The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionEco-skeptics put spin on Benedict's message
Jan. 08, 2010
Pope Benedict XVI takes a leisurely walk in Stabie, Italy, during his July 2007 vacation in the northeastern Italian Alps. (CNS/Catholic Press Photo)
Analysis
One reliable way to gauge the impact of a papal message is the amount of energy that pundits invest in analyzing, dissecting and recasting it. The rule of thumb is that the more spin a given statement breeds, the more important it probably is.
By that test, Pope Benedict XVI’s teaching on the environment, expressed most recently in a message for the church-sponsored “World Day of Peace” on Jan. 1, would seem to be pretty important indeed.
Experts regard Benedict’s strong ecological streak as among the most original features of his social teaching. It’s been expressed both in word and deed, with the latter including the installation of solar panels atop the Vatican’s audience hall (complete with a digital display inside the hall showing energy savings) and replanting a stretch of forest in central Hungary sufficient to make the Vatican Europe’s first “carbon-neutral” state.
In turn, that record has bred a cottage industry of exegesis, especially among Catholic eco-skeptics worried that the pope (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not) may be lending aid and comfort to a movement they regard as an attack on capitalism and limited government, under the guise of hype about global warming, rising sea levels, and other nightmare scenarios.
To be sure, Benedict’s shade of green is hardly that of Earth First. He insists that care for creation must be grounded in faith in a Creator, that nature not be romanticized at the expense of humanity, and that the “natural law” that limits exploitation of the earth also applies to defense of human life -- meaning, in practical terms, that population control is not an acceptable environmental strategy.
John Carr, director of the Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development for the U.S. bishops, said all this amounts to a “distinctively and authentically Catholic” approach to the environment, one that “doesn’t fit conventional political and ideological categories.”
For most Catholic skeptics, however, it’s less Benedict’s theological premises than his policy prescriptions that cause heartburn. In the World Peace Day message, the pope called for urgent action on a wide range of threats, including “climate change, desertification, the degradation and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase in extreme weather, and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical areas,” as well as “environmental refugees” and conflicts linked to natural resources.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section:Deacons.Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
The fact that the message appeared against the backdrop of the recent summit on climate change, held Dec. 6-18 in Copenhagen, Denmark, caused particular consternation among Catholics who were critical of both the key players at the summit and their aims.
Titled “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Care for Creation,” Benedict’s World Peace Day message also recommended:
- A new mode of calculating the cost of economic activity that would factor in environmental impact;
- Greater investment in solar energy and other forms of energy with a reduced environmental footprint;
- Strategies of rural development concentrated on small-scale farmers and their families;
- Progressive disarmament, including “a world free of nuclear weapons.”
Reaction among skeptics in the Catholic fold has tended to splinter between those who say the pope has been misunderstood, and those who believe it’s the pope himself who doesn’t quite get it.
Perhaps the most striking example of the former came in an essay in the Italian newspaper Il Foglio by Giuliano Ferrara, an atheist who’s nevertheless widely influential in Catholic circles. In the past, Ferrara has forcefully defended the church’s positions in the culture wars, especially on abortion and euthanasia.
In a Dec. 16 essay, Ferrara insisted that Benedict “does not belong to the church of Al Gore.”
The pontiff, Ferrara wrote, does not deny human abuse of nature, but rejects “environmentalism as a religion.” Benedict’s teaching, Ferrara said, is based on belief in a creator-God who entrusts nature to humanity, not on “ideologies feigned as science.”
The pope’s teaching, Ferrara wrote, should not be confused with “the magic environmentalism of the gurus, and the militant organizations who foster a global redemption.”
Another noted Italian commentator, Sandro Magister, linked Benedict’s message to two recent articles in L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, that were critical of the Copenhagen summit. One of those pieces came from the new head of the Vatican bank, Italian economist Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, who insisted that Benedict’s approach is radically different from the “nihilism” that leads to “population control and de-industrialization,” which Gotti Tedeschi perceived to be behind the deliberations in Copenhagen.
Back in the United States, Deacon Keith Fournier of the Web portal Catholic Online posted an essay claiming that news reports on the World Peace Day message “intimated that the pope had somehow joined the fringe of the environmental movement,” and that many reporters had “fit the fact of the letter into their ready-made, simplistic template.”
Fournier cited a line from Benedict’s message to undercut those impressions: “Notions of the environment inspired by eco-centrism and bio-centrism,” Benedict wrote, “open the way to a new pantheism tinged with Neo-Paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms.”
Around the Catholic world, like-minded voices joined the effort to accent what Benedict did not say -- and in particular, to distinguish the pontiff from the Copenhagen crowd.
