giovedì 30 novembre 2023

COP28 : AN OVERVIEW OF UN CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT


Ahead of the COP28 in Dubai, running from 30 November to 12 December, we offer a general overview of the United Nations climate change conferences and their outcomes.



À Dubaï, coup d’envoi de la COP des ambitions

UNO/COP28: Kinderrecht auf einen nachhaltigen Planeten garantieren

By Vatican News

COP (Conference of the Parties) is the supreme decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was adopted in 1992 at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), known as the “Earth Summit”, held in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) shortly after the first assessment report issued in 1990 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The panel includes the world’s leading climate scientists, who in the past decades have provided policymakers with regular, comprehensive, and authoritative scientific assessments on climate science knowledge, and specifically on the link between climate change and human activities, building on the work of thousands of scientists worldwide.

Based on the first IPCC Report, the 1992 UN Convention established an international environmental treaty to combat "dangerous human interference with the climate system", in part by stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, though it did not bind signatories to reduce emissions and gave no targets or timetables for doing so. However, it required frequent meetings between the ratifying countries, known as the above-mentioned Conferences of the Parties.

The Convention was originally signed by 154 states. As of 2023, it has been ratified by 198 countries.

Since entering into force in 1994, the UNFCCC has provided the basis for international climate negotiations. Since 1995, when the first COP was held in Berlin (Germany), Parties have met every year to measure progress and negotiate multilateral responses to climate change.

Two landmark agreements

Negotiations have resulted in two landmark agreements: the Kyoto Protocol (1997) requiring developed countries to reduce emissions, and the Paris Agreement (2015), in which, after 25 years of difficult negotiations, 196 parties pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so.

Its central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Although the U.S. originally signed the agreement, the Trump Administration pulled out in 2017. U.S President Joe Biden re-entered the United States in the Agreement in 2021, soon after his election.  However, since the adoption of the Paris Agreement progress in its implementation, namely in reducing emissions, has been slow.

Another major breakthrough came from COP -27 in  Sharm el-Sheikh in 2022 which established the Loss and Damage Fund, aimed to provide financial assistance to poorer nations as they deal with the negative consequences that arise from the unavoidable risks of climate change (rising sea levels, extreme heat waves, desertification, forest fires, crop failures etc.).

The funding will help vulnerable nations to rebuild the necessary physical and social infrastructure. While the fund is undoubtedly a historic breakthrough, its success largely depends on how quickly nations are able to get the fund up and running.

The COP-28 to be held in Dubai , United Arab Emirates,  from November 30 to December 12, 2023, will carry out the first global assessment of the Paris Agreement. The question of fossil fuels will once again be at the heart of discussions.

Timeline*

1992-1994 – The ground-breaking Rio Earth Summit and the UNFCCC

The summit results in some of the first international agreements on climate change, which become the foundation for future accords. Among them is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which aims to prevent “dangerous” human interference in the climate system, acknowledges that human activities contribute to climate change, and recognizes climate change as an issue of global concern. The UNFCCC, which went into force in 1994, does not legally bind signatories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and gives no targets or timetables for doing so. But it requires frequent meetings between the ratifying countries, known as the Conference of the Parties, or COP. As of 2023 it has been ratified by 198 countries.

1995 - First meeting of UNFCCC signatories in Berlin (COP1)

UNFCCC signatories gather for the first Conference of the Parties, or COP1, in Berlin. The United States pushes back against legally binding targets and timetables, but it joins other parties in agreeing to negotiations to strengthen commitments on limiting greenhouse gases. The concluding document, known as the Berlin Mandate lays the groundwork for what will be the Kyoto Protocol, but it is criticized by environmental activists as a political solution that does not prompt immediate action.

1997 Kyoto Protocol, first legally binding climate treaty adopted at COP23

At COP3 in Japan, the conference adopts the Kyoto Protocol The legally binding treaty requires developed countries to reduce emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels and establishes a system to monitor countries’ progress. But the protocol does not compel developing countries, including high carbon emitters China and India, to take action. It also creates a carbon market for countries to trade emissions units and encourage sustainable development, a system known as “cap and trade.” Countries must now work out the details of implementing and ratifying the protocol.

2001 - Breakthrough in Bonn, but without the U.S.

The Kyoto Protocol is in jeopardy after talks collapse in November 2000 and the United States withdraws in March 2001, with Washington (pressurized by petroleum lobbies) saying that the protocol is not in the country’s “economic best interest.” In July 2001, negotiators in Bonn, Germany, reach breakthroughs on green technology, agreements on emissions trading, and compromises on how to account for carbon sinks (natural reservoirs that take in more carbon than they release). In October, countries agree on the rules for meeting targets set by the Kyoto Protocol, paving the way for its entry into force.

