The Church teaches that the purpose of government is to provide a legal, political and economic framework in which the true common good can flourish, in order that the people may accomplish their life’s mission - that is, so that they may use the freedom granted to them by God to seek and live in accordance with the truth, and thereby find their way back to Him. The true common good consists in enabling and encouraging all individuals to seek their own proper path to God.
In accomplishing this purpose, government is expected to work together cooperatively with all other social institutions, including the family; the Church and other moral and educational institutions; civil society and cultural organizations; the organs of a fair market economy; the media; and all other levels of government.
All of government’s activities should be informed by and discharged in accordance with the principles, values and virtues of good government. In the Catholic view, good governance consists in adherence to:
The permanent principles of the sanctity of life and human dignity, the common good as defined above, subsidiarity, and solidarity;
The fundamental values of truth, freedom, justice and charitable love.
The virtues of prudence and good stewardship, wisdom, humility, and respect.
Governance in accordance with these principles can help to ensure that policies and legislation are adopted only when they are wise, prudent, and balanced, and likely to serve the true good of society.
In considering any proposed policy or legislation, Catholics should ask:
Is the proposal appropriately tailored to enable government to accomplish a legitimate social purpose in right cooperation with other social institutions, properly respecting the rights, roles, needs, and proper expectations of such other institutions? Does it tend to usurp authority or responsibility which properly belongs to other institutions?
In particular, does it promote the common good without unduly burdening families, individuals, or other organs of society?
Does the proposal properly support growth or development in individuals and lower-order entities, without unnecessarily or unjustly burdening or harming anyone?
Is the proposal consistent with democratic principles of providing all members of society an appropriate voice in governance, as well as equal protection and equal benefit under the law? How does it affect my neighbours? How does it affect those in other cities, other provinces, other countries, or other generations?
Is it likely to accomplish its purpose with prudence and efficiency? Are there simpler, less expensive, or less intrusive alternatives for accomplishing the same purpose? Does the proposal tend to unnecessarily expand legislation or bureaucracy?
Image: A 1825 paining of Pierre Toussaint by Anthony Meucci, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
When he saw the crowds, Jesus went up the mountain, and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him. He began to teach them, saying… You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow. (Matthew 5:38-42).
Few people have lived these words like Venerable Pierre Toussaint. Born into slavery on a Haitian sugar plantation and taken to New York in slavery as an adult, he not only cheerfully served those who subjugated and claimed to own him, but contrived by cheerful, faithful service to earn enough money to buy others out of slavery and ultimately, upon earning his own release, to purchase a home that he shared with the poor, orphans, the sick, and others in need.
Teaming in other good works with his wife, who was among those for whom he purchased an acknowledgement of freedom, he ultimately came to be acknowledged as the de facto founder of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York.
Truly Venerable Pierre Toussaint offers a lesson from which many people might benefit.
Points to Ponder:
The Theological Virtues of faith, hope, and charity are explained in Sections 1812 to 1829 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Section 1822 teaches that “charity is the virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.” (Compare Matthew 22:34-40)
Section 1825 teaches that the Apostle Paul has given the incomparable description of charity:
Charity is patient and kind, charity is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Charity does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
(Quoting 1 Corinthians 13)
How well did Venerable Pierre Toussaint’s behaviour meet Saint Paul’s description?
Did he demonstrate patience and kindness? It is reported that:
during his enslavement he accepted education from his enslavers, served them lovingly, and while still enslaved worked his way as an adult through apprenticeship to become a successful hairdresser for prominent New York women – including the wife of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton – at a time when such women tended to use their maids for hairdressing; and that attracted a large a large clientele by his intelligence, artistry, and civility.
when the couple who claimed ownership of him lost their money and property and the husband died, Pierre willingly took on the role of supporting his former master’s wife, her new husband, her extended family, and his own still-enslaved relatives, financially and otherwise.
even after he was freed at the age of about 40, he corresponded with the family that had claimed to own him.
following his release, he bought his sister’s freedom, along with the woman he married. After his sister died, he adopted her daughter.
together with his wife, became involved in a number of charitable efforts,
beginning by taking baked good to children at the Colored Orphan Asylum and donating money;
sheltering orphans, sick people (including at least one priest) and others in need in his own home, and supporting them in education and vocational training;
organizing a credit bureau, an employment agency, a refuge for priests and needy travelers;
helping immigrants, particularly by using his ability in the French language to help Haitian refugees;
helping open the first Catholic school in New York for Black children, at St Vincent de Paul on Canal street.
In doing these things, it is reported that he worked assiduously to control his own fiery temper.
Did Venerable Pierre show jealousy, or boast? Is he reported to have been arrogant or rude? Does he appear to have insisted on having his own way? Was he irritable or resentful? It is reported that:
he acknowledged that he consciously fought his own naturally quick temper and supressed a talent for mimicry, explaining that he realized that anger and mimicry from him might not be well tolerated by the society that claimed power over him.
from the time he was allowed to go free in 1807, until New York abolished slavery twenty-two years later, he risked abduction and re-enslavement by bounty hunters simply by going outdoors, walking everywhere because Blacks were not allowed to use public transportation.
he helped raise funds for the first Catholic orphanage in NY, which was opened by the Sisters in Charity, even though it served only white children.
Did Venerable Pierre rejoice at wrong, or at right? It is reported that:
upon being released from legal bondage he took the surname Toussaint in honour of the Catholic Haitian revolutionary, Toussaint L’Overture, who led his country to freedom while remaining faithful to his beliefs.
he attended Mass daily for 66 years, and contributed liberally to the construction of the new Saint Patrick’s.
at the time of the proclamation of venerability in 1997, some people are reported to have disagreed with the declaration, on grounds that although he had been born into slavery, he did not resist his enslavement, or work to end slavery as an institution.
At his death, Venerable Pierre was buried in the cemetery of Old Saint Patrick’s Church in New York City. In the 1950s, the Irish-American John Boyle O’Reilly Committee for Interracial Justice began a campaign to research and publicize Venerable Pierre’s life story. In 1968, Cardinal John O’Connor, Archbishop of New York, named him a Servant of God and transferred his body to the crypt of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral; he remains the only lay person interred there. In 1997, he was declared venerable by Pope Saint John Paul II.
As Saint Paul put it, “charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (1 Corinthians 13:7)
A new report raises questions about the "provisioning" of same-day suicide requests in the province of Ontario.
According to the province, in January 2024 the office of its Chief Coroner established, as part of a procedural adjustment reflecting an allegedly “more mature state” of Socially-Assisted Death (SAD)1 practice in Ontario, a new Death Review Committee (MDRC) comprised of 16 members from across multiple disciplines, including law, ethics, medicine, social work, nursing, mental health and disability experts, and one member of the general public, to add “advisory support” to existing SAD oversight measures in Ontario. The committee is mandated to provide recommendations and guidance that may inform the practice of SAD through the evaluation and discussion of topics, themes, and trends identified by SAD review teams (MRTs).”
The goal of the MDRC is identified as providing multidisciplinary expert review of SAD deaths in Ontario with legislative, practice, health, social, and/or intersectional complexities identified through the already-existing oversight and review process, with a goal “to support quality practice and the safety of patients and [SAD] practitioners.” This goal is to be accomplished “through the dissemination of reports.”
These reports are meant to include, “where possible and appropriate, a diversity of thought and perspectives from committee members,” without aiming to establish consensus. Opinions of members are not collated or counted; rather qualifiers such as “few, some, many, most” are used to express the extent of support by committee members.
