UN Climate Talks in Bonn, June 6 to 17, 2011 Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

The UN sponsored climate change  talks began in Bonn, Germany on June 6^th 2011 and will run until June 17^th 2011.  These talks will attempt to revive negotiations on various aspect of climate change  so that a fair, ambitious and  legally binding treaty, a successor to the Kyoto Protocol,  can be signed at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change  (UNFCCC) in Durban, South Africa, later in the year.

While the UN negotiation process on climate change was revived and strengthened at the Climate Conference in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010, none of the hard decisions were taken, especially when it came to pledging serious cuts in CO₂ levels  from economically rich countries.  There was general agreement among the participants at Cancun that deep cuts in emissions “are required ….. so as to hold the increase in global average temperatures below two degrees  Celsius.”

In order to inject a sense of urgency into the Bonn  negotiations, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC, reminded the participants on the first day of the Conference that greenhouse gas emissions had climbed dramatically in 2010. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking towards what are called “tipping points.”   An average rise in global temperature of four degrees Celsius would have a devastating impact on the life-systems of the planet and the knock-on effect on people would be devastating.

In a report  published in April 2012, entitled “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene,”  a working group commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences state that “some of the current and anticipated impacts of climate change include losses of coral reefs, forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems; a rate of species extinction many times faster than the historic average; water and food shortages for many vulnerable people. Increasing sea level rise and stronger storm surges threaten vulnerable ecosystems and peoples, especially in low-lying islands and coastal nations.”

The task facing the negotiators during the next two weeks in Bonn and later in the year in Durban was not made any easier by the release of data on greenhouse gas emissions by the International Energy Agency ((IEA). In 2010,  a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere. According to a spokesperson for IEA “it is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say.”[1]

The IEA’s figures are confirmed by preliminary data from the US government’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory at Mauna Moa in Hawaii  which show that carbon dioxide levels are at the highest levels on record with 394.7 parts per million (ppm): an increase of nearly 1.6ppm compared to last year.[2]

Lord Stern, author of the Stern Report on the economic implications of climate change was clearly taken aback by the data. According to him, “these figures indicate that (emissions) are now close to being back on a ‘business as usual’ path. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections, such a path  .. would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4 degrees C by 2.100.” [3] He went on to point out that “such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the  planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce.” [4]  It is also important to remember that this dramatic increase in CO₂ emissions happened during the most serious economic recession since the 1930s. There was a small decline in emissions in 2009 due to the financial crisis.   Unless corrective action is taken soon emission will increase dramatically because almost every country in the world is seeking ways to boost their economic growth and, to date, no country  has yet has found a way to promote economic growth without increasing carbon emissions.

The European section of Climate Action Network (CAN), one of the largest non-government organizations which monitors the actions of governments on climate change, said that the weak response of Climate Commissioner Hedegaard to the IEA data in the run  up to the Bonn Conference was deplorable.

Fatih Biro, the chief economist at the IEA said that disaster could be averted if governments head the warming and are  willing to take bold, decisive and urgent action soon.   CAN-Europe asks EU policy makers to implement a −40% emissions reduction target by 2020.

---

[1]  Fiona Harvey, “Worst ever CO2 emissions leave Climate on the brink,” The Guardian,  May 30^th 2012, page 1 and 2

[2] John Vidal, “Carbon dioxide levels hit new peak despite recession and political will,” The Guardian,  June 1^st 2011,page 10.

[3] ibid

[4]  ibid

The Second Last Day: Is Agreement Possible? Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC (May 11, 2011)

 

Yesterday I gave an account of the intervention at the High Level Segment of the Irish Minister for the Environment Local Government and Community. Other interventions were also important. The Argentine minister spoke for the G-77/China. She stressed the importance of improving transport, especially in rural areas. She also called for the poverty eradication. She challenged transnational corporations (TNCs) to apply the same environmental and health standards which they use in ‘developed’ countries to their mines and businesses in ‘developing’ countries as well. She repeated a common call for an inventory of hazardous waste and the development of bioremediations technologies.  She called on ‘developed’ countries to give leadership in the implementation of the 10 Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP).

Work on the Preamble also continued on Wednesday. The delegates agreed to include paragraphs on implementing the measures and actions which are recommended at CSD 19.  The text called on the delegates to ensure that these recommendations must be consistent with other international obligations, especially, the rules of the World Trade Organisation. They reaffirmed the call for a successful completion of the Doha Round of the WTO. I have heard that mantra so often in the past decade, and yet we are nowhere nearer completion of the Doha Round of the WTO.

The Production, Use and Final Destination of Chemicals in our Modern World

During the lunch break I attended a side-event called Body Burden where a number of people, including a woman golfer from Sweden were tested by experts from the World Health Organisation (WHO) for persistent and hazardous chemicals that are in their system. It appears the chemicals which are used in the kitchen, the garden or on golf courses can have detrimental effect on human and environmental health. In the pamphlet, World Ecology Report: Critical Issues in Health and Environment, the Director of Research at the Parkinson’s Disease Society (PDS), reported that there was “growing evidence” linking pesticides with Parkinson’s. A study in 2009 found that people who have Parkinson’s disease have higher levels of Lindane in their system than others. Lindane is a common ingredient in many pesticides The Lindane researchers said that the chemical could act as a “trigger” with people who are already prone to developing the disease.  This is why in 2009, Lindane was added to the list of persistent chemicals which are banned under the Stockholm Convention.

