Latest news with #CatholicChurch
Asharq Al-Awsat
9 minutes ago
- Business
- Asharq Al-Awsat
From the Greek Stable Boy to Josef Mengele?
In one of his memorable comments on the current state of Europe, the late Pope Francis expressed the wish that in a world gripped by turmoil and war the old continent becomes a field hospital for victims from the four corners of the globe. The comment implies that real or imagined victimhood provides anyone with a seat at the high table of privileges cast as human rights. In other words, the unorthodox comment put the Catholic pontiff on the side of those who have tried to transform their definition of human rights into a secular religion unencumbered by the traditional concept of duty upheld by traditional religions. Last week, the French parliament debated the enshrinement of a new right in the law of the land: the right to die. The issue was first raised in Europe almost 30 years ago and led to Switzerland and Holland to become the first havens for the right-to-die. At first, the new 'right' was presented as 'mercy killing'. That had to change because of the politically incorrect word killing. A new phrase was put into circulation: assisted suicide. That too was discarded because suicide is illegal in most European judicial systems. Then we got: assisted dying. But to die is an intransitive verb; if you add assisted you make it transitive which implies murder. Politically correct lexicographers opted for 'the right to die', sending the ball back to the victim. However, that, too, caused a problem. First, dying isn't a right because every living being shall suffer or enjoy it when the time comes. As the Persian poet Ghazayei says: 'From the moment we are born-our death also begins!' Thus, what is at issue isn't the right to die but the exercise of that right. Woke elites couldn't accept the theological position that reserves the right to take life for the Creator. Nor is the pagan position that leaves that right to nature with a capital N or mythological gods and goddesses acceptable to wokeist elites that broke with Athens and Jerusalem long ago. The term that finally emerged and was used in the French debate last week is euthanasia, a crafty shibboleth from a Greek stem. The text, however, shows that what is proposed is killing of people branded as terminally ill and, you guessed it, victims who have drawn the wrong lot. In a sense, the right to die is an inevitable extension of the right to abortion which is also supposed to be exercised under strict limitations but often isn't. (One example: Last week the Islamic Office for Demography in Tehran announced that the number of abortions in Iran has risen to almost half a million each year.) Spokesmen for virtually all major religions have condemned euthanasia on the grounds that giving and taking lives is a prerogative of the Divine and not a matter of individual choice. Some of the language used by religious leaders recalls the 'bell, book and candle' vocabulary of the inquisition. Supporters of euthanasia argue that keeping terminally ill patients, who are often subject to excruciating pain, alive, is both inhuman and economically wasteful. Resources that are 'wasted' on keeping such patients alive would be better-employed in providing more effective treatment and care for others with curable illnesses. One estimate of the financial savings that euthanasia might generate for comes to $1 billion a year. Euthanasia is the latest manifestation of efforts to submit all aspects of life to the cold logic of scientific analysis in the hope of imposing strictly rational control on human existence. What is interesting is that 'the right to die' is not complemented by a corresponding 'right to be born'. In almost all cases those who support 'the right to die' also support the right to kill the unborn baby in the name of abortion. They are also vague on the subject of children born with incurable diseases and thus subjected to a life of suffering. The latter point merits emphasis because the number of incurable diseases, or conditions, is far larger than one may imagine. Diabetes is incurable, although it can be treated. Shortsightedness is also incurable, although it can be corrected by the use of spectacles. If we were to 'cull' all human beings who suffer from various ailments very few people would be left on this earth. The logic of euthanasia might make sense if applied to the source of life as well. It is senseless to allow people to be born when we know they will, at some stage in their lives, be afflicted by incurable disease that would cause them great suffering. The absolutely healthy and perfect human being is a myth that would appeal to Nazis and other fanatics of biological perfection and social engineering. Taking their position to its absurd, but logically consistent, conclusion we should organize a new global system of producing only 'perfect' human beings who will not fall ill or suffer, the dream or nightmare desired by Jozef Mengele. Many geneticists are already working in that direction. Research on ways of 'correcting' human DNA defects is clearly aimed at such a goal. New computer software to help individuals and couples achieve 'perfect' biological matches also fall into the same category. But the question is; who decides all that? The answer is: scientists and doctors who are answerable to no one. The new law requires that the decision to die be taken by the patient himself. But how can someone