Are we making a difference at the UN? A Discussion with AI Youth Reps and Intern

April 22, 2018

(Fr. Bob Dueweke met with the Youth Reps and the intern to evaluate this year’s work at the UN. The following reflection is based on that discussion.)

Yesterday I met with Emma and Anastassiya, Youth Representatives from Lehigh University, and Jack, Augustinian intern from Chicago, to review the year’s program and experience at the United Nations. Important points for reflection emerged during our lively conversation at a diner near the university.

Measuring Progress

Last week Lehigh University had an all-day conference on the Sustainable Development Goal #6 at the United Nations. This SDG #6 focuses on water and sanitation. Various panels were held throughout the day in which experts shared their ideas and experiences related to water. I asked the question whether anything is accomplished at these commission meetings and conference side events at the UN. The response from all was “probably not.” So, why are we at the UN if we feel we accomplish nothing? Perhaps we have to grapple with the meaning and role of the term “accomplishment.”

The idea of “accomplishing something” is another way of saying we have “concrete results,” which is appropriate for the university STEM course environment. There we observe something new emerges as a result of expenditure in time, resource, and money. We make task lists to measure “what we accomplish” and what psychic energy is required to accomplish whatever the goal might be. We set goals and measure for ourselves whether we have reached it as we would in physical exercise. But there are caveats.­­

There is validity in applying a “scientific” approach to what we do. Yet, setting goals and fretting over concrete results can become warped when they are an obsession and the only criteria for measuring accomplishment or progress, and, worse still, for calculating our sense of self-worth. I am by what I produce. The assumption that goal-setting and result finding are the only metrics for evaluation eliminate other options, perspectives, and questions found in understanding ­reality. Such assumptions are especially limited when considering the longer viewpoint in time with issues concerning social transformation.

Chaos as measurement

The commissions and departments at the United Nations certainly use goal-setting and they measure progress in terms of results. But these so-called results are often short-term. Presenting a side event on one of the SDGs is a concrete result. Panelists give papers and organizations publish manuals. When we consider the longer viewpoint in terms of decades or generations, we might doubt the lasting effect of the short-term “concrete result.”

One might sense instability and chaos in what one wants to achieve. Failure to achieve anything concrete engenders drowning oneself in activity in order to numb the mind of asking and answering further questions. In some manner, we, as NGOs, must squarely face the instability of not accomplishing anything. This is an integral part of progress and requires that we reflect on why we are doing what we are doing. This tension of instability and the feeling of wasting time belongs more to a spiritual dimension of work than to a STEM environment. Yet we also know about scientists in quantum mechanics who will avert to a spiritual kind of language to explain subatomic observations.

Void as spiritual dimension

It is important to define what is meant by the term spiritual. The notion of spiritual is larger than the meaning of a spirituality as a way of life that belongs to a specific religious tradition like Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam. Rather, the term spiritual is much larger and includes the dimensions of spirit that artists like El Greco or Mozart tap into to give expression to that desire of reaching out for the more. The sense of the spiritual I have in mind here is that sense expressed by the United Nation’s second Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld in his design of the “Meditation Room” at the United Nations. He wanted a place of silence that points to “the more” of the imagination and yearning of the spirit within the deliberations and discussions at the UN.

The Meditation Room is highly symbolic; it is also a symbol highly forgotten by both staff and visitors to the UN. In an interview with the journalist Pauline Frederick, Hammarskjöld worked with artists to convey a sense of silence and stillness that “should be the center of the United Nations.” He said “We want to bring back, in this room, the stillness which we have lost in our streets, and in our conference rooms, and to bring it back in a setting in which no noise would impinge on our imagination.” When the room was opened in 1957, Dag Hammarskjöld gave this description to visitors (full text): “We all have within us a center of stillness surrounded by silence . . . . There is an ancient saying that the sense of a vessel is not in its shell but in the void. So it is with this room. It is for those who come here to fill the void with what they find in their center of stillness.

For an outside observer, silence and stillness appear to be motions of “doing nothing” or “wasting time.” Nothing is “produced” and results cannot be measured. So, what “fills the void” when nothing is produced or considered “successful”? How does one tap into a spiritual dimension to respond to the inner emptiness of feeling like a failure when the rest of the world values the worth of something or someone by the measure of its product? This uncomfortable feeling afflicts everyone who is committed to social transformation for making the world a better place. St. Augustine writes much on the notion of the “inner self” as interiority, the place where “God is closer to me than the blood is to my bones.” This is the point of departure for exterior activity. Perhaps we can find solace from the teachings of interiority from those social prophets who have gone before us, such as Augustine, Teilhard and Merton.

