He who desires to die well, must live well

Robert Bellarmine's tomb,Church of Sant`Ignazio, Rome  

As the Church prepares for Catechetical Sunday—a celebration of parents and all instructors who hold and teach the Catholic faith—today we celebrate the feast of St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), a Jesuit priest, a patron of Catholic educators and a cardinal very much caught up in one of the most known faith-reason debates within the Church: The Galileo Affair.

I’ve written often about the healthy dialogue between faith and reason in Catholic thought and practice, especially as it relates to Galileo’s great discoveries. I stress this because so much of ecology today is a blend of hard science, ethics, and morality. And ethics and morality are ultimately informed by the soul and a sound faith in a God that is love.

Indeed, as our Holy Father stresses in his second letter to the Church: “It is not science that redeems man; man is redeemed by love.” This does not minimize science. On the contrary, it ennobles it with the freedom of its proper sphere. And this is really what the Galileo affair was all about.

In light of Robert Bellarmine’s feast day, I’d like to share the following by George Sim Johnston from his essay “The Galileo Affair” (Princeton, NJ: Scepter Press).

The text is a nicely detailed review of the many facets of Galileo’s debates with the Church. It’s solid in its entirety, but for our purposes I’ll come in near the middle. At this point in the story, Galileo has made it clear that he will not back down from teaching heliocentricity as fact, even if the scientific evidence wasn’t yet available to prove it (because, in fairness to Galileo, the mathematics necessary wasn't available in his day).

At this point, one of the great saints of the day, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, entered the drama. Bellarmine was one of the most important theologians of the Catholic Reformation. He was an expansive, gentle man who possessed the sort of meekness and good humor that is the product of a lifetime of ascetical struggle. As Consultor of the Holy Office and Master of Controversial Questions, he was unwillingly drawn into the Copernical controversy. In April 1615, he wrote a letter which amounted to an unofficial statement of the Church's position. He pointed out that: 1) it was perfectly acceptable to maintain Copernicanism as a working hypothesis; and 2) if there were “real proof” that the earth circles around the sun, “then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary...”

I wish more people would be aware of this part of the Galileo story, and that more people would know the thoughts of one of the greatest minds of the Church. Indeed, consider St. Bellarmine’s comment once more: if there were “real proof” that the earth circles around the sun, “then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary...”

And so on Robert Bellarmine’s feast day, let us remember the man and his great contributions to the Church and to so many facets of Western political, social and scientific thought—as well as, of course, spiritual. Indeed, the title of this post (which, if you think about it, is rather ecological) comes from his great work The Art of Dying. And his work on the The Seven Words on the Cross is a text well worth spending time with.

Let us pause briefly, and thank God for the life and works of Robert Bellarmine, as we pray:

God our Father, you gave Robert Bellarmine wisdom and goodness to defend the faith of your Church. By his prayers may we always rejoice in the profession of our faith. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Photo: By antmoose/flicker.com

The eco-left and Our Lady of Sorrows

Barak Obama’s credentials as a green presidential candidate have not made him a green president, or so goes the complaint of many in the political left. But not to worry, the president is getting advice as well as criticism.

Jeff Goodell writes in Rollingstone.com about “Ten Thing Obama Must Do: How the president can help slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet - without waiting for Congress.” This miraculous sounding header sets the stage for this opening:

When Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, he declared that future generations would remember it as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." More than three years later, the oceans are still rising and our planet has done more howling – in the form of extreme weather – than healing. In fact, the current political climate is actually headed in the wrong direction: The most heated talk in Washington right now is not about reducing carbon pollution or expanding renewable energy, but whether to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. Michele Bachmann has pledged to see the EPA's "doors locked and lights turned off." Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas, wants to "let EPA go the way of the dinosaurs that became fossil fuels."

Not that Obama hasn't overseen some progress on the environment. He struck a deal with automakers to double fuel-efficiency standards by 2025. He boosted funding for clean-energy research. And he made some impressive appointments to key positions, including Lisa Jackson as head of the EPA and Steven Chu as secretary of energy. But overall, Obama's record on the environment has been uninspired – and that's putting it kindly. He hasn't stopped coal companies from blowing up mountaintops and devastating large regions of Appalachia. He caved in on tightening federal standards for ozone pollution, putting the lives of millions of Americans at risk. And the biggest tragedy: He has done almost nothing to rein in carbon pollution – or even to convince Americans that, in the long run, cooking the planet with coal and oil is a bad idea.

