Reading this article gives many insights to the above questions.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/sharing-catholic-social-teaching-challenges-and-directions.cfm

Thank you for the link to the article from the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is a very interesting text.

Last Monday, we had the conference in Warsaw on security issues. The title of the conference is "Security and economic development and quality of life in the light of internal and external threats." During the conference I had a talk on the subject, in which I argued that economic development in order to provide safety must lead to improving the lives of individuals and society. The title of my article was: “The catholic social teaching as an response to the challenges of social security in the XXI century”.

I have a chapter in the forthcoming book Towards a Kenotic Vision of Authority in the Catholic Church http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=1141&recCount=25&recPointer=0&bibId=18132906 and that explores a whole new postmodern approach to authority for the Catholic Magisterium  that could have profound implications for social formation. I am happy to make the manuscript of my chapter Authority Without Sovereignty available on a strictly personal basis to anyone researching this area.

I am also interested in the topic of how the Catholic Church and its teachings, especially the social teaching of the Catholic Church, is received in your countries. I live in a country that is mostly Catholic. Statistics on religion in Poland (Eurobarometer, 2012. Discrimination in the European Union in 2012) are as follows:

Catholic (91%)

Orthodox (1%)

Other Religion (2%)

Atheist (2%)

Non believer / Agnostic (3%)

Not Stated (1%)

This data is based on the declarations given by interviewed people. The situation is somewhat different when it comes to the actual religious practice. Other statements (Boguszewski, R. 2014. Zmiany w zakresie wiary i religijności Polaków po śmierci Jana Pawła II - Changes in the faith and religious Poles after the death of John Paul II. CBOS) say that:

6% Attended Mass or religious services more than once a week.

48% attended Mass or religious services once a week.

18% attended Mass or religious services once or twice around a month.

20% attended Mass or religious services a few times a year.

8% did not attend Mass or religious services at all.

Although it seems that I live in a Catholic country, there is a current trend in Poland which try to close the Catholic Church only in temples and places of worship. There are more and more voices that not only do not want to listen to the social teaching of the church, but they try to convince the public that religion should disappear from the public life. According to them, The Church has to deal with only with the matters of the spirit and not to interfere in public affairs. Religious freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution and other laws, is interpreted as lack of any religion in public space and. They are trying to limit Church’s (or other religion) right to speak in public affairs, the religious accents are excluded from public life. The standard in Poland is the presence of the sign of the cross in schools, offices and other public institutions. Now, they want to remove all religious signs from those places (the presence of the cross in the Polish Parliament has been criticized by some political groups and they attempted to remove the cross on the basis of the judgment of the court). The references to Christian values are becoming a symbol of what has passed. They are trying to create a vision in which modernity is opposed to religion. Of course, there is no an open struggle with the church and religion, but there is disturbing and very damaging trend that is becoming more and more present in human thinking in my country.

I do not want to say that Church matters should be mixed with the politics. Unfortunately, we also have so many examples of such activities and of course this is not a way to go for the Catholic Church. I am only talking about the right to speak about people’s problems and struggles and to speak about the ways of salving those problems in the perspective of Christian values.

This is the situation in Poland. And what it looks like in your country?

This is a very interesting question and i suppose many Catholic (e.g clagy) are not aware that such  Compendiun does not reach laity. I think we need to find simple methods of making it available to laity then this will help us scale its influence on their attitude. Another fact is that the Social Teaching of the Church is not easy to read, its  language is too high for ordinary people to read and comprehend it. Taking these points into consideration will effect positive attitude in my country and other countries. This can aid us respond to your question. 

Ithapeleng Antony Sebetseli, it is very true what you have just said. People do not know the social teaching of the Church. And this seems to be as a one of the most important job for many of us to make this teaching available to as many people as possible. Some people do not know this teaching and some of them do not want to listen to it.  Therefore, the quote from JP II - “… all men of learning in the Church are today called to unite faith with learning and wisdom, in order to help them to combine with each other …” (John Paul II, 1979, Redemptor Hominis) is so up to date. In addition, you are right about the difficulties with understanding what is written in Church's documents.  The words are difficult to understand, but the values and principles taught by Christ, and then by the Church (charity, respect for human dignity, respect for human life from conception to natural death, love of peace, care for the poor and the weak, justice, etc) are very simple . The world must start to live according to them. Now, when there are so many bad things going on in the world - those value and principles are  a response to the challenges of security in the XXI centur

I found this article... 

