|Argentina||Pablo Blanco||50 Years of Medellin: A Crucial Event for the Whole church to be Updated|
|Myanmar||Peter Pojol||The Disturbing Stance of Aung San Suu Kyi|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Child Protection- Still a Long Way to Go|
|Hungary||Gusztáv Kovács||From the Sacristy to the School: The Challenge of Religious Education in Hungary|
|United States||Mary M. Doyle Roche||Open Wide Our Hearts|
|Philippines||Kristine Meneses||Christmas: A Reminder to Include and be in Communion with the Other and Another-Other|
|Características del liderazgo político necesario para enfrentar la crisis mundial|
Alexandre A. Martins
|Democracy, Economic System, Hate and Fear: Elections in Brazil|
|Standing in Healing Solidarity with Lumo Sinai (and Thousands Like Her): Acknowledging One Man Who Does|
|Ingeborg Gabriel||Time to Renew the Church's Commitment to Women|
|Thomas Massaro||The "Wound of the Border"|
|Peter Knox||New Debt Crisis|
|Land - The Moral Dilemma|
Hoa Trung Dinh
|Protests against Special Economic Zones in Vietnam|
|Ellen van Stichel||Sarajevo: through the eyes of a 7-year old boy|
|Claudia Leal Luna||El dolor y la esperanza de la Iglesia chilena|
|Shawnee M. Daniels-Sykes||Building Bridges, not Walls, for the Future|
Anne Celestine Achieng Oyier Ondigo,
Alexandre A. Martins
|Good News: Junior Scholars Column on the CTEWC Forum|
|Remembering and Honoring Professor Sr. Anne Nasimiyu Wasike: A Concerned, Socially Engaged and (not so) Little Sr. of St Francis|
|Marianne Heimbach-Steins||Christian Social Ethics and its Theological Relevance through the Lens of Veritatis Gaudium|
|Ramon Luzarraga and Mary Jo Iozzio||Arguments Catholic Ethicists Must Refute on the US Immigration Crisis|
|Mary Yuen||China's New Global Initiative and Authentic Development|
|Emilce Cuda||GUERRA DE DIOSES: Posverdad o fin del Secularismo|
|Gaudete et Exsultate and the Unfinished Agenda of Vatican II|
Mary Jo Iozzio
|Raising Consciousness and Forming Consciences: Strategic Disruptive Nonviolence|
|Breaking the Nyaope addiction in South Africa: Is it possible?|
|Anibal Torres||Ante nuevos â€œvientos de doctrina, el lenguaje de los gestos|
|Stanislaus Alla||Life in India: Spaces Destroyed and Processes Disrupted|
|Pablo A. Blanco||Decriminalization of Abortion in Argentina: The Debate No One Expected;|
|Thomas Massaro||Opioid Addiction: A National Crisis in Slow Motion|
|Phillipines||Agnes Brazal||Migrant Workers and Modern Slavery|
|Brazil||Alexandre A. Martins||Fraternity and The Challenge of Overcoming Violence|
|United Kingdom||Tina Beattie||Who Represents the Church?|
|United States||Mary M. Doyle Roche||The Pace of the Children|
|Mary Jo Iozzio||Not Washed in the Blood of the Lamb: Another Bloodbath Against the Vulnerable|
|Anthonia Bolanle Ojo||Care for the Earth: A Call to Responsible Stewardship|
|Miguel Ángel Sánchez Carlos||Saber “Tomar el Pulso Social”|
|Ingeborg Gabriel||The Challenge of Peace Today – Secular and Ecclesial Engagement in Dialogue|
|Osamu Takeuchi||Life and Beauty in Oikonomia|
Anthonia Bolanle Ojo
|A Life of Dignity for All: The Foundation of Sustainable Development|
|Hoa Trung Dinh||Australia's Postal Survey on Same-Sex Marriage|
|Petr Stica||Dialogue with "People on the Borders" and "Beyond the Walls" and Theological Ethics|
|Ramón Luzárraga||El Peligro del Populismo|
|Ramón Luzárraga||The Peril of Populism|
|Tobias Winright||What Are the Implications of the "Very Possession" of Nuclear Weapons Being "Firmly Condemned"?|
|What is at Stake in an Ecological Theology of Creation|
|Mary Mee-Yin Yuen||Who Should Decide Who I Am|
|Marianne Heimbach-Steins||Civil Status Law, Gender and Identity, and Catholic Ethics|
|Claudia Leal||Francisco en Chile: Recta Final de los Preparativos Para la Visita de 2018|
|Shawnee M Daniels-Sykes||More Loud Voices, More Loud Silences: Gun or Firearm Control and Active Euthanasia and Mercy Killing|
|Why is Africa Allergic to Elections?|
|Agnes Brazal||Complicity in the Summary Executions in Duterte's Drug War|
|Aníbal Torres||La Pregunta de Lutero y sus Implicancias Para la Ética Social|
|Thomas Massaro||At Stake: The Soul of the Nation|
|Tina Beattie||No Fences Left to Sit On|
|Stanislaus Alla||Democracy at Crossroads in India!|
|Emilce Cuda||El Endeudamiento de la Ética Teológica Aplicada|
|United States||Mary Doyle Roche||An American Horror Story|
|South Africa||Anthony Egan||Augustine our Interlocutor|
|Phillipines||Eric Genilo||Anti-Discrimination Legislation for LGBT Persons|
|Austria||Ingeborg Gabriel||"So Sorry!" - Reflections on the Moral Importance of an Everyday Word|
|Puerto Rico||Jorge José Ferrer||La Vacunación Pediátrica Obligatoria: El Caso de la Vacuna del VPH|
|United States||Michael Jaycox||Moving from Words to Action After Charlottesville|
|Nigeria||Anthonia Bolanle Ojo||Religious Intolerance in Nigeria: An Abuse of Human Rights|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||A Path Towards the Building of Peace|
|Brazil||Alexandre Martins||Are Brazilians Cordial People? - Intolerance and A Camillian Physician, a Sign of Hope|
|United States||Ramón Luzárraga||Access to Public Transportation Should Be Made (More) Explicit in Catholic Social Teaching|
|United States||MT Dávila||To Set the Captives Free: Justice for Black and Brown Communities in an Era of Mass Detention and Incarceration|
|South Africa||Anthony Egan||Standing for the Truth - Again!|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||Asia's Diversity and Gender Diversity|
|Hungary||Tamás Ragadics and Gusztáv Kovács||Are you In, or Out? - Public Service in Hungary|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez Carlos||Hoy en México el Periodismo es Profetismo|
|United States||Shawnee Daniels-Sykes||Dream Maker Reviving our Peace: Our Current Reality and the Story of Joseph|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Airbrushing Reality Airbrushing Reality|
|Australia||Hoa Trung Dinh||Assisted Dying Bill in Victoria Must Be Rejected|
|Argentina||Pablo Blanco||Laudato Sí - Care of Creation as the New Social Issue|
|United States||Mary M. Doyle Roche||Solvitur Ambulando - It Is Solved by Walking|
|Kenya||Teresia Hinga||Left to Tell, Left to Heal (each other) through Story and Testimony: Her-Stories of African Women's Quest for Justice and Healing in Contexts of Transition|
|Hong Kong||Mary Mee-Yin Yuen||Small-Circle Election in Hong Kong|
|Argentina||Augusto Zampini||Laudato Si' and Catholic Dialogue on Integral Ecology|
|Chile||Claudia Leal Luna||Quien No Conoce el Bosque Chileno, No Conoce Este Planeta|
|Brazil||Alexandre Martins||Public Dialogue and the Role of Media: Examples from Brazil and the USA|
|UnitedStates||Mary Jo Iozzio||Reconciliation in Ordinary and Extraordinary Times|
|United States||Thomas Shannon||The Lasting Legacy of Amoris Laetitia|
|South Africa||Anthony Egan||The Moral Implication of Protest|
|Phillippines||Agnes Brazal||Fake News, Facebook, and "Ethics in Internet"|
|United Kingdom||Tina Beattie||It Stops With Me!|
|Argentina||Anibal Torres||El Papa Francisco y la "ética de la solidaridad" en las relaciones internacionales|
|United States||Thomas Massaro||Ethicists and President Trump: Providing Moral Leadership for Vigilance and Resistance|
|Cameroon||Solange Ngah||The Practice of Healing Ministry in Africa: What is the Christian Contribution Today?|
|India||Stanislaus Alla||Reconciling Peoples|
|Austria||Ingeborg Gabriel||It's the Morals, Stupid! On the Importance of Ethics in the Post-Truth Age|
|Puerto Rico||Jorge Jose Ferrer|
|United States||Michael Jaycox||What is Truth?|
|Nigeria||Anthonia Bolanle Ojo||The Challenges of Economic Recession on the Dignity of Nigeria Citizens|
|Phillipines||Eric Genilo||The Marcos Burial|
|United States||Ramón Luzárraga||¿Están Las Américas verdaderamente convirtiéndose en un Hemisferio de Paz?|
|United States||Nichole Flores and Mary Jo Iozzio||Mercy and the Failure to Form Moral Imagination|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||HIV-vaccine launch hype|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||A Carpenter in the Reign of God|
|Germany||PetrStica||,Crisis of democracy' - Challenges for theological ethics / Impulses of theological ethics|
|Mexico||Jutta Battenberg Galindo||Reflexiones en torno a la carta apostólica "Misericordia et Misera"|
|USA||Mary Doyle Roche||"The Nightmare Before Christmas"|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||'What's gender got to do with climate justice?'|
|Germany||Marianne Heimbach-Steins||The Jubilee of Mercy - Social ethical reflections|
|Argentina||EmilceCuda||Francisco y el Trabajo|
|Mexico||Miguel Angel Sanchez Carlos||Choque moral en México|
|United States||Michael Jaycox||VSED: Is the Practice both Respectful and Compassionate?|
|Uganda||Margaret Ssebunya||Of violent protests in South African universities: Where is the Church in South Africa?|
|Vietnam||Hoa Trung Dinh||CHURCH LEADER CALLS FOR ACTION AGAINST MARINE POLLUTION IN VIETNAM|
|United Kingdom||Julie Clague||Structural injustice revisited|
|United States||Mary Jo Iozzio||The US Affordable Care Act: Modest Success|
|Margaret Ssebunya||Examining the 2016 municipal elections in South Africa in light of the social teaching of the church on political authority and the common good: An outsider’s observation|
|Mary Mee-Yin Yuen||Wisdom, Courage and Conscience in Resistance|
|Tina Beattie||Who speaks for the Catholic Church? Women, abortion and theological ethics|
|Brazil||Alexandre A. Martins||Political Power, Intolerance and Lack of Dialogue|
|United States||Nichole M. Flores||A case for a globally-engaged perspective: A US Latina Perspective on Bogotá|
|Uganda||Margaret Ssebunya||Strengthening a pastoral response to the ecological crisis through existing spaces within the Church|
|Philippines||Agnes M. Brazal||Theological Ethics in Asia after Padova|
|Puerto Rico||Jorge José Ferrer||A diez años del encuentro de Padua: Tareas pendientes para la teología moral|
Thomas Massaro and Mary Jo Iozzio
|Padova: Ten Years Later and …|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Business and Environment|
|India||Stanilaus Alla||Movements, Momentum and Metanoia|
|Belgium||Ellen van Stichel||125 years after Rerum novarum|
|Argentina||Emilce Cuda||Los eticistas de América Latina y el Caribe tiene algo para testimoniar.|
|Puerto Rico||MT Davila||¡Una ética atrevida!|
|United States||Mary Doyle Roche||"Dear Colleague"|
|Kenya||Elias Omondi Opongo||At the brink of extinction! Poaching of Elephants and Rhinos in Africa|
|South Africa||Anthony Egan||AMORIS LAETITIA: A CHALLENGE TO THE CHURCH IN AFRICA – AND ELSEWHERE|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||Restoring the Death Penalty|