A recent MDRC Report2 raised concerns with several assisted suicides “provided” within 24-48 hours of request. Each of the cases involved circumstances that called the effectiveness of the consent into question, such as withdrawal of earlier requests and statements of reservation on spiritual grounds; disagreement among SAD assessors and “providers”; reliance on virtual assessments rather than in-person consultation; possible undue influence by family members; and unavailability of a preferred options such as palliative care.
Church Teaching:
Sanctity of Life: the Church proclaims the sanctity of human life, from conception to natural death.
We care about the sanctity of life because the entire purpose of each soul God endows with life is to find its way back to God by loving God and caring for all the souls God has placed around it, using all the time and talents that have been entrusted to us to seek God in heaven, our hearts, and each other. Voluntary termination of life any time between conception and natural death necessarily frustrates that purpose.Even when we are disappointed, ill, or in pain we are meant to accept our challenges, offering our suffering to God in the knowledge that this life is passing and that we are intended for greater things. It’s also important to remember that human sufferings and weaknesses offer souls the opportunity to help one another, accompanying each other through all phases of life.
Socially-assisted suicide is clearly contrary to these purposes.
Truth, Freedom, Justice, and Charitable Love. These four fundamental values of Catholic teaching offer rich ground for reflection in the context of birth, life, and death.
Points to Ponder:
When patients are weak, worn out, in pain or distress, confused and not thinking clearly, alone and facing death, are they typically considered to be in condition to make wise, well-considered decisions regarding the culmination of their lifetimes’ work? When decisions are pushed upon them in such conditions, is their consent really sincere or effective?
What happens when SAD or “MAiD” assessors disagree with one another, or with SAD “providers?” How is a decision reached? Given the sharp distinction between life and death, is compromise possible? If not, what would a just, loving, charitable, wise, or prudent decision look like?
Clearly the responsibility of SAD assessors and “providers” is immense; the line between a consented and an unconsented killing can be very thin. What happens when an assessor or “provider” crosses the line between a true consent into something that looks more like a decision in favour of bureaucratic or organizational efficiency, or maybe even something worse?
How are SAD assessors and “providers” chosen, and reviewed? What criteria are applied? And what happens when they make unjustifiable choices that result in the killing of other people?
The table below is taken from MDRC Report 2024-02. It purports to show underlying conditions that were relied upon in the SAD process to justify government-inflicted homicides for which responsibility has been distributed among all members of society. Note that separate lines are provided for “Complex Chronic,” “Musculoskeletal”, and “Autoimmune” causes, to each of which none or single deaths are attributed. It being the case that zero or one killings justified separate listing of those causes, what conditions are covered by the 14 causes grouped under “Other” cases listed on the 4th line? If authors of the report were willing to devote lines to causes with single or no deaths, why could not the 14 “other” causes be defined?
1NOTE: Federal and Provincial authorities identify Socially-Assisted Death practices as “medical assistance in dying, or “MAiD”. Catholic Conscience prefers the acronym “SAD”.
Among bills debated by the House of Commons during the 45th Parliament is C-9, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda, Hate Crime, and Access to Religious or Cultural Places).1 Along with other bills considered during that parliament, it is summarized and annotated on our Parliament Brief page. 2
According to Bill C-9’s sponsor, Justice Minister Sean Fraser, during his introduction at second reading,
…One of the great promises of Canada is the right of its citizens to live freely, regardless of the colour of their skin, the God they pray to, their gender identity or the person they love…
It is important we understand the scale of what we have observed in Canada's recent history. Nearly 5,000 hate crimes are officially reported by law enforcement annually in this country. We know, through conversations with affected communities, that the true number is much, much higher. The under-reporting of hate crimes is in and of itself a symptom of a societal problem: that people may not have faith that the criminal law is actually equipped to deal with the circumstances they face so routinely in their communities.
It troubles me greatly when I open the newspapers and see such stories. When I meet with Jewish Canadians, they tell me that they are beginning to question whether they have a place in this country, as a result of the hate they have been subjected to. I think about what I have witnessed in my own community, with local police laying charges for the advocating of genocide toward Jewish Canadians. Recently in my home province of Nova Scotia, synagogues have been desecrated with hate symbols that seek to intimidate people of the Jewish faith against practising their religion. The National Holocaust Monument has been desecrated. Is there no limit to indecency?
There are many communities that are impacted. I think about Muslim Canadians, who are suffering from a wave of Islamophobia that we must address. I have met with people and visited their mosques, people who have told me what it is like to be harassed in their communities and told me about the fear they have when they seek to gather and pray…
This is completely unacceptable. .. People do not feel safe to practice their religion and to visit their churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples…
I fear that, too often, we, as Canadians, are failing our neighbours. We should seek to be better neighbours. We are responsible, in my view, not only for the acts that we ourselves commit, but for the injustices that we see and accept through our acquiescence and through our inaction. When we see instances of hate in our community, we have a duty to condemn them, to speak up and to show support for our fellow Canadians. It should not be too much to ask that our neighbours take care of one another. Should we adopt that approach, we will collectively be better off. 3
Official Summary:
The Act proposes to amend the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal a requirement that the Attorney General consent to the institution of proceedings for hate propaganda offences;
(b) create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place;
(c) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;
(d) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes; and
(e) create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.
Commentary
Commentary at second reading fell along predictably partisan lines.
While commending the objectives of protecting vulnerable communities and supporting police and prosecutors, Conservative members questioned:
Why the bill proposes to define hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”, rather than adopting the stricter standard adopted by the Supreme Court in Regina v. Keegstra of “extreme detestation and extreme vilification.” The party further questioned why the qualifier “extreme manifestations” had been dropped.
Why it is proposed to remove the existing requirement that the relevant provincial Attorney General consent to the laying of hate charges.
Why attacks against Christianity within Canada had not been mentioned by the government. When another member laughed at this question, a Conservative member reminded the House that between May 2021 and December 2023 thirty-three Christian churches had been burned in Canada, and that the previous Parliament had declined to condemn the attacks, along with crimes against other religious groups.
Why it was not proposed to refine existing laws, rather than adding a new and confusing piece of legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois questioned failure of the propsal to repeal a religious exemption from hate speech, where statements are based on religious texts.
The Green party questioned why, when several “strong pieces” of hate legislation already exist, additional strictures tied to a new definition of “hatred” are proposed, since “[I]t does not make sense to add new legislation where it is not needed” and thereby make things more confusing.
The Government replied that it welcomed all good-faith criticism, and wished to adapt the bill so that all parties are satisfied. However, several of the objections were stated to be suspected of being based on bad faith.
In the press, Catholic commentators expressed concern over the apparent lack of concern about the federal government toward the more than 300 arsons and acts of vandalism perpetrated against Christian churches since 2021. 4
Points to Ponder
What is the best way for a society to combat hate? Is it preferable to add laws attempting to carefully circumscribe all combinations and permutations of action and mental states, or to rely on simpler, already existing laws, where they exist and cover the proscribed behaviour?
Canada Criminal Code Section 434, for example, specifies that “Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property that is not wholly owned by that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” This would cover churches and other places of worship, as well as parked cars, trash bins, and all other forms of property.
Which is more difficult to prove? That a fire was intentionally or recklessly set, or that it was set with “an emotion of detestation or vilification (extreme or otherwise) that is stronger than disdain or dislike?”
Would it make sense, in addition or as an alternative to adding new laws, to enforce existing laws? It is charged, for example, that authorities declined to take serious action to investigate or prosecute several of the fires that destroyed Canadian Catholic churches between 2021 and 2023.6
Do there already exist laws that prohibit individuals from blocking others from access to places of religious worship?
Do there exist other ways to combat hate, in addition or as an alternative to criminal legislation?
For example, should public schools teach children that burning churches and other places of worship, or barring worshippers from entering, is wrong?
