#440: Our Faith Is Going “Green”--And We Can Help!

It was one of those weeks when separate events converge to signal a trend that touches us all. 

The Washington Post just reported that representatives of Catholic Bishops “from around the globe” signed an appeal calling on next month’s UN climate conference in Paris to “approve a ‘transformative’ and legally binding agreement that set the global temperature limits.” This appeal reinforces the campaign of Pope Francis to protect “our common home.”

The Post also reported a study in the journal Nature Climate Change warning that five major Persian Gulf cities could become physically “uninhabitable” (due to heat) by the end of the century.

And the Boston Globe reported interesting data from the U.S. Census Bureau.  In the 2005-2014 decade, the number of Bostonians commuting to work by bike tripled.  Public transit commuting also increased, as did walking to work and working at home.  The only decrease: people driving to work.

Reading that last report, I thought first of my own past.  I bike-commuted to downtown Boston for 10 summers (except rainy days), 1978-1987.  I had also commuted by bike across Boston’s north shore while in college for two summer jobs, and then biked to my senior year classes from off-campus.  On one of those bikes I mounted a small green-and-white mini license plate that read “Non-Polluting Vehicle.”

Thinking back, it occurs to me that I was emulating two older role models.  The first was John McGrath, a 60+ co-worker who rode his three-speed bike to General Electric’s West Lynn (Massachusetts) plant every day. The second was my own father, who rode his bike 6 miles to GE’s Everett (Massachusetts) point in his 40s and 50s.

These men were thinking “economizing” and “exercise,’ not “ecology”--but their example remains for me today.  And my son Chris often gets to his La Jolla (California) job by bike--a 3^rd generation “cyclo-commuter” !

What do all these things signal?  Three things, I think: (1) The consensus on the man-made threat to our environment is now so strong that only people in denial can doubt it; (2) The Catholic Church is now throwing its weight squarely behind the push to reduce carbon emissions; (3) Pope Francis has made this push a moral imperative even for individuals and families. As Francis wrote in his encyclical “Laudato Si”:

A change in lifestyle could bring healthy pressure to bear on those who wield political, economic and social power. This is what consumer movements accomplish by boycotting certain products…This shows us the great need for a sense of social responsibility on the part of consumers. “Purchasing is always a moral – and not simply economic – act.” Today, in a word, “the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our lifestyle.”

For Catholics, this means reflecting on actions within our control.  As Francis says:

We are always capable of going out of ourselves towards the other…Disinterested concern for others, and the rejection of every form of self-centeredness and self-absorption, are essential if we truly wish to care for our brothers and sisters and for the natural environment. These attitudes also attune us to the moral imperative of assessing the impact of our every action and personal decision on the world around us. If we can overcome individualism, we will truly be able to develop a different lifestyle and bring about significant changes in society.

The point is not for all of us to take up cycling (my trip to my client on Martha’s Vineyard, for example, is 70+ miles overland, plus a 45-minute boat trip—too far to bike!).  No, the point is to ask: “what is possible for me? How can I adjust my way of life to make it more sustainable, more eco-friendly?  How can I take some stewardship for our common home?” In  Francis’ words, it is about building new habits:

An awareness of the gravity of today’s cultural and ecological crisis must be translated into new habits. Many people know that our current progress and the mere amassing of things and pleasures are not enough to give meaning and joy to the human heart, yet they feel unable to give up what the market sets before them...A milieu of extreme consumerism and affluence which makes it difficult to develop other habits. We are faced with an educational challenge…Yet this education, aimed at creating an “ecological citizenship,” is at times limited to providing information, and fails to instill good habits... Only by cultivating sound virtues will people be able to make a selfless ecological commitment.

It’s easy to misunderstand this challenge.  When I told a recent group that Vatican City became the world’s first carbon neutral state by buying up a large forest, many investors were skeptical.  “That doesn’t even reduce their energy use!” They said. 

