The Keystone Pipeline and Occupying Hope

Courtesy of NWFblogs

It’s not every day that the Tea Party and the Sierra Club  join forces. But the growing debate over the Keystone oil pipeline expansion has done just that. Others are taking their protest to the streets.

Haven’t heard of Keystone? Wikipedia has a good summary of the proposed pipeline, and Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson at the Washington Post have an excellent summary of the eco-political debate about it. From their story comes the following snippets to show us a little of the Keystone fallout: 

In mid-October, [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton told an audience at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club that she and others in the administration were “inclined” to give TransCanada the permit [to construct Keystone], adding, “We’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada.”

In many ways, her comments were simply a blunt version of the argument made by TransCanada and U.S. oil producers and refiners: The pipeline will secure a more reliable source of petroleum.

Over the next months, Canadian officials continued to press for approval of the permit [. . . ] At the same time, an unlikely coalition of farmers, ranchers and other residents along the pipeline’s route from Nebraska to Texas stepped up its opposition. The Sierra Club joined with tea party activists to protest the pipeline, while Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Dave Heineman said it threatens his state’s Ogallala aquifer.

By August a group of environmental leaders [. . .] was able to enlist more than a thousand opponents willing to be arrested outside the White House, including actresses Daryl Hannah and Margot Kidder. The two-week demonstration prompted a flurry of calls between White House offices and State, sources said, as administration officials asked to be briefed about the project’s status.

[. . .]

Some major Obama donors have threatened to withhold campaign contributions unless the president kills the project; both environmental and labor activists have raised the issue with his campaign staff.

Both publicly and privately, however, Obama administration officials have told environmentalists they are better off with the president in office than without him. 

"When Americans compare the president’s record promoting clean energy and America’s energy security to those of the leading Republican candidates, who don’t even believe that climate change is an issue that we need to address and would cede the clean-energy market to China, there will be no question about who will continue our progress,” campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt wrote in an e-mail.

From this one, if massive, proposed project comes massive, if predictable, battles along eco-political-industry divides. We see such debates often. But this one seems different. It’s generating searing passion. The question is, why? What’s got everyone fired up? There are many reasons: the size of the project, the memory of the BP oil spill, the certainty that other, safer sources of energy should be our focus. But there's another facet to this story: We live in a new age of protest. The Occupy movements assembled across America and, indeed, the globe, are symptoms of unrest and anger over a crumbling world that seems to offer no real hope.

But there is hope for those who seek it.

In his second letter to the Church and the world, Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict XVI writes that 

day by day, man experiences many greater or lesser hopes, different in kind according to the different periods of his life. Sometimes one of these hopes may appear to be totally satisfying without any need for other hopes. Young people can have the hope of a great and fully satisfying love; the hope of a certain position in their profession, or of some success that will prove decisive for the rest of their lives. When these hopes are fulfilled, however, it becomes clear that they were not, in reality, the whole. It becomes evident that man has need of a hope that goes further. It becomes clear that only something infinite will suffice for him, something that will always be more than he can ever attain. In this regard our contemporary age has developed the hope of creating a perfect world that, thanks to scientific knowledge and to scientifically based politics, seemed to be achievable. Thus Biblical hope in the Kingdom of God has been displaced by hope in the kingdom of man, the hope of a better world which would be the real “Kingdom of God”. This seemed at last to be the great and realistic hope that man needs. It was capable of galvanizing—for a time—all man's energies. The great objective seemed worthy of full commitment. In the course of time, however, it has become clear that this hope is constantly receding. Above all it has become apparent that this may be a hope for a future generation, but not for me. 

[. . . ]

Let us say once again: we need the greater and lesser hopes that keep us going day by day. But these are not enough without the great hope, which must surpass everything else. This great hope can only be God, who encompasses the whole of reality and who can bestow upon us what we, by ourselves, cannot attain. 

People who have lost hope are standing up and marching together on the streets of the world. Some of these gatherings have turned violent—some have struck at the very truth that can offer the world true hope. While anarchist opportunists may seek to hijack the Occupy movements, among the protesters are also many human souls striving for a world of justice, goodness, equality and fairness.

But as the Keystone project reminds us, we do not live yet in the Promised Land. Here, outside Eden, the designs of men are never failsafe. A pipeline to provide oil from North America—and in so doing create jobs and release some of our attachment to the Middle East—is resisted because it may do great harm to real places, real people, and, perhaps, encourage harm to the very climate that sustains us in its global distribution of moisture and thermal energy. And indeed, the project's method of extracting oil comes with even more risks. In short, a project with so much potential for good brings with it so much potential for evil. 

