To protect nature, elevate the state

Photo: Flicker.com/DonkeyHotey

With the intersection of the presidential election in America, the opening on Sunday of the Year of Faith, and the start of a special synod on the New Evangelization, Catholic ecologists should reflect on the place of government in environmental protection, especially when seen through the eyes of faith.

Evangelization is not simply a matter of conversing with the uninitiated or bringing lapsed Catholics home. It is a way of life that baptizes the world. Those who perform this baptism are the baptized. We perform this role in ways that no one else can perform because only you and I have our unique placement in time and space and have the exact relationships that we do. For me, this includes seeking to encourage a Gospel-centered approach in my career as a state regulator. This obviously comes with challenges and limitations, most especially my own. But it also comes with rather unique opportunities.

The US EPA’s Region 1, which includes all of New England, has a commendable assistance program called Effective Utility Management. Its goal is to bring together key members of a community that fund, operate, maintain, and in any way support a municipal drinking water supply or wastewater treatment utility. The program includes developing tools that foster communication, education, trust, sharing information, and other components that help human beings relate to others so that they can provide efficient utility services. I like the program because it is low-cost and focuses on areas that can be uniquely engaged by the regulatory world. It also mirrors how my team and I and many others at the Department of Environmental Management prefer to work with our regulated industries—through building cooperative relationships rather than adversarial ones.

Certainly, it is not always best for government to take this approach, nor is it one that the general public often appreciates. But even when such a philosophy is warranted, it may not be implemented. Through their own presuppositions and because of external expectations, bureaucrats can tend toward isolation, containing themselves in an introverted worldviews that envisions the regulated word as abstractions instead of a community of men and women made in the image and likeness of God. The goal of such detached regulatory worldviews may be professional objectivity, but it can also result in an unhealthy division. This prevents the flow of information, the trust needed for honest assessments, and an authentic desire to love thy neighbor. In the regulatory sector that I know best, all this can lead to poorly maintained infrastructure and bad decisions about funding and planning.

Once the ills of such division become apparent, government either takes enforcement actions or creates systems to work with and support the regulated community—which in the regulatory world is often referred to as “tech assist.” Those that perform this assistance are quite often segregated by organizational fire walls from their colleagues within enforcement sectors. This division is another artificial construct within environmental regulatory programs and it defies what it means to be authentically human—at least in how Catholics understand who we are meant to be, which includes seeking to balance justice and mercy in our interactions with our neighbors.

Photo: Flicker/Roger Blackwell

These divisions and the resulting imbalance between what is just and rightly merciful accounts for a good deal of the societal failures that government faces and causes. When we add the infiltration within all sectors of society of the reinvigorated motto self first, it is no wonder that regulators and the regulated both wall themselves within personal and political ghettos to the point of increasing social dysfunction. In a perfect world, bureaucrats like my colleagues and I would not be meeting to discuss how to encourage a town’s billing department to speak to its public works staff, or how to encourage the public works staff to communicate with the town council or to ratepayers. But in our fallen world, we are easily divided and conquered by our own egos and fears, as well as the lies of our ancient enemy.

And so in the practical realm of a societal necessity like water utility management, we find mayors that treat utility crews or town engineers with disdain, or as if they are their own private workforce rather than qualified technicians who should be supported and left to manage infrastructure according to professional standards; we find drinking water or wastewater treatment system users that expect the arrival of clean water and the removal of dirty water at monthly costs far less than their monthly cable bill and with little or no appreciation for the people that provide such services; and we find utility workers and private contractors who put their own needs first rather than the good of the community. In other words, we find throughout the world of government regulation, utility management, and pollution control the same sins that escaped from Eden.

The reality of original and particular sins prevents governments, or any assembly, from reaching a sought after good by human activity alone. This is especially true when bureaucrats reside in cultures that do not support authentic, sacrificially loving relationships. In such cases, it is unlikely that the governed or those that govern can maintain the necessary means to protect society and individuals. This is not necessarily a criticism of government. Rather, it is an admission that the state is ultimately powerless to fabricate the relational infrastructure necessary for people and professions to sacrificially serve the common good. Advocates for paradise-by-government may not accept this, but a true disposition for civil service cannot be taught, mandated, or enforced.

Nor does any of this imply that it will be the private sector that alone will bring us paradise. As the state is limited in its ability to ennoble a love of neighbor, so are private corporations—and perhaps even more so. They are, after all, organizations that have as their stated goal profit rather than service. Again, this is not a judgment of the private sphere. It is rather an observation.

