Eco-Theology

[trickster]

I read a book recently on “Green Nuns” which is a story of how religious women communities are mowing down the lawns of their convents and planting food, indigenous plants, taking care of the forests and woods and/or watersheds on their land and finding ways to live in more ecologically consistent ways with the earth.

Can people share stories of ways in which our church encourages living in harmony with the rest of creation? Obviously St. Francis is a good example…and was not Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha a saint of something of the environment (I am not sure don’t have the facts on that)…

Bruce

 

[floresco]

Catholics tend to approach environmental issues from a different perspective that secularists. Fundamental to the Catholic approach is a belief in God as Creator. Also crucial in Catholic thinking is a belief that God gave man rights and responsibilities as stewards of creation.

It is not unusual in secular thinking to put humans on the same level as the rest of creation. So, while it is possible for Catholics and secularists to reach similar conclusion on some issues, the difference in basic assumptions often leads to very different conclusions.

 

[trickster]

Catholics tend to approach environmental issues from a different perspective that secularists. Fundamental to the Catholic approach is a belief in God as Creator. Also crucial in Catholic thinking is a belief that God gave man rights and responsibilities as stewards of creation.

It is not unusual in secular thinking to put humans on the same level as the rest of creation. So, while it is possible for Catholics and secularists to reach similar conclusion on some issues, the difference in basic assumptions often leads to very different conclusions.

I come from an Aboriginal Catholic perspective, so for us, the “profane” and “sacred” are not separated as they are in western culture. I appreciate your point(s). I always have a problem with the Genesis text re “dominion” over the rest of creation…it is rather an anthro-centric statement, also reflective of a culture that is maybe 3000 years old (actually do you know when Genesis was written?)

I believe that there is a real need to rethink this “traditional paradgim” as it does not serve us anymore. Or maybe - to be consistent with historical development of church teaching - we as Catholics can expand our thinking in terms of updating our understanding of “stewardship”…

I am curious as to how a secularist would differ from a Catholic with respect to a co-existence with the rest of creation…how would our different assumptions (and what are those assumptions) lead us to very different conclusion…that is an intriguing thought for me.

Bruce

 

[floresco]

I come from an Aboriginal Catholic perspective, so for us, the “profane” and “sacred” are not separated as they are in western culture. I appreciate your point(s). I always have a problem with the Genesis text re “dominion” over the rest of creation…it is rather an anthro-centric statement, also reflective of a culture that is maybe 3000 years old (actually do you know when Genesis was written?)

I believe that there is a real need to rethink this “traditional paradgim” as it does not serve us anymore. Or maybe - to be consistent with historical development of church teaching - we as Catholics can expand our thinking in terms of updating our understanding of “stewardship”…

This “traditional paradigm” was revealed by God is His Holy Scriptures. It is not open to being updated. If it is unpalatable to the modern mind, then the modern mind must change.

I am curious as to how a secularist would differ from a Catholic with respect to a co-existence with the rest of creation…how would our different assumptions (and what are those assumptions) lead us to very different conclusion…that is an intriguing thought for me.

A specific example of this is vegetarianism. One may encounter vegetarians with secular assumptions who do not eat meat because they believe they do not have the right to take the lives of animals. While a Catholic might be a vegetarian, it would have to be for a different reason.

 

[trickster]

This “traditional paradigm” was revealed by God is His Holy Scriptures. It is not open to being updated. If it is unpalatable to the modern mind, then the modern mind must change…

No, the traditional paradigm I am talking about is subject to the progressive nature of revelation. The church has constantly reviewed new facts with established doctrine in an effort to reconcile or reposition earlier dogma’s so that they make sense to contemporary knowledge. I don’t think that “stewardship” or the role of humanity with respect to the rest of the world is served by the old understanding as we are learning so much more about the inter-connectivity of creation. But I agree that new understanding, reconciling old interpretations of teaching does not take away from the validity of that particular church’s teaching on the stewardship responsibility of humanity. Hope that explains a bit better what I am thinking and proposing.

