I claim no expertise in climate science. I do claim a certain competence in detecting spin in the media; for I’m a card-carrying member of that clan, as I’ve committed print journalism for more than 40 years and worked in television for over 20. Thus credentialed, I rise to note that serious spin has dominated media coverage of climate change for a long time now. There are, to be sure, exceptions to this rule. Since Hurricane Katrina, though, it’s generally been all-hysteria-all-the-time in reporting and commentary on weather and climate change. This may get eyeballs onto screens and newspaper pages; it doesn’t do much for cool, calm public debate.
So when the chief scientist in the Obama administration’s Energy Department, who’s also a professor of physics at Cal Tech, challenges the spin and the hysteria, attention should be paid. That’s precisely what Steven E. Koonin does in the recently published Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters: he takes on just about every shibboleth emboldening today’s crusaders against climate change. Professor Koonin doesn’t deny that the planet is warming and that human beings have something to do with that. He does question some of the claims behind the present drive to Do Something! through massive governmental interventions.
Thus, to quote from the Wall Street Journal review of his book, Professor Koonin shows, from the scientific data, that “tornado frequency and severity are…not trending up; nor are the number and severity of droughts. The extent of global fires has been trending significantly down. The rate of sea-level rise has not accelerated. Global crop yields are rising, not falling. And while global CO2 levels are obviously higher now than two centuries ago, they’re not at any record planetary high – they’re at a low that has only been seen once before in the past 500 million years.”
Not shocked (or angry) at Professor Koonin yet? Then try his own words:
Heat waves in the U.S. are now no more common than they were in 1900…the warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past 50 years….Humans have had no detectible impact on hurricanes over the past century….Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was 80 years ago… The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.
As I said, I’ve no credentials to judge the accuracy of Koonin’s assertions. I do like his against-the-grain boldness, and I certainly agree with his argument that the science – not media and activist spin on the science, but the actual data from the many authoritative reports he cites – should govern decision-making about public policy and climate change. I also have an idea of why the climate debate has become so emotionally fraught. It’s not just because of media spin and political opportunism, although both of those play their part. It’s because environmentalism has become an ultramundane pseudo-religion.
That religion has a deity: Gaia, the Earth. It has a sacred text: Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, which began the transformation of the American conservation movement (which respected the natural environment without deifying it) into contemporary environmentalism. It has its religious holidays, “Earth Day” being the Pentecost of the new religion and the occasion for homiletics that mimic Peter in Acts 2:14-36. (A pre-K student, I’m told, brought home from school this past April 22 the revelation that “we should get rid of our cars because they’re bad for the air.”) Gaia-religion has a kind of ersatz sacramental life: I’ve been in circumstances where there are seven recycling bins, which certainly rings bells in the Catholic mind. It inculcates a moral code; some of it makes sense – How can anyone object to the fact that our highways and national parks are virtually litter-free these days? – but other parts of it veer into the worst forms of elitist, anti-natalist zealotry, as when some of the new religion’s prophets urge shrinking the planet’s human population by six billion people in the name of saving (or appeasing) Gaia. And I certainly can’t be the only person who’s noticed that carbon trade-offs are the new religion’s form of indulgences – the selling of which in the 16th century led to a lot of trouble.
Is ours a secular world? Or is it a world that’s traded authentic religion for a modern form of idolatry – one that’s corrupting our politics because it displaces reason with the kind of existential dread the ancient Canaanites once felt about Moloch?
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
A defining theme of Pope Francis’ papacy has been his urging of humanity to better care for the natural environment, which he has done most prominently in his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and numerous subsequent writings and speeches.
The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States, about half of whom do not share Pope Francis’ views on climate change, according to surveys.
In Laudate Deum, which was released in October as a continuation to Laudato Si’, Francis wrote that the effects of climate change “are here and increasingly evident,” warning of “immensely grave consequences for everyone” if drastic efforts are not made to reduce emissions. In the face of this, the Holy Father criticized those who “have chosen to deride [the] facts” about climate science, stating bluntly that it is “no longer possible to doubt the human — ‘anthropic’ — origin of climate change.”
