Thomas Berry

[HisGlory]

I’d like some (name removed by moderator)ut on Thomas Berry. I know he was a Catholic priest. Is he worth reading? Thanks!

 

[FCEGM]

I’d like some (name removed by moderator)ut on Thomas Berry. I know he was a Catholic priest. Is he worth reading? Thanks!

This brief article at Catholic Culture speaks of him in the same breath with Matthew Fox, so caveat emptor:

catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm?id=4019&repos=6&subrepos=4&searchid=624062

 

[Ahimsa]

Thomas Berry is great, if you either (1) are well-established in your faith and (2) are deeply interested in the environmental future of humanity. Even if you aren’t well-established in your faith, Berry’s book ‘The Great Work’ is worthwhile.

 

[redhen]

I’d like some (name removed by moderator)ut on Thomas Berry. I know he was a Catholic priest. Is he worth reading? Thanks!

Why not read some of his essays? thomasberry.org/

There is a growing trend that merges Catholicism and ecology. I for one welcome it heartily.

It’s even being taught at Catholic universities; utoronto.ca/stmikes/theology/eaite/index.html

Perhaps there’s hope yet.

In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, the present pope wrote; “In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. “ (Bendecit XVI, CiV). :clapping:

 

[beckycmarie]

Thomas Berry co-founded the new age Green Mountain Monastery, which was the subject of another thread a while back:

** Does this seem biblical to you or New Age? **

Berry died about a year ago; if you go to the monastery’s website, you can see photos of his funeral, complete with the “Ritual Dance around the coffin at liturgy.”

I pray for his soul, and recommend that faithful Catholics avoid his teachings and those of his followers.

 

[sawman]

Thanks redhen for your endorsment. Saved me the effort and time of checking him out. What a waste. The “green” movement is incompatible with Church teaching. Thanks again,
Peace,
Tom

 

[redhen]

Thanks redhen for your endorsment. Saved me the effort and time of checking him out. What a waste. The “green” movement is incompatible with Church teaching. Thanks again,
Peace,
Tom

No problem, you should inform the papacy about that.

"The first consideration is the appropriateness of acquiring a growing awareness of the fact that one cannot use with impunity the difference categories of beings, whether living or inanimate - animals, plants, the natural elements - simply as one wishes, according to one’s own economic needs. On the contrary, one must take into account the nature of each being and of its mutual connection in an ordered system, which is precisely the “cosmos.”

• John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, December, 1987 Encyclical.

“natural resources are limited; some are not, as it is said, renewable. Using them as if they were inexhaustible, with absolute dominion, seriously endangers their availability not only for the present generation but above all for generations to come.

• John Paul II, ”*Sollicitudo rei socialis * 1987

“The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits."

• Union of Concerned Scientists, 1992

 

[sawman]

Without getting into an arguement, Your vatican references are not an endorsement of the “Green” movement. The econuts that inhabit every green movement are camoflaged marxists. That philosophy is anathama to Catholics . The “green” movement is a lie.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but you are wrong.
Peace,
Tom

 

[redhen]

Without getting into an arguement, Your vatican references are not an endorsement of the “Green” movement. The econuts that inhabit every green movement are camoflaged marxists. That philosophy is anathama to Catholics . The “green” movement is a lie.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but you are wrong.
Peace,
Tom

Econuts? Marxists? Handy labels for sure, if you want to demonize people.

With all respect, the Roman Catholic Church is embracing methods to address modern problems. That should be good news, I would think.

John Paul II was a self-admitted feminist. The preferential option for the poor tries to address modern consumerism which is degrading the planet. Consumerism plays a big role in the ‘Culture of Death’.

If I am so wrong on this point, why is the Vatican working towards becoming the 1st carbon friendly state?
catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_announces_plans_to_become_first_carbon_neutral_state_in_the_world/

Sounds pretty “Green” to me.

You’re not scaring anyone with your pejorative labels, at least not anyone who is willing to dig beneath the surface of the issue.

 

[beckycmarie]

John Paul II was a self-admitted feminist.

Please provide a source for this statement.

 

[redhen]

Please provide a source for this statement.

Ok, but I thought this was common knowledge.

JP II used the words "I am the feminist Pope.” at a 1998 conference;
ncregister.com/site/article/feminist_pope_inspires_doctors_labor_of_love/

Also see:

"In this year’s World Day of Peace Message, I noted that when one looks at the great process of women’s liberation, “the journey has been a difficult and complicated one and, at times, not without its share of mistakes. But** it has been substantially a positive one**, even if it is still unfinished, due to the many obstacles which, in various parts of the world, still prevent women from being acknowledged, respected, and appreciated in their own special dignity”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

“In transforming the culture so that it supports life, women occupy a place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive. It depends on them to **promote a ‘new feminism’ **which rejects the temptation of imitating models of ‘male domination’, in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[sawman]

redhen, life is too short to get into this with you.
live long and prosper!
God bless you!
Peace, Tom

 

[beckycmarie]

Ok, but I thought this was common knowledge.