A specific example of this is vegetarianism. One may encounter vegetarians with secular assumptions who do not eat meat because they believe they do not have the right to take the lives of animals. While a Catholic might be a vegetarian, it would have to be for a different reason
…

OK. That makes sense. There are, of course, many kinds of vegetarians and philosophies around that…point well made

Bruce

 

[floresco]

No, the traditional paradigm I am talking about is subject to the progressive nature of revelation. The church has constantly reviewed new facts with established doctrine in an effort to reconcile or reposition earlier dogma’s so that they make sense to contemporary knowledge. I don’t think that “stewardship” or the role of humanity with respect to the rest of the world is served by the old understanding as we are learning so much more about the inter-connectivity of creation. But I agree that new understanding, reconciling old interpretations of teaching does not take away from the validity of that particular church’s teaching on the stewardship responsibility of humanity. Hope that explains a bit better what I am thinking and proposing.

The term “progressive revelation” has a technical meaning in Christian theology. Here is the Wikipedia explanation:

Progressive revelation in Christianity is the concept that the sections of the Bible that were written later contain a fuller revelation of God compared to the earlier sections. For instance, the theologian Charles Hodge wrote,

"The progressive character of divine revelation is recognized in relation to all the great doctrines of the Bible. .. What at first is only obscurely intimated is gradually unfolded in subsequent parts of the sacred volume, until the truth is revealed in its fulness." [1]

The ultimate revelation of God is understood to be found in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Gospels. For example, the New Testament is be used to better understand and interpret the Old Testament. Likewise, all sections of the Bible are believed accurate in conservative Christian theology.

I suggest you don’t use the term as you have in your writing above as it could create confusion. I think that you are trying to talk about what we call development of doctrine. Here is an explanation from catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop

Christians have always understood that at the close of the apostolic age—with the death of the last surviving apostle, John, perhaps around A.D. 100—public revelation ceased (Catechism of the Catholic Church 66–67, 73). Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17) and is the ultimate teacher of humanity: “You have one teacher, the Messiah” (Matt. 23:10). The apostles recognized that their task was to pass on, intact, the faith given to them by the Master: “[A]nd what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2); “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it” (2 Tim. 3:14).

However, this closure to public revelation doesn’t mean there isn’t progress in the understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church. Anyone interested in Christianity will ask, “What does this doctrine imply? How does it relate to that doctrine?”

The inter-connectivity of creation is already well represented in Catholic tradition through the thought of St. Francis. He addressed all God’s creatures as his brothers and sisters to show our relationship. But we can’t just throw out the idea of dominion because it is not palatable to modern sensibilities. We can emphasize the service aspect of dominion (“He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.” Matt 23:11) but we do not have the option of rejecting Revelation.

 

[Mintaka]

The biggest traditional Catholic environmental thing is our heritage of prayers and blessings for animals, plants, the weather, and so on. We also have a lot of traditions, regional and worldwide, which tie the Church’s calendar to making the whole year sacred.

Priests and religious who say the Office/Liturgy of the Hours are always singing and reciting the “Canticle of the Three Children” from Daniel 3 and the many nature psalms, which point out the obedience, order, and beauty of Creation. Job and a lot of other Scriptures get into this also, and Jesus is obviously pretty knowledgeable about nature as well as being able to command it as its Lord. Scripture also looks forward to “the lion and the lamb” peaceful nature of the new heaven and the new earth.

We traditionally had the Rogation Days, which were specifically prayers for the land and weather, and the Ember Days, which tied fasting for repentance to prayers for the world. Most areas also celebrated feastdays of saints which were tied to the important climate turns of the year, wild animals which were hunted or which could hunt you, livestock and crops, visits to the woods and gathering wildflowers or herbs, and so on.

It was very common that saints were interested in the natural world, both studying it and taking care of it. St. Francis was just one of many. Having the ability to tame wild animals or for animals to pay attention to you was considered fairly common among certain kinds of saints, as a reflection of both Eden and the new heaven and earth to come. During their lives, many saints healed or treated wild animals and livestock as well as people; and there are many patron saints of animals and plants, or against animal and plant diseases and injuries.

Since “the earth is the Lord’s, and all that is in it,” it has always been foolish, according to Jewish and Christian teaching, to act toward the natural world in a greedy or crazily wasteful and destructive way. We do not worship or serve Nature; but we look after the non-rational creatures as part of our service to God. We are certainly allowed to “kill and eat,” as the Lord told Peter, but as God’s stewards, we will have to render him an accounting of how we have used His creatures.