The pope in the encyclical laid out his belief that there must be a “necessary transition towards clean energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels.” This follows a call from Pope Francis in 2021 to the global community calling for the world to “achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.”
He further lamented what he called “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions [on climate change] that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
In light of the new encyclical — which extensively cites the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Pope Francis was invited to speak at this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28. Though the 86-year-old pope was forced to cancel his trip due to health issues, the Vatican has indicated that he aims to participate in COP28 this weekend in some fashion. It announced today that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin will represent the pope at the conference.
While various Catholic groups have welcomed the pope’s latest encyclical, some Catholics have reacted with persistent doubts, questioning whether the pope’s policy prescriptions would actually produce the desired effects.
How do Americans feel about climate change?
According to a major survey conducted by Yale University, 72% of Americans believed in 2021 — the latest available data year — that “global warming is happening,” and 57% believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
More recent polling from the Pew Research Center, conducted in June, similarly suggests that two-thirds of U.S. adults overall say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over the expansion of the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. That same survey found that just 3 in 10 adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal, and natural gas. The Yale study found that 77% of U.S. adults support at least the funding of research into renewable energy sources.
Broken down by party affiliation, Pew found that a large majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents — 90% — favor alternative energy sources, while just under half, 42%, of Republicans and Republican-leaning adults think the same. Within the Republican cohort, however, 67% of Republicans under age 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources, compared with the 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older who prioritize the expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas.
In terms of the expansion of alternative energy sources, two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power, Pew reported. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.
How do America’s Catholics feel about climate change?
Surveys suggest that Catholics in the United States are slightly more likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be skeptical of climate change, despite the pope’s emphatic words in 2015 and since.
A separate Pew study suggests that 44% of U.S. Catholics say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity, a view in line with Pope Francis’ stance. About 3 in 10 (29%) said the Earth is warming mostly due to natural patterns, while 13% said they believe there is no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer.
According to the same study, 71% of Hispanic Catholics see climate change as an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 49% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics. (There were not enough Black or Asian Catholics in the 2022 survey to analyze separately, Pew said.)
One 2015 study from Yale did suggest that soon after Laudato Si’ was released, U.S. Catholics were overall more likely to believe in climate change than before. That same study found no change, however, in the number of Americans overall who believe human activity is causing global warming.
Pope Francis’ climate priorities
Beyond his groundbreaking writings, Pope Francis has taken many actions during his pontificate to make his own — admittedly small — country, Vatican City, more sustainable, including the recent announcement of a large order of electric vehicles, construction of its own network of charging stations, a reforestation program, and the continued importation of energy coming exclusively from renewable sources.
Francis has often lamented what he sees as a tepid response from developed countries in implementing measures to curb climate change. In Laudate Deum, he urged that new multinational agreements on climate change — speaking in this case specifically about the COP28 conference — be “drastic, intense, and count on the commitment of all,” stating that “a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.”
The pope lamented what he sees as the fact that when new projects related to green energy are proposed, the potential for economic growth, employment, and human promotion are thought of first rather than moral considerations such as the effects on the world’s poorest.
“It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs,” the pope noted.
“What is happening is that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of generating countless jobs in different sectors.”
‘Leave God’s creation better than we found it’
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank, told CNA that he has noticed a theme of frustration and confusion among many Catholics regarding the Holy Father’s emphasis on climate change.
A self-described outdoorsman and former president of Wyoming Catholic College, Roberts spoke highly to CNA of certain aspects of Laudato Si’, particularly the pope’s insights into what he called “human ecology,” which refers to the acceptance of each person’s human body as a vital part of “accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. Courtesy of Heritage Foundation.
“I like to think [Pope Francis] personally wrote that, because I could see him saying that,” Roberts said of the passage, which appears in paragraph 155 of the encyclical. Roberts said he even makes a point to meditate on that “beautiful and moving” passage during a retreat that he does annually.
