FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
Posted on 04/14/2003 3:31:06 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN, February 12, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Archbishop Javier Lozano Barrag?n, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers, surprised those who doubt that the Maurice Strong led movement for a new "global ethic" presented a threat to Christianity. In an article published yesterday in the Vatican's L'Osservatore Romano, the Archbishop warned that the aim of the program was to supplant Christian values with a "global ethic."
The "New Paradigm" as it is called in the article is an eco-religion which holds "sustainable development" as the highest good. The Archbishop warns that the New Paradigm manifests itself "as a new spirituality that supplants all religions, because the latter have been unable to preserve the ecosystem." In a word, this is "a new secular religion, a religion without God, or if you prefer, a new God that is the earth itself with the name GAIA," he said.
The influence of the New Paradigm is already felt in the field of bioethics which uses warped interpretations of ethical stands which result in justifying research which offends human dignity such as embryonic stem cell research.
"The different religions existing in the world have been unable to generate this global ethic; therefore, they must be replaced by a new spirituality, which has as its end global well-being, within sustainable development," explained Archbishop Barrag?n.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/feb/03021202.html
See the coverage from Zenit News agency:
http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=31264
See related LifeSite coverage:
NEW WORLD 'TEN COMMANDMENTS' VENERATED IN 'ARK OF HOPE'
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/sep/02091201.html
OMINOUS ANTI-LIFE, ANTI-FAMILY EARTH CHARTER COMPLETED
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/mar/00033101.html
see related story from St Charbel for Life
*The Maronite, Catholic and Christian in the
Official web site
EARTH CHARTER
The Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet invite you for prayer focusing on the earth on Sunday, April 27 from 6-8pm at St. Joseph's Provincial House. This is the first of five gatherings focuses on the Earth Charter. Information on this international initiative can be found at www.earthcharter.org.
To say that my initial reaction was total shock would be an understatement! My second reaction was to note the day they had selected to begin their "prayer" service - the first Sunday after Easter, chosen by the pope as Divine Mercy Sunday. Apparently the goddess Gaia holds a greater place of honor in their home than our Lord.
Any suggestions on how to address this with them would be appreciated.
Ignore them.
============
Authentically Catholic Environmental Policy: Rescuing Kernels of Truth from Attendant Agendas
============
Copyright 2002 by Freeper “Notwithstanding” permission required prior to any use
==============
I wish to repeat that the ecological crisis is a moral issue. Even men and women without any particular religious conviction, but with an acute sense of their responsibilities for the common good, recognize their obligation to contribute to the restoration of a healthy environment. All the more should men and women who believe in God the Creator, and who are thus convinced that there is a well-defined unity and order in the world, feel called to address the problem. Christians, in particular, realize that their responsibility within creation and their duty towards nature and the Creator are an essential part of their faith. - Pope John Paul II[1]
These words of the pope give witness to the Catholic understanding that faith-based morality is at the heart of any authentically Catholic public policy decision, including any policy decision that affects the environment. It is imperative to note that the “dignity of human life” is at the very heart of this morality, such that Catholics must “measure every policy, every institution, and every action by whether it protects human life and enhances human dignity.”[2]
For decades the leaders of the Catholic Church have been calling on everyone to nurture the same kernels of truth[3] that environmental extremists[4] have strewn so hastily and haphazardly about the soil as they zealously planted their main crop: the kudzu of false alarm.[5] While some alarmists, such as Earth Liberation Front (ELF), are cult-like in their fringe eco-fanaticism,[6] other alarmists, such as Al Gore, are prominent forces in the mainstream policy arena.[7]
Catholic leaders, most notably the current pope, have done much to rescue many such kernels from among the weeds of activist hype[8] that might otherwise have simply choked these truths to death.[9] The Church exhorts man to make use of earthly resources and do so without unnecessary exploitation.[10] (That such moral guidance comports with rational analysis is evidenced by scientific data confirming that, alas, the end is not near.)[11] Every Catholic has an obligation to continue to cultivate these genuine seeds of ecological truth such that they might bear bountiful fruit for generations to come.[12]
At the same time, the Church has also highlighted valuable seeds of truth that have often been buried or only tacitly acknowledged within more politically conservative approaches to environmental policy.[13] Likewise, she has placed in proper perspective other noteworthy kernels that are present, though often overemphasized, within these more politically conservative policies.[14] (Not surprisingly, these are kernels that have largely been subjugated by most environmental activists as contrary to their movement.[15]) And finally, she has noted emphatically that certain policies are antithetical to the Catholic understanding of God, man and creation.[16]
It is clear that the Catholic Church offers universal moral principles rather than specific policy solutions, and that she supports no political parties.[17] Many Catholics will already be familiar with the broad principles of Catholic social teaching; subsidiarity, solidarity, and stewardship certainly apply in the context of environmental policy.[18] The themes of property rights, human dignity, public health, the common good, the universal destination of goods, and security must also factor into a Catholic analysis.[19] The Church teaches that “the good of the individual is necessarily related to the common good,” which consists of three essential elements: respect for the person, social well-being and development, and peace and security.[20]
It is likewise clear that “[t]he Church's social teaching comprises a body of doctrine, which is articulated as the Church interprets events in the course of history... in the light of the whole of what has been revealed by Jesus Christ.”[21] Thus, the Church encourages all of her members (and all people of good will) to formulate and evaluate environmental policies in accord with these universal moral teachings.
By applying foundational moral principles to the ecological situations at hand, one can propose and support policies that accept neither the alarmist notion that man and earth are enemies[22] nor a strict laissez-faire notion that no environmental policies are necessary.[23] Instead one can advocate for a benevolent and respectful human dominion over creation; a dominion that respects both our posterity and the generosity of the Creator.
This leaves to those interested in developing a body of environmental policy in accord with the Catholic faith the task of creating policies that develop a functional admixture, or hybrid strain, of these sundry seeds of truth. By looking to magisterial teaching and supplementary Catholic commentary this article suggests criteria by which one can evaluate the Catholicity of any environmental policy.[24] As a practical demonstration, this article also attempts to apply the criteria to policies that advocate population control.
Historical Background
To date there have been two main schools of environmental policy: the promotional and the precautionary.[25] The promotional[26] (or conservationist) approach has a longer history in the US[27] than the precautionary, and it is exemplified by the gigantic utilitarian public works project known as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).[28] However, the precautionary[29] approach has prevailed in recent history and is exemplified in the Endangered Species Act (ESA)[30], which is focused not on man, but on nature.[31]
In the United States, large-scale ecological concerns and awareness first grew out of man’s ever-increasing technological capabilities. As man developed more efficient methods of exploiting natural resources and also found more of these natural resources to be useful, the impact man made upon the landscape increased dramatically. Toward the end of the nineteenth century as the West was settled, “natural resources were devoured by destructive practices in mining, overgrazing, timber cutting, mono-crop planting, and speculation in land and water rights.”[32]
While not the first person to appreciate man’s impact on the environment, President Theodore Roosevelt is often held up as one of the earliest and most influential advocates for conservationist public policies in the US.[33] Conservationists advocated government action to develop and manage natural resources so as to preserve them from imprudent exploitation and depletion.[34] In this promotional approach to environmental policy the government “would either own or regulate these ‘national’ resources, and taxpayers would subsidize their development.”[35]
The primary emphasis by the federal government on ensuring an ever-increasing supply of natural resources ultimately rendered this interventionist policy harmful to the environment.[36] This promotional approach has long been considered largely utilitarian.[37] In the latter half of the twentieth century, its practical failure to preserve the environment gave rise to the precautionary approach, which has become the prevailing approach.[38]
With the advent of improved transportation networks and global corporations, the globe figuratively shrunk and environmental concerns grew to be seen as global issues. In this new global context, the promotional approach was disfavored by many environmentalists due to its inherently nationalist focus: conservation policies were valued by nations largely for their utility at home. Environmentalists in the less developed nations, whose resources were being depleted and natural environments were being impacted by the developed nations, advocated for a more precautionary approach. Environmentalists from wealthy developed nations also advocated for such an approach due to the severe obstacle it poses for those who use natural resources: those using the resources must prove their use is not harmful to the environment.[39]
Catholic Environmentalism
While the principles of Catholic social teaching that are evident within truly moral environmental policies are not new principles, the Catholic Church had little to say directly to address environmental concerns until global concern swelled during the latter half of the twentieth century.[40] Catholics were left to apply basic principles on their own with no specific guidance from her primary pastoral leaders.