 

[trickster]

The term “progressive revelation” has a technical meaning in Christian theology. Here is the Wikipedia explanation:

I suggest you don’t use the term as you have in your writing above as it could create confusion. I think that you are trying to talk about what we call development of doctrine. Here is an explanation from catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop

The inter-connectivity of creation is already well represented in Catholic tradition through the thought of St. Francis. He addressed all God’s creatures as his brothers and sisters to show our relationship. But we can’t just throw out the idea of dominion because it is not palatable to modern sensibilities. We can emphasize the service aspect of dominion (“He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.” Matt 23:11) but we do not have the option of rejecting Revelation.

Thank you Floresco. That is interesting. What I was referring to was the church creating clarity on the “deposit of faith” left by Jesus. That is not “progressive revelation”…my mistake. I think that the teaching authority of the church allows us to understand age old doctrines from the perspective of culture, scientific knowledge, etc., and how the church re-packages or re-explains those core teachings in different time and space contexts. That is kind of what I was basing my arguement on …

Bruce

 

[trickster]

The term “progressive revelation” has a technical meaning in Christian theology. Here is the Wikipedia explanation: I suggest you don’t use the term as you have in your writing above as it could create confusion. I think that you are trying to talk about what we call development of doctrine. Here is an explanation from catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop The inter-connectivity of creation is already well represented in Catholic tradition through the thought of St. Francis. He addressed all God’s creatures as his brothers and sisters to show our relationship. But we can’t just throw out the idea of dominion because it is not palatable to modern sensibilities. We can emphasize the service aspect of dominion (“He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.” Matt 23:11) but we do not have the option of rejecting Revelation.

On your second point about “dominion” out. What I am getting at is the anthro-centric interpretation we have had of that concept. I like what you are saying about the “service aspect of dominion” that is kind of where I am going on this.

I am not rejecting the idea of “dominion” in revelation; I am searching for an understanding of that which is about re-examining our traditional hierarchial understanding of the term for an understanding that is much more interconnected and organic.

Our creation story in Anishinabeg (Indigenous Canadian - Algonquin) is that humans were the babies (if you will of creation) and our older brothers and sisters were the animals, the older brothers and sisters of the humans and the animals (the two and four leggeds) was the plants and the oldest brothers and sisters of us all is physical creation. This world view is also important cause it emphasises not only inter-connectiveness, but the fact that humanity is the youngest addition to creation. Genesis 1 and 2 (two contradictory stories of creation) to me are just narratives, I don’t believe in these stories literally. Howerver, they were storeis that explained creation and man’s relationship to that creation in a manner that was limited to an understanding of a specific culture and time period…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

The biggest traditional Catholic environmental thing is our heritage of prayers and blessings for animals, plants, the weather, and so on. We also have a lot of traditions, regional and worldwide, which tie the Church’s calendar to making the whole year sacred.

Priests and religious who say the Office/Liturgy of the Hours are always singing and reciting the “Canticle of the Three Children” from Daniel 3 and the many nature psalms, which point out the obedience, order, and beauty of Creation. Job and a lot of other Scriptures get into this also, and Jesus is obviously pretty knowledgeable about nature as well as being able to command it as its Lord. Scripture also looks forward to “the lion and the lamb” peaceful nature of the new heaven and the new earth.

We traditionally had the Rogation Days, which were specifically prayers for the land and weather, and the Ember Days, which tied fasting for repentance to prayers for the world. Most areas also celebrated feastdays of saints which were tied to the important climate turns of the year, wild animals which were hunted or which could hunt you, livestock and crops, visits to the woods and gathering wildflowers or herbs, and so on.

It was very common that saints were interested in the natural world, both studying it and taking care of it. St. Francis was just one of many. Having the ability to tame wild animals or for animals to pay attention to you was considered fairly common among certain kinds of saints, as a reflection of both Eden and the new heaven and earth to come. During their lives, many saints healed or treated wild animals and livestock as well as people; and there are many patron saints of animals and plants, or against animal and plant diseases and injuries.

Since “the earth is the Lord’s, and all that is in it,” it has always been foolish, according to Jewish and Christian teaching, to act toward the natural world in a greedy or crazily wasteful and destructive way. We do not worship or serve Nature; but we look after the non-rational creatures as part of our service to God. We are certainly allowed to “kill and eat,” as the Lord told Peter, but as God’s stewards, we will have to render him an accounting of how we have used His creatures.

Mintaka, VERY WELL said! I couldn’t agree with you more! A part of that rendering an account I would hope would be to constantly understand what you just said with what we learn about the science of creation, the inter-connectivity of all of creaiton of which we ar a part and move away from an anthro-centric hierarchial understanding.

