Bruce Duncan

  • Plenary Council fails to embrace Pope Francis’s social vision

    Plenary Council fails to embrace Pope Francis’s social vision

    Many Catholics are concerned that the current Plenary Council is overly focused on internal Church matters and neglecting Pope Francis’s call to engage more vigorously with pressing social issues in dialogue and collaboration with all people of good will. (more…)

  • Pope Francis apologises for war against Iraq, but will Australia?

    Pope Francis apologises for war against Iraq, but will Australia?

    During his recent visit to Iraq, Pope Francis revived hopes for deep reconciliation and renewed collaboration among the ancient religious traditions of that land, but he came as a ‘penitent’ and apologised for the invasion of Iraq and the resulting despoliation over 18 years. Australia was one of the few countries to join the USA and Britain in the illegal invasion. When will Australia apologise for this criminal folly? Has no one been held to account?

    (more…)

  • The Church and social justice after Trump

    Church social teaching is strongly opposed to neoliberalism, so how did this opposition become so muted, with prominent Catholic voices and resources captured by neoliberal ideology and money? (more…)

  • Pope Francis’s rejection of ‘neoliberal’ economics

    The new social encyclical of Pope Francis is a cry for those oppressed by poverty, hunger and exclusion, protesting against the injustice in a world with so much wealth. Not surprisingly Francis drew from the parable of the Good Samaritan: will we remain indifferent and pass by, or take the global situation seriously? (more…)

  • Pope Francis’s new encyclical On Human Fraternity and Social Friendship

    The new social encyclical of Pope Francis not only renews his strong critique of ‘neoliberal’ forms of capitalism which result in growing and extreme inequality but is a plea for a return to the ideals of fraternity and solidarity, invoking the humanist ideals of France’s ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’.

    (more…)

  • Pope Francis on preparing a better future for humanity and our planet

    Pope Francis is sharply challenging powerful sectional interests in his new social manifesto being released on 4 October. The new encyclical, Fratelli Tutti (All Brothers and Sisters), will outline his vision of a more just, peaceful and sustainable world, and call vigorously for a renewed commitment to universal wellbeing and solidarity. 

    (more…)

  • Pope Francis: We need to get serious about climate change and unfair economic systems

    Here in Australia, we need to make a bigger contribution to the fight, given our abundant resources and expertise.

    (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. Faith and the Triple Crises of Corona Virus, Economic Shutdown and Climate Change.

    The photo of Pope Francis speaking on 27 March to the completely empty square in front of St Peter’s in Rome spoke volumes. Isolated and alone, like so many others because of the corona virus outbreak, he epitomised the dilemmas we face as the crisis spreads everywhere. (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. Mr Morrison, please do not abandon innocent Aussie children in Syria.(Repost from 1.11.2019)

    How will the Morrison government respond to the desperate plight of some 65 women and children detained in a camp in Syria? Relatives are pleading with our government to bring their family members safely home, but it appears immobilised by fear of a political  reaction. How good is that?

    (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. Mr Morrison, please do not abandon innocent Aussie children in Syria.

    How will the Morrison government respond to the desperate plight of some 65 women and children detained in a camp in Syria? Relatives are pleading with our government to bring their family members safely home, but it appears immobilised by fear of a political  reaction. How good is that? (more…)

  • No issue matters as much as climate change

    What will it take before the Morrison government recognises the great peril from climate change? Is the overwhelming consensus of scientists not enough, as they track the record-breaking heat waves globally? And why are religious leaders not echoing Pope Francis more vigorously about a looming ‘catastrophe’ from global warming? (more…)

  • Scott Morrison, the ‘prosperity gospel’ and neoliberalism.

    Sounding surprisingly like an evangelical revivalist, Prime Minister Morrison in Albury on 6 September highlighted the need for love in our country, for every Australian, and that this set the value base for his own thinking and presumably for policies of his government. No one in Albury objected to the ideal of love of neighbour, but it sounded a bit odd when people were expecting a significant statement about changed policies of his government after the leadership bloodletting. (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. A stringent critique of financial abuse.

    The Vatican has launched a stringent critique of widespread abuses in global economies, abuses that are driving astonishing inequality, threatening ecological sustainability and unleashing powerful reactionary political forces. (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. Was God just a spectator at the Crucifixion?

    Is Easter simply a relic from the past and a chance for a holiday break? Why have the dramatic events of Easter been so significant in our cultures, and why is Easter still so central to Christian belief? (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. What would Jesus make of our Christmas?

     The Christmas stories were not written for children but as preludes to the adult message of God in Jesus walking in solidarity with the entire human family. (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. Did Pope Francis succeed in Myanmar?

    Myanmar’s neighbours were watching closely the Pope’s visit, worried that the shocking treatment of the Rohingya Muslims could inflame inter-religious conflicts throughout the region. Francis has intervened personally to promote deeper mutual understanding among the major religions, urging them to draw from their traditions to protect those in distress and promote social inclusion and universal human values. (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. Francis’s World Day of the Poor. ‘The poor are our passports to paradise’.

    Even atheists, agnostics and humanists, as well as people of the great religious traditions, would likely welcome Pope Francis instituting a new World Day of the Poor. While a shallow and at times vulgar commercialism trivialises the profound religious meaning of Christmas, the World Day of the Poor highlights our God-given responsibility for all in distress. (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. Curious Vatican article challenges right-wing US Catholics

    Was Pope Francis aware that the Jesuit periodical, La Civita Cattolica was strongly attacking right-wing US Catholics for abandoning Church social teaching by political alliances with very fundamentalist Christian groups?   (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. A scorecard on Pope Francis

    Unexpectedly, Pope Francis has emerged as one of the most significant world leaders. Largely unknown before his election, Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis has assumed the moral stature of a new Mandela, and not just among Catholics. (more…)

  • BRUCE DUNCAN. Don’t blame welfare for budget woes

     

    Prime Minister Turnbull promised us more centrist and fairer policies, but the Treasurer Mr Morrison appears to be playing a politics of resentment against people on income supports. On 25 August he declared: ‘There is a new divide – the taxed and the taxed-nots.’

    This sounds suspiciously like ‘lifters’ versus ‘leaners’, and implicitly blames those on benefits, particularly the poor, for the country’s debt. Dr Helen Szoke, chief executive of Oxfam Australia, was alarmed that the government seemed to be demonising the poor, while saying nothing about large companies avoiding taxes of billions of dollars. (more…)

  • Bruce Duncan. Julie Bishop cuts Overseas Development Aid to record low.

    Despite lobbying from many groups, the May federal budget for 2016-2017 is hacking another $224 million from Australia’s overseas aid, reducing our aid to $3.8 billion, and as a percentage of our national income to just 0.23%, our lowest level ever. The Coalition had already cut $1.1 billion off our aid, reducing spending in Africa and the Middle East by 63%, and in Asia by 36-38%.

    According to the national coordinator for Micah Challenge, the coalition of church networks, this latest cut comes ‘on top of $11 billion in cuts to aid’ over ten years, and is the fourth time the Coalition government has cut aid levels.

    Australia’s overseas aid had dropped from 0.45% of our Gross National Income in 1971-72, but a bi-partisan attempt to raise our aid to 0.5% GNI by 2015 was initially deferred by Labor in 2012-2013, at a saving to the government of $5.7 billion; the Coalition later cut much further. As Beth Sargent from the Australian Council for International Development said, Australia is no longer pulling its weight in international development efforts.

    Why are we so mean on overseas aid?