2005 -  The Kyoto Protocol takes effect

The Kyoto Protocol enters into force in February after it is ratified by enough countries to account for at least 55 percent of global emissions. Notably, it does not include the United States, the world’s leading carbon emitter. Between 2008 and 2012, when the protocol is set to expire, countries are supposed to reduce emissions by their pledged amounts: the European Union commits to reduce emissions by 8 percent below 1990 levels, Japan commits to 5 percent, and Russia commits to keeping levels steady with 1990 levels.

2007 - Negotiations begin for Kyoto 2.0

Before COP13 in Bali, Indonesia, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases a new strongly-worded report yet confirming that global warming is “most likely” caused by human activity. During the conference, discussions begin on a stronger successor to the Kyoto Protocol. But they come to a standstill after the United States objects to a widely backed proposal that calls for all industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by specific targets. U.S. officials argue that developing countries must also make commitments. Washington eventually backs down, and the parties adopt the Bali Action Plan, which establishes the goal of drafting a new climate agreement by 2009.

September 2009 -  U.S. joins bold statements at UN

Three months ahead of the target date for a new agreement, several world leaders pledge actions during a UN summit on climate change hosted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Chinese President Hu Jintao announces a plan to cut emissions by a “notable margin” by 2020, marking the first time Beijing commits to reducing its rate of greenhouse gas emissions. Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama pledges to reduce emissions by 25 percent. U.S. newly elected President Barack Obama, in his first UN address, says the United States is determined to act and lead, but he doesn’t offer any new proposals. Ban expresses hope that leaders will reach a “substantive deal” during the upcoming conference in Copenhagen.

December 2009 - Disappointment at COP15 in Copenhagen (Denmark)

The successor to the Kyoto Protocol is supposed to be finalized at COP15 in Copenhagen, but the parties only come up with a nonbinding document that is “taken note of,” not adopted. The Copenhagen Accord acknowledges that global temperatures should not increase by 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels, though representatives from developing countries sought a target of 1.5°C (2.7°F). (A 2009 report from the American Meteorological Society predicts a 3.5°C [6.3°F] to 7.4°C [13.3°F] increase in less than one hundred years). After leading the negotiations, U.S. President Barack Obama tells the conference that the accord is “not enough.” Some countries later vow to follow the accord—though it remains non-binding—and make their own pledges.

2010  Temperature target set at COP16 in Cancun (Mexico)

There is increased pressure to reach a consensus in Mexico during COP16 after the failure in Copenhagen and NASA’s announcement that 2000–2009 was the warmest decade ever recorded. Countries commit for the first time to keep global temperature increases below 2°C in the Cancun Agreements. Approximately eighty countries, including China, India, and the United States, as well as the European Union, submit emissions reduction targets and actions, and they agree on stronger mechanisms for monitoring progress. But analysts say it’s not enough to stay below the 2°C target. The Green Climate Fund, a $100 billion fund to assist developing countries in mitigating and adapting to climate change, is also established. As of 2019, only around $3 billion has been contributed.

2011- New accord at COP17 to apply to all countries

The conference in Durban, South Africa, nearly fails after the world’s three biggest polluters—China, India, and the United States—reject an accord proposed by the European Union. But they eventually agree to work toward drafting a new, legally binding agreement in 2015 at the latest. The new agreement will differ from the Kyoto Protocol in that it will apply to both developed and developing countries. With the Kyoto Protocol set to expire in a few months, the parties agree to extend it until 2017.

2012 - No deal at COP 18 in Doha

Negotiators in Doha for COP18 extend the Kyoto Protocol until 2020, but remaining participants account for just 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. By this time, Canada has withdrawn from the treaty, and Japan and Russia say they will not accept new commitments. (The United States never signed on.) Environmental groups criticize countries for not reaching an effective agreement as Typhoon Bopha slams the Philippines, which they say exemplifies a rise in extreme weather caused by climate change. One of the conference’s successes is the Doha Amendment, under which developed countries agree to assist developing countries mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. The agreement also sets delegates on the path toward a new treaty.

2013  - G77’s lead negotiators walk out at COP19 in Warsaw (Poland)

During the first week of COP19 in Poland, a grouping of developing countries, known as the Group of Seventy-Seven (G77), and China propose a new funding mechanism to help vulnerable countries deal with “loss and damage” caused by climate change. Developed countries oppose the mechanism, so the G77’s lead negotiators walk out of the conference. Talks eventually resume, and governments agree to a mechanism that falls short of what developing countries wanted. Countries also agree on how to implement an initiative to end deforestation known as REDD+, but the conference is described by analysts as the “least consequential COP in several years”.

