Categoria: Idiomas

To preserve Pope Francis’ singular perspective: holistic ecology

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

Pope Francis has effected enormous change in the ecological discourse by moving from environmental ecology to holistic ecology. Holistic ecology includes socio-political, mental, cultural, educational, ethical, and spiritual ecology. The danger exists that this holistic vision may be assimilated into the usual environmental discourse, without noticing that all things, knowledge, and events are interrelated. That is, global warming results from industrial excesses, the poverty of large portions of humanity is related to the means of production, distribution and consumption, violence against the Earth and her ecosystems derives from the paradigm of domination that has underlain the predominant civilization for four centuries already, anthropocentrism is a consequence of the illusory belief that we own all things and that they only have meaning to the degree that they serve our pleasure.

That cosmology (groupings of ideas, values, projects, dreams and institutions) moves Pope Francis to say: “never have we offended and mistreated our Common Home as we have done in the last two centuries” (nº 53).

How can we overcome that dangerous path? Answers the Pope: “by changing direction,” and still more, with the disposition to “delineate great paths of dialogue that help us emerge from the spiral of self-destruction in which we are submerging ourselves (163). If we do nothing, we could encounter the worst. But the Pope trusts in the creative capacity of humans, who together will be able to formulate the great ideal: “a single world in a common project” (164).

The prevailing imperial vision of those who control the finances and destinies of world politics is very different: “Only one world and only one empire”.

To address the many critical aspects of our situation the Pope proposes holistic ecology. And he gives it the right foundation: “Given that all are intimately related and that the present problems require a vision that takes into account all the factors of the world crisis, I propose that we stop now to think of the different aspects of a holistic ecology that clearly incorporates the human and social dimensions” (137).

The theoretical proposal derives from the new cosmology, quantum physics, and the new biology, in a word, from the contemporary paradigm deriving from the theory of complexity and chaos (destructive and generative). Along those lines, Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum physics, would repeat: “all has to do with all, at all points and in all moments; all is relationship and nothing exists outside of the relationship”.

The Pope repeats this innumerable times, forming the tonus firmus of his statements. We find in nº 92 what is surely the most beautiful and poetic of his formulations: “All is related, and all human beings are together as brothers and sisters in a marvelous pilgrimage, intertwined by the love that God has for each and every one of His creatures and that also binds us, with tender love, to Brother Sun, to Sister Moon, to Brother River and to Mother Earth”.

That vision has existed for almost a century already, but could never insert itself into politics or the field of social and human problems. We all continue as hostages of the old paradigm that isolates problems and seeks a specific solution for each, without realizing that a solution for one can magnify another problem. For example, the problem of the soils’ infertility is addressed with chemical nutrients that, once used, penetrate the Earth into the water tables and aquifers, poisoning them.

The encyclical can serve as an educational instrument to help us make our own that inclusive and holistic vision. For example, as the encyclical affirms: “When one speaks of the «environment» particular mention is made of the relationship that exists between nature and the society that inhabits it. This makes us understand nature as something apart from us, or merely as the framework for our life. But we are included in her, we are part of nature” (139).

And it continues, giving us convincing examples: “The present analysis of the environmental problems is inseparable from the analysis of the human, family, labor, urban contexts, and the relationship of each person with him or herself, that creates a certain mode of relating with others and with the environment” [115].

If everything is relationship, then human health itself depends of the health of the Earth and her ecosystems. All events are intertwined, for better or worse. That is the texture of reality, neither opaque nor level, but complex and highly interrelated.

If we thought of our national problems as the interplay of inter-retro-relationships, we would not have so many contradictions between ministries and governmental actions. Pope Francis suggests paths that are certain and can free us from the anxious state in which we now find ourselves, facing our common future.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was right when he wrote in the 1930s: “the era of nation-states has already passed. The task before us, if we don’t perish, is to build the Earth.” Caring for the Earth with tender and fraternal affection in the spirit of Saint Francis of Assisi and Francis of Rome, we can continue “walking and singing” as the encyclical ends, filled with hope.

We still have a future, and we will shine.

Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU

To preserve Pope Francis’ singular perspective: holistic ecology

Leonardo Boff1 comentário

Pope Francis has effected enormous change in the ecological discourse by moving from environmental ecology to holistic ecology. Holistic ecology includes socio-political, mental, cultural, educational, ethical, and spiritual ecology. The danger exists that this holistic vision may be assimilated into the usual environmental discourse, without noticing that all things, knowledge, and events are interrelated. That is, global warming results from industrial excesses, the poverty of large portions of humanity is related to the means of production, distribution and consumption, violence against the Earth and her ecosystems derives from the paradigm of domination that has underlain the predominant civilization for four centuries already, anthropocentrism is a consequence of the illusory belief that we own all things and that they only have meaning to the degree that they serve our pleasure.

That cosmology (groupings of ideas, values, projects, dreams and institutions) moves Pope Francis to say: “never have we offended and mistreated our Common Home as we have done in the last two centuries” (nº 53).

How can we overcome that dangerous path? Answers the Pope: “by changing direction,” and still more, with the disposition to “delineate great paths of dialogue that help us emerge from the spiral of self-destruction in which we are submerging ourselves (163). If we do nothing, we could encounter the worst. But the Pope trusts in the creative capacity of humans, who together will be able to formulate the great ideal: “a single world in a common project” (164).

The prevailing imperial vision of those who control the finances and destinies of world politics is very different: “Only one world and only one empire”.

To address the many critical aspects of our situation the Pope proposes holistic ecology. And he gives it the right foundation: “Given that all are intimately related and that the present problems require a vision that takes into account all the factors of the world crisis, I propose that we stop now to think of the different aspects of a holistic ecology that clearly incorporates the human and social dimensions” (137).

The theoretical proposal derives from the new cosmology, quantum physics, and the new biology, in a word, from the contemporary paradigm deriving from the theory of complexity and chaos (destructive and generative). Along those lines, Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum physics, would repeat: “all has to do with all, at all points and in all moments; all is relationship and nothing exists outside of the relationship”.

The Pope repeats this innumerable times, forming the tonus firmus of his statements. We find in nº 92 what is surely the most beautiful and poetic of his formulations: “All is related, and all human beings are together as brothers and sisters in a marvelous pilgrimage, intertwined by the love that God has for each and every one of His creatures and that also binds us, with tender love, to Brother Sun, to Sister Moon, to Brother River and to Mother Earth”.

That vision has existed for almost a century already, but could never insert itself into politics or the field of social and human problems. We all continue as hostages of the old paradigm that isolates problems and seeks a specific solution for each, without realizing that a solution for one can magnify another problem. For example, the problem of the soils’ infertility is addressed with chemical nutrients that, once used, penetrate the Earth into the water tables and aquifers, poisoning them.

The encyclical can serve as an educational instrument to help us make our own that inclusive and holistic vision. For example, as the encyclical affirms: “When one speaks of the «environment» particular mention is made of the relationship that exists between nature and the society that inhabits it. This makes us understand nature as something apart from us, or merely as the framework for our life. But we are included in her, we are part of nature” (139).

And it continues, giving us convincing examples: “The present analysis of the environmental problems is inseparable from the analysis of the human, family, labor, urban contexts, and the relationship of each person with him or herself, that creates a certain mode of relating with others and with the environment” [115].

If everything is relationship, then human health itself depends of the health of the Earth and her ecosystems. All events are intertwined, for better or worse. That is the texture of reality, neither opaque nor level, but complex and highly interrelated.

If we thought of our national problems as the interplay of inter-retro-relationships, we would not have so many contradictions between ministries and governmental actions. Pope Francis suggests paths that are certain and can free us from the anxious state in which we now find ourselves, facing our common future.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was right when he wrote in the 1930s: “the era of nation-states has already passed. The task before us, if we don’t perish, is to build the Earth.” Caring for the Earth with tender and fraternal affection in the spirit of Saint Francis of Assisi and Francis of Rome, we can continue “walking and singing” as the encyclical ends, filled with hope.

We still have a future, and we will shine.

Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU..

The Magna Carta of holistc Ecology: cry of the Earth/ cry of the poor

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

Before engaging in commentary, is worth noting a few features of Pope Francis’ encyclical letter, Laudato sí’.

