The Global War on Christians - by George J. Marlin

 

In TCT

 

As Chairman of Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), a Catholic charity dedicated to helping the persecuted Church, plenty of material lands on my desk depicting atrocities against Christians. I have also had many opportunities to meet with people who have witnessed these crimes.

This past month, I spent an afternoon at ACN headquarters in Greenpoint, Brooklyn with the Maronite ordinary of Syria, Bishop Elias Sleman.  He described the Muslim crimes against Christians that have driven members of his flock to mountain hiding places, where they are barely subsisting.

In general, very little has been reported by the mainline media or documented by contemporary historians about Christian suffering during the past century.  The Italian journalist Francesca Paci has conceded that as far as the fate of Christians in Iraq, Algeria, and India, “We ignore too many things and even more indefensibly, we pretend not to see many things.”

One notable exception is Robert Royal’s trenchant work, The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century, published in 2000 at the time of the celebration of the new millennium.  As for twenty-first century atrocities, we are fortunate to have the newly published, The Global War on Christians: Dispatches from the Front Lines of Anti-Christian Persecution, by the Catholic reporter, John L. Allen, Jr.

Mr. Allen points out that the word “war” has in recent times been used too freely to promote various causes, i.e., War on Women, War on Christmas.  In his judgment the correct usage means, “facing [a] situation with the necessary sense of urgency.” And because 80 percent of acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians, Allen holds that there is a compelling urgency for talking about a war on Christians.

His book does not deal with religious liberty issues confronting American and European Catholics, but actual “threats to life and limb faced by Christians in other global neighborhoods.”  The book succeeds at dispelling the notion that anti-Christian violence is “rare and exceptional.”

Since the turn of the century, advocacy groups have estimated that 100-150,000 Christians have been martyred annually.  Other forms of harassment Christians must endure, particularly in countries where they are a minority population, include societal discrimination, employment discrimination, legal discrimination, as well as suppression of Christian missionary activity and worship, and forced conversions from Christianity.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that between 2006 and 2010 some form of harassments against Christians occurred in 139 nations – approximately three-quarters of the world’s countries.  Thirty-seven percent of them have “high” or “very high” restrictions on Christian activities.

This year the Open Doors World Watch listed the “most hazardous nations on earth in which to be a Christian.”  The number one nation on the list of twenty-five was North Korea, followed by Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Iran.  Eighteen of the countries on the list are majority Muslim. 

The crisis is global, Allen concludes, because the top twenty-five are scattered throughout the world: “Six of these nations are in Asia, seven in Africa, eight in the Middle East. . .and four in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet sphere.”

Allen lists ten reasons why Christian persecutions are sky-rocketing; with two standing out as the root causes:

·      Many countries are witnessing an increasingly strong connection between nationalism and religion, with Christianity, or some forms of Christianity, perceived as a threat to national identity.

·      Christians, in some places, have become outspoken advocates for human rights and democracy, which means they’re seen as threats to authoritarian regimes – especially since Christians often can plug into international networks of support that most other religious groups don’t have.

One-third of Allen’s book is devoted to succinct descriptions of anti-Christian persecutions in twenty-eight countries located in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

One report that I found shockingly revealing is on Columbia.  I was unaware that the Vatican considers this Latin American country “the single most dangerous place on earth to be a church worker.”

Columbia, a nation of 46 million has vast lawless areas inhabited by members of drug cartels, para-military revolutionaries, and pagan tribes.  What unites these disparate groups is hatred of Christian priests, ministers, and activists.

Rescue Christians, an evangelical watch group, monitors the violence in Columbia and has documented that:

·      On average thirty pastors are murdered every year

·      Over 200 Churches have been forcibly closed

·      The Christian inhabitants of numerous communities have been driven from their homes and placed in refugee camps

·      In 2011 and 2012, 60 percent of the total worldwide murders of human rights workers took place in Columbia.                

Allen concludes his engrossing and readable book with a chapter entitled “What’s to Be Done.”  First, he calls for public prayers similar to the prayers said after Mass by those of us over sixty in pre-Vatican II days for the conversion of Russia.  The intent of those prayers established by Pope XI in 1930 was to ask that, “tranquility and freedom to profess the faith be restored to the afflicted people of Russia.” 

Similar prayers for persecuted Christians worldwide, Allen believes, would remind Catholics that there are people suffering for the faith and “could help raise consciousness and steel resolve.”

He also calls for continued support by Catholics of organizations, like the Catholic Near East Welfare Association and ACN that are “suppliers of humanitarian assistance to suffering Christians.”

Finally, he calls on Catholics to “bring pressure to bear on leaders to make the defense of religious freedom a priority, and to give special attention to members of the world’s most persecuted religious body.”

At a 2011 London conference that dealt with the Christian crisis in the Middle East, the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, bluntly asked:  “Does anybody hear our cry?”  For all Catholics who want to answer that cry, The Global War on Christians is must reading.

«I cristiani uccisi sono proprio 100mila all'anno» - di Massimo Introvigne

In NBQ

Il professor Todd Johnson è il successore del suo collega David Barrett (1927-2011), «Mr. Statistiche» per gli studiosi di scienze religiose di tutto il mondo, alla guida del Center for the Study of Global Christianity di South Hamilton, nel Massachusetts, un centro che è alle origini delle statistiche sul numero di aderenti alle varie religioni usate da un gran numero di università – e di Chiese e comunità religiose – su scala internazionale. Johnson sarà in Italia a dicembre per diversi impegni, e aprirà con una relazione magistrale un seminario sulla metodologia della statistica religiosa organizzato dall’Università Roma Tre in collaborazione con il CESNUR e con l’Accademia di Scienze Umane e Sociali il 16 dicembre.

Barrett e Johnson sono anche alle origini di quella che chiamano «martirologia», cioè la compilazione di statistiche sul numero di cristiani uccisi «in situazione di testimonianza», cioè uccisi in quanto cristiani. Questi morti cristiani sono stati, secondo Barrett e Johnson, settanta milioni dalla morte di Gesù Cristo all’anno 2000, di cui quarantacinque milioni concentrati nel ventesimo secolo. Il numero di cristiani uccisi è sceso nel ventesimo secolo, ma nel primo decennio 2000-2010 secondo Barrett sono ancora stati un milione, cioè 100.000 all’anno. Questa stima di una media calcolata su dieci anni era di 105.000 nel 2011 – anno in cui, commentando quelle statistiche a un convegno dell’Unione Europea, le tradussi nella formula, numericamente congrua rispetto alla cifra 105.000, di «un cristiano ucciso ogni cinque minuti» – mentre la stima di Johnson per il 2013, pubblicata nel numero 37/1 della sua pubblicazione «International Bulletin of Missionary Research» era di 100.000.

