I love children- I love nature- there isn’t any true contradiction according to my reading of Catholic social teaching. If you love kids you will hate abortion- and if you love kids you will want a clean and beautiful natural environment. Of course, there will be some room for debate on how to achieve the three-fold societal goals of increasing our human populations, and simultaneously, increasing the living standards for everyone (universal common good), and also maintaining or improving the health of the natural environment- all of this must happen together or else pressures will come into play and threaten all three- like the fact of cruel and unusual living standards for many causes some to look at human population growth as the enemy and so they set about attacking the unborn as undesirables. Same for environmental degradation- it tempts the non-believer into pursuing unholy solutions. So, I propose we Catholics get out front on all three fronts- we don’t have to make up a social doctrine- we have one already- all that is needed is serious study, contemplation, and implementation of reasonable plans of action- and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest!
The Province on Ontario, Canada has unveiled a new sex education curriculum that is unbelievably and grossly shocking—students in Grade 3 will be taught about gender identity and sexual orientation, in Grade 6 they will learn about masturbation, vaginal lubrication, and wet dreams, and those in Grade 7 will learn about oral and anal sex.
Such an abomination of a curriculum is in dire need of being repealed before it ever goes into effect.
Greetings to all the American Catholic readers. It is a great pleasure and honor to join this esteemed group of bloggers. I am looking forward to joining a lively debate on all things Catholic. A brief word about myself, I tend to try to transcend labels such as liberal or conservative, etc. I am always in search of being “simply Catholic.”
I wanted to kick things off, but giving a shameless plug for the University of St. Thomas. I am currently on the beautiful campus of EWTN studios. On Thursday, April 22nd, EWTN’s Life on the Rock will feature 9 members (6 students, 3 faculty) of the University on their show (8pm EST/7pm CST). I have spent the last couple of weeks helping to prepare these students for their appearance. I am very proud of all of them. I hope you will tune in to learn more about this great Catholic university.
Jim Manzi, a conservative expert on climate change, recently reviewed Mark Levin’s coverage of the subject in his book Liberty and Tyranny. Mr. Manzi was unimpressed:
I’m not expert on many topics the book addresses, so I flipped to its treatment of a subject that I’ve spent some time studying – global warming – in order to see how it treated a controversy for which I’m at least familiar with the various viewpoints and some of the technical detail.
It was awful. It was so bad that it was like the proverbial clock that chimes 13 times – not only is it obviously wrong, but it is so wrong that it leads you to question every other piece of information it has ever provided.
Levin argues that human-caused global warming is nothing to worry about, and merely an excuse for the Enviro-Statist (capitalization in the original) to seize more power. It reads like a bunch of pasted-together quotes and stories based on some quick Google searches by somebody who knows very little about the topic, and can’t be bothered to learn. After pages devoted to talking about prior global cooling fears, and some ridiculous or cynical comments by advocates for emissions restrictions (and one quote from Richard Lindzen, a very serious climate scientist who disputes the estimated magnitude of the greenhouse effect, but not its existence), he gets to the key question on page 184 (eBook edition):
[D]oes carbon dioxide actually affect temperature levels?
Levin does not attempt to answer this question by making a fundamental argument that proceeds from evidence available for common inspection through a defined line of logic to a scientific view. Instead, he argues from authority by citing experts who believe that the answer to this question is pretty much ‘no’. Who are they? – An associate professor of astrophysics, a geologist and an astronaut.
I don’t have much patience for “Earth Day” b/c it’s a made-up (holi?)day. I tried to avoid wearing green today and decided to take the day to announce that my wife & I are expecting to add to the environmentalists’ fear of overpopulation.
But environmentalism matters; we can’t be distracted by the sappy appeals to Mother Earth. Care for the environment is an important aspect of the faith as the Holy Father tells us:
51. 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. 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”. 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” 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.
Not wasting resources has nothing to do with saving “Mother Earth” but rather everything to do with forming ourselves to not be dependent on material things and preserving things for others (both the poor of our generation and the future generations). In this, we are better formed to protect human dignity.
This shows just how detrimental it is for environmentalists to be pushing abortion & contraception to solve overpopulation; by teaching lack of respect for human dignity and selfishness, they are promoting the very behaviors that contribute to environmental damage.
So on “Earth Day” let us as Catholics reaffirm the Church’s holistic and inseparable teachings on human dignity and the environment.
Tennessee is the first state to declare that any health care plan exchanges set up by ObamaCare may not offer abortion coverage:
“No health care plan required to be established in this state through an exchange pursuant to federal health care reform legislation enacted by the 111th Congress shall offer coverage for abortion services.”
The legislation passed by impressive margins: 70 to 23 in the House and 27-3 in the Senate.