Voices of social change: Teilhard and Merton

The Jesuit paleontologist/geologist Teilhard de Chardin continues to make an impact on our understanding of social change and instability in light of the long evolutionary process:

Above all, trust in the slow work of God.
We are quite naturally impatient in everything
to reach the end without delay.
We should like to skip the intermediate stages.
We are impatient of being on the way to something
unknown, something new.
And yet it is the law of all progress
that it is made by passing through
some stages of instability—
and that it may take a very long time

It is important to trust the process. At times, the process can involve the repetition of a pattern of experience. A typical pattern is a student attending classes in a routine manner over several years with the hope of gaining insights that are integral to learning. Something new evolves from within the student’s pattern of experience. The new is contingent on the pattern or repetition of experience. This pattern is observable in the sciences like chemistry and biology. The Jesuit philosopher Bernard Lonergan calls this process emergent probability.

We see how value plays an integral role in the commitment to the pattern of experience in the writings of the social critic and Trappist monk Thomas Merton. In a letter to the New York social activist Jim Forest, Merton responds to his friend’s frustration in the work of social justice, especially in the movement for nuclear disarmament. Merton writes:

Do not depend on the hopes of results. When you are doing the sort of work you have taken on, essentially an apostolic work, you may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and even achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea [of failure and dashed hopes] you start more and more to concentrate not on the results but on the value, the rightness, the truth of the work itself. And there too a great deal has to be gone through, as gradually you struggle less and less for an idea and more and more for specific people. The range tends to narrow down, but it gets much more real. In the end, . . . it is the reality of personal relationships that saves everything.

What I find intriguing about Merton, and good advice for NGOs, is to concentrate on the “results but on the value, the rightness, the truth of the work itself.” This is the work of the spiritual dimension of the human being. When we feel like we are wasting our time and going nowhere with our projects, we must think of the “value” and the “truth of the work itself.” At the United Nations, we embrace and project the value of communion, unity, equality, democracy, dialogue, and participation. These are core values. Theologically, we call them Eucharistic values, that is, the possibility worth struggling for that the human race can gather around one table. No matter how small the so-called accomplishment. These values deliberately contradict the dominant narrative that war is the only option for life on Earth. This option views the other as a potential enemy, one who cannot be trusted, defenses must be built, and pre-emptive strikes are normative procedures for maintaining peace. In this narrative, peace is nothing more than a temporary cessation of war. War is anti-Eucharist; war is a lie.

Evaluating work at the UN: successful or fruitful?

The so-called Just War theory is obsolete. St. Augustine adapted this theory from St. Ambrose with the intention of preventing war. But times have changed, especially in the post-Hiroshima era when nations have the capacity to destroy earth itself. When mechanisms for conflict resolution are in place, and where conflicting parties are invited around the UN table, the option for war must be a decision of last resort and have exhausted all channels of diplomacy.

No doubt, the UN system needs reform if it is to be effective and credible. Wrongs must be made right. Transparency and gender equality at all levels of decision making must become normative at the UN. We can ask “Is the world better with or without the UN?” If the system is broken, which it is, then, it must undergo serious reform. We must remember that the purpose for the UN is to prevent war. However, we do need to ask questions like when “When do we wage war?” and, “How will civilians, the poor and marginated be protected?” Again, Dag Hammarskjöld reminds us that the “UN was not created to lead mankind to heaven, but to save it from hell.” Trusting in the value and the “truth of the work itself” is trusting in that we can live together without destroying ourselves. That trust is something that cannot be measured, calculated, or produced in a concrete way. Yet, it can seem our work is a failure rather than a success.

In evaluating our working at the UN, with its countless meetings and conferences, we need to reframe the experience, of which frustration and darkness are common, with a new terminology. Changing words can change our perception and provide new insights. As one friend mentioned, “it is not about being successful, but being fruitful.” The fruitfulness of an endeavor is buried in trusting the process as a whole, with all the moments of instability, confusion, frustration, chaos, lack of success or fulfillment one might experience along the way. Components of such fruitfulness imply dialogue, discernment, exchange of ideas and feedback, not positive or negative feedback, but accurate feedback. There is a sense of growth. As a person of faith, one contemplates “Have I grown in faith and love? Do I have hope, or do I live under a cloud of despair?” Is my work at the UN fruitful? I can take this idea a step further: “Have I planted seeds of peace? Do I give them time to germinate in the dark earth? Am I patient with doing nothing?” St. Ignatius of Loyola describes this type of person as a contemplative-in-action.