What must not be forgotten is the happy news that any desire for relation is already a pre-existing reality in the human soul; neither the public or private sectors need instill what is already present—potentially or actually—in their employees and agents. But to lesser or greater degrees, any such disposition is broken and wounded within all of us.

Unquestionably, because it is the provider of civil service, the state in particular must encourage, if not assure, an ethic of service, trust, and relation—and to their great credit, many within government work diligently and with profound concern for the people and processes they support. Nonetheless, the true and ultimate attainment of an inner attitude of service is not an intellectual or political exercise. It is a desire that is born in the human soul, one achieved in its fullness only through the grace.

There is much good that government and its workers—environmental and otherwise—can and do achieve. Many of its agents—whom I know as colleagues and friends—go about their business below the fray of political influence. They work against great odds to undertake profound advances in building up the common good. Many of my colleagues take part in their regulated industry’s professional development; they seek to build relationships with those that they oversee; they encourage community awareness and involvement. Such relationship building may be anathema to some environmental advocates or to many in the general public, who expect a harsh objectivity that encourages adversarial governance. But to allow humans to be relational is to allow nature to take its course; and it is to strengthen the foundations on which government can assist with the construction of society’s greater good.

Simply stated, the forces that build sacrificial relationships and the role of government are separate realities, but for the latter to function well, it must be introduced to and ennobled by the good news of the former.

Photo: Flicker/Catholic Church-England and Wales

In his first letter to his church, God is Love, Pope Benedict XVI explores much that I have found to be true in my work as an environmental regulator. And like the pontifical academy report on climate change, much of what the pontiff proposes may surprise a great many. In expressing the Church’s teachings on her place in, but not of, the world, the pontiff makes clear that the Church does not seek worldly, political power. 

“The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State.” In asserting that the church and the state are separate entities, however, the Holy Father does not mean that one should be isolated from the other.

“[The Church] cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice,” he continues. “She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.” 

In saying this, the Holy Father is speaking of the sacramental nature of the faith—how grace elevates nature without destroying or enslaving it. Thus, for Catholics, church and state are not thought of as the same sort of entity. They are not competing for the same turf. Rather, what the Church offers is her teachings and the grace of God so that human relations can rise to the realm of utter sacrifice. 

“There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help,” the Holy Father tells us. “There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbor is indispensable. The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern.”

As history has shown, when politics and faith do not dialogue—when one seeks to outdo or repress the other—disorder results, whether in the form of a theocracy or an atheistic dictatorship. To avoid such extremes, societies must balance and demand respect between the secular sphere and the offering of grace. When taken, this path can offer a relation between the government and the governed that is more communal than confrontational; more supportive of encouraging true civil service; and more willing to love one’s stranger, and the entire cosmos itself.

The above includes material from William Louis Patenaude's upcoming book Catholic Ecology: Its Place in Orthodoxy, a Culture of Life, and New Evangelization.

Catholic Ecology Home

Writing the book continues ... about this ...

As I continue to write my book on the topic of this blog, I occasionally feel the need to add something to communicate what this blog and the book is all about. And so, by the grace of God, I stumbled on this video.

(And as an update, the feedback on the manuscript thus far is very good and we're close to getting all chapters to the copy editor. Stay tuned...)

Democrats should must rethink life

Photo: Flicker.com/By Barack Obama

My dad’s mother was a Democratic operative—and fiercely so. She was also devoutly Catholic. She knew her Catechism, supported her Church, and said novenas for everyone. Her life was her God, her family, her parish, and the Democratic Party. She was the first female ward chair in her city—taking my grandfather’s spot when he died. When I was a boy, she told me that I should always be a Democrat because Democrats  "take care of the little people."

I doubt my grandmother, who died in 1992, would be a Democrat today. Her Catholic blood would reject the party’s modern platform that encourages the slaughter of children and the redefinition of marriage, even if she would applaud its support for labor, social welfare, and the natural environment.

Last week, I was critical of the Republican platform for its ambiguity over environmental regulation, especially as voiced by Virginia governor Robert McDonnell, Paul Ryan, and a well-delivered, comedic, but deeply troublesome jest by Mitt Romney about responding to climate change. Yes, I have problems with Republicans who do not appreciate ecosystems, even if I support them on many other issues.

