LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

FORWARD MESSAGE!

Photobucket

Vatican cardinal: Charity is not welfare activity, but a witness to God


Vatican cardinal: Charity is not welfare activity, but a witness to God
Published on: May 24, 2011 at 17:46 PM
Vatican City, (CNA)Corrected May 23, 2011, 9:15 MST. Removes description in ninth paragraph that said Knight took the issue to the press.


Christian charity is not ordinary social work undertaken by religious people, the Pope's director of charitable activities told Caritas leaders on Saturday. Rather, it must “bear witness to God” at all times.


“Of course, charity must respond to the immediate needs of those who are suffering,” said Cardinal Robert Sarah, addressing Caritas Europa officials at a Vatican gathering on May 21. “But it cannot ignore the deepest cause of suffering of the human person, which is the very absence of God.”


“Hence, rather than first being oriented to society,” he noted, “the primary characteristic of such exercise is to bear witness to God.”


The cardinal drove home the point by quoting with what he described as a “striking” statement from Blessed Frederic Ozanam, a 19th century founder of the Society of Saint Vincent De Paul.


“Our fundamental purpose is not to go out and help the poor,” said Ozanam, whose organization is well-known for its service to the needy. “For us, this has only been a means. Our purpose is to maintain the Catholic faith within us, and to allow its diffusion to others through the instrument of charity.”


Cardinal Sarah, who heads the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, told Caritas Europa directors and vice-directors that the international Catholic charity had reached a “key moment” in its history, 60 years after it was established by Pius XII.


That Pope “wished to give a concrete and practical sign of the Church's concern for the countless situations crying out for assistance” after World War II. He organized Caritas Internationalis as a Church ministry, to “make present, through specific works of charity, the charity of God himself.”


Recently, however, Vatican officials have found the need to strengthen Caritas' Catholic identity and increase its focus on evangelization.


Disagreement over the new direction led the Vatican to seek a replacement for Caritas Internationalis Secretary General Lesley-Anne Knight earlier this year. The Holy See appreciated many of Knight's accomplishments, but said it needed someone else to give the international charitable organization a stronger "Catholic identity."


In his address, Cardinal Sarah described Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical “Deus Caritas Est,” on the subject of Christian love, as “the magna carta for our direction” in the coming years.


The cardinal's speech quoted extensively from the letter's reflections on what charity is, and is not, for Catholics.


“For the Church, charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally well be left to others,” the Pope wrote in a passage highlighted by Cardinal Sarah. In fact, charity is “inseparable” from the Church's other two fundamental tasks: “to proclaim the word of God” and “celebrate the sacraments.”


Cardinal Sarah called attention to several other papal statements to flesh out this vision of the Church's works of mercy.


The first, from a 2006 address to the World Conference on Charity, was a reminder by Pope Benedict that “in the charitable organization, God and Christ must not be strange words.” The true strength of Caritas, he said in that address, “depends on the strength of faith of all its members and collaborators.”


Cardinal Sarah said this “theocentric focus” was the reason for a series of spiritual exercises and days of reflection that the Pontifical Council Cor Unum had organized in recent years. “Caritas Europa is part of this,” he reminded its leaders, “and we count on your collaboration.”


The cardinal also invited directors of Caritas Europa to meditate on a concern he said was “surely at the heart of Benedict XVI's pontificate,” expressed during his May 2010 visit to Fatima, Portugal.


“In our time,” the Pope said on that occasion, “in which the faith in many places seems like a light in danger of being snuffed out forever, the highest priority is to make God visible in the world and to open to humanity a way to God.”


“And not to any 'god,' but to the God who had spoken on Sinai – the God whose face we recognize in the love borne to the very end in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen.”


Cardinal Sarah explained that Caritas Europa should align its priorities with those of Pope Benedict, and see its activity as “the 'visiting card' that can open the door to Christ.”


“Charity is a divine gift,” he observed, “bestowed by the God who is love.”


The cardinal stated that the one who bears witness to this love “becomes an apostle.” Through the work of such apostles, “a seed of belief is sown even in the most skeptical.”