Writing in Canada’s National Post, Fr. Raymond D’Souza, a frequent commentator on church affairs, published a piece under the headline of “The Vatican’s green gambit.” In it, D’Souza suggested that Benedict is well aware of “the dangers of aligning himself with the more strident elements of the Copenhagen circus, of which Al Gore might be considered the principal ringmaster.”
The pope’s position, D’Souza wrote, must be distinguished from forms of secular environmentalism, especially those that see limiting population growth as key to protecting nature. (D’Souza cited the case of a British nongovernmental organization that invited people attending the Copenhagen summit to contribute to population control efforts, under the slogan that a “non-person cannot produce CO2.”)
The World Peace Day message is not the first time that commentators have felt the need to frame the pope’s environmental teaching. Last August, when Benedict treated the environment in his social encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute wrote that upon examination the pope’s “ ‘greenness’ turns out to be rather pale.”
“Benedict knows that neither international organizations nor public opinion determine the truth about climate change and its causes,” Gregg wrote. “That’s a question for science, and many reputable scientists dispute aspects of the prevailing tenets of climate change to which some environmentalists seem religiously wedded.”
Benedict, Gregg wrote, is also not afraid “to underline the dark, anti-human side to much green ideology.”
Other skeptics have been more inclined to point the finger at Benedict himself, suggesting that the problem is not merely that the pope has been misinterpreted, but that he may be out of his depth.
Tom Roeser, a media commentator in Chicago and a Catholic, recently wrote that Benedict’s call for new government controls on the environment in his World Peace Day message “reflects a Bismarckian view of the big state, versus appreciation of the value of entrepreneurism.”
“The pope is not an expert on the environment or environmental science,” Roeser wrote. “Thus it would be foolish, after consideration of his views, to accept [his] views on science and other issues not specifically connected to faith and morals as anything approaching ex cathedra,” meaning definitive.
Catholic voices more sympathetic to the environmental cause, naturally enough, often see such reactions as shaped more by secular ideology than a careful consideration of Benedict’s argument.
“I always thought the important question was not whether the pope agrees with me, but whether I agree with the pope,” Carr said. “We need to set aside some of our own biases and learn from his unique moral reflections on the inseparable link between natural and human ecology.”
In many ways, the fusillade of commentary amounts to a Catholic version of the tussle between greens and skeptics in the secular arena. Setting aside the merits of any given interpretation, some observers believe the sheer volume of punditry indicates that Benedict is getting through.
Walt Grazer, an expert on Catholic environmentalism who attended the Copenhagen summit, said that from the very beginning, Benedict’s teaching has “evoked a range of responses across a broad spectrum of Catholics.”
That frisson, Grazer told NCR, indicates that “Pope Benedict has touched a nerve within the Catholic community about one of the more important issues facing the entire human family in the 21st century.”
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
I would identify myself as
I would identify myself as one of those skeptics. Both the Pope and Bishops and their respective organizations should exercise greater circumspection in their announcements and political activity. I have already stopped giving to Catholic organizations who support this country's " climate change " legislation. It really makes me angry that the Pope and the Bishops use their office to support political or social programs which make the erroneous assumption that their practical judgements are de facto better than mine or that of any other individual of average intelligence. God does not guarantee, even in the slightest, the practical judgements of Pope or Bishop or Priest or Nun or " Catholic " editorialists.
Why is it that right wingers
Why is it that right wingers find papal pronouncements on sex and the disempowerment of women are ex cathedra, but issues like greed, war and the environment are all beyond papal competency?
Steve
certainly did not read the
certainly did not read the article.
Dear Interested, I go
Dear Interested, I go along wholeheartedly with you in the second half of your commentary, re.persons who since they are considered as “notable” because of politics or faith, presume that their acceptance in these fields gives them the right to use their “figure status” as klaut for their opinions beyond their political or faith constituency.
In the case under consideration, the “infalibility” of the CHURCH is extremely limited to when the Pope as spokesperson for the universal Church reflects the general acceptance of the faithful regarding material found in the deposit of faith “depositum fidei” established by the apostles and closed about the year 100 a.d. with the death of the last of the apostles.
Jesus of Nazareth together with his parents Mary and Joseph, his apostoles and all bishops, popes, Mohammed, and probably also Confuscious, Buddah, Atahualpa, Montezuma, all emperors, kings and paupers firmly believed that the earth was a flat surface set upon great pilars covered by a celestial vault with a mobile sun and mobile starry sky. When the Italian Galilei Galileo a wee bit before the time of Christopher Columbus thought differently and even expressed his thoughts publicly, he also publicly recanted to avoid being exterminated by the Church as a heretic. But but he crossed his fingers and under his breath whispered “nevertheless it is the earth that moves” and so he still lived to tell about it to his grandchildren!