What we need to remember is that all this is equally true for our political, economic and regulatory designs. There can be no new-world order, no overthrow of the current systems, that will usher in an age without human failing and many crosses.

Welcome to life in a fallen world.

Thus, we heed the Holy Father’s words above: This great hope can only be God, who encompasses the whole of reality and who can bestow upon us what we, by ourselves, cannot attain. 

Let us pray, then, that the youth of this world seek first the Kingdom of God, so that all good things may come to them and to all people. May their hopelessness and righteous anger be transformed to great joy—a joy and a peace found only when one loves God and neighbor in the most radical, hopeful and real way. 

And if there's something about the Keystone debate that I've left out, please share it in the comment section.

Catholic Ecology Home

Made in China religious goods: To buy, or not to buy?

On December 16, 1958, five years to the day before I was born, Pope John XXIII denounced China’s treatment of Roman Catholics. At a consistory to elevate new Cardinals, the Holy Father noted that

"for a long time Catholics throughout China have been living under the most difficult circumstances. Missionaries, archbishops, and bishops have been accused of false crimes, thrown into prison, and finally sent into exile. Even bishops who are Chinese by birth have been put into places of confinement, and not a few have been expelled."

Little has changed in five decades, as we read below from this Catholic News Service story:

Rome, Italy, Dec 10, 2010 / 05:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Father Bernardo Cervellera, a longtime observer of Sino-Vatican affairs, is deeply troubled by recent moves made by China’s communist authorities.

"We are back in the 1950s,” said Fr. Cervellera, a missionary of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions and editor of institute’s influential Asia News website.

"Honestly, I would say that with these elections we are taken back to the time of Mao Zedong and the foundation of the Patriotic Association,” the state-authorized Catholic Church established by the communist ruler.

Fr. Cervellera has for many years been a sharp critic of the regime in Beijing and a cautionary voice on the Church’s relations with the regime. In a Dec. 9 interview with CNA he said recent developments do not offer much cause for optimism.

The troubles began Nov. 20 when communist authorities appointed Father Guo Jincai a bishop, in express defiance of Vatican wishes and without the Pope's approval. In a gesture that sparked further outrage from the Vatican, authorities forced at least eight bishops loyal to Rome to participate in the rogue ordination.

This week, communist officials again forced bishops loyal to Rome to take part in elections for the government-run Catholic Patriotic Association and Bishops' Conference of the Catholic Church.

Neither institution is recognized by the Vatican.

While others see recent developments reflecting a more delicate political balancing act by the two sides, Father Cervellera believes many in the Church are being overly optimistic about the intentions of the communist government in Beijing.

Fr. Cervellera said Chinese officials are sending a clear message that the communist party — and not the Vatican — is in charge of the Chinese Church.

He said the recent elections to the Patriotic Association and the so-called Bishops' Conference were meant "to wound the Vatican" and set up obstacles to unity in the Church.

There’s more to the story, but you get the idea.

All this has me wondering about the support that so many Catholics across the globe, and certainly in America, give to the Chinese government—mostly unwittingly. It seems that much of the religious items I find in Catholic gift stores and supply firms are made in China—and so our funds are helping build a nation that is persecuting our brothers and sisters loyal to Rome.

There are also ecological facets to this concern. China has serious pollution and public health issues due to an economy in overdrive fueled in large part by the West’s desire for low, low prices. We read this from China Daily:

BEIJING - China has lost ground on its resolve to emit less nitrogen oxide this year.

Even though the country planned to reduce its annual emissions of the pollutant by 1.5 percent in 2011, it in fact released 6.17 percent more nitrogen oxide in the first six months of the year than it had in the same period a year ago, according to statistics from the Ministry of Environmental Protection.

The failure to control nitrogen emissions, which are a large cause of acid rain and smog, shows the difficulties the country will face in its attempt to battle pollution without shifting away from its reliance on heavy industries, environmental experts warned.

Nitrogen oxide, which stems mainly from coal-fired power plants and vehicle emissions, canirritate the lungs and lower people's resistance to influenza and other respiratory infections.

And from the Wall Street Journal:

BEIJING—Hundreds of people in eastern China carried out sometimes violent protests over pollution they blame on a solar-panel maker's factory, the latest example of unrest spurred by anger over the country's environmental problems.

Authorities detained several demonstrators for alleged theft and vandalism in the protests, which began Thursday and continued over the weekend at the Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co. factory in the city of Haining in Zhejiang province, according to state media and the local government. The company is owned by New York Stock Exchange-listed JinkoSolar Holding Co.