Clearly the Church encourages people to actively promote activities and policies that comport with authentic Catholic social teaching. Many nominally Catholic organizations and individuals are closely associated with environmental activist organizations.[41] This should surprise no one given that the leading proponents of the Earth Charter advocated making “Earth Charter principles part of the teachings and instructions of religious and spiritual groups.”[42]
One key focus of these groups is “environmental justice.” As one commentator explained, this term “denotes the broad range of problems associated with wealthy communities using a disproportionate percentage of natural resources, and poor communities bearing a disproportionate burden of environmental degradation.”[43] This is a legitimate concern, but it must be balanced against the impact any ecological solutions may have on these poor communities, such as the loss of industry and concomitant loss of jobs.[44]
Unfortunately, many persons and organizations claiming to be Catholic environmentalists tend to adopt the alarmist and extremist tones of the leading secular environmentalists; most notably they grossly minimize the Catholic social teaching’s raison d’aitre, the dignity of each human person.[45] Likewise, these Catholics often adopt (perhaps unwittingly) spiritual beliefs that are heretical.[46] Finally, these persons and groups tend to advocate for very extreme unbalanced environmental policies, which are sometimes antithetical to magisterial teaching.[47] The bishops of the United States have wisely pointed out the inconsistency of many environmentalists:
How, then, can we protect endangered species and at the same time be callous to the unborn... Is not abortion also a sin against creation? If we turn our back on our own unborn children, can we truly expect that nature will receive respectful treatment at our hands... The care of the earth will not be advanced by the destruction of human life at any stage of development.[48]
During the pontificate of John Paul II environmental concerns have been addressed repeatedly, unequivocally and emphatically.[49] Individual bishops as well as the collective United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have also offered pastoral guidance on this topic.[50] But what the Church offers is hardly concrete policy. Rather, she offers, in context, ageless Catholic principles[51] that are often in tension with one another and must be prudentially balanced; e.g. solidarity and private property.[52]
This is similar to the tension that exists between the promotional and the precautionary approaches, both of which can claim legitimate moral imperatives but can also be legitimately criticized from a moral basis. As some environmentalists suggest, “[t]he challenge [for current federal policy makers] is to move beyond the confrontational nature of the last century’s promotional and precautionary biases” in order to “advance economic and ecological goals.”[53] Meanwhile, another commentator notes that “Catholic authorities have encouraged theologians, scientists, civic and industrial leaders and others to continue dialogue and research in pursuit of new insights on how humanity can apply the truth to foster a more authentic relationship between itself and the rest of creation.”[54]
Criteria
The practical task for environmental policymakers is age-old: “decide what is good for human beings and the things they most value and try to fit those as well as possible into a biosphere that, properly managed, we may hope to preserve and enhance even as we know it will both nurture and threaten us.”[55] Faced with the question “What ought we do?,” policymakers must first answer two preliminary questions: “Who are we?” and “What are the options to be done?” If humans are seen as merely one of many co-equal species, the solutions chosen are unlikely to comport with authentic Catholic morality. Likewise, if objective moral truth is considered burdensome, fictitious or irrelevant, options that contravene this truth will remain viable.[56] The Church provides assistance for policymakers who must answer these three questions.
In addition to the fundamental preeminence of human life and dignity (criteria 1), the Catechism lays down a clear foundation of truth by which to evaluate any government policy or private initiative. All of the main principles of Catholic social teaching (subsidiarity, solidarity, stewardship, private property rights, human dignity, public health, the common good, the universal destination of goods, and security) are incorporated into this summary of criteria paraphrased from a short section of the Catechism: 2) Economic activity presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services; 3) The principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly; 4) The state should oversee and direct the exercise of human rights in the economic sector; 5) Primary responsibility in the economic sector belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society; 6) Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations; 7) They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits; 8) Profits are necessary; they make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.[57] See Table 1, below.
More specifically, the recent Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship and a related commentary written by Catholic scholars of the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship offer points to consider when evaluating any ecological policy. These questions can assist in determining if a policy or proposed solution is eco-extremist in nature: a) Is the ecological problem well understood, or speculative?; b) Is it localized, or global/cataclysmic?; c) Is it of special concern to people in developing nations, or to environmental activists in wealthy nations?; d) Does it pose a high and firmly established risk to human life and health, or is such risk low or only hypothetical?; e) Is the proposed solution cost-effective and proven to be beneficial, or unjustifiably costly with dubious benefit?; f) Is the policy utopian, or practical and prudent?; g) Does the policy encourage at least some temperance of consumption of resources, or ignore disordered appetites?; h) Does the policy use technology to violate the natural law or result in mass destruction of nature or harm of human persons?; i) Is each creature given its due, with human need given priority where conflict makes a tradeoff necessary?[58] See Table 2, below.
Of course there is no strict mathematical method or formula for applying and balancing any of these criteria. As one scholar noted, “We have no clear cut rules... God seems to have built into the world some limits and an equally important plasticity that complicates our notion of what is natural.”[59] While some alternative or additional list of purely prudential criteria other than those gleaned from the Cornwall Declaration (Table 2) may be suitable or even preferable, a Catholic has no option to discard the criteria taken from the Catechism (Table 1).[60]
TABLE 1
Applying Catholic Moral Principles to Environmental Policy
Criteria from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
|
1 |
First and foremost, every policy must protect human life and enhance human dignity. |
human dignity public health solidarity |
|
2 |
Economic activity presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. |
private property common good subsidiarity private property security solidarity |
|
3 |
The principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. |
security solidarity human dignity private property |
|
4 |
The state should oversee and direct the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. |
solidarity human dignity |
|
5 |
Primary responsibility in the economic sector belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations that make up society. |
subsidiarity private property |
|
6 |
Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations. |
stewardship public health common good security universal destination of goods |
|
7 |
They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. |
common good solidarity stewardship universal destination of goods |
|
8 |
Profits are necessary; they make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment. |
solidarity private property stewardship |
TABLE 2
Considering Whether a Policy Is Prudent
Criteria from the Cornwall Declaration
|
a |
Is the ecological problem well understood, or speculative? |
|
b |
Is it localized, or global/cataclysmic? |
|
c |
Is it of special concern to people in developing nations and the poor, or to environmental activists in wealthy nations? |
|
d |
Does it pose a high and firmly established risk to human life and health, or is such risk low or only hypothetical? |
|
e |
Is the proposed solution cost-effective and proven to be beneficial, or unjustifiably costly with dubious benefit? |
|
f |
Is the policy utopian, or practical and prudent? |
|
g |
Does the policy encourage at least some temperance of consumption of resources, or ignore disordered appetites? |
|
h |
Does the policy use technology to violate the natural law or result in mass destruction of nature or harm of human persons? |
|
i |
Is each creature given its due, with human need given priority where conflict makes a tradeoff necessary? |
Applying the Criteria: Solidarity, Human Dignity and Population Control
Within Catholic social teaching solidarity is a pervasive concern, while the protection of human life and enhancement of human dignity are the premiere concerns, as Table 1 illustrates. Solidarity with the poor (often phrased as the “preferential option for the poor”) and with future human inhabitants of the earth are moral imperatives that are relevant to discussion of environmental policy. However, as noted within the Catechism, respect for human life and dignity trump all other considerations – including solidarity with the poor.
