Space Colonization from a Theological Standpoint

[McatholicN]

Is there anything theologically objectionable about the prospect of humans colonizing space; does the Church say anything about it? Would it have anything to do with the importance of Earth for humans (God giving people dominion over the planet, the apocalypse, etc.)?

 

[1ke]

No and no.

 

[mcrow]

Whatever is in space, God created…end of story.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Maybe we’ll see a zero-g rite emerge in the Latin Church!

 

[thistle]

Is there anything theologically objectionable about the prospect of humans colonizing space; does the Church say anything about it? Would it have anything to do with the importance of Earth for humans (God giving people dominion over the planet, the apocalypse, etc.)?

I agree with the other posters.
The answer is no and no.

 

[McatholicN]

What if everyone left the Earth? Could this not happen seeing as the Apocalypse is to happen here? There seem to be a number of God’s promises that require humans living on Earth. The promise never to flood the world again comes to mind, but there may be others.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[thistle]

What if everyone left the Earth? Could this not happen seeing as the Apocalypse is to happen here? There seem to be a number of God’s promises that require humans living on Earth. The promise never to flood the world again comes to mind, but there may be others.

Thanks for the feedback!

NO!

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I don’t think the ability to colonize space would be the only reason everyone would leave earth… I’d say that would only happen if due to some natural/ecological disaster, and that’s a hotly contested topic so I have no desire about bringing that into this thread… (anyone remember the intensity of that overpopulation thread a few months ago…)

 

[Contarini]

Is there anything theologically objectionable about the prospect of humans colonizing space; does the Church say anything about it? Would it have anything to do with the importance of Earth for humans (God giving people dominion over the planet, the apocalypse, etc.)?

I think that’s an interesting question. Walker Percy, in his Lost in the Cosmos, imagines a future Pope (abbot of a Benedictine community, but he’s basically the only possible Pope left standing after most of the world is wiped out in a nuclear holocaust) refusing to leave earth because that’s where Jesus is going to return. On the other hand, Walter Miller’s Canticle for Leibowitz (clearly a source for Percy’s sci-fi excursus in Cosmos) ends with the Church sending missionaries into space as a nuclear holocaust erupts.

Both Percy and Miller were lay Catholic writers of fiction and don’t speak for the Magisterium, though I’d probably bet more on Percy’s theological astuteness than Miller’s.

As far as I know, the question hasn’t been addressed officially. I think that the key would be how one understands “earth.” A good case can be made, I think, that “earth” means something like “created physical universe” rather than a specific planet. But I could be wrong. I certainly love the ending of *Lost in the Cosmos, *which contrasts the ragtag bunch of Catholics, Baptists, Jews, and drunken unbelievers hanging out on earth with the secularist paradise established on one of Jupiter’s moons. . . .

Edwin

 

[MarkBrown]

I think that’s an interesting question. Walker Percy, in his Lost in the Cosmos, imagines a future Pope (abbot of a Benedictine community, but he’s basically the only possible Pope left standing after most of the world is wiped out in a nuclear holocaust) refusing to leave earth because that’s where Jesus is going to return. On the other hand, Walter Miller’s Canticle for Leibowitz (clearly a source for Percy’s sci-fi excursus in Cosmos) ends with the Church sending missionaries into space as a nuclear holocaust erupts.

Both Percy and Miller were lay Catholic writers of fiction and don’t speak for the Magisterium, though I’d probably bet more on Percy’s theological astuteness than Miller’s.

As far as I know, the question hasn’t been addressed officially. I think that the key would be how one understands “earth.” A good case can be made, I think, that “earth” means something like “created physical universe” rather than a specific planet. But I could be wrong. I certainly love the ending of *Lost in the Cosmos, *which contrasts the ragtag bunch of Catholics, Baptists, Jews, and drunken unbelievers hanging out on earth with the secularist paradise established on one of Jupiter’s moons. . . .

Edwin

A secularist paradise orbiting a gas gaint. appropriate symbolism .:

Mark

 

[dswearin]

What if everyone left the Earth? Could this not happen seeing as the Apocalypse is to happen here? There seem to be a number of God’s promises that require humans living on Earth. The promise never to flood the world again comes to mind, but there may be others.

Thanks for the feedback!

The apocalypse happens everywhere, not just Earth. In Revelation it says there will be a new heaven and earth. Everything is made new in the end.

 

[chosen_people]

Two astronauts land on Mars. Their mission: to check whether there is oxygen on the planet.

“Give me the box of matches,” says one. “Either it burns and there is oxygen, or nothing happens.” He takes the box, and is ready to strike a match when, out of the blue, a Martian appears waving all his arms…"No, no, don’t! "
The two guys look at each other, worried. Could there be an unknown explosive gas on Mars? Still, he takes another match… And… A crowd of hysterical Martians is coming, all waving their arms: “No, no, don’t do that!”

One of the astronauts says, “This looks serious. What are they afraid of? Nonetheless, we’re here for Science, to know if man can breathe on Mars.” So he strikes a match – which flames up, burns down, and…NOTHING HAPPENS!!

So he turns to the Martians and asks, “Why did you want to prevent us from striking a match?”

The leader of the Martians says, “It’s Shabbat!”