Carl Olson of the Ignatius Insight blog takes a look at the world’s leading “secular religon” today and compares it to the teachings of Catholicism.
Quoting Freeman Dyson, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and a winner of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion (2000), he writes: “Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.”
Is it?
I’m all for being good stewards and protecting the earth and the Church does indeed teach that “proper stewardship and responsibility are needed when it comes to the earth and material things.” But we need to be careful, there’s need to be a balance.
Carl Olsen writes: “As both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have talked about, man most certainly has a responsibility toward and for the environment. But they insist that this responsibility only makes sense and can only be a reality if man has a proper understanding of his relationship with God, and, directly flowing from that, his responsibility to cherish and protect human life.”
Yes and this is where we part company with the environmentalists. Steven Mosher’s article on Catholic exchange this morning points to why.
“Recent crises have reenergized the population control movement. Worried about food shortages? Reduce the number of babies born, its advocates argue. Concerned about global warming? Contracept or sterilize more women. Want to bring down gas prices? Promote abortion around the globe. As ‘Going Green’ columnist Bryan Walsh puts it in the latest issue of Time magazine (June 2, 2008), ‘Population is the essential multiplier for any number of human ills.’ ”
No, it really isn’t. The problem isn’t that we have too many people and not enough food. We waste tons of food daily in this country while our brothers and sisters around the globe starve. We Americans are complaining a lot lately about rising food prices and yet anyone who works at a restaurant or grocery store can attest to the enormous amounts of food that gets wasted everyday. What could be shared with the needy of the local community is thrown away because companies fear law suits and liabilities.
It’s wrong, and population control and all it brings with it down it’s slippery slope is not the answer.
God help us.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Theresa 06.06.08 at 11:49 am
I think these are some valid criticisms of the environmental movement. But the thing is, as with any “religion,” environmentalism has it’s solid core of reasonable adherents, and also it’s out-there wacko extremists. We should be careful not to define a movement (or religion) by it’s extremes. Just as it is unfair to equate Mormonism with FLDS polygamists, Islam with terrorists, and Christianity with Jeremiah Wright, it is unfair to equate environmentalism with proponents of population control and abortion. Sure, they are out there, but they are also “out there” and they do not represent the majority of environmentalists, who are folks like me. My environmentalism and my Catholicism go hand in hand and there is no reason why a Catholic cannot proudly call him or herself an environmentalist. Stewardship of God’s creation is our duty and privilege. And it is true that “population is the essential multiplier for any number of human ills.” That just makes sense. More people more problems to deal with. BUT (big, big but!) that does NOT mean the solution is to get rid of the people! That’s where the population control folks are short-sighted. The problems will not go away if there are fewer people, it will just make it easier to ignore the real problems, which are unjustice and inequity in distribution of wealth and resources worldwide, overconsumption, wars, and any number of other social ills that will be solved ONLY when we realize that EVERY life is precious from conception until natural death.
Kathryn 06.06.08 at 3:00 pm
I take both your point and Theresa’s … I think that quote about environmentalism energising the population control movement may well be correct – but the population control movement is only a subset of the environmental movement.
My current bugbear is fuel. If we want the world’s population, especially an increasing population, to eat, we simply cannot afford to go down the biofuels road. Did you know that crops needed to produce one tank of fuel for an SUV could feed a family for months? The headlong rush to grow crops for biofuels is literally taking food out of the mouths of the poor.