At the risk of wandering too far into the weeds on this one, a few quick thoughts in response to Eduardo's latest on climate change. So, there's this statement of mine:
"[S]ound science and economics" must be brought to bear, at the outset, and followed where it leads, on questions of climate change's effects, extent, and causes. It is a mistake -- that is, it is not consistent with "sound science and economics" -- to take as not-to-be-examined-ly given any particular scenario with respect to climate change's effects, causes, costs, extent, etc.
Eduardo writes, in response:
[The proposition that "anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon with potentially catastrophic effects, not a liberal fairy tale"] has been "examined" and is now largely uncontested within the scientific community. I'm not talking about the precise contours of the problem or precisely how to solve it, which remain subject to substantial, although certainly bounded, exploration. I'm talking about the existence of the problem and its potential for catastrophic impact, both of which a great many people continue to deny.
I am talking about the "precise contours of the problem", not the basic fact of anthropogenic climate change. These contours are quite contested (and, again, I understand, as well as most other law professors do, what is and is not "largely uncontested within the scientific community"). And, they should be. It is unhelpful -- it is certainly not "Catholic" -- to suggest, as so many (not Eduardo) do, that to raise questions about the details of certain predicted scenarios (e.g., "the seas will rise ___ feet in ___ years causing ____ unless we ____") is to be anti-science, a capitalist tool, a Bush toady, etc.
Eduardo also writes:
I completely disagree that it is EQUALLY sinful to take preemptive action now that might turn out to be overkill in order to reduce the potential for a catastrophic result. The two end-points are simply not symmetrical. One (the overreaction) involves marginally lower standards of living in our lifetime and in the near future. The other (the underreaction) involves the potential for the end of our civilization.
Certainly, these two end-points -- i.e., "marginal lower standards of living" and "the end of our civilization" are not symmetrical. Put me (or any other sentient being) to the choice of these alternatives, and I will choose to avert the latter. (I am happy to agree with Eduardo that I ought to choose to avert the latter.) It is not the case, though -- at least, we are not even close to being confident that it is the case -- that these are the two end-points in question. (An interesting read: Gregg Easterbook's "Global Warming: Who Loses, and Who Wins". It should be noted that this piece was written after Easterbook abandoned his earlier doubts about the fact of climate change.) It would be irresponsible to suggest (and I do not take Eduardo to be suggesting) that the costs to the poor of the likely outcomes of course A need not be compared with those of course B, with due allowance made for the probability of these outcomes.
As someone who has come to the view that greenhouse-effect science is now persuasive, I'm glad Gore made a movie that will help average voters understand the subject. . . .
This raises the troubling fault of An Inconvenient Truth: its carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of greenhouse gases "is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical." Wouldn't deprivation also be unethical? Some fossil fuel use is maddening waste; most has raised living standards. The era of fossil energy must now give way to an era of clean energy. But the last century's headlong consumption of oil, coal, and gas has raised living standards throughout the world; driven malnourishment to an all-time low, according to the latest U.N. estimates; doubled global life expectancy; pushed most rates of disease into decline; and made possible Gore's airline seat and MacBook, which he doesn't seem to find unethical. The former vice president clicks up a viewgraph showing the human population has grown more during his lifetime than in all previous history combined. He looks at the viewgraph with aversion, as if embarrassed by humanity's proliferation. Population growth is a fantastic achievement—though one that engenders problems we must fix, including inequality and greenhouse gases. Gore wants to have it that the greener-than-thou crowd is saintly, while the producers of cars, power, food, fiber, roads, and roofs are appalling. That is, he posits a simplified good versus a simplified evil. Just like a movie!
On the question of the "relative importance" of the contraception question and the climate-change question, I think I'll just leave things where they are. It is, I think, important to act responsibly, reasonably, and in a way consistent with our obligations toward the poor and vulnerable; and it is the case that we will be better equipped to act in this way if we have a correct understanding of the nature, destiny, . . . and sexuality of the human person.
It is a mistake -- that is, it is not consistent with "sound science
and economics" -- to take as not-to-be-examined-ly given any particular
scenario with respect to climate change's effects, causes, costs,
extent, etc. Second, to propose the preceeding sentence is not to be a "denier", anti-science, etc., etc. Third,
it would be equally "sinful" to engage in foolish, harmful, damaging
over-reaction, or misplaced reaction, as it would to engage in foolish,
harmful, damaging under-reaction. Fourth, point number (4),
above, needs to be understood in such a way that "protecting" includes
"not imposing upon the poor the costs and harms that could be
associated with growth-stifling over-reactions.