Planting the seeds of peace. This is what we do as contemplatives-in-action. We are to help create a new human consciousness, a new global soul that embraces all forms of life and inanimate matter into a cosmic whole. We are tasked to create not robots of a fantasy Westworld, but a new flesh-and-blood ultra-human, a term used by the scientist and Franciscan sister Ilia Delio (see her blog “Becoming Ultra Human. An Exploration of God, Sex, and the Future of Everything” at

Obviously, as students at the university, we need to obey our professors and design programs with goals and deadlines and projected outcomes; the school requires it and we should not rebel. Nevertheless, we need to maintain a sense of balance with the unexpected and be resilient with the cultural dictates of the unsuccessful. Social transformation and change happen at another level of ultra human consciousness that cannot be measured, but the experience can be one of fruitfulness and trust in the process of the long term. We live the value of communion and the “truth of the work itself.” It is a question of how we understand being contemplatives-in-action. We need to recover this dimension at the UN.

We should go ahead and fill in the blanks under “Expected Outcomes.” Remember there is another blank in the deeper part of our soul where everything gyrates around a center-point of stillness and silence. When one sits in quiet as a pattern of experience, something stirs deep. From within that inner void emerges “UNexpected outcomes.”

And that is a high probability.

Robert Dueweke, OSA

Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 5.26.04 PM

A Reflection on Gun Control in the United States

After the recent shooting in the high school in Parkland, Florida, Dr. Jean Soto, a delegate of Augustinians International, wrote a reflection on gun violence as a phenomenon in the United States. She originally wrote the reflection for a blog post at the Lonergan Institute at Boston College. Her reflection uses insights from the philosopher and Jesuit Bernard Lonergan. Her reflection is as follows:


A Reflection on Gun Violence in the United States

By Dr. Jean Soto, Ph D


We are all broken hearted– again– by the massacre at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. The hashtag #neveragain signals a new determination on the part of our country to prevent further school shootings. The teenage survivors are using protest marches and social media to voice their resolve to bring about changes in our laws to protect us from gun violence at schools. (In the 3/ 24/ 18 March for Our Lives rally in Washington D C, the marchers publically expanded their agenda to include all gun violence, not just mass school shootings.) This raises the question about what needs to be done to prevent further massacres. Some of the most talked about solutions are laws raising the age for gun purchases, expanding background checks, mental health screening, and arming teachers. Public opinion is divided and often rancorous.


How do we know which of these options – among others – is the best choice for reducing gun violence?  

Bernard Lonergan presents us with the way of approaching this question; it is a way native to our humanity. By following the innate tools of our consciousness we:

  • pay attention to the data – be attentive!
  • have insights into the data – be intelligent!
  • double check our understandings –be reasonable!
  • make decisions based on our findings and values –be responsible!


These tools or processes are given within our consciousness. They spring into action when we ask a question. If we are open to them, our questions arise spontaneously and lead us to intelligently and responsibly answer them. This is the process by which we come to know anything, and then decide on the most worthwhile course of action. Here, as described by Lonergan , we put the question of gun violence and mass shootings through the scheme of our consciousness as we ask and answer questions. We begin the process by being attentive to the data that concerns our question.


The question for attentiveness: What data do we have on gun violence?

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considered the gold standard for comprehensive and accurate data. For 20 years the Dicky Amendment prevented the CDC from gathering and using data on gun deaths in order to suggest solutions. Lonergan would call such stifling of research a deliberate “flight from understanding” because we cannot have correct or complete insights into an issue without the pertinent data.

Thanks in part to the Parkland students, the 2018 omnibus-spending bill lifted this prohibition, but the research remains to be done. We DO have results from other trustworthy groups that stepped into the breach. Read the reports in the links and be prepared to be horrified.


The question for intelligence: What is the cause of gun violence?.

We DO have some useful data. Yet numbers alone do not give us the cause of the violence. We need insight into the data. A new study by Adam Lankford does just that through the most comprehensive study yet on the question of gun violence. He uses a comparative approach with other countries having populations over 10 million. Below, the New York Times reports his question:

“What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer.”

