Rights and Responsibilities | Catholic Conscience †

Points to Ponder in Evaluating Policies and Legislation

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?

MDRC 2024-4: Same-Day Assisted Suicide in Ontario

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 4^th 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”.

² MDRC Report 2024-4: Complex Same-Day / Next Day Provisions, accessible at https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MDRC-Report-2024.4_Same-Day-Next-Day-Provisions_Final.pdf. Catholic Conscience thanks the Macdonald – Laurier Institute for making the report available to the public.

Combating Hate (Canada Bill C-9)

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).¹Along 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?

Sources:

Basic Income

As Catholics we are bound to inform ourselves concerning social developments, particularly those of civic interest, and to consider them in light of the Church’s social doctrine.

This month we consider legislation directed toward development of a Canadian national strategy for implementation of a basic income guarantee. Such initiatives offer opportunities for profound individual and social growth. However, they are complex, and raise a number of issues relevant to Church social teaching.

“Street vendors, recyclers, carnival workers, small farmers, construction workers, seamstresses, the different kinds of caregivers: you who are informal, working on your own or in the grassroots economy, you have no steady income to get you through this hard time … This may be the time to consider a universal basic wage which would acknowledge and dignify the noble, essential tasks you carry out. It would ensure and concretely achieve the ideal, at once so human and so Christian, of no worker without rights.”

-POPE FRANCIS
(APRIL 12, 2020, LETTER TO THE POPULAR MOVEMENTS)

Bill S-233 – An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income

Introduced by Senator Kim Pate on December 16, 2021. At second reading in the Senate; not yet introduced in Commons.
On stated premises that:
- “every person should have access to a liveable basic income”;
- “the provision of a guaranteed livable basic income would go a long way toward eradicating poverty and improving income equality, health conditions and educational outcomes”;
- “the provision of a guaranteed livable basic income would benefit individuals, families and communities and protect those who are made most vulnerable in society, while facilitating the transition to an economy that responds to the climate crisis and other current major challenges;” and
- “a guaranteed livable basic income program implemented through a national framework would ensure the respect, dignity and security of all persons in Canada;”

The Act would require the federal finance minister to “develop a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, including temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.”

The framework established by the Finance Minister would be required to include:
- A determination as to “what constitutes a livable basic income for each region in Canada, taking into account the goods and services that are necessary to ensure that individuals can lead a dignified and healthy life, as well as the cost of those goods and services in accessible markets”;
- “national standards for health and social supports that complement a guaranteed basic income program and guide the implementation of such a program in every province”;
- assurances that “participation in education, training or the labour market is not required in order to qualify for a guaranteed livable basic income”; and
- assurances that “the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program does not result in a decrease in services or benefits meant to meet an individual’s exceptional needs related to health or disability.”
The bill requires only development of a plan, with annual reports to Parliament. No specific steps toward implementation are proposed by the bill.

Catholic Social Teaching

The Church has much to say about the purpose and nature of a just economy, founded on principles of life and human dignity—including the dignity of work—the common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity; the fundamental values of truth, freedom, justice, and charitable love; and Christian virtues such as wisdom, humility, prudence, and good stewardship.

Pope Francis has spoken frequently of the urgent need to revisit economics, of a just economy shaped to encourage and enable the true human development of all souls. In The Joy of the Gospel, for example, he observed that:

Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings. (58)

We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded. (204)

The principles of solidarity and human dignity speak clearly of the need to ensure that all adults are able to secure meaningful, fulfilling employment within the scope of the abilities that have been given to them by God, and which will support a dignified home and living conditions, particularly for families.
The principles of solidarity and subsidiarity suggest the need for balance between ensuring that everyone has the basics required for a dignified life and the obligation of every individual to avoid unnecessarily burdening others, by working and caring for themselves within the scope of their abilities.
Pope Francis and the Compendium have both warned against the false charity of permanent welfare programs which promote long-term dependencies among those living in poverty.
Recent social experiences have suggested that a society imbued with a sense of commonality, wisdom, and prudence, including a sense of common purpose and the availability of dignified work, is more likely to be viewed by its members as a happy society than one which promotes radical individualism and pits individuals against one another in a perpetual battle for more conspicuous wealth and consumption.