This is the first time a Pope had discussed ecology as holistic ecology (because it goes beyond the environment) in such a complete form. Great surprise: he develops the theme within a new ecological paradigm, something that no official document of the UN has yet done. He backs up his discourse with the best data from the life and Earth sciences. He reads the data properly (with sensible or cordial intelligence), because he discerns that beneath them lie human dramas and also much suffering on the part of Mother Earth. The present situation is grave, but Pope Francis always finds reasons for hope and a confidence that humans will find viable solutions. He connects with John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the Popes who preceded him, quoting them frequently. And there is something absolutely new: his text is written collegially, because it values the contributions of scores of Episcopal Conferences from around the world, from the Episcopal Conference of the United States to the those of Germany, Brazil, Patagonia-Comahue, and Paraguay. He also welcomes the contributions of other thinkers, such as the Catholics Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Romano Guardini, Dante Alighieri, his Argentinean teacher Juan Carlos Scannone, the Protestant Paul Ricoeur and the Moslem Sufi Ali Al-Khawwas. It is addressed to all of humanity, because we all inhabit the same Common Home (a term the Pope often uses), and we all endure the same threats.

Pope Francis writes not as a Teacher and Doctor of the faith, but as a zealous Pastor who cares for the Common Home and for all the beings, not just the human ones, that inhabit her.

One aspect is worth noting, in that it reveals Pope Francis’ forma mentis (the way he organizes his thinking). It derives from the pastoral and theological experience of the Latin American churches, that in light of the documents of the Latin American Bishops (CELAM) of Medellín (1968), Puebla (1979) and Aparecida (2007), undertook an option for the poor; against poverty and for liberation.

The text and tone of the encyclical are typical of Pope Francis and the accumulated ecological culture, but I notice also that many expressions and forms of speech belong to the thinking and writings principally found in Latin America. The «Common Home», «Mother Earth», the «cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor», «caring», the «interdependence among all beings», the «poor and vulnerable», the «change of paradigm», the «human being as Earth» who feels, thinks, loves and venerates, of the «holistic ecology» and others, are recurrent themes among us.

The structure of the encyclical follows the methodology used by our churches and the theological reflection linked to the practice of liberation, now assumed and consecrated by the Pope: see, judge, act and celebrate.

The Pope starts by revealing his primary inspiration: Saint Francis of Assisi, whom he calls an «example par excellence of caring and of holistic ecology, and who gave special attention to the poorest and abandoned.» (nº 10 y 66).

And then he starts with seeing: «What is happening in our home» (17-61). The Pope says: «it is enough to view reality with sincerity to see that there is great damage to our Common Home» (61). In this section he incorporates the most reliable data related to climate change (20-22), the issue of water (27-31), the erosion of biodiversity (32-42), the deterioration of the quality of human life and degradation of social life (43-47). He denounces the extreme global inequality, that affects all aspects of life (48-52), the poor being the principal victims (48).

In this part there is a phrase that refers us to a reflection done in Latin America: «But now we cannot help but recognize that a true ecological plan always becomes a social plan that must incorporate justice into debates about the environment so as to hear the cry of the Earth as well as the cry of the poor» (49). Then he adds: «the moan of sister Earth joins the wail of the abandoned of the world» (53). This is absolutely coherent, because at the beginning he said that «we are Earth» (2; cf. Gn 2,7), very much in line with the great Indigenous Argentinean singer and poet Atahualpa Yupanqui: «the human being is Earth that walks, feels, thinks and loves».

He condemns the proposal to internationalize the Amazon because it «would only serve multinational economic interests» (38). He makes a proclamation of great ethical value: «it is a very grave inequity to obtain important benefits by forcing the rest of humanity, present and future, to bear the cost, through the extremely high level of environmental degradation» (36).

With sadness he recognizes that: «never before had we mistreated and damaged our Common Home as we have done in the last two centuries» (53). In the face of this human offensive against Mother Earth that many scientists have denounced as inaugurating a new geological era –the antrophocene– he laments the weakness of the powers of this world that, mistakenly, «think that everything can continue as it is» as an excise to «maintain their self-destructive habits» (59) with «behavior that appears suicidal» (55).