But the sheer audacity of death that the Democratic Party favors—with their demands for “reproductive rights” and abortions-made-free-and-easy—cannot be the basis for a sound vision of ecology. As I watched a convention hall full of Democratic delegates cheer wildly over what President Obama said was “health care choices that women should make for themselves”—which is code for ending the lives of their babies—I couldn’t help but wonder why we should support and celebrate the view that innocent human life is anyone’s to end.

(As an aside, I do not write of abortion without sympathy for the families involved. My mom’s mother, also a devout Catholic, had a choice in 1927 to abort my mother. Her mother-in-law didn’t want her son to be a father for the second time in a year, so she provided my grandmother with the chemicals that would induce the death of my mother. My grandmother prayed to St. Anne and decided against this demand. In 1963, when I was unexpectedly conceived, my mother, a good Catholic herself, probably never considered having me killed—although I’ve never had the guts to ask her.)

Democrats talk a good game when it comes to the environment, although I don’t always agree on their follow-through—for instance, I was surprised to hear the president support hydraulic fracking for natural gas (even if he later criticized oil companies). But today’s Democratic Party is dismally unaware of how supporting abortion and embryonic stem-cell research undermines any other support of other forms of life. This is why groups like Democrats for Life are such hopeful voices in a party that has much to offer the nation.

My Democratic-operative grandmother told me that Democrats take care of the little people. But many of today’s Democrats do not take care of the unborn, which are the littlest of humans among us.

Photo: Flicker.com/By Barack Obama

Sure, Democrats will support programs that teach pregnant women not to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol and they’ll fight for an end to mercury emissions from power plants, which harms the unborn. But then they support abortion—and fiercely so.

So are Democrats good ecologists? No. Their inconsistent views of life are ultimately dangerous for all life.

As the Holy Father notes in the thematic quote of this blog, you can’t choose between supporting the human person or the environment. In addition, B16 has this to say, which certain Democrats and all Catholic ecologists should heed: 

In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents ... These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. [Caritas in Veritate. Emphasis original.]

And make sure you read through the concluding benediction by Cardinal Dolan. In it, he makes the very case that without life, there is no liberty or happiness.

Catholic Ecology Home

The GOP should rethink ecology

Photo: Flicker/James B Currie

With the presidential election ratcheting up the volume, the Democratic and Republican parties are lobbing more and fiercer attacks.

One Democratic critique is that the GOP doesn’t give a damn about the environment. Many Republicans are helping their opponents by, well, not giving a damn about the environment. 

Speaking at the GOP convention in Tampa, Virginia’s governor and chairman for the party’s Committee on Resolutions Robert McDonnell said that “the EPA is now the Employment Prevention Agency!”

The governor’s sentiments, echoed by other Republicans, is rooted in the party’s ideology of small government—which I often support, even if I do work for the government. In his speech to the convention, Representative Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, put it this way: “I'll take [the freedom offered by the American Dream] any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners.”

I don’t know if I’m the sort of government planner that Rep. Ryan is referring, but, again, I understand why people of goodwill make such statements. Sometimes we regulators can overstep our bounds. Sometimes we move too slow to help people build their business. Sometimes we forget the humanity of the people that we are meant to serve. But very often we help when no one else will or can.

In other words, an ugly anti-environmental, anti-regulatory platform is not helpful and it will certainly not help the GOP in places like Ohio—a battleground state—that has many residents suffering from the ills of hydraulic fracking. As noted in a previous post, fracking is messy, poorly regulated means of releasing natural gas that is buried deep in shale deposits below some of the most beautiful parts of America. It’s also being blamed for contaminating peoples' drinking water. This is just the sort of situation where the private and public sectors need to partner to provide jobs, benefit from resources, while protecting innocent people and the environment.

Of course, there are Republicans that do care about God’s creation. These men and women may not receive attention by the media, but they exist and always have. They truly seek to conserve the greatness of America—and that includes its natural environment and heritage.

One group on the forefront of this battle is ConservAmerica, founded in 1995 “to resurrect the GOP's great conservation tradition and to restore natural resource conservation and sound environmental protection as fundamental elements of the Republican Party's vision for America.”

President Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir at Yosemite 

ConservAmerica provides wonderful resources on its website, including sobering quotes by the great Republican conservationist, President Theodore Roosevelt. This is one of my favorites: “The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others.”

The website also includes a letter to Gov. Mitt Romney that you can sign (which I did). It urges the presidential hopeful to do the good work of caring for God’s creation. ConservAmerica deserves our support, much like Democrats for Life, the members of which oppose their party’s intensely pro-abortion platform.