I think (1) has been "examined" and is now largely uncontested within the scientific community. I'm not talking about the precise contours of the problem or precisely how to solve it, which remain subject to substantial, although certainly bounded, exploration. I'm talking about the existence of the problem and its potential for catastrophic impact, both of which a great many people continue to deny (again, see the comments at dotCommonweal and on just about any of the hard-right web sites for examples of this). Anyone who suggests that the fact of a human impact on climate is up for debate OR who asserts with any confidence that climate change will certainly NOT be catastrophic is indeed anti-science in a way that is very difficult to square with traditional Catholic views of human reason. Those ships have long since sailed, and wasting time on them is just a distraction from the real issue: how (not whether) to respond.
In addition, I completely disagree that it is EQUALLY sinful to take preemptive action now that might turn out to be overkill in order to reduce the potential for a catastrophic result. The two end-points are simply not symmetrical. One (the overreaction) involves marginally lower standards of living in our lifetime and in the near future. The other (the underreaction) involves the potential for the end of our civilization. I was going to add a (5) to my suggestion above, which would have involved some endorsement of a precautionary principle, and Rick's response has now provided me with the opportunity to make that amendment. For that very reason, I think certain responses (e.g., voluntary reductions in
carbon emissions) are so facially implausible and inadequate as to be
almost per se not in good faith and inconsistent with (1) and (2).
I agree with Rick's gloss on (4), but that just goes to the distribution of costs of responding, not whether it is wrong to take a precautionary approach to responding. I agree that we in the developed world will have to bear the lion's share of these costs, not just because we put most of the additional CO2 into the atmosphere to begin with but also because we are far better equipped to bear those costs.
On the contraception part of my response below, if the point of Rick's correspondent was simply that a proper concern for climate change could be improved by a theologically correct view on contraception, then my apologies for the misreading. That's not how I understood it. But my response still stands insofar as it focuses attention on the relative importance of the two issues. Setting aside the fact that I disagree on the merits of the contraception issue, the point just seems irrelevant and/or trivial. It's like saying: "who's more "green," the person who understands the threat posed by climate change or the person who understands it AND is a vegetarian?" If we were facing a world in which there was a moral and political consensus on the need to act on climate change, then I would agree that discussions of how to improve on that baseline would be worth having But we're far from that happy place. And given that, in terms of priorities for the human race, I'd rather have a planet full of people wrong on contraception and right on climate change than vice versa. There's no reason to choose between the two in the abstract. On the other hand, given limited resources and the consequences we face, I think the Church perhaps could stand to spend a bit more time talking about its views on the latter.
A clear Church teaching on climate change, rooted in solidly Catholic teaching on environmental stewardship and intergenerational justice, might be something as simple as a clear and forceful as the following: (1) anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon with potentially catastrophic effects, not a liberal fairy tale; (2) inaction in the face of this problem is not an option, and is, in fact, positively sinful; (3) what to do in response to climate change is a prudential question best determined on the basis of sound science and economics, but (4) whatever solution we collectively adopt must be one that places a priority on protecting those who are already most vulnerable among us.
I think I agree, but I want to suggest a few amendments. Maybe Eduardo can accept them as friendly ones?
First, (3) has to modify (1). That is, "sound science and economics" must be brought to bear, at the outset, and followed where it leads, on questions of climate change's effects, extent, and causes. It is a mistake -- that is, it is not consistent with "sound science and economics" -- to take as not-to-be-examined-ly given any particular scenario with respect to climate change's effects, causes, costs, extent, etc. Second, to propose the preceeding sentence is not to be a "denier", anti-science, etc., etc. Third, it would be equally "sinful" to engage in foolish, harmful, damaging over-reaction, or misplaced reaction, as it would to engage in foolish, harmful, damaging under-reaction. Fourth, point number (4), above, needs to be understood in such a way that "protecting" includes "not imposing upon the poor the costs and harms that could be associated with growth-stifling over-reactions.