2015 - Landmark Paris Agreement reached

196  countries agree to what experts call the most significant global climate agreement in history, known as the Paris Agreement. Unlike past accords, it requires nearly all countries—both developed and developing—to set emissions reduction goals. However, countries can choose their own targets and there are no enforcement mechanisms to ensure they meet them. Under the agreement, countries are supposed to submit targets known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The mission of the Paris Agreement, which enters into force in November 2016, is to keep global temperature rise below 2°C and pursue efforts to keep it below 1.5°C. But analysts urge more action to achieve this goal. In 2017, President Donald J. Trump withdraws the United States from the agreement, saying that it imposes “draconian financial and economic burdens” on the country.

2018 - Rules for Paris Agreement decided

Just ahead of COP24 in Katowice, Poland, a new IPCC report warns of devastating consequences—including stronger storms and dangerous heat waves—if the average global temperature rises 1.5°C above preindustrial levels and projects that it could reach that level by 2030. Despite the report, countries do not agree to stronger targets. They do, however, largely settle on the rules for implementing the Paris accord, covering questions including how countries should report their emissions. They do not agree on rules for carbon trading, however, and push that discussion to 2019.

September 2019- UN General Secretary plans Climate Action Summit

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres organizes the UN Climate Action Summit for world leaders in New York. Countries are mandated by the Paris Agreement to submit revised NDCs by the following year, so the meeting is a chance for leaders to share their ideas. But leaders of the world’s top carbon-emitting countries, including the United States and China, do not attend. At the summit, Guterres asks countries to submit plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050.

December 2019- Lack of progress at COP25 in Madrid (Spain)

COP25 is marked by a lack of progress on major climate issues despite a year of dire warnings from scientists, record heatwaves, and worldwide protests demanding action. Negotiators are unable to finalize rules for a global carbon market, and they disagree over whether to compensate developing countries devastated by effects of climate change including rising sea levels and extreme weather. The conference’s final declaration does not explicitly call on countries to increase their climate pledges made under the Paris Agreement, and Secretary-General Guterres describes the talks as a lost opportunity.

April 2020 - Talks postponed amid COVID-19 pandemic

The United Nations postpones COP26, originally scheduled for November 2020, until 2021 because of a pandemic of a new coronavirus disease, known as COVID-19. Countries were expected to strengthen their emissions reduction goals set under the Paris Agreement at the conference in Glasgow. Amid the pandemic, emissions fall worldwide as many countries implement nationwide shutdowns that drastically slow economic activity. But experts predict that the reductions won’t last, with governments under pressure to boost output and disregard the environment to save their struggling economies.

July 2021 – States update pledges ahead of COP26 in Glasgow (Scotland)

More than one hundred countries, altogether accounting for nearly 60 percent of Paris Agreement signatories, meet the deadline to submit updated NDCs ahead of COP26 in November. Some of the top emitters propose more ambitious targets. President Joe Biden announces that the United States will aim to cut its emissions to roughly half of its 2005 level by 2030, doubling President Obama’s commitment. Meanwhile, China and India, responsible for roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, miss the deadline. An IPCC report [PDF] released the following month predicts that the world will reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming within the next two decades even if nations drastically cut emissions immediately.

2021 -  1.5°C goal maintained at COP26 in Glasgow

COP26 President Alok Sharma says commitments made during the conference keep the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C “alive” but its “pulse is weak.” The final agreement, the Glasgow Climate Pact, calls for countries to reduce coal use and fossil fuel subsidies—both firsts for a UN climate agreement—and urges governments to submit more ambitious emissions-reduction targets by the end of 2022. In addition, delegates finally establish rules for a global carbon market. Smaller groups of countries make notable side deals on deforestation, methane emissions, coal, and more. But analysts note that even if countries follow through on their pledges for 2030 and beyond, the world’s average temperature will still rise 2.1°C (3.8°F).

2022 - Breakthrough on Loss and Damage at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh

At COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, nations agree [PDF] for the first time to establish a fund to compensate poor and vulnerable countries for losses and damages due to climate change, though the details are left undecided. Also for the first time, the conference’s final communiqué calls for global financial institutions to revamp their practices to address the climate crisis. However, countries don’t commit to phasing down use of all fossil fuels, and a goal to reach peak emissions by 2025 is removed from the communiqué. Guterres says that continuing to use fossil fuels means “double trouble” for the planet.

