church, in the sense of the universal group of worshippers, has also been a source of peace in a variety of ways, and is perhaps seen strongest in the charitable work done by the members of the Catholic Church.  One particularly great example of this is the work being done by organizations like Catholic Relief Services.  Organizations like this bring peace on a daily basis to the poor, neglected, abused, and forgotten throughout the entire world, and it is through this type of work that even the smallest Catholic parishioner is able to “work tirelessly for…peace”.  Here is a video of some of the work that they do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8ejD8Ba5_k

I believe that the charity CRS does, which is just one of many organizations like it in the Catholic Church, is a prime example of the type of reconciliation that Gaudium et Spes preaches.   

Thoughts on Reconciliation

In my personal opinion, Chapter V was the most surprising part of Gaudium et Spes, in the sense that it was very different from what my initial expectations of the passage were.  Learning that the topic my group was going to be writing on was reconciliation, I expected read a fairly blasé section of this document that extolled the virtues of forgiveness as it emerges from the Gospel and the Sacraments.  After all, the Catholic Church even has a Sacrament named Reconciliation, and theme of forgiveness is found all throughout the Catholic Mass.  While Chapter V certainly did draw upon the Gospel and the Mass, the reconciliation Gaudium et Spes speaks of doesn’t come solely from these sources.  In order to better articulate what type of reconciliation Gaudium et Spes was speaking of, I turned, as English majors often do, to Dictionary.com.  A quick search of the word “reconciliation” returned these two different definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reconciliation?s=t

The first definition fit perfectly with what I though Gaudium et Spes would be: a rather unenlightening comment on how the world needs to be in “a state of being reconciled” through “an act of reconciling”.  How is this definition helpful with understanding anything of what the word “reconciliation” means?  Thus it is the second definition “the process of making consistent or compatible”, which leads to the most insight into what reconciliation is, and Gaudium et Spes wisely chooses to use a form of this definition in Chapter V, titled “The Fostering of Peace and the Promotion of a Community of Nations”.  To fully explore the theme of reconciliation in Gaudium et Spes, I would like to focus on how the Catholic Church, its poorest parishioners all the way up to the Pope, can be agents that bring about consistently and compatibility in the world.

Constructive Cooperation or Ganging Up?

Given the recent events that have transpired in Crimea, the G7 summit has met to discuss possible responses to Russia's annexation attempt. The group of nations has promised both "individual and collective action" and decries the annexation as "illegal" and "deeply flawed" due to the presence of Russian forces. With questions of sovereignty and legitimacy swirling, it might seem as if the international community has banded together against a common threat, resulting in some degree of cooperation.

Through a Catholic lens, we find that this cooperation is not exactly optimal. Gaudium et Spes spells out that a primary goal of an international community is to bring about peace by ending war. However, the conflict in Crimea, while not a purely military act, ties back to militaristic issues of land control and acquisition, and has involved the use of military involvement. What's more, international condemnation has not impeded, let alone stopped, Russia's power grab in Eastern Europe, nor has it resulted in the removal of Russian troops. In this sense, the G7 has failed as of yet to end this ongoing ideological war, as well as the use of military force.

But in a much fuller sense, Gaudium et Spes discusses how international cooperation should be heavily focused on creating just systems for peoples to live in prosperity and peace, while eliminating human want. This involves organizing both just economic structures as well as providing aid for struggling nations. In this respect, there is no cooperation occurring between these countries. There is no talk of providing aid, or supporting the economic growth of any nation. There is no collaboration to promote the well-being of any peoples, Russian, Ukrainian, or Crimean. Rather than develop the ability for citizens to provide for themselves and grow in harmony, nations are preoccupied with matters of nationality, discussing what divides us rather than what can bring us to a more truly harmonious existence. The biggest issues are political, not human, in nature. Condemnation of actions is not truly a path to peace, but simply another step in the cycle of politicization that has gripped our international dialogues. For reconciliation to occur, countries need to be asking bigger questions: what are the living conditions of citizens in this country? How can we best meet these people's needs? Where can we find common ground between peoples, rather than bicker and argue over legitimacy and nationality? But rather than focus on the people, all eyes are on the leaders, and we target them with demands for concessions. There is no reconciliation, and no relationship, only retribution.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26547138

A Summary of Church Teaching on War

Peace cannot be attained through violence. It can only be attained by understanding. 