After more than 500 people gathered outside the gates Thursday, demonstrators stormed the factory compound, according the state-run Xinhua news agency, where they flipped over company vehicles and damaged the solar company's offices before police arrived to disperse the crowd. Villagers had complained last month about the deaths of a large number of fish in a nearby river, according to Xinhua.

Chinese citizens have grown increasing bold in challenging the country's widespread environmental woes, despite the threat of government punishment of protesters. While maintaining a tight grip on dissent, authorities have increasingly tried to appear responsive to such complaints, although critics say the ultimate problem is the leadership's emphasis on rapid economic growth and industrialization.

Given all this—the Chinese government’s continued persecution of the Church, its ecological struggles, and its civil unrest over the health of its people—it seems to me that Catholics the world over must give up the low, low prices afforded by China’s super-manufacturing prowess and buy its crucifixes, rosaries, and other religious goods elsewhere.

This raises a question: Is there such a place? Certainly, sin is within all nations and peoples. And, as we see in America, once predominately Christian governments can quickly violate Christian tenets.

But the universality of sin and the inevitable conflicts between the cities of men and the City of God does not undo these questions: Should our religious items be imported from China? Should we send our money there? I fear that there are no easy answers, because real people and families depend on the resulting manufacturing jobs. Indeed, such questions result in moral and ethical questions that far exceed my talents or the purpose of this blog. But for the good of China’s ecology, its people, and their souls, such questions must be asked by Catholics everywhere. And so I ask: To buy, or not to buy Chinese?

I’m interested in what you think.

(One reader chimed in already. She tries to purchase religious items from the Bethlehem Fair Trade Artisans, as do I. They're a good group doing good work.)

Catholic Ecology Home

A little Lectio Divina: from creation to the Creator

Today’s Mass readings show us the great influence of creation within Holy Scripture. From the first reading’s intertwined use of the natural world and agriculture—that which is physical, which allows us physical life—to the Psalm’s imagery of all creation rightly giving Him praise, we hear that ancient refrain of our relation with creation speaking of our relation with God.

But wait, there's more: Both in the reading from Joel and the Psalm we hear of a connection between the ordered beauty of the cosmos and the characteristic of being just.

This prepares us for the Gospel, which points us beyond the natural world. A woman praises Jesus’ mother, the natural, human mother of the Christ. But Our Lord reminds the woman, and us, that what is ultimately more important is the Word that brought creation into existence and the invitation it offers—which, of course, asks for a response.

Read through these readings and ponder their stunning imagery and their momentum. Allow them to lift you from the known world to a conversation with a higher, greater glory.

Reading 1 (Joel 4:12-21)
Thus says the LORD:
Let the nations bestir themselves and come up
to the Valley of Jehoshaphat;
For there will I sit in judgment
upon all the neighboring nations.

Apply the sickle,
for the harvest is ripe;
Come and tread,
for the wine press is full;
The vats overflow,
for great is their malice.
Crowd upon crowd
in the valley of decision;
For near is the day of the LORD
in the valley of decision.
Sun and moon are darkened,
and the stars withhold their brightness.The LORD roars from Zion,
and from Jerusalem raises his voice;The heavens and the earth quake,
but the LORD is a refuge to his people,
a stronghold to the children of Israel.

Then shall you know that I, the LORD, am your God,
dwelling on Zion, my holy mountain;
Jerusalem shall be holy,
and strangers shall pass through her no more.
And then, on that day,
the mountains shall drip new wine,
and the hills shall flow with milk;
And the channels of Judah
shall flow with water:
A fountain shall issue from the house of the LORD,
to water the Valley of Shittim.
Egypt shall be a waste,
and Edom a desert waste,
Because of violence done to the people of Judah,
because they shed innocent blood in their land.
But Judah shall abide forever,
and Jerusalem for all generations.
I will avenge their blood,
and not leave it unpunished.
The LORD dwells in Zion.

Responsorial Psalm (97:1-2, 5-6, 11-12)
R. (12a) Rejoice in the Lord, you just!
The LORD is king; let the earth rejoice;
let the many isles be glad.
Clouds and darkness are round about him,
justice and judgment are the foundation of his throne.
R. Rejoice in the Lord, you just!
The mountains melt like wax before the LORD,
before the LORD of all the earth.
The heavens proclaim his justice,
and all peoples see his glory.
R. Rejoice in the Lord, you just!
Light dawns for the just;
and gladness, for the upright of heart.
Be glad in the LORD, you just,
and give thanks to his holy name.
R. Rejoice in the Lord, you just!

Gospel (Luke 11:27-28)
While Jesus was speaking,
a woman from the crowd called out and said to him,
"Blessed is the womb that carried you
and the breasts at which you nursed."
He replied, "Rather, blessed are those
who hear the word of God and observe it."