This trumping effect is an example of one of the most basic elements of Catholic moral philosophy: that legitimate and laudable ends can never justify immoral means. Sometimes applying Catholic criteria to a proposed environmental policy will be an easy task. One such policy is “population control.” Taking a human life (abortion) and denigrating the procreative act (contraception/sterilization) are considered as evil acts. As such, these methods of population control can never be employed to achieve even a most noble end (preserving the environment).[61]
Environmental policies aimed at population reduction are suspect primarily because they undermine the intrinsic value of persons qua persons. Given that Catholic sexual morality (which is based upon human dignity) is treated with contempt by virtually all population control lobbying groups, it is prudent for Catholic policy makers to keep asking such groups tough questions.[62] How can one claim a sincere solidarity with the poor while advocating population policies that eliminate not their poverty but their existence? How can one claim a sincere solidarity with the poor while advocating population policies that subject them to grave health risks?[63] Or solidarity with future generations while advocating policies that guarantee many would-be members of those future generations will never be born?
The secular paradigm for decades has been that high-pressure or even coercive population control programs are necessary to ensure the security and health of both people and the planet. For decades the world’s leading population control advocates have linked population control to environmental policy.
In 1969 the vice-president of Planned Parenthood-World Population sent a memorandum to the president of the Population Council that highlighted ways to reduce fertility in the US. Among the proposals in the memo: compulsory abortion for unwed pregnant mothers, compulsory sterilization for two-child families, encouragement of homosexual relationships, and adding fertility control agents to the water supply.[64] A policy statement adopted by the International Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) in 1976 links population control directly to concern for the environment:
PPFA believes... the United States must plan for [a]... slowing of population growth... We recognize the great and increasing threat imposed upon the quality of national life by. . . ecological and environmental problems... which are multiplied and intensified by continued and unchecked population growth.[65]
Substitute the phrase “highly encouraged and incentivized” for “compulsory” and the policy statements above are essentially the same as those of the foreign aid and foreign policy offices of many nations.[66] This type of policy (encouraging contraception/sterilization and abortion) is couched benevolently as “securing access to reproductive health services” and “the key to sustainable development.”
One can quickly conclude from the criteria in Table 1 that coercion or compulsion of any type (viz. procreative activity) is also prohibited by Catholic social teaching as an affront to subsidiarity.[67] Any program that offers economic incentives to a nation, group or individual that are tied to a reduction in fertility rates is a deplorable manipulation or intervention and also undermines the local culture and morality.[68] Additionally, Catholic moral teaching considers every abortion as an act of unjustifiable homicide, and every act of contraception or sterilization as objectively evil.[69]
Legitimate policies can encourage only natural methods of regulating procreation,[70] which are morally acceptable “for just reasons”[71] (poverty or inability to provide for one’s family are considered just reasons). Clearly, it is morally reprehensible to deliberately introduce a vice (contraception, sterilization or abortion) into a culture that initially finds the vice repugnant. Just as employing immoral means to achieve a moral end is immoral, so too is encouraging others to employ immoral means to achieve a moral end. Western introduction of artificial population control methods into developing nations continues to be a form of cultural imperialism (consider criteria c and h from Table 2).
While natural fertility awareness methods (NFAM) are safe, easy and effective, (consider criteria e, g and f from Table 2) there are two major reasons why they are not promoted in developing countries: 1) pharmaceutical companies have no financial incentive to lobby for them and every reason to lobby for artificial, pharmaceutical, means; 2) the methods are foreign to the members of the environmentalist lobby and are erroneously thought to be ineffective and difficult to learn.[72]
As to the first reason, it is perhaps self-evident that there is no industry with any incentive to lobby for NFAM, a method that requires only a thermometer, paper and pencil. Providing contraception to billions of people is big business. The for-profit contraceptive industry is naturally very supportive of one of its largest customers: global population control programs.
As to the second reason, most environmentalists are from the West, and NFAM is not popular in the West due to a heavy reliance in all areas of Western medicine on pharmaceuticals and artificial devices and interventions. Too, the cultural association of NFAM with conservative religious beliefs may tend to lessen receptivity to it among those who consider themselves “progressive”. This may change as natural and homeopathic medicine and resistance to the ingestion of hormones gain in popularity in the West, especially among progressives.
The safety of NFAM is not at issue, however the effectiveness is of legitimate concern. Large studies in India and China and a multi-continent study by the World Health Organization show a method-effectiveness for the most widely used NFAM (known as the Billings Ovulation Method) of 98-100% among new users.[73]
As to the ease of teaching and using NFAM, perhaps these words from a Nobel laureate’s Nobel Lecture address that best:
And also, we are doing another thing which is very beautiful - we are teaching our beggars, our leprosy patients, our slum dwellers, our people of the street, natural family planning.
And in Calcutta alone in six years - it is all in Calcutta -we have had 61,273 babies less from the families who would have had, but because they practise this natural way of abstaining, of self-control, out of love for each other. We teach them the temperature meter which is very beautiful, very simple, and our poor people understand. And you know what they have told me? “Our family is healthy, our family is united, and we can have a baby whenever we want.” So clear - those people in the street, those beggars - and I think that if our people can do like that how much more you and all the others who can know the ways and means without destroying the life that God has created in us.
The poor people are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. The other day one of them came to thank and said: “You people who have vowed chastity you are the best people to teach us family planning. Because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other.”[74]
Advocating for NFAM is best coupled with true development and perhaps emigration.[75] Authentic development must address the whole person and society, not just the procreative aspects of life.[76] The immoral choice of artificially controlling the population is seemingly much easier; nevertheless utility is not a prime factor in this calculus when the dignity of the human person is at issue. As such, the seemingly arduous path is the only option in accord with Catholic morality.
The hidden benefit of this Catholic approach is that it forces society to come up with a real solution to the real problem of authentic development, rather than pinning the blame on the existence of too many people.[77] It draws out the ingenuity of man. Part of the reason Ehrlich’s dire predictions of world-wide starvation did not come to fruition is human ingenuity: people like Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug led the “green revolution” by developing and introducing high-yielding grain varieties that helped China, India and Pakistan increase grain production as much as sevenfold since the 1960s.
This certainly qualifies as authentic development. Whereas feeding people hormones to shut down their reproductive systems or offering to kill their unborn children does not necessarily qualify as such. The Church cautions that “development which is merely economic is incapable of setting man free; on the contrary, it will end by enslaving him further.”[78]
The underlying desire to help poor people in developing countries save their environment (and that of us all) might be the impetus for immoral population control policies. The kernel of truth in that motivation is a laudable solidarity with the poor and with all citizens of the globe who rely upon the environment. But a notorious weed, the culture of death, too easily chokes this truth out unless the culture of life is cultivated in its stead. The dignity of the human person takes precedence in Catholic moral teaching, and population control is beneath that dignity.
Duty Towards Nature and the Human Person
It may well be a crisis of faith that causes a nominal Catholic to advocate population control policies in exchange for what he hopes will be a healthier natural environment. However, it is a perhaps a crisis of neglect within the Church that has permitted such people to earn the title “catholic environmentalist”.
Catholics would be wise to join the co-founder of Greenpeace in his efforts to rescue environmentalism from extremists. In so doing, concern for the environment - that many already share and that all should share – will be shaped by authentic Catholic morality. This is perhaps more urgent regarding some policies that have more direct and immediate impact on the dignity of the human person (such as population control) than others.