As for the earlier part of Eduardo's post, no one suggested -- at least, I didn't -- that the relevant comparison was between a "someone who uses contraception but understands the urgency of the climate debate" and a "(hypothetical) contraception-shunning climate denier." The suggestion, instead, was that we might think a truly "Green" consciousness would be one that did not buy into contemporary thinking about sex, reproduction, fertility, and children. And I am confident, in so suggesting, that I do "[]understand[]" -- at least, as well as other law professors do -- the nature, and complexity, of the "challenge we face." A (hypothetical) person who failed to appreciate the fact that misguided or misplaced reactions to climate-change evidence could cause grave harm to the poor would, in this failure, demonstrate that he or she did not understand this challenge.
Today, the Holy See released the 2008 World Day of Peace Message promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. It is the fortieth such message since Pope Paul VI inaugurated these messages in 1968. This year’s theme is “The Human Family, A Community of Peace.” The full message is HERE. The Holy Father covers a good deal of territory in this rich message, and many of the points he makes addresses some of the topics of the day that trigger robust and diverse responses, many of which MOJers have been addressing in recent posts. I recommend this message since the Pope comments intelligently on a good number of them.
Before I briefly comment on several passages of the Pope’s message, I want to respond quickly to Rob’s disagreement with my characterization that we here in the US (and probably in some of the other western democracies) are beginning to experience a form of totalitarianism. Rob has thoughtfully expressed his objection for which I am grateful. He and others make me think all the more carefully about what I think and say. Having said, this, I also want to present my candid hope that I will be proven wrong and he will be proven right. But, at this stage, I cannot be optimistic about this aspiration.
The issue of the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia (that he, Susan, and I have discussed) is not an isolated incident. Regarding the increasing pressure to accept as normative homosexual conduct, the Philadelphia case does not stand alone. One illustration is the matter of Catholic institutions (here in the US and abroad) removing themselves from the adoption apostolate because they would not and cannot consent to placing children into families headed by two members of the same sex. I wonder when the following point made by Pope Benedict will be considered “hate speech” by some warranting silencing through the threat of criminal prosecution:
N. 5 Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace. This point merits special reflection: everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace. The family needs to have a home, employment and a just recognition of the domestic activity of parents, the possibility of schooling for children, and basic health care for all. When society and public policy are not committed to assisting the family in these areas, they deprive themselves of an essential resource in the service of peace. The social communications media, in particular, because of their educational potential, have a special responsibility for promoting respect for the family, making clear its expectations and rights, and presenting all its beauty.
Eduardo earlier today championed the work of the Holy See delegation at the recent international conference on the environment. Having been on similar delegations of the Holy See in the past, I can assure you that the Church’s interest and presence at conferences convened to debate and educate on this critical issue is not restricted to the present moment. With the few resources at its disposal, the Church, through the Holy See, does a remarkable job of attending and substantively contributing to the debate on most of the pressing issues of the day. It should be of no surprise to us that the Church’s teachings address just about every one of these issues. Yet it is remarkable that many believe the Church is only concerned about “gay marriage and contraception.” It is concerned about these and many other matters. Yet, it is a great pity that the media (often the most prominent voice on what the Church “thinks”) will focus only on the Church’s activities on some issues (i.e., abortion, contraception, sexuality) but remain silent about its intensive work on virtually all other issues. I sometimes ask myself: why does the Church so frequently have to reiterate its teachings on marriage, human reproduction, sex, and abortion? I have come to realize that it is not the Church that harps on these matters, but it is those who wish to alter society’s outlook on them. Then the Church must respond clearly and with the necessary charity due those with whom it disagrees, for it is her duty to do so. I wonder if the media will be inclined to comment on this point made by the Pope regarding some long-standing teachings on the environment:
N. 8 [I]it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth’s energy resources.
Once again, I commend this most recent document issued by Pope Benedict. He touches upon many issues that concern us, our work, and our discipleship.RJA sj
In response to Rick, by no means am I suggesting that the Church start endorsing cap and trade over carbon taxes, or the like. But surely responding to the human impact on climate is, as Al Gore said in very forceful terms, one of the great moral challenges of our age. In response to Rick's interlocutor, to suggest that contraception even comes close, or that someone who uses contraception but understands the urgency of the climate debate is even arguably less "green" than, say, a (hypothetical) contraception-shunning climate denier is to simply misunderstand the gravity and immediacy of the challenge we face. (FWIW, Rick's interlocutor also seems to misunderstand contraceptive methods, a significant number of which do not involve ingesting chemicals or pharmaceuticals.) As for Rick's suggestion of an integrated, and distinctively Catholic, approach that stresses responding to climate change as a part of a holistic culture of life, I'm all for it. As of now, however, what we primarily get is repeated and heavy doses of the reproductive stuff without much discussion of our duties to the environment. (By the way, I wish I attended your parish, Rick -- it sounds great.)