Waste Management and Chemicals

A Ministerial Roundtable on Waste and the Management of Chemicals began at 3pm. Before the ministers made gave their submissions, a number of experts in the field, spoke.  The first was Jim Willis who is currently, the Director of US EPA’s Chemical Control Division in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Mr. Willis has been with the Agency for more than 20 years in various senior management positions. He also worked with the United Nations for a number of years. He said that his office reviews 1,500 new chemicals each year.

He began by saying that chemicals are a part of modern living, they contribute to human well-being and create jobs and economic growth. He claimed that most chemical appear to be benign, but there is a small number of chemicals which have caused health problems for humans and the environment.  Persistent bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals represent a group of substances that are not easily degraded, accumulate in organisms, and exhibit an acute or chronic toxicity. The effects of PBTs range from cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, behavioral abnormalities, birth defects, disturbance of the immune system, damage to the liver and nervous system.  Among these dangerous chemical are organochlorine such as DDT, which was the first that was used on a large scale in the US and Europe. In Ireland in the 1950s, it was common to spread it on bed sheets in order to kill bedbugs. It is extremely persistent in the environment and in people’s bodies. Although DDT is no longer used in most ‘developed’ countries, it is still used to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes.  He also mentioned polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which were widely used in transformers and other electrical appliances. Due to it toxicity and persistence, PCBs were banned in the US in 1979 and by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001.

Willis spoke about the importance of Agenda 21, especially chapter 19 because it gave the green light for the establishment of important conventions which have dealt with chemicals. The Basel Convention, is an international treaty which is aimed at stopping the movement of hazardous waste across nation boundaries. It is specifically geared to prevent the transfer of waste from ‘developed’ to ‘developing’ countries.  This convention predates the Rio Earth Summit. It was opened for signatures in March 1989 and came into force in May 1992.

During the earlier side event, one of the speakers claimed that a significant proportion of the 5 billion tonnes of e-waste which is generated each year is illegally dumped in ‘developing’ countries.

He also mentioned the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants which was designed to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). It was signed in 2001, and came into effect in May 2004. He touched on the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Consent Procedures for Certain Hazardous Chemicals. It sets out to promote shared responsibility between those who manufacture chemicals and those who use them.  It calls on exporters to put proper labels on hazardous chemicals and to give adequate directions on how they might be used safely. This Convention was completed in May 2001 and came into force in May 2004.

Another very important international initiative in the sound management of chemicals is the Inter-Organisation Programme for Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC). It was established in 1995 to strengthen cooperation and increase coordination in the area of the safe use of chemicals. It is now attempting to increase awareness about the potential benefits and hazards of  nano technologies.  The goal of all these treaties, conventions and cooperative initiatives is to minimize and eliminate the negative consequences of chemicals while benefitting from their use.

The second speaker Prasad Modak, Executive President Environmental Management Centre, Mumbai Area, India, insisted that the sound management of chemicals and waste must address the complete life cycle of the material.  This must include the negative impact of the manufacturing process,  potential problems which might emerge during its use by the consumer and what happens when product is finally discarded.

It is all very well to have conventions in place, and even to have the obligations recognised in national legislation, but unless there an increase in the capacity of ‘developing’ countries to enforce the laws, little will happen on the ground and the poor, especially poor farmers and their families will suffer. The need for financial support to develop this capacity was central to the statement by Denis Kellman, the Minister of the Environment, Water Resources Management and Drainage of the Government of Barbados. He was speaking on behalf of the Member States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). He drew attention to the difficulty ‘developing’ countries have in meeting the obligations of these conventions. “In this regard, we request that a comprehensive global financing strategy for chemicals be developed as a matter of priority to support implementation of these Chemicals Related Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAs). The Private sector should be included in the architecture of such strategy.” This calls for more holistic waste policies, a clear regulatory framework and a commitment to transparency.

Is Zero Waste possible or is it Just a Slogan?

The concept of zero waste figured in some of the statements from the ministers, including Minister Phil Hogan. Zero waste must become the basic paradigm for the future at the local, national and international level. The paradigm shift means that levels of human well-being must now be achieved within the resource constraints of nature and its ability to absorb human-created waste. It means viewing waste primarily as a resource. It calls for the development of policies which promote waste prevention and, if that is not always possible, waste minimization. As I walk to the UN Building each morning, I see mounds of waste in black bags piled up on the foot paths waiting to be collected and either placed in landfill or incinerated. What zero waste strategies are being designed to deal with this waste of resources?   Here at the restaurants in the UN building, all the cutlery, plates, bottles, paper cups and plates are thrown into a bin after a single use.  When and how is this going to change? Without concrete action on the ground, aspirational texts will lead to cynicism.

Mr. Illes, State Secretary for the Environment of the Republic of Hungary spoke on behalf of the EU. According to him more has to be done to increase resource efficiency and reduce waste, notably by increasing recycling/reuse and improving the design of the products. He also focused on sustainable water management, aimed to protect surface and ground water from contamination and minimize the energy used to produce the raw material. A good example of minimizing waste was the introduction of a plastic bag legacy in Ireland over a decade ago.  According to Minister Hogan, this has led to a fall of nearly 95 percent on plastic litter.  I remember the controversy from the NGO side of the argument, as I was Chair of Greenpeace Ireland at the time. We were repeatedly told by the then Minister for the Environment that it couldn’t be done, because the Irish consumer liked to have plastic bags for each item, and the retailers saw the plastic bag as a way of cutting down on pilfering.

