What follows is the Introduction to Part 2 and a portion of a chapter from Part 2 of a book in progress on the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. It is the part most relevant to industrialization and the environment. As you read, please select a quote or two that stand out to you and be prepared to discuss them on Wednesday. PA
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
Part II –
Intellectual Traditions: SNDs & Catholic Social Teaching
Catholic Social Teaching,
commonly abbreviated CST, is the name given to a body of
teachings of the Catholic Church relating to how humans interact with one
another in society and with human social institutions such as governments,
groups, companies, political systems and economies. These teachings are
primarily contained in encyclicals, formal statements
written and circulated by popes on topics of concern. Some teachings also arise
from formal statements made by groups of bishops. The social teach-ings reflect
the official Catholic response to worldly conditions and social issues. For
Catholics and non-Catholics alike, they provide a thought-provoking starting
point for reasoning through a wide range of social problems and challenges. “The
church, in fact,” write John Paul II, “has something to say about specific
human situations, both individual and communal, national and international. She
formulates a genuine doctrine for these situations, a corpus which enables her
to analyze social realities, to make judgments about them and to indicate
directions to be taken for the just resolution of the problems involved” (CA 5,
O’Brien 443).
Individual Catholics
relate to these social teachings in a variety of ways – for some, CST reflects
a way of conducting one’s inward and personal life; for others, it is
profoundly political and outwardly engaged. Either way, it seeks to be “a source of unity and peace in dealing with
the conflicts which inevitably arise in social and economic life. Thus it is
possible to meet these new situations without degrading the human person’s
transcendent dignity, either in oneself or in one’s adversaries, and to direct
those situations toward just solutions” (CA 5, O’Brien 443).
CST is a relatively
new development in papal communication. The line of popes (Bishops of Rome)
goes back to the Apostle Peter, who became the first leader of the Christian
Church after the death of its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, in the first century
AD. During this early period of the Church’s history, most formal writings
revolved around clarifications of doctrine. What were the correct beliefs?
Which documents belonged in the Bible? How does one know when to celebrate
Easter? What should a Christian group do about people who disagree with them? At
this time, Christianity was a subaltern religion and less hierarchical than it
later became.
In the fourth
century, institutional development became a focus when Christianity was
legalized and the Church began to develop its partnership with the Roman Empire
under Constantine. Later that century, Emperor Theodocius designated Christianity
as the official religion of the Empire. The emphasis of formal written
statements during this period is on such matters as clarifying doctrine,
condemning heresies, approving the rules governing new monastic orders, and
other mostly internal matters. Although one could argue that Jesus himself was
the first practitioner of Catholic Social Teaching, the Catholic Church rarely
considered it within its scope to formally address worldly issues of social justice
during its first 1,000 years. By then, the Roman Empire had long met its demise
and the Church was well established in new partnerships with Medieval political
elites.
During this period, about
mid-way through its institutional history, the popes made occasional formal pronouncements
on social issues such as slavery and anti-Semitism. Gregory X, for example,
wrote his 1272 “Papal Protection of the Jews” in response to injustices of
physical violence, forced baptism and false testimony in legal matters suffered
by Jews in Medieval Christendom (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm). Likewise, Eugene IV made a strong
statement against slavery in his 1435 encyclical giving holders of Canary
Island slaves 15 days to “restore to their earlier liberty all and each person
of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands […] and who have
been made subject to slavery” (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm).
New opportunities for
the Church to respond to rapidly changing and socially challenging issues arose with the voyages of Spanish and
Portuguese sponsored adventurers to the Americas. The formal pronouncements
coming from the popes during this period voiced strong condemnation of the
practice of enslaving indigenous peoples of the Americas, as well as the
practice of forced conversion of those same peoples (Paul III 5/29/1537), which
it argued went against free will. In all of these cases, the arguments revolved
around what CST practitioners today would call the innate dignity and
sacredness of each and every human person. But these promulgations, while
prefatory to CST, are not part of the body of teachings which are today referred
to as CST.
Neither were these
popes’ decisions always ethically consistent from a 21st-century
point of view. At the same time as they condemned slavery and forced baptism of
indigenous peoples, for example, they bolstered Iberian colonial domination in
the Americas through pronouncements in favor of Spanish and Portuguese
territorial claims. Alexander VI’s assignment of rights to the New World to
Portugal and Spain in 1493 validated vicious acts of conquest and virtually deprived
the peoples of the Americas their autonomous right to exist. Additionally, at
lower echelons of decision-making, policies were circulated that decimated indigenous
cultures, such as a February 1795 circular by Fra Junipero Serra’s successor to
the California Mission system, Fra Fermin Lasuen. Lasuen’s letter directed the
leadership of each California mission to teach Coastal Indians the Castillian
language (the predominent form of Spanish in the Americas), “y que los Indios
aprendan a leerle, escribirle, y hablarle, prohibiendoles su lengua nativa.”