|Germany||Petr Štica||How can Christians contribute to the integration of refugees?|
|Italy/Austria||Martin Lintner||The notion of conscience in Amoris Laetitia and its significance for the divorced and remarried|
|Argentina||Pablo Blanco González||“Bogotá 2016 Conference: A Date with History”|
|United States||Mary Jo Iozzio||Poppies and Memorializing the Dead|
|Cameroon||Solange Ngah||The burning topic of education and responsibility in the heart of the African family|
|Cameroon||Solange Ngah||La question actuelle de l’éducation et de la responsabilité au sein de la famille africaine|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||Spirituality Informed by Faith|
|Germany||Marianne Heimbach-Steins||New nationalisms in Europe and the ambivalent role of religion|
|Mexico||Jutta Battenberg Galindo||La Cruz: Misterio de Revelación.|
|United States||Nichole M. Flores||Human Trafficking: A Lacuna in Catholic Ethics|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Teaching Environmental Ethics in Africa|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||‘Caring for our common home’|
|United Kingdom||Julie Clague||Number crunching: Catholics and same-sex unions|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez||LA VISITA DEL PAPA FRANCISCO A MÉXICO: UN VIRAJE ALENTADOR PARA LA ÉTICA|
|United States||Michael Jaycox||Dangerous Memories, Dangerous Movements: Christian Freedom in the Empire|
|Vietnam||Hoa Dinh||MELBOURNE DOCTORS REFUSING TO RETURN CHILDREN TO DETENTION|
|Brazil||Alexandre Martins||Zika Virus and Other Mosquito-Borne Virus: The Failure of Modern Healthcare|
|Puerto Rico||Jorge José Ferrer||Neurociencia, libre albedrío y teología moral|
|United States||Thomas Massaro||On Economic Inequality|
|Hong Kong||Mary Mee-Yin Yuen||Internet for Communication or Persecution?|
|Czech Republic||Jaroslav Lorman||Saying yes to the sin?|
|United States||Mary Doyle Roche||“Hold fast to dreams” Langston Hughes|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Pope Francis and the land issue in Africa|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||A Ray of Hope from the World of Art and Literature|
|Belgium||Yves De Maeseneer||Towards a European Theological Ethics of Migration and its Implications for Catholic Social Thought|
|Argentina||Pablo Blanco Gonzalez||Argentina’s Presidential elections of 2015: The challenge of governance and unity|
|Brazil||Alexandre Martins||Mariana: Tragedy of Market Fundamentalism Against the Earth and the Poor|
|United States||Angela Senander||Faithful Citizenship: Papal Visit and Episcopal Statement|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||Protecting the Lumads of the Philippines|
|Germany||Marianne Heimbach-Steins||A short comment on the Synod from Germany (November)|
|Puerto Rico||MT Davila||“Francisco en CUBA y EE.UU.: Teología de los gestos y culture wars”|
|UnitedStates||Meghan Clark||Some Thoughts on Baby Elephants|
|United States||Mary Jo Iozzio||An Opportunity [Lost] to Hear Catholic Women and Men Speak|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Thoughts From Africa|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||Passing Japan's Security-related Bills—the Breakdown of the Constitutional Law, of Democracy, and of Pacifism|
|Germany||Petr Štica||Stranger within your gates – Some notes on the current "European refugee crisis"|
|Mexico||Jutta Battenberg Galindo||¡La muerte del justo… la muerte del inocente… la vida de todos!|
|Canada||Carolyn Chau||Syrian Refugee Crisis –A Local Canadian Response|
|South Africa||Anthony Egan||ON SNAKES, FUNDAMENTALISM AND RELIGIOUS ABUSE|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||‘Citizens’ call out’|
|Belgium/United States||Joe Selling||If not ‘gender’ … then certainly ‘women’s rights’|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez||Diplomacia y utopía|
|United States||Mary Doyle Roche||“Go, set a watchman, let him announce what he sees.” Isaiah 21:6|
|Nigeria||Ojo Bolanle Bimbo||GLOBALISATION, INEQUALITY AND POVERTY IN NIGERIA: ADVOCACY FOR GLOBAL JUSTICE|
|Fr. Don Bosco Onyalla||African Catholic Scholars Discuss Challenges and Opportunities of the African Church Ahead of Synod on Family|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||One Road Accident Death Every Four Minutes!|
|United Kingdom||Gillian Paterson||LOST IN TRANSLATION: Is SDG 5 a problem for religion?|
|Argentina||EmilceCuda||Fin de la luna de miel entre Francisco y la prensa hegemónica|
|United States||Nichole M. Flores||The GOP’s Latina/o Strategy: A Mirror for Catholic Social Ethics|
|Kenya||Carine Umutoniwase||The Unforgettable Black Day|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||A Safe Haven|
|Austria||Ingeborg Gabriel||Ukraine at the Crossroads: Political and ethical reflections|
|Puerto Rico||Jorge José Ferrer||Justicia cordial para la bioética del siglo XX|
|United States||Mary Jo Iozzio||Proud, Relieved, and Heartened by the Rule of Justice|
|Hong Kong||Charles Chan||A Gift from our Holy Father|
|Brazil||Alexandre Martins||Education, Dialogue and Paulo Freire|
|United States||James Keenan||Grieving at Pentecost|
|United States||James Keenan||Lúcás (Yiu Sing Luke) Chan, S.J.: Bridge-Builder|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Xenophobic attacks in South Africa|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||A poor woman's Dignity|
|CzechRepublic||Jaroslav Lorman||The Slovak Church unfortunately involved in the issue of same-sex partnerships?|
|Argentina||Pablo Blanco Gonzalez||COMMON GOOD, ECONOMY AND POLITICS|
|Canada||Carolyn Chau||Current Canadian 'Culture Debates'|
|Belgium/United States||Joseph Selling||Visiting professor at Hekima College, Nairobi, Kenya|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||Section 66 A of IT Act|
|Belgium||Ellen van Stichel||Strawberries in springtime…|
|Mexico||Jutta Battenberg Galindo||Violencia, redes sociales, conciencia y responsabilidad|
|United States||Nichole M. Flores||When Discourse Breaks Down: Engaging Racial Conflict on Campus|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Illicit Financial Flows|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||Lessons from a Papal Visit|
|Germany||Petr Štica||Transnationalität und global governance als Herausforderung für die christliche Sozialethik – Bericht vom Berliner Werkstattgespräch der deutschen Sozialethiker und Sozialethikerinnen (23. bis 25. Februar) (English)|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez||Fundamentalismos allá y aquí|
|Brazil||Alexandre Martins||The Priority of Personal Goods and the Lack of Ethical Virtues: A Looking at Current Brazilian Politics|
|United States||Mary Doyle Roche||To be Seen and Heard: Children, the Synod, and the World Meeting of Families|
|Ken Ogot||Fighting Terrorism or Introducing Dictatorship?|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||Peace and Life|
|Germany||Marianne Heimbach-Steins||Europe after the Terror Attacks in Paris – A Socio-Ethical Reflection|
|Canada||Carolyn Chau||Shootings and Social Responsibility|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||‘Religion or rights: The higher moral ground’|
|United Kingdom||Julie Clague||British Catholics and Family Morality: The times they are a-changin’|
|Argentina||EmilceCuda||Francisco: ¿Etica, Política o Teología Pastoral?|
|Argentina||Gustavo Irrazábal||Un sínodo en verdad “extraordinario”|
|Peru||Edwin Vásquez Ghersi||El sínodo sobre la familia: Aires nuevos en la Iglesia|
|United States||Mary Jo Iozzio||The Challenge of Women’s Consent|
|Cameroon||Azetsop Jacquineau||THE EBOLA EPIDEMIC IN WEST AFRICA: AN ISSUE OF JUSTICE?|
|United Kingdom||Tina Beattie||Synod on the Family|
|Mexico||JuttaBatterbergGalindo||Violencia de Género: Un asunto pendiente en la teología moral|
|South Africa||Frances Correia||Crime and Family Life in South Africa|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||Clean Hands|
|CzechRepublic||Jaroslav Lorman||Visit of Prof. Gerhard Kruip to the Czech Republic|
|Puerto Rico||Jorge José Ferrer||Ética de los ministerios y de las organizaciones eclesiales: ¿Una asignatura pendiente para la teología moral?|
|United States||Angela Senander||Listening to Elizabeth Johnson: The Leadership Conference of Women Religious and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith|
|Zimbabwe||Nontando Hadebe||‘The blood of your (sister) cries out to heaven’ A prophetic Trinitarian response to gender-based violence.|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||A Crisis of Peace in Japan|
|Belgium||EllenvanStichel||Developing a Theological Anthropology for the 21st Century: An Introduction to the Anthropos Research Project (Catholic University Leuven)|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez||Condición de migrantes|
|United States||Mary Jo Iozzio||Waiting in Hope for Our Families: The Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (October 5-19, 2014)|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||‘A home to call one’s own’|
|Poland||Konrad Glombik||Challenges in Research in the field of moral theology in Poland|
|Argentina||Pablo Blanco Gonzalez||“PEACE UNDER FIRE IN GAZA”|
|Puerto Rico||Jorge José Ferrer||Ética de los ministerios y de las organizaciones eclesiales: ¿Una asignatura pendiente para la teología moral?|
|Canada||Carolyn Chau||Euthanasia in Canada – Recent Developments|
|Tanzania||Laurenti Magesa||The Synod on the Family and Africa|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||Legislating Compassion|
|Germany||Marianne Heimbach-Steins||Reflections on the election of the European Parliament|
|Brazil||Alexandre Martins||Fraternity and Human Trafficking|
|United States||Nichole M. Flores||Political Emotion, Religion, and the Pursuit of Racial Justice|
|Kenya||Wilhelmina Tunu||TOWARDS A HOLISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF POVERTY|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||‘Not containing trauma and memory in the name of Allah’|
|Europe||Gillian Paterson and Joseph Selling||Catholic Discourses on Population and Development|
|Brazil||Alexandre Martins||Fraternity and Human Trafficking|
|Puerto Rico||Jorge José Ferrer||Liberalización de las drogas: una “questio disputata”|
|Kenya||Marie-Rose Ndimbo||"Ethical Examination of overcrowding in the city of Kinshasa and its related problems."|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||"Development without Compassion for the Aged?"|
|Czech Republic||Jaroslav Lorman||"Challenges of moral theology in the Czech Republic."|
|Mexico||Jutta Battenberg||MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN SOCIAL: LA MIRADA AUSENTE|