He also brought up the topic of mine closure.  In the view of the EU, governments must provide the legal and regulatory framework for mine closures, and most of all, have the institutional capacity to monitor and enforce their provisions. He also spoke of abandoned or ‘orphaned’ sites which often pose a huge danger to people, especially young people. In my years in the Philippines, I often saw children playing on or close to tailings. Mr. Illis said that these need to be addressed through a “broad sustainable framework to be developed and applied worldwide to the remediation of orphan and abandoned mine sites, in such a way that these sites do not affect public health, safety and the environment, and correct, as far as possible, social impacts.”

Decoupling: natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth

There was also a lot of talk about decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. The figures are frightening. By 2050, humanity could devour an estimated 140 billion tons of minerals, ores, fossil fuels and biomass per year. This three times the current rate.

People in ‘developed’ countries consume an average of 16 tons of those four key resources per capita (ranging up to 40 or more tons per person in some ‘developed countries’). By comparison, the average person in India today consumes four tons per year.

With the growth of both population and prosperity, especially in developing countries, the prospect of much higher resource consumption levels is “far beyond what is likely sustainable” if realized at all given finite world resources, warns this report by UNEP’s International Resource Panel.[1]

Already the world is running out of cheap and high quality sources of some essential materials such as oil, copper and gold, the supplies of which, in turn, require ever-rising volumes of fossil fuels and freshwater to produce. Improving the rate of resource productivity (“doing more with less”) faster than the economic growth rate is the notion behind “decoupling,” the panel says. Others claim that it will need to be teased out more thoroughly, with time lines factored in, because, at the moment, it sounds like alchemy.

That goal demands an urgent rethink of the links between resource use and economic prosperity, buttressed by a massive investment in technological, financial and social innovation to, at least freeze the per capita consumption in wealthy countries and help ‘developing’ nations follow a more sustainable path.

In his statement Mr. Phil Hogan, Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government stated, “that Ireland had a well established National Waste Prevention Programme. …. In developing our new waste policy I will be working with all key stakeholders to examine the role of existing and new producer responsibility schemes to drive waste reduction. I believe that significant opportunities, both environmental and economic can flow from better design and the substitution of less hazardous materials in the production of industrial and consumer goods.”

 

 

 

---

[1] http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/Decoupling/tabid/56048/Default.aspx downloaded on May 13, 2010.

Will the Vatican Finally Wake Up to the Dangers of Climate Change? Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

During the first week of May 2011, the Pontifical Academy of Science released a report on the potentially devastating impact of climate change. The Working Group which consisted of glaciologists, climate scientists, meteorologists, hydrologists, physicists, chemists, mountaineers and lawyers was co-chaired by Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Nobel laureate Paul Cruzen. Though initially their focus was on glaciers, the study was expanded to include the impact on climate change of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.[1] The widespread loss of glaciers, ice and snow on mountains in the tropical, temperate and polar regions is some of the clearest evidence we have for a change in the climate system which is taking place at a rapid pace across the globe. The authors call “on all people and the nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impact of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. If we want justice and peace we must act to protect the habitat that sustains us.”[2]

The Report examines how climate change will impinge on forests, wetlands, grasslands and, crucially, food production. The scientists claims that, because humans have pumped billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the past few decades, “human interference” has resulted in the highest concentration of carbon dioxide in the past 800,000.

This is not a minor problem. The authors say “we have entered a new geological epoch when the impact of mankind (humankind) became a major factor in environmental and climate changes.”[3]

Nor can we put dealing with climate change on the long finger after we have sorted out our economic problems. The authors state that climate change is already under way and actions (to reduce carbon emissions) to mitigate its worst affects are a matter of social justice, especially for the poor.  It ties these mitigating actions to the biblical idea of “stewardships” for the Earth.  It is significant that the Report uses the language of the UN Convention of Climate Change which calls on everyone to act in a “spirit of common but differentiated responsibility.” This means that economically rich nations, such as the US, the EU, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, which built their prosperity on burning fossil fuel, must act first and make financial resources available to poor countries so that they can protect themselves from the consequences of climate change.  The United States has consistently opposed this principle. It insists everyone must act together, especially the newly industrialised nations such as China, India and Brazil. Unfortunately, some of the recently elected legislators in the US are climate sceptics and are blocking any action at a Federal level to deal with it.

The Report makes three recommendations:

1.     Reduce worldwide carbon dioxide quickly, using every means possible. All nations must change from carbon-based energy to renewable energy as quickly as possible.

2.     Strengthen carbon sinks by protecting forests and replanting in degraded lands.

3.     Make extensive provisions to help poor countries adapt to the sudden impact of climate change such as more severe weather patterns and rising sea-levels

Will anyone listen to these almost apocalyptic predictions?  Will the Vatican itself listen? Climate change has not been on the priority list of the Holy See. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church published as recently as 2004, has only one paragraph on climate change.  The Encyclical Caritas in Veritate published in 2009, does not mention climate change.  There was no statement from the Holy See at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at Cancun in December 2010. Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, is constantly disparaging the science behind climate change. Given the seriousness of climate change as outlined in this study, will Vatican now caution him or sanction him in any way?  His colleague, Bishop William Morris of Toowoomba was forced to resign by the Vatican for publicly asking questions about the future of ministry in the Catholic Church. In a pastoral letter in 2006, he asked how ministry in the Catholic Church can be re-envisioned,  given the fact that in many places around the world vocations to the male, celibate priesthood have collapsed. For raising this question, which is on the mind of countless other Catholics as priests grow older, he was forced to resign. How Rome responds to Cardinal Pell’s climate change denying utterances will tell a lot about whether the Vatican is really serious about climate change.

