Can Pope Francis' visit to the US influence Canadian election?

For many 'traditional' Catholics, abortion and the right to life have been far and away the largest and most important moral issue for consideration when voting for a candidate in an election - whether Federal, Provincial or, even, municipal. For some, it is the only issue. (Disclaimer: I am pro-life and believe in the sacredness of human life from the moment of conception.)

I have had Catholic friends urging me to vote for a particular candidate because he or she is the only 'pro-lifer' in the field of candidates, never mind that the political party leader has made it abundantly clear that  "We are not going to reopen the abortion debate."

Pope Francis calls for help for refugees

Now, along comes Pope Francis to visit the United States primarily to  attend the World Meeting of Families, though he did not shy away from speaking to American and World politicians when the opportunity arose. While in the States he reiterates repeatedly (tautology intended) the moral imperatives regarding the environment, refugees, the poor, the lowest in society. He hardly ever mentions abortion and when he does, from what I have read, compassion or a synonym is never more than a breath away.

It seems clear to me that any Catholic who is in tune with the Pope and who wants to know where a political party stands on abortion needs also to be asking where that political party stands on the environment, refugees and the poor. An answer in platitudes will just not cut it. What are the numbers, the  dates and the dollars? Dates after 2015 also do not cut it. The need is now, in the next weeks and months.

Go. I urge you. Ask your political parties what they think about Pope Francis' ideas on the environment and refugees. Compare their answers.

Photo credit: Express

How does Stephen Harper's response to the Syrian refugee crisis stack up?

In words that could apply equally to Canadian outgoing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, newspaper columnist, Paddy Ashdown, has ridiculed British Prime Minister David Cameron’s offer for Britain to take 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years saying, "Nothing shows the prime minister’s tone deafness to the urgency of this situation better than this pathetic plan." In The Guardian of Monday, September 7th, Ashdown writes:

"Not only is this response calibrated more by political expediency than compassion, he has also indicated he believes the answer to the problem is more bombing. If the best part of two years of bombing with more than enough high explosive hasn't solved this problem, how would Britain’s widow’s mite of a few extra bombs help? Military strikes against Isis are failing, not because we do not have enough high explosive, but because we do not have a diplomatic strategy on Syria that would make sense of the military action."

I should point out that most of these refugees are not fleeing from ISIS but from the Assad regime! They were in refugee camps before ISIS hit the world news.

To date, the Harper Conservative government has accepted 2,300 Syrian refugees, and Stephen Harper, assuring us that the government is 'seized' with this issue,  has pledged to bring 10,000 more from the Middle East over the next four years if re-elected - just half the number promised by Cameron. The shortfall is in orders of magnitude even for the more 'generous' proposals of Mulcair and Trudeau. Compare against the 1.5 million in Turkey, or the 800,000 who will be accepted by Germany, or the 68,500 who settled in France last year.

Not In My Back Yard

Now here's a thought: The numbers we see fleeing the Syrian conflict will be tiny compared with the population movements we will soon be seeing as global warming compels more and more family crop farmers and cattle and goat herding farmers and nomads to leave their traditional lands and become migrant refugees. These people will not fit the current definition of refugees, let alone have paperwork to help them qualify for immigration anywhere; but Pope Francis is already saying that they are, indeed, environmental refugees.

What we are seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg. Clinging to miserly NIMBY-ism will carry a huge cost. Are there any white, 3rd or 4th generation Canadians who are not here because their forefathers (and mothers) immigrated here in search of a better life? Do we not justifiably hold them in grateful awe for the hardships they endured so that their descendants could have a better life?

Pope Francis on Environmental Refugees

The following is an excerpt from paragraph #25 of the recent encyclical letter, Laudato Si, of Pope Francis (emphasis mine):

...changes in climate, to which animals and plants cannot adapt, lead them to migrate; this in turn affects the livelihood of the poor, who are then forced to leave their homes, with great uncertainty for their future and that of their children. There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation. They are not recognized by international conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.

Dadaab Refugee Camp

This is food for thought when choosing the next government and prime minister of Canada this coming October.
Picture credit: The Telegraph

Poverty in Canada

Just in time for the election campaign, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has published a new resource document titled,  A Church Seeking Justice: The Challenge of Pope Francis to the Church in Canada.

Here is an excerpt from paragraph 25.

Canada is a wealthy country, yet has an ever widening gap between rich and poor. 4.8 million Canadians live in poverty, including 1 million children. In 1989, all parliamentarians committed to ending child poverty in Canada. Today, 1 in 7 children lives this reality, with 4 in 10 Indigenous children living in poverty. Current levels of poverty cost us billions of dollars in terms of increased health and social services costs and severely damage the fabric of our society as a whole. Why does a wealthy country like Canada not dedicate more of its resources to reducing poverty? Provinces like Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador have adopted poverty reduction plans; should we not have a national poverty reduction strategy?

 An important point here is that there is a cost to poverty. You pay to eliminate it or you pay not to!

A Church Seeking Justice: The Challenge of Pope Francis to the Church in Canada. The Episcopal Commission for Justice and Peace of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2015. Para. 25.