Does, could, or should the Catholic Church have any role to play in combatting hate? What, if anything, could or should be done?
Like arson, murder - and inciting others to commit murder or other forms of violence - is also already illegal in many jurisdictions. Still, it is reported that following the murder of activist Charlie Kirk in September 2025, a number of public figures openly praised the killing6 in terms that might well be construed as approving of the killing of individuals who speak publicly against their own ideas. Such figures included, for example:
A professor of political science and religion at the University of Toronto, who shared a post citing the killing as “honestly too good for so many of you fascist c—ts.”
A University of Calgary associate professor, who posted comments including “Bullseye” and “Charlie Kirk no longer exists” together with an emoji of a laughing face.
The province of Manitoba’s Minister of Families, who shared a post stating that “I extend absolutely no empathy for people like that.”
Do such statements fall as “hate speech,” or as motivated by hatred, within the strictures of the proposed law, or any other? To the extent that they incite further violence, should such statements be curtailed?
As noted above, concerns have been stated about the apparent governmental indifference to crimes against Christian communities. In introducing and justifying the bill, however, Minister Fraser stated, among other things, that “People do not feel safe to practice their religion and to visit their churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples…”3
The term "place of religious worship" does not appear to be defined within t bill. However, most dictionaries accept that a “church” is a place of Christian worship, or a body of Christian believers.
Is it important that Catholics and other Christians respect truth and fairness in argument?
If so, is the fact that the Minister led his list of worship houses with churches relevant?
It seems undeniable that the previous government was not very interested in defending Catholics or other Christians from persecution. Has the current government given any indication of its interest level?
Canada is not alone in having elected new leaders within the last year. Nor is it alone in having elected leaders who, like most human beings, are likely imperfect. But it does appear that Canada may face its best opportunity in years for beginning a respectful and democratic civic dialog, centred on Catholic values. Maybe its time for us to start talking to those we’ve elected to lead us.
Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney has publicly acknowledged that he professes Catholicism, and he openly attended Pope Leo’s inauguration Mass – even going so far as to praise the Pope’s homily, and to explain to the press why he knelt during Mass. It also reported that he regularly “goes to Catholic church.”
It is also true that he has openly declared his unreserved support for abortion rights, perhaps even for their elevation to the status of protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is obviously difficult for faithful Catholics to accept, particularly as abortion in Canada is legal for any reason, and practiced right up to the moment of birth.
It is a topic we should certainly take up with him.
On the other hand, he speaks Catholic when he wants to. It is reported, for example, that he once attended a Vatican seminar on the topic of building an economy that works for everyone, and that when he got home he wrote a book about how that might be done - a book that is framed in terms consistent with Catholic social teaching, and appears to be informed by it, even if it does not stress that fact.
The question we face is: do these things give us enough ground to at least try to start a respectful conversation, that includes both points of agreement and points of disagreement? We should perhaps reflect carefully on that, as recent history suggests that it might be unwise to wait on a better chance.
If we do want to start such a conversation, it would be well to start soon. Despite the fact that Mr. Carney has barely even begun to work at his new job, criticism is already flowing toward him, including unfortunately a measure of sharp personal criticism from Catholics. Left unchecked, this stream seems likely to sweep us right back down the drain of endless bickering and nagging, rather than constructive conversation, especially as it is sometimes difficult to discern legitimate Catholic grounds for complaint, as opposed to mere personal preferences.
For example, one charge frequently leveled at Mr. Carney, by Catholics and others, is that he is a globalist banker, a member of a “post-national management class.” This certainly sounds ominous, but is it necessarily damning? It’s clear the activities of many global bankers and managers are not aligned with Catholic thought. But is it not possible that some global bankers and managers might be good people, even Catholics, even if they are both bankers and managers at the same time? It would help if particulars of such complaints were be provided, but they too seldom are.
So we are left with the question “is it a sin, in and of itself, for a Catholic (or anyone else) to be a globalist?” It would seem not. Much seems to depend on what kind of globalism is intended, and how it is approached. For example, the original, largest and oldest global organization in the world is the Roman Catholic Church, which has used its worldwide reach to accomplish untold good, along with a few things that we likely could have done better.
As Pope Saint John Paul II told the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences 24 years ago,
Globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it. No system is an end in itself, and it is necessary to insist that globalization, like any other system, must be at the service of the human person; it must serve solidarity and the common good.
One of the Church’s concerns about globalization is that it has quickly become a cultural phenomenon. The market as an exchange mechanism has become the medium of a new culture. 1 Many observers have noted the intrusive, even invasive, character of the logic of the market, which reduces more and more the area available to the human community for voluntary and public action at every level. The market imposes its way of thinking and acting, and stamps its scale of values upon behaviour. Those who are subjected to it often see globalization as a destructive flood threatening the social norms which had protected them and the cultural points of reference which had given them direction in life.
What is happening is that changes in technology and work relationships are moving too quickly for cultures to respond. Social, legal and cultural safeguards – the result of people’s efforts to defend the common good – are vitally necessary if individuals and intermediary groups are to maintain their centrality.2
It seems that concerns such as this are what we should focus on, rather than condemning ideas out of hand. And it would seem wise to start working now, speaking up and encouraging or correcting where necessary, and doing what we can to ensure that any globalist initiatives are established in responsible fashion, that they seek to do only that which is needed and appropriate, and that they are consistent with the principles of both solidarity and subsidiarity, rather than mere schemes for maximizing profit.
We could start by listening. For example, this is exactly where Mr. Carney’s book begins, in what sounds like close agreement with Saint John Paul. From the introduction to Value(s), for example:
These are the questions that this book seeks to explore. It will examine how our society came to embody Wilde’s aphorism – knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. How by elevating belief in the market to an inviolable truth we moved from a market economy to a market society. And how we can turn this around… [to build an economy underpinned by the values and beliefs of]:
dynamism to help create solutions and channel human energy;
resilience to make it easier to bounce back from shocks while protecting the most vulnerable in society;
sustainability with long-term perspectives that align incentives across generations;
fairness, particularly in markets to sustain their legitimacy;
responsibility so that individuals feel accountable for their actions;
solidarity whereby citizens recognize their obligations to each other and share a sense of community and society; and
humility to recognize the limits of our knowledge, understanding and power so that we act as custodians to improve the common good.3
Much will depend, obviously, on whether Mr. Carney actually tries to build such an economy, and how well he does with it, and how well his values and beliefs turn out to align with Catholic thought.
It seems like we might be better off trying to have collaborative input into this than to stubbornly refuse to play. Saint John Paul is already pointing the way:
A sound globalization, carried out in respect for the values of different nations and ethnic groupings, can contribute significantly to the unity of the human family and enable forms of cooperation which are not only economic but also social and cultural. Globalization must become more than simply another name for the absolute relativization of values and the homogenization of life-styles and cultures. For this to happen, Christian leaders, also in the commercial sphere, are challenged to bear witness to the liberating and transforming power of Christian truth, which inspires us to place all our talents, our intellectual resources, our persuasive abilities, our experience and our skills at the service of God, our neighbour and the common good of the human family.
Likewise the charge that Mr. Carney is a member of a new government-by-management class. Is not government, no matter its form, simply another word for management? It is true that as the world’s population has grown and come together, with cultures mingling, blending, and confronting one another more closely than ever before, the “management” imposed by our governments has grown ever more intrusive, our “personal space” shrinking further and further. That is deeply lamentable. But is it avoidable? If so, how? Farmers of the 1700s, for example, resented the encroachment of towns and government. Cowboys of the 1800s disliked fencing of the land, and railroads crossing their grasslands; railroad magnates and other capitalists of that and other eras disliked securities regulation. And I believe it would not be difficult to gather evidence that the inhabitants of North America at the time the Western techno-commercial culture arrived were not thrilled, either.