That the Indians learn to read, write and speak Castillian, prohibiting their
native language (Santa Barbara Mission Archives). Other documents circulated
during the California Mission period forbade native peoples to set fires, such
as Jose de Arrillaga’s request on 5/31/1793 (Santa Barbara Mission Archives),
which was subsequently approved. While concern that fires could burn out of
control might have been legitimate, the prohibition limited the native Chumash
people’s ability to practice the form of agricultural land management to which
they had been accustomed – since the Spaniards did not recognize Chumash practices
as “agriculture,” this did not concern them. Deliberate eradication of
language, oral history, and land and food management practices was approved
through these types of policies, while religious conversion and political control
ranked highly in the order of local priorities. These kinds of decisions were
decidedly not consistent with what the Church today considers to be justice-oriented
social teachings.
It was not until the
effects of the Industrial Revolution led European societies into new and
uncharted social crises that the Church began the process of articulating what
came to be a coherent set of teachings on justice in human societies as a
whole. Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 Rerum Novarum
(On Capital and Labor) was written during this time and is commonly agreed by
scholars of CST to be the first social encyclical. By this time, the Sisters of
Notre Dame de Namur were operating schools in the United States as well as
Belgium and were providing free education to girls from struggling families in
both countries. They knew first hand and on a daily basis how the traumatic
changes brought by the Industrial Revolution affected poor families. The same
social realities that caused the Sisters to act, also caused the popes to
speak. One could argue that the Sisters and CST grew up together within the
evolving embrace of the Catholic Church.
===========
From Chapter 6
Stewardship
of the Earth
“You
will often be able to read in this great book of nature. What grandeur there is
to be discovered in it!” (Julie to Francoise, v1, p.20).
Perhaps more than any
other in CST, the theme of man’s relationship with the non-human world has
undergone dramatic change since the first social encyclicals of the 19th
Century. This section takes the reader on a journey from Leo XIII to Francis to
show the evolution of papal thinking about man’s relationship with the
environment – from a human responsibility to subdue the earth to the beginnings
of a spiritual foundation for eco-justice. It is hoped that environmentally
concerned readers will find reason for optimism after tracing this journey from
the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 21st.
Nature’s ability to
serve man almost inexhaustible (1961)
“God
in his goodness and wisdom has, on the one hand, provided nature with almost
inexhaustible productive capacity; and, on the other hand, has endowed man with
such ingenuity that, by using suitable means, he can apply nature’s resources
to the needs and requirements of existence.” (MM 189, O’Brien 115)
Goal of science to
control nature (1961)
“man
should, by the use of his skills and science of every kind, acquire an intimate
knowledge of the forces of nature and control them ever more extensively.” (MM
189, O’Brien 115)
Humans the most
important features of earth (1965)
“12. According to the almost unanimous opinion
of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to
man as their center and crown.” (GS 12, O’Brien 172)
Humans as victims of
their own environmental negligence (1971)
By 1971, Paul VI
begins to express a different understanding. He sees that human exploitation of
nature is in fact limited.
“Man
is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he
risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation.
Not only is the material environment becoming a permanent menace – pollution
and refuse, new illnesses and absolute destructive capacity – but the human
framework is no longer under man’s control, thus creating an environment for
tomorrow which may well be intolerable. This is a wide-ranging social problem
which concerns the entire human family.” (OA 21, O’Brien 273)
Global environmental
issues a source of human unity (1971)
“The new technological possibilities are
based upon the unity of science, on the global and simultaneous character of
communications, and on the birth of an absolutely interdependent economic
world. Moreover, men are beginning to grasp a new and more radical dimension of
unity; for they perceive that their resources, as well as the precious
treasures of air and water – without which there cannot be life – and the small
delicate biosphere of the whole complex of all life on earth, are not infinite,
but on the contrary must be saved and preserved as a unique patrimony belonging
to all mankind.” (JM, O’Brien 289)
Impact of wealthy
nations on life on earth (1971)
“such
is the demand for resources and energy by the richer nations, whether
capitalist or socialist, and such are the effects of dumping by them in the
atmosphere and the sea that irreparable damage would be done to the essential
elements of life on earth, such as air and water, if their high rates of
consumption and pollution, which are constantly on the increase, were extended
to the whole of mankind.” (JM, O’Brien 290)
Wealthy nations must
share the earth’s bounty with others (1971)
“It
is impossible to see what right the richer nations have to keep up their claim
to increase their own material demands, if the consequence is either that
others remain in misery or that the danger of destroying the very physical
foundations of life on earch is precipitated. Those who are already rich are
bound to accept a less material way of life, with less waste, in order to avoid
the destruction of the heritage which they are obliged by absolute justice to
share with all other members of the human race.” (JM, O’Brien 299)
Dignity of subduing
and dominating the earth (1981)
Despite the “growing
realization that the heritage of nature is limited and that it is being
intolerably polluted” (LE 1, p. 353), a strong sense persists during this period that the value of
those resources resides in their ability to sustain human life. The earth and
its non-human residents are not seen as intrinsically valuable. John Paul II
does not question the human right to subdue, control and dominate the earth in
the service of people.