|United States||William Mattison||"An Air of Change: Reception of the Eucharist for the Divorced and Civilly Remarried?"|
|South Africa||Anthony Egan||Denis Hurley - Bishop And Public Ethicist|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||Specific Secret Protection Law: What is secret?-that is secret|
|Italy||Vicenzo Viva||The Ecclesial Dimension of Moral Theology between Magisterium and Sensus fidelium.|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez||Indignación ética ante la ausencia del Estado de Derecho|
|United States||Mary Jo Iozzio||International Women's Day (March 8) and (US) Women's History Month|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Water and oil in Turkana: How will they play out?|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||Aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan|
|Belgium||Ellen Van Stichel||Happy Birth Day?|
|Argentina||EmilceCuda||La teología en Argentina después de Francisco|
|United States||Nichole M. Flores||Synod of Bishops on the Family: Critical Questions from the US|
|Cameroon||Solange Ngah||Changes in Family Life and the Challenges of Contemporary Culture|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||‘The Gospel of Families’|
|Italy, Europe||Martin Lintner, The Presidium of the European Society for Catholic Theology||Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in the European Context|
|Argentina||Pablo Blanco Gonzalez||Who Cares?|
|Canada||Carolyn Chau||Secularism and Religious Freedom in Canada: The Quebec Charter of Values|
|United States||Jillian Maxey||From the Trenches: A Reflection on the Preparatory Document on the Synod on Marriage and Family|
|Cameroon||Solange Ngah||On Communication and the Media: Reflections of a Theological Ethicist|
|India||A. Vimal Kumar, MMI, Bala Kiran Vannekuty and Joseph Thambi Gone||The Impact of the Dowry System in Christian Communities|
|Germany||Petr Štica||Human rights in the Catholic Church: Report of the international expert meeting “Benchmark Human Rights. Ambition and Implementation in the Catholic Church” in Münster|
|Brazil||Alexandre Martins||Moral Theology and Youth|
|UnitedStates||Mary Jo Iozzio||Thanksgiving at 150|
|Democratic Republic of the Congo||Marie-Rose Ndimbo||Kinshasa: A Social Drama for the Poor|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||Olympics or Getting out of the Nuclear Accident|
|Germany||Marianne Heimbach-Steins||A Report from Graz|
|UnitedStates||Bill Mattison||Veritatis splendor at 20|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||Saying No to Blood Ivory|
|Argentina||Emilce Cuda||Francisco: entre la Teología de la Liberación y la Teología del Pueblo|
|United States||Nichole M. Flores||March on Washington Anniversary: Fannie Lou Hamer and the New Evangelization|
|United Kingdom||Julie Clague||Your mission, if you choose to accept it: A European Project for Catholic Theological Ethics|
|South Africa||Raymond Perrier||Whistleblowing|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||Casinos, connections, contestations|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez||Una oportunidad para la ética teológica desde los sujetos emergentes femeninos.|
|United States||Mary Jo Iozzio||U.S. Minimum Wage at 75|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||50 years of the Organisation of African Unity|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||The "Tyranny of Money"|
|United States||William Mattison||Hope and Pope Francis: A Reflection from the US|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Wage negotiation season returns to South Africa’s Mines|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||Peace or Amendment of the Constitution of Japan?|
|Canada||Mark Miller||Rewarding the Deserving?|
|Democratic Republic of the Congo||Marie-Rose Ndimbo||Wages in the DRC|
|Kenya||Veronica Rop||Role of Social Media in Kenya: A Threat or Opportunity|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||Wading into Political Waters|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez||Pope Francisco and some resonances for ecclesiology and Latin American theological ethics: cautious optimism|
|United States||Nichole M. Flores||Institutional Religious Freedom: Broadening the Scope|
|Kenya||Veronica Rop||African Women and Political Participation: A Worrying Trend|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||‘What’s in a name?’|
|Argentina||EmilceCuda||Implications of the Resignation of the Pope in the Media (available in English and Spanish)|
|UnitedStates||Mary Jo Iozzio||The US Fails to Ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities|
|Democratic Republic of the Congo||Marie-Rose Ndimbo||As the National Episcopal Conference of Congo (CENCO) Face the Elections in the DRC in 2011. Were There Some Recommendations?|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||That Delhi Girl!|
|Mexico||Sebastián Mier||LA ETICA TEOLÓGICA EN EL CONGRESO CONTINENTAL DE TEOLOGÍA LATINOAMERICANA (available in English and Spanish)|
|United States||William Mattison||Boundaries and Protections of Religious Freedom|
|Kenya||Veronica Rop||Escalation of Killings in Kenya: A Call for Respect for Human Life|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||The Changing Face of HIV/AIDS in the Philippines|
|Canada||Mark Miller||The Media & Physician-Assisted Suicide in Canada|
|Kenya||Veronica Rop||Ushering African Women into the Year of Faith: Reflection on Motu Proprio Data|
|Nigeria||Anne Arabome||Telling Our Own Stories: Seven Women, Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||Another Virtue Ethics|
|United States||Nichole M. Flores||Race and Polarization in the U.S. Church and Public Life|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||‘To Cut Or Not To Cut: That Is Not The Question’|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez||La juventud estudiantil refresca el compromiso ético social|
|United States||Mary Jo Iozzio||Threats to Responsible Citizenship in the 2012 US Presidential Election|
|Democratic Republic of the Congo||Marie-Rose Ndimbo||CTEWC in Africa after Trento: Engaging the African Synod: The First Day|
|Kenya||Veronica Rop||CTEWC in Africa after Trento: Engaging the African Synod: The Second Day|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||CTEWC in Africa after Trento: Engaging the African Synod: The Third Day|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Human rights! What about Rhino rights?|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||Freedom of Religion in Government Offices|
|Puerto Rico||MT Davila||¿A dónde vas Occupy?|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||Millions of Missing Girls! Female Foeticide and Ethical Concerns|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||Should we restart nuclear power plants?|
|Cote d'Ivoire||Nathanaël Yaovi Soede||La Syrie après la Libye: les maîtres du monde|
|Argentina||Pablo Blanco Gonzalez||La Crisis Financiera a la Luz De la Doctrina Social de la Iglesia|
|Kenya||Veronica Rop||The African Synod: The Participation of Women in Reconciliation Justice and Peace|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||A Second Life|
|South Africa||Anthony Egan||Criminalising Homosexuals in Uganda?|
|Argentina||Emilce Cuda||Relación Iglesia-Estado: Un Debate Ético O Político?|
|Brazil||Marcio Fabri dos Anjos||Nuevas Generaciones y Educación para valores éticos. Apuntes metodológicos|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||"People Power: Take Control of Your Energy"|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||"Over an Ageing Dam"|
|United States||Thomas Massaro||"Labor Justice in Catholic Social Thought and the Occupy Movement"|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||World AIDS Day 2011|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||"In God's Image"|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||Response to "In God's Image"|
|Argentina||Emilce Cuda||Mistica y Politica en los Nuevos Estilos Democraticos Latinoamericanos|
|Cote d'Ivoire||Nathanaël Yaovi Soede||"The International Community and Democracy in the South"|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||Response to "The International Community and Democracy in the South"|
|Japan||Osamu Takeuchi||"What Can We Learn from the Great East Japan Earthquake?"|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||Response to "What We Can Learn from the Great East Japan Earthquake"|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez||"Ethics in the Areopagus"|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||Response to "Ethics in the Areopagus"|
|Kenya||Veronica Rop||The Challenge Posed by Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem to the African Perspective on the Dignity of Women|
|Malaysia||Sharon Bong||‘Obedient wives, first-class prostitutes and terrorism’|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||Response to "The Challenge Posed by Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem to the African Perspective on the Dignity of Women"|
|Brazil||Marcio Fabri dos Anjos||Un desafiante Escenario para la Teología Moral Católica en Latinoamérica y el Caribe (English)|
|South Africa||Anthony Egan||Good Governance, Good Grief!|
|Philippines||Eric Genilo||The Challenge of Democratic Dialogue in the Philippines|
|Argentina||EmilceCuda||North-South Dialogue/Dialogo Norte-Sur|
|Kenya||Peter Knox||Mining in South Africa|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||Response to "Mining in South Africa"|
|India||Shaji George Kochuthara||The Transparency Revolution in India|
|Mexico||Miguel Ángel Sánchez||Ethical living: Hope despite everything in an "underground city" of Mexico City|
Many of us have become aware of a recent report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in which we receive a dire warning from climate scientists. It is difficult to overestimate the urgency of this document. Previous reports warned about the effects of climate change that will occur when average global temperatures rise by 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, an outcome which the Paris climate agreement is designed to prevent. But this latest report indicates that many of the worst effects will begin to occur at a lower temperature threshold: an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius. (Average global temperatures have already risen by almost 1 degree Celsius.) Assuming that the consumption of fossil fuels continues increasing at the current rate, the 1.5-degree increase will be reached by the year 2040, well within the lifetimes of most people reading this essay.