Periodicamente queste cifre sono attaccate, e da ultimo un servizio apparso sul sito della BBC dà l’impressione che lo stesso Johnson le abbia in qualche modo ridimensionate o ritrattate. Per chiarire come stanno le cose, ho intervistato lo stesso professor Johnson.

Professore, è vero che Lei ha smentito la sua celebre statistica dei 100.000 cristiani uccisi ogni anno?
Ma niente affatto. Può darsi che la giornalista della BBC non mi abbia capito bene, ma ho semplicemente spiegato che la statistica si riferisce a una media degli ultimi dieci anni. Non a un anno specifico. Pertanto la statistica che abbiamo pubblicato nel 2013 si riferisce alla somma dei morti dagli anni dal 2003 al 2012 divisa per dieci. E la somma divisa per dieci dà appunto come risultato 100.000. Se ci chiederanno al stessa stima l’anno prossimo, sommeremo i morti dal 2004 al 2013 e divideremo per dieci. Questa cifra è significativa di una tendenza molto più che non concentrarsi su un anno singolo, dove il dato può essere influenzato da variabili effimere, e si rischia di annunciare svolte decisive causate da singoli eventi positivi o negativi che non si ripeteranno negli anni successivi.

La BBC obietta che il 90% dei morti degli ultimi anni è stato ucciso nella Repubblica Democratica del Congo, dove è in corso una guerra civile. Che cosa risponde?
Per alcuni dei dieci anni presi in esame per la stima decennale è vero che il dato del Congo pesa fino al 70% – 90% è un’esagerazione, ma abbiamo sempre detto che il Congo pesa molto, non è una scoperta della BBC –, mentre se sulla scala del decennio prendiamo in esame altri anni un dato non meno importante era quello del Sud Sudan, dove in seguito le cose sono migliorate. Molti dei miei interventi recenti a congressi internazionali discutono la situazione in Congo, e il caso è interessante per spiegare il nostro metodo. Ci sono certamente casi in cui è difficile stabilire se le persone sono uccise in quanto cristiane o per ragioni etniche o politiche. In questo caso noi stimiamo il peso del fattore religioso e in base a questo fattore attribuiamo una percentuale del totale delle persone uccise a ragioni religiose. Per il Congo abbiamo stabilito – in modo molto prudenziale e conservatore – che il fattore religioso pesi per il venti per cento nelle ragioni che causano gli assassini. Dico prudenziale e conservatore perché abbiamo raccolto, sul campo, centinaia di testimonianze che parlano di persone uccise nelle chiese e uccise perché per ragioni religiose si rifiutano di arruolarsi nelle milizie o di farsi coinvolgere a forza in guerre che considerano ingiuste. Pertanto ogni anno non contiamo il cento per cento dei cristiani assassinati in Congo nelle nostre statistiche, ma solo il venti per cento. Adottiamo criteri simili per altri Paesi. I criteri si possono sempre discutere. Devo però confessare che non capisco bene le obiezioni che invitano a sottrarre i cristiani uccisi del Congo, come se fossero vittime di seconda classe rispetto a quelle di altri Paesi.

Ma la BBC obietta che non sono «martiri». È vero?
La nozione di «martire» non è univoca. Per esempio la tradizione ebraica – che considera «martiri» le vittime dell’Olocausto – o quella islamica hanno un concetto di «martiri» più esteso di quello cristiano. Io sono protestante, ma so bene che la Chiesa Cattolica ha un concetto, invece, più restrittivo: «martire» è solo chi offre la vita volontariamente per la sua fede. Se qualcuno è vittima di una bomba che fa saltare in aria una chiesa o un locale frequentato da cristiani, per la Chiesa Cattolica non è necessariamente un «martire» mentre nel linguaggio di molti protestanti lo è. Siamo consapevoli di queste differenze terminologiche, e per questo oggi tendiamo a parlare meno di «martiri» e più di «persone uccise in situazioni di testimonianza».

Se la situazione in Congo migliorerà, la vostra media calcolata sugli ultimi dieci anni è destinata a scendere?
È probabile, e speriamo proprio che sia così. Ma vorrei aggiungere una parola di cautela. Quando la situazione è migliorata nel Sud Sudan, pensavamo di poter arrivare a stime molto più ridotte, ed ecco che è esplosa la situazione drammatica del Congo. La storia del cristianesimo negli ultimi due secoli non induce all’ottimismo: quando la violenza si attenua in un Paese, spesso esplode da qualche altra parte. Il fatto che i cristiani siano vittime di campagne di odio, discriminati, uccisi in numeri comunque alti in molte parti del mondo fa temere esplosioni di violenza prossime venture in altre aree geografiche.

Steve Ray on New Evangelization

The Modern Sexual “Martyr” - by R. J. Snell

In Crisis

According to Christianity, we are made for communion. Created in the image of a God who is Divine Communion, we are made to give ourselves to and for others. Without Eve, for instance, Adam could not enter into the communio personarum and so was not fully able to bear the image of God.

A recent Esquire piece by John H. Richardson, “The Martyrs of Sex,” sees it quite differently.

With an ear to scandal, Richardson intones a litany of martyrs—Tiger Woods, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, David Petraeus, Anthony Weiner, and others—all sacrificed to “our hypocrisy and denial.” Patron saints of adultery, each reveals that “sex, be it adulterous or premarital or deviant or polyamorous, is a good thing … sex itself is the moment of grace.”

As is often the case, grace is rejected, locked out of “the invisible prison we build for ourselves,” although adultery is “a glorious terrifying truth that bursts through our barriers if we have the vitality to rebel,” lifting ourselves “up into an exaltation we still refuse to understand.”

Men are “geldings of civilization,” wives “indentured … into the role of prison guard … slowly killing” the vitality of the male in the name of social order. And just as Nietzsche proclaimed priestly morality to be cruel, so too we ought to pity the wives/prison guards, for “no free person would choose such a role … [t]heir cruelty is in direct proportion to their own suffering, as cruelty usually is.”

We’ve chosen civilization when we ought to have “declare[d] ourselves as gods,” instead allowing “mean little scolds who drag us down from the throne and tell us we are hateful, our desire is hateful, that our essential vitality is a sin.” Unlike “healthier societies,” we’ve enforced “denying that vitality” so to fit “into the three-piece suit of civilization.” In doing so, “it makes liars of us … we always make our dilemma worse by getting everything backward.”