“[I]t
is necessary to proclaim and promote the dignity […] especially of agricultural
work, in which man so eloquently “subdues” the earth he has received as a gift
from God and affirms his “dominion” in the visible world.” (LE 21, O’Brien 383)
Common ecological
future (1986)
“12. All people on this globe share a common
ecological environment that is under increasing pressure. Depletion of soil,
water, and other natural resources endangers the future. Pollution of air and
water threatens the delicate balance of the biosphere on which future
generations will depend. The resources of the earth have been created by God
for the benefit of all, and we who are alive today hold them in trust. This is
a challenge to develop a new ecological ethic that will help shape a future
that is both just and sustainable.” (EJ 12, O’Brien 581)
Farmers as stewards
(1986)
“228. Farm owners and farmworkers are the
immediate stewards of the natural resources required to produce the food that
is necessary to sustain life. These resources must be understood as gifts of a
generous God. When they are seen in that light and when the human race is
perceived as a single moral community, we gain a sense of the substantial
responsibility we bear as a nation for the world food system. Meeting human
needs today and in the future demands an increased sense of stewardship and
conservation from owners, managers, and regulators of all resources, especially
those required for the production of food.” (EJ 228, O’Brien 629)
Emergence of
ecological concern (1987)
By 1987, John Paul II
has shifted his thinking somewhat on the value of earth and nature, allowing
for the possibility that human desires do not always and unconditionally take
priority over the needs of the natural environment.
“Among today’s positive signs we must also mention a greater realization of the
limits of available resoures, and of the need to respect the integrity and the
cycles of nature and to take them into account when planning for development,
rather than sacrificing them to certain demagogic ideas about the latter. Today
this is called ecological concern.”
(SS 26, O’Brien 411)
Respect for the
cosmos; Human dominion over earth not absolute (1987)
“34. Nor can the moral character of
development exclude respect for the
beings which constitute the natural world, which the ancient Greeks –
alluding precisely to the order which distinguishes is – called the “cosmos.”
Such realities also demand respect, by virtue of a threefold consideration
which it is useful to reflect upon carefully.
...
“Once again it is evident that development,
the planning which governs it, and the way in which resources are used must
include respect for moral demands. One of the latter undoubtedly imposes limits
on the use of the natural world. The dominion granted to man by the Creator is
not an absolute power” (SS 34, O’Brien 418)
Nature for the use of
humans (2009)
As the 21st
Century dawns, Benedict XVI takes a somewhat reactionary position on the
human/non-human relationship as compared to his predecessor, stressing that “it
is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more important
than the human person” (CV
48, papalencyclicals.net).
Humans as one aspect
of creation (2013)
The current pope
signaled his strong concern for the natural world by taking the name of
Francis, after Francis of Assisi. He retains the notion of man as a protector
of the environment, whose duty is to cultivate and care for the earth, but he
does not posit man as having dominion, nor does he limit the value of the
natural world to its capacity to sustain human life. In fact, one could argue
that he subtly positions humans as of equal importance to the rest of creation
rather than a pinnacle of creation – humans as one aspect of creation. Following
are lengthy excerpts from Francis’ address on the
occasion of United Nations World Environment Day. How would you characterize his
thinking on the natural world?
“Dear
brothers and sisters, good morning!
“Today I
want to focus on the issue of the environment, which I have already spoken of
on several occasions. Today we also mark World Environment Day, sponsored by
the United Nations, which sends a strong reminder of the need to eliminate the
waste and disposal of food.