supposed to be subjected to excruciating pain be in a condition to make a life-and-death decision? The economic argument advanced in favor of euthanasia is even more scandalous. If we were to apply the principle of cost-effectiveness to every human existence, we would quickly realize the folly of such procedures. There are hundreds of millions of people in the poor countries who contribute nothing or very little to the global economy. And there are tens of millions of old-age pensioners in the richest nations who represent a burden for the public treasury. To decide who lives and who dies on the basis of financial calculations is one example of reason gone mad. Aristotle, the father of logic, was aware of the dangers of taking rationality into the uncharted territories of human existence. He had also warned that any system that exaggerates its fundamental principle is doomed to destruction. In this case, too much rationality kills reason. There are areas of life, some would say the most important that cannot and must not be subjected to cold scientific logic. These include love, friendship, taste, talent, and, of course, joy and pain. Why do we fall in love with those two particular black eyes and not others in the world? Why do we feel the grace of friendship with this or that particular individual out of billions of human beings? Why do we like the voice of this singer and not the other and the poetry of this poet and not another? How is it that we can paint reasonably well but sing worse than a frog? Some areas of human existence must be allowed to retain the mystery that they have always enjoyed in the mystical chiaroscuro of the human condition. We should not decree love, friendship and talent. Nor should we try to decree death. Euthanasia, a Greek word, means 'mercy killing' and was initially coined to describe the administration of the coup de grace to badly wounded horses. Human beings, however, cannot be treated the same way as horses. Nor can a doctor of medicine act like a stable boy.
The Print
3 hours ago
- Politics
- The Print
Orthodox Russia doesn't take orders from Pope. Vatican can't convince Putin for a ceasefire
Trump's idea of involving the Papal office in the Vatican, the highest seat of the Catholic Church, in the ceasefire talks was a blunder for several reasons. Russia's Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the Roman Catholic Church have been at loggerheads for over ten centuries, probably right from 988 when Grand Prince Vladimir was baptised. The theological split first appeared in 1054 when the then Pope Leo IX of Rome excommunicated Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople, who responded with his own excommunication of the Bishop of Rome, Pope Leo IX. The election of the hitherto unknown Robert Francis Prevost, a quiet lawyer-bishop with years of experience in Church matters, as the vicar of Jesus Christ, the first American Pope, does not change the ground realities of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, head of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), did not attend the funeral of Pope Francis, though the two held a meeting in 2016 in Cuba, after almost 10 centuries of schism. There is no reason why Pope Leo XIV would broker peace between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy just because the president of America wants him to do it. Russia's rejection of Vatican-led ceasefire talks with Ukraine should come as a surprise only to those who are ignorant of the historic animosity between the two religious institutions, the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's clarification that it is a little 'awkward for Orthodox countries to discuss issues on a Catholic platform' should put at rest all efforts initiated by US President Donald Trump. Division of churches The October Revolution of 1917 further alienated the two Christian faiths, even as Moscow under the brutal atheist regime of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin stifled religious freedom. After deriding religion as the 'opium of the masses', Stalin launched the 'Godless Five-Year Plan', in 1928, leading to the purging of religion from the territories under the Soviet Union. While the Russian Orthodox Church was enlisted to arouse 'Russian patriotism' in 1942 in the wake of Nazi attack on the Soviet Union, the Spiritual Administration of the Muslims of Central Asia and Kazakhstan was established in 1943 during the Great Patriotic War. Meanwhile, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—Kyiv Patriarchate (UOCKP), set up in 1992 by Ukrainian clergy, has been seeking independence from the Kremlin-based ROC. The conflict with Russia has forced the state to adopt a law to ban religious groups linked to Moscow, which the government has accused of complicity in 'Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine'. It is strange that the White House under Trump should expect Putin to sit with Zelensky in the Vatican and submit to the authority of the Holy See. As for his stand on his Ukrainian counterpart—Putin called Zelenskyy 'an ethnic Jew, with Jewish roots, with Jewish origins' put up by his Western masters to cover up 'the antihuman essence' of the modern Ukrainian state and 'the glorification of Nazism'. And Trump expects Putin to shake hands with Zelenskyy in front of the Pope. The US and the European Union members have been constantly accusing Russia under Putin of increasing the State's control