Pope Francis takes aim at the ‘globalization of indifference’

Pope Francis made his first papal trip this morning, a brief stop on the Italian island of Lampedusa, an immigration portal and a place where many immigrants’ hopes have ended in tragedy, disappointment or detention.

He said Mass for a huge crowd of people, and his homily introduced a concept we’ll probably hear more about in months and years to come – the “globalization of indifference.”

His text is well worth reading. Here is the main part:

Immigrants dying at sea, in boats which were vehicles of hope and became vehicles of death. That is how the headlines put it. When I first heard of this tragedy a few weeks ago, and realized that it happens all too frequently, it has constantly come back to me like a painful thorn in my heart. So I felt that I had to come here today, to pray and to offer a sign of my closeness, but also to challenge our consciences lest this tragedy be repeated. Please, let it not be repeated!

…

This morning, in the light of God’s word which has just been proclaimed, I wish to offer some thoughts meant to challenge people’s consciences and lead them to reflection and a concrete change of heart.

“Adam, where are you?” This is the first question which God asks man after his sin. “Adam, where are you?” Adam lost his bearings, his place in creation, because he thought he could be powerful, able to control everything, to be God. Harmony was lost; man erred and this error occurs over and over again also in relationships with others. “The other” is no longer a brother or sister to be loved, but simply someone who disturbs my life and my comfort. God asks a second question: “Cain, where is your brother?” The illusion of being powerful, of being as great as God, even of being God himself, leads to a whole series of errors, a chain of death, even to the spilling of a brother’s blood!

God’s two questions echo even today, as forcefully as ever! How many of us, myself included, have lost our bearings; we are no longer attentive to the world in which we live; we don’t care; we don’t protect what God created for everyone, and we end up unable even to care for one another! And when humanity as a whole loses its bearings, it results in tragedies like the one we have witnessed.

“Where is your brother?” His blood cries out to me, says the Lord. This is not a question directed to others; it is a question directed to me, to you, to each of us. These brothers and sisters of ours were trying to escape difficult situations to find some serenity and peace; they were looking for a better place for themselves and their families, but instead they found death. How often do such people fail to find understanding, fail to find acceptance, fail to find solidarity. And their cry rises up to God! Once again I thank you, the people of Lampedusa, for your solidarity. I recently listened to one of these brothers of ours. Before arriving here, he and the others were at the mercy of traffickers, people who exploit the poverty of others, people who live off the misery of others. How much these people have suffered! Some of them never made it here.

“Where is your brother?” Who is responsible for this blood? In Spanish literature we have a comedy of Lope de Vega which tells how the people of the town of Fuente Ovejuna kill their governor because he is a tyrant. They do it in such a way that no one knows who the actual killer is. So when the royal judge asks: “Who killed the governor?”, they all reply: “Fuente Ovejuna, sir”. Everybody and nobody! Today too, the question has to be asked: Who is responsible for the blood of these brothers and sisters of ours? Nobody! That is our answer: It isn’t me; I don’t have anything to do with it; it must be someone else, but certainly not me. Yet God is asking each of us: “Where is the blood of your brother which cries out to me?” Today no one in our world feels responsible; we have lost a sense of responsibility for our brothers and sisters. We have fallen into the hypocrisy of the priest and the levite whom Jesus described in the parable of the Good Samaritan: we see our brother half dead on the side of the road, and perhaps we say to ourselves: “poor soul…!”, and then go on our way. It’s not our responsibility, and with that we feel reassured, assuaged. The culture of comfort, which makes us think only of ourselves, makes us insensitive to the cries of other people, makes us live in soap bubbles which, however lovely, are insubstantial; they offer a fleeting and empty illusion which results in indifference to others; indeed, it even leads to the globalization of indifference. In this globalized world, we have fallen into globalized indifference. We have become used to the suffering of others: it doesn’t affect me; it doesn’t concern me; it’s none of my business!

Here we can think of Manzoni’s character – “the Unnamed”. The globalization of indifference makes us all “unnamed”, responsible, yet nameless and faceless.

“Adam, where are you?” “Where is your brother?” These are the two questions which God asks at the dawn of human history, and which he also asks each man and woman in our own day, which he also asks us. But I would like us to ask a third question: “Has any one of us wept because of this situation and others like it?” Has any one of us grieved for the death of these brothers and sisters? Has any one of us wept for these persons who were on the boat? For the young mothers carrying their babies? For these men who were looking for a means of supporting their families? We are a society which has forgotten how to weep, how to experience compassion – “suffering with” others: the globalization of indifference has taken from us the ability to weep! In the Gospel we have heard the crying, the wailing, the great lamentation: “Rachel weeps for her children… because they are no more”. Herod sowed death to protect his own comfort, his own soap bubble. And so it continues… Let us ask the Lord to remove the part of Herod that lurks in our hearts; let us ask the Lord for the grace to weep over our indifference, to weep over the cruelty of our world, of our own hearts, and of all those who in anonymity make social and economic decisions which open the door to tragic situations like this. “Has any one wept?” Today has anyone wept in our world?

Lord, in this liturgy, a penitential liturgy, we beg forgiveness for our indifference to so many of our brothers and sisters. Father, we ask your pardon for those who are complacent and closed amid comforts which have deadened their hearts; we beg your forgiveness for those who by their decisions on the global level have created situations that lead to these tragedies. Forgive us, Lord!