    Surprisingly there was very little commentary on these cuts in the media, or about their significance in terms of our national interest. Partly this is explained by budget pressures, but also by the failure of politicians and opinion-makers to educate the Australian public about the urgency of overseas aid.

    Public opinion vastly overestimates the extent of Australian aid. According to a recent national poll of 1528 adults on behalf of Campaign for Australian Aid, the average of responses estimated that our overseas aid amounted to 13.28% of the federal budget, about 14 times more than the actual figure of 0.9%. Less than one-in-five people estimated the aid budget as less than 1%.

    Australia has committed to supporting the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the global effort to greatly reduce extreme poverty and hunger, and lift living standards in poorer countries especially, while all countries act urgently to sustain the environment and reign in dangerous green-house gases. Yet we are being seen as laggards in this effort, as ‘leaners, not lifters’, in the famous words of an earlier Australian Treasurer.

    As the Chief Executive of the Australian Council for International Development, Marc Purcell said, our cuts to overseas aid, including many life-saving programs, are hurting some of the poorest people.

    Avoiding failed states in our region

    Consider what reductions in aid mean in our region. Papua New Guinea has a population of 7.76 million, and is growing quickly. How is PNG to manage such an enormous process of change? It already has acute problems with providing education and healthcare, not to mention unemployment, extraordinarily difficult transport problems, issues around law and order, political stability and growing challenges from climate change and drought.

    It is vital that PNG make steady progress in all these areas, but it cannot without significant international support, especially from Australia. What would a failed state in PNG look like?

    We had the example of the Solomon Islands where in 2003 Australia led a coalition of countries and sent police and armed forces to restore order. In the next ten years until withdrawn, 7,270 Australian personnel served in the Solomons, at a cost to Australia of $2.6 billion.

    We hope for a much better future for PNG, but other countries beyond the Pacific are fragile as well and need our sustained aid and development support. Some other countries may want to fill any vacuum we leave, including China.

    The climate change imperative

    As if humanitarian reasons were not compelling enough for reasonable levels of overseas aid, climate change adds extra urgency. With our expertise in agriculture, health care and education among many other areas, Australia can contribute greatly to help other countries adjust to climate change.

    Australian know-how in dry-land farming and water management could be very important in parts of Africa and Asia. Our agricultural scientists are continually working to improve strains in crops that yield more, using less water, and are more resistant to insect pests and diseases.

    Development specialists are working to ensure our world can manage this transition to a sustainable global economy and life-style, but this will not happen unless countries like Australia recognise that it is in our own national interests to support these efforts strenuously.

    Despite serious economic difficulties, along with five other OECD countries, the British government has committed to maintain its overseas aid at 0.7% of GNI, the international target recommended by the United Nations and accepted by Australia in the early 1970s. Such is the urgency about promoting international development at this crucial time that 22 out of the 28 OECD donor countries increased their foreign aid this year.

    In the view of Paul O’Callaghan, CEO of Caritas Australia, Australia has ‘given up its shared leadership role in combatting poverty’, despite being one of the wealthiest OECD countries. Cuts to our aid have damaged Australia’s reputation internationally and set back efforts to create a more equitable and sustainable world in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

     

  • Bruce Duncan. Budget ignores growing inequality

    Scott Morrison’s Commonwealth budget aims to be politically balanced but, like the Hockey budgets, neglects struggle street. The budget still labours under the neoliberal belief in minimal taxes, small government and maximum freedom for private enterprise.

    Morrison’s mantra is that cutting taxes on businesses and the wealthy will increase investment, growth and jobs. The trouble is, this is not the case, in part because the meagre income of much of the population reduces demand. It appears also that tax cuts for the wealthy make little difference to the growth rate.

    In addition, the unfairness of the economic system builds up popular resentment against elites groups who often make the rules to benefit themselves. This explains much of the disenchantment with politics that we see in Australia. We haven’t reached the situation of the United States, where anger and resentment is very evident in the widespread support for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Consider also the rise of populist movements in parts of Europe with very high unemployment. Youth unemployment in Greece is at 48 per cent. How long can nations manage such social distress without turning to extremes?

    Trickle-down economics & inequality

    The trickle-down assumptions of supply-side economics have been proven bogus, but they supply a rationale for rich individuals and corporations to justify the inequitable division of wealth.

    Joseph Stiglitz and many other economists have highlighted how inequality has grown to astonishing levels in the United States and elsewhere. Mike Secombe in The Saturday Paper pointed out that in Australia, the top 20 per cent have 70 times more wealth than the bottom 20 percent. While 10 per cent of households own 40 per cent of the wealth, the bottom 40 per cent of households own just 5 per cent. Secombe quoted an OECD study that ‘growing inequality is harmful for long-term economic growth.’

    This is certainly the view of Pope Francis and other religious leaders. The Pope’s recent social encyclical, Laudato Si’, identified inequality and climate change as two of the greatest challenges to human wellbeing today. Francis highlights greater equity as a key to sustainable growth and prosperity.

    Scott Morrison declared an end to class warfare, yet it would seem that the very rich have been waging class warfare for years, largely unhindered.

    Major budget problems

    The 2016-17 budget makes superannuation somewhat fairer for low-income people, but three-quarters of the benefit goes to the top 10 per cent of taxpayers. In addition, few of the steep cuts to services and programs made by the Abbott government have been restored. Indeed, there are more cuts to health and aged care in particular, and some Medicare benefits.

    Despite strong support from business groups to lift unemployment benefits, the government curiously refused to increase them. For people going on to Newstart, the benefit will actually drop because they will not receive the small carbon tax compensation benefit. Unemployment benefits remain under $530 a fortnight for a single adult without children, not enough to pay for board at a backpacker’s and for food, medication, clothing and a phone card. Many walk the streets by day, and at times sleep rough. Increasing numbers of people are relying on charitable agencies for emergency support, and you may have seen more people begging in the streets of major cities.

    The budget does little for the homeless or those in housing stress. And what of the 600,000 children living in poverty? Instead the budget cuts 810 jobs from the Department of Human Services, and a further 344 from the Department of Social Services. There was little new for Indigenous programs either. The budget did not restore earlier cuts, and there were further cuts to Indigenous legal services and higher education participation programs.

    The extraordinary cost of housing is raising great concern in the community, as it is pricing many young couples out of the housing market, or saddling them with crippling debts. The housing bubble is also socially damaging, a source of considerable stress and delaying family formation. The budget completely resiled from any attempt to tackle the problems arising from negative gearing, as well as from capital gains taxes.

    Perhaps most surprising, the budget ignored the looming crises from global warming. At a time when Australia could be a world leader in sustainable energy, and developing ways to adjust to climate change with new technologies and know-how in farming, fishing, housing, health care etc., the Coalition seems diffident, despite the Prime Minister’s own personal views. The cuts to funding for our world-famous CSIRO, and for research on climate change, are emblematic of the blinkered thinking of the Coalition government.

    As for the budget’s centrepiece, the ‘enterprise tax plan’ to cut company tax from 30 per cent to 25 per cent over ten years, Stephen Long called it a ‘con’, and Tim Colebatch considered it ‘breathtaking’ and ‘courageous’, in Sir Humphrey’s famous phrase. Will the tax cuts produce growth and jobs? Not for years, according to Stephen Long. Small companies will likely retain profits in the business rather than risk new investment. The lower tax rate will encourage investors from overseas, but that will take years to eventuate. ‘The gains for jobs and wages are so small they are trivial’, comments Long. Malcolm Turnbull eventually confirmed that the program could eventually cost nearly $50 billion.

