12th-century Cistercian: Christ the King was needed at COP19

Photo: Flicker/CGIAR Climate

As Catholic’s celebrate the end of their liturgical year this Sunday with the Solemnity of Christ the King, the global environmental community is assessing what happened after a two-week gathering of diplomats in Warsaw who had met to hammer out needed climate-change agreements.

Known informally as “COP19,” the 19th session of the “Conference of the Parties” to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded with mixed, but mostly poor, reviews.

A poster to Twitter this morning said simply, "Leaving #Warsaw with feeling that #COP19 was a waste of energy." In their COP19 statement, the Sierra Club sums up this sentiment. In part, the global eco-organization notes 

Japan and Australia have backed out of their commitments, while other nations sidetracked the conference rehashing old differences. Now, [the planned] 2015 negotiations that should offer hope could instead be bogged down by a weakened process and delays.

Whether it's Haiyan, Sandy, Midwest droughts, or Colorado floods, the threat of climate disruption has become a dangerous new reality. We still have time to act to curb this crisis, but the window is closing quickly -- and we can't afford any more missed opportunities."

Some saw progress in last-minute agreements on future plans (I guess this means we have lots of time for future plans), but those agreements seemed rushed, like the kind people make when the world is watching. The minutiae of the event’s diplomatic layers and eco-speak—of previous gatherings and agreements—were discussed with great difficulty because they generally centered on economics. And those discussions did not go well.

As chronicled in Voice of America, stalling substantial progress were these rather basic questions: who would pay, and how much would they pay, to reduce carbon emissions and assist nations hardest hit by a global changing climate? 

Here the human family is like any family: things can get ugly when the topic of money comes up. This is why over its two-week run, the COP19 gathering saw dramatic walkouts, tense language, and inevitable YouTube satires. Protesters routinely expressed outrage at the slow pace and the difficulty of the talks, as well as the presence of fossil fuel representatives, like the coal industry. Others demanded “system change.”

Demonstrators at COP19. Photo: Flicker/350 .org

But what systems need changing?

This question takes us to the Solemnity of Christ the King, the closing feast of the Catholic year. It is a celebration that reminds us of the lordship of Truth and sacrificial Love over the cosmos—which includes you, me, and whatever governing and economic systems we devise. This feast calls attention especially to the need for humanity to allow Christ into our hearts—to transform selfish dispositions into loving, sacrificial, and virtuous ones.

It should come as no surprise that when nation’s converse about global issues—especially who will pay for them—the brokenness that weighs down the human heart becomes rather apparent. Nations are, after all, large groups of imperfect individuals. Thus it should also come as no surprise that what heals individual brokenness can heal global gatherings of climate-change diplomats.

In the most recent edition of Cistercian Studies Quarterly, a superb essay by Wolfgang Buchmüller introduces us to the twelfth-century Cistercian monk Guerric of Igny. For the Catholic ecologist, the subtitle of essay is appropriate for pondering the failures of COP19: “Christ as the Form of Life.”

Buchmüller writes that Guerric “took up the opinion that, through the act of faith and the uniting to Christ of the very person of the Christian, Christ in fact can become visible in the Christian.”

This Christ becoming visible is, for the purposes herein, what transforms the world from a bickering collection of nations and states to a global community that can work for the common, global good. The problem is that accepting Christ’s offer of transforming grace—of communion—is highly personal and difficult.

Abbaye Notre Dame d'Igny as seen today. 

Photo used with permission: Flicker/pottieremmanuel

Buchmüller tells us that Guerric called attention to this by referring to his own struggles. Buchmüller quotes Guerric saying that

[f]or my part, I acknowledge very often that I know the [virtue of piety] but have not developed a taste for it. Justly then do I experience shame and fear at wearing the habit of the [Cistercian] Order, for almost no proof of virtue accompanies it. How could I appropriate the name and honor of a monk if I do not possess its merits and its virtue? … Pretentious holiness is doubly evil, and the wolf that is caught in lamb’s hide will be subject to all the more severe judgment.

Guerric will use this self-analysis much like St. Augustine. They both throw themselves before Christ and ask for His mercy, His grace, and His love. In doing so they seek the transformation that Truth brings, much like an addict must first admit to being addicted before they can allow something stronger than their weakness to heal them.

Buchmüller writes at the conclusion of his essay that

[t]he susceptibility of the human spirit to temptation because of its own conceit and poisonous pride as well as its persistence in a disordered sensuality is viewed as the predominant block to spiritual growth. For Guerric, who can let fly sharp words for the vices of the spirit that, as it were, kill others with the tongue, as well as for the “dry thorn bush” of indolence, ease, and sensual indulgence that extinguishes the spirit of Christ, the only remedy is the thorough following of the mind of Christ, that is, humility, the only way to peace and to wisdom: “Wisdom has sought rest in all creation, but found it only in the humble.”

The nations of the earth (as well as protesters that demand changes to humanity’s systems) would do well to ponder these words—which, come to think of it, are a central message of Pope Francis and his predecessors. Indeed, the thoughts of Guerric of Igny, the Church that taught him, and the Christ that channels Truth through the Church are the necessary and transformative realities that will soothe the tempers of and bring wisdom to international gatherings of climate change diplomats, advocates, and protesters.