In the U.S., which is a democracy, and which has a definite "separation of church and state," no one religion can dictate what the state must do, nor may the state intervene in church matters. Spiritual values are individual and communal, but each must decide for herself how to live a good, compassionate, and courageous life, based on conscience and on one's own experience and traditions. An excellent approach would be for all of us to work together ... yes, this is an ideal, but a worthy ideal. ML   P.S. Remember that surveys which tell you how many people claim to follow a religion are self-reporting and therefore not necessarily scientifically accurate.

I also live in the democratic country. I understand that " no one religion can dictate what the state must do, nor may the state intervene in church matters". But, the Constitution of my country and the European Union law guarantee me "freedom of religion and freedom of speech and express my believes. Freedom of religion does not mean that I cannot talk about my religion and promote the values of my religion. I do not want to press anyone to be Catholic and I do not want anybody to live according to my believes. I believe in God but also I am convinced to the tolerance. I care for all people no matter their religion or believes. I want to respect the believes of all people, even they may be different from mine.

But, the values and principles taught by Christ, and then by the Church (charity, respect for human dignity, respect for human life from conception to natural death, love of peace, care for the poor and the weak, justice, etc) are very universal. Those values are written down in the Constitutions of many countries. And I think that everyone should live according to them no matter what is his or her religion and no matter if he or she believe in God or not. We are talking here about value that make world better.

Living in a democratic country, in which the Catholic Church's members live and share the same values, we need not to be fearful of any situation that confronts us. We should not loose our prophetic voice that which must be a challenge to the state to do good and the state must acknowledged good religious values in order to promote peaceful society.  Each person or Catholic Church member to be specific, has got the obligation to promote Church values within the country s/he lives, which will enhance other peoples' lives. This  must be part of the state mission.   

Dear Artur,

I do not live in a catholic society though I live in what is called the church belt (90 percent protestant). I noticed one strange thing. Though the Catholics are few in number and resources ,they are the only ones who seem to care about the poor. The only place that opens its doors for the homeless in my small town (Concord,NC) is run by the catholic church. Notice that most of its member are poor Hispanics or very few white Americans. Though I became an agnostic I must admit that I have a particular respect to the people raised in the catholic tradition.

Secondly, I think religion should not overcome the boundary of the spiritual world. If it does, and here I mean any religion, it becomes more lethal than any weapon. Think about the many atrocities committed and being committed in the name of religion.

The mission entrusted by Jesus to the Catholic Church is to preach the reign of God, the God who liberated slaves of Israel from Egypt (The book of Exodus 1-15).

Jeusu was crucified for witnessing the values of God's Kingdom, Justice, Truth, Equality and Love. Jesus preached God's Kingdom and  not the Church. But  He established the Church to be a sign of God's reign.

Unfortunately the Constantine Christianity after the edict of Milan (315 A.D.) forgot this radical missionary mandate entrusted by Jesus.

The Roman Catholic Church intorduced Catholicism to Sri-Lanka when the Portuguese, the imperial conqueror landed this Island in 1506. This is called Padroado. Then the Dutch introduced Calvinism (1638) and the British Anglicanism (1815). Hence majority of Sri Lankans who are Buddhists identify Christianity with this Conquest Theory of Missiology.

Even after 50 years of Vatican II the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka is slowly moving for the high ideals of Inter-religious Dialogue and specailly Trans-Ecclesial Ecumenism (Aloysius Pieris, The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation, 109).

The heirarchy of the Sri Lankan Catholic Church is divided on Post -War (2009) reconciliation and peacebuiding on ethnic and political ground. It does not enlighten the country by deeply studying the South African process of Truth and Reconciliation Commission or the Northern Island experience. The Church hierachy has no idea on the Role of the Catholic Church in Post-War Reconciliation and Peacebuilding.

The Good News preached by Jesus essentially demands the salvation or the liberation of humanity in this world.