*(Source: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/un-climate-talks)


 

giovedì 23 novembre 2023

COUNCIL - CONSEIL - CONSEJO - CONSIGLIO 2023

 


CONSIGLIO  2023

DELL’UNIONE MONDIALE 

DEGLI INSEGNANTI CATTOLICI

it – en – fr – es

 

Dal 16 al 19 novembre si è svolto in Roma l’annuale incontro del Consiglio dell’Umec-Wuct.

Vi hanno partecipato, in presenza, i rappresentanti di varie istituzioni aderenti all’Unione, provenienti da Belgio, Cile, RD Congo, Filippine, Francia, Germania, Italia, Nigeria, Olanda, Regno Unito, Romania, Rwanda.

Ha anche partecipato Monsignor Vincent Dollmann, Arcivescovo di Cambrai e Assistente Ecclesiastico dell’Unione.

Altri hanno seguito l’incontro grazie al collegamento web.

I lavori sono stati coordinati dal presidente, professore Jan De Groof, dal Segretario Generale, dr. Giuseppe Desideri, e dal Tesoriere, dr. Caroline Kealy.

Gli interventi sono stati tenuti: da Monsignor Cesare Pagazzi, segretario del Dicastero per la Cultura e l’Educazione; p. Giovanni Buontempo, del Dicastero per i laici, la famiglia e la vita;  professore Cheryl Peralta, Vice rettore dell’Università Santo Tomas di Manila; professore Angelo Paletta, dell’Università di Bologna; professore Roisin Coll, della Fondazione St Andrew dell’Università di Glasgow; dal professore John Lydon, dell’Università St Mary di Londra; dr. Danielle Woestemberg, CNV Olanda; p. Francesco Scalzotto, del Dicastero per l’Evangelizzazione; p. Albert Kabuge, dell’UNESCO-CICC di Parigi; dr. Angelo Scelzo, già vice direttore della Sala Stampa della Santa Sede.

Hanno presentato le loro relazioni i coordinatori regionali: p. Albert Kabuge e dr. Solene Tshilobo per l’Africa; prof. Belen Tangco per l’Asia; dr. Mario Sandoval, per l’America; dr. Danielle Woestenberg, per l’Europa.

Ai vari interventi è seguito un ricco dibattito dal quale sono emerse le linee progettuali per il futuro. Punto forte del prossimo cammino è la preparazione al Giubileo, che verrà fatta a livello locale e continentale, in preparazione dell’incontro mondiale a Roma nel 2025.

Di seguito pubblichiamo i principali interventi avvenuti durante il Consiglio.

 

COUNCIL 2023

OF THE WORLD UNION OF CATHOLIC TEACHERS

 The annual meeting of the Umec-Wuct Council took place in Rome from 16 to 19 November.

Representatives of various institutions belonging to the Union, coming from Belgium, Chile, DR Congo, Philippines, France, Germany, Italy, Nigeria, Holland, United Kingdom, Romania, Rwanda, participated in person.

Monsignor Vincent Dollmann, Archbishop of Cambrai and Ecclesiastical Assistant of the Union also participated.

Others followed the meeting thanks to the web link.

The work was coordinated by the president, professor Jan De Groof, by the General Secretary, dr. Giuseppe Desideri, and the Treasurer, dr. Caroline Kealy .

The speeches were given: by Monsignor Cesare Pagazzi, secretary of the Dicastery for Culture and Education; p. Giovanni Buontempo, of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life; Professor Cheryl Peralta, Vice Chancellor of Santo Tomas University of Manila; professor Angelo Paletta, from the University of Bologna; Professor Roisin Coll, St Andrew's Foundation, University of Glasgow; by Professor John Lydon, of St Mary's University of London; dr. Danielle Woestemberg , CNV Netherlands; p. Francesco Scalzotto, of the Dicastery for Evangelization; p. Albert Kabuge, from UNESCO-CICC in Paris; dr. Angelo Scelzo, former deputy director of the Holy See Press Office.

The regional coordinators presented their reports: p. Albert Kabuge and dr. Solene Tshilobo for Africa; prof. Belen Tangco for Asia; dr. Mario Sandoval, for America; dr. Danielle Woestenberg, for Europe.

The various interventions were followed by a rich debate from which the project lines for the future emerged. The strong point of the next journey is the preparation for the Jubilee, which will be done at a local and continental level, in preparation for the world meeting in Rome in 2025.

Below we publish the main interventions that took place during the Council.

 

CONSEIL 2023

DE L'UNION MONDIALE DES ENSEIGNANTS CATHOLIQUES

 La réunion annuelle du Conseil Umec-Wuct s'est tenue à Rome du 16 au 19 novembre.