JP II used the words "I am the feminist Pope.” at a 1998 conference;
ncregister.com/site/article/feminist_pope_inspires_doctors_labor_of_love/

Also see:

"In this year’s World Day of Peace Message, I noted that when one looks at the great process of women’s liberation, “the journey has been a difficult and complicated one and, at times, not without its share of mistakes. But** it has been substantially a positive one**, even if it is still unfinished, due to the many obstacles which, in various parts of the world, still prevent women from being acknowledged, respected, and appreciated in their own special dignity”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

“In transforming the culture so that it supports life, women occupy a place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive. It depends on them to **promote a ‘new feminism’ **which rejects the temptation of imitating models of ‘male domination’, in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

Thanks for the info. Clearly Pope John Paul II promoted a Catholic view of womanhood, and not the anti-Christian, pro-abortion and man-hating version of feminism that most people associate with the word “feminist.”

 

[tpw]

I’ve not found Catholic Culture to be a good source for commentary on Catholic life. Their objections are usually ill-considered or distorted not looking at the full-body of a person’s work. Moreover, I’ve found them more accustomed to playing the “guilt by association” game which does no justice to authors or speakers. They simply become another body responsible for polarizing the church.

 

[tpw]

What one discovers by reading the material from Thomas Berry and Green Monastery is that it doesn’t diverge from Catholic orthodoxy one bit.

What it does do is further inculturate and incarnate traditional beliefs like Mary as Celestial Queen. If Mary is Queen of Heaven she must also be queen of the Cosmos since the Celestial and Terrestial (eternity and temporal orders) intersect.

For those who howled with laugther on the link to an earlier discussion re: the Green Monastery and transformation of consciousness one sadly discovers a profound ignorance. Isn’t that precisely what prayer is supposed to do - alter one’s consciousness? Isn’t that an effect of fasting? Isn’t that ultimately one of the effects of growth in holiness?

And where in Catholic theology does one find a denial that the sacred is often found in and through nature? The scriptures are filled with such references. How many times does Jesus make references to birds, plants of one sort or another, water, etc. And one need not look much further than Francis of Assisi to find a nature mystic. And he certainly was not alone - Bonaventure, Meister Eckhart, Gerard Manly Hopkins, Thomas Merton to name a very, very small group - saw God manifested in the natural world.

Well did Dorothy Day remind us of the danger of those who were content to make saints nothing more than plaster figures who would not disturb them or others.

 

[jtodisco]

Thanks redhen for your endorsment. Saved me the effort and time of checking him out. What a waste. The “green” movement is incompatible with Church teaching. Thanks again,
Peace,
Tom

How is caring for God’s creation, which he placed under our authority, against Church teaching? I see nothing contrary to Church teaching in trying to live a more environmentally conscience lifestyle. I try my hardest walk or bike whenever possible instead of driving, I try to avoid giving my money to businesses that have bad environmental records, I recycle, etc. None of this strikes me as being immoral in the slightest, in fact I would argue that these are good practices. Nowhere in the Bible do I read “And thou shalt destroy the planet in order to satisfy thy greedy and imprudent impulses.”

As for Thomas Berry, I don’t think he was a saint nor do I think he was the world’s worst sinner (it seems like people on this thread so far believe one or the other extreme views). He was definitely a strange duck, but I believe that his heart was always in the right place and I do not doubt that he loved God despite the fact that he estranged himself from the Church to a certain extent. Reading his works wouldn’t be my first suggestion to someone looking to deepen their faith, but that doesn’t mean one couldn’t gain some insights from doing so provided they engaged his teachings with a cautious and critical eye.

 

[jtodisco]

Quoted from chapter four of Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

"48. Today the subject of development is also closely related to the duties arising from our relationship to the natural environment. The environment is God’s gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole. When nature, including the human being, is viewed as the result of mere chance or evolutionary determinism, our sense of responsibility wanes. In nature, the believer recognizes the wonderful result of God’s creative activity, which we may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation. If this vision is lost, we end up either considering nature an untouchable taboo or, on the contrary, abusing it. Neither attitude is consonant with the Christian vision of nature as the fruit of God’s creation.