Politics is an ugly business. And it can be a disturbing one for people of faith, those of us who seek a higher authority and a different kind of kingdom than those built by men. But the kingdoms of men do require our assistance because we and our children must live in them. That means that we must be present in the world to baptize it with the Gospel of Christ, the Lord of life, a term that Rep. Ryan used in his excellent speech.

And so as part of preaching and living the mysteries of the Triune God, we Catholics enter the political fray to keep the greedy and the selfish and the ignorant from harming the innocent. Sometimes this is the work of regulators like me, sometimes it’s the work of women and men of good will in the free market—but it is always the work of Disciples of Christ, who seek to build communities, foster relations, and nurture and protect all life as we journey together to God.

Catholic Ecology Home

A book, and the truth about tech

Well, folks, the writing on the book Catholic Ecology continues. I've just "finished" Chapter 3. I think. Well, I'm sure it will be revised many times, but it has a beginning, middle, and end—and lots of quotes by Paul VI, JPII, and B16.

Anyway, while my blogging is minimized as the book takes all my time, here's a chilling graphic that seems a bit odd to be sharing via computers. But here it is, and expect more on this topic to come. And keep the prayers coming for the book. Thanks, and God bless. Bill P.

Created by: MastersDegree.net

Life on the open seas: community, government, and the Gospel

July 2012

Last August, I wrote about a six-hour sail that gave new perspectives on life, faith, and the Catholic understanding of ecology. A few weeks ago, another outing on the Able—the sturdy sloop owned by my friend David, a navigational instructor at the Navy base—gave me more to think about.

Last year’s voyage took me north under the Newport Bridge, into the safety of the East Passage. This time, the Able’s bow pointed south, toward the open seas. In time, with my hand guiding the rudder, the sun setting, and Beavertail’s lighthouse giving an occasional flash of assurance that home was still in visual range, we were out in the rolling, windy, staggering ocean—which was a first for me. The further we went, the more I appreciated David’s watchful instructions—and the more I wondered if his trust was well placed that I could keep the boat’s course true.

But the Able sailed well and I valued anew the meaning of cooperation and community, whether it’s just two friends at sea or larger groups that benefit by both those who set the course and those who keep it.

In my 23 years as an environmental regulator, I’ve worked with many communities. And as my writings on Catholic ecology reach a national audience, I have joined and championed even more. But just before I drove down to board the Able, a few anonymous posters in the National Catholic Reporter levied harsh criticism against me for a view I expressed about communities. These posters were unhappy because I wrote that polluters, being human beings, are like you and me: made in the image and likeness of God and in need of salvation.

Their objections stemmed from writing I had done on thedangers of hydraulic “fracking” for natural gas. Fracking is a largely unregulated industrial process and it’s creating havoc in places like Wyoming, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The point I made was that a nuanced, Christian approach—not vengeance—is needed in such matters. Of course, a Christian approach includes authentic justice, educating one’s neighbors, and fostering dialogue and virtuous living, as well as helping those who have been hurt. But Christians also recognize that both victim and victimizer need prayers. Sinners, after all, must both pay their debt to and be reconciled with the wider community.

But lately, forgiving communities—like healthy ecosystems—are difficult to find. Our growing atheistic and secular world encourages deep mistrust and creates ideological and social schisms that degrade our world, our planet, our nation, our neighborhoods, our families, and ourselves. As Pope Benedict XVI has taught, current and looming global ecological (and economic) crises are at their core global symptoms of godlessness and sin—the antidote to which is never isolation, but the self-sacrificial love of authentic communities.

In his new book “How to Think Seriously About thePlanet,” English writer and philosopher Roger Scruton makes a similar case for the ecological benefits of local solutions to global problems. But his proposals, while compelling, are built on the sands of political philosophies and anecdotes. Faith is absent in Scruton’s analysis, which leaves one wanting more.

This came to mind as I steered the Able around Fort Adams and back into Newport Harbor. I was thinking about the city officials and workers whose job it is to keep the harbor clean. These are the people that my office regulates. They form the kinds of communities that Scruton rightly champions, and I know many of them very well, including the city’s utilities director, a communicant at Newport’s St. Mary Parish, which makes her my sister in Christ.

This made me wonder: In a world that seeks solutions without God, that demands a “separation of church and state,” and that increasingly seeks vengeance over true justice, should a Catholic government official allow his or her conscience to be informed by their faith?