I realize that my secular friends may not appreciate this conclusion. But it remains true that ultimately it will not be our politics and protests alone that will change and save the world. It is the person of Jesus Christ, the King of all creation, the author of the human soul—and it is only Christ, the eternal word of God made flesh—that will take away the sins of the world—even (and especially) the sins of greed, gluttony, and indifference that nations (and individuals) exhibit in abundance as they (and we) continue to choke our atmosphere with far, far too much pollution; consume far, far too much of our planet’s mineral resources, forests, and water; and as we resist any change that will mend whatever darkness comes from our vices, our choices, and our hypocrisies. 

Yes. God saves.

What Guerric preached in the twelfth century is exactly what we today who seek to protect local and global ecological systems must hear, ponder, interiorize, live, and preach: Christ must be our king—as individuals and as nations—for He is the Truth, Life, and Way to solving whatever it is within us that struggles to do what is right. 

     

Catholic Ecology home

       

Bridging the covenants, naturally

Catholic ecologists often quote Hebrew Scriptures. We do so to demonstrate how divine truths are united with the created order. Whether we realize it or not, in quoting these texts we are also building vital bridges of dialogue, understanding, and love with our Jewish brothers and sisters.

Three recent encounters—two virtual and one in person—have had me thinking about all this.

The most recent occurred last night at a talk by Rabbi Michael Klein-Katz, who spoke at the Dominican Order's Providence College for their fall semester’s Theological Exchange Between Catholics and Jews. Rabbi Klein-Katz, who had ministered in New York before moving to Jerusalem in the 1980s, is currently the Scholar-in-Residence at Temple Sinai in Cranston, Rhode Island.

The rabbi spoke powerfully to a group of Christians, Jews, Muslims, students, professors, and guests. His talk, “A Rabbi, a Priest, and an Imam Walk into a Room: The Victories and Challenges of Interreligious Dialogue,” included a good measure of humor, which always helps unite a room.

What struck me about his talk was its reminders of all that Jews and Catholics share. I also was struck with how important it is for such dialogue because there is so much about each other that we don’t know. Still, what we have in common is significant, such as the creation accounts in Genesis—of the very goodness of creation—and of the longing for God to heal all that is broken when humanity’s free will chooses wrongly.

All this resonates with the second encounter that has had me thinking of ecology’s place in Catholic-Jewish dialogue. This is an interview with Rabbi Lawrence Troster, a member of GreenFaith: Interfaith Partners for the Environment. Rabbi Troster offered his thoughts to Dr. Robert Brinkmann of Hofstra University, who had also interviewed me in his series on faith and the environment.

This interview gives us much to consider about the Jewish perspective of ecology. I especially appreciate the rabbi's answer to how the Sabbath relates to all creation.

The Sabbath liturgy is filled with references to Creation as its origin was in the creation cycle of the 7 day week that was central to the theology of the Priestly School of the Temple in Jerusalem in the First Temple period. Thus on the Sabbath we can focus on Creation and also step back from our everyday activities. The traditional rules that govern the Sabbath are meant to do that. But there is also a great celebratory aspect in the traditional practice of the Sabbath. On the Sabbath we are supposed to let Creation be, and utilize our time in relaxation, communal prayer and study and family celebration. By stopping as much as possible our usual activities we can get ourselves out of normal time and enter into a different spiritual place. Again, as with all prayer, it can help us to appreciate Creation and not take it for granted. I believe that Abraham Joshua Heschel once said (in his great book on the Sabbath) that on the Sabbath, because we cannot pick the flower, the flower becomes like us and we become like the flower—each with its own undisturbed place in Creation.

This is great stuff! Indeed, these words made all  the more impact on me given that for us in the United States, Hanukkah is the earliest it can be this year, beginning on Thanksgiving Day, a day that we pause as a nation and give thanks to our Creator. This Hanukkah-Thanksgiving link will not happen in tens of thousands of years—if at all.

The third and last encounter is not nearly as profound as the first two—but then perhaps, in a way, it is.

Odd as this may sound, the topic of Rabbi Klein-Katz’s talk and the words of Rabbi Troster’s interview resonated for me with (of all things) a trailer for a motion picture that stars Russell Crowe. The trailer is for the motion picture Noah and (don’t laugh) it stirred within me a cosmic reminder of God’s love for all living things. Watch for yourselves.

     

     

The movie, to be released next spring, is directed by Darren Aronofsky and written by Aronofsky and Ari Handel. Crowe stars in the title role. Yes, it is rather Hollywood-esque. Its effects, music, and drama seem well aligned with the bombastic mode of contemporary movies. And while I am not sure of the filmmaker's desire (or ability) to teach sound theology, from what I saw in the trailer they do underscore (at least visually) one important element of Genesis: that God seeks to save all creation. 

Of course, Noah is not the only flood story of the ancient Near East. Whatever actually happened in human, planetary, and/or climatological history, it seems reasonable that some sort of flood impressed the ancients. While many cultures told (or borrowed) this story, for the Nation of Israel its meaning goes well beyond God’s vengeance against wickedness. Rather, the authors of Genesis use the epic to tell of God’s love for creation and His mercy towards it—and us, which makes it a lesson about loving our neighbor. For Jews and Christians, Noah is a story of redemption and of relationship.