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

The New Nuke

Question: what is a weapon?

Merriam-Webster says that a weapon is something "that is used for fighting or attacking someone of for defending yourself when someone is attacking you." In the era of Vatican II, the Catholic Church was concerned with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), namely, nuclear weapons. In this era, we have seen the rise of the threat of biological warfare and chemical warfare, with the use of anthrax mail or sarin gas. However, with the boom of the Internet, and the rise of computers, weapons take on the form of 1's and 0's in lines of computer codes. Viruses, trojan horses, and other malware have evolved from personal pests to a matter of national security. We have seen the destructive power of computer experts, who have destroyed centrifuges in Iran and stolen credit card information. Sites such as Wikileaks pose security threats by distributing information, while chatrooms and open forum sites harbor terrorist recruiters and individuals seeking to anonymously cause mayhem with the click of a mouse. While it is a great tool, technology and the Internet are not only a vulnerability, but in the hands of some, a weapon.

We live in a world dependent on technology to power our homes, maintain our economics, and keep life as we know it comfortable and sustainable. Therefore, the possibility of a cyberattack holds serious implications. Military intelligence could be compromised, and in recent years, power grids could be shut down without a single shot being fired. Church teaching on warfare during Vatican II discussed the need for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, which were in the hands of entire nations. How does the Church promote a similar stance in the world of cyberterrorism and cyber warfare? Now, the weapons that could threaten whole countries are not solely in the hands of superpowers, but instead, the laptops and desktops of mere individuals. What kind of action should we take against these people that threaten the world in a novel way? How do we make peace with people that seek to ruin the digital infrastructure of our world on their own terms? How can the Church dialogue with the technologically-savvy terrorists of this world, and those that attempt to guard us from incursions on such attacks on our country?

http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-says-cyberterrorism-countrys-biggest-threat-us-government-assembles-cyber-warriors-1556337

Nuclear Napkin Number-Crunching

There is still a lot of progress to made in the world of nuclear non-proliferation. Don't believe me? Let's do a little math....

As of November 2013, there were thirty-one nations, including the United States, who possess nuclear capabilities to some degree. For the sake of an argument, let's focus on the United States. The two longest-range missiles, the Minuteman III and the D-5 Trident II, have effective ranges up to 13,000 kilometers. To put that into perspective, one of these missiles could start in Kansas, and land without a sweat in the middle of the Sahara Desert; a missile starting in Los Angeles could pay a visit to Beijing.

We have two types of missiles that can cross the entire world, starting from the US. However, some are submarine based, or located in other countries. In terms of numbers, we have approximately 400 Tridents and 330 Minutemen actively available to be used on command. For the purpose of this argument, let's fairly assume we could deliver a payload from these carriers anywhere on earth. Now let's talk about sheer destructive power.

The Minuteman has a payload of approximately 170 kilotons, which is not the largest of explosions comparing to other missiles. The Trident can deliver a payload of almost 500 kilotons, which is still pretty sizable. However, any explosion above 10 kilotons will cause what qualifies as "severe damage" within a half-mile radius, and moderate damage within a mile radius, and light damage extending out as far as three miles. For 100 kilotons, heavy damage will be caused within a 2 kilometer radius.

Time for some REALLY simplified, and highly conservative, math. Let's assume that our Minutemen can cause heavy damage within two square miles (given the increased payload, that's not a bad guess). Multiply that by the number of missiles we have active, and you have the ability to level 660 miles of land. With the Trident missiles, let's assume that an eight to ten square miles are heavily damaged, matching the increased radius to the increased payload. That means that you have the potential of annihilating 4000 square miles. Combined, with just these two delivery systems, the United States can destroy nearly 5000 square miles of the planet earth at any given time, without sending a single plane or deploying a single soldier. The United States could erase an area the size of Puerto Rico completely and entirely off the face of the earth, in the space of a few minutes. This is one country, with only two types of missiles. This math does not take into account the approximately 5,000 other nuclear warheads at our disposal, some measuring destructive ability in the megatons.

