IF THE WORLD WERE A VILLAGE OF 100 PEOPLE

IF THE WORLD WERE A VILLAGE OF 100 PEOPLE

click on image to enlarge

In the world today, more than 7 billion people live.
If this world were shrunk to the size of a village of 100 people, what would it look like?

61 would be Asian
12 would be American (North, Central and South)
13 would be African
12 would be European
1 would be from the South Pacific

52 would be women, 48 would be men
30 would be children, 70 would be adults.
70 would be non-white, 30 would be white
90 would be heterosexual, 10 would be homosexual

47 would live  in an urban area

9 would be handicapped

33 would be Christians
18 would be Moslems
14 would be Hindus
6   would be Buddhists
13 would believe in other religions
14 would be without any religion or atheist.

17 would speak Chinese, Mandarin
9 English
8 Hindi
6 Spanish
5 Russian
4 Arabic
The other would speak Mongolian, Portuguese, Indonesian, Japanese,

German, French or some other language.

In such a village with so many sorts of folks, it would be very important to learn to understand people different from yourself and to accept others as they are. Of the 100 people in this village:

20 are undernourished
1 is dying of starvation, while 15 are overweight.
Of the wealth in this village, 6 people own 59% (all of them from the United States), 74 people own 39%, and 20 people share the remaining 2%.
Of the energy of this village, 20 people consume 80%, and 80 people share the remaining 20%.
18 have no clean, safe water to drink.
56 have access to sanitation
14 adults are illiterate.
1 has an university degree.
7 have computers. 4 have internet service

In one year, 1 person in the village will die, but in the same year, 2 babies will be born, so that at the year's end the number of villagers will be 101.

If you do not live in fear of death by bombardment, armed attack, landmines, or of rape or kidnapping by armed groups, then you are more fortunate than 20, who do.

If you can speak and act according to your faith and your conscience without harassment, imprisonment, torture or death, then you are more fortunate than 48, who can not.

If you have money in the bank, money in your wallet and spare change somewhere around the house, then you are among the richest 8.

If you can read this message, that means you are probably lucky!


(The original statistics were derived from Donella Meadows "State of the Village Report" first published in 1990)

See the video at Youtube: http://www.catholica.com.au/video/

Secularism and Catholic Education

During his recent state sponsored visit to Germany Pope Benedict XVI once again warned about the spreading danger of secularism.  A favourite topic of his and one he likes to promote wherever he can find a world audience. including the annual World Youth conference in Spain last August.  Similar dire warnings are often repeated by many of his self appointed and loyal officials such as Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins.  Speaking at the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association conference in Ottawa Sept. 23 Collins decided to heighten the hype by referring to secularism as something we are now “marinated” in.

Secularism: the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries(see Wikipedia).

The opposite of secularism can be found in a theocratic nation which is run under the direct control or of a particular or chosen religious institution.  Theocracy   exists in many countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.  It is well known that many of these theocratic nations are found to be responsible for many horrific human abuses. However, that is not to say that a theocratic State could not be run free of such abuses.

In the Western world most countries have adopted the separation of State and church or religion. But here follows the importance of such legislation. While separation of church and state prevents the State from supporting any religion or from interfering with it also obliges religion to leave the public sphere open to all.  When both sides respect the boundaries, secularism provides a framework for freedom of conscience, tolerance and democracy.  Secularism does not guarantee human rights but it helps make them possible.  But as long as the world religions are unable to dialogue and find peace among them there will be no peace in the world (Hans Kung) .

When the Vatican talks about Secularism it seems to be suggest “there is only one true religion and that is Roman rule or Catholicism as narrowly defined by Pope Benedict XVI”.  Remember Benedict has indicated on many occasions that he wants a smaller church – a church that is based on strict orthodoxy (absolutism) and considers all other religions as inferior. In an effort to blame its problems on modernism, relativism and secularism Benedict continues to block the progress and enthusiasm that was generated by Vatican II.  It has effectively stifled any progress on further ecumenism.