    One of the few bright spots in the budget is an effort to tighten multinationals’ tax avoidance and capital flight. Voters are naturally outraged at such systemic tax avoidance and governments themselves are suffering from this massive haemorrhage of capital into tax havens. All the political parties broadly support curtailing this tax avoidance.

    Yet because the Coalition had reduced its funding, the Australian Tax Office cut its workforce from 22,000 to about 18,500. In a major about-face, Treasurer Morrison announced that the ATO would now gain an extra 1000 staff, with 390 of them joining a taskforce of 1300 to ensure tax compliance by multinationals. Better late than never.

    In short, what we urgently need in Australia is stronger support for those on struggle street, and policies to restore a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunity.

    Bruce Duncan is a Redemptorist priest lecturing in social ethics at Yarra Theological Union in Melbourne. He is one of the founders of the advocacy organisation Social Policy Connections.

  • Bruce Duncan. Perplexed by Easter

    Perplexing and confronting. Whether believers or not, that is how many of us find the events of that first Easter week in Jerusalem. Here are the elements of high drama: betrayal, confrontation with Jewish and Roman authorities, a trial, torture and a cruel death by crucifixion.

    Even so, Jesus would have disappeared completely from history had it not been for what happened next: Jesus’ Resurrection, and the appearances which convinced his incredulous followers that he was indeed alive. This did indeed changed everything.

    The disciples themselves were deeply perplexed, for it was blasphemous for these pious Jews to acknowledge that Jesus was the embodiment of the God they worshiped. And it was complete madness to those from Greek culture, that such a shameful death could be accepted by God.

    From being a bewildered and frightened crowd, the first believers were transfixed by joy at their sense of the intense presence of the spirit of Jesus. They had the experience, but understanding the meaning was altogether another thing.

    Retelling the story of Jesus and interpreting it for wider groups of people eventually gave birth to the Gospels and other New Testament writings. And still we believers struggle to understand what Jesus’ Resurrection means for our lives now.

    So shocking to Jewish ears, Christians believe that the mighty Creator God has taken on human flesh in the person of Jesus. Believers then see all the words and actions of Jesus as an unveiling (revelation) of what is deepest in the heart of his Father.

    Why then does Jesus submit to such a degrading death? I would suggest it embodies the ultimate commitment of God to our human wellbeing, demonstrating in the most graphic way that God is not indifferent to pain, death and evil in the world. In Jesus, God gives his life for us. It is as if in Jesus God is sucking all the evil in the world into himself, not to be overcome by evil, but to transform it through his Resurrection.

    Jesus talked incessantly about the Kingdom or Reign of God, yet as he said to Pilate, his Kingdom was not of this world. Such a belief relativises our life in this world. This life is a journey to our final home in heaven.

    Such belief profoundly transforms our worldview, our sense of values, our priorities in how we live. If God loves us so intensely as to express his solidarity with us so graphically in Jesus’ life and death, then indeed we are all precious in God’s sight. And God expects us to recognise this in the way we treat one another.

    No words of Jesus capture this more powerfully than the parable of the Last Judgment in Matthew 25. Jesus makes entry to heaven entirely depend on how we have fed the hungry, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, visited those in prison.

    Consider how confronting are these words, and not just for the pious people of Jesus’ day who fulfilled all their ritual religious duties. The words of the parable are quite extreme: entry to heaven is conditional on our care for the destitute and suffering. God is not fooled by mere piety if it is without compassion and ignores human wellbeing.

    Moreover God takes care for the poor and distressed intensely personally. ‘I tell you solemnly, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brethren of mine, you did it to me.’

    The message of Easter relativises our life in this world but without trivialising it. Evil and suffering are not taken away, but our struggle against them is given new meaning in the light of Easter.

  • Bruce Duncan. Pope Francis supports social revolution among the Zapatistas in Mexico

    The western media largely missed the significance of Pope Francis’s visit to the ‘Free and Sovereign State of Chiapas’ in the south of Mexico on the border with Guatemala in February 2016. He not only reiterated the message he bore elsewhere in Mexico, about the Church’s support for a social and cultural revolution in favour of greater equality, social justice and human rights.

    Francis singled out the indigenous peoples of Chiapas, which had erupted in a short-lived rebellion on 1 January 1994 against the Mexican government’s attempt to privatise the communally owned land; this was the very day the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect. The issues of indigenous peoples and land rights are extremely sensitive in Mexico, yet Francis by visiting Chiapas was determined to highlight the problems and encourage solutions.

    Famous for its ancient ruins from the Mayan era, Chiapas is a small state of 5.2 million people, with almost a third belonging to indigenous groups using 56 distinct languages. Nearly 60 percent of the population is Catholic, with another 27 percent of other Christian churches.

    Samuel Ruiz, liberation theology and indigenous peoples

    Though the Church did not support armed revolt, Catholic groups were inspired by the Second Vatican Council’s ‘option for the poor’ to struggle resolutely for social justice and human rights. They were led in Chiapas by Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia in the diocese of San Crisobal de Las Casas. Ruiz was determined throughout his life to see the indigenous people achieve their rights and participate fully in the life of Mexico, with their values and cultures honoured. He organised the first conference of indigenous peoples in 1974, the first grass-roots conference of its kind there at that time.

    He also fought for the full participation of indigenous people in Church life, including indigenous liturgies and languages. He ordained married indigenous men as deacons, despite opposition from Roman officials.

    Ruiz was a strong proponent of liberation theology, though some landowners called him a communist. He consistently promoted the renewed Catholic social teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and played a key mediating role in restraining armed conflict. He tried to reconcile opposed groups by working for practical and just social outcomes to benefit the most disadvantaged. He died in 2011 at the age of 86. Very pointedly, Pope Francis insisted on praying at his grave, signalling his endorsement of this non-violent form of liberation theology and social activism by the Church.

    Land reform and neoliberalism

    The background to the Pope’s visit to Chiapas is thus important. Land reform had been one of the major accomplishments of the Mexican revolution of 1917, and by 1992 about half the farmland was held in community ownership, called ejidos. Such land was held by the community in perpetuity, and could not be sold or privatised. But in 1992 the government abandoned land reform, and ended efforts by a huge backlog of claims to achieve this ejidos status.

    The Mexican government and ruling groups wanted to ‘de-territorialise’ the 25 million campesinos, privatising ownership and so forcing them off the land to supply labour for the new giant factories, the maquiladoras, being built below the US border. Protesting against the neoliberal economic policies behind NAFTA, thousands of armed Zapatistas took control of major population centres and hundreds of ranches in Chiapas, though a ceasefire was quickly reached, with the aid of Ruiz, on 12 January.

    However, in February 1995 the Mexican army occupied Chiapas, sending in 70,000 troops, a third of the entire army. The following year, a few days before Christmas, paramilitary groups massacred 45 members of a Catholic pacifist group during a prayer meeting. Ruiz spent Christmas saying funeral masses for the victims, most of whom were women and children.

    The San Andres Accords were signed in 1996, but the government reneged; so the Zapatistas began to implement the Accords on their own initiative, emphasising cultural and economic development with autonomous self-government. The Zapatistas highlighted education, basic health care, participation and cooperative models of economic activity. Though proudly Mexican, the Zapatistas developed parallel functions to the government, managing their own economic arrangements, policing and judiciary.

    Pope Francis did not claim that the Zapatistas provided a model for other places, but they show that with the right opportunities rural and indigenous peoples can organise and manage their own affairs, establishing stable and prosperous communities, especially with cooperatives.