True enough--but no one can live modern life by reducing their carbon emissions to zero.  Even all-electric cars mostly depend on power generated by burning fossil fuels, since hydro and wind-generated electricity (“clean electricity”) still supplies less than half our power.  Nearly everything we buy, even food, has been produced, directly or indirectly, by burning carbon--and has burned more carbon while shipping to the store.  Many homes would go dark and unheated and/or uncooled without carbon emissions, and without  burning carbon all our batteries would fail to recharge.

No, the reduction of our carbon footprint is a more complex challenge.  To become “carbon neutral” means balancing carbon emissions with carbon absorption.  This requires both reducing carbon emissions and increasing offsetting measures.  So the Vatican’s forest, for example, will absorb as much carbon (trees do it naturally, of course) as Vatican City emits.  By buying the forest, those trees are preserved for that purpose. 

For us, such balancing must be done on a case-by-case basis.  There are many ways we can reduce emissions.  We can convert our heating, cooling, and cars away from carbon-burning fuels.  We can alter our thermostats: lower for heating, higher for cooling.  We can drive less, we can use more public transportation, conserve the electricity used by our appliances, lights, and machinery.  Some of us can convert to solar or wind power. We can shop locally more to reduce shipping emissions.  Many online sites provide tips for planning ways to reduce our domestic carbon footprint.

But in addition to reducing emissions, we can also boost carbon absorption to offset our emissions and bring our carbon footprint closer to zero. One obvious way is to plant trees:

According to the Urban Forestry Network, a single young tree absorbs 13 pounds of carbon dioxide each year. That amount will climb up to 48 pounds annually as trees mature. Just one 10-year-old tree releases enough oxygen into the air to support two human beings.

In my case, for example, two young dogwood trees were planted on our property the year before we bought it. They joined another 7 trees on our plot. Without actually calculating the benefits, we know these trees offset some of our emissions.

It’s also possible to support offsets remotely, as Vatican City did:

This is done by purchasing ‘carbon credits’ from accredited companies which offer this service, who will then invest those dollars in (for instance) renewable energy projects or planting trees. (from the website Mashable)

Most experts believe it’s impossible to offset all the planet’s current emissions. But one eco-conscious site, Brave New Climate, suggests our efforts can still serve a spiritual purpose:

Carbon offsets should definitely not be seen as the solution, or as a relatively pain-free way to expel your carbon guilt. There is nowhere near enough offsetting potential in the world for this to be an option for most of the world’s population. But in conjunction with other methods of kicking the CO₂ habit, offsets can help make a difference and allow you to pay a small penance.

PENANCE! Imagine using such an old Catholic term for our eco-efforts. But it makes perfect sense: our common home is struggling, not by accident, but because our way of life is exhausting its resources, and even depriving others of resources they need.

In short, our ecological crisis poses a moral imperative because it comes from a moral failure. As Pope Francis explains in his critical reading of Genesis:

We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge that Judaeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man “dominion” over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations.

In other words, the failure to understand Genesis provided past excuses for mistreating the planet. This may not be our own moral failure, but the failure of past generations of whom we are heirs. In that sense, “going green” CAN be seen as a “small penance” for the sins of our ancestors—and a commitment to leave our childrens’s children’s children a “common home” that is more respectful of God’s great gifts.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2015

#439: After That October Day, America Would Never Be the Same

Last month’s US visit by Pope Francis was the most recent chapter in a story that began 50 years ago this month.

Except for Church insiders and those following the extended reporting of John Cogley in the New York Times or “Xavier Rynne” in the New Yorker, the seismic shift of Vatican II (1962-1965) meant little to Americans, including American Catholics, until the first shockwave reached our shores in the Fall of 1965.

This is the moment when Paul VI broke all tradition and precedent (popes had been, quite literally, “prisoners of the Vatican” for the previous 94 years) by traveling across the Atlantic to deliver his Church’s message to the world. Pope Paul VI, the “Pilgrim Pope,” became the first pope to ever visit the United States.

The scene was the stuff of high theater…

Shortly after Amintore Fanfani, Foreign Minister of Italy and President of the twentieth session of the United Nations General Assembly, had called the meeting to order, he and Secretary General U Thant provided the official escort down the main aisle. Soon, only the slim, white-robed figure stood at the green marble rostrum.

