Environmentalism vs Religion

[Contarini]

Religiosity and environmentalism aren’t mutually exclusive, but as Christians, Catholics in particular, we aren’t called to protect the environment in the same ways that the culture at large would have it.

That’s vague. In what way are we not called to protect the environment?

We must be aware that we are called to integrate human activity and to also protect human dignity

That’s a straw man–no one is challenging this.

Too often, mainstream society’s environmentalism doesn’t reflect a proper attitude towards the “natural order” and leans more towards the New Age or Deistic concepts that Christians have to reject.

How? And how does this effect practical actions?

Here’s an article that neatly summarizes Catholic teaching on the subject:
catholiceducation.org/articles/environment/en0002.html

Storck doesn’t identify Deism with environmentalism, as you do–he identifies it with anti-environmentalism. I think this is an excellent article, though I have one caveat–the rhetoric of “two opposite errors” can allow people to avoid seriously thinking through the questions at hand. With all due respect, I think this is exactly what you are doing. You are making dismissive statements about environmentalism without giving one shred of specific evidence or example.

Storck gives an excellent example of an environmentalist view orthodox Christians must reject–the view that humans have no stewardship over creation and that all species have “equal rights.” This is indeed both absurd (unlike relations among human being,s, relations among species can’t exclude some degree of predatory behavior, which would be ruled out by “equal rights”–if deer have equal rights with wolves, does that mean that we stop wolves from eating deer?) and heretical.

But the view that non-human creatures are merely things with no intrinsic dignity and no purpose beyond their use to humans is far more heretical, far more practically devastating in all respects, and far more prevalent today (in action if not in rhetoric). So the apparently balanced language of “paired error” can easily be used to prop up Cartesian thinking (only humans have souls of any kind; animals and plants are just complicated machines).

If the destruction of a species’ unique habitat is at stake, for instance, those who defend the species (spotted owls, say, though I know that’s an old issue) because they think it has “equal rights” and those who defend it because it is a unique manifestation of God’s glory in creation are going to be natural allies, even though they have different philosophies.

Furthermore, I question the view that even philosophically radical environmentalism is just as wrong as Cartesian dualism. To say that any part of God’s creation is without intrinsic dignity is blasphemy of the most apalling sort. To say that slugs are just as valuable as humans is silly and heretical, but it is not denying the value of any part of God’s creation. There’s a certain twisted beauty to the stubborn insistence that slimy little critters are as glorious as Michelangelo. Wrong as it is, this error demonstrates a willingness to bow before the mystery of creation. It’s relatively a far humbler and less perverted error than the arrogant claim that only human beings matter.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I watched before on EWTN’s Web of Faith when Father Trigilio said that it is sad to see people complaining about the environment or stuff like that when they don’t problemize themselves with the dying babies of abortion. I kinda agree. Caring for the environment is good thing but I would prioritize protecting the souls of people.

But why do you have to choose? What about the vaunted Catholic both/and?

This kind of rhetoric is simply contemptible. When you can’t give a good reason why a given moral claim is wrong, try to relativize it by pointing out some other issue that is even more important. This is always a last, desperate tactic by those defending a morally bankrupt position.

(I’m not attacking you–I’m attacking Fr. Trigilio if he was claiming that environmentalism was not important. You agree that caring for the environment is important.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I would think as Catholics we should take care of the environment, but not necessarily by being in sync with Environmentalism. The latter is more of an umbrella for extreme views regarding the environment.

Isn’t this guilt by association? What are these extreme views? How do they contradict Catholic teaching? Why are you using the term “environmentalism” to cover only the extreme views? Wouldn’t a term such as “radical environmentalism” be more accurate?

I can’t see any difference between this rhetorical tactic and the despicable custom on the left of labelling all pro-lifers violent because a tiny minority are. In both cases people are trying to avoid real moral questions by smearing a broad movement with the extremism of a few.