    Francis strongly encourages such real participation in social reform and land ownership, empowerment of local and regional communities to control their own affairs, ending the widespread corruption and encouraging greater transparency. As elsewhere in his writings and travels, he trumpets the right and need for the three ‘L’s – labour, land and lodging: the right to work and support families; access to productive land or other resources; and suitable accommodation with home ownership.

    These are not utopian or romantic ideas about rural life, but resonate powerfully with the thinking of development economists today that improving the lives and conditions of small farmers is essential to eradicating hunger and gross poverty worldwide.

    God insists on motivating social justice efforts

    Francis stressed that the struggle for justice and human rights is fundamentally a religious one; God weeps at human suffering and distress. Speaking to thousands of people at the Mass with indigenous peoples in Chiapas on 15 February, he said that Jesus is the living embodiment of the Father calling us to embrace this yearning for justice and peace, and do all we can do to promote human wellbeing in our own circumstances.

    Francis spelt out this message very powerfully when he spoke of the struggle of the indigenous people as like that of Moses leading the People of God out of slavery and oppression ‘to live in the freedom to which they are called.’

    God hears the cry of his people, and is seen as a ‘Father who suffers as he sees the pain, mistreatment, and lack of justice for his children. His word, his law, thus becomes a symbol of freedom.’

    Francis used a quote from the ancient Mexican text of the post-K’isha’ period (800-1000CE) with its account of creation and the human story, about how the dawn sun rises on all the tribes to heal the face of the earth. Francis continued:

    In this expression, one hears the yearning to live in freedom, there is a longing which contemplates a promised land where oppression, mistreatment and humiliation are not the currency of the day. In the heart of humanity and in the memory of many of our peoples is imprinted this yearning for a land, for a time when human corruption will be overcome by fraternity, when injustice will be conquered by solidarity and when violence will be silenced by peace.

    In Jesus ‘we discover the solidarity of the Father who walks by our side… he becomes the Life so that darkness may not have the last word and the dawn may not cease to rise on the lives of God’s sons and daughters.’

    Francis continued that ‘there had been attempts to silence and dull this yearning’ and to ‘subdue and lull our children and young people into a kind of lassitude by suggesting that nothing can change, their dreams can never come true.’

    Driving the liberation message home in Chiapas, he lamented that the indigenous peoples had been excluded and treated as inferior. ‘Others, intoxicated by power, money and market trends, have stolen your lands or contaminated them. How sad this is! How worthwhile it would be for each of us to examine our conscience and learn to say, “Forgive me!”’

    Finally, drawing from his encyclical, Laudato Si’, Francis said that creation itself was crying out in distress ‘among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail”.’ ‘We can no longer remain silent before one of the greatest environmental crises in world history.’

    Conclusion

    Francis is not calling for armed revolt, but for a revolution of conscience and a determined commitment to the common good, of everyone, rich and poor, especially on behalf of those in most need. Far from urging people passively to accept their fate in the hope of heaven later, Francis insists that God wants a better life for all in this world. ‘We rejoice that Jesus continues to die and rise again in each gesture that we offer to the least of our brothers and sisters’, witnessing to both his Passion and Resurrection.

    Bruce Duncan is a Redemptorist priest who lectures in social ethics at Yarra Theological Union within Melbourne’s University of Divinity. He is one of the founders of the ecumenical advocacy network, Social Policy Connections.

  • Bruce Duncan. Australia’s moral crisis: shipping babies and families off to Nauru

    How has it come to this, that the Australian government is poised to send back 37 babies, 54 children and their families – 267 in all – into the traumatic conditions of Nauru?

    Only a few years ago many Australians would have considered it inconceivable that our governments should have imposed such shocking treatment on people who fled to our country seeking asylum as refugees.

    What has brought matters to a head is the government’s cynical manipulation of the law to prevent the High Court of Australia ruling in favour of a Bangladeshi woman who had been brought from detention in Nauru to Australia because of complications in her pregnancy in 2014. She brought an action in the High Court to prevent her being returned to Nauru.

    The government responded by rushing new legislation through both houses of parliament on 24 and 25 June 2015, changing the migration act to justify any action taken by the government to support its regional processing policies. The law came into force on 30 June 2015, but was backdated to take effect from 18 August 2012. Only one judge, Justice Gordon, dissented from the judgment of the other six judges of the High Court.

    As Professor George Williams wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 February, by sending people back to Nauru, Australia was washing it hands of responsibility. ‘There is no requirement that children are well treated or that their best interests are safeguarded. There is also no need for asylum seekers to be treated fairly, such as by having their claims promptly and properly assessed.’ http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/news/2016/02/asylum-seekers-nauru-are-legal-black-hole

    Waleed Aly in the Age of 5 February was more trenchant. ‘Nauru has become a screen behind which we hide our own culpability; its sovereignty a charade, really – a sort of legal fiction we use to obscure the consequences of our own policy’. We had descended into a ‘world of make-believe’ and become adept at ‘lying to ourselves’. https://theconversation.com/sending-children-back-to-nauru-risks-creating-a-generation-of-damaged-people-54115

    The issue has provoked a crisis of conscience among many people, including politicians and decision-makers, about where the logic of deterrence of asylum seekers has led us. Undoubtedly many politicians are conflicted about the dilemma they face. Labor member for Fremantle and a former lawyer at the United Nations, Melissa Parke, insisted that Australia’s laws were ‘certainly a serious violation of our international legal obligations and are utterly repugnant in a moral sense.’ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-03/labor-mp-melissa-parke-hits-out-at-immigration-laws/7137508

    On the one hand, we all want to prevent asylum seekers arriving by boats, resulting in hundreds of people drowning at sea. To stop the boats, Australia established the deterrent of indefinite detention in harsh and remote detention on Nauru or Manus Island.

    On the other hand, church, human rights and medical authorities http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-03/mental-health-children-detention-darwin/7137858 , and https://theconversation.com/sending-children-back-to-nauru-risks-creating-a-generation-of-damaged-people-54115

    are protesting vigorously that our policies are driving hundreds of detainees into mental illness, especially children. It is unprecedented that Fairfax papers have given their front pages in early February to photos of many babies about to be sent back into detention with their mothers or families.

    Growing protests against treatment of asylum seekers

    Various Anglican and Uniting churches http://www.baptistcareaustralia.org.au/documents/item/965 have invoked the ancient right of sanctuary to prevent these children being carted back to Nauru, an island of 10,000 people with a barely functioning government, weak policing and very limited resources. Church leaders harbouring these asylum seekers could themselves face arrest.

    Significant protest marches and meetings have been held in cities throughout the country, attended by many mainstream voters, as well as church and community groups. Mums and dads are undoubtedly moved by the thought of what harm such detention in the conditions on Nauru would do to their own children.

    Morally it is repugnant to punish current detainees on Manus Island and Nauru in order to deter other asylum seekers who might think of arriving by boat, by demonstrating how harshly they will be treated, and keeping in indefinite detention with no prospect of settlement in Australia.

    New Zealand offered in February 2013 to take 150 of the asylum seekers each year for three years, but Australia turned down the offer lest the refugees gain NZ citizenship after five years’ residence and then enter Australia. With the migrant crisis in Europe and the Middle East, few other countries will accept them. A handful has gone to Cambodia at a cost of $55 million to our government, which has also approached Kyrgyzstan and the Philippines. A small number of refugees has also tried to settle in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. However, most of the asylum seekers are in despair, and face years in detention.

    What is to be done?