Will this new report of the Pontifical Academy of Science persuade Cardinal Pell of the seriousness of climate change.  In the past he has dismissed the “hysterical and extreme claims about global warming” and seen them as symptoms of “pagan emptiness.” He is scheduled to give a lecture on the subject in October 2011 at Westminister Cathedral Hall, entitled, “One Christian Perspective on Climate Change. The lecture is sponsored by the Foundation established by Lord Nigel Lawson. Lord Lawson has written a book questioning whether climate change is taking place.  [4]

 

 

---

[1]  Ron Bennenati, “Vatican Calls for Immediate Action on Climate Change,” Sustainablebusiness.com News

www.sustainablebusiness.com/index/go/news.display/id/22362  Downloaded on May 6^th 2011.

 

[2] www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22362 downloaded on May 7, 2011.

 

[3]  Ibid.

[4] Notebook, The Tablet, April 16^th 2011, page 18.

Religion and Sustainable Development 2 Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

Religion and Sustainable Development 2

Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

In the past the ascetic tradition of various religions sometimes seemed to be motivated by a denial of the value of the world.  Often salvation was presented as removing humans from the natural world, as if somehow matter itself was tainted, and could not in any way be associated with the world of the spirit. Manichaeism depicted the world as radically deficient and that even the human body is somehow evil.  While many of the Fathers of the Church, including St. Augustine opposed Manichaeism, they were not always enthusiastic about the natural world or even the human body. Some of the dominant strains for medieval Catholicism saw monasticism as a flight from the  world (fuga mundi). In some places this spirituality descended into contempt for the world (contemptus mundi). This negative attitude towards the world received a new lease of life in the Catholic Church with the rise of Jansenism in the 17^th century. Bishop Jansen (1585- 1638), was Dutch Catholic theologian and a professor at Louvain.  In his posthumously published book, Augustine, he amplified Augustine’s negative attitude towards the world.  Jansenism coloured and soured Catholic attitudes toward the world for 200 years.  Such negativity was not confined to Catholicism. Despite his own deep appreciation of nature, the split between the realm of the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘material’ world was also found in many forms of Protestantism.

Very often in the past religions, particularly Christianity, were seen to be  indifferent to the deteriorating plight of local ecosystems or the biosphere as a whole.  Religions and Churches often upheld human rights and promoted social justice, often at great cost to individuals and  Churches, but their voice was seldom heard when it came to the plundering of the planet. Anthropocentric ethics promotes consumerism because it sees the rest of creation, not as closely linked to humanity, but as a resource which can be exploited for the benefit of humans.

Today the ascetical dimension of the various religions must be based on our understanding of the finite nature of the earth and a clarity that the present consumerist way of living cannot be sustained and is only made possible by massive injustice towards the poor of the world and by robbing future generations of their fair share of the resources of the planet. This is an area where religions must begin to highlight the moral dimension of how we relate to and treat the natural world.  The Churches have much to learn from traditional cultures. Even forms of Christianity such as Celtic Christianity have much to teach us about the intrinsic value of all creation.

Religions could use their financial investment to promote sustainability. This is already happening to a certain extent with the International Interfaith Investment Group. Many religions and religious groups own land and farm animals. They ought to make sure that they are using sustainable methods to produce food and to care for animals.

In a world where, for a variety of reasons, hope is in short supply, religions must provide a space for discerning and celebrating hope. The new ecological cosmological awareness must be brought into our liturgies and worship in order to integrate our work for justice and sustainability with our Christian faith. The sacraments offer an extraordinary opportunity to link respect for water, food, light and healing with the depths of the Christian tradition. Many religious prayer traditions have  an ecological and cosmic dimension which can help the individual and community, move away from an almost narcissistic obsession with the human to become more aware of the deep bonding which is at the heart of all creation. In this way spirituality, rather than creating and confirming dualisms, can be an integrating force bringing together all aspects of our existence.

One of the most effective ways for the Catholic Church to give leadership in the area of protecting the planet would be for Pope Benedict XVI to call a Synod for Creation.  Each local Church could begin to reflect on creation in its own area and see how Christians could give leadership in moving towards a more sane and sustainable world.  In preparing for such a Synod, everyone in the Church, young, old, farmers, industrial workers, bankers, scientists, fishermen, theologians, contemplatives, religious, teachers, doctors, liturgists, artists, poets and writers would be able to share their insights and wisdom.  This would give a great impetus to the tasks of caring for the earth that cares for every creature. I believe it would also give new life and focus to the Catholic faith in our contemporary society.

Religion and Sustainability Fr. Seán McDonagh SSC

For the past few weeks I have been discussing the issue of sustainable development from a number of perspectives, to mark the 19^th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD).  To be honest, there was very little talk about the role that religion might play in promoting sustainable development at the CSD. Other institutes and scholars are beginning to focus on who religion might promote a more sustainable way of living on the planet, while at the same time alleviating the poverty which is the lot of over one billion people today.