The noble and bold include sexuality “in their definition of power … part and parcel of why the great become great in the first place.” The wives of the great know this: “Of course I knew what he was doing. I celebrate him! That’s the man I married, that’s why I married him, for the vital fire you pretend to despise.” So why do we geld our godlike status, our nature as “Big Dog”? Nothing is accomplished except “the ugliest need born of … civilization … declaring that which is most beautiful to be filthy, that which is most natural to be unnatural.” A “rage for order always invites destruction,” and the only way to avoid destruction is to destroy order, “to open the prison doors of civilization and finally learn how to live free.” Civilization or life, one cannot have both.

Modernity Brings Alienation When Nature Replaces God 

As articulated by Luigi Giussani, founder of the international Catholic lay movement Communion and Liberation, earlier periods had “an unfragmented conception of the person … the figure of the saint as the exemplary image … who has realized the unity between himself and his destiny.” The unity of sanctity, however, was expelled from our ideals during “the great change” of modernity. Offering a brief history, Giussani explains how Humanism offered instead “the divo, the successful man who relies on his own forces.” No longer was the ideal “projected … towards something greater” than the individual, an adherence to the “Voice of an Other,” but was instead achievement, accomplishment. But once worth was loosed from the objective love of God, “instead consigned to the mercy of fortune, what then?” Fortune can be resisted, perhaps, wrestled by the very greatest of men, but time levels all mountains, overcomes all heroes, and humanism imbibed the tragic sadness of the ancients, “that sense of ultimate limitation,” the failure, in the end, to “lift myself above the earth.”

Unable to adequately ground worth in the divo, transcendence “must come from something else, something greater,” and, says Giussani, the Renaissance identified “the ultimate source of creativity … with nature.” From nature springs the “impulsive, the spontaneous, instinct,” now equated with the good. “Do what you will,” declares Rabelais, “because man is, by nature, driven to act virtuously,” which is, at the same time, “a subtle but real hostility to … a God who says yes or no, who seeks to regulate, to prune human instincts.”

Consequently, the last centuries bequeathed a legacy convinced “that success is what makes life worthwhile; that nature merits our complete trust (i.e., instinct is exalted); and, finally, that reason can bend nature … in accordance with its every wish and command.” For men and women so formed, freedom comes to be understood as “abandonment of one’s self to nothing but the force of one’s reactions, instincts, fancies, and opinions,” in stark opposition to “adhering to what is real … to being.” Enslaved to this distorted account of freedom, it’s unsurprising to find conflict between the individual and civilization, for civilization’s claims and limits must be understood as deeply restrictive of freedom. Civilization, so understood, must be overcome to maintain the natural, the free, the noble. Or, as “Martyrs of Sex” puts it, there’s no “vitality left after all the social and personal castration that we enact every single day of our miserable slavish self-denying lives.”

Note the “cultural bewilderment,” as Giussani terms it, in such statements. In declaring undifferentiated freedom the absolute goal, “man is powerless to be man” insofar as he is “free for nothing.” Consequently, the celebration of natural vitality alienates, cementing freedom as deep estrangement, for “if man is so free as to be the measure of reality, he is condemned to an abysmal loneliness … a stranger to everything that is,” particularly to culture and civilization, which cannot but appear as stultifying.

While Richardson presents his vision as one of vitality and life, just as Nietzsche did, Giussani sees through such façades, noting instead “spiritual sickness … the loss of the taste for living.” True, sickness is couched in the language of life, power, or strength, but this is “temper tantrums in the fact of being.” The freedom they seek is estrangement, “cut off from any relationship with things, with others,” and even with themselves. They speak life, they live death.

This last statement needs more explanation, I suspect.

Christianity Rejects Moralism and Proclaims Communion with God 

What is morality, sexual or otherwise? How this is answered decisively shapes, I should think, whether civilization is viewed as alienating and enervating or a source of life and joy. As loving embrace with Another, or a slavish martyrdom.

Giussani states that “moralism is the forced adherence, voluntaristically stressed, to the ideals of humanity approved by the dominant culture,” which “requires a guilt-inducing conformism.” Richardson would agree, claiming his a noble attempt to throw off the shackles of culturally induced guilt in the name of vital freedom and power, and, moreover, identifying the Faith as a (the?) noxious host for much of the guilt and hypocrisy.

But the Faith is not a moralism. It does not force, it is not voluntaristic, and it pays scant heed to the ideals of dominant culture. Moralism posits norms and rules for action—commanding this, obliging that—while Christianity proclaims communion.

The Faith values freedom to act, of course, but its understanding of action is non-reductive, refusing to limit the meaning of action to the rules or strictures of a social group. Instead, human action has an origin not of its own making and a purpose far outstripping the measure of man. We act because we seek some good; we seek, it seems, because we lack; our restlessness and longing reveals our desire for fulfillment, for meaning, for the good we lack. We sense, too, that the good intended is rather more than this or that particular object of desire—the raise, the house, the toy, the sexual conquest is not enough, not “full enough” to satisfy that completion for the sake of which we act. (Richardson knows this, thus professing power or greatness rather than sexual satisfaction as his fundamental motivation.)

Our desire is excessive, it would appear, always going beyond the particular objects, always reaching farther than our grasp. We desire complete fulfillment. In the Christian articulation of this experience, our desire is for God, and, moreover, our desire takes the form of love. That is, we seek relation: loving, intimate union—communion.

Christian action springs from a loving desire for communion, and in love of God the basic principle of Christian morality takes its meaning—Love your neighbor as yourself, which is to say, nurture, allow, and do not impede as others freely seek communion. Absent the loving reaching out for communion, however, morality becomes moralism, “something that derives from laws and from the coherence of an understanding of life validated by power.” So understood, “moralism always points an accusatory finger at man.”

If this is true, then Richardson is not entirely incorrect in viewing civilization as a yoke, for, as Giussani articulates, unless “one’s behavior flows from the dynamism intrinsic to an event to which one belongs [like love of communion],… it is an arbitrary and pretentious selection … among which the choices most publicized by power will dominate.”