When I first saw the trailer of Noah, I thought about the ecological links but I did not appreciate how its “God loves all creation” narrative brings Christians and Jews together.

Then I read Rabbi Troster’s interview and listened to Rabbi Klein-Katz. Because of them, I am reminded of how important it is for Christians and Jews to share this ancient epic and all else that connects us in love with each other, with all life, and ultimately with God.

     

     

 Catholic Ecology home

     

     

       

Polluting climate-change science with politics and ideologies

This past Friday I was one of over one hundred “climate leaders” from across New England. We gathered for an all-day summit of (mostly) local, state, and federal government officials as well as a sampling of those in the non-profit and for-profit community. 

While much good came from the event’s conversations, networking, and coordination, a speech by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) reminded me that political grudges don't mix with science and sound policy. 

It also made clear how Catholics may not always be welcome in large groups of eco-advocates.

First, kudos to EPA’s New England region for organizing what was by any measure a huge success. And kudos also to Rhode Island’s eco-friendly Johnson and Wales University for hosting us at their green campus, which sits along the Providence River in the shadow of three massive wind turbines that power the adjacent Fields Point Wastewater Treatment Facility.

Semi-kudos go to Senator Whitehouse, who is arguably one of the most outspoken members of Congress when it comes to eco-issues. He understands better than most elected officials the nuances of climate change and he speaks passionately about its impact on you, me, and the planet. He speaks bluntly about our responsibility to mitigate its causes and to adapt to its effects.

Senator Whitehouse is also calling attention to the issue of ocean acidification—which is also a consequence of excessive amounts of carbon in our atmosphere. This latter issue is rarely discussed, even if it is a ticking time bomb that is already changing the chemistry of our oceans, which can put at risk much of humanity’s sources of food.

But as he is known to do, Senator Whitehouse spent much of his speech last Friday skewering his Republican colleagues, even if he did note that polling data shows that younger Republicans take climate change seriously.

US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Photo: Flicker/Center for American Progress Action Fund

Now given that most present worked in various levels of government, it seemed odd to be lectured by a politician about the ills of his opposing party. Frankly, it made me uncomfortable. I happen to know and like a few Republicans and even a few climate change deniers, even if we don’t agree. Given the type of gathering, might it not have been fair to have a Republican defend their party, or at least be available to correct anything said that may not be accurate?

Then there is this question: why were so many government officials—mostly the unelected variety like me—applauding so wildly for a speech that was so political? Sure, we were all delighted to hear a sitting United States senator champion this cause—a cause we all work with in the trenches. But if my read of the room was right, a great many of my colleagues enjoyed lampooning Republicans and climate-change deniers, which, to me, seems inappropriate.

And this gets me to my last concern—a moment of extreme discomfort for me.

During the question and answers, a participant asked if the strategy that led last week to the US Senate passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) could be a model for like-minded politicians to pass whatever bills needed passing to deal with climate change. (The women gave a delighted “woo-hoo” when she mentioned ENDA, a bill which the Church does not support because of its inability to protect religious liberty.) The senator agreed that there was a link between the success of ENDA and the eventual acceptance by Republicans of climate change needs.

This exchange did not make me feel welcome.

A small point? Perhaps. But a telling one. Even with the senator’s earlier mention of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ support for sound climate change policy, the question and answer about EDNA reminded me that Catholics are usually not aligned with the wider eco-community, which is why so many Catholics are suspicious of eco-issues and why so many eco-minded folk are suspicious of the Church. (That said, one state representative present at the summit, who was instrumental in passing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island, was, as always, exceedingly friendly to me and, it seems, happy that we have in ecology an issue that we can agree on.)

Because this was a work event, I had to tread lightly then, as I do here. But I would imagine I have the right to say this: climate change is a matter of science—which was Senator Whitehouse's main point. It should be approached, then, with reason and clarity, not with politics and ideology. When the senator stuck with science he was fantastic. When he spoke of political armies and polarizing social issues he was divisive.

My concern is that many engaged in climate change mitigation and response (in government and elsewhere) seem prone to encourage ever more division rather than seek relationships with those who have not yet accepted anthropogenic climate change. If the proper regulations and incentives are to be in place to deal with climate change then we’d better learn to stick with what we can agree on when we can and in matters where we don’t agree we better learn to do without political fist fights.

Given the very real danger that climate change and ocean acidification poses—as do many other ecological issues—cooperation, understanding, and relationships are vital for the times ahead. Thus, as always, Our Lord has something to teach those of us entrusted with building community, teaching the uniformed, and protecting the globe’s natural, life-sustaining environment:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mt. 5:38-48)

Catholic Ecology Home

       

By the books: Charlie Camosy's For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics, Consistent Action

With the Data Series interviews of natural scientists becoming so popular, I'm expanding the interview format to authors who write about aspects of ecology. 

And so the "By the books" series is born.

Up first is Dr. Charles Camosy, Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics at Fordham University. Dr. Camosy was kind enough to field some questions on his latest book, For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics, Consistent Action (Franciscan).