In a chapter in 2010 State of the World, on “Engaging Religions to Shape Worldviews,” Gary Gardner believes that even though, at present, there is only a small minority of environmental activists in most religions, religion “could become a major factor in forging new cultures of sustainability.”[1] In the Christian tradition, he pointed to the work of Patriarch Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople who set up the organization, Religion, Science and Environment (RSE) in 1996 to promote dialogue between science and religion around environmental problems associated with oceans, seas and rivers. Despite my criticisms of recent statements from the Holy See, at least the Vatican is now engaging more seriously with the ecological crisis.

The World Council of Churches (WCC) symposium outlined four ways in which the Churches or Religions could help make a global transition from a consumerist to a sustainable society.  The first role is prophetic as it sets out to challenge the   current status quo. Examples of this can be found in recent papal teaching. In, Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation, (January 1^st 1990) the late Pope John Paul II wrote: “modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its life style. In many parts of the world society is given to instant gratification and consumerism while remaining indifferent to the damage which these cause.  … Simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life, lest all suffer the negative consequences of the careless habits of a few.”  Pope Benedict in If you want peace, protect creation,( World Day of Peace, January 1^st 2010) repeats the same message. In No 13 Pope Benedict XVI writes that “technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles.” Further on, in No. 11 he writes, “it is becoming more and more evident that the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our life-styles and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view. All religions should challenge the greatest modern heresy which is that more and more consumption is the pathway to happiness.

The second thing Churches could do is to accompany people both at the local, national and international levels in the painful process of change from a non-sustainable to a sustainable way of life. Churches are well positioned to do this since they are present at the local, national and the international level. To achieve this they must educate their followers about the environment. Each religious tradition has its own stories about the origins of the universe, the earth and humankind. There is normally a wealth of wisdom in these traditions on how to live in a sustainable way. However, in this generation we are privileged to have available to us, from scientific discoveries in the fields of physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and genetics, an understanding about the emergence of the universe, our solar system, the formation of planet earth, the emergence and proliferation of life, culminating with the evolution of humankind in the past few million years. This story give us a new understanding of what it means to be human and intimately connected with the 13.7 billion years which went into shaping the universe in such a way that it could support conscious life.

It is now abundantly clear that humans are part of the biosphere and that we are challenged to live in a way that does not undermine the well-being of the planet. Particular religious traditions can enhance this understanding of our connectedness with all creation. In the Judeo-Christian tradition we believe that the creative principle behind the emergence of the universe and humankind is best addressed in personal terms as a caring, loving father. Religions ought also to highlight and emphasise those segments of their scriptures or holy books that enhance our appreciation of nature.

---

[1]  Gary Gardner, “Engaging Religions to Shape World View” 2010 State of the World, page 23.

Ecumenical Declaration presented at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth Listen to the cry of Mother Earth – Towards a new spirituality of respectful co-existence

The signatory bodies below, in a meeting held at the World Conference of Peoples on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, having engaged in deep reflection on the role of religions and spiritualities in legitimizing systems leading to the collapse of our planet, while at the same time recognizing its vital force, express our deep concern about Climate Change and its effects, which at the same time are an attack on life, especially that of the poorest and most vulnerable people in many parts of the Earth. Mother Earth and the whole Creation is groaning and is in pains of childbirth and requires a new holistic and ecological spirituality in order to preserve life.

We thus declare:

1. The cry of Mother Earth, the sustainer of all life form, is reaching the ears of all people of goodwill. The desire to increase wealth, the comfort of a luxurious life style, consumerism, indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources and pollution of air, water and soil have  brought our planet Earth to the edge of climate breakdown.

2. Climate change is the result of a human mentality that regards Nature as an object to be dominated, exploited and manipulated, and its master and sole measure.

3. We acknowledge that a certain interpretation of the Jewish-Christian tradition has contributed in history to encouraging this type of anthropocentrism and the merciless exploitation of Nature, by wrongly interpreting the responsibility to be the carer and advocate of Creation. Every religious system needs critically to revise its role as regards climate change.

4. We call, together with indigenous peoples and their wisdom, for a deep conversion of the ruling paradigm and of oppressive structures, as well as our mentality, attitudes and way of life, so as to bring our lives into harmony with Nature, the Cosmos and the great mystery of life.

5. We believe that the religions and spiritualities of peoples, in mutual dialogue, can guide us in our search for a life in harmony with the environment, future generations and the cosmos. We thus call on church and religious leaders to make every effort to engage in a wide campaign of awareness-raising and conversion of all believers, in order to contribute to safeguarding life on our planet Earth. We also call on them to make representations to their governments and international bodies such as the United Nations in other that countries commit themselves to greater responsibility in caring for the Earth.

6. We ask political, economic and scientific leaders to take urgent measures to respond effectively to the effects of Climate Change and secure the foundations for abundant life for all, especially the poorest and for future generations. We trust that the coming United Nations summit on Climate Change, COP 16, to take place in Mexico in December 2010, will prove to be a key for the future of humankind.

7. We commit ourselves to implementing in our organisations, religious institutions and personal lives an eco-centric spirituality, and to take awareness-raising measures to change people’s mentality and patterns of consumption.

8. Associating ourselves with the Agreement of the Peoples’, we invoke the life-giving Spirit to guide and strengthen us in our commitment to future generations, and to the whole Creation.