Few of us welcome the idea of over-management. But again, it would seem that the answer is probably not flat (and especially futile) rejection. Rather, a careful, principled, gathering, and democratic approach to a process that has already begun is perhaps called for, offering thoughtful, justified policy alternatives.
Perhaps we are called to wipe off our glasses and start reading a little more closely, paying attention not only to our fears but both the broad scope and specific details of proposals, bearing in mind always that we share this planet, standing before God with a vast number of other people, and look for opportunities that balance solidarity with subsidiarity, the common good with individual rights and responsibilities.
Do we really want to wait until we have a leader who is perfect in the eyes of everyone before we start that conversation? Mr. Carney appears to have brought us more reason for hope than any of his recent predecessors. It’s far from perfect, but would it not be a matter of prudent stewardship to try to work with it?
Try writing him a letter, telling him what you like and don’t like about his past and his plans for the future, so far as they have been announced. Copy your local MP and your provincial or territorial representatives. Invite them all to join us in reflecting on the prayer Pope Francis shared at the bottom of his encyclical Fratelli tutti.4
Notes:
Emphasis in original.
Address of the Holy Father John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Friday, 27 April 2001 (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2001/april/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20010427_pc-social-sciences.html)
Carney, Mark, Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Signal Press, 2021 (pp. 3, 8-9)
Brendan: Well Matt, here we are—the end of 2020. The Holy Spirit moves in constantly surprising ways, and in that spirit (pun intended), it is amazing to reflect on how we thought 2020 was going to go versus how it actually went. I think about the process of putting together our strategic plan in late 2019 and early 2020, and thinking we would go about implementing it–not to mention, begin the search for funding to support the Catholic Conscience apostolate. 2020 had different ideas in store.
The pandemic and lockdown completely upended our plans for the year. But in its own way, it provided different avenues for us to go about our mission. For instance: were it not for the lockdown, we wouldn’t have moved events into a webinar format. But we did and had two excellent conversations on serving our neighbours in COVID-19 and serving as a Catholic on boards and committees. At the same time, we took time to bring together the right voices to help plan new programs for 2021–including a candidate formation and training program I’m so excited to launch.
Beyond that, we worked with partners in Saskatchewan and British Columbia to launch the Catholic Action campaign for both those provincial elections. What a leap forward that was for our work ministering to and engaging Catholic voters! And with an extraordinary group of lay leaders and bishops in both those provinces. I’ll leave that one to you, Matt, to describe in more detail.
In the wider world of Catholic civic and political leadership, I would be remiss not to mention the publication of Fratelli tutti. A number of those we work with have described it to me as Catholic Conscience’s mission in the form of an encyclical letter. Reading it, I couldn’t agree more. The Holy Father dedicated a sizeable section of the encyclical to “a better politics”, which we discussed at length with our friends in the Diocese of Saskatoon.
I am still digesting the Pope’s articulation of the idea of political love. Both you and I, Matt, have always taken the Pope’s concept of “politics as one of the highest forms of charity when ordered to the common good” as a real call-to-action in this work. But the way he expanded on this core idea to articulate a principle of political love. In arguing convincingly that those in politics–especially those who call themselves disciples of Christ!–must exercise a tender love for others, he asks bold questions for those whose vocation brings them into the realm of political and civic life: “How much love did I put into my work?” “What did I do for the progress of our people?” “What mark did I leave on the life of society?” “What real bonds did I create?” “What positive forces did I unleash?” “How much social peace did I sow?” “What good did I achieve in the position that was entrusted to me?”
I am left pondering these questions and am excited to continue mining the wisdom and insight Fratelli tutti offers.
In sum, I am so grateful for the ways the Holy Spirit has moved and guided the work of Catholic Conscience since its inception. Though this is only my second year working in this apostolate, I am reminded again and again how critical a ministry of Catholic civic and political leadership is in this moment in the history of our Church and our faith. I pray that the Lord guides us exactly where he wants us to be.
Matt, what are you most grateful for in 2020?
Matt: Thanks, Brendan. For me, the most gratifying and unexpected developments were the really extraordinary responses of our colleagues in Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The staffs of the dioceses in Regina and Saskatoon, and the BC Catholic newspaper were truly amazing, providing guidance and suggestions for our platform comparisons and webinars, including especially the interviews they facilitated with five of the six leading parties in Saskatchewan.
And the BC Catholic devoted twelve full pages of their pre-election issue to our platform materials.
Really, it’s marvelous the way the Universal Church can pull together, when we’re focused on the common good.
And of course, we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to several individuals and organizations for their very kind words – including Archbishops Bolen of Regina and Miller of Vancouver, and the communications offices in Regina and Saskatoon.
With their help, we were able to provide thousands of people with materials designed to help them make up their own minds, prayerfully and intelligently, in casting their votes. And most of them were between 24 and 35!
Brendan: It’s been a blessed year, Matt. I’m so grateful for the movements of the Holy Spirit in driving this apostolate forward for God’s purposes. I have felt the wind at our sails, despite the strange circumstances of the year. It’s funny: I hadn’t thought of it so vividly as an apostolate until a friend of ours in Saskatchewan used the word. But once I heard it, it felt like the right word. Working with other disciples of Christ, I feel we are playing a small part in evangelizing the culture and building the Kingdom here on Earth. And for that, I will always be grateful.
Merry Christmas and a happy New Year, from all of us here at Catholic Conscience!
Matthew Marquardt is President of Catholic Conscience, of counsel to a Toronto law firm, and a parishioner at St. Patrick’s Catholic Church, as well as a lay associate of the Redemptorists.
Brendan Steven is Executive Director of Catholic Conscience, a writer based in Toronto, active in Toronto’s Society of Saint Vincent de Paul and other Catholic institutions, and a parishioner at St. Basil’s Catholic Church.
Matt: Brendan, in one of our recent Facebook postings, you posed an important question relating to that most elusive of all Catholic social teachings, the principle of “subsidiarity”— which the official Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church describes as being “among the most constant and characteristic directives of the Church’s social doctrine.”
The question you posed was, “How does subsidiarity touch our own environmental and economic policies in Canada? What is appropriate action for our federal government, and what is best left to provincial or local governments —or even to our own families?”
Unfortunately, although this is a question of first importance, it is far too frequently ignored, simply because the concept of subsidiarity is not as easily grasped as the other three Permanent Principles of Catholic Social Teaching: life & human dignity, the common good, and solidarity.
I wonder if we could help improve understanding by briefly examining one or two current social initiatives through the lens of solidarity. To start, we’d better ensure we’ve adequately defined it: subsidiarity is the principle that social decisions should always be pushed to the lowest level that they can be responsibly left to.
Properly applied, this makes subsidiarity a critical tool for preserving individual and social freedom —which itself is one of the fundamental values of the Church’s social teaching. The idea is that each of us should retain the maximum responsible amount of control over our own lives, so that we can put the unique gifts God has entrusted to us to work in seeking our own proper paths back to God. Government should not do things for us that can responsibly be left to us to do for ourselves, or left to our families or our communities; to ethical and responsible private initiatives such as business, civil society organizations, the press, schools, or the church; or to more-localized levels of government. As you pointed out in the posting I mentioned, this enables each of us to maximize our opportunities for learning and growth; and helps ensure that policies reflect of the legitimate and particular needs and concerns of local communities, respecting that it is most often these local communities that best understand their needs.
In some ways, subsidiarity helps to shape and inform the principles of solidarity and the common good—for example, by reminding us that while we are unequivocally called to care for those around us, and to consider that anything that hurts our neighbor hurts us as well, there is a wide and critical difference between helping others to realize their own destinies and diminishing their dignity as human beings by doing things for them that they can should do themselves.