Des représentants de diverses institutions appartenant à l'Union, venant de Belgique, Chili, RD Congo, Philippines, France, Allemagne, Italie, Nigeria, Hollande, Royaume-Uni, Roumanie, Rwanda, y ont participé en personne.

Y participaient également Mgr Vincent Dollmann, Archevêque de Cambrai et Assistant Ecclésiastique de l'Union.

D'autres ont suivi la réunion grâce au lien web.

Les travaux ont été coordonnés par le président, le professeur Jan De Groof, par le secrétaire général, dr. Giuseppe Desideri et le trésorier, dr. Caroline Kealy .

Les interventions ont été prononcées : par Mgr Cesare Pagazzi, secrétaire du Dicastère de la Culture et de l'Éducation ; p. Giovanni Buontempo, du Dicastère pour les Laïcs, la Famille et la Vie ; Professeur Cheryl Peralta, vice-chancelière de l'Université Santo Tomas de Manille ; le professeur Angelo Paletta, de l'Université de Bologne ; Professeur Roisin Coll, St Andrew's Foundation, Université de Glasgow ; par le professeur John Lydon, de l'Université St Mary de Londres ; dr. Danielle Woestemberg , CNV Pays-Bas ; p. Francesco Scalzotto, du Dicastère pour l'Évangélisation ; p. Albert Kabuge, de l'UNESCO-CICC à Paris ; dr. Angelo Scelzo, ancien directeur adjoint du Bureau de Presse du Saint-Siège.

Les coordinateurs régionaux ont présenté leurs rapports : p. Albert Kabuge et le Dr. Solène Tshilobo pour l'Afrique ; prof. Belen Tangco pour l'Asie ; dr. Mario Sandoval, pour l'Amérique ; dr. Danielle Woestenberg, pour l'Europe.

Les différentes interventions ont été suivies d'un débat riche d'où ont émergé les lignes de projets pour l'avenir. Le point fort du prochain voyage est la préparation du Jubilé, qui se fera au niveau local et continental, en vue de la rencontre mondiale de Rome en 2025.

Nous publions ci-dessous les principales interventions qui ont eu lieu pendant le Concile.

 

CONSEJO 2023

DE LA UNIÓN MUNDIAL DE MAESTROS CATÓLICOS

 La reunión anual del Consejo Umec-Wuct tuvo lugar en Roma del 16 al 19 de noviembre.

Participaron personalmente representantes de diversas instituciones pertenecientes a la Unión, procedentes de Bélgica, Chile, República Democrática del Congo, Filipinas, Francia, Alemania, Italia, Nigeria, Holanda, Reino Unido, Rumanía y Ruanda.

También participó monseñor Vincent Dollmann, arzobispo de Cambrai y asistente eclesiástico de la Unión.

Otros siguieron el encuentro gracias al enlace web.

El trabajo fue coordinado por el presidente, profesor Jan De Groof, por el secretario general, dr. Giuseppe Desideri, y el Tesorero, dr. Carolina Kealy .

Los discursos fueron pronunciados por monseñor Cesare Pagazzi, secretario del Dicasterio para la Cultura y la Educación; p.Giovanni Buontempo, del Dicasterio para los Laicos, la Familia y la Vida; la profesora Cheryl Peralta, vicerrectora de la Universidad Santo Tomás de Manila; el profesor Angelo Paletta, de la Universidad de Bolonia; Profesor Roisin Coll, Fundación St Andrew, Universidad de Glasgow; por el profesor John Lydon, de la Universidad St Mary's de Londres; dr. Danielle Woestemberg , CNV Países Bajos; pag. Francesco Scalzotto, del Dicasterio para la Evangelización; pag. Albert Kabuge, de UNESCO-CICC en París; dr. Angelo Scelzo, ex subdirector de la Oficina de Prensa de la Santa Sede.

Los coordinadores regionales presentaron sus informes: p. Albert Kabuge y el dr. Solene Tshilobo por África; profe. Belén Tangco por Asia; dr. Mario Sandoval, por América; dr. Danielle Woestenberg, por Europa.

Las distintas intervenciones fueron seguidas de un rico debate del que surgieron las líneas de proyecto para el futuro. El punto fuerte del próximo camino es la preparación al Jubileo, que se realizará a nivel local y continental, en preparación al encuentro mundial de Roma en 2025.

A continuación, publicamos las principales intervenciones que tuvieron lugar durante el Concilio.