over matters of faith, just as it has done in political matters and freedom. They have called Russian Orthodox Church officials as surrogates of Kremlin, working 'in symphony' with the State. While the constitutionally 'secular' Russian state allows citizens to follow any faith of their choice or no faith at all, some Christian and Islamic groups have been banned. The leaders and followers of these groups have been labelled as 'foreign agents' under a 2022 law—arguably to protect the Russian Federation's sovereignty and security. Also read: Don't allow terrorists to regroup. India's military pause with Pakistan can't last long Russia-China-Turkey-Iran axis Besides religious differences, there is another reason why Putin won't sit across the Pope in his Vatican office. In 2021, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against Putin, accusing him of serious war crimes following the Russian attack on Ukraine. More than 50 countries have supported the warrant, obliging them to arrest Putin if he happens to land in any one of these countries. Italy is one of them. Therefore, if Putin agrees to arrive at the Vatican to meet the Holy See, he will have to be arrested and probably handed over to the ICC. Alternatively, the ICC will have to withdraw the arrest warrant, thereby facilitating the meeting. But this will mean surrendering its legal autonomy, authority, jurisdiction, and independence to a religious office. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is over acquiring territory, control over natural resources, ownership of rare minerals, and fulfilling Putin's dream of a Russia-centric Eurasian Union, a vast trade and political bloc stretching from China to the edge of the EU. Putin might go ahead with the technical-level negotiation in Istanbul to consolidate Russia-China-Turkey-Iran cooperation—an axis Trump sees as anti-US, anti-West and anti-Vatican. An exasperated Trump could be tempted to renew American military aid to Ukraine, authorising Zelenskyy to use it anywhere including deep inside Russia, impose greater sanctions to cripple the economy and blanket ban on Russian oil even through secondary markets, like India. In a dramatic turn of events, there are reports of Putin's helicopter being at the epicentre of a Ukrainian drone strike, which could lead to further escalation of the conflict. Like conflicting statements on brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, Trump should be ready for a flip-flop on brokering peace through the Putin-Pope meeting. Seshadri Chari is the former editor of 'Organiser'. He tweets @seshadrichari. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
Indian Express
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Beijing & Vatican: a short history of religion and Catholicism in China
Pope Leo XIV has asked for prayers for China's Catholics to be in communion with the Holy See, wading into a prickly foreign policy issue between Beijing and the Vatican. On May 25, a couple of weeks into his papacy, the pontiff said: 'In the churches and shrines in China and throughout the world, prayers have been raised to God as a sign of the solicitude and affection for Chinese Catholics and their communion with the universal church.' He was referring to the special feast day of May 24, which was initiated for China's Catholics in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI. Communist China severed diplomatic ties with the Vatican in 1951, two years after the establishment of the People's Republic. What has been China's relationship with the Catholic Church over the decades? Catholicism in China Christianity is said to have arrived in China with a monk named Aluoben in the seventh century, during the time of the Tang dynasty (618-907 CE). He was allowed to build a monastery; however, in 845 CE, activities of all foreign religions, including Christianity, were limited by an imperial edict. An Italian Jesuit priest named Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) who travelled from Europe to Goa in 1578 and was ordained at Cochin (now Kochi) three years later, is credited with popularising the religion in China. Ricci, who travelled to China from India, learnt Mandarin and the local culture to reach out to the local population. He wrote that in order to avoid suspicion, 'the Fathers (Jesuits) initially did not attempt to speak very clearly about our holy law… They rather tried to learn the language, literature, and etiquette of the Chinese, and to win their hearts and, by the example of their good lives…' The Taiping Rebellion, a major uprising against the Qing dynasty that lasted for 14 years from 1850-64, was inspired in part by Christianity. Hong Xiuquan, the leader of the rebellion, believed that he was the brother of Jesus Christ, with the mission of establishing Taiping Tianguo, or the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Harmony. Mao Zedong's communists saw religion as being incompatible with their ideology, and a distraction for the working masses. The Nationalist government had maintained relations with the Holy See, but the People's Republic demanded total allegiance from Chinese Christian priests, and perceived their link with the Vatican as a threat of control by Western powers. In what is seen as a fabricated controversy, the government expelled the Vatican representative in China for 'espionage' in 1951. In 2018, China and the Vatican reached an agreement that allowed the Holy See to have the