Edwin

 

[Jennifer123]

???

Mother Theresa was wrong. While its true that better use of resources could end a lot of suffering, that don’t change the fact that we are over 6 billion and will be over 9 billion in 25 years or so. When I was in highshool, about 25 years ago, we were 3 billion.

There is no overpopulation.

We may be in a population boom, but it is a cycle that will end soon. There are more than enough resources to feed clothe and take care of everyone.

"The UN Population Division 2001 report, World Population Monitoring 2001, studied the relationship between population growth and development. Contrary to Malthusian doomsday predictions, this U.N Report stated: “From 1900 to 2000, world population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion persons. However, while world population increased close to 4 times, world real gross domestic product (GDP) [actual output of goods and service] increased 20 to 40 times, allowing the world not only to sustain a fourfold population increase but also to do so at vastly higher standards of living.” "

If there were overpopulation - then we wouldn’t be discussing our social security crisis. Most industrialized nations are at the threshold of not being able to reproduce their populations. Entire nations are dying out.

Just because there are more people today than yesterday, doesn’t mean that we have to turn to such drastic and authoritarian measures to limit human growth.

 

[Jennifer123]

That’s vague. In what way are we not called to protect the environment?

In any way that opposses the natural order and human dignity.

That’s a straw man–no one is challenging this.

**But your solutions, the solutions of mainstream environmentalism, do challenge this.
**

How? And how does this effect practical actions?

As an example, forced sterilizations, freerepublic.com/focus/news/819169/posts , do violate the natural order and human dignity.

Storck doesn’t identify Deism with environmentalism, as you do–he identifies it with anti-environmentalism.

**I never equated “environmentalism” with Deism. I said that there is tendency to lean in that direction and Christians must be aware of that. The rest of your post continues to twist my words and makes critical assumptions of error regarding my beliefs of environmentalism of which you have no idea. **

To say that any part of God’s creation is without intrinsic dignity is blasphemy of the most apalling sort.

**What part of this from the CCC, stated in the article,states that any part of creation is without dignity?
“Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial even, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun. (338)”

“Each of the various creatures, willed in its own being, reflects in its own way a ray of God’s infinite wisdom and goodness. Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things which would be in contempt of the Creator and would bring disastrous consequences for human beings and their environment. (339)”

Stork also said this,“As I said previously, Satan promotes error in pairs, so that there will always be two warring camps, both zealously championing positions that are flawed, and both keenly aware of what is wrong with their opponent’s point of view, but blind to what is wrong with their own.”

Exactly.

**

Edwin

 

[Jennifer123]

But why do you have to choose? What about the vaunted Catholic both/and?

This kind of rhetoric is simply contemptible. When you can’t give a good reason why a given moral claim is wrong, try to relativize it by pointing out some other issue that is even more important. This is always a last, desperate tactic by those defending a morally bankrupt position.

(I’m not attacking you–I’m attacking Fr. Trigilio if he was claiming that environmentalism was not important. You agree that caring for the environment is important.)

Edwin

Okay - I don’t think you are saying this but it seems to me you are calling Fr. Tragilio’s claim that abortion is a greater evil than the lack of “environmentalism” a morally bankrupt position?

If you truly believe that then there is no reason to go further in this discussion IMHO. I’ve got better things to do than shout in the wind here.

Regarding “both/and”. One can’t always have it both ways. Truth is not relative and it always sides on the side of life, for that is God’s greatest gift.

 

[Valke2]

There is no overpopulation.

We may be in a population boom, but it is a cycle that will end soon. There are more than enough resources to feed clothe and take care of everyone.

I don’t know what to say. Other than that reasoning seems insane to me.

 

[Contarini]

But your solutions, the solutions of mainstream environmentalism, do challenge this.