Dr. Camosy has published articles in the American Journal of Bioethics, the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, the Journal of the Catholic Health Association, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post, and Commonweal Magazine. 

His other two books are Too Expensive to Treat? Finitude, Tragedy, and the Neonatal ICU (Eerdmans), which was a 2011 award-winner with the Catholic Media Association, and Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization (Cambridge) was named a 2012 “best book” with ABC Religion and Ethics.

 

Charlie Camosy

Dr. Camosy received the 2012-13 Robert Bryne award from the Fordham Respect Life Club, and was also recently selected for the international working group "Contending Modernities" which attempts to bring secular liberalism, Catholicism, and Islam into dialogue about various difficult ethical issues. He is the founder and co-director of the Catholic Conversation Project and a member of the ethics committee at the Children's Hospital of New York. He is also a founder and contributor at Catholic Moral Theology.

A particular aspect that I appreciate about Dr. Camosy is his insistence that an authentically Christian, pro-life ethic transcends "blue" liberalism and "red" conservativism. Thus he speaks in terms not of those polarizing colors and labels but of the need for a “magenta” way of engaging issues like life and politics.This is why when you follow Dr. Camosy on Twitter you can do so at @nohiddenmagenta.

Catholic Ecology: What reason or reasons prompted you to tackle the moral questions around Catholics and our relationship with the animal world?

Dr. Camosy: I didn't always have this as a concern. I grew up in rural Wisconsin where hunting and eating animals was a way of life. In graduate school, however, my mind was changed by arguments and evidence, and I concluded that eating meat from factory farms is morally unacceptable. The horrific ways that well over 50 billion non-human animals are tortured and slaughtered in factory farms is something in which no decent person should take part. And it is getting worse. With new biotechnologies, we are now able to genetically alter these animals so that they feel constantly hungry and eat as fast and as much as they can. If things weren't bad enough for these animals, now they live their whole pitiful lives without even the modest relief of a full stomach. It is shameful and sinful that huge corporations treat animals this way in order to make a profit, but they do so only because we are willing to spend money on meat the way we do: that is, without a thought for the welfare of the animals who arrive on our dinner plate. When we cooperate with such evil, our behavior is also shameful and sinful.

CE: What is unique that Catholic thought brings to this conversation?

Dr. Camosy: Catholic teaching on the evils of consumerism, and on cooperation with evil, could not be more clear. We need to resist the social structures of consumerism, and avoid formal and material participation in the grave evil of the kind that goes on in factory farms.  Some say that God's giving us "dominion" in Genesis permits us doing whatever we wish with animals, but this is simply not true. Dominion is understood as nonviolent stewardship—God even explicitly gives us the green plants to eat, not animals. In Genesis 2, God brings the animals to Adam "because it is not good man should be alone." The Biblical understanding of our relationship to animals is that they are to be our companions, not our food. As I show in my book, this understanding was affirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger shortly before he became Pope Benedict XVI. The Catechism of the Catholic Church insists that we "owe" animals kindness and that we may only cause them to suffer and die in situations of "need." Pope Francis says he supports the slow food movement, and I wouldn't be surprised if he advanced the Church's teaching on animals during his time as the Bishop of Rome.

CE: God originally gave us a no-meat diet in the first chapter of Genesis, which is considered to be a type of master plan for humanity and our relationship with God and nature. It was only after God’s covenant with Noah that we are allowed to eat meat. Given that we live in the fallen world outside of Eden, what significance does this have for the Catholic view of vegetarianism and veganism?

Dr. Camosy: The ideal state for humanity, as the Bible makes clear, is nonviolent vegetarianism. Things change only after sin enters the world, mostly in the form of violence. While it is clear that formal participation with factory farms is gravely evil, the question remains, "Should we eat meat at all?" What about meat that comes from animals which have been treated with kindness? I suspect that this debate along the same lines as other kinds of Christian debates about violence. For many Christians, Jesus seems to be calling is to a completely nonviolent life of pacifism, but other Christians claim that such a life isn't possible until the Kingdom of God comes in its fullness. I suppose I'm in the second camp, and admit that violence is necessary in rare situations to protect innocent human life. But as the Catechism says, we are not permitted to kill animals unless we "need" to—and that, like engaging in other kinds of violence, would only be in very rare situations. Especially today. 

CE: Critics of Catholics embracing vegan/vegetarian diets as a formal teaching point to Christ eating meat and fish. How do Catholic proponents of a meatless diet incorporate this into Catholic moral teachings?

Dr. Camosy: For starters, it is interesting to note that we never see Jesus eating meat anywhere in the Gospels. Not once. I take on more difficult passages (Jesus and the swine, Peter's dream, Paul talking about oxen, etc.) in the book, but it does seem clear that Jesus and his companions in the ancient world needed to eat fish to get a healthy amount of protein. However, it isn't at all clear what this means for most of us in the developed West. For us, eating meat could hardly rise to the level of "need" given all of the alternatives which now exist.

CE: Tell us a little about issues like factory livestock farms. I have read about the environmental concerns around large-scale meat production facilities (a term that in itself tells us that something is not right with our view towards animals). What other concerns are there? And aren't those concerns assuaged if we buy meat from local, animal-friendly farms? 