Our problem today is that a vast amount of people now accept the idea of Galilei Galileo, but have never come to question the presumptions of those who wanted to eliminate him and exterminate his thought. We humans are endowed with intelligence and will and it is our intelligence that induces our will to either freely reject or to freely make an act of faith in Jesus who lives amomg us, and so believe in the words of that slob prophet of Nazareth who said “Love one another as I have loved you” as the basic requisiste to take part in his life project of building the “Kingdom of his ‘abbá-Father” here on earth “as it is in heaven.”
Justiniano de Managua
God and the Cosmos: Does our
God and the Cosmos: Does our understanding of the cosmos come from understanding God, or does our understanding of God come from understanding the cosmos? Is perhaps the answer “yes” to both questions? Is there a definition in less than six words that adequately describes the cosmos? St John of Damascus (c.676-749) coined a phrase that does quite well—the phrase is “a sea of infinite substance;” when the words, sea, infinite and substance are unpacked, an adequately modern sense of the cosmos surfaces.
Sea: Water is a fluid medium, flowing, mixing, evaporating/ condensing. Globally, when we think of the “sea” we think of the churning oceans of the world. Water is composed of gas molecules, hydrogen, oxygen, carriers of other molecules, e.g., nitrogen, carbon, the structural bases of all living matter. Water evaporates from the seas into the atmosphere and returns, always fluidly interactive with the atmosphere.
All water and all water-born substances, minerals, gases, etc, are interactive at the deep wave/ particle level in living substances. The atmosphere of Earth is a gaseous matrix in contact with deep space dynamics that maintain Earth-events. Fundamental exchanges obtain at the cosmic, atmospheric and Earth surface levels; these exchanges are rightly understood as “communication.” Cosmic exchanges recycle, restore and renew life.
Waves are characteristic of fluid motion, as on water surfaces and in the electromagnetic spectrum. The specific free energy of varied wave lengths is attenuated in molecules according to their characteristic resonances. The sea is life’s open and active source of stored energy and structural materials; it is the gestation matrix of Earth life. The cosmic ocean stew seamlessly exchanges wave/ particles of atmospheric vitality (“noosphere”).
Infinite: The energy and structural materials of the sea are interactively open to infinite possibilities. No sea-component is isolated, rather every least particle is interactive in seeking and accommodating original structures. Some structures acquire stability and process in patterns of interacting and evolving. Phases of interaction occur, changes, of mass, design and function. These are personally experienced in the phases of life.
So it is with all life; even so life’s least components are renewed throughout in processes of change, exchange, composition, decomposition and re-composition. Processes and structures preserve continuity that is essential to ongoing modes of sustainability. In process and potential the cosmic sea is infinitely open, evolving.
Substance: Substance is self-experienced in human consciousness. Any construct of energy/ matter is substance. The conscious complex of substance is unique to structure. Molecular energy is a form of consciousness, i.e., it interactively communicates with and is responsive to cosmic wave/ particle.
How do understandings of God and the cosmos come together? To the theist, divinity is immanent in the whole cosmos and in every least aspect of process and manifestation. Divine “instance” possesses the cosmos as the cosmos manifests divine immanence. Self-reflective consciousness cannot conceive of God apart from divine consciousness in the cosmos. Though mysterious, God’s identity in and with the cosmos is self-evident to conventional thinking. In point of fact, St John Damascene’s phrase “a sea of infinite substance” is his description of God.
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/religion/97801992523...
This is true. And I have had
This is true. And I have had to leave the Church over a growing certainty that the Pope is mortal, that he sometimes does not have anything profound to say, and that his charism should not baptize his every word with significance.
I do not believe he has so far said anything significant about environmental issues. It is assumed that the Gore enthusiasts are founding a new religion. This has nothing to do with reality. This is an issue of universal signifance to the human family.
I do not believe the Pope is infallible, has never declared anything infallibly without engaging in a benign (hopefully) form of heresy. This is why, among other things, I have to leave the Church. The Papacy must be reformed, for the good of the civilized world, the Gospel, and everyone of us.
The Gospel says clearly that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. May I say this without being labeled a fundamentalist? I know of no Catholic who, when I suggest Scripture might be a source of inspiration and quote a text, has not called me a fundamentalist-except a Catholic girl friend I had who paid for me to see her psychiatrist. She had OCD, which is common among Catholics obsessing over guilt and scrupulousity.
I encounter Christ in the Eucharist. Having a passion for Truth and knowing that the church Catholic has sometimes taught false dogmas is a cross to bear, because I would rather be welcomed for who and what I am (with a psychiatric history, albeit in remissiom) than to pretend that what is blatantlhy false and contributing to the mental and physical abuse of the vulnerable is true and worthy of belief.
I wish the Church would welcome more Christians and be content with less brainwashes. So help me. May God have mercy on us all.