Prudently, Pope Francis recognizes the diversity of opinions (nn 60-61) and that «there is not just one unique solution» (60). Even so «it is true that the world system is unsustainable from diverse points of view because we no longer think of the consequences of human action» (61) and we get lost in the construction of means directed at unlimited accumulation at the price of ecological injustice (degradation of the ecosystems) and of social injustice (impoverishment of the populations). Humanity, simply, «has betrayed divine expectations» (61).

The urgent challenge, then, consists of «protecting our Common Home» (13); And to that end we need, quoting Pope John Paul II: «a global ecological conversion» (5); «a culture of caring that pervades the whole society» (231).

Having considered the dimension of seeing, is important now to examine the dimension of judging. Judging is addressed from two viewpoints, scientific and theological.

Let’s examine the scientific. The encyclical devotes the entire third chapter to analyzing «the human roots of the ecological crisis» (101-136). Here the Pope proposes to analyze techno-science without prejudice, acknowledging that it has brought «really valuable things to improve humanity’s quality of life» (103). But this is not the problem. Rather, it became independent, subjugating the economy, politics and nature to the accumulation of material goods (cf. 109). Techno-science begins from a mistaken assumption about the «infinite availability of the planet’s resources» (106), when we know that we have already reached the physical limits of the Earth and that a great part of its goods and services are not renewable. Techno-science has become technocracy, a true dictatorship with its iron logic of domination over everything and everyone (108).

The great illusion, now prevalent, lies in believing that with technocracy all the ecological problems can be solved. This is a misleading idea because it «implies isolating things that are always connected» (111). In reality, «all is related» (117) «all is in relationship» (120), an affirmation that runs throughout the text of the encyclical as a ritornello, for it is a key concept of the new contemporary paradigm. The great limit of technocracy lies in the fact that it «fragments knowledge and loses the meaning of the whole» (110). Worse still is «not recognizing the proper value of each being and even denying the special value of the human being» (n.118).

The intrinsic value of each being, no matter how minuscule, is permanently enshrined in the encyclical (69), as in the Earthcharter. Denying that intrinsic value denies the opportunity for «each being to communicate its message and give glory to God» (33).

The main deviation produced by technocracy is anthropocentrism. It falsely supposes that things have value only to the degree that they are useful to humans, forgetting that their existence has value in and of itself (33). If it is true that everything is related, then «we human beings are together as brothers and sisters and are united with tender affection to brother Sun, sister Moon, brother River and Mother Earth» (92). How can we strive to dominate them, and view them through the narrow scope of domination?

All the «ecological virtues» (88) are lost by the desire for power, seen as the domination of the others and of nature. We are experiencing a painful «loss of the meaning of life and the will to live together» (110). He quotes several times Italo-German theologian Romano Guardini (1885-1968), one of the most read thinkers of the mid XX century, who wrote a book critical of the pretensions of modernity (105 note 83: Das Ende der Neuzeit, The End of the Modern World, 1958).

The other type of judging is theological. The encyclical devotes much space to the «Gospel of Creation» (62-100). In part justifying the contribution of the religions and of Christianity, because since the crisis is global, each one, with its religious capital, must contribute to caring for the Earth, (62). He does not concentrate on doctrine, but on the wisdom present in the different spiritual paths. Christianity prefers to talk of creation rather than nature, because «creation has to do with a project of love from God» (76). He quotes, more than once. a beautiful text from the book of Wisdom (11,24) where it clearly appears that «the creation belongs to the order of love» (77) and that God is “the Lord who loves life” (Sab 11,26).

The text is open to an evolutionary vision of the universe, without using the term. It engages in circumlocution when referring to the universe as «composed of open systems that enter into communion, one with another» (79). He uses the principal texts that link the incarnated and resurrected Christ with the world and with all of the universe, making matter and the entire Earth sacred (83). And in this context, Pope Francis quotes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955; nº 83 note 53), as the precursor of this cosmic vision.

A consequence of the fact that God-Trinity is a relationship of divine Persons is that all things in relationships are resonant of the divine Trinity (240).

Quoting Bartholomew I of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, he «recognizes that sins against creation are sins against God» (7). Hence the urgency of a collective ecological conversion to restore the lost harmony.