You said one thing and I believe most Catholics would agree; that humans are rationale, that we have a conscience…I think that this would single out a special role and job that humans must do in creation, but that role need not be an exploitive domination, right?

Anywyas, thank you for your thoughts on this…and I look forward to your thinking…

Bruce

 

[floresco]

On your second point about “dominion” out. What I am getting at is the anthro-centric interpretation we have had of that concept. I like what you are saying about the “service aspect of dominion” that is kind of where I am going on this.

The traditional Catholic view, based on Sacred Scripture is “anthrocentric”. It is captured in Psalme 8:

[5] What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?
[6] Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: [7] And hast set him over the works of thy hands. [8] Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen: moreover the beasts also of the fields. [9] The birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea, that pass through the paths of the sea.

I am not rejecting the idea of “dominion” in revelation; I am searching for an understanding of that which is about re-examining our traditional hierarchial understanding of the term for an understanding that is much more interconnected and organic.

I have the impression that your starting assumptions are different from the Catholic assumptions. It seems that you assume that being interconnectd and organic are good things. The starting point in Catholicism is Revelation. It is not a random occurence that this is the first topic addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is first because all else depends on it. We believe that God has revealed the truth to us and that is our starting point for any question. If the secular culture happens to value non-hieracrchical models of creation, we do not accept this uncritically. We examine the culture’s values in light of what God has revealed and what has been handed on to us. Our question is not “How can we adapt our understanding of Revelation to conform to society’s values?” The question is “Is the belief of society compatible with what we already know to be true through Revelation?”

The secular environmental movement, for the most part, believes that all living things are equal. It believes that placing a higher value on man than on other living things is “anthrocentic” and bad. This is just not compatible with what we know to be true. God gave a special place to humanity and the rest of creation is subject to us. This does not mean that we should be irresponsible or exploit creation. There is room to look at ways to be more responsible and to be better stewards. But we retain what has been revealed to us about man’s place in the world.

Our creation story in Anishinabeg (Indigenous Canadian - Algonquin) is that humans were the babies (if you will of creation) and our older brothers and sisters were the animals, the older brothers and sisters of the humans and the animals (the two and four leggeds) was the plants and the oldest brothers and sisters of us all is physical creation. This world view is also important cause it emphasises not only inter-connectiveness, but the fact that humanity is the youngest addition to creation. Genesis 1 and 2 (two contradictory stories of creation) to me are just narratives, I don’t believe in these stories literally. Howerver, they were storeis that explained creation and man’s relationship to that creation in a manner that was limited to an understanding of a specific culture and time period…

Catholics believe that Genesis is divinely inspired and contains eternal truth that is not contingent on time and culture. We believe that other religions have some elements of truth, but not the fullness of Revelation. When their beliefs contradict Revelation, they are necessarily wrong.

 

[Chatter163]

This is an interesting discussion and I concur with everything stated by floresco. All in this thread have conducted themselves respectfully, and I commend them for that. :tiphat:

 

[TimothyH]

Benedictine and Cistercian monks have always been conservators of the land, ministering to the in the Biblical sense on God’s bahalf.

Lovers of the Land…
From the earliest times Christian monks have always had a special relationship to the land. One of the ancient monastic vows we still take today is the vow of “Stability.” This vow binds us to a particular place and a particular Community. In 1098, our first Cistercian Fathers, like the desert monks before them, searched for a place far from the haunts of men. They described themselves as “lovers of the place and of the brothers.” In 1944, when this monastery was founded it was relatively far from the “haunts of men” as well.

The monks at the Monastery of Our Lady of the Holy Spirit in Conyer’s Georgia have started a cemetery which buries people naturally, without expensive caskets and enbalming chemicals. Dust to dust, as it were. They are great lovers of the land.

trappist.net/, and click on “Place” to read more.

-Tim-

 

[trickster]

The traditional Catholic view, based on Sacred Scripture is “anthrocentric”. It is captured in Psalme 8: .

Simply cause the scriptures in the lyrics of the psalms portrays an anthrocentric view through David asking God about man does not limit creation to an anthrocentric reality. In fact, Benedict in responding to why he calls God the “Father” says in his book that we all know that God is neither male or female but he chooses to call God Father to keep in tune with Judeo-Christian history. I think it makes sense to a certain degree to acknowledge its historical development in understanding man as the center of creation makes sense in a Judeo (Hebrew) world view. However, the church can expand its thinking to include new science, what is true in other world religions and indigenous spirituality to try and articulate the truth in a more full manner…so all I’m saying is why don’t we do that in terms of theological development…expression of liturgy, teaching in catechism…teaching that the world is inter-connected adn that we are part of creation is not counter to the teaching of the church in my understanding…thoughts?