And lest I fail to make my case, there are many Saints and Doctors of the Church that I could draw upon to make my case to the Inquisition, should I ever, in some fantasy realm, ever have to answer to Authority. I will say this: I am better having a good conscience about these matters and feel ready to answer to a Heavenly tribunal than to worry over whether the Pope will give me extra time in Purgatory. And that is another issue-don't get me started.
Love you all. God bless.
Another eco-skeptic over
Another eco-skeptic over here. No more money to organizations within the Churhc just promote such falsehoods designed to usurp man's freedom and dignity through immoral laws. I think the Pope needs new advisers.
Exactly what freedom is being
Exactly what freedom is being "usurped" by respect for the environment? The Pope's message made it clear that the charge in Genesis was to responsibility as well as to authority--is there a problem with that? Or has freedom been morphed into "license to do whatever I want, to whom-/whatever I want, whenever I want"?
In the Pacific northwest of
In the Pacific northwest of the USA, Oregon and Washington have active bishops who have taken a strong position on protecting the Columbia river watershed, stopping lumbering of old growth forests, and restricting building of new housing in "greenbelts" around existing cities.
Not surprisingly, many who might have cut lumber or built housing are unemployed; and many who might have afforded lower cost housing are homeless. This shows one result of placing preservation of the environment "No changes or development whatever" over the needs of people. The bishops need to be heard on matters of faith and morals -- what is right and what is wrong - abortion, anyone? But they are not possessed of extraordinary wisdom on environment when, in fact, there is NOT a general acceptance in the scientific community of the Al Gore scenarios on human-caused climate change.
TeaPot562
Most climate scientists
Most climate scientists accept that there is human-caused climate change.
TeaPot562 gives us an example
TeaPot562 gives us an example of why Catholic Social Teaching condemns unbridled capitalism. There are many times when factors other than solely economics must be considered in making decisions. A moral stance cannot be built solely on the premise that a decision be made because it will produce more jobs, or provide more low cost housing. All pertinent factors must be considered not just the immediate economic impact. The impact a decision has on God's gift of creation (i.e.,the environment) also must be considered. Thank God this Pope has the fortitude to emphasize environmental concerns in his teaching. Perhaps the Vatican can produce relevant statements to today's world after all.
In fact, teapot, the
In fact, teapot, the preponderance of scientists agree more with Gore than you. There are some dissident scientists that are paid by oil companies and other greedy concerns to send their message of greed. The same thing happened when the tobacco companies paid scientists to testify that cigarette smoking did not cause cancer. These is a bold lie, lies that we need to see through. We live in a country with an aging infrastructure that business refuses to recognize and live in a era of global warming that so many greedy people want to pretend does not exist. Well it doesn't take much of a prophet to understand that our greed is leading to massive disaster. So in debasing Mr. Gore, you are just attempting to kill the messenger.
May we gain grace through peaceful understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Ah, but you see, ther IS
Ah, but you see, ther IS general acceptance on human-caused climate change except for those whose politics or livlihoods demand that they ignore the available evidence.
Let's leave the climate
Let's leave the climate change science out of the equation. I'll ask another question. Do you actually believe the planet has enough resources to indefinitely sustain climbing populations and their desires to live with the material resources enjoyed in the West? Or do you think the poor will be with us always so the rich can pretty much exploit them to maintain their excessive share of the resource pie?
Real problem is credibility
Real problem is credibility of entire hierarchy,
despite these PR articles.
All too often, many worship
All too often, many worship the god of nationalism or the god of capitalism,communism, socialism, sexism, or any other "ism" that blinds us to the possibility of the God of Creation - that gives life to all and calls us to be stewards of creation - co-creators and life givers. These false gods become worshiped and defended at all costs - even when they are destructive and deadly to millions. When consumerism and capitalism are threatened in any way, the full force of their believers comes to the attack. Even religion can become a false god - as nationalism and economic systems tend to become gods in the eyes of their true believers, so too can religious organizations become false gods that demand that we attack all other gods. It is a difficult road to worship the one God that gives life to all - and is love itself. The scriptures remind us not to have false gods before us - and these false gods can be systems, structures, and even ourselves and our own convictions. To walk with humility is to understand that the Spirit of Life moves in freedom and love - not where we demand it.
What eco-skeptics need to
What eco-skeptics need to remember is that it is not the world that will end due to human beings' misuse of God's beautiful creation, but it is the extinction of human beings that will be the end result. Just as species of animals become extinct, so will be it for humans. Take your heads out of the sand and be open to learning. I just read the pope's speech to the diplomats to the Vatican on the same environmental theme. We have to realize the fact that human life is unsustainable if we continue to abuse God's creation. If humans are no longer on the earth, the earth can easily continue without us, and maybe even heal itself. How's that for a dose of real humility?
Peace and blessings.