Richardson Mistakes Moralism of Distorted Civilization with Christian Love 

Ours is a deeply fragmented and contradictory civilization, exalting the bold conqueror, deifying authenticity, instinct, and self-importance, while simultaneously condemning inequality, naked aggression, and open disdain for the weak. Of course men like Richardson experience alienation and angry estrangement, for he’s been commanded to seek freedom as the purpose of life, especially to follow his own unique nature and proclivities—which urge him to hit, to rut, to achieve, to overcome, to dominate—while the very same culture insists also that he be nice and privilege the voice of the marginalized. He’s had enough of the fragmentation, choosing his nature over the gentler voices, and in this way striving to bring his splintered self together, to be fully human again. It’s a temper tantrum, but can the culture provide him anything better?

Giussani warns of the Church failing mankind, offering merely “a narrowed moral horizon, the boundaries of which are those stemming from the dominant conception of the life of the society.” When this happens, the Faith “ends up becoming a pretext for some concern or other that wins the consent of the mentality in power.” If we merely scold Richardson but cannot show the way of love we risk perpetuating the fragmentation, choosing moralism rather than love, siding with the narrow concerns of this or that element of the disintegration.

We’ll create martyrs, as Richardson thinks them, those who, in the name of their own dignity and wholeness, however misconstrued, revolt against the incoherence and arbitrary shame foisted upon them by a distorted civilization, and these noble martyrs will be unable to distinguish the Faith from the bent culture, and not without some cause.

Instead of moralism, Giussani notes, Christianity “must offer the living God. Not the god of the dead, or of human intelligence, but the living God,” an “all-embracing fact.” And since God is communion, and since the all-embracing, full desire of our restlessness is love of this communion, the living God is offered and known as “the experience of a great love.” Only love coheres, only love unites our splintered selves, only love orients morality towards our full humanity as beings for communion with ourselves, with others, and with God. Only love is credible.

Somewhat strangely, then, we must be saints so as to avoid creating martyrs.

Archbishop Chaput: being a saint is the only thing that matters

Philadelphia, Pa., Nov 17, 2012 / 06:09 am (CNA/EWTN News).- At a conference on faith and evangelization, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia told participants that sanctity is the single necessity in a person's life.

“The only thing that matters is to be a saint. That’s what we need to be. That’s what we need to become,” he said at the Nov. 16 Catholic Life Congress in Philadelphia.

Archbishop Chaput began his talk, titled “Renewing the Church and Her Mission in a 'Year of Faith,'” by discussing the nature of faith. He said the Nicene Creed, recited at every Sunday Mass, is the “framework and fundamental profession” of Catholic belief.

“The less we understand the words of the Creed and revere the meaning behind them, the farther away we drift from our Catholic identity – and the more confused we become about who we really are as Christians.”

The archbishop discussed the importance of personal integrity, and the role of Sunday Mass in forming our lives throughout the rest of the week.

“We need to give our hearts to what we hear and what we say in our public worship. Otherwise, little by little, we become dishonest.”

Faith, he told his listeners, “is confidence in things unseen based on the word of someone we know and love – in this case, God...only a living encounter and a living relationship with Jesus Christ make faith sustainable.”

Archbishop Chaput then reflected on the present state of the Catholic Church in America, painting a stark picture.

“More than 70 million Americans describe themselves as Catholics. But for all practical purposes, they’re no different from everybody else in their views, their appetites and their behaviors.”

This state, he said, was part of the “legacy” left by the baby boomer generation “to the Church in the United States.”

“In a sense, our political and economic power, our addictions to comfort, consumption and entertainment, have made us stupid.”

In response to that state of affairs, Archbishop Chaput urged every one to repentance and to conversion. In the face of a Catholic population indistinguishable from the general public, he proposed a sort of examination of conscience.

“So we need to ask ourselves: What do I want my life to mean? If I claim to be a Catholic, can I prove it with the patterns of my life? When do I pray? How often do I seek out the Sacrament of Penance?  What am I doing for the poor? How am I serving the needy? Do I really know Jesus Christ?”

“Who am I leading to the Church? How many young people have I asked to consider a vocation? How much time do I spend sharing about God with my spouse, my children and my friends? How well and how often do I listen for God’s will in my own life?”

From there, the archbishop reflected on what we need to become, and took Saint Thomas More as an example.

More was an English lawyer and statesman, and chancellor of England under Henry VIII. His Catholic faith made him oppose Henry's divorce and re-marriage, and separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church. His integrity led him to be martyred in 1535.

Archbishop Chaput gave his audience a “homework assignment” over Thanksgiving break. He asked that people watch – “with your family” –  the 1966 film on St. Thomas More called “A Man for All Seasons”

He said that “above all, More was a man of profound Catholic faith and practice. He lived what he claimed to believe. He had his priorities in right order. He was a husband and a father first.”

The archbishop then said that More is an example for all Catholics.

“We’re all called to martyrdom. That’s what the word martyr means: It’s the Greek word for “witness.”  We may or may not ever suffer personally for our love of Jesus Christ. But we’re all called to be witnesses.”

Archbishop Chaput concluded his talk by emphasizing that becoming a saint, like St. Thomas More, is the one thing necessary in everyone's life.

Religious Freedom, Persecution of the Church, and Martyrdom - by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

First of all, I should like to thank John Cavadini, Professor of Theology and Director of the Institute for Church Life, for this kind invitation to be with you today to discuss an important set of interrelated topics: (1) religious freedom; (2) the persecution of Christians around the world; and, (3) martyrdom. But before I begin this task, I should also like to thank the University of Notre Dame for its sponsorship of this important conference, and especially its President, Father John Jenkins, for his hospitality, and for giving me the opportunity to get to know this prestigious institution of the Church. I also extend my fraternal and prayerful best wishes to the Most Reverend Kevin Rhoades, Bishop of Fort Wayne - South Bend, for his participation in this event and his warm welcome. As you may know, I am the representative of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the United States, and so, in consideration of this official office I hold and exercise, I acknowledge to you all my profound gratitude to be with you today in order to address these important and timely subjects. 

In doing so, it is crucial to see that in the world of the present age, persecution of the faithful can manifest itself in a variety of forms, some obvious, but others less so. While it is necessary to remind ourselves of the obvious, we must also consider the not­so-obvious, for great danger to the future of religious freedom lies with religious persecution that appears inconsequential or seems benign but in fact is not. In my service to the Holy See, I have worked in various parts of the world including Iraq and Kuwait, Great Britain, Strasbourg, Nigeria, in the Vatican, and now the United States, it has been a part of my personal makeup and official duties to monitor and register concerns to my superiors about efforts that harm, intentionally or otherwise, the Church and God’s people. 

