Of course the Church is anthro-centric. It is about morality and the saving of souls and that has nought to do with animals, trees and rocks. Tha Gaia worshipers place their focus on those things and not people. In the process they abandon the morality that is required for humanity to survive and social structures to flourish.
Hi John…I would argue that the church is not anthro-centric…it perhaps may have a message that is interpreted by humanity for humanity…but history of the saints, church teaching and even St. Paul in Romans 8 I think talks about our connectedness to the rest of creation. There is also a common understanding amongst many religions, indigenous spirituality, etc., that humanity is part of the web of creation and that does not mean that humanity is “worshiped” outside of the rest of creation or vice-versa it has to be within a holistic context… Gaia worshippers honour the feminine if I remember right…and the “feminine” your are right is connected with creation…but I am not sure if they exclude but include humanity within creation…as a holistic whole. I think too that for the church to expand upon its eco-theological inventory, or even to review some of the great works honouring creation by Catholic writers over the centuries is only a function of a church growing in its understanding…and outgrowing the monopoly of a western and male dominated world that produced the theology informing the teachings of our chruch…it would not invalidate the church’s focus on our lives as human both in this earth and in the next life…
Here you have identified the political realm, as opposed to the moral realm of human existence. Paul VI was correct in his assessment of there being a supply problem with food and not a production problem. A failure of distribution is not a failure of capitalism. Capitalism has overseen the massive increases in food production seen around the world. All those countries who have abandoned capitalism to varying degrees also lag behind in food production. Those countries who totally abandoned the capitalist and Christian ethic are the worst in terms of food production. Those countries whose ecological histories are the worst are the very countries whose food production is barely of a subsistence nature and it is those countries who have moved further away from the Christian and capitalist systems.
*
Yeah, I have no problem in agreeing and understanding your point here…as another poster pointed out even when North America sends food to those who need it, it does not often get through…so blaming capitalism only is a mistake, however capitalism that is not regulated on an international level is also harmful…I forgot the point this quote was supporting in my original statement…but I understand your point here*.
Every human action contains a moral component. That also extends to the environment and its use. The Catechism states quite clearly and unequivocally that we are stewards of the earth. Common sense would tell us the same thing. You might decry the Church’s continued focus on the morality of abortion, or any other moral issue, but it should be remembered that if humans can not value the life of their own species and show it scant regard, then how is it that they should be expected to value the lives of any other species? A display of a lack of respect for one life form certainly does not gaurantee respect for some other form of life. Read the Catechism at
2415. Its heading is “Respect for the Integrity of Creation”. Don’t blame the Church for its focus. Instead, blame those in the world whose focus is devoid of morality.
*
Ah, very interesting point. I like the point as well…our caring about the unborn should be within a new context that is about life, and not just about the life of the human species but of all creation…that way we do honour our church’s work on resisting abortion as an afront to the dignity of life, yet we do so within an expanded eco-theological context which would only strenghthen the church’s work…interesting… I need to do more thinking along those lines…*
Wrong. It is not the provence of the Church to take its focus off people and to make trees and rocks its primary concern. The moral values required for good stewardship are already a part of the Church’s techings, but unless people address their moral failings with their dealings with their fellow creatures, how are they to address their failings in their dealings with the natural world? Being a moral person requires the inculcation of a complete moral system, not just selective aspects of it. The person who protects trees at the expense of people is no more moral than someone who protects people at the expense of trees.
No one is saying that rocks and trees should be the primary concern of the chruch…what I am saying is that our social teaching focus is limited to the dignity of life within and only within the human species. The western church has not developed a theology for the earth…and it needs to do so…this development of eco-theology would not invalidate church teaching rather it would enhance it from a inter-connectedness nature of creation of which humanity is one small part. I think in terms of your points about dealings between ourselves within humanity is actually making the same point as me…you are starting within the human species and working outwards to the rest of creation whereas I am starting from the 'rest of creation" and working inward towards the importance of honouring the dignity of human life…and that includes quality of life too…does that make sense to you?
Yes protecting trees at the expense of people SHOULD BE JUST AS WRONG AS protecting people and their systems at the expense of the trees and the rest of creation…
Bruce
BUT like little bugs we are eating up everything in site and yes we are destroying the world…the world will pass away…but so will our lives…should we neglect our lives, our bodies, our health, our minds? Eternal truths that Jesus speaks about are - of course - eternal…