final say over the appointments of bishops proposed by Beijing. Many in the West saw the agreement as bowing down to Chinese government pressure. In 2021, Pope Francis said in defence of the Church: 'China is not easy, but I am convinced that we should not give up dialogue.' Limited recognition During Mao's Cultural Revolution (1966-76), all elements deemed antithetical to a communist society were purged, including religious groups. It was only after the economic reforms of 1978 under Deng Xiaoping that they began to re-emerge. Article 36 of the PRC's constitution guarantees religious freedom, but with restrictions. It says, 'No one shall use religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the state's education system. Religious groups and religious affairs shall not be subject to control by foreign forces.' Members of the Communist Party cannot have religious affiliations. Five religions are officially recognised: Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, and Taoism. However, their administration, such as the appointment of bishops, is under state control. The Vatican has historically opposed this, saying only the Pope can make these decisions. An estimate by Pew Research put the number of Catholics in China at around 10 million in 2020. This included members of underground churches run by local priests. Unlike other religious groups, the population of Catholics in China is estimated to be shrinking. Tension over Taiwan An aspect of China-Vatican tensions is the issue of Taiwan, which Beijing claims as a part of China. After the victory of the communists in China's Civil War, the leaders of the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) fled to Taiwan, where they established their government and sought support from Western governments as the 'Republic of China'. Subsequently, under its 'One China' policy, Beijing required any country with diplomatic ties with the PRC to not recognise Taiwan. While many governments backed Taiwan during the Cold War era, China's economic rise and the changing geopolitical situation gradually saw them shift their allegiance. Currently, only 12 governments, mostly small island nations, recognise Taiwan. The Holy See is one of these governments. Religion under Xi The Chinese state under President Xi Jinping has moved away from an earlier view of religion as something that could guide people towards morality and balance amid increasing commercialisation. Since Xi came to power in 2013, the state and Communist Party have stressed on the 'Sinicisation' of religions, aimed at maintaining and promoting their 'Chinese characteristics'. Critics say Sinicisation is, in fact, an effort to homogenise disparate cultures to match the practices of the majority ethnic Han population. Crackdowns on religious groups have also increased. The most well-known example is that of Uighur Muslims in the western Xinjiang province, many of whom have been interned in 're-education camps'. China denies allegations of Uighurs being forced into slave labour. Rishika Singh is a Senior sub-editor at the Explained Desk of The Indian Express. She enjoys writing on issues related to international relations, and in particular, likes to follow analyses of news from China. Additionally, she writes on developments related to politics and culture in India. ... Read More
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Pope Leo XIV Set to Receive $33,000 a Month as Vatican Pays for Every Luxury in His New Life of Power
Call it pennies from heaven. Newly installed Pope Leo XIV is entitled to a massive monthly stipend that's estimated at $33,000, sources say — in addition to other pricey perks as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Even though Pope Leo may have plenty of dough at his disposal, the 69-year-old pontiff's every need will be provided for by the Vatican, which is the world's smallest independent country. That means the leader of the globe's 1.4 billion Catholics — who was formerly known as Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost — won't have to pay a cent for ecclesiastical clothing, accommodations, travel, food, health care or security. Leo will have access to a fleet of vehicles, official residences and a generous allowance for donations for his spiritual stewardship. He will also oversee a vast financial empire that includes Peter's Pence — an annual collection from Catholics around the world that generates over $25 million annually for support of the pope's mission and charitable works. Chicago-born Pope Leo's predecessor, Pope Francis — who was known for his humble lifestyle — refused any personal income during his tenure from 2013 to 2025. Pope Francis also famously chose to live at the modest Domus Sanctae Marthae guesthouse on Vatican grounds — instead of the traditional papal residence in the opulent Apostolic Palace. Sources suggest Pope Leo may follow in Pope Francis' footsteps and have his salary directed to charity. While the first American pope answers to a higher authority, he may still have to pony up to Uncle Sam — unless U.S. officials give him a pass on filing a tax return. Edward A. David, an assistant professor in the department of theology and religious studies at King's College London, says, 'U.S. tax law claims the right to tax all citizens on their worldwide income. There is no blanket exception for religious personnel nor for people who are diplomats/head of state for foreign countries such as the Vatican.'