Cochabamba, 22 April 2010 (Mother Earth Day)

Christmas should not be an excuse for a Shopping Spree Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

The Irish Times on November 25^th 2010, came with a 69 page Gift Guide entitled  “It’s Christmas; TURN OVER FOR YOUR 68-page GIFT GUIDE,”  The Guide carried advertisements for entertainment, cameras, iPhones, iPods, satellite navigation tools, toys, cosmetics, craft items, gardening implements, food, wine, clothes, sports apparel  and a host of books, from Darragh O Shé’s Biography: My Story to The Wild Flowers of Ireland.

In all of the 69 pages there was not a single reference to the fact that the whole point of Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Christ, whom Christians believe is Our Saviour. The Gift Guide did not mention a Crib or any other Christian symbol.  In the book section there was not a single item on the Scriptures, the Infancy accounts in St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s Gospels or a book on the relevance of Christianity in today’s world. Dr. John Feehan’s Singing Heart of the Earth, on the relationship between science and religion, would make a wonderful Christmas present, particularly for young adults who might be searching for a sense of meaning in life.  There was no mention of the Advent Wreathe, Handel’s Messiah, Christmas Carols or any poetry, painting and music associated with the Birth of Christ in different Christian cultures down through the ages.  It is as if the compiler had airbrushed Christ out of Christmas, even though a majority of the paper’s readers and Irish people will attend a Christian Liturgy this Christmas.

The shop and consumer message of the Guide is a classic example of the chasm between many sections of the Irish media and the ordinary population. To be fair to The Irish Times, the paper does have a religious affairs correspondent and a weekly column entitled, “Rite and Reason.” A number of the columnists such as Breda O’Brien, John Waters and William Reville do, at times, explore the meaning of the Christian message for one’s personal well-being and wider culture and society.

I find it extraordinarily incongruous that the Feast of Christmas during which we celebrate the birth of the “one who has no where to lay his head,” has become the number one consumer event around the world. (Luke 9:58).

What, you might ask, is wrong with a consumption binge to celebrate Christmas? The world of advertising as reflected in the Guide tells us that possessing a vast number of goods, such as houses and cars gives the owner high standing in our consumerist culture.  It believes that by increasing their levels of consumption, people will find a true pathway to personal happiness and fame.  This is an illusion because the longings of the human heart are infinite.

On the other hand, for most religious traditions amassing wealth and giving priority to money over our relationships with other humans, the Earth community and God, has been associated with greed and selfishness.

In recent years there is a new, ecological critique of consumerism which we are only slowly beginning to take on board.  According to Erik Assadourian, of the WorldWatch  foundation in Washington DC. “Consumerism is like a tsunami which has engulfed human cultures and is degrading the Earth’s ecosystems. Left unaddressed, we risk global disaster.”  In the annual WorldWatch Report for 2010, Assadourian wrote that, the growth in consumption in recent decades is staggering. There was a six-fold increase in consumption between the years 1960 and 2008. Globally the per capita levels of consumption tripled, helped along by sophisticated advertising from transnational corporations.  If we want to prevent the collapse of our current civilization and the global life-systems, then we need to move quickly from a consumerist approach to life to one where we find meaning, identity and well-being in a new cultural framework centred on sustainability.

Religions, with their understanding of human well-being, are well placed to play a key role in developing sustainable cultures but, to date they have only been involved sporadically in linking the plight of the poor and planet to their core religious beliefs. They need much more effective policies and programmes to encourage their followers to opt for this new, more meaningful ways of living

In the past, the ascetic tradition of various religions seemed to be motivated by a denial of the value of this world.  Today’s ascetical challenge must be based on our understanding of the finite nature of the earth and the realization that, the present consumerist way of living cannot be sustained, and is only made possible by massive injustice towards the poor of the world and by robbing future generations of their fair share of the resources of the planet.

Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI understood this connection and, for the past two decades, have called Catholics to a life of simplicity. In Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation (1990), the late Pope John Paul II wrote:  “Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its life style. In many parts of the world society is given to instant gratification and consumerism while remaining indifferent to the damage which these cause … Simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life, lest all suffer the negative consequences of the careless habits of a few.”[1]

 

Pope Benedict, in his World Day of Peace Message published on January 1^st 2010, entitled, If You Want Peace, Protect Creation repeats the same message.

“It is becoming more and more evident that the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our life-styles and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view. We can no longer do without a real change of outlook which will result in new life-styles.” (quoted from Centesimus Annus, no. 36).[2] Our slogan, this Christmas and all the year round should be, “Enough is Enough.” Happy Christmas.

 

---

[1] Pope John Paul 11 1990, World Day of Peace Message, Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation, no. 13.

[2] Pope Benedict XV1 2010, World Day of Peace Message, If You Want Peace, Protect Creation, no. 11.

The Pope Speaks on Condoms and Environment Fr.Seán McDonagh, SSC

Two statements in recent weeks by Pope  Benedict XVI, one on condoms and the other on farming and the environment, illustrate the co-dependent and often dysfunctional relationship between the media and Church leaders.  Whenever the pope or other senior Church leaders speak about anything to do with sexuality – divorce, contraception, abortion or same sex relations – the media gives massive coverage to their statements.  When they speak on social justice or the current ecological crisis, they seldom get any coverage.

The following is a good example of this. On Sunday, November 21^st 2010, almost every newspaper, radio and TV station carried the news items that it was acceptable to use condoms in certain situations. It appears that, in a book entitled  Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times,” a German journalist, Peter Seewald, asked the Pope whether the Catholic Church is “fundamentally against the use of condoms.”  In reply, Pope Benedict stated that in certain circumstances it was acceptable to use a condom when the intention was to reduce the risk of infecting a partner with the HIV virus. [1] The media is presenting this as a reversal of Catholic teaching on condoms for the past 50 years.