Catholic Ecology Home

St. Francis: beyond the garden statues

At a Franciscan Transitus ceremony at my parish this evening, it struck me that St. Francis—the patron of ecology and animals, as well as people who promote ecology—is not quite the romantic figure that is portrayed in so many backyard shrines. Those loveable garden statues and birdfeeders tell us little of the man and the interior and exterior struggles he fought during his journey to the Triune God.

And so as we celebrate the feast of this great saint and Doctor of the Church—one to whom I give thanks for helping me in my road back to the Church some twelve years ago—we should know him for who he truly was, as best we can.

Let us begin at the end, at an account of his death from a text by Thomas of Celano and Bonaventure:

St. Francis spent the last few days before his death in praising the Lord and teaching his companions whom he loved so much to praise Christ with him. He himself, in as far as he was able, broke out with the Psalm: I cry to the Lord with my voice; to the Lord I make loud supplication. He likewise invited all creatures to praise God and, with the words he had composed earlier, he exhorted them to love God. Even death itself, considered by all to be so terrible and hateful, was exhorted to give praise, while he himself, going joyfully to meet it, invited it to make its abode with him. "Welcome," he said, "my sister death."

When the hour of his death approached, Francis asked that all of the brothers living with him be called to his death bed and softening his departure with consoling words, he encouraged them with fatherly affection to love God. He spoke of patience and poverty and of being faithful to the Holy Roman Church, giving precedence to the Holy Gospels before all else. He then stretched his hands over the brothers in the form of a cross, a symbol that he loved so much, and gave his blessings to all followers, both present and absent, in the power and in the name of the Crucified. Then he added: "Remain, my sons, in the fear of the Lord and be with him always. And as temptations and trials beset you, blessed are those who persevere to the end in the life they have chosen. I am on my way to God and I commend you all to His favor."

These words greatly affected me when I heard them read this evening. I will be giving a talk tomorrow on St. Francis and ecology for my diocese. I’ve been asked to speak about carbon footprints, using my local environmental regulatory background to teach listeners about local and global ecological issues. But with the experience of the Transitus still stirring within as I left my church this evening, I confessed to one of the lay Franciscan organizers that I doubt I could speak merely of science and about romantic notions of St. Francis. I will have to speak also of sin and the Cross, of sacrifice and Christ. How else could I speak of what it means to be an admirer of St. Francis and a lover of creation?

Francis’ growth from a rowdy young man to an itinerant preacher, beggar, and lover of Christ and His Church all occurred with much turmoil, rejection, suffering and doubt. His choice to live as Christ did was bold and, at first, unappreciated. But in time, that he lived by choice in radical poverty and self-denial attracted many in his day and still does in ours. Indeed, his example, and that of his nascent order, truly helped rebuild Christ’s Church. Whereas some would later appeal to the Gospels and to Church fathers to flee the Church and found others, Francis sought to repair the damages of sin within Holy Mother Church, and he did so through utter humility.

In reflecting on the many examples of Francis’ radical poverty, one might be tempted to find in him an unorthodox dualism—a desire to see creation as evil and, thus, something to reject. But Francis did quite the opposite.

Francis saw God within all creation. He followed a long line of Catholic thought that taught that knowledge of God can be found (if imperfectly) in knowledge of—or, in Francis’ case, love for—the created order. Where scholastics would baptize the world of the intellect, Francis (and those who came after him, like Bonaventure) found in the beauty and majesty of nature the answers to many of the theological arguments of their day, and those to follow.

Francis is known famously for his Canticle of Brother Sun. While this title may flame the hearts of naturalists, pagans or new-agers, one learns quickly by the opening words what Francis held to be most important:

Most High, all powerful, good Lord,
Yours are the praises, the glory, the honor,
and all blessing.

To You alone, Most High, do they belong,
and no man is worthy to mention Your name.

Be praised, my Lord, through all your creatures,
especially through my lord Brother Sun,
who brings the day; and you give light through him.
And he is beautiful and radiant in all his splendor!
Of you, Most High, he bears the likeness.

Yes, for Francis, God comes first. For Francis, who received the stigmata praying at Mount Alverna, the crosses of this world are not to be rejected. Like the leper that a young Francis passed by then hugged, giving him all his belongings, we too are called to give radically to those in need, to hug the wounded and diseased.

Giotto's Stigmata, courtesy of Slices of Light Images.

If we are to revere Francis, then we—those who seek to promote ecology—must consider anew what sacrifices and what love we can offer the world, its people, and its Creator.