PROGRAMMA

 COUNCIL REPORT - it-fr-en-es

La parole au Président

  Reflexions spirituelles


“Las asociaciones de fieles en la Iglesia hoy”

« Les associations de fidèles dans l’Église aujourd’hui »

“Le associazioni di fedeli nella Chiesa oggi”

“Associations of the faithful in the Churchtoday” 


 Il cammino della speranza

Les gestes de la rencontre

The gestures of encounter

Los gestos del encuentro


MAESTROS CATÓLICOS:UN RECURSO DE LAS ESCUELASY LA COMUNIDAD

ENSEIGNANTS CATHOLIQUES :UNE RESSOURCE POUR LES ÉCOLESET LA COMMUNAUTÉ

MAESTROS CATÓLICOS:UN RECURSO DE LAS ESCUELASY LA COMUNIDAD

INSEGNANTI CATTOLICI: UNA RISORSA PER LE SCUOLE E LA COMUNITÀ 


IN CAMMINO VERSO IL GIUBILEO

ON THE WAY TOWARDS THE JUBILEE

EN EL CAMINO HACIA EL JUBILEO

EN CHEMIN VERS LE JUBILÉ


“Comunicare nei Movimenti cattolici e nel mondo” 

« Communiquer dans les mouvements catholiques et dans le monde »

“Comunicar en los movimientoscatólicos y en el mundo”

“Communicating in Catholic Movements and in the world” 


NB - The other speeches will be published soon


 

 


mercoledì 22 novembre 2023

GROWING ANTI-CHRISTIAN HATRED

Anti-Christian

 hatred is growing

 

Worrying numbers released by the Observatory on Intolerance and Anti-Christian 

Discrimination in Europe.

Exponential increase in anti-Christian attacks .

Hate crimes on the rise

The OIDAC report 2022 / 2023 | OIDAC

 

-         by Andrea Gagliarducci

-          

In 2022, hate crimes against Christians reached 748 documented cases, a 44 percent increase compared to 2021, when 519 hate crimes were recorded. Cases of arson against churches are also increasing exponentially, recording an increase of 75 percent between 2021 and 2022. These are the data from the Annual Report of the Observatory for Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe.

Based in Vienna, directed this year by Anja Hoffman, the observatory provides a powerful and real snapshot of the situation of Christians in Europe. Every week, it collects news of incidents of discrimination and intolerance, using open sources, and highlighting a reality that is plain for all to see, yet little known. Christians are, in the end, the most persecuted religion in the world, as the various reports on religious freedom from Aid to the Church in Need or Open Doors say, and this is also confirmed by the data from the latest OSCE Annual Report on Hate Crimes , which documented 792 cases of anti-Christian hatred in 34 European countries.

The growth in arson cases is worrying, rising from 60 in 2021 to 105 in 2022, with an increase of 75 percent. These attacks are concentrated mainly in Germany, and then in France, Italy and the United Kingdom.

According to Anja Hoffman, hate crimes, especially vandalism, are linked to extremism which also results from a greater acceptance of church attacks in society. “While – says the director of the Observatory – the reasons for the acts of vandalism and the desecration of the Churches remained unclear, we now notice that more and more perpetrators leave messages that reveal belonging to extremist fringes and even proudly claim paternity of the crimes clerks. These are often radicalized members of groups that follow an anti-Christian narrative."

Regina Polak, OSCE representative for the fight against racism, xenophobia and discrimination, expressed concern about the ever-increasing number of cases of anti-Christian hatred reported by the Observatory, and underlined that "it is highly necessary to increase awareness of both the government that of society to face and combat this problem decisively."

The report also addresses the issue of different forms of religious discrimination. Over the past year, several Christians have lost their jobs, been suspended, or even faced criminal charges for expressing nonviolent religious views in public, particularly on the issues of marriage and family when it was stated in public that marriage is between man and woman and that sexual identity is made up of man and woman.

These are all opinions worthy of criminal proceedings, and it is a fact, said Hofmann, "highly serious", also because the legislations of the countries "use very vague language or unclear definitions of incitement to hatred".

The Observatory noted in particular the dismissals of teachers Ben Dybowski and Joshua Sutcliffe, as well as the Reverend Bernard Randall, a school chaplain. All dismissals occurred due to their beliefs about gender identity and family.

Anja Hoffman denounces that "silencing Christian voices in public undermines the plurality of Western democratic societies and makes free discourse impossible."
Other limitations on religious freedom come from the bills on the so-called "buffer zones" , which are found mainly in the United Kingdom and which criminalize prayer and religious demonstrations, such as prayer initiatives around criticism for abortion.

The Observatory described as “particularly surprising” the arrest of Isabel Vaughan- Spruce , who was arrested in one of the buffer zones and questioned whether she was praying in her mind. The arrest illustrates concern about the criminalization of “non-violent hate” incidents in the UK.