While Benedict's
While Benedict's environmentalism is commendable, both he and his bishops need to come down more forcefully on those Catholics who are actively aiding and abetting the destruction of our planet. Some of these Catholics are simply ignorant, having been brainwashed by the mouthpieces of corporate America like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh. Sarah Palin and Fox "News". But others are in positions of power and know better but would rather see the earth go up in smoke than yield a dollar in corporate profits. These folks need to be treated by the hierarchy as harshly as said hierarchy treats the advocates of the pro-choice position on abortion. Surely if it is "intrisically evil" for an HIV-positive fellow in Africa to slip on a condom in order the protect his wife from infection, it is "intrinsically evil" to destroy God's green earth for the sake of higher and higher profits and in the name of the false god of Capitalism?
It's problematic to come up
It's problematic to come up with a Catholic position on the planet, so to speak! It's only common sense to say that the environment should not be abused but there needs to be a trade-off between nature & development. I think that's the bottom line here. The ultimate decision belongs to the state. Environmental & commercial concerns can make their case to the state and the state decides where the balance is. Of course the state can be wrong in its judgment.
There is no absolute answer here. So what does the Church really have to offer? One thing the Church can offer is the belief in Divine Providence. This is the belief that God rules the universe. He allows man to be free but he thwarts him in many ways so he doesn't do too much damage. In other words, God will not allow man to destroy the planet. It is not possible.
Benedict has brought out this concept in another venue. I think it was the life issue. He said that God will allow man to go only so far in things like cloning before he actually will prevent man from doing his evil deeds. It is very rare that God actually intervenes in human affairs. He manages things indirectly. God is like the master chess player.
God created everything...we
God created everything...we just happened to be last in the line of creation...it doesn't make us any more important...God made us in God's own image...that doesn't mean we destroy everything by consuming it...if you read the 1st creation story in Genesis, God gives us "dominion" over the animals, but gives us plants for food...really...read it!!
One also has to look at how "energy" industries have bought scientists, put out falsely comforting statements on oxymorons like "clean coal", and continue to destroy mountaintops and flush tailings into valleys, ruining streams & drinking water...hydraulic fracture mining leaches deadly chemicals into drinking water & destroys habitat..."dominion" doesn't mean destruction! Energy corporations have almost doubled their false propaganda in the past couple years...instead of helping find new or adapted cleaner energy sources, they are only considering their pocketbook, not the health of people or the earth.
If our bodies are the temple where God dwells, does God not also dwell in the rest of God's creation? Who are we to destroy it?
I'm very encouraged and
I'm very encouraged and impressed by the Pope's strong stand on environmentalisim. I appreciate his leadership on this issue and it makes me proud to be a Catholic.
"To be sure, Benedict's shade
"To be sure, Benedict's shade of green is hardly that of Earth First. He insists that care for creation must be grounded in faith in a Creator, that nature not be romanticized at the expense of humanity, and that the 'natural law' that limits exploitation of the earth also applies to defense of human life -- meaning, in practical terms, that population control is not an acceptable environmental strategy."
HELLO! This is basic Catholic 101 here. In this, I don't see how people think the Holy Father is being original.
As for those who may panic that the Pope is turning into some kind of Earth Liberation Front molotov cocktail thrower, relax. This sentence right here: ("He insists that care for creation must be grounded in faith in a Creator, that nature not be romanticized at the expense of humanity") pretty much excludes him from almost much every enviromentalist group out there.
The Church HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT that God gave us creation to tend. Not to worship and not to wreck and exploit to whatever end satisfies us. There is NOTHING new in this teaching.
As a Catholic and a consumer
As a Catholic and a consumer of natural resources, I'm pleased to see the Pope speak out on the importance of environmental stewardship and the Church's unique perspectives on the complex relationships between people, governments, corporations and the earth. What a God-awful mess we've made of it. Even absent the debate on climate change, there is much the Pope can teach us about being good stewards of God's creation - and that seems to have been forgotten in the endless back and forth about the politics of climate change. Way to go, B16! Being "green" within reason is something independent of politics and government. Capitalism and communism, the US and China, all need to respect the earth, and sadly, that means governments must step in as enforcers, because individuals and corporations will never, ever do it on their own. Aldo Leopold 1887-1948, the father of wildlife management and an early voice for land stewardship, is quoted in the book, The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays, "Once you learn how to read the land, I have no fear of what you will do to it or with it." We have not yet reached that enlightened state in human history, and I pray the Pope will bring us closer to that kind of understanding of our place in God's creation.
Everyone might want to read
Everyone might want to read the book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming by James Hoggan; Hoggan is a PR person who was so disgusted by companies using PR to generate disinformation, scientists-for-hire, and a campaign to keep the public in the dark about what the real science is on climage change that he wrote this book. The book gives details on where the lies are coming from, who pays for the publication of the lies, and who is telling the lies.
