The following is a short clip from this morning's C-SPAN coverage of the senate confirmation hearing for Interior Secretary Nominee David Bernhardt. Please pay attention to the background.
The protester, obviously a surrealist, was apparently also a member of Greenpeace. She was eventually led away. Some environmentalists think Bernhardt is an oil company shill or some such. Well, I don't know about that but I thought the harmless stunt was odd and funny. May Adrienne Lowry swim in peace. By the way, Patrick Moore, who would go on to become a scourge of the leftist drift of Greenpeace and the rest of the environmentalist movement, has as much claim to be one of the co-founders of Greenpeace as anyone. And he was widely acknowledged as such even though the left tried to memory hole him. But after Moore recently called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a "pompous little twit" and claimed her Green New Deal would "bring about mass death" even Google got into the action and scrubbed the co-founder reference from its search results:
Perhaps it was something he said. But I digress. The Creature from the Black Lagoon was my favorite movie monster when I was a kid. My friend subscribed to "Monsters of Filmland", whose title I slightly misread. I always wondered why Finland had all the cool monsters. Please enjoy this clip from the film:
Not much has changed. What we see in this fascinating 1970 CBS News segment was that the first Earth Day was a "happening" created by a group of leftist and anti-capitalist students and academics (one of whom would famously later murder his girlfriend and hide her decomposing body in his closet), but was to a large degree co-opted even then by the "establishment" - liberal politicians (note Edmund Muskie's blathery speech to the celebrants), the media, churches (note the "prayer for the earth" at one service) and, yes, even the very businesses allegedly responsible for creating all that carbon monoxide. Hello? And the narrator nailed it when he described the scene as "as much like a rock-music festival as a teach-in on the environment." One surprising thing, at least for the modern viewer, was the skepticism and ultimate refusal of Philadelphia's "black groups" to participate. "You're part of a Nixon trick," said one leader to the organizers. These days, members of the black liberal establishment have learned that's in their interests to hitch their particular causes (those of the black liberal establishment) to all the others of the day, from climate change to pussy hats. The interview within the segment with Earth Day director, Edward Furia, ends with a sort of earnestly-expressed threat:
We're trying to get public officials and politicians to think in terms of what is the social cost to society. And if they do nothing, and if this thing becomes a lie, then I think the Earth Week committee may be replaced by a different kind of committee. Instead of a revolution of values, then the other revolutionaries will take over.
Furia would later work within the system as a lawyer, EPA administrator and entrepreneur CEO of a company that makes electric vehicles. Since then, anti-establishment/establishment "movements," usually featuring rock-music, have become a sort of permanent feature of post-Christian Western cultural life. On the bright side, and in fairness, some things have changed. The United States, including its cities, is much cleaner than it was almost fifty years ago (though we might debate the reasons why). Notably, it is in the countries that were earlier taken over by "the other revolutionaries" that massive environmental catastrophes are still, to use Furia's words, a thing. But I suppose one could make the argument that, say, China's Three Gorges Dam, was as much motivated by profit (from new Chinese "state capitalists" and Western banks) as ideology. The crisis continues.
On Sunday Pope Francis made another "surprise" visit, this time to an Earth Day celebration in Rome, sponsored in part by Focolare. Focolare is officially a Catholic group, though some have called it an indifferentist cult. However, in fairness to Focolare, it wasn't a representative of that group that made the statement of the post title, but the Vicar of Christ himself. Who needs Focolare when we have Francis? Here are some excerpts from the Pope's "impromptu" remarks on an outdoor stage (from a Crux translation of a Vatican provided transcript):
Thanks much for everything, and now I’ll do a little improvisation. I’ll leave aside what I wrote down to say to you, and say instead what comes to me …
Listening to you speak, two images came to me: The desert, and the forest. I thought, these people, all of you, all, are taking up the desert in order to transform it into a forest. They go where there’s desert, where there isn’t hope, and they do things to make a forest of this desert. The forest is full of trees, it’s full of vegetation, but too disorganized … but, life is like that. Passing from the desert to the forest is the beautiful work you do! You transform deserts into forests! (applause) Then, one can see how to regulate certain things in the forest … but there’s life in it, while in the desert there’s death.