If we can do anything, we should bring back the Friday fast. By reducing our consumption of what-have-you by close to 14% (1 day out of 7), we Catholics—and those who wish to join us—would reduce the gluttonous use of our planet’s resources. Reducing our intake of meat and poultry alone (as did the Church for many a century until recently) would have a profound impact on the world’s ecology.

Beyond that, of course, we must acknowledge that our use of electricity, automobiles, lawnmowers, snow blowers and many other creature comforts—when added up globally—really do significant damage to our land, water and air. Like Francis, then, let us try slowly to reduce our creature comforts, to live more simply, to love silence more readily.

And lastly, as the days shorten here in the northern hemisphere, let us consider Francis’ love of Christmas. Legend has it that Francis brought to the Church the popular devotion of the Crèche, for, as we read in the Gospel of John, the Word becoming flesh was quite the momentous occasion in salvation history (although, perhaps it would be better if our celebration of the Annunciation was just as grand a celebration of Christ's entrance into humanity). At Christmas, we see an infinite, humble mingling of divinity and the created world. In the Incarnation we see the very being of God’s self-giving grace. Let us then consider an authentic rekindling of Francis’ devotion to Christmas by spending less on material goods and diverting our treasures, time and talents to the good of others and to ecological protection. Whether through supporting local farmers, funding local environmental groups, or teaching others about something as simple as organic gardening, the great good we might do at Christmas could radically alter the way the world sees this great event. And we’d be helping “Sister Mother Earth, who sustains us and governs us and who produces varied fruits with colored flowers and herbs.”

(I just realized something as I’m typing. Note the words that Francis uses in his Canticle: that the earth, “governs us.” This intersection of ecological awareness and human nature is exactly what Benedict XVI has been talking about throughout his pontificate.)

In closing, because I must close eventually, let us remember the real life of Francis, the suffering, joyful mystic. Let us give thanks to God for the man who did his part to change the world and his Church, not by seeking fame or power, but by doing what all Christians are called to do: to live as Christ did, so that in dying we may be born to eternal life.

The quest for truth and meaning

September 2011

Pope Benedict XVI had a few surprises when he spoke to Germany’s parliament last week. One was an apparent reference to the Green Party to illustrate the human quest for truth and meaning.

During the grandfatherly discussion on law and politics, Pope Benedict XVI said that “the emergence of the ecological movement in German politics since the 1970s . . . was and continues to be a cry for fresh air which must not be ignored or pushed aside, just because too much of it is seen to be irrational. Young people had come to realize that something is wrong in our relationship with nature, that matter is not just raw material for us to shape at will, but that the earth has a dignity of its own and that we must follow its directives. In saying this, I am clearly not promoting any particular political party—nothing could be further from my mind. If something is wrong in our relationship with reality, then we must all reflect seriously on the whole situation and we are all prompted to question the very foundations of our culture.”

In praising as noteworthy the views of a political party that may otherwise not be enamored with the church’s teachings on abortion, same-sex marriage and the like, the Holy Father made a number of points. Two require examination.

First, Pope Benedict XVI is and always was certain that dialogue among peoples is central to being human, and thus to evangelizing. We find this in his early seminary studies, in his doctoral work and in his many writings. It does little good for one to demonize those who do not agree with you on every point; in doing so one merely closes doors and isolates human from human, which is antithetical to the incarnational, sacramental nature of Christ’s church.

As he made clear in his third major letter to the church, charity and truth must be intimately united.

Beyond that, Pope Benedict XVI finds evidence in places like the Green Party of a nascent yearning for truth, order and justice. This does not surprise the Holy Father, who knows that one can not genuinely seek what is good without stumbling into Christianity. Again, we find in this discourse those key elements of relation, dialogue, truth and charity that undergirds Pope Benedict XVI’s (and Blessed John Paul II’s) New Evangelization.

We see this as the Holy Father continued his discourse with an explanation about how discussing ecology is ultimately a discussion about what it means to be human.

“The importance of ecology is no longer disputed. We must listen to the language of nature and we must answer accordingly. Yet I would like to underline a point that seems to me to be neglected, today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.”

Certainly, as the pontiff makes clear, he has not joined the Green Party. But in dialoguing with it, he can offer its members and their sympathizers a better direction to eternal truths—and thus assist in the salvation of souls. This is typical of Pope Benedict XVI, who truly is a missionary of Christ in the world of ideas.

Science takes a hit with EPA climate report

The latest eco-buzz comes from criticism by the Office of Inspector General for the US Environmental Protection Agency about the agency's oversight of climate-related research. According to the inspector general’s report, technical information used by the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation for a report on climate-change impacts was a “highly influential scientific assessment,” and thus required a significant level of peer-reviewed evaluation.