I realize that you have scheduled several prominent speakers who will address the critical questions dealing with religious freedom, persecution of Christians, and martyrdom in the present day around the globe. I do not wish to compete with them nor is in my intention to preempt their incisive and insightful comments which I am confident will elevate the mindfulness of your audience and potential readership about religious freedom, religious persecution, and martyrdom. Countries and regions where these challenges to the faithful exist are in China and Asia, Africa, Europe, the sub-Continent, the Middle East, and Latin America. Let me illustrate the problems in these countries with one example. The circumstances which our brothers and sisters in faith experience in the Peoples’ Republic of China are largely well known by many who follow international developments. The anguish which the Church faces in China has led Pope Benedict XVI to issue his 2007 letter to the Church in China to let the faithful of that great country, and of the world, know that the universal Church has not forgotten them and their faithful witness to Christ and to Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Similar problems exist elsewhere.

In nearby Pakistan and India, Christians face intimidation, sometimes with lethal consequences, which the civil authorities of these respective states seem incapable of arresting. Elsewhere, there are new pressures placed on religious freedom in Middle East, especially in Iraq and now in Syria, in parts of Africa including Egypt, Nigeria, the Sudan, and east Africa. The heavy burdens imposed on Christians in all of these regions can be, and often are, physical and harsh. In some instances, the faithful have witnessed their Christian faith at the expense of their lives which God gave them. In this regard, the heavy hand of so called “anti-blasphemy” laws has sometimes been the method to subjugate the Christian faith.

In all of these instances, we see that the faithful persist in their fidelity to Jesus Christ and his Holy Church! For throughout her history, the Church has gained strength when persecuted. We must recall the words of the Preface for Holy Martyrs from the second edition of the Roman Missal: God chooses the weak and makes them strong. In short, with God’s help we can prevail, but without Him, even our greatest human strength is insufficient because it is frail.

As the papal nuncio to the United States, I realize that I speak from a distinguished podium at a great university. It is my intention to propose for your consideration the interrelated matters of religious freedom, persecution, and martyrdom that are, or should be, of vital concern to you – for these grave concerns exist not only abroad, but they also exist within your own homeland. 

In order to establish a framework for my presentation, several key definitions are in order. I will first address the subject of martyrdom. What is it, and why is it relevant to you today? I am sure that most if not all of us are familiar with the martyrs of the Church – both past and present – who gave of their lives because they would not compromise on the principles of faith that accompany the call to discipleship. Theirs is the experience of great suffering that often includes torture and death. Some of the early martyrs of the Church experienced this through cruelty, often by slow means, designed to bring on death. However, the intention underlying the objectives of the persecutor is important to understand: it was to eradicate the public witness to Jesus Christ and His Church. An accompanying objective can be the incapacitation of the faith by enticing people to renounce their beliefs, or at least their public manifestations, rather than undergo great hardships that will be, or can be, applied if believers persist in their resistance to apostasy. The plan is straightforward: if the faith persists, so will the hardships. In more recent times, martyrdom may not necessitate torture and death; however, the objective of those who desire to harm the faith may choose the path of ridiculing the believers so that they become outcasts from mainstream society and are marginalized from meaningful participation in public life. This brings me to the meaning of persecution. 

Persecution is typically associated with the deeds preceding those necessary to make martyrs for the faith. While acts of persecution can mirror those associated with martyrdom, other elements can be directed to sustaining difficulty, annoyance, and harassment that are designed to frustrate the beliefs of the targeted person or persons rather than to eliminate these persons. It would seem, then, that the objective of persecution is to remove from the public square the beliefs themselves and the public manifestations without necessarily eliminating the persons who hold the beliefs. The victimization may not be designed to destroy the believer but only the belief and its open manifestations. From the public viewpoint, the believer remains but the faith eventually disappears. 

In the context of martyrdom and persecution, the law enforcement branches of the state can be relied upon to achieve the desired goal. The state’s enforcement mechanisms were surely employed in the campaigns that brought the deaths of the early Roman martyrs. The legal mechanisms of new legislation and its enforcement in Tudor England were relied upon in the persecution and martyrdom of Thomas More and John Fisher. As one thinks about these two heroic individuals, you can see the multiple objectives of the state. The first, in their sequential order, were words and then deeds designed to encourage through pressure More and Fisher to accept the King’s and Parliament’s wills to agree with the divorce of King Henry from Queen Catherine.

However, when Fisher and More remained resolved in their fidelity to the Church’s teachings about the validity of the marriage but discreet in how they did so, the state mechanisms designed to bring them and their views around were ratcheted up so as to increase the pressure on them. When they resisted the increased pressure, statutes were enacted and amended to make non-compliance a treasonable and, therefore, a capital offence. It was understood by Fisher, More, and the King’s agents that a hideous death rather than a lesser punishment was the inevitable penalty. It is said that while torture was recommended by some to hasten the compliance of Fisher and More, the King’s conscience would not permit it. Nevertheless, when increased levels of persecution did not achieve the desired result of modifying the views of Fisher and More, martyrdom by beheading – rather than hanging, drawing, and quartering – was the inevitable solution. In the cases of Fisher and More, persecution came first, and then it was followed by martyrdom. In both cases, religious freedom was the target. I now turn to religious freedom. What is it? 

Religious freedom is the exercise of fidelity to God and His Holy Church without compromise. Human action that reflects this fidelity is what has hastened martyrdom and persecution for many believers of the past, and of today. At the core of this fidelity is the desire to be a good citizen of the two cities where we all live: the City of Man and the City of God. This kind of dual citizenship necessitates libertas Ecclesiae, i.e., the freedom of the Church. This freedom is essential to the religious freedom which properly belongs to the human person. And this freedom that belongs to the human person is simultaneously a human, civil, and natural right which is not conferred by the state because it subsists in the human person’s nature. As the papal representative of the Holy See to the United States, the subject of religious liberty frequently surfaces in the international discussions that constitute a major part of my priestly service to our Church, to the Holy Father, and to you, my dear friends. 

It is evident that there is a pressing need to protect religious freedom around the world. However, this freedom is not something that can or should be imposed for it subsists on the Truth of God – “Truth can impose itself on the human mind by the force of its own truth, which wins over the mind with both gentleness and power”!¹ That there is recognition by many people of good will about this truth is reassuring given the fact that religious persecution and martyrdom are still present in the world today. This recognition, however, is often challenged by alarms registered by skeptics who question whether it is proper for there to be a public role for religion in civic life. 

