« Noonan on Miers | Main | Schoenborn clarifies »
October 06, 2005
Bishop Cappio
The Brazilian bishop's hunger strike continues:
He is supported by his order (Franciscans)
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3314745
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bishop Cappio:
Comments
I don't think that's a letter of support.
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Oct 6, 2005 12:27:15 AM
Clarification: I don't think that's a letter of support for the hunger strike. It certainly is a letter of support for the Bishop.
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Oct 6, 2005 12:30:15 AM
Are hunger strikes okay? It seems to me they're anti-life and immoral. I mean, basically one is threatening suicide if others don't do something. Very different than martyrdom. We're called to be good stewards of creation, including rivers. We're also called to be good stewards of our own bodies. I think what this Bishop is doing is very wrong.
Posted by: Charles at Oct 6, 2005 6:25:35 AM
Hunger strikes do not neccessarily threaten suicide. They would certainly seem to if the demand can go on for longer than the striker can hold out.
But then there were the Harvard Kids who went on a hunger strike at the end of the Shiavo incident. They were all far better prepared for the effects of hunger than she was for dehydration, so it was unlikely they'd starve themselves to the point of death, even if justice was never served.
At best, I think we can only say that hunger strikes are immoral in particular situations.
Posted by: Boniface McInnes at Oct 6, 2005 7:19:22 AM
At the very least it’s an occasion for scandal, even if the bishop has no intention of carrying it through to the end – it’s hardly appropriate for a bishop to hold himself up as an example for others as he threatens suicide over political issues.
Posted by: Leo at Oct 6, 2005 7:35:52 AM
Fasting against someone or something unjust is an ancient method of calling attention and judgment against a person. It works as a sort of trial by ordeal combined with shaming in some; the ancient Irish made it obligatory for the person fasted against to fast also, or confess being wrong and pay the penalty.
Fasting as protest runs through a lot of Indo-European cultures; and it's quite possible that some of the biblical fasting to obtain things from God had its origins in something similar -- either as a protest against God, or an appeal for God to notice and be impartial judge between two parties or outcomes.
I blame Elijah. :)
Posted by: Maureen at Oct 6, 2005 8:09:23 AM
Obviously, hunger strikes can sometimes mask mental illness, and they really must always be used selectively (despite what you might see on certain college campuses). But a hunger strike is not a form of suicide and one also does not fast "against" someone as a sort of spiritual blackmail. The real purpose of a hunger strike was described by Gandhi in the following part of a 1924 interview:
"Fasting as a weapon can only be used against a lover, a friend, a follower or co-worker who, on account of his love for you and the sufferings you undergo actually, realize his mistake and corrects himself. He purifies himself of an evil that he knows and acknowledges being an evil. You recall him from his evil ways to the correct path.
"A son can fast against a father addicted to drink to cure him of his evil. The father knows it to be evil and realizes the enormity of it by the sufferings of the son and he corrects himself. My followers and co-workers who resorted to violence in Bombay knew that violence was against the principle of non-co-operation. Only they deviated from that fundamental principle. My fasting brought home to them their mistake and they corrected it.
"But you cannot fast even against a friend when other considerations than actual realization of his evil ways are likely to make him yield. For example, when I proposed to introduce an untouchable as a member of my household, my wife objected. My fasting against her under such circumstances might have obliged her to give in. She would not want her husband to die for opposing to his proposal. Fasting would not make her understand the purpose behind my action, which was to give the rightful dignity to my fellow human who was denied it for centuries."
The Bishop's drastic action is meant to show the enormity of the São Francisco re-distribution project, with its (perceived) threat of increased deforestation, sedimentation, habitat loss for wildlife and fisheries stock, and the ultimate destruction of the livelihoods and lives of his brothers and sisters who live nearby. The fast of a prominent spiritual figure might at times be necessary for people to fully realize the implications of what they are doing - the sort of realization that is often otherwise clouded by self-interest.
Thanks.
Neil
Posted by: Neil at Oct 6, 2005 8:54:52 AM
Hey, if the Bishop is fasting, I have no problem with that. Would that more Bishops would fast, and that they would fast to combat less fashionable evils. But this is a "hunger strike." Doesn't that mean "I won't eat until you do x!"? That's threatening suicide. (It's also one step up from a child holding his breath.) If the Bishop is fasting, let's call it a fast. If it's a hunger strike, I think that's wrong.
Posted by: Charles at Oct 6, 2005 9:05:53 AM
Sheeez - this man is fasting to call attention to the fact that someone is stealing the water from his people. This is exemplary and admirable! Fasting is always a good thing - like prayer and almsgiving it is an eminent good work. It reminds us that we do not live by bread alone. Suppose he fasts for a year and does not die - but like St. Catherine he is sustained by God? Good for him.
Posted by: Michaelus at Oct 6, 2005 9:12:00 AM
Seems to me that diverting water from a wet area to a dry area could be sorta ... good.
Posted by: WRY at Oct 6, 2005 9:31:22 AM
Seems to me that diverting money from a rich area to a poor area could be sorta... ...