At this point in time, it would be counterproductive for us to review the detailed list of specific changes that will occur, should we reach the 1.5-degree threshold of temperature increase. (But if you really want to know, this CarbonBrief interactive graphic will tell you.) Prior to this most recent report, journalist David Wallace-Wells provided a very detailed list. Exercising some dramatic license, Wallace-Wells arranged the worst effects of climate change within a speculative doomsday narrative of projected political and economic catastrophes, presumably in order to shock his readers into taking decisive steps now to prevent what can still be prevented. But such a fear-based strategy is not the approach I recommend as we take stock of the recent IPCC climate change report.
While fear may indeed be a frequent motivator of human actions, and while it may even motivate right actions to the extent that the fear is rational, I do not think that this emotion can produce a sustainable commitment to the kind of radical structural reform that we need. Indeed, our evolutionary ancestors acquired the emotional adaptation of fear because it was necessary for survival. But in the context of contemporary society, fear usually disposes us to think in terms of the individual rather than the collective, to act in pursuit of short-term security rather than long-term sustainability. For example, fear is unlikely to drive political organizing aimed at changing national and global energy policy in highly specific ways, such that we successfully ban the burning of coal, invest public funds in solar and wind energy, and impose carbon fees on large, corporate polluters. Instead, fear is more likely to make us cling to our fossil-fuel burning vehicles and let the entities most responsible off the hook.
As an alternative to fear-based motivation, I concur with Willis Jenkins in recommending we come to terms with our own “moral incompetence.” This phrase refers not to any professional incompetence in the field in which we are trained, but to the ways in which our culture negatively shapes our agency. As Catholics working in the context of North America, the dominant “Western” culture in which we are immersed cannot offer us the resources we need to envision and implement a form of political economy that will counteract climate change. Western individualism and the free market mechanism are among the factors that have gotten us into this pattern of environmental exploitation in the first place. Neither can the quintessentially Western aspiration to technological mastery of the world save us from this mess. Thus, when culturally Western people are forced to confront the latest report about climate change and our causality for it, our default cultural settings dispose us to feel overwhelmed by a privileged sense of helplessness, an emotional response which transitions into apathy, fear, or denial. This default is our moral incompetence. As a group, the privileged would rather pretend to be helpless than survive.
Since our part of the world has so disproportionately contributed to the current climate crisis, recognizing our own moral incompetence is an indispensable first step on the way to articulating and enacting more constructive responses. This step is what I interpret Pope Francis as having done in his encyclical letter Laudato Si’, wherein he calls for a radical reinterpretation of the conceptual traditions and practical application of Catholic social thought through the lens of “integral ecology.” Among other things, integral ecology offers a framework for perceiving the interconnection of environmental justice concerns with other applied ethical areas, such as bioethics, intergenerational justice, economic justice, racial justice, and justice for indigenous peoples affected by “Western” (i.e., white settler) colonization. In dialogue with Paul VI’s concept of “integral human development,” integral ecology functions as a corrective to the default cultural setting of anthropocentrism that persistently shapes a Western sense of agency in Catholic ethics. In a way, implicit anthropocentrism is a version of moral incompetence peculiar to culturally Western Catholics. Having recognized this incompetence, integral ecology invites us to the second step of reimagining and expanding our sense of agency. We are asked to accept the moral insight offered to us and the moral claims being made on us by the non-human life with whom we share this planet and on whom we depend for our mutual flourishing and survival.
So, let us ask ourselves: Will we respond to the latest climate report by resisting our habitual stances of apathy, fear, and helplessness, acknowledging our incompetence, and heeding Pope Francis’ challenge to radically reimagine a morally competent sense of agency? Or will we be content to wait helplessly, fearfully, and apathetically for an outcome that is not, if we act now, inevitable?
A number of Jewish organizations and rabbis – especially in the USA but also beyond – have welcomed Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Sí and linked it to Jewish teachings on ecology. Pope Francis himself utilizes many of the same laws in the Torah that Jewish environmentalists have been quoting for decades: the laws of the Sabbatical Year and Jubilee from Leviticus 25, the protection of species from Deuteronomy 22:6-7, and the Sabbath imperative to rest from Exodus 23:12. Jews and Christians share the concern for the protection of God's creation, often relying on the same theological and spiritual sources. At the same time, every religious tradition preserves its specific texts, its own memory, so that interreligious dialogue can help to reflect one’s own tradition in light of the insights from another religious tradition.
In a tragic way, this need for interfaith dialogue and solidarity – especially between Jews and Christians – has become acute again these days. The horrible attack on the Jewish community in Pittsburgh on October 27th 2018 shows too clearly how important it is to recall again and again the special bond between Jews and Christians. Both religions share the same roots, they are the fruits of the same tree of life. The following considerations, therefore, want to stress and strengthen this deep relationship.
The Jewish-Christian dialogue that has been triggered by the publication of the papal encyclical Laudato Sí in 2015 is an instructive example of this deep relationship. The rich Jewish tradition can help to deepen the Christian understanding of human stewardship for the earth, and various Jewish initiatives can be seen as allies in the fight against the pollution of the environment and the extermination of living things. This potential for mutual learning and common action will be presented in three steps. First, some central Jewish teachings on the environment will be introduced. Secondly, the reception of Laudato Sí in the Jewish community will be presented. Finally, some suggestions for practical steps will be made.
1) Judaism and ecology: Over 4000 years an environmental ethics has been elaborated in Judaism that can still serve as inspiration and orientation today (cf. A. Waskow’s two-volume work “Torah of the Earth”, 2000). These teachings have motivated Jews all around the world to fight for the protection of the planet. Numerous organizations and initiatives have been founded, for example Aytzim, Canfei Nesharim, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, Hazon, Jewish Climate Action Network, Jewish Ecological Coalition, Jewish Nature, and Shalom Center.
A famous story that puts the Jewish teachings on ecology in a nutshell can be found in Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra 4:6:
“A group of people were travelling in a boat. One of them took a drill and began to drill a hole beneath himself. His companions said to him: ‘Why are you doing this?’ Replied the man: ‘What concern is it of yours? Am I not drilling under my own place?’ Said they to him: ‘But you will flood the boat for us all!’”
Parallels to the current global ecological crisis can be drawn. The boat represents planet earth that safeguards all the people that are travelling with it. This boat, however, is endangered by irresponsible actions because some human beings only have their personal benefit in mind, and not the common good. They literally drill holes in the earth's crust to exploit natural resources. This egoistic and shortsighted behavior turns the safe boat earth into a danger zone. The planet cannot recover from the damage done to it and poses a threat to all its inhabitants.
The rabbis that wrote down this story centuries ago warn us how seemingly small actions can lead to major catastrophes. They also remind us of the common responsibility that we share. Our behavior always affects the lives of others, that is why we should bear the consequences of our actions in mind. Responsibility, solidarity, mindfulness – the ecological crisis shows us how urgently these virtues are needed today.
2) Jewish responses to Laudato Sí: When Pope Francis visited the USA in September 2015, over 200 Jewish rabbis and cantors signed a letter welcoming his commitment to the environment: “Pope Francis has blown the shofar to the world in his encyclical Laudato Sí and we in Rabbinic leadership have heard the call.” (Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life) The eminent American rabbi Arthur Green said in a similar statement: “The pope’s leadership in this cause, expressed in his remarkable document of moral courage entitled Laudato Si, […] is a clarion call to all people who call themselves religious.” Large parts of the Jewish community see in Pope Francis an important ally in the fight against climate change. In their view this global problem needs strong alliances, especially between religious groups. This was already expressed by the Jewish Climate Change Campaign in 2009:
“As a fraction of the global population with one small state, the Jewish people alone are not capable of changing the world. However, the Jewish tradition teaches us to serve as a ‘light unto the nations,’ (Isaiah 43). With this document, we are participating in an alliance of religions to address global sustainability and the existential threat of climate change. We hope thereby that the Jewish people will offer its wisdom, tradition and thought leadership to help light the way for all.” (Sustaining Our Vision)
In that sense, the dramatic ecological crisis also offers new opportunities. Religious communities are called to come closer together, to learn from each other and to join forces. As Pope Francis writes: “The majority of people living on our planet profess to be believers. This should spur religions to dialogue among themselves for the sake of protecting nature, defending the poor, and building networks of respect and fraternity.” (Laudato Sí, no. 201)
3) Suggestions for practical steps: Networks of respect and fraternity are only possible through encounter. Wherever possible, Christians should seek contact with members of other religions and forge alliances. The Interfaith Climate Change and Renewable Energy Conference that was held at Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem in May 2018 is a good example for this. Members of different religious traditions came together and shared their views on sustainability and environment. But even if one cannot meet with members of other religious traditions in person, mutual learning is still possible. Rabbi Daniel Swartz, for example, has compiled sources from Jewish tradition that are echoed in the encyclical Laudato Sí. Such intertextual readings open new perspectives and build bridges between the different religious streams. For those who want to go beyond the academic discourse, numerous interfaith organizations offer room for action. The Interfaith Center for Sustainable Development (ICSD), the Shalom Center or GreenFaith have strong ties to Jewish communities and a vast experience in interfaith action. The ICSD, for example, has initiated a renewable energy project in Africa in cooperation with Anglican partners.