Clearly an initiative of the nature called for by Bill 233 is a worthy, perhaps even a necessary idea. But it would also appear to be a deeply complex issue calling, among other things, for basic agreements on the nature of life and work, and the purpose of an economy as prerequisites to avoid useless or even harmful activities.

It is incumbent upon Catholics to participate in the adoption of such initiatives, on the basis of sober reflection grounded in the full range of social teachings of the Church.

Points to Ponder

Consider discussing the following questions with your local candidates, elected officials, and the parties, and with your family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow parishioners. On prayerful reflection, consider sharing your conclusions with your elected representatives by writing respectful and informative letters. Or, perhaps consider on engaging in the issue more intensively, by participating in advocacy organized by civil society organizations or by joining and participating in a political party or other movement.

The bill specifies as among its primary purposes the assurance of human dignity and the eradication of poverty; yet it defines neither. Is it possible to address such goals without defining them?
Which of the criteria enumerated in the Bill’s stated premises are likely to “ensure the respect, dignity and security of all persons in Canada”?
Is it possible to define either poverty or dignity without social consensus on the meaning and purpose of life? If we accept, with the Church, that the purpose of life is for each of us to increase our closeness to God by doing God’s work with all the time, talent, and treasure that have been entrusted to us (see, eg Matthew 25), we might conclude that poverty consists lacking the means to engage in meaningful, dignified work – raising families, for example, while serving others and celebrating God’s love. Is this reflected in criteria mandated by the bill for consideration by the Finance Minister?
Is it, in fact, possible to eradicate poverty? Christ himself warned us that “the poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11); possibly because each of us, now and in all generations past, present, and future will be judged on how well we attempt to address poverty in this life – whether we simply throw money at the impoverished or, as Pope Francis says, “take on the smell of the sheep” by walking with the poor, working to create meaningful and fulfilling opportunities for all, and gently guiding everyone toward responsible use of their gifts.
- Do the criteria mandated by this Bill promote such a goal?
Clearly, the Bill contemplates the creation of vocational training opportunities. Is that enough, or does government bear a greater responsibility, for setting an economic framework that enables and encourages job growth through free enterprise, for example through development of tax benefits tied to the creation of living-wage jobs as an alternative, for example, to automating jobs that might otherwise support skilled artisans?
What measures does the Bill contemplate for evaluating the overall state of the national economy? As Pope Francis and the Church suggest, mere reliance on growth of domestic product (GDP) has historically tended to emphasize profit over human well-being. Is it possible to apply measures tied to human happiness, health, and cultural growth, for example?
The Bill contemplates providing a living income to everyone over the age of 17, regardless of family status or willingness to work or seek education. What effects might that have on the well-being of families, or society as a whole?

Sources:

Legal Scan
Canadian Federal Government
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

Vote Like a Catholic

Learn how to vote like a Catholic by discerning your conscience, and addressing common myths about Church teaching on voting. These are just two common myths about voting as a Catholic. What does the Church teach us about our responsibility to vote? And how do we discern our consciences and choose who to vote for? In this webinar, we interview Catholic author and theologian Dr. Brett Salkeld on how to truly vote like a Catholic.

REFLECTION: Seven Social Sins

At Catholic Conscience we like to speak in terms of the principles, values, and virtues of Catholic social thought, since they tend to consist of broad, positive, general exhortations to seek and do good. The Church has also stressed, however, the important concept of social sin, for times when we have collectively gone too far. In this time in which every person on earth has been forced to sacrifice and suffer with us through Lent, perhaps it is good to reflect upon sinful aspects of our society.

The Church teaches that social sin includes “every sin against the rights of the human person… and every sin against the physical integrity of the individual; every sin against the freedom of others, especially against the supreme freedom to believe in God and worship him; and every sin against the dignity and honor of one’s neighbor. Every sin against the common good… is also social sin.”