EPA counters that the technical information used did not meet the definition of a highly influential scientific assessment, and thus they did not break any internal policies with their reduced level of oversight.

The findings in question are about the extent to which certain air pollutants—known commonly as greenhouse gases—are affecting public health. To make this determination, EPA used documents from three research groups: the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC). EPA took reports from these groups and developed what is known in scientific-bureaucratic lingo as a “technical support document” or TSD. (Have you been keeping track of the acronyms? Welcome to the world of government.)

What the inspector general’s office claims is that this synthesized TSD is important enough to require specific levels of review, and EPA seems to have missed the mark, if only slightly. From the actual report, we read that

whether EPA’s review of its endangerment finding TSD met Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements for peer review depends on whether the TSD is considered a highly influential scientific assessment. In our opinion, the TSD was a highly influential scientific assessment because EPA weighed the strength of the available science by its choices of information, data, studies, and conclusions included in and excluded from the TSD. EPA officials told us they did not consider the TSD a highly influential scientific assessment. EPA noted that the TSD consisted only of science that was previously peer reviewed, and that these reviews were deemed adequate under the Agency’s policy. EPA had the TSD reviewed by a panel of 12 federal climate change scientists. This review did not meet all OMB requirements for peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment primarily because the review results and EPA’s response were not publicly reported, and because 1 of the 12 reviewers was an EPA employee.

EPA’s guidance for assessing data generated by other organizations does not include procedures for conducting such assessments or require EPA to document its assessment. EPA provided statements in its final findings notice and supporting TSD that generally addressed the Agency’s assessment factors for evaluating scientific and technical information, and explained its rationale for accepting other organizations’ data. However, no supporting documentation was available to show what analyses the Agency conducted prior to disseminating the information.

The details of this more-than-a-slap-on-the-wrist (which you can read in the report) may be no more than the nuances of inter-governmental politics, but they may be more than that. Either way, this all comes at a bad time for those in the scientific community who seek to build consensus about—and spur action to mitigate and adapt to—man-made climate change.

As a government environmental regulator, I would think that those developing such an important scientific document would have exhausted all steps to ensure its credibility. Climate change is, after all, the hot-button issue of our day. What concerns me is that in finding that the credibility of this report is slightly suspect, it is easy for some to diminish the credibility of climate change theories in general. And from there it is a small leap to question the credibility of science in general—and the results of that would be horrifying.

One need only review news items on this story to see the results thus far. Read here, or here, or here or here.

These are odd times. As I watch many today question the relevance of religion in our world—and as the abuses by some in the Catholic Church have led many to dismiss the entire Body of Christ as a sham—so now abuses in science (some small, some not-so-small) may be having the same effect to academia and the fields of natural research.

Let us pray that as this debate plays out, scientists will stick to true scientific principles. For the good of truth, and for thus the common good, all such research into the health effects of climate change must be considered to be highly influential, and should be checked, re-checked and checked again. Otherwise, the resulting loss of confidence in academia would very likely lead to a loss of confidence in civilization itself. And that scenario must not be allowed to happen.

May God help us, and may He guide all true searches of truth. Indeed, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches,

The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.

More B16 in Germany: human ecology and acid rain

Benedict XVI has been on fire with his talks and homilies during his four-day visit to Germany. As noted in my previous post on his speech to Germany’s parliament, his words have once again included thoughts on ecology. Two days after he received a standing ovation in parliament, he gave a homily that compared Germany’s trials under Nazi and Communist dictatorships to acid rain. For Catholic ecologists—indeed, for all Catholics and all those who seek what is true—these words invite reflection.

His talk to German lawmakers was a probing reflection on law and its relation to justice, the common good and the roots thereof. Human law must participate in something prior to itself if it is to flourish—and that something we Catholics proclaim is a Someone. What surprised many listening to Benedict XVI (and what resulted in a round of applause) was the pontiff’s calling attention to the good intentions of (apparently) Germany’s Green Party. According to the Green Party’s website, “for nearly 30 years we have been working in the parliament for environmental protection and sustainable development, democracy and human rights, social justice, peace and multilateral international policies.”

Benedict XVI had this to add:

I would like to recall one of the developments in recent political history, hoping that I will neither be misunderstood, nor provoke too many one-sided polemics. I would say that the emergence of the ecological movement in German politics since the 1970s, while it has not exactly flung open the windows, nevertheless was and continues to be a cry for fresh air which must not be ignored or pushed aside, just because too much of it is seen to be irrational. Young people had come to realize that something is wrong in our relationship with nature, that matter is not just raw material for us to shape at will, but that the earth has a dignity of its own and that we must follow its directives. In saying this, I am clearly not promoting any particular political party – nothing could be further from my mind. If something is wrong in our relationship with reality, then we must all reflect seriously on the whole situation and we are all prompted to question the very foundations of our culture.