We live in an age where most, but not all, of your fellow countrymen still share in the conviction that Americans are essentially a religious people. While current data suggests a progressive decline in religious belief across the western world including the United States, there still appears to be deference given to the importance of religion. But as I have just indicated, there are those who question whether religion or religious belief should have a role in public life and civic affairs. The problem of persecution begins with this reluctance to accept the public role of religion in these affairs, especially but not always when the protection of religious freedom involves beliefs that the powerful of the political society do not share. Thus we are presented with the pressing question about whether the devoted religious believer, let us say the Catholic, can have a right to exercise citizenship in the most robust fashion when his or her views on civic concerns are informed by the faith. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution more than suggests an affirmative answer to this question. But we should not be satisfied with this recognition. After all, important figures, some of whom hold high public office, are speaking today about the right of freedom of worship, but their discourse fails to acknowledge that there is also a complementary right about the unencumbered ability to exercise religious faith in a responsible and at the same time public manner.

In the remaining time that is allotted to me, I shall focus on these concerns and the emerging deleterious impact on the authentic and legitimate exercise of religious freedom within your great country. Let me address the concerns that I see about this fundamental and non-derogable right, on your home front. 

Let me begin by briefly stating that as a man of God and therefore a man of hope, it is essential to pray for a just resolution to the issues which face the faithful and their fidelity. As you may know, the Bishops of the United States conducted earlier this year the Fortnight for Freedom, and more recently in October a Novena for Life and Liberty, in order to elevate prayerful consciousness and other responsibilities of the faithful to ensure protection of the “First Freedom” cherished by your nation. One compelling catalyst for these initiatives is found in the legitimate concerns about religious liberty posed by the uncertainties surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; however, this is by no means the only source of concern. When Catholic Charities and businesses owned by faithful Catholics experience pressure to alter their cherished beliefs, the problem is experienced in other venues. In short, the menace to religious liberty is concrete on many fronts. Evidence is emerging which demonstrates that the threat to religious freedom is not solely a concern for non-democratic and totalitarian regimes. Unfortunately it is surfacing with greater regularity in what many consider the great democracies of the world. This is a tragedy for not only the believer but also for democratic society. Here we must consider the important point that religious freedom is not an end in itself, because it has as its highest purpose protection of the ultimate dignity of the human person.² This argument was acknowledged by Pope Paul VI at the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council in his address to the rulers of nations when he rhetorically asked the question “What does the Church seek from you?” 

She asks of you only liberty, the liberty to believe and to preach her faith, the freedom to love God and serve Him, the freedom to live and to bring to men her message of life. Do not fear her. She is made in the image of her Master, whose mysterious action does not interfere with your prerogatives but heals everything human of its fatal weakness, transfigures it, and fills it with hope, truth, and beauty.

Allow Christ to exercise his purifying action on society!... And we, His humble ministers, allow us to spread everywhere without hindrance the Gospel of peace... Of it, your peoples will be the first beneficiaries, since the Church forms for you loyal citizens, friends of social peace and progress.³

One illustration of interference with religious freedom, as outlined by Pope Paul, recently surfaced in England which has a Christian past and for centuries was one place where Christianity flourished. The 2010 decision of an English court in the case of Johns vs. Darby City Council, Queens Bench division, has essentially declared that an evangelical Christian couple is unfit to be legal guardians of foster children because of their faith which informs them that certain sexual expressions by consenting adults are sin. Mr. and Mrs. Johns, a devout evangelical couple, had successfully and lovingly served as foster parents for needy children in the past. In spite of their previous exemplary service caring for children who needed love and protection, the civil authorities of the United Kingdom expressed grave reservations about the continuing suitability of Christians who firmly pursue their Christian faith. As a result of the court’s decision, the exercise of religious faith which is protected in theory by juridical texts is, in fact, subject to forfeit. As the judges noted in their decision, the belief of Mr. and Mrs. Johns is based on “religious precepts” which can be “divisive, capricious, and arbitrary.”

Paradoxically, Mr. and Mrs. Johns were doing what is clearly protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – texts which your nation claims to adhere to, and, in the case of the Covenant, is a party. The Johns’ religious freedom was sacrificed to practices which are today considered “rights” by many well educated persons but which are not mentioned in the applicable juridical texts as is religious freedom. If George Orwell were still alive today, he would certainly have material to write a sequel to his famous novel 1984 in which the totalitarian state, amongst other things, found effective means from distancing children from their parents and monopolizing the control of educational processes especially on moral issues. 

I am sure the Johns case will be discussed much more in the future. But we must take stock of the fact that the challenges to authentic religious freedom are not relegated to distant places such as England. My concerns about religious liberty and my efforts to protect them have a bearing on what is presently going on in the United States. Over the past months, we have heard much about the legitimate reservations raised by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that pertain to authentic religious freedom and the proper exercise of faith in public. The issues and reservations identified by the Conference’s president, Cardinal Dolan, about the health care mandate dealing with artificial contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization are very real, and they pose grave threats to the vitality of Catholicism in the United States. But we must not forget the other perils to religious liberty that your great country has experienced in recent years. Once again, we see that the rule of law, in the context of your First Amendment and important international protections for religious freedom, has been pushed aside. Let me cite some examples of these other hazards. 

A few years ago, the Federal courts of the United States considered the case of Parker v. Hurley in which a number of families were alarmed over the curriculum of the public schools in Lexington, Massachusetts (ironically one of your cradles of liberty!) where young children were obliged to learn about family diversity as presented in a children’s book that elevated as natural and wholesome same-sex relations in marriage. The Parker family and other families, who are Judeo-Christian believers, wished to pursue an “opt-out” for their children from this instruction. While they may not have been aware of it, their sensible plan reflected sound and reasonable rights that are addressed and protected by international human rights standards which are echoed in the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, of the Second Vatican Council.⁴ However, the civil authorities and the Federal courts disagreed with, and thereby denied, the lawful claims of these parents who were trying to protect their children from the morally unacceptable. If these children were to remain in public schools, they had to participate in the indoctrination of what the public schools thought was proper for young children. Put simply, religious freedom was forcefully pushed aside once again.

More recently, we recall the federal court review of Proposition 8 in California. In the legal proceedings surrounding this initiative dealing with the meaning of marriage, Judge Vaughan Walker said this about religious exercise – a freedom enshrined in your Constitution: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”⁵ This “harm” cited by the judge became the basis for devising a mechanism used to minimize if not eradicate the free exercise of religion which includes the vigorous participation of the religious believer in public and political life.