As the world suffers through the horror of a virus our bodies have not yet learned to respond to, and as too many of us continue to put material desires before the health and well being of others and the planet, how are we as a society doing?

The concept of a grouping of seven social sins originated in the 1920s, as a complement to the traditional seven deadly sins of the individual. The original version, announced in a sermon in England, was adapted by Mohandas Gandhi in the struggle for Indian independence, and later by a Vatican Bishop. The following listing was created by Catholic Conscience, with reference to the earlier listings and with special reference to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

Politics of fear, hate, or exclusion
Abuse of creation
Society without love
Acquisition or retention of unjust wealth
Commerce or industry without morality
Science without humanity
Perpetuation of ignorance

The First Social Sin: Politics of Fear, Hate, or Exclusion

Oppression, marginalization, and unjust discrimination in any form are inconsistent with any proper form of government. If the purpose of life is to seek truth, and if that truth is God, then such practices are not only likely to hinder individuals in their search, but they are wholly inconsistent with the exhortations of our Creator, which teach clearly that we are to seek God in one another, and that we are to care for anyone within our reach who needs help.

It would be unjust, for example, for a government to place one class of citizens under restraint, or expose them to unnecessary harm, or ignore them altogether, in order to benefit another group – for example by putting the economic interests of one group above the health of another. In our battle with the new Coronavirus, are we providing guidance and assistance in an even-handed, just form, considering all, or have some of us considered requiring other groups to suffer so that we might maintain our material wealth?

It’s important to remember that we are collectively responsible for the actions of our societies (Matthew 25:31-46), particularly when we live in democracies and decline to participate meaningfully.

Forms of problematic political behavior include:

Government by fear, division, or abuse.
Derogation of conscience rights; interference with free, responsible speech.
Military or police oppression.
The adoption of unjust or non-sustainable social, economic, or legal structures.

The Second Social Sin: Abuse of Creation.

“Man and woman are created in relationship to others above all as those to whom the lives of others have been entrusted. With this specific vocation to life, man and woman find themselves in the presence of all the other creatures. Their dominion over the world requires the exercise of responsibility, it is not a freedom of arbitrary and selfish exploitation… All of creation in fact has value and is “good” in the sight of God, who is its author. Man must discover and respect its value. This is a marvellous challenge to his intellect, which should lift him up as on wings towards the contemplation of the truth of all God’s creatures… (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, sections 112, 113.) According to the New Testament, all creation, together indeed with all humanity, awaits the Redeemer: subjected to futility, creation reaches out full of hope, with groans and birth pangs, longing to be freed from decay (Compendium section 113).

Our responsibility for all creation extends not only to each of our fellow creatures now, but to all creatures of all generations. In building and maintaining our economies, in our work, in our leisure activities, we cannot escape this responsibility.

As a society, how are we doing? As we make choices each day, and encourage each other in their choices, do we have the good of others – now and in future generations- in mind?

The Third Social Sin: Cultures of Indifference.

“The opposite of the love of God, of God’s compassion,” Pope Francis has said, “is our indifference: ‘I’m satisfied; I lack nothing. I have everything. I’m assured of my place and this life and the next, since I go to Mass every Sunday. I’m a good Christian.’ But walking down the street, I pass others, who lack shelter, food, proper clothing, and I look the other way so that I not need to see them.”

Too often, as a society, we do the same thing with refugees, the unemployed, the underemployed, the elderly, the young who are struggling to find homes and raise families… the list goes on and on. Recent UN reports have suggested that the world now produces enough to maintain everyone in a comfortable – if not luxurious – lifestyle. As the Pope has put it, “there’s enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”

What can we, as voters and engaged citizens, do about it? What are we doing about it? With the Pope, let us pray to the Lord “that He heal humanity, starting with us. May my heart be healed from the sickness of the culture of indifference.”

The Fourth Social Sin: the Unjust Accumulation of Wealth

“The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” – Mahatma Gandhi (often quoted or paraphrased by Pope Francis).