    Many people are appealing to Mr Turnbull that the limited numbers of newborns and their families can be allowed to remain in Australia without reviving the boat arrivals. Church, community and academic http://opcvoice.com/index.php/news/item/45-letter-to-prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-open-letter-to-prime-minister-calling-for-release-of-children-in-onshore-detention-and-on-the-nauru-opc and medical groups have been particularly prominent.

    In Melbourne, Bishop Vincent Long, spokesman for the Australian Catholics bishops and a former refugee himself, urged Prime Minister Turnbull and Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, to show compassion and not cause more harm to these people. He called on the government to ‘ensure that no child is subject to an unsafe and harmful environment’ and that no one be returned to face ‘physical, psychological and sexual violence and harm.’ He said the Catholic Church opposed mandatory and detention and offshore detention. http://mediablog.catholic.org.au/media-statement-from-bishop-vincent-long-ofm-conv-australian-catholic-bishops-delegate-for-refugees-regarding-the-high-courts-decision-on-offshore-processing/ Thirty years ago Long set out from Vietnam, drifting at sea for seven days before spending 16 months in a refugee camp.

    Robert Manne in The Monthly also appealed to Mr Turnbull. ‘The idea that allowing a few children out of detention in Australia would act as an international signal that would see the return of the people smuggling trade was insane.’ https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/robert-manne/2016/03/2016/1454477557/how-has-it-come

    Fr Frank Brennan in Eureka Street argued that turning back the boats has stopped the arrival of unauthorised asylum seekers; the harsh deterrent policies of Nauru and Manus Island were no longer needed, and hence they could be closed. Most immediately, the children in Australia should be allowed to remain here with their families, he wrote. http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=45948#.VrSD-E9yK4M

    One of Australia’s most respected journalists, Michelle Grattan, saw some hope in Mr Turnbull’s cautious response that each case needed to be considered individually and that he wouldn’t ‘send children back into harm’s way.’ https://theconversation.com/governments-tough-reaction-to-high-court-judgment-contains-just-a-little-wriggle-room-54129

    Public opinion on these most vulnerable of refugees has shifted decisively, as the latest appeals from state and territory government leaders in Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT indicate. It is no longer seen as a party-political issue, but as a matter of human decency. All eyes will now be on Prime Minister Turnbull to recast our policies on refugees and asylum seekers and end this moral blight on the conscience of our country.

    Bruce Duncan is a Redemptorist priest who lectures in social ethics at Yarra Theological Union within Melbourne’s University of Divinity. He is one of the founders of the ecumenical advocacy network, Social Policy Connections.

     

     

  • Bruce Duncan. Pope Francis calls for a global economy with a conscience

    In his July trip to Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay, some of the poorest countries in Latin America, Pope Francis has voiced the anguish and concerns of millions of people struggling to rise out of severe poverty and marginalisation, yet are “exploited like slaves”.

    Speaking to a crowd of two million people in Santa Cruz on 9 July, Francis attacked a mentality that “has room only for a select few, while it discards all those who are ‘unproductive’, unsuitable or unworthy, since clearly those people don’t ‘add up’.”

    It is a world Francis knows well from his own extensive personal experience in Argentina but also from his role as one of the key figures coordinating the ten-yearly meeting of the bishops of Latin America at Aparecida in Brazil in 2007. Not only did he help Pope Benedict prepare his speeches to that conference, but as then Cardinal Bergoglio, Francis supervised the writing of the 160-page final document, reaffirming the role of the Church in confronting poverty and injustice as an essential part of its mission. This document is a forerunner for Pope Francis’s major statements and policies, including the new encyclical, Laudato Si’: on care for our common home.

    A high point of his visit to Bolivia was his hour-long speech to the two thousand delegates to the Second World meeting of Popular Movements in Santa Cruz on 9 July, when he demanded “real change, structural change” to reform “intolerable” conditions for farm-workers, labourers, communities and the earth itself.  He warned that time “seems to be running out” to save the planet from “perhaps irreversible harm” according to the scientific consensus. “Do we not realise that something is wrong in a world where there are so many farm-workers without land, so many families without a home, so many labourers without rights, so many persons whose dignity is not respected?”

    He condemned the “unfettered pursuit of money” as “the dung of the devil”. When “capital becomes an idol” and “greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system”, they ruin society and put “at risk our common home”.

    Francis said he had no “recipe” for a social program or a monopoly on truth, but everyone, governments, popular movements and other social forces had to find a way forward together.

    First he insisted on the moral principle that the economy be at the service of peoples, not people at the service of money. “Let us say NO to an economy of exclusion and inequality, where money rules, rather than service. That economy kills. That economy excludes. That economy destroys Mother Earth.”

    It was not enough to offer a “decent sustenance”, but people needed rights to land, lodging and labour, he said, along with access to education, health care, technologies, art and cultural activities, sports and recreation. “A just economy must create the conditions for everyone to be able to enjoy a childhood without want, to develop their talents when young, to work with full rights” and enjoy a dignified retirement. He insisted this was not utopian thinking, but was possible and ‘an extremely realistic prospect”.

    “Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy. It is a moral obligation. For Christians, the responsibility is even greater: it is a commandment.” He urged the popular movements to strive for “the common good to be achieved in a full and participatory democracy”.

    Secondly, he called for peace and justice internationally, and attacked what he called the “new colonialism”. “At times it appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain ‘free trade’ treaties, and the imposition of measures of ‘austerity’ which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor.” He criticised monopolistic media that “impose alienating forms of consumerism” as “ideological colonialism”.

    To a roar of approval from the crowd, Francis also said that “many sins were committed against the native peoples of America in the name of God.” He called on Catholics to beg forgiveness for these past crimes, and to commit themselves to supporting the struggles of the indigenous peoples of Latin America.

    Thirdly, he lamented that “Our common home is being pillaged, laid waste and harmed with impunity.”  “Cowardice in defending” our common home “is a grave sin.” He said they cannot allow certain global interests “to take over, to dominate states and international organisations, and to continue destroying creation.” “I ask you, in the name of God, to defend Mother Earth.”

    Many commentators have been critical of Pope Francis for these views, and the question is how will he manage when he arrives in New York to address the US Congress on 24 September and the United Nations General Assembly. On the flight back from Latin America, Francis said he would study what his critics had been saying to see what he could learn.

    He will certainly not resile from his call for global responsibility to address the threat of ‘catastrophic’ global warming, as well as urging a revolution of conscience about our moral obligations to the millions of impoverished and excluded people. He will not reject capitalism in principle, since he knows there are many forms of capitalism, some with strong social and communitarian features.

    Nor is the Pope opposed to a type of economic growth needed to lift people out of hunger and poverty, as long as this is done equitably, encourages more modest lifestyles and does not damage the environment for future generations.

    But he is strongly opposed to the neoliberal versions of capitalism, the dominance of financial capital, and the belief that free markets of themselves will resolve most problems of distribution and poverty.

    No one familiar with Catholic social teaching, going back to Pope Leo XIII’s social encyclical On the Condition of the Working Class (Rerum Novarum) of 1891, should be surprised at this. The Church has long taught that the earth is given by God for everyone; the right to private property is not absolute but conditional on benefiting the common good, by maintaining productivity in goods and services for the benefit of all. Since Leo, the Church has consistently urged that property be distributed as widely as possible, so everyone had a share sufficient to provide for their family and for security against sickness and old age.