Dr. Camosy: I said a bit about this already, and buying meat from local farms is a much, much better option. No question. In general, we do much better buying locally rather than simply rolling over for consumerism and picking the cheapest price. We absolutely must become more connected to the processes by which food and other products come to us--not least to make sure that we are not formally participating in grave evil. This is a great opportunity for the Church to be the Church, and create structures of community to resist consumerism. Perhaps more parishes and dioceses could have formal programs where locally grown and raised food could be for sale? And these places should absolutely refuse to serve factory farmed meat.

CE: Critics argue that because animals are beneath humanity in dignity, we should not consider animals within the realm of life issue—even if a diet that includes meat often comes with public and personal health issues. How do you respond to this criticism?

Dr. Camosy: Pro-lifers should be especially skeptical of this reasoning. Our opponents also try to minimize or ignore the value of prenatal children precisely because they find their dignity inconvenient. The result is horrific violence and death. Though non-human animals are not of the same value as human persons, God has given them very high value, and we ought not to ignore it simply because we find it inconvenient. The result is also horrific violence and death. Don't think that animals have very high value? Even if you reject what the Catechism, the Bible, and Pope Benedict has said, consider the evidence. Chickens can beat human beings at Tic-Tac-Toe. Pigs can play video games. Elephants understand and mourn death. Dolphins recognize themselves in a mirror. Great Apes can learn sign language and even teach it to their children. Such beings are not mere things for us to do with as we please. God created them "good" independent of our desire to use and kill them as a mere means to our end. This is why the Catechism uses the language of justice in claiming that we owe them kindness. 

CE: Catholics could theoretically cut their meat consumption by 14% if we adhered to meatless Fridays. What else can we do to better understand and respond to the concerns that you and others are raising?

Dr. Camosy: Interestingly, much of what needs to be done could coincide with returning to some traditional Church practices. Happily, Cardinal Dolan has made a push for Catholics to return to meatless Fridays. Perhaps we should follow our Orthodox brothers and sisters and give meat up on Wednesdays as well. Then, if we participate in the growing trend of "Meatless Mondays", we will have cut out 3/7th of the meat from our diet. Perhaps we should also return to the more traditional practice of avoiding meat for the entire season of Lent. That's a good start.  Also remember that the ancient Church strictly prohibited eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. And given that factory farmed meat has clearly been sacrificed to the idol of consumerism, we ought to heed this wisdom and avoid such meat. We ought to replace such idols in favor of a relationship with the God of Jesus Christ, who calls us to resist such consumerism.

 Catholic Ecology Home

Church leaders: "Transgenic" plants must be used to feed poor

Many queries that lead people to this blog are from people seeking information on the Catholic position on genetically modified foods. I haven’t posted much on the issue because I didn't feel I had the right amount of information.

But now I do.

When I interviewed him for a recent interview on biodiversity, Dr. Peter Raven of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences sent me a good deal of documentation on the use of genetic sciences in the arena of food security and supply. And yesterday, Cardinal Peter K. A. Turkson of Ghana told an audience in Des Moines, Iowa that the findings of science can and should be used to feed the hungry.

As reported in the Des Moines Register,

Citing Pope John Paul II, Turkson told a room filled with about 1,000 people attending the World Food Prize symposium in downtown Des Moines that adverse climate change has affected food production in poor countries, “and the findings of science must be put to use in order to ensure a high productivity of land.”

Turkson asked why biotechnology has elicited “so much displeasure, distrust, skepticism and opposition,” when the “world rejoiced at achievements of Norman Borlaug,” the Iowa native and Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was credited with saving millions of lives with development of disease-resistant wheat varieties.

Cardinal Turkson. Photo: Flicker/Catholic Church (England and Wales)

[…]

Turkson suggested some “moral parameters” to help guide dialogue. “Some may claim that research is ethically neutral, that its application is either good or bad,” he said. “But there’s no human activity that’s ethically neutral.”

“There is a need sometimes to be prudent,” he said. “Let’s take every reasonable measure of caution beforehand to avoid the risk of human health or the environment. Such prudence is necessary to any element to advance the common good.”

And there should be transparency with the public, Turkson said. “Adopt the highest standards of communication with the public as well as rules of labeling to guarantee producers’ and consumers’ rights to information.”

“This is necessary for everyone to have a true choice,” Turkson said. “For what makes us truly human is our power to choose.”

He also called patent rights legitimate, given that research is expensive. “But it needs also to be monitored and regulated. Fair ways must be found to share the fruits of research and ensure developing countries have access to resources and innovations. “It’s crucial for humanity’s attainment of zero hunger objective,” he said.

These words echoed comments made by Dr. Raven, who himself is renowned for his studies of life on earth.