It is certainly true that effort should be rewarded, that the willingness to work hard should be valued more than laziness. In the words of the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, “no Christian, in light of the fact that he belongs to a united and fraternal community, should feel that he has the right not to work and to live at the expense of others (cf. 2 Thes 3:6-12). Rather, all are charged by the Apostle Paul to make it a point of honour to work with their own hands, so as to “be dependent on nobody” (1 Thes 4:12). (Compendium Section 264)

But there are limits. Christians are “called to practise a solidarity which is also material by sharing the fruits of their labour with “those in need” (Eph 4:28)… “Behold, the wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts” (Jas 5:4). (Compendium Section 264)

How are we doing as a society?

The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals proposed by the United Nations and unanimously adopted by all UN Member states in 2015, observe that “Billions of our citizens continue to live in poverty and are denied a life of dignity. There are rising inequalities within and among countries. There are enormous disparities of opportunity, wealth and power… Unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is a major concern… It is also, however, a time of immense opportunity. Significant progress has been made in meeting many development challenges. Within the past generation, hundreds of millions of people have emerged from extreme poverty. Access to education has greatly increased for both boys and girls. The spread of information and communications technology and global interconnectedness has great potential to accelerate human progress, to bridge the digital divide and to develop knowledge societies, as does scientific and technological innovation across areas as diverse as medicine and energy.” (see paragraphs 14 and 15)

If the purpose of our lives on earth is to seek truth, and if that truth is God, and if God told us that we are to care for those around us, how do we address the fact that in many parts of the world families live in abstract squalor within miles of immensely affluent homes and activities?

The Fifth Social Sin: Industry without Conscience.

“The Church’s social doctrine insists,” the Compendium notes, “on the moral connotations of the economy… The relation between morality and economics is necessary, indeed intrinsic: economic activity and moral behaviour are intimately joined one to the other…” (Compendium, sections 330-331)

Pope Francis says it more simply: “economies are meant to serve people,” he points out, rather than the other way around. He has frequently spoken out against economies of exclusion and the encouragement of a throwaway culture designed to fuel profits at the expense of people, the quality of life, and the environment. “We have created new idols,” he explains. “The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose… The problem, he explains, is the single-minded focus on profits: “This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born…”

The result? Tragedies like Bhopal and, in Pope Francis’s words, “the reduction of man to a single need: consumption.” For example, deliberate attempts to addict generations of young people to tobacco smoking.

Happily, there are signs that his message is taking root. In August of 2019, the Business Roundtable, a US lobby that represents many of America’s largest corporations, revised its decades-old definition of the purpose of a corporation as solely to maximize shareholder return. Following pressure from civic organizations, the public, and young employees, the group redefined legitimate stakeholders to include customers, employees, suppliers, and the communities in which they exist.

It’s a small step, and the road will be hard: Business Roundtable’s resolution is not binding, and the urge to maximize profit is very strong. But it’s a sign of hope.

The Fifth Social Sin includes at least the following:

Creation and exploitation of false needs, promotion of unsustainable consumption.
Exploitation of workers, or by workers.
Interference with dignified work, e.g., unnecessary automation.

The Sixth Social Sin: Technology without Humanity.

Science and technology have unquestionably brought good things to the world: wonders have been achieved in medicine, transportation, communication, and security, for example. But it is also clear that sometimes, in search of power and the satisfaction of greed, we choose to develop technologies in ways that are not primarily intended to improve life on a human scale. We build machines intended primarily to kill, to control, to make money by putting people out of work or distracting them from things that matter.

Where are the lines? Airplanes can carry either people or bombs. How do we tell which one is better for people than the other? How do we build a world where ploughshares are valued more than swords?

The Seventh Social Sin: the Perpetuation of Ignorance.

If our first priority in life is to seek the truth so that we can serve God properly, then anything that interferes with that effort raises concerns – and things that are deliberately meant to hinder us could be considered sin.

Many things can hinder the search for truth: the deliberate termination of human life at any time between conception and natural death, for example, along with any means of denying others their dignity or access to the necessities of life. Likewise deliberately attempting to distract others from truth.