Regardless of urgency, Catholics should get involved and be creative in their approach to formulating moral environmental policies. The success of the federal Clean Air Act’s combined approach of government standards and market-based pollution credits[79] is an example of a policy that seems to balance the Church’s moral criteria, and in which deference to the principle of subsidiarity has proven to be beneficial to the environment and industry (and therefore to the whole human person).[80] It should inspire hope and creativity in developing other new policies, and trust among all voices in the environmental movement.[81]
Pope John Paul II stated most emphatically that “the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone.”[82] As such, each Catholic who is engaged in influencing environmental policy must make “concerted efforts aimed at establishing the duties and obligations that belong to individuals, peoples, States and the international community.”[83] Doing so is imperative, not optional. Doing so will ensure human dignity remains at the fore. And doing so will rescue the truth from extreme agendas.
----------------------
Endnotes
----------------------
[1] Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1990, para.15.
[2] Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and Directions, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB – used to denote the former NCCB and the new USCCB that replaced it in 2000), 1999. cf Mater et Magister para.219; Guadium et Spes para.63; CCC para.1930
[3] See Pacem in Terris, para.101; Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, para.34; Redemptor Hominis, para. 15; Centissimus Annus, para. 37; Octogesima Adveniens, para.21; Evangelium Vitae, para.42; Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), para. 2415.
[4] Patrick Moore, co-founder and former international director of Greenpeace, describes environmental extremism in this way: “Some of the features of eco-extremism are: It is anti-human... It is anti-technology and anti-science... It is anti-organization... It is anti-trade... It is anti-free enterprise... It is anti-democratic... It is basically anti-civilization... The rise of extremism is a major feature of the movement’s evolution and is now deeply embedded in its political structure... major elements of [the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, etc.] have been hi-jacked by people who are politically motivated, lack science, and are often using the rhetoric of environmentalism to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism.” Source: Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement, Leadership Quarterly, 1994.
[5] A once-prized ornamental vine that was introduced to the southeastern USA from Japan in 1876 but was classified by the USDA as a weed by 1972, kudzu now grows wild throughout the South and is a notorious nuisance because it chokes out other desirable plant species by blocking the sun’s light. The ‘kudzu of false alarm’ was first planted in 1798 when British economist, the Rev. Thomas Malthus, published his landmark Essay on the Principle of Population that states: “Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.” Subsequent Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, continued to plant kudzu seedlings in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb wherein he incorrectly predicted that in the 1970s “hundreds of millions of people will starve to death” because the “battle to feed all of humanity is over.” This climate of unfounded alarm thrives at the United Nations, as evidenced by a 1992 statement of the UN Population Fund announcing that “a sustained and concerted program starting immediately” that would curb the world’s population growth was necessary because, according to the Fund’s director general, the current population trends created a “crisis” that “heightens the risk of future economic and ecological catastrophes.” See generally The 9 Lives of Population Control, edited by Michael Cromartie, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Grand Rapids, 1995. The alarmist nature of this weed reaches its nadir in the inflammatory rhetoric that humans have virtually destroyed the planet and need to be stopped immediately; rhetoric which is put forth by environmental groups that claim responsibility for the recurring violent acts of eco-terrorism such as arson and tree-spiking, acts which have been widely covered by the news media. Thus, the desirable concern for the environment has taken on a harmful and seemingly uncontrollable tone of alarm that hinders the development of sound and rational policy.
[6] According to journalist Dean Schabner: “The ELF has carried out more than 100 acts of destruction in the last five years, wreaking $37 million worth of damage... Bron Taylor, a professor of religion at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh who has studied the radical environmental movement for more than a decade, said that one of the defining elements of the activists is their political cynicism... According to Taylor, ‘deep ecologists’ such as those in ELF have a firm belief in three essential tenets: That ecosystems have an inherent worth that cannot be judged in relation to human needs; that human actions are bringing the earth toward mass extinctions; and that political action is insufficient to bring about the wholesale social changes needed.” ELF Making Good on Threat Officials Fear Increased ‘Ecotage’ by Elusive Activists, ABC News, 1/30/2001
[7] During an October 1, 1997, White House “global warming” event with 100 weather forecasters, then Vice President Gore discussed overpopulation in developing countries (Source: White House transcript, http://clinton2.nara.gov/Initiatives/Climate/weatherrel). According to journalist Paul Bedard: “Mr. Gore [said] that overpopulation was the top proponent of climate change” and “suggested that the industrialized nations have ‘stabilized’ their populations through a three-point program of birth control, abortion and a reduction in child mortality rates, but world populations would grow if developing nations aren't targeted now.” Gore also “heralded President Clinton's early 1993 decision to reverse GOP policies blocking U.S. funding of family-planning groups that perform abortions abroad.” Gore's cure for global warming jolts pro-life activists, Washington Times, October 3, 1997, Pg. A3
[8] Patrick Moore describes the current leaders of Greenpeace as “scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics to silence people who wish to express their views in a civilized forum.” Moore, “Do I hear Jackboots?”, October 15, 2001, at www.GreenpSpirit.com/logbook.
[9] “As a result of the rise of environmental extremism it has become difficult for the public, government agencies and industry to determine which demands are reasonable and which are not.” Patrick Moore, Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement, Leadership Quarterly, 1994.
[10] CCC, para.2415
[11] Statistics contained in the UN’s World Population Prospects: The 1996 Revision reveal (as human experience also reveals) that famine has not wiped out the human population as Ehrlich predicted and that population growth has decreased dramatically, so much so that a majority of the world’s most populous countries will soon fall below replacement level rates of fertility. In 1990, the World Food Summit 96/Tech I Executive Summary reported that world food supplies exceed requirements in all world areas with a surplus of almost 50 percent in developed countries and 17 percent in developing regions. Jacqueline R. Kasun, There is No Further Need for Population Control, Population Research Institute, 1995. Ehrlich has experienced first hand the reality that resources are not becoming scarce: “Economist Julian Simon offered to let anyone pick any natural resource... and any future date. If the resource really were to become scarcer as the world's population grew, then its price should rise. Simon wanted to bet that the price would instead decline by the appointed date... In October 1980... [famous environmental alarmist] Paul Ehrlich bet $1,000 on five metals (chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten) in quantities that each cost $200 in the current market. A futures contract was drawn up obligating Simon to sell Ehrlich ... these same quantities of the metals 10 years later, but at 1980 prices. If the 1990 combined prices turned out to be higher than $1,000, Simon would pay [Ehrlich] the difference in cash. If prices fell, [Ehrlich] would pay him... [in 1990] Ehrlich simply mailed Simon... a cheque for $576... each of the five metals chosen by Ehrlich's group, when adjusted for inflation since 1980, had decline in price.” John Tierney, Betting the Planet, The Guardian, December 28, 1990. According to The World Food Output, issued by the World Bank in November 1993 “less than one-half of the world's land area suitable for crop production is currently being used for this purpose,” (p. 51) and the world's "cereal production could be increased to...about 18 times the 1990 level using the same share of cultivated land for cereal production" (p. 48).
[12] “This has led to the painful realization that we cannot interfere in one area of the ecosystem without paying due attention both to the consequences of such interference in other areas and to the well-being of future generations.” Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1990, para.6.
[13] e.g. viz. solidarity: Pat Buchanan, for example, advocates for solidarity with all US land owners, rich and poor alike, by demanding that they be justly compensated when an environmental policy confiscates or limits the value of their land: “As President I will require Congress to vote on every endangered species and compensate property owners when their land is seized and converted into protected habitat. We want to see the bald eagle and grizzly bear survive, but un-elected bureaucrats must not be allowed to violate property rights in the process.” (Source: Issues: Protecting the Environment, www.GoPatGo.org, Jun 11, 1999.) His policies also advocate solidarity with US laborers whose jobs are threatened or negatively affected by new environmental standards: “And from the ancient forests of Oregon, to the Inland Empire of California, America’s great middle class has got to start standing up to the environmental extremists who put insects, rats and birds - ahead of families, workers and jobs.” (Source: Speech at 1992 GOP Convention, August 17, 1992.) However, his protectionist policies at the same time ignore any solidarity with non-US laborers or citizens, to whom US citizens also have a moral obligation of solidarity: “As President I will oppose international environmental accords like the Kyoto Treaty that would devastate American industry and obligate our country to onerous environmental regulations that do not apply to other nations.” (Source: Issues: Protecting the Environment, www.GoPatGo.org, Jun 11, 1999.)
[14] e.g. subsidiarity: “The concepts of an ordered universe and a common heritage both point to the necessity of a more internationally coordinated approach to the management of the earth’s goods. In many cases the effects of ecological problems transcend the borders of individual States; hence their solution cannot be found solely on the national level... Political obstacles, forms of exaggerated nationalism and economic interests—to mention only a few factors—impede international cooperation and long-term effective action. The need for joint action on the international level does not lessen the responsibility of each individual state. Not only should each State join with others in implementing internationally accepted standards, but it should also make or facilitate necessary socio-economic adjustments within its own borders, giving special attention to the most vulnerable sectors of society.” Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, para.9; e.g. private property: “Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It becomes illegitimate, however, when it is not utilized or when it serves to impede the work of others, in an effort to gain a profit which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people. Ownership of this kind has no justification, and represents an abuse in the sight of God and man. Centissimus Annus, para. 43.
[15] e.g. viz. subsidiarity and private properry: Globalist environmentalists advocate severely limiting the ability of a nation to employ its own solutions by mandating global solutions that largely eliminate the subsidiarity that national sovereignty secured prior to the very recent advent of international governmental bodies such as the UN. According to a review of former priest Leonardo Boff’s recent book: “Interestingly, everything that [Pope] John Paul [II] said earlier in his critique of Marxism’s fundamental anthropological error thus applies to Boff’s eco-spirituality: ‘Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the socioeconomic mechanism.’ Sure enough, Boff’s solution to the challenge of environmental questions is to remove them altogether from individuals working at the local levels for concrete solutions to specific problems and instead to subordinate the whole process to ‘global bodies, such as the United Nations and its eighteen specialized agencies and fourteen worldwide programs.’ So much for subsidiarity. And in [Centissimus Annus], John Paul went on to observe that ‘from this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of the law... and an opposition to private property.’ Almost on cue, Boff proposes, as follow-up to his globalization scheme, a new economic order based on collectivizing natural resources.” John-Peter Pham reviewing Leonardo Boff’s Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, Religion & Liberty, March/April 1999, Vol. 9, N.2.
[16] “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism.’ She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of ‘capitalism,’ individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for ‘there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.’ Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.” CCC, para. 2425
[17] “The Church respects the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution. Her contribution to the political order is precisely her vision of the dignity of the person revealed in all its fullness in the mystery of the Incarnate Word.” Centissimus Annus, para. 47.
[18] “In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, para.1894. “In economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice of ... solidarity, in accordance with the golden rule and in keeping with the generosity of the Lord” CCC, para. 2407. “In God's plan man and woman have the vocation of ‘subduing’ the earth as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination.” CCC, para. 373.
[19] “The goods of creation are destined for the entire human race. The right to private property does not abolish the universal destination of goods.” CCC, para. 2452. “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.” CCC, para. 2418. “Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good. Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.” CCC, para. 2288. “[A] community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” CCC, para. 1883. “Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members.” CCC, para. 1909.
[20] CCC, para. 1905-1909.
[21] CCC, para. 2422.
[22] In preparation for the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Club of Rome, which is an influential globalist think tank and policy organization, issued a report that declared: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” (Report quoted from Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, eds., The First Global Revolution: a Report by the Council of the Club of Rome, New York: Pantheon Books, 1991).
[23] There are apparently no noteworthy groups, activists or policymakers advocating that the best public policy is to totally ignore the environment. Among those advocating the most laissez-faire policies are: former presidential candidate and author of this year’s best-selling Death of the West, Patrick Buchanan, who during his 2000 campaign clearly advocated not against all federal environmental protections but rather for increased reliance on private environmental initiatives (Sources: www.Issues2000.org and Death of the West, New York: Dunne Books, 2001); Danish professor of statistics and former Greenpeace extremist, Bjørn Lomborg, who wrote the hugely debated and well-documented The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001 after his analysis of environmental statistics revealed that environmental conditions are actually improving and that no actual ecological crisis is nigh; and the independent Heartland Institute, a grassroots organization in Illinois that published the 1994 book Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism, which criticizes the alarmist nature of most environmental organizations while acknowledging that there are a limited number of ecological concerns, most of which do not require complex government solutions.
[24] The term magisterial refers to the magisterium of the Church. Magisterial teachings (e.g. conciliar documents, encyclicals, the Catechism) have an authoritative character that the mere opinions and writings of even the most preeminent theologians and pastors lack. According to the official Catholic catechism, the magisterium is described as follows: “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” CCC, para. 85. Another definition elaborates: “The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils or of the popes teaching ex cathedra, or of particular councils, if their decrees are universally accepted or approved in solemn form by the pope; also creeds and professions of faith put forward or solemnly approved by pope or ecumenical council. The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the faithful, and various historical documents in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.” Donald Attwater, ed., A Catholic Dictionary, New York, Macmillan, 1962.
[25] Angela Logomasini and David Riggs, The Environmental Source 2002, Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2002, p.3.
[26] During a local Wolf Management Committee meeting in Montana, a citizen described the terms: “A preservationist (another word for extremist) seeks only to preserve and sees no need for balance. ‘Let all wildlife grow old in peace and die,’ say the preservationists. A conservationist understands the nature of a renewable resource, takes responsibility for the good stewardship of the resource and promotes the economic utility of such resource in service to people, including the motel/hotel industry, the travel industry, the recreational tools and toys industry, the sport hunting industry, and the people who support each of these broad-based groups. Remove the wildlife resource base which the [artificially re-introduced] wolf will consume and you will see how wolves eat jobs.” Timothy B. Strauch, Holding the Wolf by the Ears, 27 Land & Water L. Rev. 33, 64 fn 229.
[27] Stacy J. Silveira, The American Environmental Movement: Surviving Through Diversity, 28 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 500.
[28] “Even by Depression standards, the Tennessee Valley was in sad shape in 1933. Much of the land had been farmed too hard for too long, eroding and depleting the soil. Crop yields had fallen along with farm incomes. The best timber had been cut. TVA began by building dams to harness the region’s rivers. The dams controlled floods, improved navigation, and generated electricity. TVA developed fertilizers, taught farmers how to improve crop yields, and helped replant forests, control forest fires, and improve habitat for wildlife and fish.” The Tennessee Blue Book, Tennessee Secretary of State, 2001, p.307.
[29] “At its simplest, the precautionary principle can be seen to involve taking preventative action in the absence of any proof of harm... risk generators should be faced with the burden of proof.” John Barry and E. Gene Frankland, eds., International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics, London, 2002, p.380. The precautionary principle “provides guidance in situations of scientific uncertainty,” and “[a]ccording to James Cameron, a leading legal expert on the principle, when scientific certainty is present, measures to forestall harm are ‘preventative,’ not precautionary.” Steve Charnovitz, The Supervision of Health and Biosafety Regulation by World Trade Rules, 13 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 271, 293.
[30] Under the ESA the government restricts use of land without any proof that a particular landowner’s use of the land is harmful to a species listed as endangered. “Landowners who happen to have threatened or endangered species on their lands or who simply have habitat that might be used by endangered species are routinely prevented from using their lands or property, for such activities as harvesting their trees, planting their crops, grazing their cattle, irrigating their fields, clearing brush along fence lines, disking firebreaks around their homes and barns, or building new homes.” Logomasini and Riggs at 105.
[31] Id. at 3.
[32] Silveira at 499.
[33] Id. at 499-502.
[34] Andrew Glenn Kirk, Collecting Nature: The American Environmental Movement and the Conservation Library, University of Kansas Press, p.67.