In a paper delivered to the International Symposium on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms, Dr. Raven concluded that

[a]ssessments of the biosafety effects of GM crops on biodiversity should not be overly politically-driven or a burdensome impedance to delivering this technology broadly.  Biosafety scientists and policy makers need to recognize the undeniable truth that inappropriate actions resulting in indecision also have negative consequences. We should employ all the tools at our disposal in the drive to build sustainable agriculture. It is no longer acceptable to delay the use of any strategy that is safe and will help us achieve the ability to feed the world’s people. (Emphasis original)

Dr. Peter Raven

Courtesy of the Missouri Botanical Garden

Elsewhere, he has examined the impact of transgenic foods on biodiversity, a topic of professional interest to him. In writing this February to colleagues in India, Dr. Raven outlined a series of arguments to support genetically modified foods. While lengthy for a blog posting, they are helpful to read because they blend a good deal of practical and moral considerations with what science has to offer. According to Dr. Raven:

1. All crops are genetically modified. They have been the object of selection for the past 11,000 years, since crop agriculture was first developed in the Middle East and subsequently spread throughout the world. One needs only to compare a cultivated strain with its wild progenitor to know the truth of this statement.

2. For the past 200 years or so, precise scientific breeding methods have been applied to the improvement of crops. Seven more or less drastic breeding methods have been applied to re-shuffling the chromosome of individual plants and plant groups, as outlined by Gustafson, Borlaug and Raven (2010). With the exception of transgenics only, no one has ever questioned the inherent safety of any of these methods.

3. In 1974 Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen for the first time inserted a gene from one unrelated kind of organism into another, this precisely modifying the genetic instructions encoded in its DNA. For the past 40 years scientists have been working to determine the safety of such transgenic organisms, and they have universally determined that there is nothing intrinsically unsafe about them or the products derived from them. There is not even a theory as to why they should be unsafe—none. Every academy of science in the world that has issued a statement on the safety of food produced by GM crops has agreed that there is no danger; included are the academies of India, Brazil, China, Mexico, the U.S., the U.K., and a number of other countries, each of which reached this conclusion independently after a period of study, review, and reflection.

4. Foods and medicines derived from transgenic plants have been in common and growing in use for some 20 years. These include virtually all beer, virtually all cheese, virtually all soy products, about a quarter of the medicines we use, most maize, much squash, and virtually all papayas produced. It is estimated that currently in the U.S. about 8% of the total diet consists of GM-derived components.  Not a single case of ill health has originated among those consuming such foods, and again, there is no theory about why they would become ill from consuming such foods. 

5. It is sometimes argued that transgenic plants hybridizing with the wild or weedy relatives might give rise to super-weeds or pests of some sort. With some 20,000 kinds of plants in the world classified as weeds, and no demonstrations of the predicted “super weeds,” this seems an argument of no practical value. The excessive use of herbicides or pesticides gives rises to resistant weeds whether or not transgenic plants are involved. The development of additional herbicide-resistant strains of crop plants is being pursued actively by a number of companies.

6. It is argued that the use of transgenic crops endangers the survival of traditional crop varieties and of the practices involved in cultivating them.  Such replacement is a property of any modern crop variety, and it has nothing to do with transgenic varieties per se. India’s excellent National Bureau on Plant Genetic Resources does a fine job of preserving traditional varieties in the country.  It cannot be expected that farmers should continue growing low-yielding strains of crops to preserve them unless the farmers are subsidized for doing so.  In other words, one can’t prop up sustainability on the backs of poor farmers.

Dr. Raven (who is not Catholic) isn't alone in his arguments. In May, 2009, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences issued a statement (that Dr. Raven contributed to) that supports the use of transgenic applications in agriculture. Impressively, the statement summarizes the research and thoughts of some forty scientists and it makes clear up front that researchers took as their guiding words statements of Benedict XVI in Caritas in Veritate (including that “[t]echnology, in this sense, is a response to God's command to till and to keep the land (cf. Gen 2:15) that he has entrusted to humanity, and it must serve to reinforce the covenant between human beings and the environment, a covenant that should mirror God's creative love.” Emphasis original to Caritas in Veritate.)

The document makes many points similar to those noted above by Dr. Raven. As it concludes a variety of considerations, we read that

[g]iven these scientific findings, there is a moral imperative to make the benefits of GE technology available on a larger scale to poor and vulnerable populations who want them and on terms that will enable them to raise their standards of living, improve their health and protect their environments.

And so in summary, many leaders in the Church are supporting the use of genetic engineering when used morally, rightly, and for the common good. My brothers and sisters in Christ who consider modified foods abhorrent will not be comfortable with this. And indeed, since these statements of support are related to prudential matters and are not de fide pronouncements from the Chair of St. Peter, Catholics can ignore them. But would that be wise?

As a proponent of organic gardening, farming, and eating, I find myself asking that and other questions. I, too, have much to learn and think about. And certainly, the conversation around such issues comes with many strong opinions.

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences acknowledges this debate. It also engages it. Indeed, its closing overview of issues such as the public’s understanding of science and the role of the private sector are worth the time to read and reread, as are the statement’s concluding recommendations. As did Cardinal Turkson in Des Moines, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences statement speaks to many of the concerns raised by those who object to genetic modifications within the food supply—concerns like greed, organizational corruption, scientific uncertainty, and so many other characteristics of our fallen human race.

Thus this conversation is a particular, real-world application of what we find in Section 159 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches us about the relation between faith and reason. And as this posting has already taken more space than most, we’ll end it (but not the conversation) with those words from the Catechism—words we should read with prayerful consideration of their implications in issues like feeding the least of our brothers and sisters.

