Can there be a Catholic environmental movement?

Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, was recently quoted as saying "In Catholic thought, 'nature' is neither sacred nor divine, neither to be feared or to be revered and left untouched. Rather, it is a gift offered by the Creator to the human community to be entrusted to the intelligence and moral responsibility of men and women. . . .It is hazardous - and ultimately absurd, indeed sinful - to employ biotechnology without the guidance of deeply responsible ethics. . . .Research must be done with ethics and a clear long-term vision that respects human dignity and strives for the common good." (Catholic News Service, October 23, 2013)

Christian thought speaks of mankind being made in the image of the Creator. Is it not reasonable to view all of nature as being made in the image of the Creator? I will postulate that we have more in common with the natural world than that which we do not hold in common. Wes Jackson writes: "The human race was born out of nature and it is out of nature that the human race and all life is sustained every second of every minute of every hour." (Altars of Unhewn Stone, Wes Jackson, 1987) Our ethics and our long-term vision must then respect the dignity of all of nature and strive for the common good of the entire community of nature. Humankind alone is not sufficient measure to guide one's actions. It is appropriate to revere nature and to leave, at least some areas, untouched motivated by either reverence or fear--as evidence of the natural beauty and the pristine quality of the gift or fearful of the negative consequences of our actions or our potential for misuse.

There can be a Catholic environmental movement, but it will need an updated Catholic thought.

I have just returned from today's church service where the celebrant injected a request a cappella into the Prayers of the Faithful asking that "our nation be protected from our enemies." This particular celebrant has added this request on more than one occasion, so I will not excuse the wording by attributing it to composing on-the-fly. I would like to suggest an alternative format for future Prayers of the Faithful. Let us beseech the Lord of All "that we as a nation be reconciled with those whom we identify as enemy and who identify us as enemy."

Here are two links to articles that I found on-line this morning. The first was read before heading out the door to church; the second was read afterwards over a third or fourth cup of coffee warmed up in the microwave. Needles to say that these reads moved me more than today's church service--moved in a way that is appropriate on a Sunday morning.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/aug/24/secondworldwar.broadcasting

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/world/europe/behind-flurry-of-killing-potency-of-hate.html?hp&_r=0

The articles speak to the complexity of human nature and the ways in which we organize and think about ourselves. Is it too much to ask that our religious ministers challenge the best that can be found in our nature and not concede to an uneasy peace of mutually assured destruction, which is a false security and a non-peace? Praying for protection from one's enemies is nothing more than asking for success in an arms race or victory on today's battlefield. We are fools to ask for so little; it is a crime against our humanity and the humanity of all to settle for so little.

Unintended Consequences, But Not Unforeseen

There is a move afoot to develop an open-pit iron ore mine in northern Wisconsin and Michigan's upper peninsula within an ancient mountain range--the Penokee Mountains.

The discussion of the proposed mine has focused exclusively on the potential environmental impacts, State mining laws, and the economic impact on local communities. I would like to raise two questions: (1)how will a mine in the Penokees impact on what remains of the iron ore/taconite industry on Minnesota's Iron Range? And (2)how will Australia's expanding iron ore production impact a Penokee mine?

The opening of Minnesota's Iron Range contributed significantly to the decline and loss of Michigan's and Wisconsin's iron ore industry 100 years ago. The older deep shaft mines could not compete with the new open-pit mines. Will not a Penokee mine with the latest technology from the ground up prove to be just too competitive for what remains of iron ore production on Minnesota's Range? One consequence may be increased pressure to increase non-ferrous metal production on the Range as the successor to iron ore production, which will increase the risk of environmental degradation from the technologies used to mine sulfide ore bodies.

Australia is in the midst of significantly increasing its exports of iron ore, with a number of mines currently coming on-line and scheduled for full production within the next two years. This is in the context of a glutted global iron ore market. Australia would appear to be in a position to more than compete with the U.S. mining industry in supplying the Asian markets. Coupling a competitive disadvantage with an oversupply does not bode well for a new mine in the Penokee Mountains, much less an existing mine on Minnesota's Iron Range. (For background, try this link: http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/15745/)

Who will lose if the proposed Penokee mine is less economically viable than estimated? Will it not be the local communities and the State of Wisconsin at large? Once in production, taxes, fees, and other payments to local units of government are all predicated on a profitable operation. The less profitable the venture, the less income that will accrue to those impacted by the mine and those bearing the financial responsibility to ameliorate those impacts. The projected windfall will dry up just as the tornado leaves destruction in its wake. The mine operators' cut shows up on the expense side of the ledger; stockholders and units of government will share in the profits (after expenses), if and when there are any. Expenses are paid first and are carried forward year after year minimizing or eliminating profits.