Other forms of discrimination include those that violate the right of parents to educate children in accordance with their religious beliefs and the limitation of freedom of conscience through the elimination of conscience clauses from existing provisions in medical laws.

 ACISTAMPA

 


domenica 19 novembre 2023

COUNCIL 2023 - REFLEXIONS SPIRITUELLES

 

 

REFLEXIONS SPIRITUELLES POUR LE CONSEIL

SPIRITUAL REFLECTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL

RIFLESSIONI SPIRITUALI PER IL CONSIGLIO

REFLECTII SPIRITUALE PENTRU CONSILIU

REFLEXIONES ESPIRITUALES PARA EL CONCILIO

SPIRITUELLE REFLEXIONEN FÜR DEN KONZIL

2023

-        Archevêque Vincent Dollmann

Voir: REFLEXIONS SPIRITUELLES



domenica 12 novembre 2023

RUTHLESS LOGIC

The problems created by the violence 
of Hamas and the harshness of Israel


- by Giuseppe Savagnone*

Just over a month after the start of the Palestinian crisis, some disturbing issues emerge, probably destined to weigh on the future, even when the conflict on the field is over.

The first of these issues arises from the methods of reaction of the Jewish State which, from being a victim of atrocious violence - and therefore an object of unconditional solidarity (in the eyes, at least, of the Western world) - have progressively made it appear, to a large extent of public opinion in the West itself, a perfect counterpart, opposite and symmetrical, of its aggressors. In this regard, the front page headline of an Italian newspaper is significant: «Anti-terrorism begins. It's a lot like terrorism."

The same blind ruthlessness. The same absolute contempt for civilians and the international laws that protect them. With the blocking of vital supplies of water, electricity and medicines to two and a half million people, the peremptory injunction to almost half of them (more than a million!) to vacate their homes, lands and workplaces within 24 hours , and to move "elsewhere", the deadly indiscriminate bombings that destroyed civilian homes, hospitals, schools, churches, and killed ten thousand civilians, almost half of whom were women and children.

Rather than an operation aimed at preventing, in a defensive logic, other attacks, the Israeli one thus gave the impression of being revenge. And not in the form of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", but in the more archaic form of vengeance without measure of which the Bible speaks, putting in the mouth of Lamech, descendant of Cain (not by chance!), a statement which is at the same time a program: «I killed a man for my scratch and a boy for my bruise. Cain will be avenged seven times, but Lamech seventy-seven times" (Genesis, 4, 23-24).

 The law of retaliation

The law of retaliation, despite its brutality, was later established in ancient legislation precisely to limit this uncontrollable immoderation, allowing the offended party to respond only within the limits of the damage received.

Israel's response, more than this logic, resembles that of Lamech . Even more disproportionate, if we consider that, according to the Israeli government itself, the person responsible to be punished is Hamas and not the Palestinian population, who would only be its hostage.

For their part, Western governments, first and foremost that of the United States, refused to talk about "revenge" and initially tried to justify this reaction by appealing to "Israel's right to defend itself". In this logic, they showed great tolerance for the "collateral damage" that this right could entail, limiting themselves to generic recommendations to respect human rights and international laws of war, even if it was clear that both were widely violated by the Israeli reaction.

Netaniahu 's government did not intend to even slightly mitigate its devastating action, the UN secretary general, Guterres, officially intervened to remind us of the need to respect international law and ask for a "ceasefire ” that would spare the lives of civilians.

The reaction of the Jewish State was extremely harsh and even resulted in a refusal to grant entry visas to representatives of the United Nations.

At this point even President Biden - probably also urged by the vast protest movement that has developed throughout the Western world, and also in the United States, in defense of the Palestinian people - felt he had to intervene more decisively, pressuring the Israeli government so that at least "humanitarian pauses" were granted.

Receiving a sharp refusal from Prime Minister Netaniahu , who only after endless humiliating insistence from both the American president and his envoy Blinken made some concessions, but in any case to a minimal extent compared to the request. A sensational "disgrace" by Israel to its most trusted and important ally, which will not soon be forgotten.

 It is clear that all this is confusing the cards. The United States is finding itself in great difficulty, caught between the distancing of the Islamic world - even the moderate one and even a NATO member country, such as Turkey - which reproaches them for the political, economic and military cover that has always been given to Israel and strongly confirmed also in this circumstance, and the unprecedented, obstinate closure of the Israeli government.