The study’s central insight finds the number one reason the US experiences more gun violence then other countries is due to the sheer number of guns in the US. We are awash with guns (only Yemen has more).


The question for being reasonable: is the study’s finding correct? Yes or no?

The New York Times reports on how Lankford verified his work:

Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence. The study also shows that mental health does not make the critical difference in the occurrence of mass shootings.


The question for being responsible: If the number of guns is the most probable cause of mass gun violence, what then, is the best course of action? Put simply, we need to reduce the number of guns in the US, especially military style weapons. They are the weapons of choice for mass shooters.

If we are to take Dr. Lankford’s insights seriously we will have to change the way we assess and judge this issue. We will need to go beyond popular or political opinion and self-interest. We need to go beyond group prejudices and use the knowledge that can be gained with scientific methods and theory.


The further question for being responsible: How do we apply good theory to the practical concern?

Lonergan names the kind of knowledge found in Langford’s study “statistical intelligibility.” It is the same way of knowing used in predicting the weather or determining the cost of a life insurance policy. Statistical intelligibility is the result of analyzing the data in order to estimate the probability of some occurrence. To predict the strength of a hurricane, the weather people factor in the sea surface temperatures, low vertical wind shear, warm moist air and the ocean area along the projected storm track. In the case of pricing policies the insurance companies have employees called actuaries who factor in the likelihood of death due to diseases, chronic ailments, and common conditions found among certain groups of people. The NYT’s description above of Lankford’s study gives the components of his study such as the number of guns per country, homicide rates, mental illness, etc. Lankford would omit each factor after another to determine if the initial finding held true. In this way he could verify which factor was the critical one. A common way of speaking of the results of a statistical analysis is, “the odds are that….”


The question for deciding: Which values will guide our choice of actions to prevent gun violence and mass shootings?

We the people of the US are called by this latest slaughter of our young to deeply reflect on what we value the most. Lonergan explains that our values guide and motivate us to act in the best possible way. Discovering the truly valuable in the case of mass shootings also requires consulting our feelings. But we can be misled by a distortion of our feelings. A group’s bias can blind us to the feelings that would help us prioritize the value of human life. After the Sandy Hook massacre and when congress chose to do nothing, one commenter said the cause of gun control in the US was helpless.


He said that he then realized, that as a people, we prized our guns more than our children. Is this true?

(Originally submitted for a post at the Lonergan Institute at Boston College)







Report from Youth Representatives on the Commission of the Status of Women (CSW)

The Youth Representatives work with Augustinians International and participate in several conferences at the United Nations during the academic year. The representatives — Emma Dillon and Anastassiya Perevezentseva — are from Lehigh University. This is their report on the Commission of the Status of Women conference and recommendations to the Augustinian communities.

Access the report here. AI_ March Briefing Report


Day of Prayer and Fasting for Congo and S. Sudan


This blog post we would like to focus on the political, economic, and social crisis in Congo.

Congo, which is located in central sub-Saharan Africa, has been on a steep decline with the continuance of the presidency of Joseph Kabila. Kabila was supposed to step down after his constitutionally mandated two-term limit in December 2016, but managed to hold onto his power through delaying elections and rejecting those who went against him. According to The Washington Post, “The country’s influential conference of Catholic bishops warned in June that the country is in a “very bad” state and called on all Congolese to “stand up” and “take their destiny into their own hands.” This followed an “urgent appeal” from former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan and nine former African presidents, who warned that the future of the country is in “grave danger.” As the political opposition and peaceful protesters continue to be oppressed, violence by armed groups, militias, and government forces have escalated.

Central Kasai region has been known for some of the country’s worst violent outbreaks. The violence was triggered after government forces shot dead a local customary chief. Immediately, a spiral of violence broke out and spread across five provinces, displacing more than 1.3 million people. At least 3,300 people have been killed, according to the Catholic Church. More than 600 schools have been attacked or destroyed, and an estimated 1.5 million children are affected by the violence. The response from the government forces has been with excessive force, executing suspected members or sympathizers. There have been reports of soldiers going door to door, killing anyone inside; and in 2017, militia Bana Mura has annihilated entire villages and “shot dead, hacked or burned to death, and mutilated” hundreds of people, including pregnant women, babies and small children, according to the United Nations. During their investigation of these pandemic human rights abuses in March 2017, two members of the United Nations team of experts on Congo — Michael Sharp, an American, and Zaida Catalán, a Swede –- were executed. The four Congolese who had accompanied them are still missing. [Source: The Washington Post]