I wonder which side of the
I wonder which side of the issue Jesus would be on. Somehow, I don't think we would find Him siding with the money changers and anti-labor groups (slave holders and such). I do believe he would be about caring for His Father's creation, urging a responsible and just solution to what is obvious to a the major portion of the scientific community throughout the world.
Some how I don't believe
Some how I don't believe Jesus would be siding with the money changers and anti-labor groups (slaveholders of the day). I believe He would be about caring for His Father's Creation, namely all that involves and affects the environment. We will be judged by how well we follow His example and His Father's Commandments.
I feel certain this article
I feel certain this article will elicit much unsolicited (and infallible, no doubt) advice about what the Pope can and cannot teach.
I actually like that our Pope
I actually like that our Pope is taking a stand on environmental issues. After all, according to Genesis God created the sea, sky, land, plants and animals BEFORE he ever created Man. Why shouldn't we care for His first creations as well as humankind? Are we so selfish that we only think of ourselves as being worthy of being protected, while we let the forests disappear and the rivers and oceans get polluted? Everything is sacred. The bible is full of the rich symbology of plants and animals and earth, and how they relate to our lives.
And to those who say the Pope has no expertise in the field of environmentalism so he should keep his mouth shut... I suppose he should also keep quiet about marriage, childbirth, and LGBT issues too? ;)
I think it is a mistake to
I think it is a mistake to seperate faith and morals from care for creation. We know that we are using resources at an incredible, unsustainable pace. We know that we have dumpd tons of garbage and toxins into air, water and land. We know that percentage wise we, in the U.S., consume more than most countries. We know that when the land, air and water suffer, those who are poor suffer more than those with means. If this is not a matter of faith and morals I don't know what is.
We have been given a great and sacred gift in creation, and we need to care for it so that we can care for each other.
It is a difficult balance as TeaPot562 noted, but we have to work to find the right balance so that people have good and productive work without decimating the earth.
My hope is that we can learn to work together on this, all sides have valid concerns. Let's put love first and measure our words and actions against that.
Well, you ecosceptics are
Well, you ecosceptics are certainly a sad lot. "No changes or develo
pment whatever" over the needs of people. I believe it is the need of people that the Pope is referring to when he speaks of all happenings on this earth due to climate change. What people are you speaking of? Certainly not the people who cannot farm due to desertafication. Not the people who have to move because it has become unliveable where they were. Maybe in the Pacific northwest you are not aware of the changes around the world going on due to climate change. We have to care the whole world, not just certain areas.
Most of the persons I
Most of the persons I associate with, both within and outside the Church, accept the reasonable, science-based cautions concerning the rapid destruction of the ozone layer. We applaud the Pope for stepping up to urge us to take seriously our responsibilities vis-a-vis the creation. Benedict has notably included this responsibility in Caritas in Veritate, his recent encyclical addressing justice issues. It is important for the Church to be on the correct side of this important issue.
It's 10 degrees in the
It's 10 degrees in the midwest and all the oranges in Florida are freezing.
It was 36 in Miami yesterday.
Can we stop wringing our hands over global warming and start looking at ALL the science? Or will we continue to just put our belief in that which supports our own personal agendas?
The Pope and bishops of the
The Pope and bishops of the Northwest (among others) are right to speak out on issues of social justice and peace, including matters of ecological/environmental stewardship. It has long been the case that environmental injustices have been supported, directly and indirectly, intentionally at times and sometimes unintentionally, by Christian theologies and misguided Christian attitudes toward the earth and its creatures. Course corrections are long overdue. Those who disagree have, of course, the right and responsibility to participate in the discourse. At the same time, the Pope and the bishops who speak about these matters and apply our Christian faith to such issues are certainly within their rights. Furthermore, in so far as our collective stewardship of the earth bears on our moral responsibilities, they have a duty to address the issue. God bless them.
Those of you who are angry that your ideas are found outside, and your interests not supported by, the moral teaching of our Catholic magsterium likewise have a responsibility to do with your money what your consciences prompt. May the Spirit of Truth prevail.
Eco-skeptic is just another
Eco-skeptic is just another name for Republican or even better corporate lacky. Either way for these people the most important moral sins are ones they can not do, hence the emphasis on abortion and gays(until they are caught in a rest-room or rectory). For them it is most important that the Church just support their fears and bigotry. They just want to be left alone so they can teabag each other in peace.
Excellent responses from
Excellent responses from Interested, Philippus and Teapot562 above.
I agree entirely.
When are climate change
When are climate change commentators going to stop equating those who deny the role of recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide in causing recent global warming with "eco-skeptics". Worse still, John Allen now seems to be equating them with defenders of "capitalism and limited government".