It's not all Obama's fault: His plans to rebuild America's energy infrastructure have been hampered by the recession, and his efforts on global warming have been stymied by Tea Party wackos and weak-kneed Democrats in Congress. But the president has spent far too much time blaming others, when he could have been taking action on his own. Here are 10 things Obama could do right now – without any say-so from Congress – to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. All it takes is the will – and some political courage.

What follows are the 10 things that must be done to save the planet. These include: Prevent Oil Spills (not “attempt to prevent,” but “prevent”), Strike a Deal with China, Make Coal Clean Up Its Mess, and others. Some are good ideas. Most are more complicated than the author lets on. Praying isn’t on the list, although having the president use his bully pulpit is: “Obama's refusal to speak out on the risks and moral obligations of climate change may well be his biggest failure as president.” I was glad to see that Goodell was able to connect ecology with morality, because that connection is a vital one. Our failures in ecological protection are, more often than not, moral failures.

As we Catholics observe the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows on September 15th, it’s worth reflecting why we draw so much attention to the Cross and to human failure. While such failure is at the core of Goodell’s piece, it differs from how a Catholic ecologist understandings it.

We know that—as fallen creatures—we are not capable of saving ourselves. Thus, our spirituality is rooted in humility, as exemplified by the Lord, who became flesh and made his dwelling among us. While hope is of course central to our spirituality, it is not hope in us, or our elected officials. After all, no one man or woman can prevent oil spills. Nor can any group of people—like regulatory agencies or advocacy groups.

What we can do is try to live by the laws of nature—those physical laws that we’ve discovered and the moral laws revealed to us. They are both meant to help us thrive and be fully human.

And yet, no matter how much, how hard and how often we try, we will fail—in small ways and big. Yes, we often do succeed, by the grace of God. But we are defined most by how we incorporate our failures and sufferings into our very being, and by how we help others to do so.

The disappointment that many ecologically minded people express about the president is understandable, but it is importantly an invitation to understand more fully the limits of humanity. Disappointment in our leaders can either crush in anguish and chaos or it can convert us. It can remind us of our fallen nature and our need for Christ.

In all our daily toils—whether as a world leader, a parent, spouse or friend—we will continually encounter the problem of evil. We must confront the evil in others, yes, but also that within us. Our Lady encountered this evil in ways you or I can never imagine, and she willingly offers her comfort and intercession to we who suffer and fail now.

If only we as a nation remembered this. If only we could regularly fall on our collective knees and ask, not demand, that things go well for us, for our neighbors and for the world that we were given to steward. In other words, it would do well for us to remember those laws of nature—moral and physical—as well as our place as fallen creatures who are always being offered the love and prayers of Our Lady of Sorrows. Her wish is simple: to bring us to her Son, so that we may someday be delivered from the anguish and disappointment that is so part of our lives and so very much a part of our fallen world.

Sighing Mother, pray for us. Afflicted Mother, pray for us. Foresaken Mother, pray for us. Desolate Mother, pray for us. Mother most sad, pray for us. Mother set around with anguish, pray for us. Mother overwhelmed by grief, pray for us. Mother transfixed by a sword, pray for us. Mother crucified in thy heart, pray for us. Mother bereaved of thy Son, pray for us. Sighing Dove, pray for us. Mother of Dolors, pray for us. Fount of tears, pray for us. Sea of bitterness, pray for us. Field of tribulation, pray for us. Mass of suffering, pray for us. Mirror of patience, pray for us. Rock of constancy, pray for us. Remedy in perplexity, pray for us. Joy of the afflicted, pray for us. Ark of the desolate, pray for us. Refuge of the abandoned, pray for us. Shield of the oppressed, pray for us. Conqueror of the incredulous, pray for us. Solace of the wretched, pray for us. Medicine of the sick, pray for us. Help of the faint, pray for us. Strength of the weak, pray for us. Protectress of those who fight, pray for us. Haven of the shipwrecked, pray for us. Calmer of tempests, pray for us. Companion of the sorrowful, pray for us. Retreat of those who groan, pray for us. Terror of the treacherous, pray for us. Standard-bearer of the Martyrs, pray for us. Treasure of the Faithful, pray for us. Light of Confessors, pray for us. Pearl of Virgins, pray for us. Comfort of Widows, pray for us. Joy of all Saints, pray for us. Queen of thy Servants, pray for us. Holy Mary, who alone art unexampled, pray for us. (From the Litany of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows by Pope Pius VII.)