These examples show how religious groups can learn from each other and take their responsibility for God’s creation seriously. Christians are especially called to join forces with their Jewish brothers and sisters. Following Pope Francis one can hope that the Church more and more discovers this rich complementarity:
“The Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples.” (Evangelii Gaudium, no. 249)
Gregor Buss, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, firstname.lastname@example.org
Gregor Buss studied Catholic theology at Muenster University and holds a PhD in theological ethics from Charles University in Prague. Since 2015, he has been postdoctoral fellow of the Martin Buber Society at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research interests include: Christianity in the global south, secularization, Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS in Africa, intercultural ethics, Catholic Church and socialism.
One of the widely discussed topics in moral theology, particularly, in India is the issue of gender equality. Although there are goddesses who are worshiped and venerated in this land of religions, women are badly treated by the Indian society and religions. Indians boast about the stability of their families. But, often the stability is at the cost of the docile and silent suffering and tears of women. It is very easy to preach the need of equality between men and women. But, when there are efforts to bring such initiatives into existence, there are differences of opinions. The Supreme Court of India has made some historical rulings in order to solve the issue of inequality of women and LGBTQ both in the society and in the religious places. In spite of several protests, the verdicts of the Court against these types of inequality remain praise worthy which paved the way for a new dawn in India. As a result, there is an emerging consciousness among the women in India to fight for their right and dignity in the society and in religion. The historical verdicts of the court were the milestones in the history of India on one hand. And on the other hand, they were a bang to the rule of patriarchy.
One of the rulings of the court was regarding the striking down of a 158 year old law, i.e., section 497 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) which made adultery a punishable offence for men. The Court held that section 497 of IPC is unconstitutional and fell foul of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 14 (Right to Equality). The court unanimously struck down Section 497 of IPC since it offends the dignity of women and violates the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women. The old law considered woman as the property of her husband. The spirit of the verdict lies in its statement that “husband is not the master of wife or wife is not chattel of husband and legal sovereignty of one sex over other sex is wrong.” Thus, it is a “progressive judgement which highlighted the equality and dignity of Indian women.” The court emphasised the privacy of women and clarified that sexual relationship is a relationship between two equals.
Another ruling of the court was in matters of religious practices which deny the dignity and equality of women. Many of the religions in India follow those customs which are patriarchal in nature. For example, in spite of the high ratio in literacy and educational status, there are instances of violence and sexual assaults against women in Kerala. There exists an age old custom in Sabarimala, Kerala, which barred women devotees in the menstruating age group of 10-50 from entering the temple to worship the Hindu deity, Ayyappa. The court questioned this practice and made a verdict on 28 September 2018 that women, irrespective of age, can enter the temple of Sabarimala. The High Court of Bombay made a similar verdict on 30 March 2016. It ensured the entry of women in any temple, particularly the temple of Shani Shignapur in Maharashtra which prohibited the entry of women in its sanctum sanctorum for the last 400 years. In the same way, on 26 august 2016 the High Court also made another ruling against the prohibition of women in the inner sanctum of the Haji Ali Dargah. The Court criticised such practices and judged that any such denial is against her fundamental right of equality and her right to express faith. In 22 August 2017, the Supreme Court banned one of the controversial Islamic practices of divorce named ‘Triple Talaq’ or ‘Mutalaq’. It allowed men to leave their wives immediately by stating “Talaq” three times. By ruling against the practice of ‘Triple Talaq’ the court affirmed that this practice is against the fundamental right, equality and dignity of women. Thus, the court tried to quash the elements of patriarchy in religion and its rule in religious practices.
The campaigns such as ‘# Me Too’ and the protest of nuns in Kerala against Clerical Sexual Assaults were also signs of emerging consciousness among women in India to uphold their dignity, equality, rights in the society as well as in religious places.
A final note is about the court’s verdict related to LGBTQ on 6 September 2018. The court observed that the 1861 law indeed was a relic of Victorian era which criminalised homosexuality and the lives of LGBTQ people. It was a surprise that even after the end of British colonialism, it hung on the mind set of India. Fortunately, the Court struck down Section 377 of IPC and decriminalized homosexuality. The verdict was “a breach of the rights of privacy and dignity.” Justice Indu Malhotra, the supreme Court judge, commented that “history owes an apology to the members of this community and their families, for the delay in providing redressal for the ignominy and ostracism that they have suffered through the centuries.” The Court made it clear that although sexual acts without consent continue to be a crime under the section, consensual adult gay sex is not a crime since sexual orientation is natural and people have no control over it. Consensual sex between adults in a private space, which is not harmful to women or children, cannot be denied as it is a matter of individual choice.
The above mentioned rulings of the Supreme Court of India are reflections of the growing awareness of the need of gender equality in the Indian society. But, there are differences of opinions regarding these judgments. The fundamental groups, the orthodox and traditional people in the secular society are against these verdicts whereas; the progressive, feminist and liberal groups welcome these verdicts. The conservatives opine that these verdicts distort and pull down the cultural hegemony of India. With regard to the women’s entry into religious places, the liberals welcomed the court’s position that patriarchy in religion cannot be allowed to trump the right to pray. They claim that it is not a right practice to prevent a woman from a temple or from a Mosque or even from a Church and its holy places. Such discriminations are against women’s dignity. Instead, women have to be respected. Men and women are equal partners in life. The liberals have high regard for court’s observation that the subversion and repression of women under the garb of biological or physical factors like menstruation cannot be given the seal of legitimacy and any discrimination against women is against the constitutional morality. For them, one’s relationship with God should not be conditioned by the socially created customs, artificial barriors, biological and physical features. They should not be used as a cover to deny the right and dignity of women. The progressive people hold the view that the verdict is the beginning of a journey towards great dignity, equality and liberty of LGBTQ community. They emphasise that the ruling heralds a new dawn for personal liberty for the LGBTQ community. They believe that the court protected the rights, dignity, equality, privacy and expressions of these people.
There are differences of opinions among the authorities as well as the theologians of the Church in India. The conservative groups in the Church criticised the court’s ruling of decriminalising homosexual acts and adultery. They fear that such verdicts are challenges to marriage and family. They are of the opinion that legalising homosexual acts and unions violate the essential aspect of marriage, i.e., the complementarity of sexes. Moreover it closes the gift of life and even if they go for adoption, the right of the child to experience the love of father and mother is denied. In addition, the value of marital life lies in the fidelity between the spouses. Since the act of adultery violates the essential aspect of marriage such as unity and indissolubility, the conservatives argue that the institution of marriage and family will be in danger. On the other hand, the progressive theologians while holding on the compassionate approach towards the homosexual persons opine that it is unjust to segregate a group of humanity on unjustifiable grounds. For them, any such segregation is against the dignity of humanity. Moreover, they are of the opinion that it is not the majority who determines what is right or wrong. The liberal theologians highlight the court’s view that the right to love is not a monopoly of heterosexuals alone but a right of all. They believe that “the choice of a partner, the desire for personal intimacy, and the yearning to find love and fulfilment in human relationships have a universal appeal.”
In short, it is a wonder that the Indian society is now discussing the issues of gender in the light of these verdicts. There are also discussion in the areas of constitutional morality, social morality, cultural morality, religious morality and gospel morality. On the one hand it is appreciable that there is resonance of gender equality both in the secular and religious spheres of India. But on the other hand, it raises questions like which morality is to be followed, whether constitutional morality or religious morality? Another argument which gained substantial attention is that “Are legally permissible acts sinful or not? These verdicts “also made people to discuss on the issues of women ordination and administration of confession by women. Hence, the authorities of the Church are anxious whether these verdicts may bring some far-reaching consequences in the religious circles or not?
Nb: The references are from the verdicts of the Supreme Court of India, which are available in the Internet.
An urgent call for an encyclical on women at the occasion of the 70 years’ jubilee of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
The seven decades that have elapsed since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in December 1948 have seen an immense increase in the awareness and further legal specifications with regard to human rights. The engagement of innumerable human rights organisations to deepen the human rights’ ethos and speed up their implementation has truly been impressive. Despite all setbacks and continuing daily cruelties, as well as the unending need for brave battles to restrain state authorities from abusing their powers, human rights have proved to be the most effective instrument so far invented to protect people from arbitrary political violence, help mitigate social ills and further human dignity. Their positive dynamics continue to be a reason for hope. One of the most impressive developments in this context is the enhancement of the legal and social status of women worldwide during the past decades against all odds despite religious and cultural traditions as well as fundamentalist counter currents. The demand for equal rights voiced in the UDHR became a binding agreement of international law through the Convention Against all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW of 1979/1981) constituting the basis of a number of later documents. The global conferences on women in Mexico City (1975), Copenhagen (1980), Nairobi (1985) and Beijing (1995) were milestones helping to better understand the issue, engendering a multitude of activities as well as the creation of global, regional and national women’s networks. They also showed that the situations of women differ considerably in different regions. I remember when a friend coming from the Beijing conference said, that one of the main concerns of Asian women was malnutrition since women traditionally are allowed to eat only after men have eaten. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the subsequent Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (to be implemented till 2030) both contain main goals to “Promote gender equality and empower women” and address the issue in sub-goals, women being disadvantaged in practically all areas and thus most other goals directly or indirectly being linked to women’s rights and their struggle for equality. The social ills women are disproportionately affected by include poverty and malnutrition (60% of the extremely poor) and illiteracy (63% of those without schooling). Women do most of the work (e.g. 79% of rural work) but own only a small share of the soil (13%). They are victims of a whole range of gender specific forms of violence ranging from female feticide (the estimated number of missing females is 100 million worldwide), neglect of girls (infanticide), female genital mutilation, rape, dowry deaths, honour killings, female slavery and human trafficking in women, by which women are most affected. Thus of the 40 million slaves estimated worldwide, 71% of these are women. In the sex industry the figure is 99%. These few figures demonstrate that women as well as those who struggle for their well-being are today confronted with immense social problems and ills, even though some progress has been made through considerable intellectual and practical efforts during the past 70 years.