In this circumstance, America is seeing its image as a hegemonic power compromised and its political line appears weak and uncertain. Also because President Biden finds himself faced with the less than rosy situation of having to choose, a year before the elections, between the Jewish lobbies, whose support depends on their support for Israel, and his electorate, especially young people, who contest him for this support.

And Israel also finds itself increasingly isolated, not only, as in the past, with respect to the South of the world and Islam, but also, to a certain extent, with respect to its traditional Western supporters, which continue to repeat that they consider it the victim of aggression and an advanced outpost of democracy, but they cannot help but recognize, with growing embarrassment, that the continuation of the systematic massacre of civilians we are witnessing can no longer be accepted.

 The reopening of the question of the whole of Palestine

But what divides Israel from its more traditional and faithful American ally is not only the ruthless harshness of the military reaction. The ongoing crisis has also raised the question, which had been removed for some time, of the definitive political settlement of the entire region. And here it is impossible to ignore the UN resolution of 1947, which envisaged the creation of a Jewish state - which was born - and a Palestinian one, which never saw the light.

The problem is that in reality neither Israelis nor Palestinians have ever accepted this perspective. Both want all the territory for themselves. With the difference that Israel has had the military strength to get ever closer to this objective, while the explicit refusal of the Palestinians to accept forming their own state on the territories assigned by the UN has produced as the only result their progressive expulsion even from most of these, now occupied by the Israelis.

An expulsion that was implemented both through military campaigns and with the multiplication of new Israeli settlements on the lands of the West Bank which should have prospectively been part of the new Palestinian state. Just on the eve of October 7th, another one was launched, this time also arousing resistance (also unheeded) from the United States.

Not to mention the status of Jerusalem, which the UN expected to be - as the holy place of all three great Abrahamic religions - an international city, and which instead Israel, in 1980, strengthened by its military successes, unilaterally proclaimed as its capital , with a decision that the UN declared illegitimate, and which was recognized by a few governments, including the United States, which moved its embassy there,

Once the war is over, will Washington, so far so yielding to the Israeli government, ever be able to convince it to give up part of its current territory to allow the formation of a Palestinian state?

And what will be, if they succeed, the reaction of the seven hundred thousand Israeli settlers who in recent years, with the approval of the government (and the West) have illegally settled on that territory, taking it away from their legitimate inhabitants?

And what will happen to Jerusalem, which Israel has considered its capital for more than forty years, but where Palestinians also live, and to which Islam attributes the same religious value as Jews and Christians?

 The future of Gaza

A third issue - connected to the second and also relating to the relationship between Israel and the United States - is the question of the future of the Gaza Strip.

 Biden asked Abu Mazen, the president of the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank, to take over the government, once the war is over, as part of the forming Palestinian state. Netaniahu , for his part, openly challenging Biden, replied that the Israelis no longer intend to leave Gaza any autonomy and, even without directly occupying it, they will still keep it under their control.

The fact is that, if it really succeeds in destroying Hamas, it will be the Israeli army that will be on the territory and in control of it.

Furthermore, the American proposal does not take into account the fact that today the (too) moderate and corrupt Abu Mazen is completely disqualified in the eyes of the Palestinians (even those he continues to govern in the West Bank), who see Hamas as the the only alternative to the marginalization and submission to which Israel had reduced them with the support of the United States.

And it would certainly be even more so if the president of the Palestinian Authority entered Gaza after having been complicit in the liquidation of Hamas by the Israelis and with the support of the Americans.

An unofficial and unconfirmed document from the Israeli government hypothesizes that the current inhabitants of Gaza will move to Egypt, in the Sinai. And this would also explain the recent trials of expulsion from one part of the Strip and the actions aimed at making their lives impossible, already forcing them, in some way, to emigrate.

But, apart from the obvious resistance of the government in Cairo, which does not intend to take on two and a half million refugees, could the international community accept a solution which, although not a genocide, would still be a clear example of ethnic cleansing?

Not even the acrobatics carried out in recent weeks by Western governments and press organizations to minimize the seriousness of the violence against the Palestinian people - accusing those who denounce them of forgetting the October 7 massacre, or even of being anti-Semitic - would probably be sufficient to justify the silence in such a hypothesis.

However, the difficulty of finding other ways remains. The task cannot be avoided once again. The West cannot continue to turn a blind eye, now that it is reaping the bitter fruits of this behavior in past decades. Even if there is the risk that, once the journalistic news has passed, the attention of governments and public opinion will go back to being distracted, as has always happened in the past, waiting for another crisis to cause thousands more innocent victims and shake the new, for a few weeks, our indifference.

 www.tuttavia.eu

 *Writer and columnist. Pastoral Care of Culture of the Diocese of Palermo