Should we listen to climate-change skeptics?

A group called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and the Heartland Institute have produced and published a report called "Climate Change Reconsidered."

It will certainly cause an uproar in some circles. Here are some of the findings:

• Climate models fail to correctly simulate future precipitation due to inadequate model resolution on both vertical and horizontal spatial scales, a limitation that forces climate modelers to parameterize the large-scale effects of processes that occur on smaller scales than their models are capable of simulating. This is particularly true of physical processes such as cloud formation and cloud-radiation interactions.

• All else being equal, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 would increase global temperatures through its thermal radiative properties. But CO2 promotes plant growth both on land and throughout the surface waters of the world‘s oceans, and this vast assemblage of plant life has the ability to affect Earth‘s climate in several ways, almost all of them tending to counteract the heating or cooling effects of CO2‘s thermal radiative forcing.

• Researchers have found extreme and destructive rainfall events were more common in many parts of the world during the Little Ice Age than they have been subsequently, contradicting the forecasts of the IPCC. Regional climate models of North America generate predictions that vary considerably among models and extend well beyond the realm of reality.

• While some corals exhibit a propensity to bleach and die when sea temperatures rise, others exhibit a positive relationship between calcification, or growth, and temperature. "Such variable bleaching susceptibility implies that there is a considerable variation in the extent to which coral species are adapted to local environmental conditions." (Maynard et al., 2008)

Because I'm not a trained climatologist, or biologist, it's difficult for me to weigh in on such specifics. But as an engineer, I know enough about research to know that a good debate is not a bad thing. So I hope this report allows a healthy dialogue among specialists and laymen. Maybe the so-called climate-change skeptics are on to something? Are we not allowed to ask such questions?

However, it does seem hard to believe that the overwhelming number of scientists that are certain about climate change are wrong. There is just too much consensus by people who are smart enough to know that if they could disprove anthropomorphic climate change then they would make a real name for themselves. Why would so many scientists bolster a theory or a hypothesis that they have no reason to support other than the fact that the evidence backs it?

Level heads are needed. As with the conference held earlier this year by Rome, and the resulting Pontifical report on climate change, it would do well for the Church to foster more of exactly that kind of dialogue--locally and globally. If nothing else, it would help discern truth, and help others do likewise.

For now, it will be interesting to see what come of this reconsideration of climate change. And while we're waiting, we can pray that God will guide all within this dialogue to the fullness of understanding, truth and, as always, love of neighbor.

Remembering 9.11.01 from an orbital perspective

Courtesy of NASA, with thanks for providing this global, international perspective.

May God bless the victims, their families and the peoples of Earth.

As Benedict XVI wrote in his letter to the bishops of the United States of America:

"Once again, it must be unequivocally stated that no circumstances can ever justify acts of terrorism. Every human life is precious in God' s sight and no effort should be spared in the attempt to promote throughout the world a genuine respect for the inalienable rights and dignity of individuals and peoples everywhere."

The nature of self-governance

I came across this story from BuffaloNews.com. It’s about a New York town seeking to protect itself from an anticipated boom in requests by gas companies for horizontal hydrofracking gas drilling. The story says that this technique poses “potential health and environmental risks 100 times greater than existing vertical gas wells.”

For now, I don't wish to focus on the nuances of hydrofracking, but this New York Time story gives some good background related to the Empire State.

What does interest me is the philosophy of what the town is asserting, as well as why and what presuppositions are behind their goals. Towards the end of the story we read this:

Facing these overwhelming forces, and aware of the health and safety risks associated with hydrofracking, the tiny Town of Wales recently outlawed new gas wells using the horizontal, hydraulic fracturing drilling technique.

The law asserts that the people of Wales possess certain natural and inalienable rights, including: the right to form a local government to promote their welfare, not the economic interests of corporations; the right to healthy local ecosystems and clean drinking water; and the right to protect themselves — even from harmful state actions.

First, let me say that as a regulator, I understand the frustration communities can go through when waiting for the state or feds to do what they need to do. Little ever goes the way we plan it or as fast as we want it—and that’s just as true in the world of regulation as it is everywhere else. After all, a regulator must weigh as much information as possible and they must do it very well, with all voices being heard. This takes time.