The answer became evident as the Able approached her mooring and the lights of downtown Newport wrapped around her. I thought of how our seemingly secure, well-lit communities can make us forget the abyss that surrounds us and defines our shared place in the human family. This means that no matter what our roles in this world, individuals, communities, and even our governments live best by keeping our course true, just, and, as unpopular as this may be, guided always by the Gospel of life that Christ gave his first followers—many of whom, not surprisingly, knew a thing or two about life on the open seas.

Catholic Ecology Home

Orbital Interlude—and asking for a prayer

Lately, I've been doing most of my writing for my book on Catholic Ecology, so please have patience if I'm not blogging as much as I have. And please say a prayer for my first book project! 

In the meantime, I have to share this video—actually a series of photographs from the International Space Station that have been made into this work of art by Knate Myers. Breathtaking. It's a great reminder of the majesty of creation and the intimate partner that man's technology can be. (And here's my viewing tip: The accompanying music is wonderful, but lower the volume just a bit and have someone you love read from Genesis Chapter 1. Oh, and select full-screen. Now that's Revelation!)

Cracking open the depths

The price for cheap natural gas is, in part, the slow destruction of the lives of many throughout the United States, including those who feed their families with salaries from an employer that may not seek the best in human nature.

In places like Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, people are allowing companies to drill under them, inject water mixed with proprietary chemicals—which means that no one really knows what’s in it—and capture the released gases.

This process of extracting natural gas from shale deposits is known as “fracking.” And, as the name itself sounds, it is not a pleasant process. Search YouTube for fracking and see what you find.

Because government laws and regulations are not yet able to adequately protect landowners and the wider public (which will be the subject of another post), the companies seeking natural gas have wide latitude to go about their business.

For now, let’s focus on how the Church has trumped the state in the matter of fracking. On Wednesday, June 27th, the Diocesan Social Action Office of the Diocese of Cleveland, Ohio, and the Officeof Social Action for the Diocese of Youngstown, Ohio, sponsored a unique forum on fracking—and it was an event that other Catholic institutions should abundantly replicate. Indeed, this gathering did what Catholics do in such times of crisis—what we've been doing for 2,000 years: incorporate faith, reason, and a call for a virtuous life.

Speaking at the conference was Mr. Peter MacKenzie of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, Dr. John F. Stolz, director of the Center for Environmental Research and Education at Duquesne University, and Dr. Jame Schaefer, an associate professor of theology at Marquette University and author of Theological Foundations for Environmental Ethics: Reconstructing Patristic and Medieval Concepts.

I spoke with the event’s diocesan coordinators and Dr. Schaefer on the morning after. While much of the forum will eventually be available in some form of video and in news reports, there are a few key areas that need addressing on this page.

First, it cannot be stressed enough that this event serves as an example and a reminder of what it means to be Catholic: to foster dialogue, to build up virtue, and to help those who cannot help themselves. 

It must also be noted that the issue of environmental ethics is one that needs more attention—which is why Dr. Schaefer’s work and her book are so valuable in times when companies put profit over people. 

Lastly, Catholics must be aware of how our understanding of sin and virtue really do have meaning—especially when our technologies multiply the good and ill that come from our actions.

In speaking with Dr. Schaefer, I was struck with her genuine concern for a people she referred to as “oppressed”—and rightly so. The stories shared at this forum were from ordinary folks who had their drinking water contaminated and their dreams dashed because of an immoral response by energy companies to a demand by many of us for cheap supplies of natural gas.

The oppression comes from choices made by having few apparent options, especially in a time of need. In the case of fracking, that means being offered a contract and promises of money during a time of economic recession so that strangers can burrow deep below your home for buried treasure—and they promise to not make a mess. Or there’s the family that shared their story at the diocesan forum: They did not succumb to the promises of fracking. They would not lease their land for the taking of buried treasure. But their neighbors did. And now their groundwater—which does not abide by property or zoning boundaries—is contaminated. And so the dream of a family’s small farm in Ohio is now poisoned.

Because of stories like this, Dr. Schaefer and diocesan social action offices in Ohio are helping to spread the news about fracking and what it means to sign leases to allow it to occur on your property, as well as the impacts all this can have as energy companies prowl across the shale deposits of America to seek the treasure that they then sell to people like you and me. The goal is to prevent others from suffering the same ills from fracking as those suffering now. But there's another side to this coin.