This being said any look at the way the Catholic Church deals with the issue is sobering.
There are, without doubt, a multitude of Catholic social initiatives, practical as well as intellectual to further the well-being of women and improve their lives and status worldwide. Thus, I found the CTEWC world conference in Sarajevo last July so very encouraging because of the considerable number of women theologians from all continents that were present, often being the first of their generation, some of them supported by CTEWC scholarships. I was impressed by a workshop where two African priests talked about their engagement for women’s rights and empowerment in their countries. These, as many other examples that could be cited (help for refugee women, anti-slavery activities, engagement against forced prostitution), shows that on the ground the Catholic Church is an important agent in the field.
However, what is painfully missing are clear statements on the issue of women’s rights and emancipation from the hierarchies of the Catholic Church, locally as well as centrally. This ominous silence is deplorable since it withholds the support direly needed by women, particularly the poor, in their struggle against social ills and discriminations and it overlooks that women who develop their potential can contribute much better to the well-being of their families as well as the common good of their respective communities.
A text from Pacem in terris (1963), that is worth citing at length, shows that Catholic Social Teaching did not always have this blind spot:
Secondly, the part that women are now playing in political life is everywhere evident. This is a development that is perhaps of swifter growth among Christian nations, but it is also happening extensively, if more slowly, among nations that are heirs to different traditions and imbued with a different culture. Women are gaining an increasing awareness of their natural dignity. Far from being content with a purely passive role or allowing themselves to be regarded as a kind of instrument, they are demanding both in domestic and in public life the rights and duties which belong to them as human persons (PT 41).
Read today after the twists in discourse during the past five decades this passage sounds almost provocative. Firstly, it considers the emancipation of workers, women (therefore secondly) and the developing nations as three global megatrends that the Church can welcome and support. As “signs of the time” they are not only facts one acknowledges with some hesitation, they carry major ethical as well as theological significance. They correspond with God’s will, which is to make the world a better and more humane place for all human beings. Discrimination to the contrary is – as Gaudium et spes states - “incompatible with God’s design” (GS 29). Secondly, the text regards recent progress in the role of women in Western societies a result of their Christian heritage, which though it in no way limits its importance for and in other cultures, makes clear that it is to be incorporated in the Social Teaching of the Church. Thirdly, women’s struggle to play an active role is seen as being in agreement with the agenda of human rights and duties as rightful expressions of what it means to be a human person.
Regarded from this point of departure later developments in Catholic Social Teaching, starting in the 1970s, cannot but be seen as reductionist and indeed regressive. With few exceptions they no longer address concrete social ills afflicting women but (starting with Octogesima adveniens) attempt to establish an essentialist identity discourse directed against emancipatory social trends in Western societies which are now being seen as detrimental and contrary to Catholic anthropology. The tragedy inherent in this turn in Church teaching is that at a time when the equal rights of women were after long struggles legally recognized in industrialized countries, which in general was in the 1970s, the Catholic hierarchy no longer welcomed them. Instead, it engaged in a counter-cultural discourse the relevance of which was limited to critical comments on what was perceived as the negative side effects of modern developments. At a time when women’s rights became a centre piece of human rights discourse, the official Church no longer participated in this discourse - even though it could have been one of the social issues where the Catholic Church according to Vatican II could very well have worked together with secular agents in a mutual learning process for the betterment of female lives (cf GS 42; 44). Instead a counter-discourse that idealized ‘woman’ as the Other of modernity blocked rather than furthered understanding and, in fact, contributed little to the struggle against concrete social ills taking into account the social realities of real women in different regions of the world. The affirmation of (sexual) difference before equality, and family values before women’s rights merely reacted against what was perceived as a feminist threat, whereby the pitting of women’s rights and personal development against their life in the family had and has little to do with the facts on the ground. This is because support of women through better education and better health services is the best way to help families come out of poverty.
A symptom of this unsatisfactory state of affairs is the rather fruitless debate on whether the term gender is to be used by the Catholic Church. Since “gender” has for decades been the term and instrument used to analyse situations and sharpen the view for different forms of injustice against women, the refusal to use it meant opting out of the ongoing debates leaving the issue to others actors. It also meant shunning cooperation with the international and national agents and agencies. Obviously the term “gender” – like any other term - can be misinterpreted and misused. Thus, the Catholic Church will with good right say no to some of the demands of gender politics. However, as in other areas, dialogue and a common policy requires a common language. In Laudato si’ Pope Francis devoted a whole chapter to dialogue making this method of Vatican II forcefully his own (after a period when it had been discredited). If this method of dialogue is to be applied to women’s issues there is no way around using the term gender. The Papal Commission Justice and Peace held a remarkable meeting on global women’s issues in 2015, stating exactly this. In the final communique, however, the word gender was again omitted due to protest from some conservative women’s groups. The establishment of a counter-discourse, however, neither does justice to the issue nor to the teachings of Vatican II. As feminist exegesis and theology have amply shown during the past decades, it is also not founded in the Scriptures. From a pragmatic standpoint, moreover, considering the rights of half of the world’s population cannot be a successful strategy in the long run.
It is, therefore, high time that the Church recommits herself to Vatican II when she self-assuredly embraced the movement towards greater equality of women based on human rights. Thereby, she could in the best of all scenarios be a voice of reason in a highly fragmented and polarized debate of the so called “culture wars”, stressing that the ethical implications of social issues are always complex and the most humane solutions can only be found in dialogue. As Aristotle noted, it is a function of the particularity of ethics that these insights never have the same certainty as those of mathematics (Nicomachean Ethics I 1: 1094b-1095a 11).
For years I used to conclude my lectures on Catholic Social Teaching with a resumé on its strengths and weaknesses. As a last point I told my students that on two issues CST was gravely underdeveloped: on ecology and on women. After the publication of Laudato si’ in June 2015 the one blind spot that remains is women’s role and rights. An encyclical on the issue could well start adapting the famous introductory words of the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes:
Gaudium et spes, luctus et angor mulierum huius temporis, pauperum prasertim et quorumvis afflictorum, gaudium sund et spes, luctus et angor etium Christi discipulorum…” (GS 1 adapted).
As I see it before my inner eye, its structure could be rather similar to that of Laudato si’ starting out with a description of the worldwide situation of women giving special emphasis to regional differences and linking women’s issues with other social issues (feminization of poverty, migration, ecology, violence). It could secondly state the message of the Gospels taking up the theological scholarship of the past decades on women’s role in them. Thirdly, it could show that there are important pro-modern traditions in the Catholic Church existing since the beginnings of Christianity stressing the equality of women. Fourthly, a chapter should as in Laudato si’ be devoted to serious dialogue with all other agents active in the field from science, other religions and secular movements. Such an encyclical on women could then close with guidelines to further women’s empowerment expressing the Church’s appreciation for existing initiatives in the Catholic Church as well as in other churches and religions. All of this would not exclude that problematic developments and difficult ethical questions are being addressed in a polite way but they would not stand in the first place. It would attempt to describe the situation in different regions of the world Church in as much detail as possible, giving sufficient weight to regional differences which she knows about from a myriad of grass root organisations, parishes and religious communities. Thus, she would be able to show that different approaches are needed in different social contexts, whereby these must all be guided by the universal acceptance of human rights. Such a document would also speak about the role of women in the Church and their work for the Gospel so as to further the common good of the Church acknowledging that she did not make sufficient use of women’s potential in the past.
The encyclical I dream of could be a big step forward in what is one of the most ardent social questions in today’s world, stressing the dignity and rights of women as Rerum novarum stressed the dignity and rights of workers in 1891. Last but not least it could help the Church get out of the cul de sac on gender and sexual issues that the Church has manoeuvred herself into. And it could rekindle hope. Such an encyclical on women has all too long been missing.
 An instructive example is the story of the pastoral letter of the US Bishops‘ Conference on women. See the analysis given by Mary E. Carlson: Can the Church Be a Virtuous Hearer of Women? Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 32:1 (Spring 2016), 21-36 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/jfemistudreli.32.1.03 accessed 24 September 2018)
 For an overview see Linda Hogan & A.E.Orobator (eds.), Feminist Theological Ethics. Conversations in the World Church, Orbis Maryknoll 2014.
 As is done for India in Shaji George Kochuthara (ed.): Gender Justice in the Church and Society, Papers of the Second DVK National Seminar on Moral Theology, Dharmaram Moral Theology Series No.3, Dharmaram Publications 2016.
From August 29th to 31st, the ATEM (Association des Théologiens pour l’Étude de la Morale), the French speaking ecumenical association of moral theologians hold its annual congress in Paris on the topic of moral education. The usual constituency of the association was joined by a substantial group of non-ethicist people interested in the topic, mainly actors in youth movements, schools or chaplaincies. The mixed audience was an opportunity for a fruitful conversation on the crucial and difficult question of the formation of moral consciences. What does this mean? How do we do this? What are the specific challenges of our time and local context?