What is an example of such a “solution”? And how do you know that I advocate “mainstream environmentalism”? I don’t even know what is “mainstream” and what isn’t. I mean by “environmentalism” the view that we have a moral duty to protect the biological system in which we live, including the protection of species from extinction, the maintenance of diverse habitats, and generally a way of life that respects the integrity of the ecosystem rather than radically reshaping it based on our own needs.

**How? And how does this effect practical actions? **

As an example, forced sterilizations, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819169/posts , do violate the natural order and human dignity.

Of course they do. I completely disagree with such horrendous practices. I seriously doubt that they are “mainstream environmentalism,” but if they are, then mainstream environmentalism is wicked–at least on this point.

**The rest of your post continues to twist my words and makes critical assumptions of error regarding my beliefs of environmentalism of which you have no idea. **

True, I don’t, because you didn’t bother to reveal this in your previous posts. You made sweeping statements about environmentalism with no specific backup. Now you have given a specific example, and I completely agree with it. I simply don’t think you should identify forced sterilization with environmentalism as a whole.

**To say that any part of God’s creation is without intrinsic dignity is blasphemy of the most apalling sort. **

What part of this from the CCC, stated in the article,states that any part of creation is without dignity?

What made you think I was claiming any such thing? I agree completely with the CCC here. The CCC seems to me to be staunchly environmentalist–at least in the way I’m using the term. My problem is with people who claim to be following the CCC but who are nervous about endorsing environmentalism because they (unfairly and arbitrarily, in my view) identify it with certain radical ideas that are hardly characteristic of environmentalism as a whole.

The real problem is: what do we mean by environmentalism? I guess my fear is that you’re using certain radical views held by some environmentalists as an excuse to back off from supporting measures (like the protection of natural habitats from oil drilling, the protection of species from extinction, etc.) that don’t fit a right-wing Republican agenda.

I admire the Catholic Church because it takes stands that offend both sides of the political spectrum. I get frustrated with many of the folks here because they seem determined to twist the Catholic Church’s teachings to support only the conservative Republican side of things. When the Church says something that seems to point in a different direction, lots of people around here find a way to explain it away.

I don’t know if this is what you are doing or not. That’s why I asked for examples. So far you haven’t said anything specific that I disagree with. So the question is: why would I claim to support environmentalism while you would not? Do we disagree substantively, or are you simply defining environmentalism differently?

 

[Contarini]

As for Fr. Trigilio’s quote–I wasn’t calling his priorities morally bankrupt; I was saying that setting one important moral issue over against another is morally bankrupt. If Fr. Trigilio wanted to make a case that one would follow from the other–that if we got the abortion issue straight we would also come to protect non-human life–that would be one thing. But that doesn’t seem to be borne out by the facts.

Instead, we have a situation where one group sees unborn human life (but not nonhuman life) as worth protecting, and the other takes the opposite view, while each calls the other hypocritical. Now I completely agree that the latter view is by far the more immoral and illogical. But I’m claiming that the truly moral view is to defend *all *life, while making proper distinctions according to the Great Chain of Being (i.e., human life is obviously of greater value than that of other animals, because humans have rational souls). I fear that Fr. Trigilio really doesn’t think the preservation of species from extinction is important, and that he’s using this ranking of moral issues as a cheap way of avoiding making an argument for a position that can’t be seriously defended (not if one has a robust doctrine of Creation).

I’m not sure why you think the preservation of unborn human life and the preservation of nonhuman life conflict. To me they seem to go together–that’s what I mean by the both/and. Our current political alignment is immoral and unnatural, because it sets valid moral concerns over against each other. The Catholic Church is the only church in the position to speak out against this monstrous perversion of the moral energies of our society. The Catholic Church as a whole takes a stance against abortion, against sexual immorality, against capital punishment, against war, against the pollution of the environment, against materialism and greed. . . . Conservative Catholics who want to align the Church with the so-called “religious right” are trying to break up this coherent and admirable moral position by highlighting certain issues as so much more important that the others don’t really matter.

*That *is morally bankrupt.