A few observations: The Holy Father has clearly learned to anticipate the misinterpretation of his words. As an academic, he will over and again use examples of other worldviews to make his points—that is, he will contrast or demonstrate one way of thinking with another. Sometimes listeners and commentators wrongly interpret this as endorsements, which causes Rome to then “clarify” the pontiff’s remarks. But here the Holy Father made a pre-emptive clarification.

More importantly is the main thrust of Benedict XVI’s point: “Young people had come to realize that something is wrong in our relationship with nature . . . If something is wrong in our relationship with reality, then we must all reflect seriously on the whole situation and we are all prompted to question the very foundations of our culture.”

Here the Holy Father praises as noteworthy the views of a political party that may otherwise not be enamored with the Church’s teaching on abortion, same-sex marriage and the like. He does this for a number of reasons, two of which require mentioning.

First, Pope Benedict is and always was certain that dialogue among peoples is central to being human, and thus to evangelizing. We find this in his early seminary studies, in his doctoral work and in his many writings. It does little good for one to demonize those who do not agree with you on every point; in doing so one merely closes doors and isolates human from human, which is antithetical to the incarnational, sacramental nature of Christ’s Church. After all, isolation is the goal of our ancient enemy. It is not the will of God.

Photo: M.Mazur/www.thepapalvisit.org.uk

Beyond that, Benedict XVI finds evidence in the Green Party of the fundamental human yearning for truth, order and justice. This does not surprise the Holy Father, who knows that one can not seek the good without stumbling into a dialogue with Christianity. Again, we find in this discourse those key elements of dialogue, relation, and charity that undergirds Benedict XVI’s (and Blessed John Paul II's) view of “New Evangelization.”

None of this minimizes the Holy Father’s own concerns for real ecological harm. But he sees this harm as a significant symptom of the greater harm being done to, and by, modern worldviews—especially those that would silence the voice of God and  ignore the dialogue that He invites us to. But God finds ways to appear among us nonetheless, for it is the very nature of creation that one be confronted with God’s will. Benedict XVI made this clear in his talk to the German parliament by demonstrating in a grandfatherly, academic way that the Green Party has something in common at its core with Christians—with the Gospel.

That said, we finish listening to the Holy Father’s words:

The importance of ecology is no longer disputed. We must listen to the language of nature and we must answer accordingly. Yet I would like to underline a point that seems to me to be neglected, today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.

Again, we find the pontiff offering the world the saving power of Christian anthropology—that is, “an ecology of man.” Moreover, he is confident that in pointing to such commonalities—to the common sense of relating natural ecology to human ecology—that his listeners will find much to consider about what it means to be human and what it means to be in relation with God. This is the heart of Benedict XVI’s use of ecology.

Two days later, in his homily during Mass at Erfurt's Cathedral Square in Thuringia, the pontiff says this:

Dear Brothers and Sisters, “Praise the Lord at all times, for he is good.” These are the words that we sang just before the Gospel. Yes, we truly have reason to thank God with our whole hearts. If we think back thirty years to the Elizabeth Year 1981, when this city formed part of the German Democratic Republic, who would have thought that a few years later, the wall and the barbed wire at the border would have come down? And if we think even further back, some 70 years, to the year 1941, in the days of National Socialism, who could have predicted that the so-called “thousand-year Reich” would turn to dust and ashes just four years later? Dear Brothers and Sisters, here in Thuringia and in the former German Democratic Republic, you have had to endure first a brown and then a red dictatorship, which acted on the Christian faith like acid rain.

As he often does, Benedict XVI uses a real world ecological issue to demonstrate the role of sin in modern human activity. Indeed, Germany is struggling to protect its signature forests from acid rain. The pope’s words were certainly understood by his listeners. Should this surprise us? Didn't Christ Himself teach us to use examples from nature to teach others greater truths?

Lastly, one hopes that such use of ecology will bridge the ideological divides within the Church, for that is another benefit of the Holy Father’s eco-speak. But then, that is his way. As the Successor of Peter, he continues to seek unity within Holy Mother Church by seeking dialogue with and invitation to those on the outside and those within, however one defines this. (As a good Augustinian, Benedict XVI knows this is not always clear.)

Such dialogue and invitation, using real-world eco-examples, seem to come naturally to Benedict XVI, and for this we give thanks to Almighty God.