Nature expresses a design of love and truth. It is prior to us, and it has been given to us by God as the setting for our life. Nature speaks to us of the Creator (cf. Rom 1:20) and his love for humanity. It is destined to be “recapitulated” in Christ at the end of time (cf. Eph 1:9-10; Col 1:19-20). Thus it too is a “vocation”[115]. Nature is at our disposal not as “a heap of scattered refuse”[116], but as a gift of the Creator who has given it an inbuilt order, enabling man to draw from it the principles needed in order “to till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). But it should also be stressed that it is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more important than the human person. This position leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism — human salvation cannot come from nature alone, understood in a purely naturalistic sense. This having been said, it is also necessary to reject the opposite position, which aims at total technical dominion over nature, because the natural environment is more than raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure; it is a wondrous work of the Creator containing a “grammar” which sets forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not its reckless exploitation. Today much harm is done to development precisely as a result of these distorted notions. Reducing nature merely to a collection of contingent data ends up doing violence to the environment and even encouraging activity that fails to respect human nature itself. Our nature, constituted not only by matter but also by spirit, and as such, endowed with transcendent meaning and aspirations, is also normative for culture. Human beings interpret and shape the natural environment through culture, which in turn is given direction by the responsible use of freedom, in accordance with the dictates of the moral law. Consequently, projects for integral human development cannot ignore coming generations, but need to be marked by solidarity and inter-generational justice, while taking into account a variety of contexts: ecological, juridical, economic, political and cultural[117].

1. Questions linked to the care and preservation of the environment today need to give due consideration to the energy problem. The fact that some States, power groups and companies hoard non-renewable energy resources represents a grave obstacle to development in poor countries. Those countries lack the economic means either to gain access to existing sources of non-renewable energy or to finance research into new alternatives. The stockpiling of natural resources, which in many cases are found in the poor countries themselves, gives rise to exploitation and frequent conflicts between and within nations. These conflicts are often fought on the soil of those same countries, with a heavy toll of death, destruction and further decay. The international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together for the future.

On this front too, there is a pressing moral need for renewed solidarity, especially in relationships between developing countries and those that are highly industrialized[118]. The technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption, either through an evolution in manufacturing methods or through greater ecological sensitivity among their citizens. It should be added that at present it is possible to achieve improved energy efficiency while at the same time encouraging research into alternative forms of energy. What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them. The fate of those countries cannot be left in the hands of whoever is first to claim the spoils, or whoever is able to prevail over the rest. Here we are dealing with major issues; if they are to be faced adequately, then everyone must responsibly recognize the impact they will have on future generations, particularly on the many young people in the poorer nations, who “ask to assume their active part in the construction of a better world”[119].

…Continued in next post

 

[jtodisco]

"50. This responsibility is a global one, for it is concerned not just with energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future generations depleted of its resources. Human beings legitimately exercise a responsible stewardship over nature, in order to protect it, to enjoy its fruits and to cultivate it in new ways, with the assistance of advanced technologies, so that it can worthily accommodate and feed the world’s population. On this earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature itself — God’s gift to his children — and through hard work and creativity. At the same time we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it. This means being committed to making joint decisions “after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”[120]. Let us hope that the international community and individual governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment. It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations: the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet[121]. One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of “efficiency” is not value-free.

1. The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice versa. This invites contemporary society to a serious review of its life-style, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences[122]. What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new life-styles “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments”[123]. Every violation of solidarity and civic friendship harms the environment, just as environmental deterioration in turn upsets relations in society. Nature, especially in our time, is so integrated into the dynamics of society and culture that by now it hardly constitutes an independent variable. Desertification and the decline in productivity in some agricultural areas are also the result of impoverishment and underdevelopment among their inhabitants. When incentives are offered for their economic and cultural development, nature itself is protected. Moreover, how many natural resources are squandered by wars! Peace in and among peoples would also provide greater protection for nature. The hoarding of resources, especially water, can generate serious conflicts among the peoples involved. Peaceful agreement about the use of resources can protect nature and, at the same time, the well-being of the societies concerned.

The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere. In so doing, she must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone. She must above all protect mankind from self-destruction. There is need for what might be called a human ecology, correctly understood. The deterioration of nature is in fact closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when “human ecology”[124] is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits. Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.

In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society."

…continued in next post

 

[jtodisco]

“52. Truth, and the love which it reveals, cannot be produced: they can only be received as a gift. Their ultimate source is not, and cannot be, mankind, but only God, who is himself Truth and Love. This principle is extremely important for society and for development, since neither can be a purely human product; the vocation to development on the part of individuals and peoples is not based simply on human choice, but is an intrinsic part of a plan that is prior to us and constitutes for all of us a duty to be freely accepted. That which is prior to us and constitutes us — subsistent Love and Truth — shows us what goodness is, and in what our true happiness consists. It shows us the road to true development.”

 

[tpw]

Thanks for posting this. Catholics are “green” in our own unique way just as our social justice tradition is unique in its approaches.

In the end one must build relations with allies of various persuasions. It’s never been easy but has been a matter of finding acceptable grounds to work with many people of different persuasions. It’s why Catholics have built alliances with Muslims on issues like abortion although we may have serious disagreements with them on other matters.

It’s also why some of the current attacks delivered against CCHD are slightly out of line. Working to support or improve lives of poor people leads one to walk with others with whom there may be disagreements on other issues.