A clear Church teaching on climate change, rooted in solidly Catholic teaching on environmental stewardship and intergenerational justice, might be something as simple as a clear and forceful as the following: (1) anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon with potentially catastrophic effects, not a liberal fairy tale; (2) inaction in the face of this problem is not an option, and is, in fact, positively sinful; (3) what to do in response to climate change is a prudential question best determined on the basis of sound science and economics, but (4) whatever solution we collectively adopt must be one that places a priority on protecting those who are already most vulnerable among us. And, since I have no doubt that a great many Catholics deny one or more of these (just go read the comments over at dotCommonweal whenever I post about climate change), the message should be driven home through public statements again and again and again.
Now, no one has done less (or, if we're talking about needless delay and obfuscation, perhaps no one has done more) on climate change than our own President. That is, our policy has clearly contradicted element (2) of what I suggested above,and probably (1) as well, although more recent statements have tended to accept the reality of climate change. And so, perhaps another thing the Vatican could have done is listened to Cardinal Martino when he suggested that the Pope talk to Bush about climate change earlier this year. I never saw what came of this, but I don't think Martino's advice was followed, or at least not in any public way.
Thanks, Rob, for linking to Geoff Stone's blog post on the founders and religion. The Stone post is depressingly old hat: an exaggerated, historically selective "secular nation" claim in reaction to an exaggerated, historically selective set of "Christian nation" claims (very few of which Romney actually made in his speech).
First, even as to the framers Prof. Stone cites, he oversimplifies the record. To take just one example concerning Washington: It's hard to see the belief that "religion was fundamentally a private and personal matter that had no place in the political life of [the] nation" in the president who issued an official proclamation in 1789 that "[i]t is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor." Every president after him, except for Jefferson but including Adams, issued similar statements. These are not restrictively Christian in content; moreover, even such ecumenical official statements may be in tension with other, more separationist elements of the founding tradition on religion. But to say that the framers thought religion "had no place in political life" is wildly overbroad.
More importantly, as Rob notes, the confident claim that "[the framers] would have been appalled at the idea of the federal government sponsoring 'faith-based' initiatives'" is unsupportable. At the time of the founding, virtually all social services and education were provided by private organizations, and virtually all of those were religious. There is little or no evidence that the framers, even the ones Prof. Stone emphasizes, had a problem with that fact. Once government enters into these areas in a massive way -- education in the 19th century, social services in the 20th -- you can't simply say that allowing people to use government support at faith-based providers, if they choose, is a retreat from our founding tradition of religious liberty. Even less convincing is Prof. Stone's implicit claim that the equal eligibility of faith-based providers rests on a "Christian nation" premise. Rather, making them equally eligible -- including non-Christian faith-based providers, as the programs do include -- preserves the ability of citizens to receive their education or social services in a religious setting if they wish, without government pressuring them through selective funding to forego that option. That has precious little to do with any "Christian nation" claims.
I'll put aside doubts I might have about Eduardo's suggestion that, in his Nobel acceptance speech (or at any other time) Al Gore "showed how it's done." Let's agree that Al Gore's career is, in many ways, instructive.
Eduardo writes, with respect to the news that the Holy See is sending a delegation to the climate-change conference in Bali:
Let’s hope this signals the beginning of a shift away from the Church’s neglect of this important moral and political issue. One would hope that it could speak with at least half the urgency that it has endlessly heaped on such issues as gay marriage and contraception.
Why, exactly, should we hope this? As it happens, I hear (much) more about environmental issues in my own Catholic community than I do about "gay marriage and contraception". In any event, on these latter questions, which involve the morality of particular activities or the nature of marriage, it seems that the Church has (for better or worse, one might think) a fairly clear and discrete teaching to articulate. What, exactly, would the analogous clear teaching be in the context of climate change?