One of the most remarkable examples of subsidiarity I’m aware of provided by the Canadian healthcare system. The basic framework for Canadian healthcare is provided by an act of the federal parliament, which requires each of the provinces and territories to assess the requirements and determine how they might best be applied in order to ensure that basic healthcare services are available to its residents. This ensures that basic levels of service are provided, while leaving the provinces and territories significant latitude to fill in the many blanks provided by the legislation in accordance with their own notions of propriety. Thus, healthcare in Ontario is different in some ways than it is in British Columbia, and each of those is different from healthcare as provided in Quebec and Nova Scotia.
It also provides plenty of scope for continuing debate on the proper shape and limits of healthcare in Canada. Are enough important services covered in each province—for example, should important prescription medicines be covered? Would it be better to leave options for provision of some services through private healthcare providers? Would it be appropriate to shift some greater or lesser portion of the burden of healthcare to individual patients, as for example through implementation of modest co-payments, or to alternative forms of care, such as naturopaths? To what degree should these questions be left to the individual provinces and territories? These are interesting questions, with no unambiguously correct answers.
And the COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on new questions. For example, several of the provinces, acting out of rightful concern for their citizens and the limited healthcare resources at their disposal, have attempted to restrict traffic coming into their borders. Is that appropriate? If so, to what extent? And can alternatives to inter-provincial travel be provided?
Brendan, what do you think? Are there other examples of social initiative that help to shed light on the elusive meaning of ‘subsidiarity?’
B: I’m glad you’ve raised the topic of subsidiarity Matt, as I think it’s one of the least commonly understood aspects of the Church’s social teaching. Many have an intuitive grasp of the common good—the social conditions which collectively allow all children of God to reach their full and authentic development. Solidarity also makes intuitive sense. Indeed, solidarity seems to connect most naturally and organically with our well-trodden understanding of Catholic social values, so eloquently and simply expressed in the phrase “Love thy neighbour.” Subsidiarity often goes unmentioned. But it is so critical, it could be argued rightly that it is impossible to understand and promote the common good or solidarity without the additional, essential pillar of subsidiarity.
Why is subsidiarity so critical? It stands between the twin monsters of collectivism—the idea that all decision-making should be made by larger aggregations of distant governing bodies—and individualism, the idea that all power should be invested in individuals and that only individual interests should drive societal decision-making. Both lead to terrible social evils, the former because human dignity is trampled underneath the whims of the majoritarian collective, and the latter because no restraint is placed on the totalizing and often corrupted desires of individuals and the harm they can cause to their neighbours. Subsidiarity takes the concept of servant-leadership—that the greatest must be the least and must support those they lead—and applies it to institutions. In this sense, higher levels of governance serve and support the self-directed needs of lower levels of governance, without crushing the initiative, enterprise, and self-determination of those lower levels. In addition to that “vertical” understanding of subsidiarity, there is also a “horizontal” understanding, namely the diffusion of power among differing institutions serving different purposes. This ensures that no one institution can unjustly dominate the others, nor that no one institution takes on responsibilities which it is not capable of properly serving. With this principle, every layer of governance or communal organization is imbued with the powers it is most capable of responsibly undertaking for the dignity of all—from the family, to the town and city, to civil society, to our provincial and federal governments, and all the various institutions in between.
From the perspective of subsidiarity, we’re blessed to live in a country like Canada, where the principles of subsidiarity are constructed right into the architecture of our federation. The Canadian model of government created multiple layers of government—specifically a federal government and multiple provincial governments—each with strictly enunciated powers of governance. Over time, through legal proceedings, these powers have been further clarified, largely to the benefit of the provincial governments. In my opinion we are lucky in Canada to have a government so strictly localized through our constitution. We are a geographically and culturally dispersed nation. Each region has unique needs, values, and aspirations. Such a decentralized federal model allows those regions to pursue their local aspirations while working collectively at the national level on issues of mutual concern.
We still have more work to do on this front. You asked me about a relevant political issue that touches on subsidiarity. Consider the issue of granting further powers to municipal governments and clarifying those powers. Municipalities in Canada are largely so-called “creatures of the provinces,” created by provincial legislation, which can be changed by a simple majority vote of the provincial legislature. Thus, was the case when Ontario Premier Doug Ford reduced the size of Toronto city council by half, right in the middle of a municipal election. Courts eventually ruled that this move didn’t violate the Constitution but it prompted much public discussion: do cities deserve more rights and powers of self-government, protected from the whims of provincial governments, so they can better govern according to the wishes of their citizens?
Like the common good and solidarity, subsidiarity is a bedrock principle that must be accounted for in any Catholic perspective on public policy issues.
M: Just a final observation about New Testament roots for the principle. In a single chapter of the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 25), Christ addresses both the individual and social aspects of Christianity in a way that highlights the individual’s responsibility for both himself and his society. At Matthew 25:14-30 Christ explains, through the parable of the talents, that each individual is called to use the gifts God has entrusted to him for God’s purposes—which are to love God and to love one another. And in the very next passage (lines 31-46) he warns that individuals will be judged not only on the basis of our individual actions, but also for our collective activities as members of “nations.”
Likewise, the Apostle Paul stresses both individual and social aspects of responsibility, with emphasis on the duties of the individual. In his second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul stresses the requirement that each conduct himself in an orderly fashion, and to avoid burdening others. “In fact,” he notes, “we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.” “But you, brothers,” he continues, “do not be remiss in doing good.” (2 Thess. 3:6-13). And he reiterates that the purpose of life is to seek God, and the purpose of societies is to assist each of their members in doing so. In Acts 17, Paul explains that it is God
who gives to everyone life and breath and everything. He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions, so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us…
God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now he demands that all people everywhere repent because he has established a day on which he will ‘judge the world with justice’ through a man he has appointed…
Brendan: “How many saints have we never heard of?” I remember reading that once, Matt, and I’ve been thinking about it lately as we’ve watched the extraordinary heroism of everyday love which has emerged globally with the COVID-19 pandemic. This ordinary heroism has to me been the defining cultural feature of the crisis, and the one which has given me so much hope even as so much suffering emerges from this virus. Every day we see little acts of heroism that are collectively saving the world: the doctor or nurse who bravely steps into the breach, the children comforted nightly and given strength by parents, the army of volunteers delivering groceries and medicines to those locked inside, the friends reaching out constantly to others living alone or in suffering to give them strength.
The list truly goes on and on. This everyday heroism reminds me of what Pope Francis called the “middle class of holiness” in Gaudium et spes, and it’s worth quoting his observations at length:
The Holy Spirit bestows holiness in abundance among God’s holy and faithful people, for “it has pleased God to make men and women holy and to save them, not as individuals without any bond between them, but rather as a people who might acknowledge him in truth and serve him in holiness”. In salvation history, the Lord saved one people. We are never completely ourselves unless we belong to a people. That is why no one is saved alone, as an isolated individual. Rather, God draws us to himself, taking into account the complex fabric of interpersonal relationships present in a human community. God wanted to enter into the life and history of a people.
I like to contemplate the holiness present in the patience of God’s people: in those parents who raise their children with immense love, in those men and women who work hard to support their families, in the sick, in elderly religious who never lose their smile. In their daily perseverance I see the holiness of the Church militant. Very often it is a holiness found in our next-door neighbours, those who, living in our midst, reflect God’s presence. We might call them “the middle class of holiness”.