But more importantly, there is a fascinating facet hidden in this story about Wales, New York that has to do with the nature of transcendence.

The people of Wales seek to govern themselves and protect their rights. This is exactly what America’s founding fathers wished, and did. But our nation's founders knew where their life, liberty and the promised ability to pursue happiness came from—God. But of late, in a world that increasingly worships at the altar of Separation-of-Church-and-State (and often for good reason), the location of something prior to liberty—and thus that ensures liberty—becomes difficult to pin down.

It’s interesting that the people of Wales are claiming their rights within the context of ecological protection and public health. Human rights—and human being defined as a person from conception to natural death (and, actually, beyond that, too)—are embedded in the logic of the cosmos. And as Catholics proclaim, that logic—that logos—is indeed Jesus Christ, who was there in the beginning, when the Spirit moved over the waters and God spoke creation into existence.

I wish the people of Wales well and I will pray for them. I also look forward to learning more than what this news story could provide. I would be delighted to find that these good people see their rights as rooted in the logic of creation, in which all human beings are made in God’s image and thus must have their dignity affirmed at all times. In doing so, they will find an important link between protecting creation and their desire to protect—and govern—themselves.

As His Holiness writes in Caritas in Veritate,

On this earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature itself — God's gift to his children — and through hard work and creativity. At the same time we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it. This means being committed to making joint decisions “after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”[120]. Let us hope that the international community and individual governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment. It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations: the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet[121]. One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of “efficiency” is not value-free.

[120] Benedict XVI, Message for the 2008 World Day of Peace, 7: AAS 100 (2008), 41.
[121] Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, New York, 18 April 2008.

An installation homily that speaks of human ecology

On the Feast of the Birth of the Blessed Mother

May God bless Archbishop Chaput, and the Church of Philadelphia  . . . of brotherly love.

Tropical storms, trees, and grace

A week ago I was in darkness as tropical storm Irene swirled around my home, casting trees onto power lines, making the electrical grid groan as transmission breakers slammed open.

While the week since was busy at work dealing with how power outages were affecting wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure, I was one of the lucky ones. There was little damage at home and National Grid was able to restore my power some 18 hours after I lost it. Others in Rhode Island are just getting it back. And others around the Northeast won’t be restored soon—and some in Vermont, New York and New Jersey have had to deal with the tragedy of massive flooding. May God give rest to all the souls that were lost.

Irene—oddly, a name from the Greek word for “peace”—did her share of damage. Especially to trees.

This got me thinking about my neo-pagan friends who insist that nature offers complete harmony if only we’d leave it alone. Well, I don’t know about you, but after looking around at all the felled trees since last Sunday, it seems nature can be at war with itself.

Now, of course this is all part of the natural order. Downed trees make good food for all sorts of critters, fungus and microorganisms. And their absence brings sunlight to smaller trees around them.

But is this harmony? I suppose that’s in how one looks at things.

To me, the damage done by storms, and the good that can come to it, is both tragic and an opportunity for grace. Many people lost beloved, ancient trees. But the natural cycle of death and life seems remarkably like how God can bring good out of evil—out of sin.

As trees fall, so our fallen human nature often brings with it destruction. And as nature uses the opportunity of downed trees for new life, so God’s Grace is offered to us always so that our sinful nature—and the hurt, anguish, loneliness, pain, and death that comes with it—can be raised up.

I was talking to a wonderful couple after Mass today. The woman’s brother has a rare cancer, and she’s taking care of him. “God has a plan,” the husband noted. And we reflected on how God does not will evil, but He certainly allows it, and—more importantly—He can bring much good out of it, if we let Him. Sort of like the new life that can come from a great oak felled by an eighty mile-an-hour gust.

Something to consider. And while you consider this, please say a prayer for John, the brother who has cancer. May God give him strength and the support of family and loved ones; may his pain be lessened and may great good be brought from any suffering he and his loved ones endure.

The dangers of rigid ideologies

I came across “Has Progressivism Ruined Environmental Science?” in the online publication American Thinker, which—from the advertising that populates it and the comments posted—seems to veer “right.” But as I am not a regular reader, I do not know this to be the case.

Still, the commentary by Anthony J. Sadar is a critique of the industry known as environmental protection. His concern is that the field has become too “progressive” and, as such, is not challenged from within by alternate views. This, he says, is dangerous for seeking truth.