Secularism is a thorn in the side of the church when it comes to Catholic Education particularly when such education is publically funded.  Archbishop Collins speaking to Catholic educators stressed that in order for Catholic education to be fervently Catholic “we need to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of our schools. But what he failed to mention was that this requires an absolute obedience to Church teachings – even at the expense of one’s higher and informed conscience. 

Traditionalists must not forget  that the Catholic school system in Ontario is now also supported by those so-called ‘secular ’ tax payers most (90%) of whom also believe in God. Not all Catholics have a problem with this and many more would like to see a more inclusive approach to religion one that includes dialogue with other faiths. Being followers of Christ is not about belonging to some exclusive club. Jesus did not limit his teaching/healing to people of his Jewish background.  Catholics are not prevented from exercising their individual rights thanks largely in part to the separation of church and state. A Catholic, who chooses not to enter into a same-sex marriage, obtain an abortion, etc., is free to do so. However, that same individual must respect the right of others to choose otherwise. Jesus referred to this as rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Catholics are free to teach their respective ethics and morals. However, they must also respect the individual rights of others. They cannot be enforced on all. Remember slavery and the death penalty were at one time promoted in many Christian countries.  Our faith is a free gift from God and has nothing to do with what others do or believe.

The future of Catholic education does not depend on promoting strict Catholic orthodoxy but to paraphrase Pope John XXIII opening windows that will embrace the Spirit of inclusion and finding God in all people and all faiths.  This could also mean finding God in where people are – not where we would have them be.  Such a change is the very dynamic of the Holy Spirit.  Yes, this could be a serious blow to many Traditionalists but the Roman Church must no longer use old wine skins to solve the problems of today.  Jesus meets us in the here and now – not in the yesterday, not in the tomorrow.

Bishop Collins, administrators and the various users of the Catholic School system cannot ignore the fact when such schools are publically funded it includes many of those dreaded secularist.  Finally, it is hoped that the the real 'treasure' of Catholicism will be found in the ordinary people, the laity and the secular supporters who are already fully prepared to work for such a change.   

Finally, some readers may be asking "Should Catholic schools take in children of other faiths"?  For a thoughtfull opinion on this question please refer to the article ' When are Catholic schools no longer Catholic?' as it appeared in a recent edition of 'The Tablet' a U.K. based weekly magazine for Catholics - click here.   

A Dangerous Cult




Fr. Jurgen Wegner, Bishop Bernard Fellay and Fr. Thomas Rosica

  Salt + Light Television is a Canadian Roman Catholic organization dedicated to bringing light to the world with a strong focus on the teachings of the Church. Rev. Thomas Rosica, CSB, is the CEO responsible for launching this network in 2003. Visitors to their online site will be surprised to find a program headlining an interview conducted by Fr. Rosica, in 2009 with Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX superior general of the Traditionalist Catholic Society of St. Pius X. This organization is the extremely controversial Catholic movement originally founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. This group took the lead in opposing the changes within the Church associated with the Second Vatican Council. In 1988 Pope John Paul II ordered Lefebvre and his supporting bishops to be excommunicated for consecrating bishops against the direct orders of the Holy See. In 2009, Benedict XVI temporarily lifted the excommunication.

The dialogue between Fr. Rosica and Bishop Bernard belies the huge and undeniable gulf in beliefs that exists between these two Catholic religions. Fr. Rosica’s promise to inform Roman Catholics in Canada of this matter falls painfully short on many key issues which were completely ignored or avoided.

For example, SSPX is totally opposed to any changes introduced by Vatican II. Claiming "it was hijacked by the liberal elements within the Church” and it therefore contains “adulterated Catholic teaching”. Collegiality as introduced by the Council is rejected by SSPX "because it tampers with the divine constitution of the Church”. At the same time SSPX is opposed to religious liberty after ‘freedom of conscience’ was given primacy over dogma and doctrine through Vatican II. SSPX clearly favours Catholic exclusivism and therefore rejects all attempts towards ecumenism. Not surprisingly they therefore clearly reject mixed marriages. At the same time it also rejects application of Sacrament of Anointing the Sick to non-Catholics. Perhaps the greatest scandal for the Catholic Church and insult to many Jews is the nagging question “is the Society of St. Pius X anti-Semitic?” to which Bishop Fellay responded “by no means! Nothing could be further from the truth. A simply visit to the Society’s website will quickly reveal the real answers.