§159: Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. 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."

UPDATE: A reader commented on the inclusion of biotechnology in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. This is indeed an important piece to the story. The relevant sections of the Compendium are 472 to 480 and they do indeed echo what has been noted above. Here's one example: 

473. The Christian vision of creation makes a positive judgment on the acceptability of human intervention in nature, which also includes other living beings, and at the same time makes a strong appeal for responsibility.[1002] In effect, nature is not a sacred or divine reality that man must leave alone. Rather, it is a gift offered by the Creator to the human community, entrusted to the intelligence and moral responsibility of men and women. For this reason the human person does not commit an illicit act when, out of respect for the order, beauty and usefulness of individual living beings and their function in the ecosystem, he intervenes by modifying some of their characteristics or properties. Human interventions that damage living beings or the natural environment deserve condemnation, while those that improve them are praiseworthy. The acceptability of the use of biological and biogenetic techniques is only one part of the ethical problem: as with every human behaviour, it is also necessary to evaluate accurately the real benefits as well as the possible consequences in terms of risks. In the realm of technological-scientific interventions that have forceful and widespread impact on living organisms, with the possibility of significant long-term repercussions, it is unacceptable to act lightly or irresponsibly.

Catholic Ecology Home 

Data Series #5: What the weather can and cannot say about climate

The Data Series continues with a look at trends in weather and what they can and cannot tell us about climate.

Helping us with this is David Vallee, the Hydrologist-in-Charge of the National Weather Service’s Northeast River Forecast Center in Taunton, Massachusetts. The center provides detailed forecasting information to National Weather Service Forecast Offices and the hundreds of federal, state and local water resource entities throughout the Northeast and New York. Mr. Vallee has also served as Science and Operations Officer and Hurricane Program Leader at the NWS Weather Forecast Office. Mr. Vallee is a graduate of Lyndon State College and is known for his outreach and education work on the behavior of New England Hurricanes, including many appearances on local radio and T.V. networks, the Weather Channel, the History Channel and the Discovery Channel.

NOAA's David Vallee

Mr. Vallee has also conducted research addressing severe storms, floods, heavy rainfall production, the behavior of New England Hurricanes, and most recently looking at the changing river flood behavior as a result of the combined effects of a trending climate (warmer/wetter) and urbanization over the past 40 years.

Catholic Ecology: There has been lots of talk about this or that extreme weather event being “proof” of climate change. What should people know about the differences and the links between weather and climate?

David Vallee: We must remember that day-to-day weather is just that—changeable on a day-to-day basis. Changes in a region's climate happens over time—often on time spans of decades. No one single event should be "blamed" on climate change. However, trends in the behavior of weather systems may be based on our changing climate.
   

CE: How would a warmer climate impact everyday weather or the seasons themselves?

Vallee: Over time, we would expect to see a short winter season, increased precipitation over the long term, and a continued reduction in sub-zero temperatures and an increase in temperatures exceeding 90 degrees. Keep in mind however that this doesn't rule out having a cold/snowy winter or a cool/damp summer from time to time. These types of events however have become less frequent. The trends across much of New England clearly suggest we are in a part of the country where annual precipitation is increasing, annual temperatures are increasing and season-to-season snowfall has become extremely variable from one season to the next.

CE: It does seem like there have been more storms here in the Northeast and across the USA and the globe. What does the data say about trends in precipitation and storm intensities?

Vallee: It is difficult to say explicitly that storm intensity has changed. Likewise, it is difficult to say the frequency of any particular type of major storm event has increased. But what we are seeing is that when these major storm systems develop they seem to packing more of a punch; more moisture, slower moving, more energy etc. Our region has seen this play out in a variety of ways. The March 2010 floods [in Southeastern New England] consisted of 4 major rain events in 5 weeks, influenced by El Nino and blocking high pressure to our north over Greenland. In a warming climate these types of blocked atmospheric flow regimes are expected to become more frequent. What this means in our region is that if we get stuck in a blocked pattern that has the storm track aimed at New England, we will see lots of precipitation, be it rain or snow.  

CE: Are there other trends you’re noticing that have you concerned?

Vallee: The combination of increased annual rainfall, the up-tick in heavy precipitation events, falling upon our urbanized small to moderately sized watersheds has me most concerned. A wetter regime means our lakes, reservoirs, and soils are wetter more often. Urbanization along some of the basins as limited their capacity to effectively move the water through the system. Increase the rainfall just a bit and you increase the risk for flooding. Similarly, the sea level rise on the coast is equally concerning. We have lost 150 to 250 ft or more of coastline since the 1938 hurricane. This does two things: it places more properties at risk for flooding from hurricanes and it sets us up for a weaker storm being capable of producing inundation along the coast that we would have expected to only happen from a stronger storm. I feel that to some degree, Sandy illustrated this along the Rhode Island coastline last October.

CE: How do recent storms in our area differ from what we may have seen in the past?