Too often our society distracts us, in too many ways – for example:

• By promoting unprincipled education, or acquiescing in it
• By promoting unprincipled or unconscionable entertainment, such as salacious media and opportunities for substance abuse
• By promoting vanity, frivolousness, or self-centeredness
• By manipulating the news for improper purposes, or promoting irresponsible journalism.

Each of us bears not only a responsibility for our own education, but a responsibility for what is passed to others by society in the name of education, news, or entertainment.

“The lamp of the body is your eye. When your eye is sound, then your whole body is filled with light, but when it is bad, then your body is in darkness. Take care, then, that the light in you not become darkness.” Luke 11:34-35

Are we electing politicians who want to gather and lead us, or to scatter us for their own advantage?

TRUTH, SOLIDARITY, AND LOVE: In recent weeks elected leaders in the United States and Canada have been accused of lying to us, of turning away from electoral promises, of belittling others, and of seeking to divide us, to set us against one another and those in other countries. It would seem that their purpose is to make things better for a few people, at the expense of many.

If Mephistopheles is the scatterer and the lover of lies, then whose candidates are we electing? These individuals sometimes seem to bear no resemblance to the parties we sought to support.

It is important to remember that God gave the world to all of us, to all humanity. But no human being has ever chosen the location or the circumstances of his or her birth; their parents or their homeland. It is up to us to find ways to live with each other justly, to treat one another fairly – and with mercy, when appropriate.

Electing better leaders in a democracy is not difficult. It requires a bit of effort, but it is effort that each of us should be making anyway: we should all be consulting and supporting responsible news sources, keeping an eye on candidates who are presented to us at elections, and on those we have elected to office. This is neither difficult nor time consuming; with the internet it can be done in minutes each day. Consider subscribing to one or two or three news sources, and using key words to set up searches, as well as watching items of general interest. Use comment sections to speak up when appropriate, to point out the relationship between events and responsible social thought.

Perhaps the most helpful way to help, if you have time and are inclined toward one or another of the parties, is to become involved with the party in ways that will give you a voice in establishing platforms and selecting candidates – if we continue to simply accept the candidates and the platforms that are presented to us, without speaking up beforehand, we will have a much more difficult time effecting change.

Taxation & Stewardship: Ontario and New Brunswick 2017 Provincial Audit Reports

It is necessary that governments collect taxes, and apply them toward projects that are in the common interest. Because tax money is being collected from people who may or may not agree with the uses to which they are to be put, however, it is incumbent upon governments to bear in mind at all times their responsibility to collect and spend tax money wisely, fairly, and efficiently. After all, those who are required to pay the taxes might have been able to put the money to their own good uses. And governments all levels must in every case be scrupulously correct in accounting for their use of other people’s money.

The Auditors General of New Brunswick and Ontario have recently released final annual reports of provincial finances and expenditures prior to next year’s provincial elections. In both cases, encouraging work has been noted. However, in both cases significant discrepancies have been noted as well.

Indeed, in each case some strong criticisms are made. For example:

In Ontario, the Auditor General found that “there was one overarching theme this year that was common in varying degrees to almost all of the VFM audits: the need to improve planning that supports timely and informed decision-making and oversight—or even to just have a plan of action with ongoing monitoring of the results being achieved—to ensure efficient and cost-effective public services.” Morever, the Auditor, reported, the Province continued to report billions of dollars of assets as its own, and available for public use, when, for example, those assets belong to the Teachers’s Pension Plan. Such practices in mis-reporting funds can significantly distort pictures of spending efficiency.
In New Brunswick, the Auditor reported “very troubling disregard for procurement practices,” specifically in the Department of Social Development, with deficiencies in contract management and lack of oversight. In at least one case, the Auditor reported, a “consultant was highly and inappropriately favored by the Department.” As a more hopeful example, the report acknowledges that provincial greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2001 and have declined since, with efforts apparently on track to meet 2020 targets. Still, the report concludes, “meeting the 2030 and 2050 targets will require significant [additional] action from provincial and Federal initiatives.”