He’s correct. But he’s not entirely on the money.

First, as an environmental regulator myself, I do appreciate one point he is making:

In my thirty years of work in the science arena, as a government scientist, an industry consultant, and an academician, I have witnessed an increasingly adverse influence of progressivism on the practice of science. This influence has been especially visible in my specialty, environmental science (with a focus on air-pollution meteorology).

Amen, brother. From my own experiences, I know that the ecological vocation tends to attract left-leaning ideologues and that they champion other causes common to the left. So be it. Perhaps this is akin to how, say, the armed forces tend to attract right-leaning ideologues.

In my own eco-industry world, some of my dear friends seem frustrated that because of my ecological credentials I am not also pro-abortion, or pro-same-sex marriage, or that I do not favor big government (even if I work for one). So, yes, I believe that Mr. Sadar is correct in his point about the general worldview of ecology.

But then he expresses concerns with the matter of climate change and I wish he hadn’t tethered his argument so much to the past sins of a few researchers. After all, as I’ve written about earlier, sin is one thing we all have in common, and climate researchers are sinners, too.

Then again, I do not understand the political right’s obsession with disproving the general acceptance of climate research—that is, how well-defined trends in various data sets are aligned with climate-change modeling and hypotheses. It's as if some on the right reject climate change science only because so many on the left laud it.

But also, in agreement with Sadar, I do not understand why so many on the political left can be so uncritically accepting of what they’re told about how anthropomorphic climate change is occurring, and what effects it will have. In fact, sometimes it seems that they wish harm on the human race. And allow me to confess this: occasionally I sit in meetings to discuss climate change and sea level rise and wonder, what if we’re wrong—even just a little? I suppose I should speak up, but then I can’t help but think, what would people think? Would they dismiss me? Would they discredit me? Would I be invited back? It's not that I reject that we are witnessing anthropomorphic climate change—far from it. But sometimes it would be nice to talk about it openly. And I don't think that we are allowed to—which is exactly Sadar’s point.

But either way, right or left, I am impatient when any scientist (or anyone of any vocation) must fit their worlds into neat packages of human political ideology. That limits one’s horizons, which makes no sense.

Then again, I am Catholic, and I do not describe myself as left or right, liberal or conservative, or what have you. I suppose if anything, I am Augustinian. That is, I'm a-political because no political party or ideology has the fullness of truth to offer.

What sailing teaches us about our environment, and our faith

August 2011

"What I love about sailing is it makes you pay attention to everything in the environment around you.” So noted my friend David Kane as he worked the sails of the Able, his sturdy Stone Horse sloop.

David is an instructor at Newport’s Navy base and he’s responsible for my maiden voyage on Narragansett Bay—indeed, my first sail ever. Having finally accepted his long-standing offer to see the world from the water, I and another friend joined David on a post-card-perfect Ocean State summer afternoon. You couldn’t ask for a better first sail, even if I did ram the ship’s newly painted hull with the dingy while boarding, but that’s another story.

By the time we came ashore six hours later, the sun had set over Jamestown, the moon had risen over Fort Adams and, with much guidance, I—the clumsy land lover—had steered the Able and my friends around Gould Island and tacked a few times back and forth across the East Passage. It was the first time I saw the underside of the Newport Bridge—and we did it twice. I learned a little of how those red and green lights try to protect you as they pulse on the water; I learned how to make a sailboat go where I wanted, and how to keep it safely from where it shouldn’t go.

David was right. Sailing makes you respect your environment. It’s an experience I recommend for all.

When sailing, you sense that creation is hardwired for humanity to be at home in the space where wind meets water—those primal elements spoken of in the first words of Holy Scripture. Intuitively, the human mind—even an inexperienced one like mine—comprehends the relationship between rudder, sail, wind and current. The Able’s creator, the well respected Massachusetts yacht designer Sam Crocker, clearly knew something of the mind of God.

When sailing, you learn the nature of a community—whether it’s the shared responsibilities of three people on a boat or the good-natured communication with those on crafts passing by. Everyone is everyone else’s friend on the water because everyone’s life depends on it.

Of course, I was reminded of the quality of our waters, something near to my heart, as it is the mission of my office at the Department of Environmental Management. Clean water becomes all the more appreciated when coasting along its depths—when its spray swirls around you and you breathe it in.

