Catholic Social Teaching and Environmental Ethics

Care for Creation

The tradition of Catholic social teaching offers a developing and distinctive perspective on environmental issues. We believe that the following themes, drawn from this tradition, are integral dimensions of ecological responsibility:

I. Sacramental Universe

The whole universe is God’s dwelling. Earth, a very small, uniquely blessed corner of that universe, gifted with unique natural blessings, is humanity’s home, and humans are never so much at home as when God dwells with them.

In the beginning, the first man and woman walked with God in the cool of the day. Throughout history, people have continued to meet the Creator on mountaintops, in vast deserts, and alongside waterfalls and gently flowing springs. In storms and earthquakes, they found expressions of divine power. In the cycle of the seasons and the courses of the stars, they have discerned signs of God’s fidelity and wisdom.

We still share, though dimly, in that sense of God’s presence in nature. But as heirs and victims of the industrial revolution, students of science and the beneficiaries of technology, urban-dwellers and jet-commuters, twentieth-century Americans have also grown estranged from the natural scale and rhythms of life on earth.

For many people, the environmental movement has reawakened appreciation of the truth that, through the created gifts of nature, men and women encounter their Creator. The Christian vision of a sacramental universe–a world that discloses the Creator’s presence by visible and tangible signs–can contribute to making the earth a home for the human family once again. Pope John Paul II called for Christians to respect and protect the environment, so that through nature people can “contemplate the mystery of the greatness and love of God.”

Reverence for the Creator present and active in nature, moreover, may serve as ground for environmental responsibility. For the very plants and animals, mountains and oceans, which in their loveliness and sublimity lift our minds to God, by their fragility and perishing likewise cry out, “We have not made ourselves.” God brings them into being and sustains them in existence. It is to the Creator of the universe, then, that we are accountable for what we do or fail to do to preserve and care for the earth and all its creatures. For “[t]he Lords are the earth and its fullness; the world and those who dwell in it” (Ps 24:1). Dwelling in the presence of God, we being to experience ourselves as part of creation, as stewards within it, not separate from it. As faithful stewards, fullness of life comes from living responsibly within God’s creation.

Stewardship implies that we must both care for creation according to standards that are not of our own making and at the same time be resourceful in finding ways to make the earth flourish. It is a difficult balance, requiring both a sense of limits and a spirit of experimentation. Even as we rejoice in earth’s goodness and in the beauty of nature, stewardship places the responsibility for the well-being of all God’s creatures.

II. Consistent Respect for Human Life

Respect for nature and respect for human life are inextricably related. “Respect for life, and above all for the dignity of the human person,” Pope John Paul II wrote, extends also to the rest of creation (The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility [+EC], no.7). Other species, ecosystems, and even distinctive landscapes give glory to God. The covenant given to Noah was a promise to all the earth.

“See, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you: all the birds, and the various tame and wild animals that were with you and came out of the ark.” (Gn 9: 9-10)

The diversity of life manifests God’s glory. Every creature shares a bit of the divine beauty. Because the divine goodness could not be represented by one creature alone, Aquinas tell us God “produced many and diverse creatures, so that what was wanting to one in representation of the divine goodness might be supplied by another…hence the whole universe together participates in the divine goodness more perfectly, and represents it better than any single creature whatever” (Summa Theological, Prima Pars, question 48 ad 2).

The wonderful variety of the natural world is, therefore, part of the divine plan and , as such, invites our respect. Accordingly, it is appropriate that we treat other creatures and the natural world not just as means to human fulfillment, but also as God’s creatures, possessing an independent value, worthy of our respect and care. By preserving natural environments, by protecting endangered species, by laboring to make human environments compatible with local ecology, by employing appropriate technology, and by carefully evaluating technological innovations as we adopt them, we exhibit respect for creation and reverence for the Creator.

III. The Planetary Common Good

In 1963, Pope John XXIII, in the letter Pacem in Terris, emphasized the world’s growing interdependence. He saw problems emerging, which the traditional political mechanisms could no longer address, and he extended the traditional principle of the common good from the nation-state to the world community. Ecological concern has now heightened our awareness of just how interdependent our world is. Some of the gravest environmental problems are clearly global.