In response, the United Nations Human Rights Council authorized an international investigation into the violence that penetrates the Kasai region. According to The Washington Post, “The resolution, adopted after weeks of intense negotiations, doesn’t go as far as the situation warrants. But it does bring hope of uncovering the truth of the horrific crimes and identifying those responsible. And it’s a step toward justice.” You can learn more about UN efforts to stabilize the situation in Congo on the current UN News Center Spotlight on Congo. Please also join us in prayer and fasting, as Pope Francis has called for on February 23, 2018, the Day of Prayer and fasting for Congo and South Sudan.


Welcome our new delegates, interns, and youth representatives

I would like to welcome the new members to the Augustinians International team. Dr. Jean Soto is the delegate from Texas with interest on immigration and women’s issues.  Bro. Jack Tierney, OSA, is a seminarian from Catholic Theological Union and will be an intern this year.  Emma Dillon and Anastassiya  Perevezentseva are both from Lehigh University and will serve as Youth Volunteers. See their descriptions here.


Why are the Augustinians at the UN?




Augustinians are associated with the United Nations as a Nongovernmental Organization (NGO). We took on UN ministry as have other religious institutes of men and women like Franciscans, Dominicans and Carmelites. Other Christian communions including Lutherans, Methodists and Quakers and faith communities of Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, Jainism and Shinto believers have UN presence too. Faith-based NGO motives include witnessing our beliefs on the worldwide scene, bringing faith into worldwide action and enriching our own spirituality with international perspectives and information. Moreover after arrival at the UN, NGOs encounter multiple possibilities for ecumenical and interfaith collaboration.       

   A motive important for Catholic UN NGOs is Pope John Paul II’s October 2, 1979 New York UN address declaring the indispensable need for UN NGO ministry:

No organization, however, not even the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies, can alone solve the global problems which are constantly brought to its attention, if its concerns are not shared by all the people. It is then the privileged task of the non-governmental organizations to help bring these concerns into the communities and the homes of the people, and to bring back to the established agencies the priorities and aspirations of the people, so that all the solutions and projects which are envisaged may be truly geared to the needs of the human person.

While these words apply to all UN NGOs, John Paul II in his August 28, 1986 Apostolic Letter Augustinum Hipponensem makes an insightful observation about the scope of St. Augustine’s pastoral approach that should be a solid foundation for Augustinian UN NGO ministry. Augustine’s pastoral activity “had three fields which spread out like concentric circles: the local church of Hippo, which was not large, but was troubled and needy; the African Church, which was sadly divided between Catholics and Donatists; and the universal Church, which was attacked by Paganism and Manichaeism, and disturbed by heretical movements.”

Augustine ministered on three levels of community: local, national and world, so our Augustinian UN presence today is in his spirit. Centuries ago Augustinians fought hunger with immediate relief, giving food to the hungry. More recently but without abandoning immediate relief, we began to fight hunger on national levels through collaborative projects and policy advocacy. And most recently but without abandoning immediate relief and national advocacy, we can now join the worldwide fight against hunger through UN agencies: the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to strengthen world food security; the UN World Food Programme (WFP) to provide effective food and nutrition assistance where critically needed; the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) to combat rural poverty especially in developing countries. What is true for feeding the hungry is true for all the ministries to Jesus suffering in any way in the least of his brothers and sisters (Mt. 25).

In 1987, one year after Pope John Paul II recognized Augustine’s ministry as operative on the three levels of community – local, national and world-wide—his encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (9) directed the entire Church to embrace this same pastoral scope. “In the first place, a possible misunderstanding has to be eliminated. Recognition that the ‘social question’ has assumed a worldwide dimension does not at all mean that is has lost its incisiveness or its national and local importance…On the contrary (issues) depend more and more on the influence of factors beyond regional boundaries and national frontiers.” This is why the Church is at the UN. This is why the Augustinians belong there.

(by John Paul Szura, OSA, King City, Canada)


¿Por qué los Agustinos están en las Naciones Unidas?


