US Bishops: To protect climate, protect people

Not long before I heard that the United States bishops wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency about climate change and carbon pollution, I had read something unpleasantly in opposition to what the bishops wrote.

First, the good news. As you probably know by now, Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, Archbishop of Miami and Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, wrote to urge the federal environmental regulatory agency “to develop standards to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants and thereby mitigate climate change.”

It’s a wonderful letter. It is significant for what it says and how it says it. This includes how the bishops itemize why climate-change mitigation is a Catholic issue.

Bishop Wenski writes that

[a]s the EPA takes steps to address climate change and reduce carbon pollution, we ask you to be guided by the following principles taken from our statement and the teaching of Pope Francis:

  • Respect for Human Life and Dignity. The regulations and all efforts to reduce the impact of climate change should respect human life and dignity, especially that of the poorest and most vulnerable: from children in the womb to the elderly. In particular, these measures must protect poor and vulnerable communities and persons from the health impacts of climate change, including exposure to climate-sensitive diseases, heat waves and diminished air quality.

  • Prudence on Behalf of the Common Good. We believe that wise action to address climate change is required now to protect the common good for present and future generations.

  • Priority for the Poor and Vulnerable. The consequences of climate change will be borne by the world’s most vulnerable people; inaction will worsen their suffering.

  • Social and Economic Justice. Workers should be protected from negative effects on the workforce resulting from the new standards and should receive assistance to mitigate impacts on their livelihoods and families. Any additional costs that such standards may generate must be distributed fairly, without undue burden on the poor.

  • Care for creation. We are called to be responsible stewards of the earth and to use the gifts we have been given to protect human life and dignity, now and in the future.

  • Participation. Local communities should have a voice in shaping these standards based on their local impact, especially low-income communities whose voice is often not heard. It is in accord with their dignity that they participate in this process.

Note that the bishops’ first justification for urging climate-change mitigation is the dignity of human life. And note how that call echoes throughout every point that follows.

My guess is that those who do not accept the evidence of climate change will bemoan that the bishops have waded into this matter. Similarly, others—those who do not accept the Church’s teachings on human life and procreation—will shy away from the overtly pro-life, pro-family language in Bishop Wenski’s letter.

An example of those in the latter group would be Frances Kissling, an abortion advocate and former president of Catholics for Choice. In a May 7th essay, Kissling applauds the Vatican’s engagement of ecology while chastising it for not supporting artificial birth control. She writes (without attestation) that “[r]ecent studies have shown that providing contraception to the 220 million women who want it but don’t have access would reduce carbon emissions by 15%. No coercion, just meeting the unmet need.”

Later, she follows up with this rebuke:

The continued blind spot of the Vatican on contraception is tragic. The papal commission on birth control reported to Pope Paul VI in 1966 that there was no impediment to permitting the use of contraceptives. The Pope rejected the report fearing loss of authority. Almost 50 years later, the loss of papal authority is seen not only in Catholics’ rejection of the prohibition in most of the developed world, but in the death and suffering of women in the developing world in childbirth too often and too closely spaced and from unsafe abortion.

Kissling represents the sort of misguided voice that wishes to protect creation by fostering a distorted view of human life and human suffering. Her bitterness toward Paul VI for his issuance of Humane Vitae is telling. And her call to save our planet through contraception is frightening. One wonders what other means she would endorse to achieve environmental benefits. If her best weapon in the struggle to protect earth is to embrace a staunch anti-life mentality, then she has no understanding of the nature of life in the first place. (For more on Kissling, Kathryn Jean Lopez provides a helpful essay here.)

In part because of voices like Kissling, Saint John Paul II taught against the sort of ecology that embraces abortion and contraception. Benedict XVI continued and escalated these teachings. Pope Francis—who is taking a particular interest in the upcoming synod on the family—said last year in one of his first major statements on the environment that

[t]his "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.

And bishop Dominique Rey of the Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France, put it this way: “One of the causes of the current human ecological disorder is the widespread anti-life mentality that has spawned one of the greatest genocides in all of history.”

I could go on. But on this vigil of the Feast of the Visitation, let us return to the most recent letter by the US bishops on climate change and carbon pollution. An important takeaway for Catholic ecologists is this: To tackle our global ecological issues, our founding principal must first be respecting life—not just its existence, but also the means by which it comes into existence and the families that make all this possible.

After all, how can we ever expect human beings to live virtuously and sustainably if we don’t first acknowledge their ability to choose, nurture, and love life?

If you like Catholic Ecology,
you’ll love…

A Printer's Choice

The sci-fi novel with a Catholic twist.

A Printer's Choice

Learn more

About the Blog

Catholic Ecology posts my regular column in the Rhode Island Catholic, as well as scientific and theological commentary about the latest eco-news, both within and outside of the Catholic Church. What is contained herein is but one person's attempt to teach and defend the Church's teachings - ecological and otherwise. As such, I offer all contents of this blog for approval of the bishops of the Church. It is my hope that nothing herein will lead anyone astray from truth.