Yes, of course, we have a moral obligation to be good stewards of the environment, and an obligation -- in solidarity -- to attend to the consequences of human activity on that environment, particularly when those consequences impose disproportionate costs on the poor. But what else? My own hope is that the Church's representatives do not foolishly baptize one policy proposal or another without considering very, very carefully whether or not they (or anyone else) understand what the environmental costs and benefits -- upon and to the poor -- of the proposal really are.
One might go further, and ask whether, in fact, the failure of people like Al Gore to embrace the Church's on matters of sexual morality and fertility calls into question their own "Green" credentials. As a friend of mine suggested to me in correspondence:
Who is more "Green"--the couple who recognizes the givenness of fertility, understands its times and seasons, and tries to build virtues of both activity and restraint in the exercise of the powers that they experience as given, or the couple that looks to a chemical or pharmaceutical company for a quick fix to a burdensome physical condition, namely, fertility?Which attitude is more in line with the idea of stewardship of a given world that presumably is behind "being Green?"
Wouldn't it be great if the "shift" for which Eduardo hopes was, in an integrated and thorough way, distinctively Catholic, and involved talking about stewardship, solidarity, sustainable development, *and* the importance of valuing the truly human over chemically facilitated individualism? Surely the Church has more to add than "me, too!"
We all take breaks during the day. Here is a suggestion for your next one: For each word you correctly define, FreeRice donates 20 grains of rice through the UN to help end world hunger.
Chicago law prof Geoff Stone bashes Mitt Romney (and others) for espousing a "disturbingly distorted version of history" suggesting that the Founders intended "to create a Christian Nation." He then proceeds through the familiar litany of quotes from Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine showing that they were not Christians. I'm no historian, but a couple of Stone's assertions grabbed my attention. Is he on solid ground, for example, in claiming that "most of the Founders" viewed "religious passion as irrational and dangerously divisive?" And it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to make the sweeping claim that "the Founders" "understood that religion was fundamentally a private and personal matter." And then there's Stone's conclusion:
[The Founders] would have been appalled at the idea of the federal government sponsoring “faith-based” initiatives. They would have been quite happy to tolerate Mitt Romney’s Mormonism – as long as he keepsit out of our government.
Is there some evidence of which I'm unaware suggesting that the Founders would have been "appalled" by the notion that religious organizations should be eligible to compete with non-religious organizations to provide government-funded social services? Or that private citizens should be able to direct government funds to a social services provider of their own choosing, even if the provider is religious? Does a dispassionate reading of history really suggest that "toleration" of a strictly private faith best captures the Founders' vision of the relationship between faith and public life?
I agree with Stone that proponents of the "Christian nation" tend to selectively quote Founders in a way that supports their own social/political/legal agendas. Proponents of the "secular nation," it seems, tend to do the same thing.
According to a Vatican press release, the Holy See has a delegation at the ongoing climate talks in Bali:
VATICAN
CITY, DEC. 4, 2007 (VIS) - The 13th session of the conference of States
parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is being held on the Indonesian island of Bali from December 3 to 14.
A
communique made public yesterday afternoon affirms that the Holy See
will be present at the Bali meeting with a delegation led by Archbishop
Leopoldo Girelli, apostolic nuncio to Indonesia, and composed of Msgr.
Andrew Thanya-anan Vissanu, nunciature counsellor in Jakarta, and of
three local experts from the Philippines and Indonesia: Fr. Benito B.
Tuazon, Fr. Alexius Andang Listya Binawan S.J., and Vera Wenny
Setijawati.
“Given that the sessions of the Convention on Climate Change are held
once a year in various countries,” the communique reads, “the Holy See
is usually represented at such meetings with a delegation led by the
apostolic nuncio and made up of experts from the area, so as to take
advantage of local resources and to achieve a broader and more
differentiated vision of the questions being examined.”
Good for them. Let’s hope this signals the beginning of a shift
away from the Church’s neglect of this important moral and political
issue. One would hope that it could speak with at least half the
urgency that it has endlessly heaped on such issues as gay marriage and
contraception. Yesterday, in his acceptance speech in Oslo, Al Gore showed how it’s done:
We, the human species, are confronting a planetary
emergency - a threat to the survival of our civilization that is
gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But
there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis
and avoid the worst - though not all - of its consequences, if we act
boldly, decisively and quickly.
However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many
of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston
Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go
on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be
irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be
impotent.”