I have the impression that your starting assumptions are different from the Catholic assumptions. It seems that you assume that being interconnectd and organic are good things. The starting point in Catholicism is Revelation. It is not a random occurence that this is the first topic addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is first because all else depends on it. We believe that God has revealed the truth to us and that is our starting point for any question. If the secular culture happens to value non-hieracrchical models of creation, we do not accept this uncritically. We examine the culture’s values in light of what God has revealed and what has been handed on to us. Our question is not “How can we adapt our understanding of Revelation to conform to society’s values?” The question is “Is the belief of society compatible with what we already know to be true through Revelation?”.

Of course “being interconnected and organic is a good thing”! (that’s why I say it eh

Listen…in expanding our thinking about theological development in the full understanding of revelation does not take away from the role or perspective humanity is portrayed in the Judeo-Christian context. Where does it say in revelation that creation is NOT inter-connective? That might be a good starting point for discussion…

The secular environmental movement, for the most part, believes that all living things are equal. It believes that placing a higher value on man than on other living things is “anthrocentic” and bad. This is just not compatible with what we know to be true. God gave a special place to humanity and the rest of creation is subject to us. This does not mean that we should be irresponsible or exploit creation. There is room to look at ways to be more responsible and to be better stewards. But we retain what has been revealed to us about man’s place in the world…

The secular environmental movement would agree with you - they also believe humanity has a special place in creation. We as environmentalists also believe that all things are living and inter-dependent upon each other. If anything the environmental movement by virtue of who it attacks acknowledges that all living things are not equal because it is HUMANITY that is destroying the balance of ecosystem after ecosystem…so I think environmentalist would agree with your point that all living things are not equal in responsibility…and that is consistent with what Genesis tells us of our human role as stewards…is there a necessary contradiciton with the idea of what you said…that humanity has a special place and that fact that humanity is also intertwined with the rest of creation?

Catholics believe that Genesis is divinely inspired and contains eternal truth that is not contingent on time and culture. We believe that other religions have some elements of truth, but not the fullness of Revelation. When their beliefs contradict Revelation, they are necessarily wrong.

We, as Catholics, certainly believe that Genesis is divinely inspired, no question…however that does not mean that they should be interpreted literally. Inspiration is a subjective process; if you have a vision or a dream is it easy for you to find the words to capture the full impact and significance of what you seen in the dream or vision? I believe that Genesis outlines certain realities of which I agree with you Humanity has a special place a place you are quite right is noted in Genesis…it is also a statement that allows us to say today that we as humans have failed miserably in the one job the Creator gave us to do…and yet we are not separated from the creation we created, she is hitting back with global warming, health indicators of our capitalist system, etc.,

Look forward to your thoughts…

Bruce Ferguson

 

[trickster]

This is an interesting discussion and I concur with everything stated by floresco. All in this thread have conducted themselves respectfully, and I commend them for that. :tiphat:

Well Chatter good point…it would be kind of ironic for us to handle ourselves in a nasty manner by being bad Catholics arguing on Catholic Answers…wow what a statement indeed

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Benedictine and Cistercian monks have always been conservators of the land, ministering to the in the Biblical sense on God’s bahalf.

Lovers of the Land…
From the earliest times Christian monks have always had a special relationship to the land. One of the ancient monastic vows we still take today is the vow of “Stability.” This vow binds us to a particular place and a particular Community. In 1098, our first Cistercian Fathers, like the desert monks before them, searched for a place far from the haunts of men. They described themselves as “lovers of the place and of the brothers.” In 1944, when this monastery was founded it was relatively far from the “haunts of men” as well.

The monks at the Monastery of Our Lady of the Holy Spirit in Conyer’s Georgia have started a cemetery which buries people naturally, without expensive caskets and enbalming chemicals. Dust to dust, as it were. They are great lovers of the land.

trappist.net/, and click on “Place” to read more.

-Tim-

Tim, thanks for those comments I couldn’t agree more. I was very influenced as a younger guy in the 70s with the Benedictine monks and the Poor Claires how they were connected very intimately to the notion of labour, work and love of land and animals and their monastery was very agriculture.