Discover the Many Powerful Benefits of Turmeric

They say marriage is a dying institution?


They Say Marriage is a Dying Institution: What's Really Dying is Love

With what, exactly, shall we replace Love?
The pronouncement came from actress Cameron Diaz and psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow last week:  marriage is a dying institution. Dr. Ablow blames its demise on government, contraception, disappearing passion and the mockery of divorce. What he never mentions is Love. Marriage will only die if we give up the struggle of love.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - The pronouncement came from actress Cameron Diaz and psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow last week:  marriage is a dying institution.  It is an old tradition that has now overstayed its welcome and should be thrown out the back door.  It doesn't suit us or our world any longer.  So they say.

Dr. Ablow gave a detailed analysis of the reality of marriage and the reasons why it should and will soon disappear from society.  His eulogy for the cornerstone of civilization as we know it was depressing to say the least.  (I could envision him walking up to the casket in order to smack the dead body upside the head and say, "Good riddance, ya lousy thief.  You shoulda died a long time ago.")  He suspects the reason marriage doesn't suit us now is because it never has.

Marriage, he says, takes so much from us.  It is "a source of real suffering for the vast majority of married people."  "As a healer, I can't help looking askance at anything that depletes energy, optimism, mood and passion to the extent that marriage does.  It is, without a doubt, one of the leading causes of major depression in the nation."

Yikes.  When and how did marriage become such a terrible thing?

First he calls the government's involvement in marriage a "colossal mistake."  He insists government "should have no role in marriage, whatsoever." "Laws should exist, instead, that simply commit parents to financially support their biological children."  Forget about parents making a home for their kids; forget about forging a family for them; forget about showing them what it means to keep promises and put someone else first.  Forget about commitment, fidelity, honor, security, and all those other foundational virtues.  All that's necessary is financial support, and I guess you're off the hook entirely if your kids are adopted. 

Surprisingly, Dr. Ablow agrees (unintentionally, I think) with the Catholic Church regarding his second reason marriage is dying:  oral contraception.  Whether he meant to or not, he illustrated that the Church has been right all along:  contraception corrodes marriage.  Sex is meant to be both procreative and unitive and when you separate the two, disaster ensues.  Of course, Dr. Ablow put it differently: "Once human beings understood that they could express themselves emotionally, romantically and sexually without necessarily creating multiple families and perilously diving their assets, the psychological pain of living without sexual passion (even by choice) was significantly intensified."

I'll rephrase:  Once people realized they could have sex with a different person every night with much less "risk" of making a baby, therefore less "risk" of disrupting their life and losing their assets, they soon found no reason at all to remain faithful to anyone, including their child.  All that mattered was lessening their "psychological pain" and increasing their sexual passion.  Pleasure trumps everything.

What a pile of sand.  No wonder the foundation of the family - marriage - is crumbling.

Conspicuously absent from Dr. Ablow's bruising verdict that marriage is passé was even the slightest mention of love.  He speaks passionately about passion, sex, good feelings, physical attraction, freedom, the hassle and expense of divorce, but has nothing whatever to say about love.  So it's no surprise he comes to the same self-serving conclusions as Ms. Diaz and every other prognosticator spreading doom and gloom about marriage.  Marriage surely is doomed to failure without love.

I'm not talking about being "in love."  I'm talking about Love.  And guess what?  Love is hard work.  And that's good!  We self-absorbed humans need daily, plentiful opportunities to look beyond ourselves and stretch our sacrifice muscles so that, with time, we learn how to love.  We have to learn how to love when
the good feelings have vanished.  We have to learn how to love when the passion has chilled.  We have to learn how to love when there doesn't seem to be anything in it for us.

We have to be reminded what love actually is:  Love is patient, love is kind. Love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude.  Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never ends.

Did you see where it said love is passion, or love is easy, or love is physical attraction?  Me neither.  Did it say love is a good feeling?  Nope.