Let us be spurred on by the signs of holiness that the Lord shows us through the humblest members of that people which “shares also in Christ’s prophetic office, spreading abroad a living witness to him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity”. We should consider the fact that, as Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross suggests, real history is made by so many of them. As she writes: “The greatest figures of prophecy and sanctity step forth out of the darkest night. But for the most part, the formative stream of the mystical life remains invisible. Certainly the most decisive turning points in world history are substantially co-determined by souls whom no history book ever mentions. And we will only find out about those souls to whom we owe the decisive turning points in our personal lives on the day when all that is hidden is revealed”.
This line, in particular, feeds my soul: “A holiness found in our next-door neighbours, those who, living in our midst, reflect God’s presence.” There is so much cynicism about the moral state of our world and culture. Sin is everywhere, as it has always been. But in this moment of agony I can’t help but see God’s reflection in all those around me and across the country, Christian and irreligious alike. I see it in every kindness and small act of service. And I see how these little actions, compelled by the Holy Spirit, are together moving mountains of holiness in the world. An enormous plurality of humanity is locked indoors together. Is this the greatest single act of solidarity in the history of the world? Billions of people huddled inside, to prevent the transmission of a virus which destroys the life of the most vulnerable among us? I can’t help but see the holiness in that. I can’t help but drink up its implications.
Matt, I would love to hear your thoughts on this great mass of “middle class holiness” we are witnessing and the immense solidarity of this moment.
Matt: Well, Brendan, I don’t think I can improve on what you’ve written. The best I can hope for to is ratify and perhaps amplify it.
I’m particularly struck by your observation that this is very likely the “greatest single act of solidarity in the history of the world.” Let’s think about that for a moment—or, preferably, many moments.
For me, the overriding feeling inspired by this time of separation and seclusion—aside from the deeply shared compassion for the millions of people who have so far been affected by the pandemic, and particularly those who have or will fall victim to it—is the hope that the spirit of solidarity and humanity so many of us are feeling now will grow and take root. And for me that hope borders on certainty: the whole broad history of the world consists in a virtually infinite series of big steps forward and slightly smaller steps backward.
The fact is, some of the improvements being witnessed in social thought and interactions that we are witnessing now will stick and will grow. Sure, a measure of complacency will return, we will regress from some as-yet undefined point of maximum advance, but we will not regress so far as to return to a state equivalent to that which existed before the pandemic.
My hope is that we will witness that advance in many ways—social as well as personal. But the spirit of the individuals living on the 30th floor of the building across the street from me—as evidenced by the sign they placed in the windows across their unit—will persist, and grow.
History is a great progression of human love, conceived, inspired, lived, and passed forward by millions and millions of the everyday saints you and Pope Francis are highlighting. Not in the same way by everyone, but in as many different ways as there are everyday human beings.
Brendan: Matt, the Pope himself as echoed the very point you are making—the need to preserve this great advance in solidarity, once our moment of crisis passes. In an interview in April he said:
This crisis is affecting us all, rich and poor alike, and putting a spotlight on hypocrisy. I am worried by the hypocrisy of certain political personalities who speak of facing up to the crisis, of the problem of hunger in the world, but who in the meantime manufacture weapons. This is a time to be converted from this kind of functional hypocrisy. It’s a time for integrity. Either we are coherent with our beliefs or we lose everything.
You ask me about conversion. Every crisis contains both danger and opportunity: the opportunity to move out from the danger. Today I believe we have to slow down our rate of production and consumption and to learn to understand and contemplate the natural world. We need to reconnect with our real surroundings. This is the opportunity for conversion.
Yes, I see early signs of an economy that is less liquid, more human. But let us not lose our memory once all this is past, let us not file it away and go back to where we were. This is the time to take the decisive step, to move from using and misusing nature to contemplating it. We have lost the contemplative dimension; we have to get it back at this time.
We must begin a time of integrity, as the Pope puts it—we must be coherent with our beliefs or lose everything. And this is where Catholics are called especially. We believe every person is a child of God. How do we live that fundamental truth coherently in our lives and in the life of our country? How do we build that more human economy the Pope points too? How do we bring our economic systems into line with the true reality of the universe, that every human being is imbued with an infinite dignity? We must inch ever closer to building a world where relations among people grow closer to the relations between God and His people.
Consider, for a moment, the idea of “essential workers” in this crisis. People who are most needed in the workplace at this time, to continue moving essential supply chains—like grocery store workers, pharmacy workers, and others—are often among those who are paid the least in our economy. They are among the least secure. They are among those who least enjoy the benefits of our collective prosperity. That lack of integrity and disconnection from truth in our economic life has always been present, but the crisis reveals it in all its naked injustice. How do we change that?
Let’s all work towards that more humane economy, where the memory of solidarity and humanity from this crisis becomes a turning point in our history—and not simply a blip we forget.
Matt: Everything you say is true, Brendan. We need, as both global and local societies, to take the next step toward a time of integrity and just economic and governmental structures. It’s a challenge that will require our attention and our action for a long period of time. First, we need to educate ourselves in the injustices faced by so many of our neighbors, now and in the period of recovery that will follow the COVID crisis. And we must bear in mind the certainty that there will be opportunists looking to profit from this crisis.
But we cannot, and should not, let the opportunists and the self-absorbed daunt us. There will be changes, sure. The Church will lose some people, as they wander away seeking new pleasures—but it will also gain people. And the tough roots of the Church will survive, with healthier branches than ever – branches that will flower into new strength and beauty, growing ever closer toward the vision that God holds for us all—toward the “time acceptable to the Lord.”
Twice a month, Matthew Marquardt and Brendan Steven get together over breakfast (virtually, in the time of COVID-19!) and talk about what it means to be a Christian citizen. These are their Conscience Conversations. Want to join the conversation? Want to learn more about Catholic social teaching, and how you can serve your community as an active Christian citizen? Reach out to us: email growth@catholicconscience.org
Matthew Marquardt is President of Catholic Conscience, of counsel to a Toronto law firm, a parishioner at St. Patrick’s Catholic Church, as well as a lay associate of the Redemptorists.
Brendan Steven is Executive Director of Catholic Conscience, a writer based in Toronto, active with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other Catholic and civic institutions, and a parishioner at St. Basil’s Catholic Church.
Brendan: I’m writing this on March 28th. I feel the need to say that to contextualize this Conscience Conversation—every day it seems like the COVID-19 crisis is evolving in rapid, new, and terrifying ways. For a reader perusing this at a future date, I wonder how hopelessly out-of-date this conversation might seem. So, here we are on March 28th—more than half one million people around the world are now sick. Thousands have died. And all of us are now huddling at home with our loved ones, praying and waiting out the storm.
There’s so much we could talk about when it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic and its relevance for our lives as Catholic citizens. Catholic social teaching, to me, has never felt so relevant. We are called to act in solidarity with the most vulnerable in all things and in all our public policy choices. There’s no greater expression of that principle of solidarity than to barricade ourselves in our homes to ensure others don’t get sick, especially those who are most likely to die from this terrible disease. “Social distancing”—a secular word with such a rich well of catholicity underneath it.
Pope Francis’ pastoral graces always bring comfort in these moments of difficulty. He has an incredible power to use words that produce vivid imagery and help us positively reimagine our role as a Church and as a People of God in the world. In an interview he once described the Church as a field hospital, and the metaphor seems so apt in this moment—a moment of crisis when Christians are most especially called to love and serve others:
“I see clearly that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds…. And you have to start from the ground up.