In addition, there is a newer movement among Catholic nuns called “Green Nuns” who are transitioning their properties into eco-forests, creating eco-theological frameworks for us to improve our understanding as stewards of creation so that we can fully take back our responsibilty as stewards of creation because we have failed miserably in that roll…so I continue to look at our church to take leadership, to shine a light for an exploitive human race to repent from our exploitive nature and reclaim the earth for its Creator…(ok…on a roll here

Bruce

 

[floresco]

Simply cause the scriptures in the lyrics of the psalms portrays an anthrocentric view through David asking God about man does not limit creation to an anthrocentric reality. In fact, Benedict in responding to why he calls God the “Father” says in his book that we all know that God is neither male or female but he chooses to call God Father to keep in tune with Judeo-Christian history. I think it makes sense to a certain degree to acknowledge its historical development in understanding man as the center of creation makes sense in a Judeo (Hebrew) world view. However, the church can expand its thinking to include new science, what is true in other world religions and indigenous spirituality to try and articulate the truth in a more full manner…so all I’m saying is why don’t we do that in terms of theological development…expression of liturgy, teaching in catechism…teaching that the world is inter-connected adn that we are part of creation is not counter to the teaching of the church in my understanding…thoughts?

If we are going to keep talking about this, I would prefer to use the more conventional word “anthropocentric” (from Greek anthropos meaning “human”). The Psalm I quoted reflected the anthropocentric view that we find throughout Scripture. This is Revelation from God that is eternally true, not an ancient world view to be discarded at will. The Church can only “expand its thinking” to include new science, other religions and indigenous spirituality to the extent that they are consistent with Revelation. Putting them on an equal level with Scripture is syncretism and not acceptable. The Church has always taught that we are part of creation and have responsibilities to the rest of creation. I am not sure that we gain anything by looking at these other sources you suggest.

Quite often people who talk about interconnectedness contrast it with hierarchical models. They use imagery such as webs or networks to express the idea that no being should be considered above any other being. This idea is not compatible with Catholic thought in Scripture and Tradition. It is not a good thing at all because it goes against our beliefs. Catholics can talk about interconnectedness within the hierarchies of creation, but not instead of them.

I actually am an environmentalist. I helped to found an eco-village where I still have a residence. I have appeared in articles, speaking engagements and on television concerning this topic. I spend quite a bit of time with secular environmentalists. I am familiar with their views and I have a very good sense of where it becomes incompatible with my faith.

We, as Catholics, certainly believe that Genesis is divinely inspired, no question…however that does not mean that they should be interpreted literally. Inspiration is a subjective process; if you have a vision or a dream is it easy for you to find the words to capture the full impact and significance of what you seen in the dream or vision?

As Catholics, we do not interpret Genesis for ourselves. We turn to Church teaching in order to understand it. It is not subjective at all.

A Catholic will understand our relationship with Creation as related to our salvation in Christ. Here is a passage from Romans 8:

19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved.

We understand harmful and exploitive treatment of creation as a manifestation of original sin. We understand the restoration of creation as an aspect of redemption in Christ. It is not an endeavour for humans alone, but in cooperation with Grace. Catholicism already has a lot to say about these things and we should be fully exploring our own traditions before we start looking elsewhere for insights.

 

[trickster]

My text was too long, so I am divinding it into two parts

Part One Response

If we are going to keep talking about this, I would prefer to use the more conventional word “anthropocentric” (from Greek anthropos meaning “human”). The Psalm I quoted reflected the anthropocentric view that we find throughout Scripture. This is Revelation from God that is eternally true, not an ancient world view to be discarded at will. The Church can only “expand its thinking” to include new science, other religions and indigenous spirituality to the extent that they are consistent with Revelation. Putting them on an equal level with Scripture is syncretism and not acceptable. The Church has always taught that we are part of creation and have responsibilities to the rest of creation. I am not sure that we gain anything by looking at these other sources you suggest…

What I want to convey by the term of “anthro-centric” is like “ego-centric” is that we see the world through our own eyes and humanity can be said to do that with respect to the rest of the world, that is why humanity has failed God so miserably, He has offered us the grander vision of the world but we - as a failed species - continue the path to global and ecological structure, through have and have not statuses and unbridled capitalistic rape of the earth…point made?