The encyclical concludes this part with certitude: «the analysis showed the need for a change of course… we must get out of the spiral of self-destruction into which we are now sinking» (163). It is not about reform, but, quoting the Earthcharter, about searching for «a new beginning» (207). The interdependency of everything leads us to think «of a single world with a common project» (164).

Since there are multiple aspects to reality, all intimately related, Pope Francis proposes a holistic ecology that goes beyond the environmental ecology to which we are accustomed, (137). Holistic ecology covers all fields, the environment, economy, social, cultural, and daily life (147-148). The encyclical never forgets the poor whose living links of belonging and solidarity with one another are a testament to their form of human and social ecology, (149).

The third methodological step is to act. In this part, the encyclical touches the great themes of international, national and local politics (164-181). He emphasizes the interdependence of the social and educational with the ecological, and with sadness, confirms the difficulties caused by the predominance of technology, impeding the changes that could restrain the voracity of accumulation and consumption, and inaugurate a new paradigm, (141). He retakes the theme that the economy and politics must serve the common good, and create the conditions for a possible human plenitude (189-198). Again he insists on a dialogue between science and religion, as suggested by the great biologist Edward O. Wilson (cf. the book, Creation: how to save life in the Earth, 2008). All religions «must seek to care for nature and to defend the poor» (201).

Also in the aspect of acting he challenges education to create an «ecological citizenry» (211) and a new life style, based on caring, compassion, shared sobriety, an alliance between humanity and the environment, because they are inextricably linked, the joint responsibility for all that exists and lives, and for our common destiny (203-208).

Finally, the moment to celebrate. The celebration is realized in a context of «ecological conversion» (216) that implies an «ecological spirituality» (216). This spirituality derives not so much from theological doctrines as from the motivation elicited by faith to care for the Common Home and «to nourish a passion for caring for the world» (216). This experience precedes a mysticism that mobilizes people to live an ecological equilibrium, «the interior with itself, the solidarian with the others, the natural with all the living beings and the spiritual with God» (210). That «less is more» and that we can be happy with little then appears to be the truth.

In the context of celebration, «the world is something more than a problem to be resolved, it is a delightful mystery we contemplate with joyful praise» (12).

The tender and fraternal spirit of Saint Francis of Assisi runs through the entire text of the encyclical Laudato sí’. The present situation does not call for an announcement of tragedy, but a challenge, that we may care for our Common Home and for others. There is in the text a lightness, poetry and joy in the Spirit and the indestructible hope that if the threat is great, greater still is the opportunity to solve our ecological problems.

He ends poetically “Beyond the sun” with these words: «Let’s walk singing. May our struggles and concern for this planet not deprive us of the joy of hope» (244).

I would like to end with the final words of the Earthcharter that Pope Francis also quotes (207): «May our times be remembered for awaking a new reverence for life, for the firm resolution to reach sustainability, for accelerating the struggle for justice and peace, and for the joyful celebration of life».
Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU..

That which is right vs. the political right

Leonardo Boff3 Comentários

 

I think that in trying to overcome the present crisis (if that is possible) two factors must be seriously considered. Otherwise we risk losing everything that we hope for: these are, the collapse of the capitalist order and the limits of the Earth that cannot be exceeded. Naturally this relies on hypotheses, but I believe they are well founded.

The first fact: the capitalist system has begun to collapse, which means it has reached its end in two ways: its end in the sense that it has achieved its fundamental purpose: to accumulate private wealth up to extreme limits. As Thomas Piketty wrote in Capital in the XXI Century: «the few who are on top tend to appropriate a great portion of the national wealth». Today that tendency is not only national, but global.

The data varies from year to year, but in short, they are: that an ever smaller group has and controls the better part of the world’s wealth. According to data from the well respected Zurich Federal Polytechnic School, ETH, there are now 737 actors that control nearly 80% of the world’s financial cash flow. Soon there will be even fewer of these actors.

But here, end also means end, as in collapse and final outcome. The agony may be prolonged, because it uses thousands of stratagems to perpetuate itself, but the crisis is inevitably terminal. Capitalism has reached its apex, and cannot go any further; worse yet, capitalism has nothing more to offer, except perhaps more of the same, namely, that which provoked the current crisis: its limitless voracity.