Dr. Schaefer recounts that at the forum, after Mr. MacKenzie of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association gave his talk on the safety of fracking, she rightly responded that it was morally and ethically necessary for such companies to not wait for regulations, but to proactively mitigate the release of pollutants and to prevent the damage done to peoples’ lives—and to do this now. These words of Dr. Schaefer brought the loudest applause of the evening—and it resulted in something else: The oil and gas association representative had no verbal comment to this statement, or to the reaction from the now emboldened crowd.

Such a response in this sort of situation tells me that something important was going on. Like water forced deep underground to open shale and unlock ancient natural gases, truth, spoken clearly and heard, has a way of penetrating our deepest selves—our souls—and unlocking something of who we truly are as human beings. And so I wonder just how comfortable that energy company representative was when faced with the suffering spoken of at that forum. I would imagine it wasn't easy.

Now, I may have a degree in theology, but I am not a pastor. I am an environmental regulator. And so I should write more on the nuances of government regulation and the problems that result from current fracking methods—about which I will eventually post. But my training in theology and by virtue of my Baptism, I cannot help but focus for a moment on the issue of the human beings that work for companies that sometimes do bad things. Because sometimes companies can do very good things—and do so out of sincere love of neighbor.

The other day at work I helped provide a workshop for my fellow wastewater engineers and scientists on climate change. The presenters were experts in their fields and the maps of projected sea-level rise in the Ocean State were hard to ignore. My fellow regulators—who were getting much of this information for the first time—were stunned. The workshop facilitator then asked, what’s next? Part of the answer was to help educate the design community—the engineering and contract operations firms that propose, design, and manage many of the state’s wastewater treatment and stormwater facilities in Rhode Island.

Later, one of my office’s chiefs shared with me this story that the day's climate change workshop brought to mind: When he was a young man, at his first job, working for a private engineering firm in the 1970s that did water supply drilling, his industry came face-to-face with two new realities: groundwater contamination at Love Canal and breakthroughs in water-testing technologies. While there were no government regulations at the time—no demands from Big Brother to dictate how such water-supply companies went about their business—he said that the firm’s managers felt a “moral responsibility” to factor this new information into their clients’ designs, even if there was a cost to the company. And so for no other reason than to protect strangers—to love thy neighbor—the company self-regulated and self-sacrificed itself.

Could this not occur today among companies that engage in any aspect of fracking?

Here, we must listen to Dr. Schaefer, who reminds all men and women of good will that the Catholic virtues—especially the Cardinal virtues of prudence, moderation, and justice—must, as always, be factors of our age. As she writes about, virtuous individuals and virtuous communities must become a greater part of the fabric of  twenty-first century America. Our use of energy and all resources must be tempered and efficient. And we must actively educate our neighbors about the dangers of fracking as we actively demand  companies to act responsibly—that they love thy neighbor—and do so immediately. But we must also love the people that are causing the harms from fracking.

Will this be easy? No. Is it wishful thinking? Not for people of faith. Which is why for Catholics, prayer and the Church's prophetic voice must both be in play—in this issue as elsewhere. Indeed, as technology increases our ability to crack open the depths of the earth, so Catholics must help each other search the depths of who we really are, what we really need, and how we should go about treating, and loving, our neighbor. 

Catholic Ecology Home

A Joint Declaration on Life

Having coordinated these past few months, a group of Christians from the Evangelical and Catholic tradition have developed the following Joint Declaration on Life. Our goal is to build a bridge between those who seek to defend human life and those who seek to protect creation. The document is being sent to many for signing, and soon a website will be developed for wider distribution. But for now, read through the text and, if you're interested in  signing it, email your name and affiliation to catholicecology@aol.com, or just include that information in the comment section below.

“I will recall the covenant I have made between me and you and all living beings . . ." (Genesis 9:15)

We, the undersigned, Christians of both the Evangelical and Roman Catholic traditions, share this mission: building unity among those who defend the dignity of the human person and those who promote the health of the natural environment. 

We establish our mission on biblical principles, we build on the wisdom and insights of ancient and contemporary Christian leaders, we see the increasing impact of ecological degradation on human life, and we invite dialogue with all women and men of good will who desire to protect the integrity of life and to steward the vital resources which sustain all life.

We are convinced of, and so we declare to others, the great links between human life and God’s creation. We also understand that these links do not imply equivalencies between particular moral concerns and issues. We therefore do not demand equalities among the myriad matters of life where none exist. Rather, we seek to call attention to, and benefit from, naturally occurring relationships between human life—from conception until natural death—and the ecological systems that sustain and foster it.