Edwin

 

[Valke2]

BEIJING (Reuters) - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets’ worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.

Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/ts_nm/environment_wwf_planet_dc

 

[Jennifer123]

I don’t know what to say. Other than that reasoning seems insane to me.

Funny. I guess you’ve never been confronted with anything other than your own opinion, in all seriousness.

 

[Jennifer123]

As for Fr. Trigilio’s quote–I wasn’t calling his priorities morally bankrupt; I was saying that setting one important moral issue over against another is morally bankrupt.

**But one issue is greater than another. To say otherwise you are making a moral equivalency argument that just isn’t supported by the Church. Abortion is the pinnacle of evil and its advocacy leads to propagation of all “lesser” evils.
**

I fear that Fr. Trigilio really doesn’t think the preservation of species from extinction is important, and that he’s using this ranking of moral issues as a cheap way of avoiding making an argument for a position that can’t be seriously defended (not if one has a robust doctrine of Creation).

I think you assume a lot.

I’m not sure why you think the preservation of unborn human life and the preservation of nonhuman life conflict.

I don’t

To me they seem to go together–that’s what I mean by the both/and. Our current political alignment is immoral and unnatural, because it sets valid moral concerns over against each other. The Catholic Church is the only church in the position to speak out against this monstrous perversion of the moral energies of our society. The Catholic Church as a whole takes a stance against abortion, against sexual immorality, against capital punishment, against war, against the pollution of the environment, against materialism and greed. . . . Conservative Catholics who want to align the Church with the so-called “religious right” are trying to break up this coherent and admirable moral position by highlighting certain issues as so much more important that the others don’t really matter.

*That *is morally bankrupt.

**I think you are making a lot of assumptions and judgements based on your faulty bias. **

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Jennifer,

It’s not clear to me how we disagree. You keep accusing me of bias and of this and that, but when you give specifics you say nothing I disagree with. You are the one who seems to have some stake in saying that Christians should be wary of environmentalism. But you haven’t given one single valid reason for this (the fact that some environmentalists hold immoral positions is hardly a valid reason, since in any movement you can find people with untenable or immoral views). I have no stake in saying that you or Fr. Trigilio are wrong. I would like to think that we all agree that abortion and the pollution of the environment are both wrong.

Insofar as they can be compared, I agree that abortion is the greater evil, though I’d say that it depends on just how great a degree of pollution we are talking about. Obviously abortion is much more evil than dumping a load of litter into a stream. Is it greater, than, say, annihilating whole nonhuman species? Probably, though that’s tough (certainly it is no less an evil). Is it greater than polluting a large space of ground so that thousands of children die or become diseased? No.

But my main point is that I don’t understand why we need to set them against each other at all. The Church needs to be politically independent. If you are not trying to justify support for the Republican Party, why are you nervous about the claim that both abortion and destruction of the environment are gravely evil? They’re different kinds of evil, so it’s hard to compare them. (Of course I’m not claiming that the individual life of an irrational animal is equal to a human life.) The only circumstance in which we have to choose is when deciding which party to vote for, it seems to me. Otherwise why would we be comparing them?

Why, when confronted with one evil, do you feel the need to say that some other evil is greater? That’s not the evil we are talking about here. Why not agree that this is an evil, and that abortion is an evil as well?

Edwin

 

[Jennifer123]

The real problem is: what do we mean by environmentalism? I guess my fear is that you’re using certain radical views held by some environmentalists as an excuse to back off from supporting measures (like the protection of natural habitats from oil drilling, the protection of species from extinction, etc.) that don’t fit a right-wing Republican agenda.

**No, I am basing it on their own views. One doesn’t need to look towards radical groups like ELF or Earth First to find what I would call “extremeism” in the environmental community. Most enviromentalists I know (I used to be a political organizer in the field) held views that are very opposed to the Church’s teaching on just about everything, let alone a proper view of the natural order and stewardship.
As for “political” issues like ANWAR, I take issue with the inference (yours and others) that because I support oil drilling and exploration that I am a “right-wing Republican” with no moral compass and loathes creation.