Let us not forget that according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council the pre Vatican idea of "NO SALVATION  OUTSIDE THE  CHURCH" has been replaced by "NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE WORLD"  

I am particularly interested in Brahim's response.  I have been raised in the U.S. but have lived in Europe and Turkey, Greece.  I agree completely with Brahim that the Catholic Church seems to be the most devoted to the "social gospel" (my term) of Christ more than any other religious denomination has been.  In Birmingham, Alabama, always ranked among the "poor states," the Church has opened schools; the one that I have in mind is devoted particularly to educating the children from the poorer parts of the city--they have 100% graduation rates and nearly equal college acceptance rates. This happens in a state that graduates perhaps 70% of its high school students. Don't get me wrong--there are a large number of organizations here that have created shelters for battered women and children, homeless shelters, shelters for homeless veterans, etc.  This is the Bible Belt big time and quite a few organizations seem to care deeply about the poor.

I have mixed feelings about religion leaving the bounds of spirituality, chiefly because I grew up during the Civil Rights Era and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s activism within the Christian/Protestant Church.  Few supported him and most based their reasons on the point that churches should care for your soul and leave the government alone. Yet the Black Church stood up and defended the rights of its people--of all people to be free and to live a self-determined life.  Admittedly, at the time, few white churches supported King; he makes that point to his sorrow in "Letter from the Birmingham Jail."  In any case, he was successful in his time period.  Whether that would work now is very questionable, in my opinion.  Society, it seems, has grown more radical on the extremes ends of the political/religious spectrum and apathetic in the middle.

One point I would like to make.  Everyone cites Islamic terrorism as evidence of the terrible danger of mixing religion with politics. Western Christianity burned thousands of women as witches during the Middle Ages; the Pilgrim/Christian community in Salem hanged 19 men and women as witches--plus two dogs. I remember when George Bush (younger) ran for President--we had a slogan, "The last time we mixed religion and politics, we burned people as witches."  But the point I want to make is that the terrorism of ISIS and heaven known how many other so-called "Islamic" terrorist groups is no more 'Islamic" or "Muslim" than the East is the West.  We tend to forget in the West and U,S, in particular, that for centuries good "Christian" plantation owners justified human slavery through the Bible--quoting the "Curse of Ham" and the New Testament quotes about "servants obey your masters," etc. The general rule was that no Christian could be made a slave, but that was an inconvenient rule, so there had to be a way to get around that problem. Biblical justification followed.  Jim Crow segregation was backed by the southern Christian Church (and probably by quite a few churches around the rest of the country).

But we have a problem when we look at Christianity and its social activism as a religion and Islam as a religion.  Based on the community or "ummah" in Medina, Islam was a theocracy at its inception. But the Emir was elected for his piety, his religious knowledge, his personal integrity; there was no dynastic inheritance, overpowering wealth, etc. That quickly changed because "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  However, nations today that claim to be theocracies are NOT built upon the principles of Islam, but unfortunately, in the West, we don't know enough about Islam so we take the media's views as "gospel truth." All we know about is stoning and/or hanging women who were raped or allegedly committed adultery (where are those four witnesses?) We hear about honor killings of young women, events happening here in the U.S. now among some Muslim immigrants. We forget that Islam has never gone through a "reformation" or a split of religion and politics as happened in the West.  And that split still gives problems to the roles of both science and religion in the U.S,. and most of the West. There is a huge dichotomy so that one cannot be rational and a supporter of scientific method and have personal religious beliefs and values.  The split creates problems just as the fusion of religion and politics also creates problems--some worse than others.

We had a saying back in the Civil Rights Days that if Jesus Christ himself came back to Alabama, he would still have to ride on the back of the bus (because Jesus was not "white" nor blond and blue-eyed as often depicted in the U.S.), there is no way he would have been allowed to sit with the white folks in the front of the bus.  Similarly, I think if the Prophet were to return, he would be appalled and angry that the beauty of the faith he taught could be so perverted to justify slaughter, rape, and murder (although he did foresee the splitting into sects and warned against it).