That doesn't mean that the love of a husband and wife should be devoid of good feelings, or that the spousal relationship should be tepid and boring.  Emotional barrenness is not inevitable and certainly not God's plan for spouses.  But like all of life there are changing seasons; there are highs and lows; there are easy times and trying times; there is happiness and sadness - you get the idea.  Those who head for the door when they aren't feeling it anymore will never reap the rewards of love.

Dr. Ablow says, "The third reason marriage is a dying institution is because it inherently deprives men and women of the joy of being 'chosen' on a daily basis."  (Here again, marriage is a thief stealing something precious from us.  Sheesh.)  Well, boo hoo.  So none of us should have to feel obligated to stay if we don't want to anymore?  If we don't feel especially "chosen" this week, we should be able to leave in search of someone who will stroke our ego?

I don't want the guy who won't hang around through the tough times.  I don't want the guy who's going to split when someone prettier and more tingly with excitement over his greatness comes along.  I want the guy who has the steel to stand by me, keep his vows, and honor his commitment particularly when it doesn't feel good.  I want the guy I chose when I promised to forsake all others.

And by the same token, I want to be the woman who does the same for her man.  That means I'm gonna have to learn how to love, and it'll be painful at times, because Love will entreat me down off my throne and smash my selfishness to bits.  But only little by little, day by day.

I also want the guy who will choose to love me when I'm not very lovable.  I want the guy who will keep walking with me through the hard times, being faithful through the empty times because he believes that Love will breathe on us again and the delights of passion will warm us again, even if more mellow than when we first began.  (Like a good wine, Love ages sweetly.)

I want the guy who wants to learn to love, because he values Love and knows that Love is the reason for living.  If that sounds like a greeting card cliché to you, too bad.  Love is the end-all and be-all.  

The sad state of marriage today has nothing to do with it being outdated or confining or passion-killing.  It has everything to do with people who are no longer willing to love each other because they no longer understand what Love is, nor do they know Who Love is.  It has everything to do with people being slaves to sexual desire and desecrating the beautiful gift of sexual love that brings forth new life.

No, Dr. Ablow, marriage is not a dying institution.  What's dying is our respect for each other and our reverence for human life.  What's dying is our willingness to sacrifice, to serve, to remain steadfast, to keep our vows.  We are weak with self-gratification and a toddler's attention span.  We have no faith that deserts can bloom, ice can melt, storms will pass, and wounds can heal.  What's dying is our love.

Dr. Ablow concludes, "It's only a matter of time now.  Marriage will fade away.  We should be thinking about what might replace it."  Marriage is in serious jeopardy, no doubt.  If it dies, it will not be due to any inherent defect of its own but because we have ceased to try to conquer our defects.  It will be because we gave up the struggle of love.

With what, exactly, shall we replace Love?

-----

Jennifer Hartline is a grateful Catholic, a proud Army wife and mother, and a happy chocoholic.  She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online.  Visit her online at Wordpress and at MCH. 
- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions For May 2011 
General Intention:
 That those who work in the media may always respect truth, solidarity and the dignity of each person. 
Missionary Intention: That the Lord may grant the Church in China the capacity to persevere in fidelity to the Gospel and to grow in unity.