    The neoliberal ideology, on the other hand, exalts the rights of wealthy individuals over and against the common good, and propagates the extreme inequality that has left millions destitute. Francis is calling for worldwide resistance against this ideology, and for reforms to economic systems and business practice to ensure far more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity. He will undoubtedly appeal for business leaders and governments to help refashion the global economy so that everyone has a place at the table. He is highlighting the moral imperative to build a more just global economy, an economy with a conscience.

    Bruce Duncan is a Redemptorist priest who lectures in social ethics at Yarra Theological Union within Melbourne’s University of Divinity. He is one of the founders of the ecumenical advocacy network, Social Policy Connections.

  • Bruce Duncan. Pope Francis on avoiding environmental catastrophe

    Current Affairs

    Popes write social encyclicals in times of social crisis or at great turning points in history. Pope Francis’s Laudato Si is no exception. He sees the world facing unprecedented twin crises: from climate change; and unresolved issues of global hunger and poverty, resulting in growing conflict, violence and displacement of peoples. ‘Peace, justice and the preservation of creation are three absolutely interconnected themes’ (# 92).

    ‘We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather one complex crisis which is both social and environmental’, and we need to combat poverty, restore dignity to the excluded and protect nature (#139).

    Francis insists on the urgency of these matters. ‘Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generation debris, desolation and filth.’ Our contemporary consumption and waste ‘can only precipitate catastrophes’. (#161).

    Francis does not pull his punches on the effects of climate change, warning of imminent catastrophe unless the world acts urgently to reduce greenhouse gases. He laments that the world lacks leadership and it is ‘remarkable how weak international political responses have been (#54).’ He says that ‘our common home is falling into serious disrepair.. He sees signs that ‘things are now reaching a breaking point’. ‘There are regions now at high risk and aside from all doomsday predictions, the present world system is certainly unsustainable’ (#61).

    The high hopes of making rapid inroads against hunger and poverty with the Millennium Development Goals have only been partly realised, and Francis is using the encyclical to support more determined efforts through the UN Sustainable Development Goals. But efforts to eradicate hunger and poverty are being compromised by the effects of climate change, which are bearing most heavily on the poor.

    The looming environmental threats remind the world as never before that we are all in this together, that there is such a thing as the ‘common good’. This is a call for ‘all hands on deck’, that everyone is involved in a common responsibility to reduce our ‘footprint’ on the planet, living more frugally, with less waste and certainly less extravagance.

    ‘Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most.’ (169). He warns that even systems of ‘carbon credits’ could be used ‘as a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors.’ (#171).

    But the encyclical is not a science paper. He accepts the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that global warming is a real threat, indeed an unprecedented emergency, with disastrous consequences likely in agriculture, from declining water resources and from rising sea levels.

    Inequality

    Underlying the document is the Pope’s critique of the astonishing inequality within and between countries, stemming from an economic system based on competitive individualism: ‘we should be particularly indignant at the enormous inequalities in our midst, whereby we continue to tolerate some considering themselves more worthy than others.’ (#90).

    He criticises powerful sectional interests which strive to maximise profits in the short term and can often shape or corrupt economic policies to suit their own narrow goals. ‘Their behaviour shows that for them maximizing profits is enough. Yet by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development and social inclusion.’ (#109). He rejects the mindset that allows ‘the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage.’ (#123).

    Without using the term neoliberal economics, that is clearly his target, which Francis blames for channelling fabulous wealth into the hands of a small minority while leaving vast numbers struggling in acute poverty. He rejects ‘a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies and individuals.’ (#190).

    He blames an exaggerated free-market ideology for the corrosion of ethical standards in international finance and business corporations that resulted in the global financial crisis.

    ‘Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price, foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system only reaffirms the absolute power of a financial system’ which can only give rise to new crises (#189).

    He is critical of the type of development which is overly driven by technology, as if it could resolve the problems facing the planet without ‘a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.’ (#105). ‘Put simply, it is a matter of redefining our notion of progress. A technological and economic development which does not leave in its wake a better world and an integrally higher quality of life cannot be considered progress. Frequently, in fact, people’s quality of life actually diminishes’ (#194).

    Dialogue with believers and non-believers alike

    The Pope has framed his encyclical within the hymn to creation of St Francis, a profound and joyous song of wonder and amazement before the great Mystery of life and the world with all its many marvellous creatures. St Francis felt intensely the presence of what we call God in every aspect of his world.

    The Pope is drawing from this a new way of communicating across religious and philosophical boundaries about the sense of Mystery we all share. This can evoke a sense of thankfulness and respect for every living thing, of deep reverence for such treasures. He is drawing on a spirituality which is ancient and traditional, but also open to people of all faiths or of none.

    Dialogue is a foundational word for the Pope. He is not trying to dictate politics or specific solutions, but calling for a global dialogue, involving especially those with specific expertise about what needs to be done. He learnt from his own mistakes as a priest that listening involves not just understanding the words people use, but an effort to go behind the words to appreciate the pain in their hearts and the goodness they are yearning for.

    He believes everyone has something to contribute and a right to be heard in matters which concern them, especially in economic change and development, so that the poor are not just pawns of the rich or powerful, or cast aside as useless. The Pope draws from his own experience that even very poor people in slums can have happy and meaningful lives, though their material resources may be slim, because of the quality of their relationships and sense of community. Nevertheless, he wants everyone to have decent living conditions, secure housing and work, education and reasonable life opportunities (#222).

    Underlying the encyclical is the ‘see, judge, act’ methodology he used when he summarised the conference of the bishops of Latin American at Aparecida in 2007. He wants the new encyclical to lead to action, not just in international forums, but by everyone in their own circumstances. He gives instances of how people can live more simply, reducing their use of energy and resources. These are not trivial matters. He wishes to show that we all need to find ways to live more simply (#211). Pope Francis favours the empowerment of individuals and groups, to take initiatives and to organise together, such as in cooperatives, or in small-scale farming and production (#129, 179).

    Conclusion

    The encyclical’s message about the urgent moral dimensions of our present crisis are not entirely new, as both Popes John Paul and Benedict also drew attention to the mounting ecological dangers. But it is unprecedented that a pope has devoted an entire encyclical to this issue, which he links in with the Church’s longer tradition of social teaching, especially its critique of ‘economic liberalism’ or what we would now refer to as neoliberalism.

    Though some parts of the document are written in Francis’s clear and popular style, others have written various sections, especially Cardinal Turkson and his team at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, along with the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, both have which have been consulting extensively with leading international experts in economics, climate science and the environment.

    The Pope regrets that international agreements have not recognised the ‘urgency of the challenges’; but though ‘the post-industrial period may well be remembered as one of the most irresponsible in history’, there are reasons to hope (#165).

    He is calling for a commitment by everyone to living responsibly so that others can live a fulfilling and happy life. We should be striving ‘boldly and responsibility to promote a sustainable and equitable development within the context of a broader concept of quality of life.’ (#192).

    Father Bruce Duncan CSsR is one of the founders of the advocacy group, Social Policy Connections, and Director of the Yarra Institute for Religion and Social Policy in Melbourne.

  • Bruce Duncan. Pope Francis and the Abbott government

    Current Affairs

     Pope Francis has repeatedly called for greater social and economic equity in the world, and reiterated the critique of neoliberal economics very strongly. Now he is about to issue an encyclical, the highest form of Church teaching, on the need to reduce carbon emissions and global warming. What will our pollies make of this, especially Catholics in the Coalition government?

    Many observers are deeply puzzled by Abbott’s metamorphosis from being lampooned as ‘Captain Catholic’ into an advocate of neoliberal policies. What has happened to the man who called BA Santamaria one of his mentors?