Granted, progress has still been made since the days of the Cold War. But does this threat to completely demolish massive tracts of land still hold us back from attaining true peace? We are warned of the dangers of arms races, and modern languages have largely agreed that this tactic of deterrence is not beneficial for humanity. However, maintaining stockpiles at all has done nothing to stop any advance in nuclear weapon production in rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. Should there be a further push to take the Vatican's advice, by pushing towards greater disarmament and aligning towards creating a universal, more powerful international peacekeeping group? We find that situations in the 21st century exist beyond the vocabulary of Vatican II, yet we are asked to strive for the standards that the council sets before us. Perhaps it would be time for the Vatican to lay out a more comprehensive plan to address the issue of WMD's, rather than simply advocating for an era free from the threat of annihilation. Rogue nations, terrorism, and complicated international relations create a categorically complex environment that requires a plan for direct intervention, not just goals to accomplish.

However, the mere presence of these weapons hints to a larger truth: as long as these weapons exist, relationships between countries will always have an element of fear. The element of mutually assured destruction in international relationships is not constructive, because it does not unite us, but rather, separates us by the threat of annihilation. We cannot hope to build peaceful friendships in the face of an ongoing nuclear Mexican standoff. If Catholics are called to reconciliation, we are forced to admit that such an action cannot occur in its fullest as long as nuclear arsenals stand at the ready, capable of leveling cities and ending civilizations. It's the rough equivalent of becoming friends in the middle of a Mexican standoff, albeit on a much larger scale. Reconciliation demands relationship, yet relationships tainted by fear cannot yield lasting peace or harmony. With every passing day, let's hope that we can let go of our weapons of mass destruction to free our hands to help others.

https://www.google.com/search?q=distance+from+us+to+africa&oq=distance+from+us+to+africa&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.5312j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=distance%20from%20us%20to%20sahara%20desert

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missiles

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

http://www.remm.nlm.gov/nuclearexplosion.htm#blast

Money and Peace

Money certainly can't buy happiness. But can we bribe for peace?

Maybe not.

A debate held by several journalists and experts over the issue of aid in Africa resulted in some intriguing, and perhaps disturbing, conclusion: giving aid to Africa is doing more harm than good. In the face of overwhelming issues, and entrenched corruption at all levels of government and society, it seems that sending money and aid is not bringing any quick, or lasting, change to the war-torn and impoverished continent. In fact, it seems to only add more complexity and insecurity to a very involved situation.

So, where do we go from here?

Gaudium et Spes tells us that it is the responsibility of developed nations to provide for the needs of developing nations, and to some degree, the United States has done so. However, perhaps it is time to redefine aid; assistance to a struggling country cannot simply turn sovereign nations into charity cases, without addressing systemic issues. Dialogue, cooperation, and long-term, professional planning are all key to effectively following through on the successful building of a country. In any event, the broad terms of Gaudium et Spes might need to be narrowed in on in our 21st century world. A greater sense of foreign affairs and a more accurate international economics model requires revisions that more specifically address the needs of certain countries, giving impetus and guidance to more constructive, beneficial intervention in the developing world.

When it comes to helping our brothers and sisters, it will take more than simply money. It will require our combined intellectual and ideological power, in tandem with a true sense of purpose when addressing these matters. We will need to involve the totality of ourselves, and perhaps even the totality of our societies, to lift up struggling countries. In this sense, reconciliation is needed: we must put our relationship and connection to others above our own personal needs in order to secure lasting prosperity in these struggling countries. In Gaudium et Spes the Church was focused on constructing fair economic systems, yet the real emphasis lies more in the sense of involvement that we must take. It is more than rebuilding economies; the focus is placed on working slowly on a nation to develop its resources, taking the time, effort, and energy to solve these issues.