On other fronts, we have witnessed Catholic Charities across the United States being removed from vital social services that advance the common good because the upright people administering these programs would not adopt policies or engage in procedures that violate fundamental moral principles of the Catholic faith. Furthermore, we have observed influential members of the national American community – especially public officials and university faculty members – who profess to be Catholic, allying with those forces that are pitted against the Church in fundamental moral teachings dealing with critical issues such as abortion, population control, the redefinition of marriage, embryonic stem cell commodification, and problematic adoptions, to name but a few. In regard to teachers, especially university and college professors, we have witnessed that some instructors who claim the moniker “Catholic” are often the sources of teachings that conflict with, rather than explain and defend, Catholic teachings in the important public policy issues of the day. While some of these faculty members are affiliated with non-Catholic institutions of higher learning, others teach at institutions that hold themselves out to be Catholic. This, my brothers and sisters, is a grave and major problem that challenges the first freedom of religious liberty and the higher purpose of the human person.

History can help us understand what is happening in the present moment to this first freedom. Catholics have, in the past, experienced and weathered the storms that have threatened religious freedom. In this context, we recall that Pope Pius XI took steps to address these grave problems in his 1931 encyclical letter Non Abbiamo Bisogno dealing with religious persecution of the faithful by the fascists in Italy, and in his 1937 letter Mit Brennender Sorge addressing parallel threats initiated by the National Socialists in Germany. In the context of Germany during the reign of National Socialism, we recall that the Oxford Professor Nathanial Micklem examined and discussed the persecution of the Catholic Church is Germany in his 1939 book entitled National Socialism and the Roman Catholic Church. The problems identified by Micklem over six decades ago that deal with the heavy grip of the state’s hand in authentic religious liberty are still with us today.

An Englishman who found his way to the United States, Christopher Dawson (who became a Catholic in his early adulthood) still reminds us that the modern state, even the democratic one, can exert all kinds of pressure on authentic religious freedom. Dawson insightfully explained that the modern democratic state can join the totalitarian one in not being satisfied with “passive obedience” when “it demands full cooperation from the cradle to the grave.” He identified the challenges that secularism and secular societies can impose on Christians which surface on the cultural and the political levels. Dawson thus warned that “if Christians cannot assert their right to exist” then “they will eventually be pushed not only out of modern culture, but out of physical existence.” He acknowledged that this was not only a problem in the totalitarian and non-democratic states, but “it will also become the issue in England and America if we do not use our opportunities while we still have them.”⁶

 

While Dawson made his observations in the 1950’s, we need to recall that Blessed John Paul II recognized the durability of the problems noticed by Dawson during the era that saw the collapse of the modern Soviet totalitarian state. In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, John Paul reminds us that “totalitarianism attempts to destroy the Church, or at least to reduce her to submission, making her an instrument if its own ideological apparatus.”⁷But he further noted that this threat is not solely expressed by the state established on dictatorship, for it can also be exercised by a democracy, for “a democracy without values easily turns into openly or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”⁸ Since the conclusion of the Second World War and the formation of the United Nations, democracies around the world have periodically exhibited traits of this new totalitarianism that emerges from a democracy-without-values, values that must be based on the timeless and universal moral principles adhered to and taught by our Church because these principles are founded on the Truth of Christ which came to set us free!

So, what can be done? Cardinal Dolan has recently exhorted the Catholic faithful to confront the challenges which the faith faces today. His brother bishops in this country and around the world have taken similar action. It is a desperate day when well-educated persons label these efforts as attempts by the hierarchy to control the activities of Catholics in public life. Some have even criticized publicly Cardinal Dolan’s call to the faithful to defend the Catholic contribution to political debate in this fashion: “Dolan to Lay Catholics: Be Our ‘Attractive, Articulate’, (and Unpaid) Flacks.”⁹ I pray that the authors meant well in saying this, in spite of the statement’s disparaging tone, but these persons fail to recall the nature of the Church as explained by the Second Vatican Council and reiterated by Blessed John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (1988).

In this exhortation, the Pope urged the lay faithful to be mindful of their crucial role in temporal affairs as disciples of Christ rather than as elements of some political or secular ideology that bases its platform on an indecipherable formula established on the ambiguous foundation that unsuccessfully relies on the cure of “social justice.” It is the proper function of bishops to be teachers of the faith, but it is also true that the laity exercise a major role in implementing this same faith in the affairs of the world. This is why John Paul repeatedly encouraged the faithful with the words of Jesus: “You go into my vineyard, too” (Mt 20:4).¹⁰ In order to respond affirmatively to this call, religious freedom is essential.

We are still a far cry from fully embracing the Holy Father’s encouraging exhortation when we witness in an unprecedented way a platform being assumed by a major political party, having intrinsic evils among its basic principles, and Catholic faithful publicly supporting it. There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church; through this strategy, the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted. 

We must all be mindful that our Lord noted, time and again, that each member of the Church – clerical, religious, and lay – is a branch on the vine of Christ. In our unity with Him, we are a part of something universal – one faith, one belief displayed through a variety of talents, in a multiplicity of places. This is what our Lord asks us to do, and, therefore, this is what we must do: to preach and live the Good News and to do so in communion with our Lord, with the successors of His apostles, and with His Vicar. It is our faith, and it is our duty to live and proclaim the Gospel through the Church’s teachings so that by reasoned proposition, not imposition, God’s will and our discipleship can advance the common good for every member of the human family. This, my friends, is essential to authentic religious freedom because it is the means by which we fulfill the destiny of the human person. 

And so, let us go into the Lord’s vineyard together, with love, hope, freedom, the firmness of the convictions of our faith, and the help that God so willingly extends to us. We have been appointed by God and His holy Church to go forth and bear much fruit. Let us do so with the freedom and its necessary complement, responsibility, which God has given us. We further know that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. What God has given, the servant state does not have the competence to remove. And God has given us the truth of His Son, the truth who gives us the most precious freedom of all, which is the desire to be with God forever! This is our destiny, and this is why religious freedom as I have explained it is of paramount importance. It is essential to the exercise of our other rights and responsibilities as citizens of the Two Cities.

Thank you very much. 

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Apostolic Nuncio to the United States 

Endnotes

1 Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, N.1.

2 This point was made by Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., who was a major contributor to the drafting of the Declaration on Religious Liberty; fn 23, The Documents of Vatican II, Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, Angelus Publication, 1966, p. 688.