    Whatever about Santamaria’s politics, he was strenuously opposed to neoliberalism, and all his life argued for the more equitable distribution of wealth and property, believing that this would spur a more responsible democracy, resulting in the wide dispersal of political power through cooperatives and forms of economic democracy.

    Pope Francis has renewed the moral critique of economics and politics. He has highlighted the Church’s opposition to neoliberalism, as it is termed today, which exaggerates the role of market mechanisms and minimises considerations of equity, social justice and fairness.

    Stigliz’s critique of neoliberalism

    Among the many leading economists advising the Vatican has been Joseph E Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank. Stiglitz has warned repeatedly about the danger from the astonishing concentration of wealth in the United States, resulting in the impoverishment of millions. He blamed the ideology of neoliberalism for this, with its naïve view of markets disguising massive rent-seeking, political corruption and manipulation of governments by powerful special interests, including in supposed free-trade agreements drawn up in secret negotiations.

    In his latest book, The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and what we can do about them, Stiglitz again pointed out that the top 1 percent of Americans take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income each year, and control 40 percent of the wealth, leaving almost a quarter of US children under five living in poverty (p. 88, 303).

    By comparison, in 2012 the top 10 percent of Australian earners took home 29.7 percent of Australian income, the highest on record, according to a report from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research in May.

    Stiglitz called for “significant investments in education, a more progressive tax system, and a tax on financial speculation” (p. 392). In his view, “trickledown economics was totally wrong.” (p.415).

    To increase social equity globally, he supported proposals to include a ninth goal in the Sustainable Development Agenda: to reduce inequality so that by 2030 in no country would the top 10 percent of the population have post-tax income greater than the post-transfer income of the bottom 40 percent (p. 291).

    Following a visit to Australia, Stiglitz warned that the Abbott government did not seem to understand the basic dynamics of “deregulation and liberalization” that were driving increasing inequality and concentrating wealth in the hands of a few. Stiglitz was particularly concerned about the defunding of Australian research and universities. (p. 355-56).

    Pope Francis and Ban Ki-moon on climate change and inequality

    This June Francis will release his encyclical calling for urgent action to tackle climate change, challenging the views of climate deniers and highlighting the issue as a decisive one for Australia as it backslides on emissions’ reduction.

    After meeting the Pope in late April this year, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon opened a Vatican conference on environment issues and their impact on poorer countries, with many leading development experts present, including Jeffrey Sachs, who helped coordinate the UN Millennium Development Goals.

    Ban said that religious leaders did not claim to be scientists, but could help mobilise the political will to address climate change. “The most vulnerable must be foremost in our thoughts this year as governments construct a global response to climate change and a new framework for sustainable development.”

    He warned that we are “on course for a rise of 4-5 degrees Celsius”, and concluded: “We are the first generation that can end poverty, and the last generation that can avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Future generations will judge us harshly if we fail to uphold our moral and historical responsibilities.”

    Climate change is one of the six main topics for the UN Special Summit in New York in September 2015. Pope Francis will address the United Nations on the first day of this Summit on 25 September, presumably reiterating the main points of the new encyclical, stressing the moral responsibility to redress global warming and eradicate hunger and extreme poverty.

    Our perplexing short-sightedness

    Is Australia pulling its weight in this critical moment, which could well be a catastrophic turning point in the history of humanity? Certainly not on managing climate change, as Pope Francis will indirectly remind us.

    And how about our contribution to eliminating hunger and the worst forms of poverty? The Coalition government has slashed our overseas aid budget savagely, driving our aid from its current 0.32% of GNI to its lowest level at 0.22% of GNI by 2016-17, less than half of what Australia gave in 1971-72 as a proportion of GNI. In the 2014 budget, aid was cut by $7.6 billion over four years, comprising a fifth of all budget savings. In December, another cut followed of $3.7 billion over four years. And to the surprise of Australia’s Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, another $1 billion disappeared from the 2015-16 budget, reducing Australia’s aid commitment to less than $4 billion a year. By 2017-18, Australia’s aid will fall to 0.82% of government expenditure.

    Australians may rue the day we turned our backs on the needs of our neighbours. Australia’s RAMSI intervention in the Solomon Islands cost about $2.6 billion. Imagine what a failed state in Papua New Guinea or other nearby states would cost. We spend billions of dollars on border protection; we lock up some 1700 asylum seekers on remote Nauru and Manus Island at a cost of over $475,000 a year for each person; yet we refuse to see that improving stability and living conditions in poorer countries is the most humane and constructive approach, and that it is definitely in our national interest, not least because it offers a decent way to manage refugee and migration issues in the long term.

    Let’s hope that the Pope’s encyclical will help the blind to see.

    Fr Bruce Duncan CSsR is one of the founders of the advocacy group, Social Policy Connections, and Director of the Yarra Institute for Religion and Social Policy in Melbourne. This article first appeared in the Social Policy Connections newsletter on 2 June 2015.

  • Bruce Duncan. Pope runs moral template over G20.

    Pope France outlined a sharp moral template for world leaders at the G20 meeting in Brisbane. In a letter on 6 November to the current chair of the G20, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the Pope warned that “many lives are at stake”, including from “severe malnutrition”, as he highlighted the values and policy priorities needed for the global economy.

    Francis regarded the Global Financial Crisis as “a form of aggression” equally serious and real as the extremist attacks in the Middle East. He specifically condemned abuses in unconstrained speculation and maximising profits as “the final criterion of all economic activity.”

    In effect, the letter was a firm rejection of the neoliberal policies that have been driving economic policies in recent decades, resulting in a yawning chasm between the very rich and the poor, within and between nations.

    In line with his earlier statements, Francis called for urgent measures to reverse “all forms of unacceptable inequality” and poverty, and to restore social equity and opportunity for everyone, but especially to focus efforts on the needs of the most vulnerable. “Responsibility for the poor and the marginalised must therefore be an essential element of any political decision”.

    His concern about “the spectre of global recession” springs from his experience of the economic collapse in Argentina in 2002 and the terrible results of the 2008 financial crisis. In parts of Europe unemployment is still running up to 50 per cent among youth. He urged “improvement in the quality” of public and private spending and investment, especially to create “decent work for all”. He warned that prolonged social exclusion can lead to criminal activity and “even the recruitment of terrorists”.

    Mr Abbott would welcome the Pope’s comments in support of “concerted efforts to combat tax evasion” and proper financial regulation to ensure “honesty, security and transparency”. Abbott would also take heart from the Pope’s support for the United Nations legal system to “halt unjust aggression” against minorities in the Middle East. The Pope affirmed the duty of the international community to protect people from extreme attacks and violations of humanitarian law.

    But the Pope also contended that there can be no military solution to the problem of terrorism, since the roots causes derive from “poverty, underdevelopment and exclusion” as well as distorted religious views. The Pope did not mention the huge cuts to Australia’s overseas aid, but urged support for the UN Assembly’s post-2015 Development Agenda.

    Mr Abbott may not have been so happy to read about the Pope’s concern with climate change and “assaults on the natural environment, the result of unbridled consumerism”, with serious consequences for the world economy.

    Mr Abbott may not have been so happy to read about the Pope’s concern with climate change and “assaults on the natural environment, the result of unbridled consumerism”, with serious consequences for the world economy.

    Nor would Abbott feel too comfortable with the Pope’s appeal about the humanitarian crisis of refugees around the world. While not mentioning Australia’s extremely harsh treatment of refugees arriving by boat, the Pope asked the G20 states “to be examples of generosity and solidarity”, especially for refugees. Australia’s current quota of 13,750 refugees, reduced from 20,000 by the Abbott government, appears inordinately meagre in comparison to our wealth and resources.