There are many deserts in the cities, deserts in people’s lives who don’t have a future, because there’s always – and I’ll underline a word here – always there are prejudices, fears. These people live and die in the desert of the cities. You perform a miracle with your work of changing the desert into a forest: Go forward that way.
What’s your plan of work? I don’t know … We’re approaching you, and we’ll see what we can do. Life has to be taken as it comes. It’s like a goaltender in soccer: You have to take the ball where it’s kicked … it comes from here and there. But you must not be afraid of life, or afraid of conflicts …
...The desert is ugly, both the desert in the heart of all of us, as well as the desert in the city, in the peripheries, which is also an ugly thing. There’s also a desert that’s in the gated neighborhoods … It’s ugly, but the desert is there too. We must not be afraid to go to the desert to transform it into a forest, where there’s exuberant life, and to go dry the many tears so that everyone can smile....
...I’ll give you an assignment to do at home. Look at the faces of people when you go into the street: they’re worried, everyone is closed in on themselves, they lack a smile, in other words they lack tenderness, social friendship … they lack this social friendship. Where there isn’t social friendship there’s always hatred and war. We’re living a piecemeal Third World War, everywhere. Look at the geographic map of the world, and you’ll see.
...There’s a word not to forget in this world, where it seems that if you don’t pay you can’t live, where the person, the man and woman that God created to be the center of the world, to be for that matter at the center of the economy, are thrown out and instead we have at the center a god, the god of money. Today at the center of the world is the god of money, and those who can approach to adore this god … (applause) … they approach, and those who can’t finish in hunger, in illness, in exploitation … Think about the exploitation of children, of young people...
...Look, these are the things that come to my mind. How to do this? Simply in the awareness that we all have something in common, we’re all human. And in this humanity, we can get close to each other to work together … “But I belong to this religion, or to that one …” it doesn’t matter!
Let’s all go forward to work together, respecting each other, respecting! I see this miracle: the miracle of a desert that becomes a forest. Thanks for everything you do!
Here's the text of the latest Pope Video (by the way, I'm not being snarky by calling it that--the official website for these is called "ThePopeVideo"). The actual video is at he end of the post:
Believers and unbelievers agree that the earth is our common heritage, the fruits of which should benefit everyone.
However, what is happening in the world we live in?
The relationship between poverty and the fragility of the planet requires another way of managing the economy and measuring progress, conceiving a new way of living.
Because we need a change that unites us all.
Free from the slavery of consumerism.
This month I make a special request:
That we may take good care of creation–a gift freely given–cultivating and protecting it for future generations.
Caring for our common home.
Let's put the most charitable and positive spin on this:
There are no heresies in this video.
There is bad science and economics (but we promised we would be charitable so we'll say no more).
Some of the people associated with The Pope Video project, such as Juan Della Torre and Cristina Miguens, seem to be sincere (if somewhat worldly) Catholics.
It's well-made and in places pretty.
It's short.
Okay, that's the charitable spin. Now let's make the most obvious criticism:
Aside from two ten-second sightings of a guy in a white cassock and the religiously loaded word "creation," there is absolutely nothing here that is Catholic, Christian or even particularly theistic.
Pope Francis is making an appeal for "change." Indeed, more than that, he wants "a change that unites us all." And, apparently, we need it.
Obviously he thinks this is possible. In other words, he believes there are people out there who will change their attitudes or behavior (in regards to the environment or politics or social responsibility or whatever) because of this effort. Indeed, not only does he think this is possible, his use of the word "unite" makes it appear that he thinks it's possible that everyone (or almost everyone) can change in this way.
But if people can change in this way, can't they also change in another way?
You know, they can change their. . . (I'm going to keep this down because we're in polite company here and I don't want to embarrass anyone). Well, you know, their. . . (I want to apologize in advance if this offends anyone). Okay, I'll just say it: can't people just, you know, can't people also change their. . .religion?