“When we talk
about the environment, about creation, my thoughts turn to the first pages of
the Bible, the Book of Genesis, which states that God placed man and woman on
earth to cultivate and care for it (cf. 2:15). And the question comes to my
mind: What does cultivating and caring for the earth mean? Are we truly
cultivating and caring for creation? Or are we exploiting and neglecting it?
The verb "to cultivate" reminds me of the care that the farmer has
for his land so that it bear fruit, and it is shared: how much attention,
passion and dedication! Cultivating and caring for creation is God’s indication
given to each one of us not only at the beginning of history; it is part of His
project; it means nurturing the world with responsibility and transforming it into
a garden, a habitable place for everyone. Benedict XVI recalled several times
that this task entrusted to us by God the Creator requires us to grasp the
rhythm and logic of creation. But we are often driven by pride of domination,
of possessions, manipulation, of exploitation; we do not “care” for it, we do
not respect it, we do not consider it as a free gift that we must care for. We
are losing the attitude of wonder, contemplation, listening to creation; thus
we are no longer able to read what Benedict XVI calls "the rhythm of the
love story of God and man." Why does this happen? Why do we think and live
in a horizontal manner, we have moved away from God, we no longer read His
signs.
“But to
"cultivate and care" encompasses not only the relationship between us
and the environment, between man and creation, it also regards human
relationships. The Popes have spoken of human ecology, closely linked to
environmental ecology. We are living in a time of crisis: we see this in
the environment, but above all we see this in mankind. The human person is in
danger: this is certain, the human person is in danger today, here is the
urgency of human ecology! And it is a serious danger because the cause of the
problem is not superficial but profound: it is not just a matter of economics,
but of ethics and anthropology. The Church has stressed this several times, and
many say, yes, that's right, it's true ... but the system continues as before,
because it is dominated by the dynamics of an economy and finance that lack
ethics. Man is not in charge today, money is in charge, money rules. God our
Father did not give the task of caring for the earth to money, but to us, to
men and women: we have this task! Instead, men and women are sacrificed to the
idols of profit and consumption: it is the "culture of waste." If you
break a computer it is a tragedy, but poverty, the needs, the dramas of so many
people end up becoming the norm. If on a winter’s night, here nearby in Via
Ottaviano, for example, a person dies, that is not news. If in so many parts of
the world there are children who have nothing to eat, that's not news, it seems
normal. It cannot be this way! Yet these things become the norm: that some
homeless people die of cold on the streets is not news. In contrast, a ten
point drop on the stock markets of some cities, is a tragedy. A person dying is
not news, but if the stock markets drop ten points it is a tragedy! Thus people
are disposed of, as if they were trash.
“This
"culture of waste" tends to become the common mentality that infects
everyone. Human life, the person is no longer perceived as a primary value to
be respected and protected, especially if poor or disabled, if not yet useful -
such as the unborn child - or no longer needed - such as the elderly. This
culture of waste has made us insensitive even to the waste and disposal of
food, which is even more despicable when all over the world, unfortunately,
many individuals and families are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. Once
our grandparents were very careful not to throw away any leftover food.
Consumerism has led us to become used to an excess and daily waste of food, to
which, at times, we are no longer able to give a just value, which goes well
beyond mere economic parameters. We should all remember, however, that throwing
food away is like stealing from the tables of the the poor, the hungry! I
encourage everyone to reflect on the problem of thrown away and wasted food to
identify ways and means that, by seriously addressing this issue, are a vehicle
of solidarity and sharing with the needy.
“A few days
ago, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, we read the story of the miracle of the
loaves: Jesus feeds the crowd with five loaves and two fishes. And the
conclusion of the piece is important: " They all ate and were satisfied.
And when the leftover fragments were picked up, they filled twelve wicker
baskets" (Lk 9:17). Jesus asks his disciples not to throw anything away:
no waste! There is this fact of twelve baskets: Why twelve? What does this mean?
Twelve is the number of the tribes of Israel, which symbolically represent all
people. And this tells us that when food is shared in a fair way, with
solidarity, when no one is deprived, every community can meet the needs of the
poorest. Human ecology and environmental ecology walk together.
“So I would
like us all to make a serious commitment to respect and protect creation, to be
attentive to every person, to counter the culture of waste and disposable, to
promote a culture of solidarity and of encounter. Thank you.” (Catechesis for
UN World Environment Day, June 5, 2013, http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/06/05/pope_at_audience:_counter_a_culture_of_waste_with_solidarity/en1-698604
No comments:
Post a Comment