Writing in the Sunday Times, David Leppard points out that, “the Pope received widespread criticism in March 2009, when he said during a trip to AIDs  ravaged Africa that condoms would increase the Aids problem rather than reduce it. While allowing for these exceptional cases, the Pope goes on to repeat that, abstinence and marital fidelity are still the only sure ways to prevent the spread of the disease.”

The New York Times points out that, “The pope’s (recent) statement on condoms was extremely limited: he did not approve their use or suggest that the Roman Catholic Church was beginning to back away from its prohibition of birth control.” [2] Nevertheless, the paper speculated whether his recent remarks are in response to calls from bishops in Africa and elsewhere to the Vatican to allow condoms to be used to fight the spread of H.I.V. AIDS. At a news conference at the Vatican last year Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana suggested, for instance, that condom use was worth considering for married couples in which one partner is H.I.V positive.

Rev. Joseph Fessio, the editor of Ignatius Press, which is publishing the English-language edition of the book, said the Pope’s new remarks on condoms were among the most surprising in the volume. But he also stressed that they were “very carefully qualified.”

“It would be wrong to say, ‘Pope Approves Condoms,” Father Fessio said. “He’s saying it’s immoral but in an individual case, the use of a condom could be an awakening to someone that he’s got to be more conscious of his actions.” [3]

On November 14^th 2010, during the Angelus prayer, Pope Benedict reflected on the importance of agriculture on Italy’s Thanksgiving Day. The pope pointed to the failures of modern, industrial agriculture and the current global development model. According to the Pope, these have contributed to the continuing economic crisis, a persistent imbalance between wealth and poverty, the “scandal” of hunger, the “ecological emergency” and unemployment. He argued that, “ it is necessary to carry out a strategic relaunching of agriculture,” In an age when the agricultural sector has lost importance, he said, “it seems to me (to be) the moment for a call to re-evaluate agriculture not in the nostalgic sense, but as an indispensable resource for the future.” [4].

The Pope said that, “what is needed is a “truly concerted” effort to create “a new equilibrium between agriculture, industry and services, so that development may be sustainable, no one (will be) without bread and work, and the air, water and other primary resources may be preserved as universal goods.”[5] Pope Benedict XVI prayed that his words might stimulate the international community to rediscover the importance of agriculture. Did the international media highlight these  crucially important ideas of Pope Benedict on agriculture and the “ecological emergency”?  Though the message is both important and relevant, it got very little media coverage, in comparison to the coverage given to comments on sexuality.  Church leaders need to be aware of this media frenzy and set about changing it.  After all, the gospel of Jesus covers every aspect of life, not just sexuality.

---

[1] David Leppard, “Pope: A condom can be justified,” The Sunday Times, November 21, 2010, page 1.

[2] Rachel Donadio, and Laurie Goodstein,  “In Rare Cases, Pope Justifies Use of Condoms,” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/world/europe/21pope.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

[3] ibid

[4] Vatican City, Nov 14, 2010 / 04:01 pm

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/new.php?id=2138

 

[5] ibid

The Church has failed to face the massive changes which have taken place in Ireland in recent times Fr. Séan McDonagh, SSC

Last week I argued that it would take more than a few questionnaires and short visits from a number of North American Archbishops and Sisters with Irish surnames to bring about effective renewal in the Irish Catholic Church.  My fear is that the visitors will not have the time or orientation to really understand the massive cultural shift which has taken place in Ireland during the past 40 years, since the Second Vatican Council. I trained as an anthropologist and spent many years in the Philippines, teaching Anthropology at the Mindanao State University in Marawi City and after that working as a missionary anthropologist with the T’boli people who lived in the South eastern mountains of Mindanao. Even though I had read almost every ethnography written on the different ethno-linguistic groups in the Philippines, I would be very circumspect about making any definite statements about elements of T’boli culture unless I was working closely, over an extended period, with T’bolis themselves. The participant/observer social science methods employed in Anthropology takes time and patience.

Allowing for the limitations outlined above, we can still get some indication of the changes in Irish society through well constructed surveys, particularly when the results are interpreted by competent people who have had their finger on the pulse of Irish society during the past three decades.  Maureen Gaffney is a well-known psychologist and commentator on the changes which have been happening in Ireland in recent decades.  Furthermore, she does not have any axe to grind with the Catholic Church so her reflections on the changes in value systems deserve the careful attention of everyone in the Irish Catholic Church, especially religious leaders.  In an article in The Irish Times, she reviewed the result of a social poll conducted in recent weeks by that paper. According to her, the implications for the Catholic Church are both enormous and very disturbing.  She wrote “for what was once the most powerful institution in the land, the Catholic Church, the poll result must be deeply disturbing. If the Catholic Church were a political party running for election, and if these survey results were the actual vote, then this could be described as a rout. And this is on top of the on-going outrage about the church’s response to the scandals of clerical child sexual abuse. There is a comprehensive rejection of the position of the church on matters of personal morality and on how the church itself is governed – the issues it most publically embraces. Sex outside marriage, cohabitation, women priests, celibacy, attendance at Mass – the majority of us now don’t agree with the church on any of these positions, with younger people particularly alienated.” [1]

As if that were not bad enough, her next two paragraphs are devastating. She writes that, “we don’t find the church’s position on anything to do with sexuality or women credible. The sexual revolution, the development of effective contraception, the growth of the women’s and gay rights movements – all of these historical shifts have left the church stranded with an archaic psychology of sexuality.