I have no intention here to summarize the whole conference. I simply highlight a vexing question which somehow stayed in the background of many contributions. How about the “universal” today? For Kant, no doubt that ethical reasoning had to take the path of asking oneself about the universalizability of one’s “maxim” of action. It is a way of coming back to the golden rule: do not do to others what you would not like them do to you or, in the positive sense, act as you would like the others do. Whatever was the suitability of such ethical approach in modern times, it is obvious that today, in such a country as France and in late-modern or post-modern era, for post-millennials teen-agers, it hardly works. Setting the context on the first day of the conference, a high school teacher who happened to have worked within a large variety of socio-economic contexts in France, pointed out the issue: no lack of generosity among the youth, neither of a sense solidarity especially with those close to them (the family, the friends, etc.). But the idea of universal human rights or of something like the common good is very difficult to explain them. What is authoritative is primarily what can be directly experienced. How do you experience a concept like the common good?
More generally, as ethicists, we are all aware that we live in a world of pluralism not only regarding cultures, visions of the world, or ethical orientations but more fundamentally of anthropologies or visions of the human being. Again and again during the conference was valued an ethic of virtues, stressing the importance of the formation of the character, as an appropriate tool in order to respond to these challenges. But still the question of the articulation between diversity of goods and the search for universality remains. In his concluding remarks, Alain Thomasset (president of ATEM) restated the question. He also suggested some more general landmarks for moral education today, very much in the line of Pope Francis’ pedagogy: accompaniment, dialog, and “never without the little ones”. The latest caught my attention in relation to the question of universality. Could the attention to the poorest, the most excluded, the most fragile in our society be a path for an ethical discernment that would look for the “universal”? Indeed, if you take care of the last, the one at the bottom, the most forgotten, all should benefit. This was the intuition of Fr. Joseph Wresinski, the founder of ATD-Fourth World, fifty years ago. Some might also find support for such a reasoning in Rawl’s principle of difference. With some nuancing! In any case, if, as one of my teachers once said to me, a good day of conference is a day when you end up with having met a new colleague and with having a new question or idea, the ATEM conference this year fully achieved the goal!
Long festering due to neglect, callousness, and race-based suspicion, the Southern border of the United States, which has long been likened to a bodily wound, was ripped open this summer. Anyone paying attention and possessing a moral conscience will remember the summer of 2018 as a particularly mean season of failed policy, a bankrupt administration, and a barely concealed hatred—all producing undeniable human rights atrocities. The old wound is raw, ugly, and more shameful than ever.
As the Trump administration imposed a “zero tolerance” policy toward anyone caught entering the U.S. outside official channels, even those seeking asylum and attempting to play by the established rules, criminalization of unauthorized entry effectively weaponized previous efforts to restrict and deter migration. We all know the results of over 2300 family separations: children already traumatized by violence, poverty and strife in their home countries were ripped from the arms of their parents, held in cage-like pens, and sent to facilities hundreds of miles from the familiar. In horror, news media assured that we saw desperate parents holed up in prison-like federal facilities, exhausting every means to contact and reunite with their infants, toddlers and teens. It has taken months and heroic efforts on the part of the ACLU and other nonprofits to fight for the victims of this mean-spirited policy and reunite forlorn families. Hundreds of cases are still unresolved: picking up the pieces has hardly been a priority of this government, whose slow response and limited commitment of resources has caused it to miss court-ordered deadlines to resolve cases by locating and reuniting detained children with their deported parents.
Veterans of policy analysis know all too well about unfortunate and unintended consequences of policy innovation. The precise outcomes of any change in the law depend on complex interactions among administrative choices and the vagaries in patterns of human behavior as people respond to new incentive structures. When something goes wrong in social policy outcomes, prudence often dictates extending the benefit of the doubt to policy innovators. However, recent migration fiascos are not just garden-variety instances of well-intended policy gone awry. Starting with the travel bans initiated in the first days of the Trump presidency (against Muslim non-citizens), we have witnessed a series of loathsome attempts to disregard the bodily and mental well-being of “special” groups (particularly, people of color).
Arguably, the stated policy goal of deterring excessive numbers of immigrants into the nation may have some merit. However, the means deliberately chosen by President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to achieve this end –the Executive Order instituting “zero tolerance,” the summary deportation and removal orders departing from previous protocols, and the none-too-subtle pressure on immigration judges to rule against refugee and asylum applicants to deny permission for entry and resettlement assistance—are immoral. The toll in human suffering and lasting trauma is immense and foreseeable. Many foreign nationals migrate to seek asylum and protection from harm for their families and, under conditions of maximal vulnerability, they risk all to keep their families intact. This new round of degradation, compounding trauma inflicted upon thousands of children and their desperate parents, cannot be excused.
Rather than dwell on all that went wrong this summer, the most constructive path forward is to identify specifically what we have yet to do as a nation to get the policy questions right. The need has never been greater for comprehensive immigration legislation that will adjust this failed system. Further, insisting upon fair treatment of those seeking asylum or refugee status is not synonymous with demanding open borders.
If we fail to make careful distinctions about who, what, and why, then demands for enhanced security and orderly entry-policy screening will exert undue influence on future policy. We already witness this drift in calls to restrict eligibility for refugee admissions (despite the worst refugee crisis in history, Trump administration officials first signaled an intention to halve the already paltry annual level of 45,000 and have settled instead on 30,000 -the lowest level since the 1980 refugee program began!). We also see this pressure in the elevated rhetoric surrounding a violent crime (the July 18 murder of Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts) allegedly committed by an undocumented entrant to the U.S. in 2011. Noting the tendency toward over-reaction and scapegoating that flies in the face of reliable aggregate crime statistics, New York Times’ Paul Krugman recently referred to “a mythical wave of crimes committed by scary dark people.” In short, we will have a lot of work to do even after placing comprehensive policy reform on the national agenda.
If there is a silver lining to this very dark cloud, it is that Americans demonstrated that they do indeed care, despite the Trump administration wager that we would remain indifferent. The diversions of planning and enjoying summer vacations did not distract us from noticing that these atrocities were committed in our names –a clear moral line had been crossed. Catholics in the US would not allow these struggling families separated by a cruel and punitive migration policy to be treated as mere political footballs. The Catholic Church can be proud that it was prominent among the many voices of conscience reminding all that human dignity does not stop at the border. Catholic Charities agencies, faith-based legal advocates, and several prominent bishops denounced the policy and raced to the border and detention centers to assist the victims of this cruel initiative; they are to be commended for feeling the shame, exposing the shame, and intervening with a timely contribution to reverse the shame of U.S. inhumanity on the border.
The crisis is far from resolved. Newly released budgetary priorities for the Department of Homeland Security (which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and transfers of funds into expanded detention (including revised rules for detaining children) and deportation efforts are coming to light. Further, the heightened rhetoric surrounding the construction of a border wall continues to incite and “rouse the Trump base” which supports such punitive directions for U.S. migration policy.
How will this ignominy be remembered? Hopefully as a momentary aberration—one perpetrated by those temporarily at the helm of a nation composed of millions of people of conscience, with a long and generally admirable history of welcoming the stranger. If we have lost our way as a nation, the most direct route back to virtue is to recall our more beneficent past and the values we have long affirmed in public policy (though not consistently practiced): hospitality, inclusion, opportunity, and respect for the human rights of all. Remembering the best aspects of our past ought inspire us to reject all abuses of power, like these witnessed during our summer of shame.
Families displaced from their homelands and fleeing unspeakable dangers deserve U.S. support, not rejection or indefinite prison-like detention. Even if we cannot open our homeland to every new arrival, refugees and asylum seekers must be treated with respect and dignity, not dismissed in preemptory ways, subjected to the cruelty of family separation, or demonized as violent criminals. The shame on the border this summer constituted a betrayal of our national heritage as a land of hope and dreams. May the healing of the wound at the border be nigh.
It’s like 2000 all over again:
Many African countries are entering more and more heavily into debt owed to other nations. The difference is that now it is China buying the future of our children. Now it is China extending loans and ‘aid’ equivalent to US$ 60 billion to Africa. Now it is China receiving opprobrium for predatory lending, from our former colonial masters who are on their moral high horses. Now China is perceived as the threat to Western interests because of its “carefully laid debt trap” in Africa. Now our peoples will be stuck in cycles of odious debt to China. Now we will be begging for relief, ‘amnesty’, jubilee from China rather than from the West.
And frankly, to our people, I don’t think it will feel any different, as we lose control of our natural assets, our ports and airports, our economic priorities, our human development goals. We are warned that the Confucian ethic is less benign and forgiving than the ethic of our former Christian overlords. This may or may not be. There might or might not be token interest cancellations. But isn’t it just a matter of the degree of grinding poverty to which our people will be subject when the loans become due and the payments have to be made? Slavery is still slavery.
We have recently read about Sri Lanka ceding control of its port, because of defaulting on loan repayments. China now has a foothold in the Indian Ocean. Zambia is denying having talks about swapping debt for public assets like the international airport, the state broadcaster, and the electricity utility. But there’s no smoke without fire… Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa has recently negotiated a multi-billion loan for South Africa, to “stimulate the economy.” Haven’t we seen this all before?
As the year 2000 was approaching, many churches, including the Catholic Church led the Jubilee movement, which aimed to reduce the debt burden of heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs). There was talk of debt forgiveness, of odious debt, of greater financial outflows from Africa (in particular) in servicing foreign debt than financial inflows in foreign aid. NGOs and humanitarian agencies were lobbying (often successfully) arguing that in some cases the initial capital had actually been repaid several times over, but that eternal interest payments were keeping the countries in the debt cycle.
In the honeymoon period after independence, many inexperienced leaders committed their countries to loan agreements, in order to buy the things their countries needed: big black cars, military materiel, lavish palaces, presidential residences, prestigious universities, white elephants. Now, in the 2000’s, China is helping us to build roads and railways to replace those neglected over the decades since independence, to buy bigger, bulkier black gas guzzlers, and to invest in more prestigious white elephant projects.
It seems that our leaders understand little about loans, to say nothing of interest and compound interest. You see, in Africa, at least in our village mentality, when we say “lend me” we really mean “give me.” If you have more than you need, you are morally bound to let me have what I need. Sharing is a way of life, and it is bad form to ask for the repayment of a loan. Despite that African communalism, some of our citizens manage to accumulate vast wealth.