Whether provinces are, overall, collecting and spending money fairly is an assessment that each voter should make before voting in next year’s elections. The Reports are publicly available, and easy to read:

The New Brunswick Report is at:
http://www.agnb-vgnb.ca/content/agnb-vgnb/en/publications/reports.html#2017V2=Page5&2017v1=Page1

The Ontario Report is at:
http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arbyyear/ar2017.html

What does it mean to be anti-abortion in modern Canada?

ABORTION: THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. The inviolability of life, from conception to natural death, is a central teaching of the Catholic Church. Yet in western democracies, and even within the Church, the topic of abortion has become deeply passionate, deeply divisive. So fundamental, so emotional, is this issue that for decades it has enabled some politicians to unscrupulously manipulate Catholic voters in order to gain other political ends.

One side of the issue – often referred to as the ‘pro-choice’ side – is capably and passionately presented in the linked article by columnist and author Michael Coren. A remarkable indicator of the depth of emotion aroused by the abortion debate, however, and an excellent example of the manner in which the issue is bent to political purposes unrelated to the sanctity of life, is the following point, penned every bit as passionately in support of the opposite side of the argument by the very same author, just six years previously – prior to an argument that prompted him to leave the Catholic Church. In his 2011 book “Why Catholics are Right,” Mr. Coren wrote:

“Some basic science first. At the moment of conception, a male sperm unites with a female ovum to fertilize it, and the single-celled organism formed is called a zygote, an intricate and sophisticated repository of biological information of both parents… At conception a child has a unique DNA and genomic character and is already unlike anyone who has ever been conceived or born before or anyone who will be conceived or born afterwards. It is a distinct human life and like all human life in a civilized society should have a right to exist.”

The long-held position of the Church was most recently affirmed by Pope Francis, at paragraph 83 of his 2016 exhortation Amoris Laetitia (“the Joy of Love):

“Here I feel it urgent to state that, if the family is the sanctuary of life, the place where life is conceived and cared for, it is a horrendous contradiction when it becomes a place where life is rejected and destroyed… So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life, which is an end in itself and which can never be considered the “property” of another human being.”

It was God himself who handed down to us, through Moses, the unqualified commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Behind heated debates about the rights of unwilling mothers, society, and many others, it would serve us well to consider that too often the life that is terminated is that of the only individual involved who is unable to speak for her- or himself.

Yet, we should also bear firmly in mind at all times the clear injunctions of our Holy Father, our Church, and our Lord Jesus Christ that judgment is not ours to dispense, but belongs to God; and that instead it is our place to dispense mercy.

Rather than attempting to browbeat or coerce others into sharing our beliefs, perhaps, in simple and humble acknowledgement that abortion is wrong, we should focus on seeking alternative ways of approaching the issue, of enabling unwilling mothers and unwanted children to find safety and encouragement, and to nurture them as they grow and to thrive – in loving alternative homes, for example.

And we ought to do our best to ensure that unscrupulous politicians, who seek to take advantage of others and their office for other purposes, are unable to manipulate us as voters, simply by paying lip service to a single issue that is of primary importance to us.

We need to shift the entire conversation.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/10/10/what-does-it-mean-to-be-anti-abortion-in-modern-canada-coren.html

A reminder of the central importance of Christian love

The difference between Christianity and other religions can be expressed in terms of a two-dimensional love: while all religions, by definition, involve love between the individual and the creator, Christ ensured the distinctiveness of his followers by making the admonishment that they ‘love one another as I have loved you’ the central, defining instruction of their mission. Christ placed no limitations on the love that we are to show to one another.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/conservative-catholics-should-try-listening-to-jesus-love-thy-neighbour/article36284383/

« Previous

Vote Like a Catholic

Are we electing politicians who want to gather and lead us, or to scatter us for their own advantage?

Taxation & Stewardship: Ontario and New Brunswick 2017 Provincial Audit Reports

What does it mean to be anti-abortion in modern Canada?

A reminder of the central importance of Christian love

Disability, Theology & Spiritual Formation Certificate

Quebec Provincial Election 2026

Prince Edward Island Provincial Election 2027

Manitoba Provincial Election 2027

Northwest Territories General Election 2027