What assurances are there that the proposed mine can be successful both in its own right and without destroying our neighbors and our neighbors' communities, which lie to the west?

Noodles and Chicken
BEST USED BY APRIL 30, 2009

Recent newscasts and newspaper articles have spoken about the confusion with SELL BY and USE BY dates. Today I took the opportunity to perform my own test. Test subject: one. Trial: one.

This afternoon when neither a Brewer's baseball game nor a central division football game could hold my interest, I found myself looking through and rearranging the camping gear. I am not sure what my intentions were; other than "maybe someday... "

In the course of my moreorless aimless activity, I  came across two packages of freeze dried entrees. They are leftovers from canoe trips where they served as emergency rations should we have been unsuccessful in providing ourselves with a freshly caught fish supper.  I decided to make up the Noodles and Chicken to see if it was eatable. (I don't think that I will be needing emergency rations in the foreseeable future. If I should, there is a package of Mexican Style Rice and Chicken remaining with a best used by date of June 1, 2008.)

The dish simply made up according to the directions was quite good. It certainly didn't taste like it was four years too old. Then again, I have no idea what four-years-too-old should taste like. I suppose the next criterion as to whether the stuff was any good is whether or not I avoid an episode of gastric distress. That may serve as the subject for a future post or I may decide some things are best left "off the record."

The lady of the house has been gone since this past weekend tending to family business. That means that the home front has been downsized to a one-man operation. And I mean literally a one-man operation and not literally as in not literally factual, but used for emphasis.

Even though home alone, I have been acting responsibly and tending to a number of repair, fix-it, and minor improvement projects. I even power washed the deck. I tried that once several years back; I was so disappointed in the final outcome that I have stayed away from that task ever since. A day or two before the lady left town, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the current state of deck affairs and her expectation that something be done about it. This time around, I revised my earlier deck washing technique and employed a lot more patience. The end result supports my re-assessment that deck washing can be a worthwhile venture and my inclination is to do it all over again without waiting several years and then only in response to a direct order.

It was early afternoon, and I was feeling good. There were a couple of things remaining on the most current to-do list, but I also needed some things before I could tackle those items. Why not take a trip to Menards? It is only a 150 mile round trip; I'll just consider it as shipping and handling. I also figured I earned a little time off, so why not a road trip. I consulted with the members of the household present and heard neither an objection nor a word of caution. The weather was great; one couldn't have asked for better September weather for a road trip. I will admit that if the leaves were turning, it would have been downright spectacular. A 3:00PM club sandwich lunch was an added treat; every now and then a trucker has to fuel up and check fluid levels to insure that he keeps on keeping on.

Is it nothing more than a distinction without a difference? If so, then it is nothing more than a sly attempt to feign tolerance.

There has been lots of commentary on the Pope's comment about gay priests--a comment made on the return flight from Brazil to Rome. With very few exceptions, the comment has been applied to gay persons in general without any reference to priests. The Pope's statement, in part,"who am I to judge?" has been parsed by Cardinal Dolan and others and rendered as "We don't judge persons; we judge behaviors." This restatement is offered as evidence that the Pope is simply reaffirming long held moral beliefs.

What criteria are used to judge a person, if not behavior, words, or thoughts of the person being judged? How can behavior be judged apart from the agent of that behavior? If the actor and the action are not inextricably linked, how can we hold one another responsible for our individual actions? If I refuse to judge other persons, I can say that a particular behavior is inappropriate for me to participate in, but I cannot say that same behavior is inappropriate for someone else. The claim that one judges behaviors and not persons is a distinction without a difference. It does not foster clarity; rather, it intentionally compounds the confusion.

An ask-an-expert column in this week's Catholic paper speaks to the practice of centering prayer and the mixed reception it has in Catholic circles. It is a practice of eastern mysticism that has made its way into Christian contemplation. The expert speaks of the potential dangerousness of the practice and seems to imply that most who attempt the practice will end up in a place that is theologically unorthodox, that is, in an amorphous "melting into God" (quotes in the original) rather than "with the consciousness of one's own frailties in the face of God's majesty." The column composed of mostly definitive statements ends with somewhat of a caveat: "One needs to remember though, that the true contemplative experience of God in prayer comes only as a gift and can never be guaranteed by any particular technique."

How is it that any one tradition can so limit the experience of That Which is Beyond? If it is truly a gift, how can the recipient limit that gift once and for all time? How is it that the Roman Catholic contemplative is limited to a consciousness of his or her own frailties and is not permitted to experience his or her strength, beauty, and majesty in so far as the image of the Creator has been incorporated into the Created? The gift may well be to expand the notion of orthodoxy within any particular faith tradition.