Is The Church Out of Her League on the Environment?

Many continue to raise questions about the Church’s role and expertise in addressing environmental issues. Eyebrows were recently raised with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences workshop on “How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend” and with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) letter to the U.S. Secretary of State regarding environmental issues.

The question that gets raised is Should the Church be doing these actions in an area she may not have the expertise in? Is she out of her league?

Controversies

The Pontifical Academy February 2017 meeting’s aim was to address conditions and approaches to reduce “bio-extinction” or species loss, one of the six environmental degradations that most naturalists accept as major ecological problems to manage – the others being a clean atmosphere, adequate and clean water, sustainable topsoil, deforestation and waste disposal. Since global warming receives the most attention in the media many are not aware of these other significant environmental issues that require attention.

While the “bio-extinction” workshop addressed a worthy subject, many of the invited speakers included several advocates of population control (to include abortion) and critics of the Church’s stance on birth control such as Paul Ehrlich the author of The Population Bomb. Of note is that his conclusions put forth over 50 years ago about the demise of the earth due to overpopulation have mostly been discounted. Yet Ehrlich’s views continue to get media coverage and traction. To some critics of the workshop, having such participants at the “bio-extinction” meeting indicates the Church has conceded to the secular view of the crisis in nature and that not enough attention was paid to the Church’s teaching. It was seen as another penetration of worldly values into the Church and that allowing them a voice encourages population control advocates worldwide.

This controversy follows the concerns expressed in 2015 when the Vatican representative to the UN issued a supportive statement to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals which advocate “universal access to reproductive services”. That language is generally accepted to mean abortion and birth control.

Another example that raised questions in the same light was that of the USCCB letter to Secretary of State Tillerson in February of 2017 urging the U.S. to support the UN Green Climate Fund to develop adaptation strategies to counteract the effects of climate change. The Green Climate Fund is a private/public venture to fund projects to implement adaptation and mitigation strategies so those poor nations may have more resiliency to adapt to a changing climate. It is not like the large scale UN and government proposals for massive carbon control efforts but instead relies on using proven methods at local levels. Irrespective of the climate change debate, this would appear as a prudential and reasonable stance for the Church, yet many think she should stay out of making such recommendations beyond religious matters.

A Dialogue Model

It should be no mystery, especially for a topic surrounding our planet’s ecology that such controversies also bring out the various critics of the Holy Father’s encyclical Laudato Si. Without going into detail, if one reads Laudato Si it could appear, in many respects as a document “in dialogue” and the Holy Father seems to be very open to dialogue on many issues. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and preceding Popes to include St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all encouraged collaboration and dialogue between the Church and the scientific community on a variety of issues. On the surface, there is nothing against the teachings of the Church to have open discussions on any issue with atheists, Muslims or advocates of population control and global warming. However, it is a legitimate concern if the manner of dialogue is perceived as an acceptance or support for a particular position that may oppose Church teachings.

Church Advocacy – Out of Her League?

These examples presented show how the Church can be controversial over environmental issues which bring up an underlying question. By publically accepting the climate change/global warming narrative projected by the majority of the scientific community and promoting their global solutions is the Church putting herself into a political advocacy position beyond its mission? That’s not an easy question to answer. The problem in answering that question is that there are two broad categories of environmental concerns that need to be separated: 1) climate change/global warming and 2) resource preservation, conservation and management of the six environmental degradations previously mentioned.

Climate change is the most controversial and even though many claim it is all settled science; that is not the case for all aspects of it. For example, climate data clearly show a warming trend and that man-made carbon emissions along with natural causes are factors. The data show effects on such areas as glacier and polar ice melt, sea level, CO2 and temperature rises. However, the predictive models have not been all that accurate with many overestimated catastrophic consequences such as polar bear extinction that raises questions as to the severity of the effects. In addition, many of the “solutions” are large scale government efforts to control green house gases using, in some instances, unproven strategies (and often based on less that accurate predictions) such as legislating reduced energy and industrial production that set up conflicts between mitigation goals and economic growth. In turn, little attention is being paid to proven adaptation strategies (while small in scale) that can be applied locally and economically. Climate change/global warming has, consequently, become a political issue that may, at times, go beyond the science.

A reasonable critique can be raised regarding the Church being premature in accepting all the climate change hypotheses which carry some “baggage” such as an acceptance of population control by many scientists as one “solution”. However, a more basic question to raise, especially in light of some of the extreme solutions is whether we human beings really do have the capability to alter creation’s climate as many would propose?

In terms of the six environmental degradation areas there are many proven, inexpensive and locally based strategies that can improve conditions of air, water, soil, forests, species and waste management. An additional side benefit is that many of those methods also can aid in adapting to global warming and climate change. The Church is on firmer ground in terms of both science and Church teachings supporting these efforts.

Integrated Ecology and Stewardship of the Environment

Our faith teaches us to be concerned with God’s creation. Pope Francis, in Laudato Si, expands upon previous efforts of Pope St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to challenge us to care for creation. While many think (probably without reading it) the encyclical is only about climate change/global warming it also addresses other issues including the six environmental degradation areas. Likewise, the Holy Father highlights in the encyclical how climate change and other environmental problems affect the poor and that environmental problems must be seen in relation to human ecology. In other words, actions to protect nature must account for and not be independent of the needs of the human person. He coined the term “integrated ecology” to reflect that focus and projected it as an element of the broader Catholic social doctrine.

The key action on environmental concerns is to practice wise stewardship of the resources God gave us. In Genesis, we are told that God gave mankind dominion over the earth and that we had a responsibility to care for it. In Deuteronomy, our Jewish brothers were instructed in both land and animal conservation. Being involved in delivering outdoor education, and naturalist field projects, I have seen many stewardship actions that can make a difference for both nature and human ecology. In short, our Christian heritage is one of stewardship. There are many ways to accomplish that both collectively and individually and the Holy Father alluded to many of them in his encyclical such as lifestyle and agricultural practices. To put it in sports terms we have “some skin in the game”.

Obligation Concerns

One does not get stuck in controversy if one doesn’t get involved with an issue. The Church has something to say and is involved in the issues facing our planet that God gave us responsibility for. In that sense, the Church is not “out of her league” but is obligated to be involved. As a consequence, she will be in some controversial situations.

To practice stewardship obligates the Church to foster and be in dialogue to address problems. However, that pursuit must not be approached naively so that there are confusing messages regarding the Church’s position and her possible support for agendas that go against Church teachings. In following the aforementioned controversies, there does not always seem to be a critical evaluation being made of the positions/agendas of others involved in discussions nor of all the implications of appearances of support. Appearances do matter and conversations should be filtered through the teachings of the Church. Likewise, the attempt to foster discussion should not suggest that all positions and ideas are relative and equal for they are not. It needs to always be about finding the truth about ecological issues to meet the obligation of stewardship not just dialogue per se.

Unfortunately, it appears, at times, that the Church structures involved in discussions regarding environmental issues do not always fully recognize these concerns. My prayer is that they do.