In response to Wijith, Jesus' mission as you point out is the liberation of humanity in this world.  The mission of the Prophet is exactly the same--'Truth stands out from Error."  For us so many centuries later, we are members of the two great monotheistic religions that both have missionary mandates.  We are bound to clash with one another if we do not learn a way to co-exist.  And with those mandates from our great prophets and teachers, I don't see that co-existence coming any time soon.  As the Prophet once said, "It is better to believe that mountains will move from their places than to believe that human nature will change."  And it seems contemporary human nature is competitive rather than cooperative; looking for advantage over the other rather than seeking an equality of being.

It is unfortunate, it seems to me, that religions cannot co-exist to care for an ever-more needy world population. Religion, social values, and social actions should be able to mix and inform one another--not destroy one another.  There is the famous story of the Caliph Umar and his concern for his people. He often lay awake at night worrying about whether he had done his duty and ensured that all his people were fed, clothed, and cared for. When he found one poor woman who had nothing to eat and was barely surviving, he opened his stores and supplies personally and brought her what she needed. He checked on her and ensured that she would be OK.  That is Islam, not this malicious, vicious image that we have all around us.

Aysha

Dear Aisha,

I want to thank you for this intriguing post. I admire your honesty and your courage. However, as I said, I’m agnostic because I do not have problems with how people behave once they become believers (any faith) but my deeper problem is with what we call sacred text itself. I just want to believe like you or like Artur but I’m sorry it’s too much to digest if one seriously wants to know.

First, the curse of Ham exists in the bible as in the Koran. You are black because you paid for the mistake of Ham who peeked into the “nakedness of his father”. This is a fact and you can interpret it the way you like but it will always remain a thorn in throat of any serious researcher for truth.

Second, you said that “But the Emir was elected for his piety, his religious knowledge, and his personal integrity; there was no dynastic inheritance, overpowering wealth, etc.” Give me an Emir or a caliph who was chosen for his piety. You will say Abu Bakr or Omar …Well I have only one question: Why would Omar decide not to let the prophet write his will before his death? The prophet ordered him and many companions around him to bring him something in which he could write his wasiyyah or will but Omar said “the prophet is hallucinating and let us give him rest”. My question is who is he to disobey the direct orders of the prophet?

Third, You said that “We forget that Islam has never gone through a "reformation" or a split of religion and politics as happened in the West. “ I wish you were right but unfortunately you are wrong. The split started with Ali on one side and Aisha (the prophet’s wife) and Moua’wiya . Aisha hated Ali because he advised the prophet to divorce her after the Ifk (dafamation) story. And Moua,wiya wanted power and asked to revenge the blood of Othman the third caliph. Then Khawa’rij split from the followers of Ali and the splitting followed a dynamo effect.

To my mind, at least Christianity went through a period of enlightenment from within at least twice. The first was with Constantine and the decision to put aside thorny texts as apocryphal. The second was during the reformation and the first dawn of enlightenment when the church ceased to kill people who said “the earth is round”. To my mind, Christianity needs another Constantine to remove texts such as describing lot sleeping with his two daughters, David sending his captain to sure death in order to adulterate with his wife, Jesus describing the Canaanite woman as “a dog” etc.

Islam however, did not go through a real enlightening transformation from within. There are so many texts that need to be revised and I really think I’m treading on dangerous grounds right now.

You said “Similarly, I think if the Prophet were to return, he would be appalled and angry that the beauty of the faith he taught could be so perverted to justify slaughter, rape, and murder (although he did foresee the splitting into sects and warned against it.” Let me remind you of what the prophet did to one the Jewish tribes in Yathrib (or medina later). He dug a big ditch and cut the head of 700 members of Banukoraitha tribe. Then he married Safia who was the wife of the leader of that tribe. Sources say that he slept with her on his way to Medina. Does not this remind you of what ISIS doing now?

Finally, you cogently said that “It is unfortunate; it seems to me, that religions cannot co-exist to care for an ever-more needy world population.” This is an impossible dream for a simple reason. Christians think Muslims are pagans and Muslims think that Christians are infidels. In other words, and I here I sum up, the most dangerous thing that threaten our lives right now, is religion. It separates between people, it creates enemies, and it destroys lives. I won’t say like Marks “it’s the opiate of the people” but I would say that It is better if we put it in a cage and be sure is always in its spiritual realm.