     Pope Paul VI, only hours from his arrival, had already presided over a special service at St. Patrick's Cathedral and met with President Lyndon Johnson at Waldorf Towers under the tightest security precautions ever taken in New York City; that meeting had to be “private” because the U.S. did not yet have diplomatic relations with the Vatican City, so this was not officially a State Visit. Quite a contrast with 2015, when both the White House and the Congress officially welcomed the pope as a visiting Head of State!

Later, Pope Paul would present U Thant with a diamond-studded cross and ring (valued at $115, 000, to be sold to raise funds for alleviating world hunger), meet with a small interfaith group at Holy Family Church on East 47th Street, celebrate Mass before 90,000 people at Yankee Stadium, and visit the Vatican Pavilion at the New York World's Fair to gaze at Michelangelo's Pieta before flying back to Rome.

The Papal Mass Yankee Stadium

But this was moment he had really come for--the moment he had been invited for when planning for a UN conference on "Peace on Earth" began at Santa Barbara's Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in 1963. Since the Center's inspiration came from John XXIII's encyclical letter Pacem in Terris, it had seemed fitting to invite his successor to address the UN. Now he stood before the General Assembly, the first Pope to visit the New World. He spoke in French.

     Many listeners expected no more than polite and pious boilerplate, but he had not made the trip for nothing. As Drew Middleton of the New York Times reported, "The Pontiff's address, with its emphasis on universality, disarmament and the development of a world authority, went far beyond the simple pleas expected by most of the delegates." In fact, Paul delivered one of the greatest speeches of the 20th century.

Pope Paul Addressing the UN General Assembly

Specifically, Paul appealed to outlaw all nuclear weapons, issued his famous "Jamais plus de guerre!" cry, urged more concerted action on hunger, and, in "the most controversial part of the speech," advised the UN to admit Red China. Most surprising and significant of all, however, were the Pope's extended remarks about his own church and the UN itself. He began by characterizing the trip's importance from the Catholic point of view:

Like a messenger who, after a long journey, finally succeeds in delivering the letter which has been entrusted to him, so we appreciate the good fortune of this moment, however brief, which fulfills a desire nourished in the heart for nearly twenty centuries. For, as you well remember, we are very ancient; we here represent a long history; we here celebrate the epilogue of a weary pilgrimage in search of a conversation with the entire world, ever since the command was given to us: Go and bring the good news to all peoples. .

Next, he challenged the UN to an extraordinarily exalted view of its own mission:

Now, you represent all peoples...The edifice which you have constructed must never fall; it must be perfected and made equal to the needs which world history will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind from which retreat must never be admitted, but from which it is necessary that advance be made.

The Pope paused. Then, in the measured tones of the career diplomat he was, he sharpened his point by comparing the UN's global mission to Catholicism's:

You are a bridge between peoples. You are a network of relations between states. We would almost say that your chief characteristic is a reflection, as it were, in the temporal field, of what our Catholic church aspires to be in the spiritual field: unique and universal. Your vocation is to make brothers not only of some, but of all people.

Finally, he sought to convince his listeners that his Church's own concern with humanity's spiritual needs should link, rather than separate, the two organizations:

This edifice which you are constructing does not rest upon merely material and earthly foundations, for thus it would be a house built upon sand; above all, it is based on our own consciences. The hour has struck for our "conversion," for personal transformation, for interior renewal. We must get used to thinking of humanity in a new way...With a new manner, too, of conceiving the paths of history and the destiny of the world...The edifice of modern civilization must be built upon spiritual principles which alone can, not only support it, but even illuminate and animate it.

     It was October 8, 1965. Vatican Council II would end just eight weeks later, but until now it had remained a distant blip on most Americans’ radar. Paul had used this speech to announce the Council’s agenda in the most public way imaginable.