3 See, http://www.vatican.va/holyfather/paulvi/speeches/1965/documents/hfp-vispe19651208epilogo­concilio-governanti en.html.

4 The Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, in N. 5, asserts, as do the UDHR and the ICCPR, that parents have rights concerning the moral education of their children which reflect their religious beliefs. The courts deciding the Parker case did not even mention these obligations in their decision.

5 Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, Findings of Fact N. 77 (August 2010).

6 Christopher Dawson, “The Challenge of Secularism”, Catholic World (1956).

7 John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus on the 100th Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, 45, (1991); cf, Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Word of Today, Gaudium et Spes, 76.

8 Centesimus Annus, 46

9 Eduardo Peñalver “Dolan to Lay Catholics: Be Our ‘Attractive, Articulate’ (and Unpaid) Flacks,” Commonweal Magazine, dotCommonweal blog (5 March 2012).

10 John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and the World, Christifideles Laici, 2 (1988).

Tras perseguir a la Iglesia durante décadas fue bautizado por su hijo al que prohibía ser creyente

In Religión en Libertad 

Dios tiene sus tiempos para encontrarse con las personas y utiliza los instrumentos más inimaginables para realizar su obra. Es lo que ocurrió con Hung Phuoc Lam, un dominico vietnamita, cuya vocación fue utilizada por Dios para transformar el corazón de su padre, un perseguidor de la Iglesia.

Este fraile de la Orden de Predicadores cuenta en su experiencia que nació en una familia pagano-católica puesto que su padre veneraba a sus ancestros y su tía era monja budista mientras que su madre era católica. Aun así, él fue bautizado católico.

Su padre les prohibía ir a la Iglesia
Sin embargo, Phuoc Lam relata que la vida de fe y la de su madre no era nada sencilla. “Mi padre era muy severo y prohibía a mi madre ir a la Iglesia –y por lo tanto también estaba prohibido para mí”. Su padre odiaba el catolicismo por el trato que había recibido en un par de ocasiones por varios curas y religiosas, algo que no admitía. “Desde entonces se llenó de prejuicios contra los sacerdotes y contra la Iglesia, y el resultado inevitable era esta prohibición a los miembros de mi familia”.

La fe en Dios durante tantos años de su madre alimentó también a Hung y como él mismo recuerda, “con Dios todo es posible”. “Sólo puedo decir que esta situación era muy triste. Yo seguí confiando en Dios. Rezaba. Le rogaba que cambiara el corazón de mi padre costara lo que costara. No excluí mi propia llamada”.

“Que Dios cambiara el corazón de mi padre”
El Señor no tardó en responder a las oraciones de este joven vietnamita. Y la respuesta fue contundente. “Dios me llamó a la orden dominica, tenía 26 años y mi padre no aceptó la vocación”, asegura. Entonces fue cuando pudo entender las palabras del Evangelio de San Mateo: “no he venido a traer paz, sino espada”.

Su padre estaba furioso y le decía: “¡te prohíbo ser católico y ahora quieres ser sacerdote! ¿No te das cuenta de cómo son los sacerdotes y las monjas?”. De hecho, tomó una actitud “indiferente” hacía su hijo y casi le abandonó. A pesar de ello, “yo seguí adelante, en silencio, confiando en Dios. Y todos los días recé por él con mi madre”.

“Dios cambió a mi padre”
Hung Phuoc Lam entró en el Noviciado para ser fraile dominico mientras el Señor comenzaba también a actuar en su padre. Pasaron los años pero “Dios cambio a mi padre y lo hizo de verdad”.

¿Qué ocurrió para que se diera este cambio de actitud? La clave estuvo en la profesión de sus primeros votos. Ahí fue cuando aceptó la vocación de su hijo. “Luego hice mis votos finales en la Orden de Predicadores y participó en la celebración y gradualmente fue desapareciendo su prejuicio contra la Iglesia”.

“He sido derrotado por Dios”
De este modo, antes de su ordenación hizo una petición muy importante a su padre: que dejara a su madre ir a la Iglesia. Aceptó y su madre era la mujer más feliz en la faz de la tierra. “Fue una alegría el día de mi ordenación, pues la paz regresó a mi familia. Recibí aquello que pensaba haber perdido”, cuenta ahora.

Dios aún no había acabado su trabajo y en la ordenación el padre fue consciente de la realidad: “he sido derrotado por Dios; no le puedo arrebatar a mi hijo. Mi hijo es sacerdote. Está decidido; es un hecho”.

“Bauticé a mi padre”
Como el Señor es el que maneja los tiempos cuatro años después de hacerse sacerdote ocurrió el hecho más maravilloso. “Mi padre expresó el deseo de ser cristiano”. Fue el hijo el que bautizó a su padre en 2006. El que le dio la vida material era ahora el hijo espiritual. “Bauticé a mucha gente, pero jamás olvidaré el momento en que bauticé a mi padre”.

Afirma este fraile dominico que “Dios derrotó a mi padre y el Señor hizo cosas grandes por mi familia”. Tiene clarísimo que “esto fue obra de Dios y que todo es para su gloria. Me dio mucho más de lo que yo le pedí en 20 años de oración silenciosa y perseverante. Él, con su poder, hace milagros en cosas normales”.

La intercesión de la sangre de los mártires
Su vocación dominica, la conversión de su padre es como dice él mismo una obra de Dios y también por la intercesión de los mártires. Vietnam es una tierra regada por la sangre de los mártires y especialmente por numerosos domínicos que dieron su vida por el anuncio del Evangelio en esta tierra.

Obispos, frailes y laicos derramaron su sangre en Vietnam por amor a Dios y a las almas. Sangre que nunca será balde y que bendice la tierra en la que se esparce. En 1988 Juan Pablo II proclamó santos en la Plaza de San Pedro a un total de 117 mártires vietnamitas de los siglos XVIII y XIX, y cuya memoria se celebra el 24 de noviembre.

Muchos de ellos eran dominicos. Seis obispos de la Orden, entre ellos San Valentín de Berriochoa y San José María Díaz Sanjurjo, 15 frailes dominicos, 2 sacerdotes terciarios dominicos así como decenas de laicos y catequistas de la Orden de Predicadores, fueron asesinados por su fe.

Del total, setenta y cinco fueron decapitados. El resto fueron estrangulados, quemados vivos, descuartizados o torturados en prisión. Todos ellos se negaron a abjurar de su fe y pisotear la Cruz de Cristo. Ahora su sangre sigue dando frutos en el país por el que entregaron su vida.