The tropospheric carbon dioxide is already exerting over 95% of its maximal "greenhouse" effec, yet non-scientists like Al Gore continue to push the idea of a catastrophic increase in global temperature if carbon dioxide increases further.
The "carbon dioxide deniers" of my acquaintance are commited conservationists who endorse ecological improvements, but see cheap energy through fossil fuels as the best way at present to afford the extra cost of environment improvement.
On a sadder religious note, the Vatican seems to live in a dream world in which voluntary limitation of population, and its eventual reversal, are not essential. Within a generation from now, as the effects of global overpopulation reach a critical stage, this policy will do major damage to the credibility of Catholicism. Prohibition of birth control by hormonal or other contraceptives is ignored by a large majority of Catholic laity, and I wonder how many priests and bishops in actual contact with the general laity actually support the Vatican position, a position actually repudiated by the Pope's own expert committee in 1968.
God's first commandment to us
God's first commandment to us was to make us the stewards and caretakers of Creation.
When the owner of this vineyard returns, we're all going to have a whole lot of 'splaining to do . . .
It is too late already to
It is too late already to stop the increase in poverty and atrocities in brushfire wars resulting from climate change. It may be too late already to prevent massive worldwide suffering as the time lags in biological processes catch up.
Strange that some people who likely call themselves "conservative" are so radical about taking chances possibly with themselves, but clearly with their grandchidren, and others.
God bless the Holy Father's faithfulness to God, to God-given reason, and to not taking huge risks (which i believe are certainties as close as any scientist will talk about certainty) with the lives and suffering of the whole world's peoples.
As for me, I recognize that the universal Church has 1/5th of the world's population from which to pull both intelligent leaders and also preeminent experts in special fields well-qualified to evaluate the expert work of others.
A lot of us will have a lot of forgiving to do as we all suffer together.
I can't afford the emotional drain of signing this one. Let it stand on it's own merit. — a retired biologist.
Dear friend and fellow
Dear friend and fellow “retired biologist”
In our daily paper “El Nuevo Diario” of today we read about the horrendous disaster in HAITI.
“The Prime Minister, Jean Max Bellerive estimated the number of people killed as more than 100.000. The rescued cadavers lie on the ground coverd with a sheet, while survivors wander about like lost souls. Many are searching for relatives or food, while others dig with their hands looking for persons buried in the debris. In desolated Puerto Principe (the capital of Haiti) there are no signs of ambulances, fire-fighters or excavating tractors.”
“The day after the quake, world wide aid began to reach the millions of victims of the earthquake in Haiti. ~Pope Benedict XVI appealed to the generosity of everybody to respond to the “dramatic situation” of the quake victims.”
To understand the magnitude of this disaster it is necessary to take this into consideration:
In 2007, the PIB (“PER CAPITA INCOME”) for entities of the SAME SIZE:
State of Maryland USA, with 5 million population -- PIB $44,631
Country of El Salvador, Central America, 7 million pop. – PIB $2,866
Country of HAITI, Caribbean Hispaniola, 7 million pop. – PIB $650
When Benedict XVI writes about climate change he is aiming not at cientific values but at human values and insecure human living conditions now and in the proximate future for those to whom Jesus said “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.”.
My friend “retired biologist”, as you so well underscore, “I recognize that the universal Church has 1/5th of the world's population”. Right, this is the calculated percentage of “official Christians” in the world today. My problem is not why we are only 1/5 of the world population, but rather why we have not been doing more to share up the world wealth. Instead we try to manufacture bigger and bigger needles and breed smaller and smaller camels and try to forget that the reason Jesus entered our world, lived as one of us and among us, was judged, condemed, executed, rose from the dead and lives among us today (“Whatever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters to do unto me”) precisely to get going the Kingdom of his “abbá-Father.
Justiniano de Managua – also a “retired biologist” among many other things.
Dear friend and fellow
Dear friend and fellow “retired biologist”
In our daily papter “El Nuevo Diario” of today we read about the horrendous disaster in HAITI.
“The Prime Minister, Jean Max Bellerive estimated the number of people killed as more than 100.000. The rescued cadavers lie on the ground coverd with a sheet, while survivors wander about like lost souls. Many are searching for relatives or food, while others dig with their hands looking for persons buried in the debris. In desolated Puerto Principe (the capital of Haiti) there are no signs of ambulances, fire-fighters or excavating tractors.”
“The day after the quake, world wide aid began to reach the millions of victims of the earthquake in Haiti. ~Pope Benedict XVI appealed to the generosity of everybody to respond to the “dramatic situation” of the quake victims.”
To understand the magnitude of this disaster it is necessary to take this into consideration:
In 2007, the PIB (“PER CAPITA INCOME”) for entities of the SAME SIZE:
State of Maryland USA, with 5 million population -- PIB $44,631
Country of El Salvador, Central America, 7 million pop. – PIB $2,866
Country of HAITI, Caribbean Hispaniola, 7 million pop. – PIB $650
When Benedict XVI writes about climate change he is aiming not at cientific values but at human values and insecure human living conditions now and in the proximate future for those to whom Jesus said “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.”.