Demands on New York's communication system were greater than for the Kennedy funeral and the five Gemini moon shots combined; A.M. Rosenthal, then the Times' metropolitan editor, called it "the saddest professional day in our lives," because a strike kept the paper's papal coverage off the stands.  But millions saw the TV coverage of the pope landing in New York, the pope meeting the President of the United States, the pope before the UN, the Pope saying mass at Yankee Stadium.

Even then, however, few observers realized that the agenda Paul proclaimed simply as his Church’s “weary pilgrimage in search of a conversation” had already put this vast and ancient organization on a collision course with its own past.

The stated intention at Vatican II was not “collision’” of course; it was “renewal.” Even so, anything new in an institution so old, any move from point A to point B, held the risk of disrupting long-accepted ways.

Francis in America

Vatican II set a course correction for the world’s largest organization, and 50 years later that course is still disputed. But the recent visit by Francis has made 2 things perfectly clear. First, the place of the Catholic Church in American life is more public and powerful than ever before. Second, Francis intends to steer that Church back onto the course intended by Vatican II, especially by his insistent focus on the twin “north stars” of Mercy and Justice.

And thus our Church continues that “conversation with the entire world” that Paul VI began 50 years ago.

Bernard F. Swain PhD 2015

#438: We Need to Stop Pigeon-Holing This Pope!

During and since the Pope’s US visit, too many Americans have been cutting his vision down to THEIR size! 

It’s no surprise that the visit of Pope Francis to the US drew widely varied reactions--even if they were mostly positive.  Compared to other public figures, his manner is so humble, his heart is so open, and his mind is so humane, that he defies easy comparisons.  But that did not stop observers from trying to pigeonhole him--usually by boxing him into the hole right next to their own.

There were also some negative reactions (or over-reactions).  There were those distressed by the visit itself, like the evangelical pastor who complained that Congress was giving him an official welcome of the sort usually reserved for elected leaders.  This is a pretty bad blind spot, since it ignores why Congress (and the President) merely followed the protocols of a state visit: because the pope IS a head of state, as well as an elected official.  This is not negated by the fact that he is also the head of Roman Catholic Church—any more that it would be for welcoming the Queen of England, who is both head of state of the UK AND the head of the Church of England.

Then there was the overreaction to the news that Francis had greeted Kim Davis.  Fueled by exaggerated claims by Davis and her lawyer that the pope was taking their side in her dispute with the law, reactions ranged from gleeful crowing (by conservatives) two outraged wailing (by liberals) until Vatican sources rebutted claims: this meet-and-greet was one of dozens, was strictly pro-forma, did not convey support for Davis’s particular case or position, and did not rank as an official audience. That status was reserved for one meeting: with a former student of Francis who is gay and brought along his long-time partner.  So much for pigeon-holing this pope!

Yet even those reacting positively, amid all the personal praise, too often needed to cut the pope’s message down to their size.  Conservatives in Congress applauded his defense of family, marriage, and civil rights, while liberals praised his remarks on climate change, immigration, and inequality.  On both sides a common theme emerged: “We like this pope on some issues, but not on all issues.”  Thus they cherry picked his message for their favorite parts, and tossed out the rest.  It was as if they pretended he was preaching to their choir, or even to both choirs at once.  There was no sense that they realized the pope was actually preaching beyond both choirs, offering a comprehensive and coherent vision in which all these issues are connected.  Indeed, they did their best to disconnect these issues into unrelated pieces. 

The most striking example came when the pope urged Congress to protect life at every stage of development.  No sooner had the conservative applause begun--they inferred the pope’s topic was “abortion”--than Francis proceeded to call for the abolition of the death penalty.  A surprised and audible yelp came from the gallery as the conservatives suddenly sat on their hands and the liberals rose in applause!

Even the media was often caught off guard.  Reports of that speech repeatedly claimed that Francis attacked legal abortion (even though the word never came up in his speech!) and failed to explain that pope was really preaching the “Seamless Garment of Life” ethic promoted by Chicago’s late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.

Some observers did get the point.  Chris Matthews’ first comment on the address to Congress was that Francis had created “a spiritual Mount Rushmore” by calling on Congress (and all Americans) to pursue a better future built on the civic virtues exemplified by four great Americans: Abraham Lincoln (freedom and hope), Martin Luther King (human rights and nonviolence), Dorothy Day (care for the poor and oppressed) and Thomas Merton (open dialogue and bridge-building rooted in reflection). 