[35] Logomasini and Riggs at 3.
[36] Id.
[37] Kirk at p.67.
[38] Logomasini and Riggs at 3.
[39] Germany is actually credited with birthing this approach in the 1970s. Norman Miller, Environmental Politics, Lewis: New York, p.78. In 1997 Mikhail Gorbachev’s Green Cross International issued the Green Cross Earth Charter Philosophy, which states: “Precaution must be the basic organizing principle of environmental management. Scientific uncertainty should be used for objective assessment and not as an excuse for delaying action.” (Source: www.gci.ch/GreenCrossPrograms/earthcharter/proposedtexts/ EarthCharterPhilosophy.html)
[40] The first direct papal recognition of modern ecological concerns was in 1971: “While the horizon of man is thus being modified according to the images that are chosen for him, another transformation is making itself felt, one which is the dramatic and unexpected consequence of human activity. Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation. Not only is the material environment becoming a permanent menace - pollution and refuse, new illness and absolute destructive capacity - but the human framework is no longer under man's control, thus creating an environment for tomorrow which may well be intolerable. This is a wide-ranging social problem which concerns the entire human family. The Christian must turn to these new perceptions in order to take on responsibility, together with the rest of men, for a destiny which from now on is shared by all.” Octogesima Adveniens, para.21.
[41] e.g. The environmentalist organization Global Education Associates (GEA) boasts on its web page “The GEA-Religious Orders Partnership program has its roots in the vision and mission of GEA. It has been on going and evolving for more than 20 years. Currently this partnership engages more than 150 Catholic religious orders.” (Source: www.globaleduc.org/rop.htm); The following religious groups have established independent eco-justice or eco-spirituality programs and work in cooperation with a large network of secular environmental groups: Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of Providence, Franciscan Sisters, Franciscan Friars, Marianist Sisters, Marianist Priests and Brothers, Columban Fathers, Dominicans Sisters, Dominican Priests and Brothers, Sisters of the Humility of Mary, Jesuits, and Carmelite Sisters.
[42] Draft “Program for the Earth Charter Millennium Campaign”, Earth Charter Campaign, International Secretariat, 1999. (Source: web1.archive.org/web/19991207170958/earthcharter.org/millennium/ campaign.html)
[43] Robert W. Lannan, Catholic Tradition and the new Catholic Theology and Social Teaching on the Environment, 39 Catholic Law 378-79.
[44] Letter sent to legislators by the Chairman of the Committee on Domestic Policy, USCCB, June 9, 1997.
[45] e.g. Thomas Berry’s work was very influential in the Earth Charter movement. Berry is a Catholic Passionist priest and co-founder of the Center for Respect of Life and Environment (CRLE). His writings and lectures speak of rights for all living beings (animals and plants); this is the view of many environmental extremists, but Catholic doctrine insists that rights are always attached to human personhood. This quote from his 1988 book Dream of the Earth is the most damning: “Our sense of reality and of value must consciously shift from an anthropocentric to a biocentric norm of reference”. Such biocentrism (considering humans of no more worth than other species) is evident in CRLE’s activism and is “inconsistent with Catholic tradition” because it rejects the special nature of each human person. Lannan, at 369.
[46] Rituals that include worship of an earth-goddess are commonplace at nominally Catholic eco-spirituality events. This particular subject has been well documented in Donna Steichen’s Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991, p.51-77. The ideas of Matthew Fox, a former Catholic priest whose theology of “creation spirituality” drifted so far away from Catholic doctrine that he was excommunicated, continues to give lectures at Catholic environmental gatherings and at parishes about his brand of eco-spirituality. Fox’s eclectic monthly “liturgy” is known as the “techno cosmic mass.” Fox boasts on his website that “trance dance is the primary form of prayer” in the cosmic mass and that it includes “pagan” elements. (Source: www.technocosmicmass.org)
[47] One of the cornerstones of virtually all global environmentalist groups is “sustainable development” or alternatively “population” issues. These are euphemistic terms for advocacy of abortion and contraception, both of which are considered evil according to magisterial teaching – certainly when they are introduced by wealthy nations into cultures that initially consider them repugnant. The work of such secular environmental groups are often given blanket endorsements by Catholics who express no concern over the group’s advocacy of these “evil” population policies. The influential Earth Charter states that “an unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems” and seeks to “ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.” (Source: www.earthcharter.org). According to the Catholic social action group Pax Christi, “Pax Christi International Executive Committee members voted to endorse the Earth Charter Statement at a meeting that took place in Belgium, 8 - 10 March 2002. Endorsement of the document builds support for environmental protection and development of a just, sustainable, and peaceful world.” (Source: www.paxchristi.net/ body_index.html)
[48] Renewing the Earth, 1991, USCCB.
[49] e.g. Evangelium Vitae, para.42; Centissimus Annus, para.37-40; Redemptor Hominis, para.15-16; Ecclesia in America, para.25; Christifidelis Laici, para.43; Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, para.34; Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1990; CCC, para.337-49 and 2415-18.
[50] e.g. Renewing the Earth, USCCB, 1991; The Columbia River Watershed: Caring for Creation and the Common Good, various US and Canadian bishops, 2001; Care for the Earth, Indiana Catholic Conference, 2000; Companions in Creation, Florida Catholic Conference, 1991; At Home in the Web of Life, Catholic Bishops of Appalachia, 1995; And God Saw That It Was Good, Bishops of the Boston Province, 2000; Joint Statement on Children and the Environment, USCCB and National Council of Synagogues, 2000; Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, USCCB, 2001.
[51] “The Church, in fact, has something to say about specific human situations, both individual and communal, national and international. She formulates a genuine doctrine for these situations, a corpus which enables her to analyze social realities, to make judgments about them and to indicate directions to be taken for the just resolution of the problems involved.” Centissimus Annus, para.5.
[52] While not mentioned within an ecological context, this type of tension was addressed specifically by Pope Pius XI in 1931: “Twin rocks of shipwreck must be carefully avoided. For, as one is wrecked upon, or comes close to, what is known as ‘individualism’ by denying or minimizing the social and public character of the right of property, so by rejecting or minimizing the private and individual character of this same right, one inevitably runs into ‘collectivism’.” Quadragesimo Anno, para.46
[53] Logomasini and Riggs at 3.
[54] Lannan at 388.
[55] Robert Royal, essay excerpted from The Virgin and the Dynamo: Use and Abuse of Religion in Environmental Debates, Eerdmans, 1999.
[56] Samuel Gregg, Economic Thinking for the Theologically Minded, University Press of America, 2001, p. 21-22.
[57] CCC, para. 2431-32.
[58] Michael B. Barkey, ed., Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Acton Institute, Grand Rapids, 2002, p. xiii and p.40. The Cornwall Declaration is a project of the Interfaith Coalition for Environmental Stewardship, whose membership includes prominent Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant leaders. Over 1000 influential clergy, theologians and scholars have signed the Declaration.
[59] Royal.
[60] cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, para.4
[61] CCC, para. 2399
[62] Cromartie at 140-44
[63] According to a Dr. Stephen K. Karanja, an Obstetrician/Gynecologist in Kenya: “Some of these contraceptives like Depo-provera cause terrible side-effects to the poor people in Kenya, who do not even have competent medical check-ups before injection. Many are maimed for life. The hypertension, blood clots, heart failure, liver pathology and menstrual disorders cannot be treated due to the poor health services.” Karanja, Population Control – the Kenyan Perspective, In-depth Reports, Population Research Institute, 1998.
[64] M. Kempf, Global War on the Family – Will We Win?, Social Justice Review, March/April 2002, Vol.93, N.3-4, p. 57, citing Family Planning Perspectives Special Supplement, pub. 1970, pg. IX, from PP-WP, 810 Seventh St., NYC, NY 10019.
[65] Kempf, at 56, citing original document.