Posted by: j-g at Oct 6, 2005 9:54:32 AM
In his declaration, “A Life for Life”, he declared that he would continue his strike “to the death” unless there was a review, signed by the President of Brazil, of the project to divert the San Francisco River.
Sounds like what the bishop is really after is public accountability from politicians who regularly decide on the fate of a region without any input from those most affected. I don't think the bishop is trying to dabble in progressive policymaking. I can almost feel the typical American hostility lurking whenever a Latin American prelate stands up for the poor.
Furthermore, the bishop's hunger strike does not intend his own death. His death is not the means to the end he seeks, only a foreseeably possible negative effect. I don't see a moral problem under double effect.
Posted by: L.T. at Oct 6, 2005 10:10:32 AM
According to a story in the Boston Globe, the diversion will take 1.4 percent of the water from the Sao Francisco River.
That's hardly a devastating amount, but opponents are claiming it would ruin their river!
Meanwhile there are 18 MILLION people who will benefit from having the water in the drought-stricken northeast, which is the poorest area of Brazil.
At a distance - and admittedly with only the barest research - I wonder if this is environemntalism run amok. Incidentally, the bishops in the grought-stricken areas are said to support the diversion.
Posted by: WRY at Oct 6, 2005 10:27:48 AM
environemntalism
that's typing run amok!
Posted by: WRY at Oct 6, 2005 10:28:43 AM
and ya gotta watch that grout when it gets loose!
I meant "drought"
Posted by: WRY at Oct 6, 2005 10:30:20 AM
Where is Christ in all of this?
Posted by: Larry at Oct 6, 2005 10:58:24 AM
The Brazilian NCB has condemned hunger strike to the point of death, as D. Cappio threatened in hi open letter.
And I do think that the bishop is misguided. The intent is to accomplish in Brazilian NE what was accomplished in California with irrigation. The transposition of a river whose average width is 3mls (up to 30mls in some points) will create a lot of arable land which will create demand for local labor, alleviating, if not finishing, extreme poverty in the region.
+JMJ+
Posted by: Augustine at Oct 6, 2005 11:53:26 AM
People here are sounding convincing about the benefits of this project...but why wouldn't the bishop, who is there, not be able to make a sound judgment about it? Maybe there are some aspects to the situation that we don't understand?
I don't think a hunger strike is morally the same as suicide. But what its moral status is...actually I would like some guidance from the Church about it -is there any?
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Oct 6, 2005 12:18:39 PM
From The (UK) Guardian:
*Archbishop Aldo Pagotto of the northeastern state of Paraiba, which would benefit from the project, said Cappio was ``committing a sin of practicing a sort of euthanasia.''*
So the bishops disagree. Who woulda thunk that a bishop who speaks the language of the left ("hunger strike"), as opposed to the language of the Church ("fast"), would turn out to be supporting, not a non-negotiable (eg-no abortion), but one side of an issue about which men of goodwill can differ? Reminds me of the US bishops, who are so quick to act on an issue that seems unsettled and is a darling of the left-such as capital punishment or the justness of a particular war, but are wishy-washy when it comes to clear teaching of the Church. Maybe some of our bishops will go on hunger strikes to the death. That I would totally support. (I'm kinda kidding.)
Posted by: Charles at Oct 6, 2005 12:38:21 PM
So it seems that the good bishop finished his hunger stike after the president promised further studies. Good for the bishop.
+JMJ+
Posted by: Augustine at Oct 6, 2005 4:22:23 PM
He stopped the fast after 11 days and he made his point. It was a peaceful means but was it effective. The ballot would do the job much better but this is Brazil and the Northeast is an area that has suffered much in the past several decades. Most of the people are malnourished and are fasting involuntarily. There is a strong push to end illiteracy but it has light years to go. The Bishop chose a means that would gain attention, much like Ghandi. But he is now squarely in the sights of some very nasty people who have a habit of making their enemies disappear. To oppose them is to ask to have ants in your mouth. Pray for him.
Posted by: Tom Kelty at Oct 6, 2005 4:36:15 PM
I am from Brazil. The idea of diverting water is good, the current project is not. The idea of not diverting water is bad. This is not a bishop standing for 'the poor'. "The poor" is such an abstract notion. A lot of poor people could benefit from a diversion, is the Bishop standing up for them? While this goes on, abortion is almost becoming legal, and the major TV network is using soap operas to indoctrinate people into believing in reincarnation. The prelates, however, are too busy supporting the pro-abortion government and the pro-reincarnation TV Globo in their holy quest to ban firearms. Who can be bothered with mass murder and heretical corruption of the faithful? The last time they were so worried with something is when the run an informal public poll on Churches about the evil ALCA, in a joint effort with the communists running the same poll on universities. When someone speaks about Charity in a church, its usually tied with “Social responsibility” or something out of a leftist dictionary. As if there was no Catholic doctrine before the 60’s.
Posted by: Delance at Oct 6, 2005 4:43:06 PM
Delance,
As a fellow country man of yours, I feel your pain about the leftist Liberation Theology that permeates the Churhc in Brazil.
+JMJ+
Posted by: Augustine at Oct 6, 2005 5:02:05 PM