And Bishop Robert Barron of Los Angeles commented, that “if you begin where the pope begins”—with the idea that our common home, including life itself, is God’s gift to us all as well as our responsibility to God and to each other--then “all the other issues line up.”

I’m afraid this fact did not register with millions of Americans, whether professionals in the media, or elected officials, or ordinary citizens.  Trying to pigeonhole the pope along conservative-vs.-liberal lines, they found him puzzling, even perplexingly inconsistent. They loved his warm smile and his open heart but they found his vision hard to wrap their minds around.

Ironically, this vision may be the least original thing about Francis.  Nearly all of his worldview draws on the classic core of modern Catholic Social teaching from John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul II, and Benedict XVI. I have argued that Paul VI in particular analyze the ethical challenges of globalization in 1967, becoming the "prophet of globalization" even before that term came into general use [see http://swaincrosscurrents.blogspot.com/2009/09/268-benedict-goes-outside-box.html ]. The difference is that, while Paul named this the challenge to achieve “Integral Human Development,” Francis has updated the name (with an environmental dimension) and now refers to “Integral and Sustainable Development.”

I continue to believe that this vision offers a clear and global worldview that no other public figure can match.  Indeed, this vision connects everything into one big picture, as I previously noted in analyzing the pope’s environmental encyclical from this past June:

Many commentators wrongly described the encyclical’s theme as “climate change.” In fact Francis presents climate change as just one piece of a much bigger puzzle.  He roots the problem of climate change in runaway carbon emissions, which are generated by our unsustainable reliance on fuels needed to power a runaway capitalist system that treats self-interest and greed as our most important social virtues.  This system despoils the global environment while generating not only intolerable levels of pollution but also intolerable levels of inequality.  The result, he says will be a progressive degrading of earth’s ecological systems which, while caused by the world’s wealthy, will disproportionately affect the world’s poor.  The solution to this massively dysfunctional global system is nothing less than a planetary ethical revolution that dethrones runaway capitalism as we know it and replaces it with a system that reflects more authentically humane values. 

In short, rather than focusing on science or environmentalism or economics or public policy or social justice or religion--Pope Francis has integrated them all into one big coherent vision.  No wonder he calls it “integral ecology”: it is not just the “big picture,” it is the biggest picture of all.      --CrossCurrents#432--07-03-15

It is no great mystery why many in Congress-- and many in America--resist this global vision.  It is not because they do not accept Catholic doctrines; this vision does not depend on those doctrines.  It is because they need to filter all they hear through their own preconceived notions.  They loved Francis’ open heart, but they struggled to open their own hearts.  They praised his call for dialogue, as long as their own opinions could remain non-negotiable. 

This begs the question: what difference does this make?  Almost every position which Francis took earned praise from someone.  It’s just that few praised his vision as a whole--or even recognize that whole vision’s power.   Does this matter? 

If the pope is right, it matters a lot--Because if he is right, we cannot solve any of our major problems in isolation, without grasping the big picture:

The world’s problems cannot be analyzed or explained in isolation….the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance, unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality…What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us…? This question not only concerns the environment in isolation; the issue cannot be approached piecemeal. When we ask ourselves what kind of world we want to leave behind, we think in the first place of its general direction, its meaning and its values. Unless we struggle with these deeper issues, I do not believe that our concern for ecology will produce significant results.     --Laudato Si, Pars.61, 138,160

But if the pope is right, that “big picture” calls for changes in all of us: changes in our daily lives, our consumption patterns, our relationships, our attitudes.  And if the pope is right, our survival is at stake--and that survival depends on understanding that those stakes are global but the solution starts with each one of us. 

So in the wake of Francis’ visit, the practical question facing all of us is this: do we rise to the challenge of this man’s vast vision, this big picture--Or do we keep cutting it down to our own size?

 Bernard F. Swain PhD 2015