As it happens, capitalism has surpassed the physical limitations of the Earth; the depletion of the natural goods is such that nature no longer has the required conditions for self reproduction. When pursuing its internal logic capitalism can become biocide, ecocide and in the end, geocide. Since it can no longer reproduce itself, capitalism turns on itself, accumulating with ever more fury, via financial speculation: money making money. Their motto continues the same, the perverse, “greed is good”. So what if humanity, nature and the future of the next generations are damaged.

If we want to overcome the crisis in Brazil by following that logic, we are choosing the path to the abyss. Soon we all will experience in our own flesh the meaning of Sören Kirkegaard’s metaphor: the clown asked the spectators to help him put out the fire consuming the curtains behind the theater. Everyone laughed and applauded because they thought it was part of the show. No one listened to the clown until the fire had burned down the whole theater and all who were inside, and even the surrounding area.

The second estimate, almost always absent from conventional economic analysts, is the gravely ill state of planet Earth. The acceleration of productivity is rapidly destroying the physical-chemical bases that sustain life, besides causing a terrifying erosion of the biodiversity (nearly one hundred thousand species, according to E. Wilson, disappear every year), and the unstoppable global warming, whose greenhouse gases have reached the highest levels in 800,000 years. With 2 degrees centigrade rise in the temperature we can still manage the biosphere. However, if we do nothing, starting now, as the Northamerican Society of Scientists affirmed in 2002, even in this century we could experience “abrupt warming”. This could reach 4-6 degrees centigrade more. At that temperature, the scientific community warns, many known forms of life could not subsists and a great part of humanity would be gravely affected, with millions of victims.

How to get out of this impasse? Perhaps no one has the ability to offer a really viable alternative, since there is a dimension that goes beyond Brazil, because is global. But it behooves us, the intellectuals, to reflect, to warn and to urge concrete measures. It is our ethical imperative.

My crystal ball suggests three paths:

The first, facing the gravity of the crisis, would be to create a minimum consensus, supra-partisan, that may include progressive members of the parliament, labor unions, enterprises, intellectuals, NGOs, churches and street people around a minimum Brazil project founded on principles and values assumed by all (surely a political, tributary reform and a strong investment in agro-ecology will be demanded). I estimate that the leadership of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva would still be strong enough to head this proposal. The Government of President Itamar Franco, that followed the crisis of President Fernando Collor de Mello, could serve as an inspiring reference point.

The second would be to build a broad and vigorous front of progressive parties, labor unions and other groups and progressive intellectuals to confront the strong advances of the political right with its neoliberal politics associated with the world-project under the leadership of the main countries. The right has no consistent social concern, because is interested only in growth, via the GNP, that favors the owner classes and the banks, leaving the poor where the poor always have been, on the periphery.

Once again I estimate that the most adequate figure to bring together this progressive front would be former President Lula. But its direction would be pluralist and not personalized. The convergence in diversity would not annul the singularity of the political parties and of the groups that have their own identities and histories. But facing a general danger, they must see the particular in function of the universal.

The third path would be that the Labor Party, PT, engaged in a rigorous self-criticism (it has not done that until now), to re-work itself internally, strengthening the bonds of its power with the social movements, as rapidly as possible politicizing the bases and offering a new agenda complementary of the first, whose basic themes would be the infrastructure of health, education, transportation, urbanization of the favelas, political, tributary and agrarian reforms, among other pieces.

But I see that the wearing down of the PT, caused by a handful of traitors and thieves who have shamed more than a million members and demoralized the country in its own eyes and those of the world, makes this path fragile, perhaps even ineffective.

Through these means we should be able to overcome the perplexity, the feelings of impotence, and build some hope that there still are solutions. In any event, what really matters in overcoming any crisis are these three things, the true Trinity of a healthy economy that goes beyond a large or small GNP: employment, salaries and the social promotion of the bases. That is what will guarantee the survival of the majority and create a bearable order.

In any case, we must confront the political right that proposes preposterous and undemocratic solutions, with that which is truly right. We must not accept that democratic rights be destroyed, because history has shown that the political right does not have a serious commitment to democracy; the political right is not afraid to break the rules in order to protect its interests.

As far as we are concerned, we cannot desist in the search for what is best for our country, above and beyond any differences and disagreements that may exist. The common good must prevail over any individual good.
Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU..