Logo

Hope on Earth Day

Thursday, April 22, 2010
ShareThis
Together in our communities, Catholics can make a difference in protecting creation.

By Guest Blogger Kristen Hannum

Arranging my notes as I finish Our Lady of Waste Management on environmental stewardship in parishes, I'm overwhelmed by all the parishes I didn't call; by how many states have Interfaith Power & Light groups, which didn't get into this article at all; whether I should have put more emphasis on the Catholic social teaching of prudence, which the bishops and the pope return to again and again; how I was far over my word count before I even mentioned the Englewood, Florida, parish's good work on landscaping to save water; and--well, you get the picture.

The environmental stewardship that's being done at so many parishes reminds me of how individual Catholics, Catholic communities, missionary priests, and visionary bishops built their churches--and the American Church--in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. When writing about those parishes (as a staff reporter for an archdiocesan newspaper), I was always struck by how little the pioneer builders had and how they had sacrificed to build the lovely churches, still filled with music and worship today.

We have so much in comparison. Or do we? How much of our stuff is compensation for what's been lost: so many wild mountains and prairies, plowed farms and orchards; and walkable cities of plazas and fountains leveled into strip malls and developments with adequate parking? In the developing world, it's acres of cardboard and tin shacks.

In How the Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill concludes, "Perhaps history is always divided into Romans and Catholics--or better, catholics. The Romans are the rich and powerful who run things their way and must always accrue more because they instinctively believe that there will never be enough to go around; the catholics, as their name implies, are universalists who instinctively believe that all humanity makes one family, that every human being is an equal child of God, and that God will provide. The twenty-first century, prophesized Malraux, will be spiritual or it will not be. If our civilization is to be saved...it will not be by the Romans, but by the saints."

Sandra Bowen, at St. Gertrude Parish in Chicago, says there are moments of terror once you begin paying attention to the environment. I'd add that there are also moments of fury and hopelessness. Bowen's advice is to remember that you're not saving the world on your own. The solutions to global problems like climate change call us all to individual action--but also to push our elected officials and our church and corporate leaders to create the change that we cannot individually accomplish. Wind farms instead of mountaintop removal mining, for instance.

When I wrote stories about historic churches, today's parishioners always told me how proud and grateful they were for their ancestors' gift to them. If we can be saintly enough to manage to come together to save creation--and how can we not?--from ourselves, think how proud and grateful our great grandchildren will be.

I turn away from thinking about their scorn for us if we do not. The kindest among them will excuse us by saying, "Well, they didn't know."

That won't be true. We do know.


Guest blogger Kristen Hannum is a freelance journalist based in Denver, Colorado and author of Our Lady of Waste Management, which appeared in the April 2010 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 75, No. 4, pages 12-17).

Guest blog posts express the views of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of U.S. Catholic, its editors, or the Claretians.

Posted in: In preview mode

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So wind farms...more important than the migratory birds?

"Wind farms instead of mountaintop removal mining, for instance."
Our water is cleaner than it has ever been and the Northeastern US has more trees than 100 years ago. Our air is so much cleaner that they had to invent a more stringent method for measuring pollutants in it to have something to talk about. All this progress was made over 30 years. NOW we have a crisis. 25 years ago in California the wind farms in the mountain pass east of San Francisco were fought by the environmentalists because they killed the migrating birds. NOW we must have them, they are our salvation. Is that because migratory birds don't pay taxes? or buy carbon credits? Why do you let people play on your emotions this way? Their profit motive is above suspicion but anyone that asks for a more reasoned approach is now a sinner? Is it less sinful to mine coal underground and lose actual miners lives? Was the Tennesee Valley Authorities flooding of so many valleys and hollows behind dams, forcing people to abandon their tarpaper shacks sinful or was the electricity that project yeilded worth it because they had a fridge in their new home & a job to go to in the industries it attracted? No one is suggesting that there are easy answers to these questions. Calling them sinful to "protect" the earth suggests another motivation. If a car salesman tells you that you MUST decide today or the special deal is no good, do you suspect he is trying to pressure you into a quick decision for his benefit?

Re: Global Warming Alarmists

Hi Jerry,

Two quick questions:

#1) Do you or do you not think that the Earth is getting warmer?

#2) Do you or do you not think that it is something that we should be concerned about?

Cheers!

Re: Global Warming Responses

I posted replies to each of you via the links below to save real estate on this site due to characters restrictions. You may view your responses below:

Reply to wsxyz

Reply to "Anonymous"

Reply to JDampf

Peace!
:)

Hahahaha

you are much better at proving my point than I am!
I stated that the mile thick glacial sheet left the NY City area 21,000 years ago, indicating that I agree that the world is in a warming trend. It caused the oceans to rise by 250-300 feet and "man" contributed to none of that. Where we disagree is that it is manmade and can be stopped by anything man can do. No treaty that you devise will stop China or India from their economic development. The pollution from China has been found in California where the air quality restrictions are the tightest in the world. We also disagree that the Environment should be a god. We worship the creator not the created. What you believe is unclear although the website you directed me to gives some hints at that. So why come here to incite folks?

Re: Hahahaha

"you are much better at proving my point than I am!"

I'm sure I'm much better at many things, but that is besides the point. ;)

"It caused the oceans to rise by 250-300 feet and "man" contributed to none of that."

Great. So what? An asteroid hit the earth millions of years ago that annihilated the dinosaurs. So if a new asteroid was heading toward us we shouldn't do everything we can to at least TRY to stop it? Brilliant.

"Where we disagree is that it is manmade and can be stopped by anything man can do."

My stance is that the human effect is essentially an unknown, but that it is certainly possible we have some effect. So if we disagree, then that would mean that your stance is that you are 100% certain that we have nothing to do with it (despite the long list of scientists stating otherwise).

"No treaty that you devise will stop...The pollution from China"

China managed to curb their pollution for the Olympics, so incentives can certainly be made. China also deprives people of human rights so maybe we should just do the same by that logic (since there isn't global consensus on it).

"We worship the creator not the created."

If the created did not exist, then we wouldn't exist.

"so why come here to incite folks?"

I gave you a long list of factual information to which you of course could not answer. It is merely your perception that I am inciting. If you had the same POV as me, then you wouldn't be saying I am inciting.

Peace.

Do you believe in anything?

for the person formerly known as "truth"..Despite your need to always seem to be "thoughtful and provocative" at others expense, there are real facts here and algore did not invent them, only how to profit from them. When human exhalation is classified as a danger to human life, as the EPA has recently done, things are out of balance.
Geology, which has a much longer history than the science of "climatology" has shown that these changes occur at regular intervals and are more associated with activity of the sun and the wobble of the earth's axis than carbon dioxide. The earth has been warming since the last glacier left NYCity 21,000 years a go. Man did not cause the 1 mile thick icesheet to melt then. Nothing proposed by alarmists like you will stop warming now either. Real scientists, without a political agenda, do respectfully disagree.

Hello Truth

There are reputable climate scientist such as Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Richard Lindzen who disagree with the doomsday scenarios of Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen.

Both agree the earth may have been on a warming trend over the last 100 years but it is not a matter of concern.

We need to have reasonable regulations on pollutants, but I do not believe carbon dioxcide is a pollutant.

#1) Do you or do you not

#1) Do you or do you not think that the Earth is getting warmer?

Over what time frame? In the last decade, no, as reported in February.
In the last century? Yes.
In the last 500 years? No. The medieval warm period seems to have been warmer than today.

#2) Do you or do you not think that it is something that we should be concerned about?

Not at all.

Scandals of Global Warming Alarmists

Kudos to the Orange County Register for a list of global warming fraud scandals.

http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=234092

I celebrate our Creator every day. I'm not interested in a pagan holiday.

Conclusions

Scientists are very picky when you use their data to draw conclusions. In science, a conclusion is an indisputable statement you make based on your work. Just because a scientist who collected the data disputes your conclusion doesn't mean he disagrees with your supposition. He may just be saying even though the data points the way you say, more work has to be done. Unfortunately, when dealing with problems, sometimes a firm scientific conclusion can only be made long after any hope of fixing a PROBLEM has passed.

Also, Zealots are not necessarily wrong just poorly calibrated. When a radical environmentalist group draws a conclusion based on stretching the data it does not invalidate the data, only their glossed report. If they exaggerated to catch the publics attention it may not mean there's no problem, only that the scope of the problem is wrong.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.