Revolutionaries, Pastors and Skeptics in Catholic ecology
by John L Allen Jr on Dec. 22, 2009 NCR
by John L Allen Jr on Dec. 22, 2009 NCR
Pope Benedict XVI dedicated his recent message for the Jan. 1 “World Day of Peace” to the environment, under the title of “If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation.” Though the pope obviously didn’t choose that theme to give The Future Church a boost, it does lend some additional heft to the eighth major trend I identified shaping the Catholic future: Ecology.
Whenever the pope issues a document, church leaders around the world generally rush to praise its wisdom, and that’s certainly the case this time around. Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, today said, “Pope Benedict seamlessly weaves together concerns for peace, poverty and care for creation. He calls on us to act to protect both human and environmental ecology for the two are inseparably linked.” (I have written previously that Benedict would intentionally twist scientific ecological issues to support unscientific biblical natural law doctrine.)
Such statements could suggest uniform support in the Catholic world for the pope’s environmental push, but anyone who knows Catholic realities understands that opinion in the church is usually anything but uniform.
In fact, Catholic reaction to today’s rising ecological sensitivity is extraordinarily diverse. In the book, I identify three basic camps: Revolutionaries, Pastors and Skeptics. In truth, these are more ideal types than real people, since actual flesh-and-blood Catholics probably incorporate elements of at least two, and maybe all three, into their thinking.
Here’s how I present the three groups in the book.
Revolutionaries, Pastors and Skeptics
The modern point of departure for Catholic environmental theology was a revolutionary: French Jesuit Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who died in 1955. A paleontologist, philosopher and theologian, Teilhard believed that evolution is humanity’s participation in the redemption begun by Christ. When evolution reaches its climax in what he called the “Omega point,” Teilhard said the cosmos will achieve a form of “Christogenesis.” Those views got him into trouble with Church officials, concerned that Teilhard’s thought flirts with pantheism. Seven years after his death, the Vatican censured Teilhard’s work, and in 1981, on the 100th anniversary of Teilhard’s birth, the Vatican reaffirmed that judgment.
Many Catholics still find much to commend in Teilhard. Archbishop Celestino Migliore, for example, the Vatican’s Permanent Observer to the UN, said in 2007 that whenever he goes to upstate New York he stops at Teilhard’s grave in Hyde Park, reflecting in the woods about Teilhard’s vision of the “Christification” of the cosmos.
Descendants of Teilhard today include eco-theologians and philosophers such as Fr. Diarmuid O’Murchu and Fr. Thomas Berry, as well Rosemary Radford Ruether, Matthew Fox and Brian Swimme. Though each has a distinct outlook, most share a sense that if Catholicism wants to embrace ecology, it needs a radical overhaul. In 1992, Berry said: “We should put the Bible away for twenty years while we radically rethink our religious ideas.” In O’Murchu’s Quantum Theology, he suggests that institutional religion is destined for extinction. “What we cannot escape,” he wrote, “is that we as a species have outlived that phase of our evolutionary development and so, quite appropriately, thousands of people are leaving religion aside.” (I suspect institutional religion as it's currently experienced is destined for extinction.)
These personalities have a small but dedicated following, and they’ve helped to drive ecological questions to the forefront of the Church’s consciousness, but they’ve also set off doctrinal alarms. Fox drew a Vatican censure in 1988, and was dismissed from the Dominican order in 1992. O’Murchu attracted critical notice from the doctrinal committee of the Spanish bishops’ conference in 2006. The bishops charged that O’Murchu “speaks much of God and constantly talks of human liminal values in a ‘planetary’ or ‘cosmic’ context, but says almost nothing about Jesus Christ.” (This is certainly not true of O'Murchu's latest work.)
For a less speculative and more pastoral approach, consider a 2000 letter from the Catholic bishops of the Pacific Northwest in the United States and Canada arguing for conservation of the Columbia River Watershed. From the outset, the bishops announce their intention to steer a middle course between “economic greed” and “ecological elitism.” The core principles upon which the letter is based are stewardship, respect for nature, and the common good. They promote the idea of creation as the “book of nature,” a source of revelation and theological insight alongside the Bible. In general, the bishops move quickly from sketching a few brief theological ideas into direct application to concrete environmental problems. They’re apparently less interested in supplying a new theological vision than in mobilizing action.
The bishops offered ten considerations to guide future discussion:
• The Common Good• Conserving the Watershed as a Common Good• Conserving and Protecting Species of Wildlife• Respecting the Dignity and the Traditions of Indigenous Peoples• Linking Economic and Environmental Justice• Community Resolution of Economic and Ecological Issues• Social and Ecological Responsibility in Industry• Conserving Energy and Promoting Alternative Energy Sources• Respecting Ethnic and Racial Cultures, Citizens and Communities• Sustainable Transportation and Recreation.
The Columbia River Watershed pastoral letter is widely considered a turning point in official Church teaching on environmental questions, and has served as a template for similar projects in other parts of the world.