And of those leaders who do understand the world’s financial systems, perhaps they don’t mind that they are committing their people to decades of debt servitude. They will probably be out of office when the payments become due, and still living off the fat of the land. This is morally culpable behaviour. No less culpable are those who lend money to our leaders, knowing full well that the terms of payment will not be met. Our appeal to countries and agencies willing to loan money: Please don’t! Keep your Dollars, Yuan, Francs, Euros, Yens and Pounds to yourselves…. unless you are making an outright gift.
In Laudato Si’ 52 Pope Francis links the issues of foreign debt and ecological debt. The developing world has immense capacity to absorb the excessive environmental burden placed on the planet by the richer countries. If biosphere services of our forests were assigned their true finacial value of sequestering carbon dioxide, then perhaps they could help to pay some of the foreign debt. Our developing countries should thus be more proactive in keeping our forests in the ground, rather than selling them off. But that’s another whole paper…..
Este no es un tema agradable desde luego; sin embargo, es pertinente abordarlo si recordamos que uno de los objetivos del First es proyectar la realidad, los sentimientos y el ambiente social de los lugares donde nos encontramos; y este tema desgraciadamente forma parte de la actualidad en México.
El fenómeno del “linchamiento físico” ha ido en aumento, y ha aparecido de forma alarmante en los últimos meses en los estados de Puebla e Hidalgo, entidades muy cercanas a la Ciudad de México. Dos expresiones brotan de forma espontánea en quienes se enteran de tan lamentables sucesos: una es de beneplácito, argumentando que seguramente las víctimas lo tenían merecido por cometer delitos, como el robo o el secuestro; la otra expresión es de indignación, lamentando que en pleno siglo XXI existan en México turbas ignorantes, a quienes al parecer no ha llegado la civilización, o bien, señalando ¿cómo es posible que siendo esos pueblos tan católicos asesinen sin piedad a seres humanos?
Sin embargo, un pequeño acercamiento a algunos estudios sociológicos deja ver que el linchamiento se entiende mejor dentro del contexto social en el que sucede. Su misma definición es esclarecedora en este sentido: “el linchamiento es una situación de abuso y absoluta asimetría en la que se busca imponer un castigo físico multitudinario, bajo el pretexto de ejercer la justicia que el Estado no provee.”
En el estudio antes citado se pregunta si estos hechos son producto de “un déficit de ciudadanía”, una “contraposición de sistemas normativos”, un “medio de control social”, una manifestación de los “usos y costumbres del México bronco” que todavía persiste. Pero no existe prueba sociológica o geográfica documental que permita responder afirmativamente a estos cuestionamientos. Los linchamientos son más bien heterogéneos, ya que son variados tanto en su geografía como en sus tiempos y en su tipo de población.
Lo que sí es notorio es la existencia de dos constantes perfectamente documentadas: la primera es el aumento en las últimas décadas de la falta de procuración de justicia por parte de las autoridades y del debilitamiento del Estado de Derecho. La segunda es el crecimiento rampante de la inseguridad social, debido al crecimiento de la delincuencia organizada: asaltos, secuestros, fraudes telefónicos, etc., lo cual ha permeado el de forma notoria nuestra sensibilidad social. En los últimos casos de linchamiento existen denuncias por parte de la ciudadanía de un gran número de delitos, y el silencio y la omisión por parte de las autoridades para hacer su trabajo. Ante esta situación de miseria e injusticia “que clama al cielo”, el rumor de que cualquier desconocido es delincuente corre como reguero de pólvora. Una vez más el monstruo de la corrupción vuelve a sacar su cabeza causal.
Ahora bien, en el espíritu de trazar alguna directriz que nos permita ir más allá del horror, el Papa Francisco indica dos claves interpretativas e iluminadoras: “la ecología social” y “la ecología de la vida cotidiana.”
La primera consiste en establecer relaciones humanas, desde lo primario hasta los complejos sociales, resguardadas y reguladas por instituciones que garantizan la libertad, la justicia y la no-violencia, donde juegan un papel primordial las personas, la sociedad civil, y desde luego, el Estado.
La segunda procura un ambiente social de armonía, amplitud e integración social entre los habitantes de los barrios. Por el contrario, el hacinamiento provoca desarraigo y conflictos violentos, muchos de ellos promovidos y aprovechados por grupos criminales, como hemos visto que ha está sucediendo en México. Tanto la precariedad en la participación social de los habitantes, como una autoridad estatal omisa o corrupta, provocan la anomia y el dominio de la criminalidad y la violencia.
En el mismo sentido, el Papa Francisco propone el compromiso con la ecología social en términos de amor, pero llevándolo al ámbito de lo civil y lo político, tanto en forma de macro-relaciones como en pequeños gestos de cuidado mutuo.
Estas orientaciones son auténticas estrategias programáticas, que pueden ejecutarse a través de grupos de reflexión u organizaciones sociales y civiles, tanto en las familias como entre vecinos o en grupos de estudiantes, desde bachillerato hasta universitarios. Desde luego que también entre grupos parroquiales. En la medida en que tratemos estos temas, desde las problemáticas hasta las estrategias programáticas, avanzaremos en la incidencia social para colaborar con soluciones pequeñas pero efectivas.
En nuestras manos personales, comunitarias y sociales está la posibilidad de participar, desarrollar y difundir tanto reflexiones como acciones y gestos que mitiguen la profunda crisis de justicia social, especialmente en las diversas periferias, territoriales y simbólicas, en las que se encuentra tan enrarecido y enfermo nuestro ambiente social. Un ambiente que está, por encima de todo, permeado de la esperanza activa de la mayoría de las personas, de diversas edades y ocupaciones, que construyen una sociedad mejor, aún a costa de pagar el precio que el profetismo implica.
 “Bronco” es un adjetivo que, en general, se emplea en México para hacer referencia a una personalidad indómita, de temperamento hosco, brusco o difícil de controlar.
 Documento de Medellín n. 1.1 refiriendo a la Encíclica Populorum Progressio n° 30. Enlace: http://www.diocese-braga.pt/catequese/sim/biblioteca/publicacoes_online/91/medellin.pdf
 Encíclica Laudato Si (LS), n. 142-147. Enlace: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
 LS n. 197.
 LS n. 231.
“In Shariah (Islamic law) caning, it is not meant to hurt the person. It is to educate the person. Therefore it’s not painful, it’s not harsh” says Muslim Lawyers Association deputy president Abdul Rahim Sinwan.
Abdul Rahim refers to the recent controversy in Malaysia where two Muslim women were caned six times each (on the back with a light rattan cane by female prison officers) for allegedly attempting to have “lesbian sex” in a publicly parked car. They were caned in full view of 100 witnesses in the Shariah court in the conservative northeast state of Terengganu. Despite the public caning, Abdul Rahim maintains that “humiliation is out of the question”.[i] He adds that, the 22-year-old and 32-year-old women, “did not cry or scream but "showed remorse…Repentance is the ultimate aim for their sin" (in fact, only the younger one was sobbing).[ii]
Public outcry led to a chorus of condemnation of this first-time “conviction for same-sex relations” and public caning of women. Thilaga Sulathireh, from the transgender-advocacy NGO, Justice for Sisters who witnessed the caning, “was shocked by the public spectacle” amounting to torture and cruelty that violated the rights of the women. Legislator Charles Santiago said, “the government must repeal all laws that criminalise homosexuality” (with reference to Section 377, a British colonial legacy). Most pertinently, the illegality of the punishment, despite the dual-track legal system that Muslims in Malaysia are subjected to (Federal or civil law and Islamic or family and personal law), was called to question as it runs counter to Constitutional provisions on the fundamental liberties of its rakyat (citizens).[iii] The Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s initial reaction was concern that the caning “gave a bad impression of Islam and did not reflect the religion’s quality of justice”. He later maintains that, Malaysia will not recognise LGBT culture or same-sex marriage as these are “Western values”.[iv]
To navigate one’s way around the morass of secular and religious ethics involved in the public hurting and humiliation of two Muslim Malaysian women (which sets an insidious nod of approval to state-sponsored sexual and gender-based violence), is to discern what it means to be a person created in the image of Allah or God. What moral compass affords the promise of “sensitivity”, “serenity” and “sincerity”, as exhorted in Amoris Laetitia (2016), the post-synodal apostolic exhortation by Pope Francis on pastoral care for the family that comprises human persons.[v] To “avoid a cold bureaucratic morality in dealing with [irregular situations such as same-sex desires or unions]…pastoral discernment [should be] filled with merciful love…[that] lead us to ‘open our hearts to those living in the outermost fringes of society’” [paragraph 312].
Fringed within the heteronormative and heterosexist constructs of the state, family and religious communities, LGBT persons are treated inhumanely because they are rendered inhuman particularly if they are brazen enough to exercise their right to (irregular) sexual pleasure rather than adopt celibacy or heterosexuality. There is no compassionate caning. There is only cruel torture meted out by those who can, not because they care.
[i] Palansamy, Y. (2018, September 2). Terengganu duo publicly caned six times over lesbian sex attempt. Malay Mail. Retrieved from https://www.malaymail.com/s/1668766/terengganu-duo-publicly-caned-six-times-over-lesbian-sex-attempt
[ii] Al Jazeera. (2018, September 4). Malaysia: Women caned in public for lesbian act. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/malaysia-women-caned-public-lesbian-act-180903155056114.html
[iii] Sreenevasan, A. and Ding, J. (2018, September 18). Terengganu caning: Was it constitutional? Malay Mail. Retrieved from
[iv] LGBT or same-sex marriage not for Malaysia, says Dr M. (2018, September 22). The Star Online. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/09/22/lgbt-or-samesex-marriage-not-for-malaysia-says-dr-m/
[v] Amoris Laetitia (2016). Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf
Nonprofit Web Design and Development by New Media Campaigns