Pope Francis has brought this need for nearness and proximity to life in this crisis. A beautiful blessing in this moment has been the fact that Pope Francis is now livestreaming his Santa Marta chapel daily masses in Vatican City. What was once the privilege of a small few—to celebrate Mass daily with the Pope—is now open to the whole world. Then of course there was the extraordinary Urbi et Orbi blessing, the text of which is an extraordinary call to courage and radical love. And so, in a new and special way, the global Catholic community is together: we are praying together, celebrating Mass together online, creating a oneness in our shared COVID-19 trial. Many of us are also living out our Catholic call to service, each bearing their own cross, many at the cost of their lives—the penultimate Christian witness of Father Giuseppe Berardelli comes to mind, the Italian priest who died from COVID-19 after giving up a ventilator so a younger patient could live. This crisis is in a sense a Lenten observance, one every person on Earth must face. In mid-March the Holy Father called upon the world to pray a rosary together—a shared petition to God to help us in this crisis. The beauty of praying that rosary—a and imagining the many hundreds of thousands of Catholics around the world who prayed it also—was such a comfort in these dark times.
Our faith calls us to action right now. We cannot back away. We need to be the “field hospital” more than ever, when the horde of sick and wounded—literal and spiritual—in the world will grow by so much. So every Catholic must ask: how can I serve in the field hospital?
Matt, how do you think we can serve as the “field hospital” of the COVID-19 crisis here in Canada? How do Catholic citizens step up to serve and support our neighbours in this difficult time and at all times, as our faith calls us to do?
Matt: Great point, great quote, great questions, Brendan. As Cardinal Collins mentioned in his streamed homily on that same March 26, one of the primary effects of the intrusion of real emergencies, like wars, pandemics, and famines into life, is the forced seclusion of large numbers of people along with other radical changes in the rhythms and patterns of our contemporary North American life. This seclusion brings with it the opportunity for reflection: God has ways of inviting us to step back and reflect on what really matters in this life: The search for that truth which is God, through acceptance and love of neighbor and respect for all God’s laws.
A central tenet of Catholic Conscience is that all Catholics, and all people of good will, are called to do whatever we can in the service of those around us who are in need. In the current crisis, there are many things Canadians can do—and many of them are not mutually exclusive. This means that each of us can and should be looking frankly at our own circumstances, to discern what sorts of responses we can fairly offer in order to respond appropriately to the great need that has grown around us. We need to be active in many different ways.
Among my favorite of Pope Francis’s many inspiring thoughts is that while each of us can, should, and indeed must do what we can to influence social responses at all social levels. It is of first importance that each Christian reach out on a personal level to other human beings around us: to work closely enough with our fellows that we begin to take on their very smell.
Now, a disease like COVID-19 is an extremely dangerous thing. It is important that each of us start by familiarizing ourselves with the disease and responsible steps that we can take to protect ourselves from it. While the Church stresses that others are every bit as important as we are ourselves, we cannot help them if we ourselves become sick. Worse, in this case social resources currently available for fighting the disease extremely limited: our first duty is to take reasonable steps to avoid becoming sick, so that we do not divert resources or energy away from others who may have greater need—including healthcare and emergency workers.
Once we’ve armed ourselves with the knowledge to respond responsibly, however, we need to bear in mind the parable of the talents and its lesson: keeping ourselves save and snug and our own hideaways, enjoying our favorite treats, while others outside suffer, is equivalent to burying the master’s coins in the yard rather than investing them. We need to look at ways we can respond:
Personally, to the homebound and to others in need. Are there ways we can check responsibly on those who may physically or emotionally live near us, to ensure they have the food, medicine, and human relationship they need?
Spiritually, to all those we can reach. A number of new social media efforts have sprung up, to enable neighbors to encourage one another not only with kind words, but with joint prayer. Many daily masses are being offered online. Attend with devotion, and by availing ourselves of opportunities for Spiritual Communion like those taught by St Alphonsus Liguori. These can be of extraordinary help, and arm us spiritually for the work ahead.
Institutionally, by investigating opportunities to volunteer with responsible service organizations, such as the Society of St Vincent de Paul. What sorts of help are they offering and how can we contribute? With our hands? With emergency donations? Can we help such organizations adapt through the contribution of new ideas?
And we cannot lose sight of the many lessons to be learned from this emergency. Once the immediate needs of those around us have been satisfied, what remains to be done? The pandemic has cast light on a number of shortcomings in our current socio-economic models. We have been given an extraordinary opportunity to step back and re-assess many of the ways our society works:
Are our economies sufficiently independent? In our race to maximize opportunities for consumption, we have driven prices to the absolute lowest values they can reach, regardless of consequences for the stability and dignity of work, the security of national populations, and basic issues of fairness? This suggests that we need to look more closely at putting the principle of subsidiarity to work in new and more appropriate ways.
Are our medical and social services networks adequate to the needs we expect them to meet? Do our economies support production and just distribution of medicines to those most in need?
Have we maintained a proper perspective on the importance of the economy, vis-à-vis the life and dignity of human beings? Are we looking to certain disadvantaged segments of society to bear an undue proportion of the effects of this disease, as well as our own material desires? Are we placing our own desire for wealth and uninterrupted consumption before the life, safety, and health of our neighbors?
The COVID-19 conversation has both immediate and long-term aspects, each of equal importance. We must address them all, and not lose sight or sink at any time into complacency, even when we ourselves are safe and comfortable with the status quo.
Brendan: Matt, in the spirit of “working closely with our fellow sheep”, I think I’d like to conclude this Conscience Conversation by highlighting some of the creative ways community groups, parishes and others have responded to this challenge to serve our most vulnerable neighbours and those most affected by the crisis. I hope some of these inspire readers to consider the ways they are called to serve in this moment.
Here in Toronto, the University Health Network’s OpenLab is partnering with Toronto Community Housing Corporation to support seniors living in community housing. Many are afraid to go grocery shopping or pick up medication at the pharmacy, for fear of catching the virus—a virus that is more threatening to their lives than other group. This is a group of people who already live with difficulty and economic anxiety under regular circumstances—you can imagine how much more difficult the circumstances have become. UHN OpenLab and TCHC have together started the Friendly Neighbor Hotline–ordinary Torontonians helping vulnerable seniors with simple things like getting groceries, so the latter can stay home and stay safe. Toronto readers can sign up to volunteer by clicking here.
The Archdiocese of Toronto has shared a list with some of the many creative ways parishes continue to minister spiritually to their congregations. You can read it by clicking here. For instance, one parish is hosting “drive-through confessions” with priests social distancing from cars on sidewalks, and the Newman Centre at University of Toronto is continuing their rosary, bible study, and prayer groups using video conferencing.
This is a time for ordinary heroes, as Pope Francis put it so eloquently in a speech prior to his unprecedented Urbi et Orbi blessing on March 27:
“We can look to so many exemplary companions for the journey, who, even though fearful, have reacted by giving their lives. This is the force of the Spirit poured out and fashioned in courageous and generous self-denial. It is the life in the Spirit that can redeem, value and demonstrate how our lives are woven together and sustained by ordinary people – often forgotten people – who do not appear in newspaper and magazine headlines nor on the grand catwalks of the latest show, but who without any doubt are in these very days writing the decisive events of our time: doctors, nurses, supermarket employees, cleaners, caregivers, providers of transport, law and order forces, volunteers, priests, religious men and women and so very many others who have understood that no one reaches salvation by themselves. In the face of so much suffering, where the authentic development of our peoples is assessed, we experience the priestly prayer of Jesus: ‘That they may all be one’ (Jn 17:21). How many people every day are exercising patience and offering hope, taking care to sow not panic but a shared responsibility. How many fathers, mothers, grandparents and teachers are showing our children, in small everyday gestures, how to face up to and navigate a crisis by adjusting their routines, lifting their gaze and fostering prayer. How many are praying, offering and interceding for the good of all. Prayer and quiet service: these are our victorious weapons.”
Prayer and quiet service—these are our weapons too, and it’s up to all of us to wield them in the way we are called to help.