And certainly, I couldn’t help but think of those first disciples who caught fish before they were fishers of men. Their experiences on the water helped formed their nature. God’s grace elevated their sea-faring nature, allowing them a role in founding the universal church, which is our great ship of salvation, steered always by the Holy Spirit.

As you can tell, in small but analogous ways that six-hour sail elevated me. For forty-seven years I’ve explored the shores of Jamestown and Newport, crossed Narragansett Bay on bridges and admired it all from the safe distance of land. When sailing, however, those familiar landmarks and seemingly disconnected places—Beavertail, downtown Newport, the nighttime brilliance of Quonset Point and the far distant glow of Providence—were now seen as they really are: a landscape of distinct places that exist in intimate union. They, like we, are in relation to each other.

Sailing, I’ve concluded, is very Catholic. It makes you well aware of your environment; it joins worlds and peoples and it teaches you that there are rules to follow that are not yours to change—even if it seems that you can or should. Sailing shows us that our individual lives and journeys are in relation with each other and with God. Indeed, like the open ocean I glimpsed well beyond the East Passage, there is much that is outside of us—much that calls to us. Only in choosing to trust and journey outward are we ever able to know what it means to be human.

What's missing in Pew Research vs. the poultry industry

The Pew Environment Group and the poultry industry are in a bit of a tiff.

The debate began with Pew’s recent study of pollution from large-scale poultry producers. The summary on the Pew website notes that

“in just over 50 years, the broiler industry has been transformed from more than one million small farms spread across the country to a limited number of massive factory-style operations concentrated in 15 states,” said Karen Steuer, who directs Pew’s efforts to reform industrial animal agriculture. “This growth has harmed the environment, particularly water, because management programs for chicken waste have not kept pace with output.”

The summary then gives these statistics:

• In less than 60 years, the number of broiler chickens raised yearly has skyrocketed 1,400 percent, from 580 million in the 1950s to nearly nine billion today
• Over the same period, the number of producers has plummeted by 98 percent, from 1.6 million to just over 27,000 and concentrated in just 15 states.
• The size of individual operations has grown dramatically. Today, the typical broiler chicken comes from a facility that raises more than 600,000 birds a year.

The Pew report—which in particular studied nutrient loading into Chesapeake Bay—has a few feathers flying at the National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, which released a scathing statement in response. Here’s a sample:

The report's critique is terribly misplaced, and once again demonstrates Pew's bias against modern farming practices. The poultry community has already taken meaningful steps to further reduce nutrient impacts on the environment. The sources of nutrients into the Chesapeake Bay and other watersheds are ubiquitous. EPA acknowledges the positive steps agriculture has implemented in reducing its environmental footprint in the Bay region, even as the nutrient contribution from non-agricultural sources continues to grow.

You can read the report and the response for yourselves, as well as some of the media coverage (here, here, or here). What gets lost in all this back and forth is, usually, the truth.

As a regulator myself—and a Catholic one—I find it nearly impossible to hold any group, industry or individual in either the “all good” or “all bad” category. Our fallen human nature keeps most of us from ever being completely selfless, although we do often try—and by “we,” I mean even the people at big corporations.

I’ve seen local communities, local public employees and volunteers excel and sacrifice for the common good. And I’ve seen others only care about themselves. I’ve seen corporations (large and small) care more about the bottom line and their corporate image than anything else, and I’ve seen others go well out of their way at significant cost to simply and quietly be good neighbors and good stewards of the environment.

My point is that we should not always assume that big business is inherently evil—even when they’re not always good—nor should we given them license to do what they will just because they employ many, many workers. And we should not forget that there is such a thing as the environmental protection industry, and it, too, can be big business.

In other words, there is a pastoral element to conflicts like the one between Pew and the poultry industry. Both groups have something to offer mankind. But if one or the other can only see the world in black and white—with the bad guys always being the other guys—then the only people to benefit will be the news outlets.

I think of a statement in Leo XIII’s groundbreaking 1891 social encyclical Rerum Novarum. Here he’s speaking of labor and management, but the sentiment applies just as well to professional environmentalists and the industries they monitor:

The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvelous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.

May God bring cooperation and solutions to the many good (but not perfect) people at Pew and the poultry industry. May God grant that they, we and all creation benefit from their mutual respect and fraternal efforts.