(Reflexión por P. Juan Paul Szura, OSA; traducción por M. Elena del Collado, Cuernavaca)

 Los agustinos participamos en las Naciones Unidas (ONU) como una organización no gubernamental (ONG). Hemos llevado a cabo un servicio en las Naciones Unidas, como ha ocurrido con otros institutos religiosos de hombres y mujeres, tales como los franciscanos, dominicos y los carmelitas. Otras comuniones cristianas que incluyen a los luteranos, los metodistas, a la sociedad religiosa de los amigos (Quakers), así como a las comunidades religiosas de judíos, musulmanes, budistas, hindúes, los creyentes del jainismo y el sintoísmo, tienen también una presencia en la Naciones Unidas. Los motivos confesionales de las ONG incluyen dar testimonio de nuestras creencias en la escena mundial, llevar la fe a la acción mundial, y enriquecer nuestra propia espiritualidad con perspectivas internacionales e información. Más aún, tras arribar a la ONU, las ONG encuentran múltiples posibilidades para la colaboración ecuménica e interreligiosa.

Un motivo importante para las ONG católicas de la ONU, lo es el discurso que el Papa Juan Pablo II pronunció en Nueva York ante las Naciones Unidas, el 2 de octubre de 1979, al declarar la necesidad indispensable de la misión de una ONG en la ONU:

Ninguna organización, ni siquiera las Naciones Unidas o cualquiera de sus organismos especializados, pueden por sí solos resolver los problemas globales que están constantemente atrayendo su atención, si sus preocupaciones no son compartidas por todas las personas. Es entonces la función privilegiada de las organizaciones no gubernamentales: ayudar a llevar estas preocupaciones a las comunidades y a los hogares de las personas; y traer de vuelta a los organismos establecidos, las prioridades y las aspiraciones de la gente para que todos los proyectos y las soluciones previstas puedan ser verdaderamente orientadas y respondan a las necesidades de la persona humana.  

Aunque estas palabras se aplican a todas las ONG en la ONU, Juan Pablo II, en su Carta Apostólica Augustinum Hipponensem, del 28 de agosto de 1986, hace una penetrante observación acerca del alcance del enfoque pastoral de san Agustín, que deberá ser una base sólida para la tarea de la ONG agustina en la ONU. La actividad pastoral de san Agustín “tenía tres campos que se extienden como círculos concéntricos: la Iglesia local de Hipona, que no era grande pero estaba agitada y necesitada; la Iglesia Africana, que fue tristemente dividida entre católicos y donatistas; y la Iglesia universal, que fue atacada por el paganismo y el maniqueísmo, y perturbada por movimientos heréticos”.

Agustín se encauzó a tres niveles de comunidad: local, nacional y mundial, por lo que hoy nuestra presencia agustiniana en la ONU está en su espíritu. Hace siglos, los agustinos lucharon contra el hambre con la ayuda inmediata, dando de comer a los hambrientos. Más recientemente, y sin abandonar el auxilio urgente, empezamos a combatir el hambre a niveles nacionales a través de proyectos de colaboración y promoción de políticas. Y en la actualidad, sin renunciar a la ayuda inmediata y el apoyo nacional, podemos ahora sumarnos a la lucha mundial contra el hambre a través de organismos de las Naciones Unidas: la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO) para fortalecer la seguridad alimentaria mundial; el Programa Mundial de Alimentos (PMA) para proporcionar una eficaz asistencia de alimentos y nutrición donde es gravemente necesario; el Fondo Internacional de la ONU para el Desarrollo Agrícola (FIDA) para combatir la pobreza rural, especialmente en los países en desarrollo. Lo cierto es que al alimentar a los hambrientos, en verdad se sirve a Jesús sufriendo de alguna forma en el menor de sus hermanos y hermanas (Mt. 25).

En 1987, un año después que el Papa Juan Pablo II reconociera la tarea de san Agustín como operante en los tres niveles de la comunidad -local, nacional y mundial- su Encíclica Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (9), encaminó a toda la Iglesia a acoger este mismo alcance pastoral. “Ante todo, es menester eliminar un posible equívoco. El reconocimiento de que la «cuestión social» haya tomado una dimensión mundial, no significa de hecho que haya disminuido su fuerza de incidencia o que haya perdido su importancia en el ámbito nacional o local…Por el contrario, (las cuestiones]) dependen cada vez más de la influencia de factores más allá de las fronteras regionales y las fronteras nacionales”. Esta es la razón por la que la Iglesia está en la ONU. Esta es la razón por la que los agustinos se pertenecen allí.