[66] In 1998 the US Congress passed the Tiahrt Amendment and President Clinton signed it into law. This law requires the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to end its policy of supporting population programs that have included participation targets and quotas, financial incentives, and denial of other benefits to those who do not participate. Another laudable though limited exception: the administrations of Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush embraced the “Mexico City Policy” which is designed to prevent the use of federal foreign aid money to fund abortion. Likewise, in 1998 the US Congress ceased funding the UNFPA due to its activity in China, where coercive policies are known to exist (US funding of the UNFPA has vacillated over the past 20 years). Historically, policies of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, UNFPA and some less developed nations have all tied economic incentives (such as cash, food, clothing, jobs, housing) to population control programs; in other words, people sometimes get paid to undergo sterilization, use contraceptives or abort, and sometimes get punished if they do not.
[67] Population control programs funded by western foreign aid agencies have long been suspected of being coercive, especially programs in Peru (forced sterilization) and China (forced sterilization and forced abortion). Alejandro Bermudez, U.N. Secret: Population Plan Still Abuses Women in Peru, National Catholic Register, Dec. 16, 2001; US team to probe UN Population Fund in China, Agence France Presse, May 1, 2002.
[68] CCC, para.2372
[69] CCC, para.2370. In addition to being an immoral interference with procreation, the IUD and the Pill can also act as abortifacients (to cause an early abortion).
[70] CCC, para.2372
[71] CCC, para.2368
[72] The World Health Organization associates significant health risks with all forms contraception, but associates none with NFAM.
[73] World Health Organization (1977-1981) Multi-center - Auckland, Dublin, San Miguel, Bangalore and Manila Publication: World Health Organization "A prospective multi-center trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning" Fertility and Sterility 1981 Vol 36, p. 152; 1981 Vol 36, p.591. 869 women 10, 215 cycles of use 2.2 method related pregnancies per hundred women years in initiates; Indian Council of Medical Research Task Force on NFP (1995) States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Pondicherry Publication: I. Bhargava et al "Field Trial of Billings Ovulation Method of Natural Family Planning" Contraception 1996, Vol 53 pp. 69-74 2,059 women 32,957 woman months of use 0.86 method related pregnancies per hundred women years in initiates; Jiangsu Family Health Institute, China (1997) Publication in English Translation: Shao Zhen QIAN, De-Wei ZHANG "Evaluation of the effectiveness of a natural fertility regulation program in China" Bulletin of the Ovulation Method Research and Reference Center Vol 24, No. 4 pp 17-22, 2000 1,235 women 14,280 women months of use, zero method related pregnancies in initiates.
[74] Nobel Lecture given by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Dec. 11, 1979.
[75] There is now widespread agreement that nearly all Western nations suffer from under-population, which without substantial immigration will reach crisis proportions in the coming decades as social benefit systems will have decreasing contributors and increasing beneficiaries.
[76] “In her [keynote address to the 1998 Population Consultation of the UN NGO Committee on Population and Development, Ambassador Julia Alvarez of the Dominican Republic’s Mission to the United Nations], a widely respected UN veteran, sharply criticized the kinds of population suppression efforts undertaken by most of the groups present in the room, including Zero Population Growth, International Planned Parenthood Federation, Population Communications International, the Population Resource Center, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, and the Rockefeller Foundation. They received a stern warning that fertility reduction campaigns may be racially motivated, and are spelling disaster for societies and individuals, especially lonely and aging women in the developing world…. Echoing Alvarez, and further surprising the crowd, was Dr. James McCarthy, Head of the Center for Population at Columbia University, who called himself a ‘recovering demographer.’ McCarthy flatly declared that ‘population size doesn’t matter.’ McCarthy ticked off a list of priorities, other than population size, that policy makers should focus on, including maternal mortality, sexual diseases, reproductive tract infections, reproductive cancers, and sexual violence.” Austin Ruse, Global Monitor: Population control hurts elderly, UN Ambassador stuns pop controllers forum, PRI Review, May/June 1998, Page 9.
[77] CCC, para.2461
[78] Solicitudo Rei Socialis, para.46
[79] J.B. Ruhl, The Fitness of Law: Using Complexity Theory to Describe the Evolution of Law and Society and Its Practical Meaning for Democracy, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 1407, 1466
[80] In the same way the Church’s “preferential option for the poor” is understood as a particular manifestation of solidarity (CCC, para.2439 and 2448), we can also find present in her teaching a clear preferential option for “private initiative,” which is a particular manifestation of subsidiarity (CCC, para.1894 and 2431).
[81] President George W. Bush’s recent proposals for “cap-and-trade” pollution policies are modeled after the undeniable success of the 1990 Clean Air Act’s sulfur dioxide emission program, and are considered to have appeal to a broad enough coalition to “break the deadlocked debate in Congress on clean air.” (Source: Elizabeth Shogren, Bush Seeks to Curb Power Plant Emissions, Sets Climate Goals, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 15, 2002, p.18, and For Bush, Environment Is Local, Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2002, p.22); likewise, some commentators consider a move toward policies that embrace subsidiarity as imperative, see Richard B. Stewart, A New Generation of Environmental Regulation?, 29 Cap. U.L. Rev. 21, 104
[82] Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1990, para.15.
[83] Id.
And also, we are doing another thing which is very beautiful - we are teaching our beggars, our leprosy patients, our slum dwellers, our people of the street, natural family planning.
And in Calcutta alone in six years - it is all in Calcutta -we have had 61,273 babies less from the families who would have had, but because they practise this natural way of abstaining, of self-control, out of love for each other. We teach them the temperature meter which is very beautiful, very simple, and our poor people understand. And you know what they have told me? “Our family is healthy, our family is united, and we can have a baby whenever we want.” So clear - those people in the street, those beggars - and I think that if our people can do like that how much more you and all the others who can know the ways and means without destroying the life that God has created in us.
The poor people are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. The other day one of them came to thank and said: “You people who have vowed chastity you are the best people to teach us family planning. Because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other.”[74]
Some of us argued but it didn't do any good. They have their "causes" and it seems to become their religion. We don't go to their workshops anymore and we pray for them and our diocese but it makes me feel so discouraged sometimes.
I'm not a good debater but I have argued this point many times. I just think to myself "Come, Holy Spirit" and jump right in.
Vestal girl "dances" altar cloth down the aisle at St. Ambrose church in Rochester, NY
I know for a fact that the dioceses of Albany & Rochester (Howard Hubbard & Matthew Clark) would agree with that statement.
Youth in Oneonta express themselves through movement
STAFF WRITER
Youth at St. Mary's Church in Oneonta are bringing prayer to the parish in a new way: through the lyrical movement of liturgical dance.
Interest in dance began with a 1995 production of the Marty Haugen musical, "Tales of Wonder." Previously, said youth minister Michelle Gardner, the young people "didn't think that [liturgical dance] was something that the community wanted." But when parishioners reacted favorably to the musical, dance was integrated into the youth ministry program.
Ms. Gardner stressed that the troupe's liturgical dance is not a performance, but "a way of praying. It was about giving something that you had and finding your own personal style of prayer."
Signs of faith
Kelly Cyzeski, 17, describes the choreography as "simple movements that allow people to reflect on what is being said in the music."
While the word "dance" often conjures images of leaps, twists and pirouettes, Ms. Gardner said that such agitated movements do not have a place in the program at St. Mary's. She calls the choreography "minimalist" and said that the teens are concerned about "leaving room for the people to pray."
"We pray as we do the movement, and the movement is our prayer," Kelly asserted. "We give it life."
Link to youth
Dance has also become a way that St. Mary's connects to young people. Dance has been incorporated into the Confirmation program and stands as something youth can do to "reach their spirituality," according to Ms. Gardner. "It's beautiful. They're happy. They're praying, and they don't even know it."