Twice a month, Matthew Marquardt and Brendan Steven get together over breakfast (virtually, in the time of COVID-19!) and talk about what it means to be a Christian citizen. These are their Conscience Conversations. Want to join the conversation? Want to learn more about Catholic social teaching, and how you can serve your community as an active Christian citizen? Reach out to us: email growth@catholicconscience.org
Matthew Marquardt is President of Catholic Conscience, of counsel to a Toronto law firm, a parishioner at St. Patrick’s Catholic Church, as well as a lay associate of the Redemptorists.
Brendan Steven is Executive Director of Catholic Conscience, a writer based in Toronto, active with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other Catholic and civic institutions, and a parishioner at St. Basil’s Catholic Church.
Twice a month, Matthew Marquardt and Brendan Steven get together over breakfast and talk about what it means to be a Christian citizen. These are their Conscience Conversations. Want to join the conversation? Want to learn more about Catholic social teaching, and how you can serve your community as an active Christian citizen? Reach out to us: email growth@catholicconscience.org
Matthew Marquardt is President of Catholic Conscience, a partner at a major Toronto law firm, and a parishioner at St. Patrick’s Catholic Church.
Brendan Steven is a director with Catholic Conscience, a writer based in Toronto, and a parishioner at St. Basil’s Catholic Church.
M: The weekend before last, there was a choice of two readings for the second reading. The second choice was Hebrews, 9:24-28; 10:19-23, which spoke to Christ’s role in guiding us through the age that was starting at that time: the “Christian Era”.
B: To my eyes, you’ve hit on a key question of the age. And
to be blunt, it’s a question our predecessors in the Christian communion have had
to answer in quite the same way. Jesus Christ left us eternal truth, in the
form of principles aligned with the divine will—and, therefore, our best
natures as children of God. The eternal nature of those truths are such that
they can and must be applied across history and culture. Today they are
challenged by profound change in society.
But there’s always
been change. What’s new about today’s change is how quickly it’s happening, how
all-encompassing it is, how unprecedented it is. The Internet
“age” only began a few decades ago, and yet today’s world couldn’t
even have been imagined by our parents. As with every generation of Christians,
we must face the challenges of the moment with new answers inspired by
Christian principles. Inspired by Christ and inspired by Mary’s special
devotion to God and her son, a devotion we are called to emulate.
But as we face these external challenges,
we’re reminded of the eternal challenge—the challenge that has been the same
for every generation of believers. This is the internal challenge,
the fact that the battle against sin is first and foremost a battle waged by
our own souls, by God and Christ, against our own evils. I believe this is at
least in part the role Catholic Conscience is meant to play in this time.
The challenges of
Christian citizenship are external challenges–how do we
reform our government, our society, to achieve justice and reconciliation
between our fellow people? How do we serve those who live in our culture’s
suffering, hidden corners? How do we create a culture that loves and defends
the dignity of all people, and the dignity of all life and creation? We must
rise to these external challenges.
But Catholic Conscience is also concerned about the internal challenge of Christian citizenship—how our own vices corrupt our ability to live in loving community, particularly in loving democratic community, with our fellow citizens. This is in part why I have felt such inspiration in our work. This is the part we must play in the victory of the Immaculate Heart. This is the fundamental call all Christians must answer. We must heal the polis, yes, the body politic—but Catholic Conscience is uniquely saying, we must also heal the citizens themselves.
The first choice
was Ephesians, 1:17-23, which among other things says “May the God of our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, give you a spirit of wisdom and
revelation resulting in knowledge of him. May the eyes of [your] hearts be
enlightened, that you may know what is the hope that belongs to his call, what
are the riches of glory in his inheritance among the holy ones, and what is the
surpassing greatness of his power for us who believe, in accord with the
exercise of his great might, which he worked in Christ, raising him from the
dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavens, far above every
principality, authority, power, and dominion, and every name that is
named not only in this age but also
in the one to come.”
Now, Mary has also
mentioned ages once or twice. Most notably at Fatima in 1917, where she warned
of the need to pray for penance and consecration, specifically to her
Immaculate Heart (hence the pin I wear).
Now, it does seem
quite possible to me that now, 2000 years later (remember that God’s sense of
timing is not quite as strictly defined as our own), we are passing into a new
age. In the 20th century, the world became very small—instant
communications worldwide, the ability to circle the globe in 24 hours, greatly
expanded populations, successful birth rates, and longevity. All the cultures
of the world have come together, and we are consuming way too fast to support
self-interested greed.
My question to you, Brendan Steven: if indeed we are in the transition from one age to another, and currently in a phase that involves intense pruning of a proud Church, then is it possible that Catholic Conscience might play some role in bringing about the victory of the Immaculate Heart, in ushering in a new age of Mary and her Son?
M: An
interesting answer, with which I heartily agree. Every generation, I
think, faces unique challenges, so that every generation is forced to think for
itself, to make its own choices—so that every individual in every generation is
forced to make choices which bring him closer to God, or take him further
away. We all want to live, to find God and make sure we are right with
Him so that we might continue joyfully after this life. But Christ,
uniquely among religious figures, has taught us that the best way to do that—the
only authentic way to put ourselves right with God—involves a dimension of
looking after one another as well as ourselves. We are meant to seek Him,
and in doing so to help Him bring others to Him.
Building from the
substantial body of teachings Christ has given us, the Church has provided us
with profound guidance at both the individual and social levels, the genius of
its social teachings being that the only legitimate purpose of society is to
assist the individual in seeking that Truth which is God. Anything
inconsistent with that is at least potentially harmful.
Here at the
opening of the third millennium we are forced into the realization that the
boat we’ve boarded as Christ’s disciples may be large enough for all, but that
it’s a tight fit—there are many, many more people entitled to a seat on it than
we had imagined. Only if we steer the boat with the good of all in mind
can we hope to reach shore safely.
Fortunately, if we look at our fellow voyagers, we will see not only people of
all races, but the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and the wings of
God’s guiding angel.
B: Wow,
I love this statue. And I love your comment about what it represents. The idea
that Christ envisioned a church where literally everyone could take part, where
all are welcome. It’s a beautiful image, and one to aspire to. This is what we
are called to by Catholic social teaching. I love this image for another reason
as well.
One of the ironies
of living in this world that feels increasingly small, increasingly without
boundaries, increasingly frictionless in the ways we can
communicate and share with one another—is how this has led to even more friction.
We have access to the humanity of others in an unprecedented way, reading
stories from around the world, communicating instantly with people across the
globe. But more and more we dehumanize those around us, denying them their
inherent dignity. We’re afraid to share what space and resources we have. The
treatment of “others” of all kinds, whether immigrants, refugees,
Indigenous Canadians, you name them, is deplorable. We find it easier to hide
away people whose dignity is undermined, rather than confront injustice and
secure for them the dignity they deserve.
But I love what
this statue says about how we are called as Christians to live a life of love,
how we must approach the task of living with others. This statue reminds us: we
are called to live a certain neighbourliness. Look at the people on
this boat. They barely have an inch of space between them, but they are in
harmony with one another. More than that: they seem to be holding each other
up, caring for each other, each accorded the space they need. And every one of
them have their eyes turned up ahead–presumably, towards the Truth, towards
Christ, towards God.
What a lovely
inspiration for how all of us can live together in this “smaller”
world—by following the virtues taught us by Catholic social teaching, by being
neighbourly and welcoming, by accepting the dignity of everyone around us, by
keeping our eyes ahead on what matters most!
Want to join the conversation? Want to learn more about
Catholic social teaching, and how you can serve your community as an active
Christian citizen? Reach out to us: email growth@catholicconscience.org. We’ll tell you
about our upcoming events, latest activities, and ways you can get involved!