I did.
(And I don't change that easily.)
So did my wife. So did many of the (now) Catholics that I know. Many many more Catholics that I know (perhaps close to the majority) "changed" by coming back to the Church that they had once fallen away from.
It happens.
So, here's my recommendation for the March video. Who knows, I might even tweet it to Juan Della Torre.
Cue pictures of Jesus preaching, Jesus at the Last Supper, His crucifixion, Mary and the others at the foot of the cross; pictures of saints, nuns and priests; clips of beautiful churches, shrines, altars and religious art. There can even be mountains and trees.
The Pope then says:
Fellow human beings (or believers and unbelievers, or citizens of the world or whatever), I want to invite you to make a change, a change that will not only do you infinite good but has the potential to unite many of us here on earth.
If you are a Catholic, I want to invite you to refresh and renew your faith.
If you are not a Catholic, I want to invite you to become one. Jesus Christ was the greatest man who ever lived. He was also God. Honor Him by joining the church that He founded.
Come home, children.
At this point, if he wants to soften it a bit and add a touch of humor, he can say,
Hey, what do you expect? I'm the Pope. It's my job to ask.
Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Don't laugh. It's the only explanation I can come up with. Bishop Philip Egan of Portsmouth UK had the reputation for being one of the most stalwart defenders of Catholic orthodoxy in Britain. He spoke out against giving communion to dissident Catholic politicians, and was unafraid to strongly proclaim Catholic teachings on the current hot-button issues involving marriage and family. He urged caution for priests collaborating with groups holding or spreading non-Catholic or anti-Catholic views. He often referenced "carrying the cross", "the coming persecutions", faithful Catholics and Christians comprising a "remnant" and so on.
Mundabor gave him three cheers. He reintroduced and defended the Traditional Latin Mass. So what's he doing going full-blown Laudato Si on us? The full text of his Pastoral Message letter on the occasion of the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation is now available on the website of the Portsmouth Diocese. Yesterday we reprinted the Catholic Herald's description of the letter. If anything, the original is worse than we might have thought. Had Bishop Egan ever used the term "Mother Earth" before? Much of the letter is given over to a description of the recent encyclical Laudato Si with quotations of some of it's more famous (or infamous) passages. He then announces that he's placing the Diocese of Portsmouth on "Environmental Alert", which will impact "(1) the way we think, (2) the way we act, and (3) the way we pray." Regarding (1) among other things, he suggests "we heighten awareness (of environmental issues) through an occasional column in parish or school newsletters, through mentions in local media (and) through the parish Justice, Peace and Social Responsibility group." He also asks us to "consider engaging in an ecumenical effort with other Christians or with secular campaigns to bring about real change." Again, remember, this isn't your local hippy priest. It's Bishop Philip Egan. (2) quotes the encyclical on "avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption, separating refuse...planting trees" and the like. Yesterday we reported Egan had asked penitents to confess sins against the environment. The actual language in (3) is: "And in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we should examine our life-styles, seeking His mercy for any sins we may have committed against an integral ecology." It's true that Bishop Egan also recommends that we meditate on the first three chapters of Genesis, praise God for His Creation in Eucharistic Adoration and offer the Rosary. But when offering the Rosary to "overcome the ecological crisis" as the Bishop advises, be careful it doesn't burn up in your hands. I forgot to mention the most egregious recommendation. We should read and study Laudato Si carefully, "perhaps a few paragraphs a day". And Egan tells us it would be particularly appropriate to do this in a "parish Justice, Peace and Social Responsibility group." The letter is signed "+ Philip". Well, of course it is. You want to stay Catholic? Sure. But this is about staying human. Or if you don't like the pod metaphor, feel free to use another. Bishop Egan found a horse head in his bed, got a Malta phone call, was bitten by a member of the Zombie Church... Or maybe he's just tired. I know I am.