**

 

[Valke2]

Funny. I guess you’ve never been confronted with anything other than your own opinion, in all seriousness.

Yes. That must be it.

 

[Jennifer123]

Jennifer,

It’s not clear to me how we disagree. You keep accusing me of bias and of this and that, but when you give specifics you say nothing I disagree with. You are the one who seems to have some stake in saying that Christians should be wary of environmentalism. But you haven’t given one single valid reason for this (the fact that some environmentalists hold immoral positions is hardly a valid reason, since in any movement you can find people with untenable or immoral views). I have no stake in saying that you or Fr. Trigilio are wrong. I would like to think that we all agree that abortion and the pollution of the environment are both wrong.

Insofar as they can be compared, I agree that abortion is the greater evil, though I’d say that it depends on just how great a degree of pollution we are talking about. Obviously abortion is much more evil than dumping a load of litter into a stream. Is it greater, than, say, annihilating whole nonhuman species? Probably, though that’s tough (certainly it is no less an evil). Is it greater than polluting a large space of ground so that thousands of children die or become diseased? No.

But my main point is that I don’t understand why we need to set them against each other at all. The Church needs to be politically independent. If you are not trying to justify support for the Republican Party, why are you nervous about the claim that both abortion and destruction of the environment are gravely evil? They’re different kinds of evil, so it’s hard to compare them. (Of course I’m not claiming that the individual life of an irrational animal is equal to a human life.) The only circumstance in which we have to choose is when deciding which party to vote for, it seems to me. Otherwise why would we be comparing them?

Why, when confronted with one evil, do you feel the need to say that some other evil is greater? That’s not the evil we are talking about here. Why not agree that this is an evil, and that abortion is an evil as well?

Edwin

I’ve stated this before and I don’t appreciate the accustion that I’ve said things without facts.

I’m not about to go into a treatise on the proper role for proper Christian charity for the environment. I simply gave my reservations about the environmental movement in general, that one as a Christian should be wary about the Deistic or New Age elements in the movement in general. These tendencies skew solutions brought about to the world’s problems in a way that contradict Church teaching and would violate the human dignity God gave each of us.

You are the one who then accused me of not caring for the environment and not presenting anything to the discussion even though that is not the truth and it is getting old and tired.

I’m not nervous about the claim that abortion and degradation of the environment are evil. But they are not morally equivalent and that is the claim you are making regardless of whether you are honest about it or not.

That is the mistake that is making the environment worse for everyone because it is leading to unjust policies whether it be excessive taxation, land-use laws, or forced abortion and sterilization.

Just my opinion. You can post some more to hear the sound of your voice - or the sound of your voice in type - but I’m tired. I’ve got “too many” kids to feed right now.

 

[Jennifer123]

Yes. That must be it.

Pretty easy to do in this day and age.

 

[Valke2]

Whatever happened to Lake Chad?

 

[mvinca]

I don’t know what to say. Other than that reasoning seems insane to me.

Well, in the off chance that you are an engineer, look at it this way. Population is much like a PID control on a very slowly reacting system. (Which makes sense, because it takes about 100 years for people to die off.) Right now the P is negative, but we are still going up because that I is so wound up. But the P is getting more and more negative and that I is going to unwind quicker and quicker and when we do start lowering the earth’s population again, it is going to happen sharply, because all the variables will be heading in the same direction.

If you don’t know about PID controls, well, just ignore everything I just said.

 

[Mystophilus]

You don’t defend the poor by eradicating them.

Exactly: you do not defend the poor by refusing to adhere to international treaties on carbon emissions because it is ‘too expensive’ for the world’s largest national economy, when two wars are not.

The carbon levels increase, the seas rise, the deserts expand, and guess who suffers?
Those who cannot afford to move.