1.                          Biblical Principles:  “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live….” (Deuteronomy 30:19). The Christian proclamation is rooted in the choice between life and death. Indeed, throughout Christian Scripture, the incarnational message of salvation inextricably links the redemption of humanity and the renewal of God’s creation, most particularly in:

                                                                 i.      the Genesis creation accounts;

                                                               ii.      the deliverance from Egypt, through the giving of the law;

                                                             iii.      the Psalms praising the Creator and His Creation;

                                                             iv.      the utterances of the Prophets of Israel and their fulfillment in the Gospel proclamation of the Incarnation, Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ;

                                                               v.      the Pauline tradition of “all creation” groaning in anticipation of the New Heavens and the New Earth, which is promised to us in the Prophets, the New Testament, and especially in the Book of Revelation.

2.                          Christian Thought: In the early fifth century, St. Augustine reflected on the revelation that the entire created order is “very good” (Genesis 1:31). He observes:

such is the force and power of completeness and unity, that many things, all good in themselves, are only found satisfying when they come together and fit into one universal whole. The universal, the universe, of course takes its name from unity.

In the thirteenth century, St. Bonaventure uses St. Paul to teach that all creatures share in signifying “the invisible attributes of God, partly because God is the origin, exemplar, and the end of every creature.” In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI wrote:

[o]ur duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society.

                        Noted evangelist Billy Graham commended in 1983:

The growing possibility of destroying ourselves and the world with our own neglect and excess is tragic and very real.  I find myself becoming more and more an advocate of the true ecologist where their recommendations are realistic.  Many of these people have done us an essential service in helping us preserve and protect our green zones and our cities, our waters and our air…

And in 1984, theologian Francis Schaeffer stated that humanity’s actions:

have a direct impact on the  natural realm.  That relationship is also moral. Why?  Because its involves a moral choice that impacts the environment and people … A truly Biblical Christianity has a real answer to the environmental crisis. It offers a balanced and healthy attitude to nature, arising from the truth of its creation by God; and it offers hope of substantial healing in nature of some of the results of the Fall, arising from the truth of the redemption in Christ. 

3.                          Impacts on Life and God’s Creation: Modern science is increasingly documenting the damage done by environmental toxins to human life from the moment of conception—and even before conception—throughout all stages of development and growth. The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine (Volume 78, Issue 1, January/February 2011) finds that “research initiatives have delineated the exquisite vulnerability of fetuses, infants, and children to toxic hazards in the environment.” The Mount Sinai Hospital Children’s Environmental Health Center states that “[s]cientific evidence is strong and continuing to build that hazardous exposures in the modern environment are important causes” of diseases such as:

                                                                 i.      Asthma;

                                                               ii.      Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;

                                                             iii.      Autism;

                                                             iv.      Dyslexia;

                                                               v.      Childhood leukemia;

                                                             vi.      Brain cancer;

                                                           vii.      Childhood obesity; and

                                                         viii.      Type 2 diabetes

Other health concerns related to environmental toxins are the early onset of puberty and Parkinson’s Disease found in younger ages. Furthermore, while mercury is an often-cited toxin that damages human growth, other “[t]oxic chemicals in the environment—lead, pesticides,toxic air pollutants, phthalates, and bisphenol A—are important causes of disease in children, and they are found in our homes, at our schools, in the air we breathe, and in the products we use every day.” Lastly, recent studies from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention are showing that the rates of childhood autism have increased and that the incidents of childhood cancers continue to rise. In demonstrating the violence done to human life—born and unborn—by poisons released into our air, water, and food supply, such studies provide empirical evidence of the link between human life and ecological health.

4.                          An understanding of differences: As Christians, we understand that humanity lives in a fallen state of sin. This results in division where God intends unity of will and purpose. Such division, existing everywhere, tragically is found among those who seek to live and preach the Gospel’s message of life. Thus, some concentrate on the great good of protecting human life from the moment of conception to a natural death. Others focus on ecologies, biodiversity, and non-human species. Over time, mistrust and discord have risen among particular groups, especially as political ideologies have claimed one cause or another in their individual quests to define and defend what is good. Such divisions must be overcome, especially among Christians, who proclaim that the human person is made in the image of the One, Triune God.