Recently, Pope Francis has adopted "throwaway culture" as a sort of blanket term for everything that is bad. In a sense he has used it to replace that previous favorite of Christians and Catholics, "culture of death" (though, in fairness, Pope Francis had a few times used that term earlier). In some sense, this is not surprising. "Culture of death" had a sort of reactionary, "who am I not to judge" air about it. One could imagine it being used by activists running over their neighbor's dog in their glee to get to the abortion protest on time, where they would then be shaking their Rosaries and dead fetus photographs in the faces of traumatized young women who would have benefited more from a kind word. And "throwaway culture" gives a sort of earnest and respectable 1950's-ish tinge to the Pope's agenda. Not a tattooed hippy squatting in a treehouse, but a bow-tied sociology professor penning an essay for the New Yorker about how prefab houses were disrupting our sense of meaning. Franboys have been singing arias over the phrase. It's a clever attempt (so goes the aria) to convert the entire environmentalist movement to the anti-abortion side. It's a way to effectively brand the message of the new evangelization. And it sounds cooler than "seamless garment", which was getting a bit frayed anyway. On the other hand, those in the the growing opposition to Francis have been making predictable snarks about how "throwaway culture" is in large part simply the latest attempt to put an anti-capitalist, pro-environmentalist gloss on the teachings of the Church. (I'm part of that opposition, by the way, and most of my snarks are nothing if not predictable.) But I wanted to comment here on something that I have rarely seen remarked upon by those on any side: As used by the Pope, the term "throwaway culture" is incoherent. Consider the things that the Pope has branded as examples of it:
Not eating all the food on one's plate.
Industrial pollution
Man-made global warming.
Not recycling paper
Forced or coerced labor
The sexual exploitation of children
Ignoring or abandoning the elderly
Being a partisan of "invisible hand" economic theories
Slavery and human trafficking
Being a relativist or against objective truths
Wanting merely to satisfy our own desires or immediate needs
Organized crime
The drug trade
Commerce in blood diamonds
Trading in the fur of endangered species
Buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation
Abortion
Euthanasia
The desire to consume more than what is necessary
Poverty in general
I could of course easily make the list twice as long but I think you get the point. Now with a few glaring exceptions, such as 8, I think we would agree that most of the items on the above list are bad things. In turn, many of them are sins or are often or in part the consequences of sin, though of course their gravity varies greatly (compare 1 with 17). But I think it it is also obvious that many of the items above are different kinds of evils. They are in fact wildly different. They can be united as being symptoms of a "throwaway culture" only if the phrase is stretched to meaninglessness. Consider an abstract hypothetical example involving slavery. Assume that I am a greatly evil and selfish person. I do not care one atom about the interests or rights of other people. If it pleased me or served my interests to eliminate someone permanently, as it were, I would do so. But instead I choose to make a few other people my slaves (imagine that I am for some reason in a position to do so). I do this of course, not to benefit them, but to satisfy my own needs and desires (at a lower cost to me than if, say, I hired them as employees). It goes without saying that this would be gravely evil. But is it useful to look at it as an example of a throwaway culture or my throwaway attitude or whatever? I do not think so. After all, I am using people, not throwing them away. And I may even be said to be using them "efficiently" (in one sense of the term) in that my mansion is now going up faster than if I had paid a bunch of grumbling carpenters to do the job (they always work slowly and take too many coffee breaks anyway). Of course, if I'm even semi-intelligent, I'm probably not going to work my slaves to death on one project (because then I would have to buy more of them) but will treat them just well enough so that they will have a long and profitable (to me) life.