B16 to German Parliament: Ecology has a human dimension

Photo: M.Mazur/www.thepapalvisit.org.uk

In his historic talk to the German Parliament today, the Holy Father made the following statement on ecology. It explains much about his interest in ecology as both a scientific and moral issue as well as a topic that teaches us something of what it means to be human. It's no wonder this section of his talk received a loud, spontaneous round of applause.

How can reason rediscover its true greatness, without being sidetracked into irrationality? How can nature reassert itself in its true depth, with all its demands, with all its directives? I would like to recall one of the developments in recent political history, hoping that I will neither be misunderstood, nor provoke too many one-sided polemics. I would say that the emergence of the ecological movement in German politics since the 1970s, while it has not exactly flung open the windows, nevertheless was and continues to be a cry for fresh air which must not be ignored or pushed aside, just because too much of it is seen to be irrational. Young people had come to realize that something is wrong in our relationship with nature, that matter is not just raw material for us to shape at will, but that the earth has a dignity of its own and that we must follow its directives. In saying this, I am clearly not promoting any particular political party – nothing could be further from my mind. If something is wrong in our relationship with reality, then we must all reflect seriously on the whole situation and we are all prompted to question the very foundations of our culture. Allow me to dwell a little longer on this point. The importance of ecology is no longer disputed. We must listen to the language of nature and we must answer accordingly. Yet I would like to underline a point that seems to me to be neglected, today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.

As this blog’s banner shows us, we find the Holy Father specifically discussing this very topic in his third letter to the Church, Caritas in Veritate (see my commentary here), and he makes use of ecology brilliantly in a 2008 World Youth Day talk in Australia (see my posting on it), in which he connects the reality of pollution with the reality of sin.

More to come, but for now, once more we need to say: God bless this pope! And please offer a brief prayer for him and his homeland during these days in travel to Germany.

For more, see the Rome Reports clip below, or here for a full-length video from Catholic TV.

Charity and an inconvenient spokesperson

A good many who do not believe in anthropomorphic climate change turn and run every time Al Gore puts on a show.

Since An Inconvenient Truth, the former vice president has made a point out about making a point about climate change. And dramatically, too. Most recently, Gore’s The Climate Reality Project continues a slick packaging of everything you need to know about man-made climate change. Well, maybe not everything.

From some of the coverage it received, The Climate Reality Project has its fair share of detractors. See here, for instance, and here, here and here.

Thus problem number one: the skeptics that Gore and his followers would like to convert don't seem to be paying attention to him. These people are mostly (but certainly not all) on the political right. They disdain the left’s insistence that humanity is boiling the planet with an excessive population and its nasty capitalism. The inevitable clash of ideologies creates its own show, but a sad one. Truth—the kind that real science should be able to uncover—is the victim of this inconvenient battle.

The real dialogue that is needed on climate change—with the right tone, volume and charity—seems nowhere to be found. Certainly, behind the curtain of academia there is good scientific debate underway. At least one hopes. But most of us don’t have the credentials or the knowledge to get in on that dialogue. And so we rely on the media and others to intercede for us.

Thus, problem number two: there is growing distrust by and for both “sides” of the anthropomorphic climate change debate. This makes it difficult to find a go-between that one can or will trust to be unbiased.

Sure, time and true science will tell us all we need to know about climate change—about if it’s happening, how fast and by what cause. But by the time we know all that we need to know it will be too late. Either the current dire predictions by the majority of scientists are true or they are not. If the former, our climate will change dramatically over the next few decades, which will bring drastic problems for many millions. If the latter, humanity’s trust in science will evaporate, to the detriment of civilization.

Either way, it is important to remember that human reason by itself is insufficient to elevate humanity out of sin, gluttony, ignorance and distrust. Reason must be illuminated with the light of faith to become the true gift that God has bestowed on us, his rational creatures. If reason is to help us quantify and mitigate our climatological problems, it must be rooted in charity.

But as we fallen creatures should know all too well, the real problem is not in our climate, but in our selves.

And so what people like Al Gore need to remember is that  it can be best to decrease so that the truth may increase. We must let love of truth and of neighbor win out over our insistence that we be the victors of a debate. Because if any of us becomes a cause for scandal or a stumbling block to the growth of our brothers and sisters, then we should step aside and let others take over the job of offering to a wary world the realities of unwanted truths.

Catholic Ecology for Catechetical Sunday

Here's a sampling of posts and columns to help use ecology to teach theology, and vice versa:

Ecology from the Holy Father’s perspective: here, and here, and here.

Climate change: here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

Life and abortion: here, and here and here.

Then there's insights from such topics as biodiversity, sailing, coal mines, Easter, and tornado chasing.

And, related to all this: human anthropology.

There's much, much more, so enjoy as you explore  . . .