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
A Way to Understand Pope Leo XIV's Mission of Love
Want to stay current with Arthur's writing? Sign up to get an email every time a new column comes out. Confounding the prognostication of oddsmakers and Vatican watchers everywhere, Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost was elected as Pope Leo XIV on May 8, becoming the first pope in history from the United States. The new Holy Father served for many years as a missionary in South America and is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Peru. In his first remarks as pope, from the balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square, he declared, 'Together, we must look for ways to be a missionary Church' and called on all Catholics 'to be missionaries.' This is neither a radical agenda nor a new one. Missionary work has been at the heart of the Catholic Church from its earliest days. This has not usually been of the knocking-on-doors sort; Catholics tend to be 'service missionaries' who mingle their faith with an earthly vocation. Catholic movements throughout history have typically formed in response to a pressing worldly need. Some missionaries in these movements have cared for the sick (for example, the Brothers Hospitallers), while others have taught young people (the Jesuits) or fed the hungry (the Missionaries of Charity). The ethos is to treat both bodies and souls. As a lay Catholic myself, I consider my secular writing, speaking, and teaching to be the principal way that I share my faith publicly. As the new pope charges Catholics to be service missionaries representing a missionary Church, then, the question is this: What pressing need do we face? Leo named it himself at his inaugural mass: 'Brothers and sisters, this is the hour for love!' To bind up the wounds in our families, nations, and Church is the mission we need today—a mission of true love for a suffering world. [Francis X. Rocca: The conclave just did the unthinkable] Love is central to the Christian faith. In the Book of Genesis, God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.' In the New Testament, the apostle John clarifies that likeness: 'God is love'; thus, we are made to love. As to precisely what that means, Saint Thomas Aquinas provides a compelling answer in his Summa Theologiae, written in the years before his death in 1274: 'To love is to will the good of the other.' But as they say, the devil is in the details. Willing the good of others can take many different forms. Some might argue that in our messy world, a mission of love should emphasize simple empathy toward others, accepting people as they are without judgment. For psychologists, empathy means 'adopting another person's emotional state.' This is what leads parents to say 'You are only as happy as your unhappiest child.' An attitude of empathy can even imply the coupling of brains through the activation of mirror neurons. If empathy were Leo's charge, then the mission of love would be to live and let live, without challenging views or behaviors that are at variance with natural law and Church teaching and without criticizing wrongdoing. Leo is unlikely to take this path. Not that he lacks empathy—quite the opposite, based on his work and preaching. But he is also a canon lawyer, with deep expertise in the laws of the Catholic Church, which teach that mercy is incoherent without being accompanied by the recognition of right and wrong. Human suffering is very often the fruit of our own mistakes, and not all viewpoints are consistent with Church teaching. In these cases, what is needed is not just mercy but honesty. A faithful medical missionary would not neglect to give corrective advice about physical well-being; the same goes for moral well-being, even when correction is unwelcome. Getting along is great, but going along is not so great. As the Church has made clear, 'the salvation of souls' is 'the supreme law in the Church,' which is always 'to be kept before one's eyes.' If you think this simply sounds like inflexible theology, consider that behavioral-science research has found little support for the hypothesis that empathy is the best way to help others. As I have written before, a truer, more effective expression of love is compassion. People tend to use the terms compassion and empathy interchangeably, but their meanings are very different. Compassion encompasses empathy but also requires understanding the source of another's pain rationally and possessing the courage and forthrightness to name it and suggest a remedy, even if doing so might be difficult or unpopular. To see the difference, think of being the parent of an angst-ridden, rebellious