5.                          An invitation to dialogue: We then invite all men and women of good will to dialogue. We propose that there are common missions and common ground between those who labor to maintain healthy ecosystems and those who battle the cultural acceptance of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, infanticide, and euthanasia. We implore those who defend human dignity and those who defend the created order to see the unity and interconnectedness of all life. We understand that abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and euthanasia, intrinsically involve the willful termination of a human life, whereas the loss of life caused by environmental toxins is often unintended. Nevertheless, the damage done to the human person by toxins is real, debilitating, often deadly, and it is always the result of human choices. Thus, we see the issues of human dignity and ecological integrity as linked by our choices for either a blessing or a curse—for life or for death.

6.                          Our joint declaration: So that together we may all choose well—and encourage others to do so—we urge understanding and the building of bonds between those who, in their own way and through their own calling by God, seek to champion and defend the great, glorious, and mysterious gift of life—human life, born and unborn, and life throughout all creation, here and now, and for the ages and generations to come, until the end of time.

St. Giles: A seventh-century Catholic ecologist

I posted a few months ago about a keynote speaker at an interfaith conference on climate change. In his talk, he violently misrepresented the Church’s ancient views on, and work with, ecology.

While I know the error of such statements, it’s always good to learn more about how Catholics throughout the ages have embraced an ethic of what we today call environmentalism. And so I was delighted to hear a paper from Monica Ehrlich, a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Virginia, who introduced me to a little-known seventh-century environmental activist: St. Giles.

Ms. Ehrlich’s paper was given in May at the International Congress of Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University. Her excellent research and presentation piqued my interest so much that I asked to interview her, which she graciously found the time to do.

And so, we meet St. Giles (c. 650 – c. 710). The story goes that Giles was an Athenian-born Christian who settled in southern France. He would become something of an exemplar for many in the medieval world, mostly for his critique of aristocratic land use, hunting, and feudal cultures of consumption. This critique elevated agriculture over hunting as well as simple living over the banquet/feasting culture. While the word “environmentalist” or the modern concept of what that word means were not in existence in the seventh century, or the medieval world, St. Giles was very much concerned with how human consumption and particular worldviews can do violence to nature.

By building off existing studies of the subjugation of the “other” (such as male domination of female, rich over poor) what we know of St. Giles points to his concern that the land can also be seen as an “other” of man, one that is subjugated and not seen as a gift from God to be shared with our neighbors, but as property which can be used, owned, and left as an inheritance. Giles saw the land with an environmental ethic. This allowed him to use it to, for instance, build hospitals for the poor rather than advance his own material wealth. (Here, we find echoes of St. Basil, who did very much the same thing in fourth-century Cappadocia, in modern-day Turkey.)

Indeed, we learn from Ms. Ehrlich that Giles’ view of the land and creation was connected to the Beatitudes—to humility and care for those with less, to sharing rather than hoarding for personal gain. We can also learn something about Giles in his choice of a home—a hut built in prime royal hunting grounds. Giles also built a hut for a beloved deer, one he had a rather strong bond with and sought to protect from hunters.

Given severe laws about the protection of the king’s hunting lands (although there were often exemptions for religious uses) Giles construction of these huts was rather subversive. Moreover, his protection of a prize deer—which he would defend with his own body and life—is a particularly intriguing element of who he was and what he prioritized.

For instance, in some hagiography, Giles would be traveling with kings and be offered a feast and sumptuous bedding. But he would refuse both. Such lifestyles did not fit his eco-ethic of simplicity—an ethic that was common among hermits/monastic lifestyles across the centuries until the modern day—as we can find in, for instance, the Rule of St. Benedict.

We also know that Giles was a vegetarian. He would eat only what fruits and vegetation he could find. This in itself is a sort of critique of the prevalent banquet and hunting culture of his age. Indeed, Giles’ vegetarian lifestyle seems to be built literally from Genesis 1:28-29, which reveals that God gave humanity only vegetation and seed-bearing fruits to eat; the use of animals as food consumption is not in the blueprint of Genesis.

The bottom line of all this is that at the core of St. Giles’ love of the land and of creatures—and of his critique of the gluttony of the wealthy—is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church. Giles understood (perhaps rather elaborately) what it meant to be a protector of the natural world and, thus, how we humans must be related to it. This is not to say that all Catholic ecologists need to live like St. Giles—I certainly won't be building a hut on state property for a deer, at least I don't think I will. And I don't think I'll be a vegetarian any time soon.

But what we can acknowledge from Giles is the strong attraction across the Church's ages to what we today call ecology, an  attraction to know, live by, and protect the natural order, all of which is rooted in the eternal revelation of the Triune God.

Catholic Ecology Home