    None of what Pope Francis is saying about the moral criteria for a more just economic system will come as a surprise to those who have been following his earlier criticism of abuses in capitalist and other economies. Indeed, the critique of capitalism by the popes has been consistent since Pope Leo XIII in his 1891 document, On the Condition of the Working Class, and more especially since John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council which finished in 1965.

    Pope Benedict also reiterated the call for reform in economic systems in his 2009 document, Caritas in Veritate, in which he extolled Pope Paul VI’s incisive critique of neoliberalism in his landmark 1967 document, Development of Peoples.

    What is new with Pope Francis is his ability to communicate refreshingly in a friendly and popular way, and articulate clearly a renewed moral perspective on our global economic plight. Even people who are not Catholic or Christian can hear his voice as a call to reason, humanity and sanity at this critical moment in the human story.

    Fr Bruce Duncan CSsR is one of the founders of the advocacy group, Social Policy Connections, and Director of the Yarra Institute for Religion and Social Policy in Melbourne.

     

  • Bruce Duncan. Iraq: where to now?

    Threats from the self-styled Islamic State to kill Australians randomly on the street or wherever by any means possible have shocked us all. The threats were not just against Australians, nor only against westerners, but against other Muslims, even Sunnis who refused to bow to the IS, and especially against the modernising Muslims and the political elites in Muslim countries.

    It appears that Islamic State is trying to unleash a global war between Muslims and non-Muslims, believing that the final apocalyptic battle against the ‘crusaders’ or ‘Romans’ to be fought at Dabiq in northern Iraq will usher in a new golden age. Many Muslims in the Middle East believe that this battle will occur within decades.

    The response of the Australian government has been to urge western intervention and even to despatch fighter aircraft to help destroy IS forces. Urgent action was certainly needed to prevent the slaughter of minority groups, including Christians, Yazidis and Kurds. But commentators have been troubled by what appeared as overreach by Australia and grandstanding by our politicians.

    Australia is partly responsible for the chaos and disintegration in Iraq, since Australia was only one of three countries to invade Iraq in 2003, despite widespread public dissension in western countries and strenuous opposition by Pope John Paul II and other religious leaders. As they feared, the consequences have been that hundreds of thousands have died, millions have fled Iraq or been internally displaced, and most in the ancient Christian communities, over a million, have left the country which has been riven by sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shia.

    Yet many of the very politicians who determined to invade Iraq in the mistaken belief that Saddam posed a threat with nuclear weapons are now plunging us back into this crisis. Former Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, now says he was ‘embarrassed’ that no weapons of mass destruction were found, despite his earlier insistence that they had certain evidence. Australians still do not know how or why the government was so mistaken, and our politicians have failed to make any apology for helping precipitate this long and disastrous war.

    A cynical view might hold that politicians today trailing badly in the polls will readily wrap themselves in the flag of nationalism and embrace a military venture to restore their electoral fortunes. Not surprising the Labor Party is trying not to be wedged on this issue, and is largely endorsing Prime Minister Abbott’s interventions.

    The ‘crusade’ rhetoric

    One of the blunders some western leaders made, especially President George W Bush, was to demonise Saddam’s regime and even talk of a new crusade.

    Tony Abbott talks of a ‘hideous death cult’, a group of ‘ideologues of a new and hideous variety, who don’t just do evil but they exult in doing evil.’ He warned that Australian Muslims would be acting ‘against God’ if they joined IS.

    Our political leaders need to be very careful not to talk of the conflict in terms reminiscent of a crusade, or as a struggle between the forces of outright good and evil. Yes, IS fighters have committed barbarous atrocities against thousands of innocent people, including many women and children. Perpetrators of these crimes need to be brought to justice and tried according to the laws of war as massive human rights abuses. But the perpetrators still remain human beings. Though they have done atrocious acts, they are not the embodiment of Evil.

    This is not a trivial point. A danger is that we in the West would fall into a mentality that depicts IS and similar Islamists groups as ‘pure evil’ or a demonic force that has to be totally eradicated. In the Muslim world, this draws on memories of the crusades with both sides fighting in the name of God against opponents seen as being the forces of anti-God.

    This religious wrapping can also take on non-religious forms, as in the struggle against communism when depicted in extreme forms as a life-or-death struggle against the embodiment of Evil against the forces of Good, the West.

    This was particularly the issue during the Spanish Civil War, when both sides tended to see themselves in terms of absolutes, of Good versus Evil, almost as embodiments of metaphysical forces. With its long history of crusades, Spain appeared particularly vulnerable to this perception, on both sides, and even in parts of the Catholic Church.

    The French political philosophy and activist, Jacques Maritain, called this the ‘crusade mentality’ and blamed it in part for the ferocity and extremism of the Spanish Civil War. If enemies are depicted in terms of ‘total evil’, they are no longer being seen as human beings who still retain human rights when captured and need to be treated humanely. The crusade mentality involves a commitment to total war without compromise or political resolution.

    Maritain denounced any religious legitimation for war, insisting that it risked blasphemy to kill in the name of Christ. His call was taken up strongly by later popes, including Popes John Paul II, Benedict and Francis, reiterating that though a just war is possible, especially to protect innocent people against groups like IS, it must not be seen as a war of religion.

    Pope Francis has appealed to ‘stop the unjust aggressor. I underscore the word “stop”. I don’t say bomb, make war – stop him’, remembering how often powerful nations have dominated others in wars of conquest. In Albania on 21 September he reiterated: ‘No one must use the name of God to commit violence! To kill in the name of God is a grave sacrilege. To discriminate in the name of God is inhuman.’

    No military solution possible

    It is a mistake to think that IS can be defeated simply militarily. Islamic State has emerged from deep disillusionment among disaffected Muslims in crumbling states about the failure of modernising efforts to bring employment and prosperity to their peoples. Instead, it has invented an imaginary future drawn from a supposed golden era of Islam for how Sharia law could usher in an era of peace and justice.

    However its cruelty and atrocities have mobilised the international community against IS. Its beheading and crucifying of opponents have been particularly odious. But do not forget the huge human toll of the invasion of Iraq, followed by systematic use of torture which so disturbed Muslims among many others. The invasion was preceded by the UN sanctions on Saddam’s Iraq that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 500,000 children.

    In addition, foreign intervention exacerbates older notions in Islamic belief that if non–Muslims attack a Muslim country, Muslims elsewhere are required to come to the defence of the realm of Faith and repel invaders. This helps explain why the Islamists are able to attract tens of thousands of overseas Muslims to fight and perhaps die. You can see how counter-productive Australian military intervention in Iraq might be in such a context.

    Instead of rushing into military engagement in Iraq, Australia should be pushing diplomatic initiatives through the United Nations and perhaps supporting an arms embargo. Instead of recently ending our development assistance to Iraq and committing hundreds of millions of dollars to military action, Australia could play a directly humanitarian role funding urgent relief for millions of refugees, and expanding our refugee intake back up to 20,000 instead of the recent reduction down to 13,750.

    It will be up to the wider Muslim community to resolve the Jihadist movements, interpreting the Koran and Muslim traditions for contemporary circumstances in ways that can sustain in peace and justice not just the worldwide Muslim community, but all others as well. These Jihadist groups bring disgrace on themselves and dishonour their faith in the eyes of the world.

    Bruce Duncan is the Director of the Yarra Institute for Religion and Social Policy.