teenager. Empathy imposes no rules. But compassion says, 'These are the rules that will keep you safe. I insist on them because I love you, even if you hate me for doing so right now.' Empathy is easier than compassion, but not better. In fact, research has found that it is far less beneficial to the helper. It might even cause harm to the sufferer, because it can prejudice us toward some people and against others. As the psychologist Paul Bloom, who has studied the topic exhaustively, puts it, 'Empathy is biased and parochial; it focuses you on certain people at the expense of others; and it is innumerate, so it distorts our moral and policy decisions in ways that cause suffering instead of relieving it.' Love-as-empathy can invite us to share the mission of love only with those who are like us and encourage us to treat others as outsiders. Think of the political 'my-side bias' so many people have today, which makes them very forgiving of the errors of people on their own side of an issue but utterly condemnatory of people on the other side. This is not at all the message of Jesus, and it makes ideological polarization worse. True compassion means speaking forthrightly about faith and morality. And that's where things get even harder: Imparting a difficult truth (as you understand it) to someone when you have no love for them is not hard; doing it with love is the challenge. You may have found, as I have, that when you are impelled to criticize someone for their conduct, whatever feelings of warmth you had toward them are diminished, perhaps as a way to maintain your resolve. To criticize without love also tends to be counterproductive—for both parties. It usually increases unwanted attitudes and behaviors. Think how you are affected when someone with whom you disagree on an issue—say, the environment—contemptuously tells you how stupid your position is. You are very unlikely to think, Wow, they're right—I do want to spoil God's beautiful creation out of pure selfishness! On the contrary, it makes you double down on your own position, a phenomenon psychologists call the 'boomerang effect.' Missionary work requires using your values as a gift, not as a weapon. That means presenting these values with love and rejecting the culture of contempt that rewards insults with clicks, likes, and eyeballs. And remember: People are extremely adept at reading your feelings, so if you are bringing moral correction but are inauthentic in your claim that you care about others, they will know it. The key to threading the needle of correction while maintaining love is found in one of the most famous passages in the Gospel, Jesus's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount to 'love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.' As a commentary on the problem of feeling that love, Martin Luther King Jr.—a man with plenty of experience in moral correction of others based in love—said this in a 1957 sermon: 'If you hate your enemies, you have no way to redeem and to transform your enemies. But if you love your enemies, you will discover that at the very root of love is the power of redemption.' Once again, what's morally right turns out to be empirically correct: Praying for others increases your capacity to forgive them. [Randy Boyagoda: The fraught relationship between a pope and his home] Achieving that mission of love will also serve the second goal Leo named in his inaugural mass: to build 'a united Church, a sign of unity and communion, which becomes a leaven for a reconciled world.' To non-Catholics, that might sound like a bromide. I see it differently, as the pope's acknowledgment that the Church itself has tremendous division and strife to overcome—as we have seen in the past decade's bitter fracturing between its conservative and progressive wings. If we can learn to love truly, which means to will the well-being of another, we can achieve unity. Some of my most treasured friendships are with people who disagree with me on politics, religion, and social issues but who care deeply about me as a person despite my possibly foolish beliefs. You can surely say the same for someone significant in your life. And it all begins at home. My wife and I disagree on many things and even voted differently in the most recent presidential election. But our adoration of, and admiration for, each other; our shared love of our children and grandchildren; and our commitment to the Catholic Church make such differences shrink to insignificance. Love unites. Judging by his first words as pope, Leo XIV might launch the love mission the Church needs. And a missionary Church of love could be just what the world needs. Article originally published at The Atlantic