In this shrinking world, everyone is affected and everyone is responsible, although those most responsible are often the least affected. The universal common good can serve as a foundation for a global environmental ethic.

In many of his statements, Pope John Paul II recognized the need for such an ethic. For example, in The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility, his 1990 World Day of Peace Message, he wrote,

“Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone…[I]ts various aspects demonstrate the need for concerted efforts aimed at establishing the duties and obligations that belong to individuals, peoples, States and the international community.(no,15).

Governments have particular responsibility in this area. In Centesimus Annus, the pope insists that the state has the task of providing “for the defense and preservation of common good such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces”(no 40).

IV. Solidarity

God has given the fruit of the earth to sustain the entire human family “without excluding or favoring anyone.”

Human work has enhanced the productive capacity of the earth and in our time is, as Pope John Paul II said, “increasingly important as the productive factor both of non-material and of material wealth” (CA, no.31).

But a great many people, in the Third Word as well as in our own inner cities and rural areas, are still deprived of the means of livelihood. In moving toward an environmentally sustainable economy, we are obligated to work for a just economic system, which equitable shares the bounty of the earth and of human enterprise with all peoples.

Things belong not to the few, but to the entire human family.

V. Universal Purpose of Created Things

God has given the fruit of the earth to sustain the entire human family “without excluding or favoring anyone.”

Human work has enhanced the productive capacity of the earth and in our time is, as Pope John Paul II said, “increasingly important as the productive factor both of non-material and of material wealth” (CA, no.31).

But a great many people, in the Third Word as well as in our own inner cities and rural areas, are still deprived of the means of livelihood. In moving toward an environmentally sustainable economy, we are obligated to work for a just economic system, which equitable shares the bounty of the earth and of human enterprise with all peoples.

Things belong not to the few, but to the entire human family.

VI. Option for the Poor

The ecological problem is intimately connected to justice for the poor. “The goods of the earth, which in the divine plan should be a common patrimony,” Pope John Paul II reminded us, “often risk becoming the monopoly of a few who often spoil it and, sometimes destroy it, thereby creating a loss for all humanity” (October 25, 1991 Address at Conference Marking the Presentation of the Second Edition of the St. Francis “Canticle of the Creatures” International Award for the Environment).

The poor of the earth offer a special test of our solidarity. The painful adjustments we have to undertake in our own economies for the sake of the environment must not diminish our sensitivity to the needs of the poor at home and abroad. The option for the poor embedded in the Gospel and the Church’s teaching makes us aware that the poor suffer most directly from environmental decline and have the least access to relief from their suffering. Indigenous people die with their forests and grasslands. In Bhopal and Chernobyl, it was the urban poor and working people who suffered the most immediate and intense contamination. Nature will truly enjoy its second spring only when humanity has compassion for its own members.

A related and vital concern is the Church’s constant commitment to the dignity of work and the rights of workers. Environmental progress cannot come at the expense of workers and their rights. Solutions must be found that do not force us to choose between a decent environment and a decent life for workers.

We recognize the potential conflicts in this area and will work for greater understanding, communication, and common ground between workers and environmentalists. Clearly, workers cannot be asked to make sacrifices to improve the environment without concrete support from the broader community. Where jobs are lost, society must help in the process of economic conversion, so that not only the earth but also workers and their families are protected.

VII. Authentic Development

Unrestrained economic development is not the answer to improving the lives of the poor. Catholic social teaching has never accepted material growth as a model of development. A “mere accumulation of goods and services, even for the benefit of the majority,” as Pope John Paul II has said, “is not enough for the realization of human happiness” (SR, no.28). He has also warned that in desire “to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow,” humanity “consumes the resources of the earth subjecting it without restraint… as if it did not have its own God-given purposes.