Vallee: Parts of the northeast [United States] are now experiencing storms that have more moisture to work with. I don't believe we are necessarily seeing an increase number of storms (nor'easters, hurricanes, etc.). That behavior change is what may be driving the increase in annual precipitation throughout the region. Similarly, prolonged cold snaps have become less frequent and this has resulted in a shift in the spring date when ice typically lets out of the interior rivers, results in a reduced duration of snow covered ground, and during the transition between winter and spring, can result in higher river flows from runoff prior to the start of the growing season.

Aftermath of Sandy along the Rhode Island coast. 

Photo RI DOT

CE: What else would you like people to know about recent weather trends and patterns, or possible future trends?

Vallee: Given the new regime we seem to be in, the questions in mind are focused on infrastructure; are we designed for this new "place" we find ourselves in?  This applies to the vulnerable coastline as well as our inland rivers and streams. Difficult choice lay ahead when it comes to land use, design criteria, local preparedness and mitigation efforts, etc. Even if we were to plateau [at current] trends and stay about where we are today, are we positioned to deal with these type of weather events to reduce their impacts, reduce the damages and the risks posed to the infrastructure, the business community, and our citizens? Time will tell.

Catholic Ecology Home

Opening our doors, fostering dialogue

A grainy picture of St. Francis overlooking local climate scientists

at the Diocese of Providence's St. Francis Feast gathering.

A week ago tonight my diocese observed the Feast of St. Francis with a special evening of faith and reason. (I should have posted on this sooner, but it was one of those weeks.)

Some fifty people came to hear local scientists and policy makers speak about climate change and how it has impacted—and how it will increasingly impact—Rhode Island and Rhode Islanders. It was a wonderful evening that brought together my friends and colleagues in the Church with my friends and colleagues in environmental professions. The event also allowed me to meet some fine folks that came by to listen in.

The intent of the gathering (held at St. Paul’s school auditorium in Cranston) was not to win converts to climate change or to Catholicism. Rather, the goal was simply to allow the Church to demonstrate its proper role of bringing moral arguments to worldly matters. In this case, the matter happened to be the highly polarized subject of climate change. But in doing this—by allowing the Church to provide a forum for a climate change talk—some of those who showed up for the science were also introduced, perhaps for a first time or in a new way, to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

The result was, by any account, an overwhelming success. I encourage all my Catholic brothers and sisters to do something like this for any sort of environmental issue. It’s not hard to do. And you don’t need to be a scientific expert to do it. In fact, there are many resources available to help, most especially at the Catholic Climate Covenant.

Here’s the basic recipe:

• Choose your eco topic—preferably one of some local interest.
• Reach out to experts, local ones particularly but national ones if you can. Chances are they are looking for community venues to share the fruits of their efforts and the findings of their profession’s science.
• Find a parish that’s willing to host the event—preferably one that serves a community affected by the issue at hand.
• Schedule.
• Advertise.
• Reach out to the media—reporters are typically intrigued when the Church offers these sorts of events.
• Bring food.
• Prepare a free handout or booklet on science of the topic at hand and on the Church’s teachings on ecology. (Again, there are some great resources at the Catholic Climate Covenant as well as at the website for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)
• Open with prayer and an overview of why the Church desires to help in such worldly matters; let the experts speak for most of the event; wrap up with prayer; then let the informal conversations take whatever form they will. And, of course, trust always in the presence of the Holy Spirit.

A great example of a Church-sponsored eco gathering took place in 2012 when two dioceses from Ohio sponsored a public meeting on fracking—an issue of great local concern. It was by all accounts a fantastic success in bringing various parties to the table and allowing the public to have access to the conversation.

I’ve been thinking of that event a lot lately. Now that my diocese’s gathering on climate change has come and gone, I’d like to work to up the ante by planning earlier, providing more outreach, and bringing in some nationally known names. After all, the topic of climate change is not going away and Rhode Island will experience the certain effects of rising seas, increasingly strong coastal storms, and heavier inland rains. This makes it a moral necessity to get information to the public and to foster a dialogue that maintains the dignity of the human person and the importance of the common good.

I also appreciate the effect that such events have on those who may know very little about Catholicism—about the Church that instituted universities, hospitals, orphanages, and the scientific method. Indeed, from my own experiences, those entrenched in the secular world of environmental policy—whether in government or academia—are getting worried. Human policies and efforts seem to be taking things only so far—and not far enough.

And so, perhaps, secular scientists may notice that the Church is offering an alternative to the policies of human thought. Perhaps they hear within the Church’s teaching a voice of reason guided by morality, one that transcends human opinion and exhorts virtuous behavior.

All this makes the hosting of such eco events more than a nicety that can be done if time allows. As Pope Francis has been showing and urging us, the Church must insert her voice and activity into the human condition. This includes matters of serious ecological realities—for these directly relate to the common good and they impact individual lives.

And so let us pray for and help each other make these gatherings happen. Let us invite scientists and our neighbors to our Church halls and to our cathedrals. Let us support each other in bringing the Catholic voice to eco issues (and others)—and in doing so let us introduce our neighbors directly (that is, unfiltered by the media or past perceptions) to the Church and her quite necessary truths.

I look forward to hearing from a great many of you as you consider, plan, and implement your local eco gathering(s). After all, as more of these events are held, we can, by the grace of God, help in our own small ways to renew the face of the earth. 

 Catholic Ecology Home