Cut red meat intake and don't eat ham, say cancer researchers


Cut red meat intake and don't eat ham, say cancer researchers

World Cancer Research Fund advises people to limit consumption of beef, pork and lamb and avoid processed meat
Beef
Eat beef with caution, the World Cancer Research Fund is advising. Photograph: joefoxfoodanddrink/Alamy
Cancer experts have issued a fresh warning about eating red and processed meat after "the most authoritative report" on the subject blamed them for causing the disease.
The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) is advising people to limit their intake of red meats such as beef, pork and lamb, and to avoid processed meat such as ham and salami altogether. "Convincing evidence" that both types of meat increase the risk of bowel cancer means people should think seriously about reducing how much they eat, it recommends.
The charity kickstarted a global debate in 2007 when it published a study which identified meat as a risk factor for a number of different forms of cancer.
WCRF-funded scientists at Imperial College London led by Dr Teresa Norat studied 263 research papers that have come out since then looking at the role of diet, weight and physical activity in bowel cancer. An independent panel of leading cancer experts then reviewed their conclusions. "For red and processed meat, findings of 10 new studies were added to the 14 analysed as part of the 2007 report. The panel confirmed that there is convincing evidence that both red and processed meat increase bowel cancer risk," said the report .
"WCRF recommends that people limit consumption to 500g (cooked weight) of red meat a week – roughly the equivalent of five or six medium portions of roast beef, lamb or pork – and avoid processed meat," it added. About 36,000 Britons a develop bowel cancer every year, and some 16,500 die from it. It is the UK's second biggest cancer killer after lung cancer.
About 17,000 cases a year (43%) could be prevented if people ate less meat and more fibre, drank less, maintained a healthy weight and kept active, the WCRF says.
Its 850-page report, releasedon Monday, is "the most authoritative ever report of bowel cancer risk", cancer prevention experts claim.Professor Alan Jackson of Southampton University, the chair of the WCRF's continuous update project expert panel, said: "On meat, the clear message that comes out of our report is that red and processed meat increase risk of bowel cancer and that people who want to reduce their risk should consider cutting down the amount they eat."
Growing concern about red and processed meat prompted the government in February to advise consumers for the first time to consider cutting down. That came after the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), experts who advise the government, examined the evidence on the subject. It decided that those meats probably increase the risk of bowel cancer.
People who eat 90g or more a day should cut down to the UK average of 70g, SACN recommended. It advised having smaller portions or eating those meats less often. A 70g serving could be three slices of ham, a lamb chop or two standard beef burgers.
WCRF's review has also firmed up from "probable" to "convincing" its view of the protection against bowel cancer afforded by eating foods containing fibre, such as wholegrains, pulses, fruit and vegetables.
Milk, garlic and dietary supplements containing calcium also "probably" reduce the risk, the expert panel concluded.
But farmers' leaders denounced the WCRF's new report and accused it of deliberately choosing the first day of National Vegetarian Week to publish it in order to maximise publicity for conclusions which the charity first reached years ago.
Chris Lamb, a spokesman for BPEX and EBLEX, which represents England's pig, beef and lamb farmers, said: "Average consumption has been in or around 500g a week for a few years. The vast majority of consumers aren't exceeding this and don't have to worry about [this]", he said.
The risks identified by the WCRF were unchanged, he stressed.
Lamb argued it was unfair for the WCRF to highlight meat as a contributory cause of bowel cancer when the main risk was to people who are generally unhealthy, for example by consuming too much food, alcohol or fizzy drink.
"They aren't assisting consumers. Consumers eat and enjoy meat as part of a balanced diet, and meat plays a valuable part in that balanced diet", said Lamb. "If you eat or drink anything in excess it's a danger. Therefore, if you can pick on meat in order to get headlines, then you aren't actually helping consumers."
Professor Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer for England, said red meat can form part of a healthy, balanced diet. "It is a good source of protein and vitamins and minerals, such as iron, selenium, zinc and B vitamins," she said, "but people who eat a lot of red and processed meat should consider cutting down. The occasional steak or extra few slices of lamb is fine but regularly eating a lot could increase your risk of bowel cancer."
Bowel Cancer UK chief executive Deborah Alsina said: "The report significantly adds to the available evidence into the increased risk of bowel cancer from eating too much red and processed meat; and strengthens the evidence of how eating food with fibre in it protects people against the disease.
Hazel Nunn, a senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "With barbeque season just round the corner, this is a timely reminder that how much alcohol you drink, how active you are, your weight, and how much red and processed meat and fibre you eat can all have a bearing on your risk of bowel cancer."
• Growing numbers of lung cancer patients are having life-saving operations thanks to advances in surgical techniques. The proportion of patients with the disease who undergo surgery has risen from one in 11 in 2005 to one in seven last year, according to a study by the NHS Information Centre. Lung cancer kills more people than any other form of cancer.