“The Church’s pronouncements on all these issues are so much at variance with the lived experience of most people as to terminally undermine its credibility in the area of intimate relationships. This has profound consequences for the future of the church. Intimate relationships have become central to our sense of self and to our personal identity, so the church has lost the most profound connection it could make with us.[2]

According to Gaffney, the official Catholic Church has lost its ability to connect with the laity, not because people have walked away from the Church. In fact, 58% of those surveyed consider themselves strongly or moderately religious. In these circumstances she is scathing in her assessment of the Church leadership to connect with the real world.

“We look to the church to be a life-enhancing community of equals, to make life better, nobler, more dignified, more full of meaning and love. Instead, what we are offered is an elite, remote hierarchy and a diet of dogma, restrictions and petty institutional rules. And the ordinary foot soldiers of the church – the local priests and religious – seem as powerless as ourselves to change things.[3]

The two statements issued by a spokesman for the Irish Hierarchy in the wake of the suggestion by Jennifer Sleeman’s that women should not  attend Mass on September 26^th 2010, in order to protest about the place of women in the Catholic Church, illustrates how out of touch many bishops are with  crucial issues facing the Church and world. These challenges will not go away.

---

[1] http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0918/1224279168074_pf.html

[2] ibid

[3] ibid

Begin by investigating Rome Itself Fr. Séan McDonagh, SSC

 

On September 30^th 2010, it was announced that the four Catholic archbishops of Ireland, Cardinal Seán Brady of Armagh, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin and Archbishop Dermot Clifford of Cashel and Emly and Archbishop Michael Neary of Tuam, would be travelling to Rome to meet with officials of the Vatican Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies Apostolic Life and the members of the Visitation team which Pope Benedict XVI promised to send in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland earlier this year.

I believe that both the Irish archbishops and the team of visitors to the Irish Church should begin by scrutinising Rome’s own handling of sex-abuse allegations.  The challenging words of Jesus in St. Matthew’s Gospel are very pertinent. Jesus says, “how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is a log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matt 74-5).

Yvonne Murphy, the judge who led The Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation is scathing in her criticism of how the Church and State handled accusations of abuse. In  1.15 she writes, “The Dublin Archdioceses pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities.” However she does not accuse any of the Church leaders of covering up the scandals because they received gifts from sex abusers.  In Rome, on the other hand, there are credible claims that accusations against perpetrators were not followed up because money changed hands.

 

The most high profile case involves Fr. Marcial Maciel, the founder of the highly influential Legionaries of Christ. He is accused of abusing boys and girls over a period of four or five decades. Fr. Juan Vaca was abused by Maciel as a seminarian.  When he finally left the Legion in 1976 and joined the Diocese of Rocville Center. With the support of   Bishop John McGann of Rockville Centre, N.Y., he sent a letter to the Vatican with detailed allegations of abuse. He continued to petition Rome to discipline Maciel until 1989. Nothing happened.

Maciel raised a fortune from wealthy sponsors, and ingratiated himself with church officials in Rome.[1] In 1998, ex-Legion victims of Maciel filed a canonical case in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Many people believe that nothing happened to Maciel because of pressure from Cardinal Sodano. Jason Berry writing in The Irish Catholic claims, that “Sodano, as Secretary of State – essentially the Vatican’s prime minister – pressured Ratzinger, as the congregation’s prefect, to halt the proceeding.”[2] Maciel and Cardinal Sodano became friends when the latter was nuncio to Chile during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.  Maciel hired Andrea Sodano, the cardinal’s nephew as a construction consultant while building the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome. When other Legionaries complained that Sodano’s  work was faulty, Maciel insisted that he be paid. Maciel cultivated the relationship with Sodano. Berry claims that when he was made a cardinal the Legion put on a party for 200 members of the Sodano family and friends.  The same happened when he became Secretary of State. When Cardinal Sodano gave talks at the Legion’s University he received $10,000. [3] Even Joseph Bottum, the editor of the conservative publication First Things, wrote recently that, “a figure such as Cardinal Sodano has to be removed from his current position and told to serve the Church in prayer. Everyone inside the Church needs to be taught that there are consequences for scandalous mistakes.”[4]

It was only in 2004, with Pope John Paul’s health deteriorating rapidly that Cardinal Ratzinger broke with Cardinal Sodano and ordered Msgr Charles Scicluna  to investigate Maciel.  Surely this is one of the greatest failures in terms of accountability any where in the Church for decades. In addressing the Irish Bishops, Pope Benedict called for “complete honesty and transparency.” If Rome is now insisting on accountability in Ireland and other churches, surely it must lead by good example and investigate those who protected Maciel. Otherwise, the visitation of the Irish Church will lack credibility and thoughtful Catholics will refuse to engage with the visitors.

 

---

[1] Ibid.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/money-paved-way-maciels-influence-vatican

 

[2] Jason Berry, “Cash paved way at Vatican”, The Irish Catholic, May 13, 2010, page 25.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Joseph Bottum, “The Cost of Father Maciel, May 12, 2010.      http://rome-with-a-view.blogspot.com/2010/05/i-tend-to-agree-with-joseph-bottum-on.html (downloaded on September 26, 2010.