At no time during the interview was mention made of the persecution of the Jews during the Inquisition. 

To this day SSPX holds that:

• no blame attaches to the Church for her behaviour towards heresy in those rude days

• the Inquisition was entrusted to the finest flowers of the clergy of the era.

• the occasional executions of heretics during this period must be ascribed partly to the arbitrary action of individual rulers, partly to the fanatic outbreaks of the overzealous populace

• the secret examination of witnesses and consequent official indictment procedure was common to all courts from the time of Innocent III.

• torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth

• On the whole, the Inquisition was humanely conducted

Finally, SSPX considers following points introduced by Vatican II defective:

• diminution in censures (excommunication of freemasons, etc.),

• the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas is no longer strictly enjoined in seminaries (canons 251ff),

• general absolutions are more readily available (canons 961-963, etc.).

• the theory of evolution is atheistic and has not been proven as fact.

• Cremation is brutal, as if the fire was doing violence to the body, and, through the body it consumes, to the spouse, children, relatives, and friends.

Fr. Rosica owes it to his followers to reveal the real truth behind what can only be called a dangerous cult. 

CULT. Def. followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices. or  a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre

On Religious Unity

Many of today’s religions demand that its followers subscribe to an established tradition and belief system. Should a member raise questions or fail to meet the necessary membership requirements he or she could be quickly admonished, silenced, branded a heretic or even excommunicated. Followers are therefore encouraged to avoid speaking out publically so as not to cause possible ‘embarrassment’ or ‘shame’ to the community. History is full of painful examples of what happens to those who disagree within a religious establishment. To give the reader a better understanding of what I am trying to explain, allow me to ask one simple question: has anyone ever been condemned for liking or disliking a particular piece of music? To appreciate a piece of music must I subscribe to a particular and preset order of definitions under which I must like that music? If I like Mozart and my best friend likes Jazz should we stop getting together? If I experience God most acutely through nature and my partner finds God easier through inspirational text should we divorce? Perhaps this analogy is a little too simple, but on the other hand why are our differing understandings so important when it comes to religion? Has it to do with our understanding of God or has it to do with our understanding of religion?

Some religious leaders see their primary role as enforcers of religious purity. These individuals are so bent on protecting and imposing their established tradition and belief system that no other views may be explored or discussed. In fact, some church leaders recently openly denied some members access to communion in the interest of “unity within the church”. For me this just doesn’t fit the model presented by Jesus himself.

If “communion implies unity with the church” then Jesus too would have to be excluded from the Catholic Church. Jesus clearly broke with established Tradition again and again as is evidenced throughout the Gospel stories. Have I been mistaken in believing that Jesus came to unite people regardless of race, colour or creed? Was I wrong in thinking that Jesus is more concerned with our hearts than what is dictated by man? Am I in error to believe that Jesus would deny himself to me if I don’t subscribe to apostolic succession, forced celibacy, non acceptance of female clergy and gay or married priests, etc.? Should I refrain from communion because I do not practice birth control, believe that condoms are a viable option for those stricken and/or exposed to aids and living in poverty in Africa? Should I avoid communion because my heart does not always agree with the dictates of the Church? Must I be denied communion because I pose questions that may be contrary to Tradition, dogma or doctrine?

I often wonder what our Saints think about institutional religion especially those who tried to bring change to the church but were condemned, jailed or excommunicated by the same church that later made them Saints. Similarly I think about the apostles and their immediate followers who did not have access to a church, were not exposed to any dogma or doctrine, yet they did not always agree with one another – did Jesus refuse his presence to them also?

Do we truly believe that for Jesus the word ‘unity’ meant conformity? Unity to me means ‘bringing together through diversity’! The world's religious institutions need to learn the true meaning of ecumenism and trust in the mystery of our unknowable and indefinable God!