Authentic development supports moderation and even austerity in the use of material resources. It also encourages a balanced view of human progress consistent with respect for nature. Furthermore, it invites the development of alternative visions of the good society and the use of economic models with richer standards of well-being than material productivity alone. Authentic development also requires affluent nations to seek ways to reduce and restructure their overconsumption of natural resources. Finally, authentic development also entails encouraging the proper use of both agricultural and industrial technologies, so that development does not merely mean technological advancement for its own sake but rather that technology benefits people and enhances the land.

VIII. Consumption and Population

In public discussions, two areas are particularly cited as requiring greater care and judgment on the part of human beings. The first is consumption of resources. The second is growth in a world population. Regrettably, advantaged groups often seem more intent on curbing Third World births than on restraining the even more voracious consumerism of the developed world. We believe this compounds injustice and increases disrespect for the life of the weakest among us. For example, it is not so much population growth, but the desperate efforts of debtor countries to pay their foreign debt by exporting products to affluent industrial countries that drives poor peasants off their land and up eroding hillsides, where in the effort to survive, they also destroy the environment.

Consumption in developed nations remains the single greatest source of global environmental destruction. A child born in the United States, for example, puts a far heavier burden on the world’s resources than one born in a poor developing country. By one estimate, each American uses twenty-eight times the energy of a person living in an developing county. Advanced societies, and our own in particular, have barely begun to make efforts at reducing their consumption of resources and the enormous waste and pollution that result from it. We in the developed world, therefore, are obligated to address our own wasteful and destructive use of resources as a matter of top priority.

The key factor, though not the only one, in dealing with population problems is sustainable social and economic development. Technological fixes do not really work. Only when an economy distributes resources so as to allow the poor an equitable stake in society and some hope for the future do couples see responsible parenthood as good for their families. In particular, prenatal care, education, good nutrition and health care for women, children, and families promise to improve family welfare and contribute to stabilizing population.

Supporting such equitable social development, moreover, may well be the best contribution affluent societies, like the United States, can make to relieving ecological pressures in less developed nation. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that rapid population growth presents special problems and challenges that must be addressed in order to avoid damage done to the environment and to social development. In the word of Pope Paul VI, “it is not to be denied that accelerated demographic increases too frequently add difficulties to plans for development because the population is increased more rapidly than available resources. …”(Population Progressio, no.37).

In Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Pope John Paul II likewise noted, “One cannot deny the existence, especially in the southern hemisphere, of a demographic problem which creates difficulties for development” (no 25). He has gone on to make connections among population size, development, and the environment. There is “a greater realization of the limits of available resources,” he commented, “and of the need to respect the integrity and the cycles of nature and to take them into account when planning for development…”(no. 26). Even though it is possible to feed a growing population, the ecological costs of doing so ought to be taken into account. To eliminate hunger from the planet, the world community needs to reform the institutional and political structures that restrict the access of people to food.

Thus, the Church addresses population issues in the context of its teaching on human life, of just development, of care for the environment, care for the environment, and of respect for the freedom of married couples to decide voluntarily on the environment, and of respect for the freedom of married couples to decide voluntarily on the number and spacing of births. In keeping with these values, and out of respect for cultural norms, it continues to oppose coercive methods of population control and programs that bias decisions through incentives or disincentives. Respect for nature ought to encourage policies that promote natural family planning and true responsible parenthood rather than coercive population control programs or incentives for birth control that violate cultural and religious norms and Catholic teaching.

IX. Web of Life

These themes drawn from Catholic social teaching are linked to our efforts to share this teaching in other contexts, especially in our pastoral letters on peace and economic justice and in our statements on food and agriculture. Clearly, war represents a serious threat to the environment, as the darkened skies and oil soaked beaches of Kuwait clearly remind us. The pursuit of peace–lasting peace based on justice–ought to be an environmental priority because the earth itself bears the wounds and scars of war. Likewise, our efforts to defend the dignity and rights of the poor and of workers, to use the strength of our market economy to meet basic human needs, and to press for greater national and global economic justice are dearly linked to efforts to preserve and sustain the earth. These are not distinct and separate issues but complimentary challenges.

Our Initiatives