Skeptics in the Catholic fold include Antonio Gaspari and Riccardo Cascioli, who teach in the master’s program in environmental science at Rome’s Regina Apostolorum sponsored by the Legionaries of Christ. Both Gaspari and Cascioli have deep Catholic credentials. (Here John shows his true colors. Gaspari and Cascioli have deep Catholic credentials only with in context of the Legion and Opus Dei.) Gasparri has written for “Zenit” and Inside the Vatican, while Cascioli worked for Vatican Radio. Together, they published a two-volume work called The Lies of the Environmentalists in 2004 and 2006. Its argument is that the “catastrophism” of environmentalists is exaggerated. In some cases, they argue, it serves as a smokescreen for radical philosophical notions such as those propounded by the utilitarian philosopher and animal rights activist Peter Singer, who denies the unique spiritual status of human beings. In other cases, they suggest, dire warnings of ecological catastrophe may promote the interests of environmental lobby groups, law firms, and the media, by keeping public alarm at a fever pitch and thereby ensuring both funding and massive audiences. (Now it's immoral for competing interests to garner publicity and funding to present their point of view. Interesting case of projection here.)
In the United States, a group called the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship put out the “Cornwall Declaration” in 1999, following a meeting of leading Catholic and Evangelical conservative intellectuals. Catholic signatories included Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Robert Royal, Fr. Robert Sirico, and Fr. J. Michael Beers. Though affirming the legitimacy of environmental awareness, the statement referred to global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss as “unfounded or undue concerns.” More broadly, it warned of setting economic development in opposition to good stewardship, describing that as a false dichotomy which would, in their view, keep the poor in misery. (Essentially this doctrine used the poor as an excuse to allow for the continued exploitation and degradation of the environment even though the evidence might suggest otherwise.)
While a preponderance of Catholic thought and activism may be “greening,” these voices suggest it will by no means be a smooth development.
Here is a link to Pope Benedict's 'World Day of Peace' message. It's really well worth reading as John Allen is correct in that it is certainly not going to be received with universal acclaim. In my estimation his message is compromised and limited because he is chooses to limit it by both his insistence on the use of Genesis as justification for the fall of man, and the subsequent Christology which comes from his repeated and over reliance on Genesis. It would be different if Benedict treated Genesis as metaphor, but he insists on using it as literal truth.
In my opinion, this use of Genesis as literal truth really undercuts the rest of his message which is far more indicative of a higher stage spirituality, especially in the first half of his message. When he resorts to using Genesis as truth in order to define Jesus's message as one primarily of redemption, and to emphasise man's supremacy over the rest of creation, he really undercuts some of his other ideas. It's hard to put forth a message of universal equality from a standpoint of hierarchical supremacy in which man is supreme and over the created world.
Benedict gives credence to the scientific reality of climate change and eco degradation, but in the end seems to advocate for a strategy that will allow mankind to have it's cake and eat it too.
Well, maybe we could do that if all of us were operating from the higher stages of spiritual development and would agree to take a smaller piece of the cake after agreeing that it should come with less frosting, decorations, and sugar. But, as John Allen inadvertently illustrates in this article, we are not all on that same higher more inclusive spiritual page. Some of those who are not all that high up the spiritual food chain, are in John's opinion "deeply Catholic". It seems to me that definition of 'deeply Catholic' is a hole Benedict can't really climb out of and one that completely undercuts his otherwise brilliant call for universal solidarity, human equality and ecological responsibility.
Of course this is the same Pope who would take the cake of Catholicism and make it very very small if that would insure it kept all it's clerical decorations, frosting, and sugar.
For an idea of Fr. O'Murchu's views try this link. His take on Genesis is a little different from Benedict's.
"Catholic signatories included Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Robert Royal, Fr. Robert Sirico, and Fr. J. Michael Beers."ReplyDelete
I don't know who Beers is, but I'm astonished that Allen would cite Sirico, a joke. Sirico is the most unpolished war-mongering free marketeer and founder of the fantastical Acton Institute.
"More broadly, it warned of setting economic development in opposition to good stewardship, describing that as a false dichotomy which would, in their view, keep the poor in misery. (Essentially this doctrine used the poor as an excuse to allow for the continued exploitation and degradation of the environment even though the evidence might suggest otherwise.)"
It's even worse than that; they're essentially claiming that world capitalism equals economic development ...for the poor!! And if we were to reform our socioeconomic order, it would be the poor who would suffer!
When one considers that capitalism can be summed up basically as "the search for cheap labor", one can see how delusional, if not deceitful, these people are. Also, they "warn" of setting "economic development" (i.e. profiteering) in "opposition to good stewardship". You see, they must "see no evil" when it comes to ecological destruction because their first loyalty is to Mammon. They've done a fine job ignoring the plight of workers, even having the effrontery to claim that workers' conditions are always improving as long as their masters get rich. But now, when it comes to the air they breathe and the water they drink, they have to really strap on the blinders.
John Allen's schtick is really getting old. When the uncompromising right-wing praises him for his "balance".... well, you know what that means.
Sirico is a cheerleader for the worst instincts of unregulated free marketing and gouging. Interestingly enough, he came to Roman Catholicism and the priesthood after a stint as a co-founder and ordained minister in the gay-affirming Metropolitan Community Churches. Robert Royal is a well-known theocon, as was Richard John Neuhaus. Almost the last thing Neuhaus did was to defend his good, orthodox Catholic fellow priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, and we all know how that turned out....ReplyDelete