The rest of your point I am in 150% agreement with. The Church has always used new information, etc., as tools to understand what has been revealed to us and as explained by church teaching…all I am saying is that we can do more on understanding the inter-connected nature of our existence, that we too are creatures of the creator connected intimately with the tree and deers, not to mention the worms and plants…albeit we - through our capacities - have an ability to be stewards, not just from God’s revelation but from our own faculties which God, of course gave us.

What other sources am I suggesting you look at? I am simply making a point from my head…unless i quoted something and in my old age forgot about … (that too my friend is quite possible In any case, no one is talking about syncretism and you are quite right on that point, I agree.

Quite often people who talk about interconnectedness contrast it with hierarchical models. They use imagery such as webs or networks to express the idea that no being should be considered above any other being. This idea is not compatible with Catholic thought in Scripture and Tradition. It is not a good thing at all because it goes against our beliefs. Catholics can talk about interconnectedness within the hierarchies of creation, but not instead of them. .

Your experience with these people is obviously your experience… mine is difference. If we - as humans - were not above other beings, then we would not be critisized by these people as causing the destruction of the earth and now our inner space which we use as a garbage dump for space equipment and sattelites. The idea of using “webs” and “networks” is not contradictory to the notion of “hierarchy”…any corporate organizational map and process will make that point…however, I do think (and this is my own opinion) that in the western Church we may have weighted the hierarchial nature of our existence too much at the cost of the equal arguement that all things are interconnected. I don’t see your point that interconnectedness is somehow incompatible with Catholic thought in Scripture and Tradition, I see the opposite…I am thinking of Francis, Romans 8, and I am sure if I actually took the time, would be able to argue more fully that inter-connectedness “whatsoever you do to these…you do to me” is very much an inter-connected concept…so I’d like to push you on that point in a friendly manner.

Interconnectedness within hierarchy is permissible in your view, I agree, I am just saying that with these two “inter-connected” concepts that we need to read together in balance of each other.

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Response Part II

I actually am an environmentalist. I helped to found an eco-village where I still have a residence. I have appeared in articles, speaking engagements and on television concerning this topic. I spend quite a bit of time with secular environmentalists. I am familiar with their views and I have a very good sense of where it becomes incompatible with my faith…

That is so awesome! I am very interested in the concept of eco-villages. I am aboriginal and am working on a provincial organization that will be taking a look at those issues with respect to self-determination (or governance) on an individual level. I think that our people on a political basis must move away from a strategy of identifying grievances against the colonial governments (and its exploitation of the environment) and move towards non-violent contention that challenges and ends the days of colonialism (or neo-imperialism) towards a post-imperial world…the colonizers and the colonized still tend to psychologically live out their roles and we need to move beyond that…localized self-sufficiency and independence - like the villages you are talking about - holds great interst for me…you are right that with respect to extreme secular environmentalist (where environment takes top priority at the expense of other things that should be weighed and included in the formula for sustainability) but again, my personal experience is that most of my friends and contacts are centralist in their views…good stuff!

As Catholics, we do not interpret Genesis for ourselves. We turn to Church teaching in order to understand it. It is not subjective at all…

Genesis is absolutely subjective! Most bibllical scholars (and this is reflected among Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars) describe the creation story as simply a theological narrative. However, your right in the sense that there are certain principles including hierarchial placing of all creatures in creation…that is specifically a Hebrew concept a book written to explain to the Hebrew people the world they find themselves in…I don’t think that I am off too much in Catholic teaching since I learned about biblical nterpretation in a Catholic theological place…

A Catholic will understand our relationship with Creation as related to our salvation in Christ. Here is a passage from Romans 8:
.

I didn’t get the quote, but I do remember St. Paul in Romans talking about our ability to know God through knowing creation…

We understand harmful and exploitive treatment of creation as a manifestation of original sin. We understand the restoration of creation as an aspect of redemption in Christ. It is not an endeavour for humans alone, but in cooperation with Grace. Catholicism already has a lot to say about these things and we should be fully exploring our own traditions before we start looking elsewhere for insights.

You have just made the best arguement for inter-connectiveness when you use the word “as”! Interestingly your point also made me think (that I haven’t thought about before) is the inter-connectivity of our realities… …both temporal and afterlife…interesting…that’s sounds like another thread Oh I agree with you on Catholicism as not just being a good starting point, it needs to be the foundation from which we open our minds and hearts to the science and teachings of all the world religions and indigenous spirituality in understanding to a greater degree the teachings of our church…

Cheerz for now.,…

Bruce

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The Compendium of Social doctrine has an entire chapter on the issue:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#CHAPTER TEN