For teens whose spirituality is centered not in silent prayer but in action and experience, dance can be a prime way to express to God their hopes, prayers, aspirations and devotions. Because liturgical dance requires a different sort of commitment from the body than traditional silent prayer, says Ms. Gardner, it can help young people further involve themselves as active participants in liturgy.
"It makes teens say, 'I can bring all of me here? They don't just want a little part of me?' When they get up there and move, they feel they are a part of it -- not watching it, not hearing it -- but a part of the prayer process," she said.
Involvement
Youth involved in the dance troupe eventually involve themselves with other aspects of Church ministry, according to Ms. Gardner. They go on to be catechists, music ministers, lectors and Eucharistic ministers, and involve themselves in youth events and social ministries.
"The dancers 'get it,'" she explained. "They find that the community they are in makes this possible. [The parishioners are] very accepting at St. Mary's and truly celebrate these young people. They welcome a variety of prayer models and liturgies, and celebrate each other's gifts."
Kelly, who has been dancing since the age of five, said that liturgical dance has helped her to feel that she was "actually accomplishing something."
Branching out
This year, the dancers are concentrating on expanding their ministry. According to Ms. Gardner, they would like to take their unique brand of liturgical dance to conferences and other parishes; to that end, they're currently creating a video library of their repertory to show other parishes and dioceses.
Another goal is to keep the program alive, so future teens can connect with the sort of hands-on faith the program advocates.
"Some of the images of prayer that children take into their heads are hard for kids. Sometimes, it appears like prayer is a sad thing," Ms. Gardner said. "But prayer can be a celebration."
EARTH CHARTER The Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet invite you for prayer focusing on the earth on Sunday, April 27 from 6-8pm at St. Joseph's Provincial House. This is the first of five gatherings focuses on the Earth Charter. Information on this international initiative can be found at www.earthcharter.org.
There's a lot of this New Age crap in many MA retreat houses. There are also a lot of New Age courses in the offerings for RCIA instructors. I remember one about "Dreamcatchers." I'd rather see the Stephen King movie...
I am told that St Francis actually preached to the animals. I wonder if that is true.
I guess I'd ignore 'em, too. Like Aquinasfan said, there is a ton of that stuff in liberal Massachusetts. From what I can see, the adherents are old and grey... it says something when the adherents of this looney stuff are of the same physical make up as Call to Action, Voice of the Faithful and CORPUS people. I'm sure there is some duplication between all these groups. I suppose these kind of groups have been with us in some form or another for almost 2000 years.
I did take some pleasure when, after one of the wacky Centering and Kything prayer "retreats" that was held at my parish, I walked out without putting an "offering" in the basket while holding the gaze of the looney nun who ran it. She and her priest "partner" go around teaching this stuff.
It's sad and tragic to see the some of the clergy leading others away from God and no one (bishops) doing a thing to curb/counter the new agey stuff that has become so fashionable. I don't guess we can do much about it except pray for them and attend the "traditional" practices at our parishes regularly so there is no excuse for them to be stopped.
It ain't easy and it sure is lonely sometimes!
I say to ignore these "value-added roaming Catholics", but I go to hear them speak so I know what is out there and like you said, to blunt any criticism such as "you've never heard him/her speak." OH YES I HAVE!!!
I like to make quizzical faces, look amused, look at them like they are idiots and all the while, hold my rosary beads in plain view. It's the small pleasures in life that matter ;-) (or I'm just an idiot, but I can live with that)
One of my fav videos (on-line) is one where Fr. Fessio and Rod Dreher take apart Gary Wills pretty well. "Uncommon Knowledge: A Crisis of Faith"
Well, I wouldn't be smart enough to go there but I hope my kids are! Good luck with your classes. It must be so refreshing and afirming to be with so many like minded Catholics in such a wonderful place.
Matthew Fox... honest to God, most of me feels pity for these types, but it is tinged with anger since they lead so many off the narrow road.
Catholicism is so rich and full... I have no idea how you would have the time or the inclination to veer off and look for "something more." OTOH, I think the Fox types are "all about me" types. Not so big on authority outside of themselves.
Well, the moderns call me a "pray pay and obey" Catholic - whadda I know.
To accuse the VATICAN is to implicate all. I do not implicate all. Second, to say they "rubber stamp all" again is too general. But when it came to the current war in Iraq, it seemed many, if not the majority, were placing a "rubber stamp" on U.N. approval which implied that the first rule of Just War theory was no longer valid, that is, that there must be a soverign authority (nation) declaring war. There has never been a requirement that held at bay the soveriegn rights of a nation. Implying that the U.N. security council must rubber stamp a war goes against traditional just war theory.
According to the University of Creation Spirituality, humans, ducks, dandelions, mosquitoes, and stones all have the same value and rights
by Tom Randall
"Rocks are as high on the hierarchy of beings as man. Plants and animals have souls. We have 11 years to change the way we live or we will destroy the planet."
Those were among the claims made by the Rev. Matthew Fox, founder and president of the University of Creation Spirituality in Oakland, California, during a debate with Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on May 3.
Fr. Sirico's remarks were along the lines of traditional religious teaching, and his views were explored recently in an interview with Environment & Climate News (see "Religion and the environment: Natural bedfellows," June 2000)".
Fox's views are diametrically opposed to Sirico's. According to Fox, it is simply wrong to think in terms of a hierarchy of beings. Humans, ducks, dandelions, mosquitoes, and stones all have the same value and rights. Fox also contends they all have souls and feelings equal to humans.
To make his point of "the spiritual oneness of all creatures and pieces of the universe," Fox likened the cutting of a tree to the recrucification of Christ, since Christ is in everything.
Fox emphasized during the debate that man was not given dominion over the Earth, as is contended by most of the world's religions. He added that every creature is an expression and a book about God. Therefore, "if you study a caterpillar, you don't need a sermon."
"We [humans] are very dangerous," said Fox, who prophesied that the world will run out of food in 50 years. That led one audience member to question why that mattered, since Fox had earlier said the Earth was going to be destroyed in 11 years.
Fox said his "university" teaches that commercial agriculture, industry, mining, cities, and the burning of fossil fuels are bad. He had, however, arrived in Grand Rapids by jet aircraft with a substantial entourage; arrived at the debate by automobile; addressed the group with an electrically powered public address system; and was dressed nicely in factory-made clothes--including leather shoes. He claimed to eat a vegetarian diet but did not explain how that could be considered supportive of the equality, souls, and feelings of plants.
Fox's aides distributed brochures promoting the University of Creation Spirituality, which apparently operates in conjunction with Naropa University in Oakland and offers a master's degree in Creation Spirituality. The brochures were made of ink printed on paper. Nothing in the brochures suggested the paper was either recycled or made from anything but trees.
According to the brochures, the "university" offers ". . . a transformative model of learning [which] draws on art, ritual, and intellect. With this methodology we integrate right and left brain learning, heart and mind, body and soul, praxis and theory."
The "university" also offers workshops covering some of the topics addressed in its degree program, among them:
"Sacred Movement, Sacred Space. Simple open-ended improvisational movement guided by the instructor will approach spiritual concepts in both playful and contemplative ways. We will call forth the Spirit to our own inner space and to the space the group makes sacred through its collective energy. This will be done at times with music and other times in deep silence. No previous experience in movement is necessary; each participant works at his/her own pace and comfort level.
"Techno Ritual. The Techno Cosmic Mass is a postmodern worship experience rooted in traditional ritual form, and integrates ecstatic music and dance, multi-media imagery, and diverse spiritual practices to create worship that is intergenerational, multicultural, and deeply ecumenical. An orientation to the Techno Cosmic Mass ritual includes a brief history and introduction to its guiding principles--a journey through the four paths of Creation Spirituality--and guidance to create postmodern worship rituals of your own."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information . . .
. . . or simply to confirm that we are not making this up, visit the Web site of the University of Creation Spirituality at Creation Spirituality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on F