In an age when personal and private opportunities for service have exploded, the Church by extension calls upon the gifts of young men and women to not only become educated about such issues, but also involve themselves totally in the mission to help the poor in other countries. With information technology and various advocacy groups, we are made well aware of the struggles of our neighbors across the globe. Just as nations are supposed to pour out themselves and seek fuller relationships with other countries, so should we as individual citizens of a global society.

Money may not be able to by happiness on any scale. Yet perhaps we can earn happiness for all by recognizing the common humanity we all share, and then acting upon it.

Sources: http://www.npr.org/2007/12/12/17095866/is-aid-to-africa-doing-more-harm-than-good

"Blessed be the peacemakers..."

But how can violence bring peace?...

"War Never Changes"

So then how can we?

Not Just a Little Hot Air

The Church discusses the danger and horror of scientific weapons. We get caught up with nuclear weapons, as they are at the forefront of our minds when it comes to "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Yet with conflict in Syria, we forget other, more insidious weapons, like sarin gas, which is equally condemned by both religious and governmental organizations. To get a sense as to why this is the case, watch this short clip about the effects of sarin gas. It is chemical weapons such as this that prompt such an unrelenting position from the Church. I, for one, cannot help but agree that the creation, let alone use, of this weapon, is well beyond any moral practicality. We can only hope and pray that we can grow past the use of such barbaric approaches to warfare. Not only do these weapons leave lasting wounds in the hearts and minds of people, but enforce civility by force, not by forgiveness and finding strength in our relationships with one another. Development of weapons such as these bring to light the simple idea that fear is not a stable element in relationships; sooner or later, threats will be made good on, and the consequences are dire.

The Iran Paradox

Gaudium et Spes warns us of the threat of global annihilation at the hands of amassed nuclear arsenals, and condemns not only the use, but stockpile, of such weapons. During the aftermath of the Second World War and the onset of the Cold War, such a scenario seemed not only possible, but even likely. Since then, multiple treaties and accords have been made, and international organizations have been formed, fostering disarmament among developed nuclear nations. It would seem, at first glance, that the words of the Church carried some sort of wisdom. However, how do the lessons of Gaudium et Spes instruct us to interact with a nation such as Iran?

Let's look some facts:
1) Iran has continued to build up nuclear technologies, despite international involvement and intervention.
2) Iran has threatened to use such an arsenal against developed nations, including the United States, without any sense of self-preservation. This is not an act of self-defense; it is aggression.
3) Iran has gone ahead with nuclear development, not giving sincere thought to the rehabilitation of it's own struggling economy.

As insightful and powerful as Gaudium et Spes may be in the canon of Church teaching, no one at the council seemed to have predicted the Iran Paradox. What is the Catholic response to this rampant fear-mongering and warlike behavior? Gaudium et Spes advocates for international involvement, yet all the pressure of united developed nations, both soft and hard, have failed to halt, or even stall, Iran's nuclear program. Iran's leaders do not seek self-defense, stockpiling, or the well-being of their population; they only seem to desire the harm and destruction of others. Perhaps it is time the Catholic church reexamined this issue of nuclear war and terror, and ask the hardest question: can we dialogue with a nation whose leaders speak only of doing harm to others? Or does there come a point when words fall short, and action is necessary? What sort of action, then, must we take?

The message of the Church in the face of strife is reconciliation; is there a way to embrace the people of Iran, and build a relationship? It seems that the world should focus on the development of the Iranian people, and build up the populace of the country, rather than condemn the leaders. In reconciliation, there is an emphasis on relationship, as opposed to forgiveness, which is more focused on the absolution of guilt and action. By addressing the matter of relationship between peoples rather than the actions of leaders, perhaps the world has a chance to reach out to a struggling people, rather than participating in an endless power struggle. Relationships based on the common good of others, rather than demanding apologies and concessions in exchange for forgiveness, should take precedence in the vocabulary of international dialogue in this ongoing struggle. It is this that the Church advocates for in terms of enduring global cooperation. Maybe then can we find harmony and compatibility on these common ground of providing for the needs of all.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/28/iran-nuclear-economic-advance/5835935/