And don't say the evil here is due to profit per se. Imagine I am an anti-capitalist, socially responsible slave owner (it happens). I generally use my slaves not for my own personal gain but to improve the local infrastructure so that the poor don't suffer as much during downturns in the business cycle. Consider also that many of my slaves would otherwise (if they weren't slaves) be engaged in selfish and socially harmful pursuits--buying, selling and producing excessive amounts of silly consumer goods, for example. Of course, modern slavery is evil not because it involves throwing people away, but because it involves using people in ways that people, well, shouldn't be used--however desirable the end might be (to someone), whether it is satisfying selfish desires or meeting the perceived needs of the community. To proceed from the fanciful to the real and immediate. Consider the recent "sting" on Planned Parenthood. Pro-lifers feel that the grotesque actions revealed on hidden camera--buying and selling the "parts" of aborted children between munches of salad and sips of wine--will help in the battle against the current baby murder epidemic. But what has heightened our revulsion in this case, and hopefully the revulsion of those who up to now were sitting on the fence, is not throwing people out per se but rather, almost the reverse of that. Planned Parenthood and their bio-tech customers want to recycle babies, or at least their bodies. They choose to treat them as just another inanimate thing such as a paper cup or bit of plastic that we should get as much use out of as possible lest society lose a valuable resource. Intact stem cells are valuable, after all. There are diseases to be cured. Or to take an historical example, what of that ultimate 20th century manifestation of evil--the intentional and in the end mechanized extermination of millions of people by Nazi Germany? Was this an earlier case of throwaway culture? Before answering, note that here again, what adds the final note of horror are the stories (some very true, some not) of the desire on the part of the murderers to, so to speak get as much use out of their victims as possible. Lets' put the strong ones to work in the factory. But in the end, don't forget their hair and gold fillings. A man who described the Holocaust as a manifestation of the Nazi's environmental incorrectness or their excessively consumerist attitude or their short-term perspective or whatever, should rightly be labeled mad, or more accurately be branded a sociopath. He would seem be at the least implicitly thinking of people as mere things. Which in a sense, of course, is exactly what the Nazi's did.
Has the Pope described the Holocaust in those terms? Not to my knowledge. But why shouldn't he? He has described abortion in those terms. In the last fifty years, fifty-five million people have been exterminated in the United States alone, and as many as a billion throughout the world. See, the Pope has actually said: this is an example of our throwaway culture. For their part, the Nazis murdered perhaps six million Jews, as well as millions of additional Catholics, homosexuals and others. Of course, the Nazis were amateurs compared with Abortion Incorporated, but surely they had a little mini-throwaway culture thing going on there. Enough.
The Pope's blanket use of the term "throwaway culture" is not only incoherent but insidious. It mis-describes things in a harmful way. Moral virtue--at least when it pertain to our relations with other human beings--has nothing essentially to do with the the proper use or conservation of resources. Rather, it's primarily about treating people not as mere resources--to be used, recycled, conserved or whatever it is you want to do, perhaps even in the interests of society or the "greater good"--but as people. Conversely, moral evil is about mistreating people, not wasting them. Men and women were created in the image of God. Paper cups, plastic toys, the peas I don't want to eat on my plate, earthworms, trees, lions (even those) and a million other inanimate and animate-but-non-human things were not. Men and women have rights. Their value, our value--whether it directly benefits the earth, society or indeed anyone else--is, from the moral point of view, infinite. The last two sentences of the above are a truism, not only for good Christians and Catholics but for any civilized human being. Yes, many good atheists believe it, too. If a Catholic wants a word or phrase to cover everything that is bad, or at least everything that is bad from the point of view of human intention or human action there is obviously one already available. What is that word? Wait for it... Sin. By the way, in Laudato Si, the word "sin" is used only four times. That's one fewer than the five appearances of "throwaway culture". And three out of the four uses are in quotes by others. The only original use is in the context of linking sin with "wars, the various forms of violence and abuse, the abandonment of the most vulnerable, and attacks on nature." I want to cut down on sin too, but that's not exactly what I had in mind. Or if a Catholic wants a phrase that covers some of the worst sins of a particular sort, there is still "culture of death". "Throwaway culture" is a demagogic slogan. It's not used by the Pope to get secularists to oppose abortion. It's used by the Pope to get secularists to like the Pope. Is it also used to confuse Catholics, to mislead them or to sew doubts about their Faith? I think so.