My friend “retired biologist”, as you so well underscore, “I recognize that the universal Church has 1/5th of the world's population”. Right, this is the calculated percentage of “official Christians” in the world today. My problem is not why we are only 1/5 of the world population, but rather why we have not been doing more to share up the world wealth. Instead we try to manufacture bigger and bigger needles and breed smaller and smaller camels and try to forget that the reason Jesus entered our world, lived as one of us and among us, was judged, condemed, executed, rose from the dead and lives among us today (“Whatever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters to do unto me”) was precisely to get going the Kingdom of his “abbá-Father.
Justiniano de Managua – also a “retired biologist” among many other things.
What the three
What the three Benedict-bashers above are repudiating is not just a recent enthusiasm of his but the whole thread of Caholic social teaching going back at least to Leo XII - and earlier. It is at least refreshing to have them do so overtly rather than indulge in sophistries to demonstraate their ultra-loyalty to the Magisterium.
Where does his teaching leave certain members of the US hierarchy who seem to be competing with each other in a Rush-Limbaugh-in-drag competition?
Dear Skeptics Our environment
Dear Skeptics
Our environment is at risk. Lets take out the question of climate change for a minute. Lets ignore it.
Now ask the question - "how have people changed the biosphere in terms of animals and plants"?
OK - we can see many animals have be hunted almost to extinction (Elephants in Africa, Tigers in south east Asia).
Why is it that Japanese fishing boats travel to the Antarctica to fish? - because there is no fish for thousands of kilometres in there oceans - they have fished them out. Lets not even start on trees. Did you know by the late 1990s Australia had chopped down 90% of their trees. Case and point - Stewardship means care. Not destruction. Jesus says - I have come so that they may have life. Hold on. The measure of Stewardship start with me - why - because I buy product from countries which give no due to pollution. And there effects on biosphere and not to mention other people.
Eucharistic Entitlement:
Eucharistic Entitlement: Whatever our political/ religious affiliations we should realize that social weather winds are created and driven by high/ low pressures of religion and politics. In order to assess societal direction and misdirection we need to discern foul winds from fair and judge responsibly. The turbulence of the times is a barometer with lessons for church and for all.
The emotions of the people are pressured by political winds and expectations of entitlement and are not very well tempered by religious sense. Political sentiments are fired up by entitlement-expectations and Eucharistic sense fails to dampen them with realism. Driven by profit motives, the pharmaceutical industry pressures people to believe that every physical frailty has a medical or drug remedy; the medical insurance industry pushes the same buttons for the same profit motives. And politicians are driven by pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies. The prolongation of life at any cost and under any circumstance is advocated as an entitlement, but at what a price?
The reality is that we all age, diminish in vitality, and make way for future generations. This process is nature’s pattern of symbiosis and divinity’s plan of Eucharist. We are culturally wanting in willingness to embrace Eucharist (expending self for the wellbeing of other) and suppress unreal expectations of entitlement. The conspiracy of religious/ political unreality is unleashing unhealthy appetites and causing collapses of natural resources and accumulations of debt burdens beyond realistic recovery. Compounding the overload are gratuitous violence (corporate profiteering) and wars of-choice.
Above it all hyped greed appetites for nostrums to cure each least discomfort blind us to better judgment in balancing the needs of Eucharist (nature’s ecological limits) against the corporate interests of profiteering. It’s safer for politicians to give in to the clamor for entitlements than it is to advocate for religious sensibility and resist empty palliatives. In the least, religions should be principled in motivating the public to grace and Eucharistic necessity rather than falling for the deceits of corporate lures.
Faith in religion is deceived when religions become co-conspirators with politicians in defeating religious sense and sensitivity. The crisis of our times is a right-to-life crisis; it is a pro-life crisis. The elephant in the sanctuary of churches is mindlessness toward the crises of nature, the abortion of natural ecologies from human excesses of entitlement expectation and failed sensitivity for Eucharistic necessity. When churches operate by the same capital presumptions as corporate business they facilitate deception and exploitation.
The Pope's insight into the theology of eco-sensitivity is consistent with envisioning natural life as the Cosmic Mass (Chardin) in constant celebration — what is the "reality of Eucharist," the point and objective of representational Sacrament. Trashing nature is real sacrilege, real desecration of the divine.
For those of you interested
For those of you interested in reading more, there is a website called the Catholic Conservation Center that features the complete text of Pope Benedict’s World Peace Day message, plus hundreds of other statements about ecology and the environment by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II. http://conservation.catholic.org
Post new comment