Today too, Lord, we hear you asking: “Adam, where are you?” “Where is the blood of your brother?”

A pair of popes headed toward sainthood

Today, the popes came in pairs.

First, Pope Francis and retired Pope Benedict met in the Vatican Gardens, where together they blessed a new statue of St. Michael the Archangel – a project approved by Benedict and brought to conclusion under Francis.

Next, the Vatican released what was termed Pope Francis’ “first encyclical,” Lumen Fidei (“The Light of Faith”), a text that was written primarily by Pope Benedict before his retirement. Although signed by Francis, the encyclical is clearly Benedict’s in style and substance.

And then the Vatican confirmed canonization plans – not only for Blessed Pope John Paul II, which had been expected, but also for Blessed Pope John XXIII. It’s not yet certain that the two popes will be declared saints together, but remarks by a Vatican spokesman seemed to suggest that may happen before the end of the year.

The action on John XXIII was unusual because it illustrated that the Vatican is willing to bend its own rules, specifically a procedural norm that calls for approval of two miracles before canonization – a first miracle before beatification and a second one before canonization.

For Blessed Pope John Paul II, that second miracle was studied at length and given final approval today. It involved a Costa Rican woman who recovered inexplicably from a brain aneurysm after prayers to John Paul.

But for Pope John XXIII, who was beatified in 2000, no second miracle was on the horizon. Nevertheless, the Congregation for Saints’ Causes recommended that Pope Francis proceed to canonization of John XXIII, and the pope agreed, subject to confirmation by a consistory of cardinals.

There are several likely reasons for waiving the second miracle requirement for the canonization of Pope John XXIII, and the first is timing. The Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, noted the ongoing 50th anniversary of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, convened by John XXIII. The spokesman added that John XXIII was much loved throughout the church, and that “none of us has any doubts about John XXIII’s virtues.”

It’s hard to believe that this decision does not reflect Pope Francis’ priorities, and his eagerness to revitalize the spirit of dialogue and interaction with the world that was characteristic of Vatican II and John XXIII.

Canonizing the two popes together would also create a broad-based, unifying event for the Catholic Church at the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate. It would show that sainthood, like the church, has room for very different models of holiness. On a more practical level, I think dual canonization would mute some of the criticism of John Paul II, particularly by those who believe he did not do enough to counter clerical sex abuse.

As for the Vatican breaking its own rules, there’s no doubt that Pope Francis can dispense with the second miracle requirement, just as Pope Benedict dispensed with the five-year waiting period before the beatification of John Paul II.

But the move is bound to raise questions about how the Vatican’s saintmaking procedures are applied, especially in view of Father Lombardi’s remark that discussion will continue about the need for miracles in the canonization process. The church generally used to require four miracles before canonization. That was reduced to two under Pope John Paul II, and some are now arguing that one might be enough.

Is the Vatican bank irreformable?

The abrupt resignations of two top officials of the Vatican bank signaled a new chapter – and a new challenge – in Vatican financial reform.

Late Monday, the Vatican announced that the director, Paolo Cipriani, and the deputy director, Massimo Tulli, were resigning “in the best interest of the institute and the Holy See.”

The move was remarkable because it showed the Vatican reacting in real time to a breaking scandal. Three days earlier, Italian police arrested Msgr. Nunzio Scarano, an accountant in a Vatican investment office, on suspicion of smuggling tens of millions of euros into Italy from Switzerland.

Msgr. Scarano didn’t work at the Vatican bank, but he had at least one account there, and investigators believe he may have used the account to illegally move more than $700,000 between the Vatican and Italy. If that is true, it would appear to confirm widespread suspicions that the Vatican bank continues to be used as an offshore haven to circumvent Italian regulations – despite the Vatican’s insistence that strict controls are now in place.

Moreover, Italian investigators say they have wiretapped recordings of conversations in which Scarano discussed the movement of funds with both Cipriani and Tulli. That doesn’t mean they were in on an illegal scheme, but at the least it raises questions about lack of oversight.

Faced with a new wave of embarrassing headlines, rather than waiting for the waters to calm, the Vatican acted with unusual speed. That probably reflects the view from the top: Pope Francis has emphasized that there should be no room for personal gain or shady transactions in church finances. But it also may reflect the policies of the new Vatican bank president, Ernst von Freyberg, whose nomination in February was one of Pope Benedict’s last acts as pontiff.

Von Freyberg must realize that the Vatican bank, known officially as the Institute for the Works of Religion, is fighting for its life. Pope Francis’ recent remark that “St. Paul did not have a bank account” was a signal that radical measures – including suppression of the bank – have not been ruled out.

Last week the pope named a five-person commission to determine how, and if, the Vatican bank fits in with the church’s overall mission.

For his part, von Freyberg has announced steps toward greater transparency, including publication of an annual financial report. Many at the Vatican maintain that the church needs an institution like the Vatican bank in order to serve the interests of missionary territories, religious orders and charity projects around the world.

But there are others who argue that because the Vatican operates as a state surrounded by Italy, the bank and its 33,000 individual accounts will always provide opportunities for abuse – especially when most Vatican bank officials and many account holders come from Italy.

One year ago, Cipriani hosted a two-hour presentation at the Vatican bank for some 60 journalists, an unprecedented attempt to show how the institute was working toward greater transparency in compliance with international regulations.

Today, Cipriani’s departure is yet another sign that the Vatican bank may be irreformable.