That portion of Laudato Si’ notwithstanding, Roberts said he strongly believes that it detracts from other important issues, such as direct ministry to the poor, when Pope Francis elevates care for God’s natural creation as “seemingly more important than other issues to us as Catholics.” He also said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ policy prescriptions, such as a complete phasing out of fossil fuels, contained in Laudate Deum.
“We of course want to pray for him. We’re open to the teaching that he is providing. But we also have to remember as Catholics that sometimes popes are wrong. And on this issue, it is a prudential matter. It is not a matter of morality, particularly when he’s getting into the scientific policy recommendations,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the Heritage Foundation’s research and advocacy has focused not on high-level, multinational agreements and conferences to tackle the issues posed by climate change but rather on smaller-scale, more community-based efforts. He said this policy position is, in part, due to the historical deference such multinational conglomerates of nations have given to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases overall.
He said agreements within the U.S. itself, with businesses and all levels of government working together, have produced the best results so far when it comes to improving the environment. He also pointed to examples of constructive action that don’t involve billions of dollars, such as families making the choice to spend more time outdoors or engaging in local activities that contribute to environmental conservation and community life, such as anti-litter campaigns and community gardening. The overarching goal, he said, should be to “leave God’s creation better than we found it.”
Roberts — who said he personally believes humans likely have “very little effect” on the climate — said he was discouraged to read other portions of Laudato Si’, as well as Laudate Deum, that to him read as though they had come “straight out of the U.N.” Despite his criticisms, Roberts urged his fellow Catholics to continue to pray for the Holy Father and to listen to the pope’s moral insights.
“I just think that the proposed solutions are actually more anti-human and worse than the purported effects of climate change,” he added.
‘A far more complex issue’
Greg Sindelar, a Catholic who serves as CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that studies the energy industry, similarly expressed concerns to CNA about the potential impact of certain climate change mitigation policies on human flourishing.
Like Roberts, Sindelar spoke highly of certain aspects of the pope’s message while expressing reservations about some of the U.N.-esque solutions proposed in Laudate Deum.
“I think the pope is right about our duty as Catholics to be stewards and to care for the environment. But I think what we have to understand — what we have to balance this with — is that it cannot come at the expense of depriving people of affordable and reliable energy,” Sindelar said in an interview with CNA.
“There’s ways to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing the access that we all need to reliable and affordable energy.”
Greg Sindelar is CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank in America’s leading energy-producing state. Courtesy of Texas Public Policy Foundation
Sindelar said TPPF primarily promotes cheap, reliable access to energy as a means of promoting human flourishing. The free-market-focused group is skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, both in the form of regulation and incentives or disincentives in certain areas of the energy sector.
When asked what he thinks his fellow Catholics largely think about the issue, Sindelar said many of the Catholics he hears from express the view that government policies and interventions rarely produce effective solutions and could potentially hinder access to energy for those in need.
“I think it’s a far more complex issue than just saying we need to cut emissions, and we need to transfer away from fossil fuels, and all these other things. What we need to do is figure out and ensure ways that we are providing affordable and reliable electricity to all citizens of the world,” he reiterated.
“When the pope speaks, when the Vatican speaks, it carries a lot of weight with Catholics around the world, [and] not just with Catholics … and I totally agree with him that we need to be thinking about the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us,” Sindelar continued.
“[But] by going down these policy prescription paths that he’s recommending, we’re actually going to reduce their ability to have access to that,” he asserted.
Sindelar, while disagreeing with Pope Francis’ call for an “abandonment of fossil fuels,” said he appreciates the fact that Pope Francis has spoken out about the issue of care for creation and has initiated so much public discussion.
“I think there is room for differing views and opinions on the right ways to do that,” he said.
Effective mitigation efforts
Susan Varlamoff, a retired biologist and parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in the Atlanta area, is among those Catholics who are committed to Pope Francis’ call to care for creation and to mitigate the effects of climate change. To that end, Varlamoff in 2016 created a peer-reviewed action plan for the Archdiocese of Atlanta to help Catholics put the principles contained in Laudato Si’ into action, mainly through smaller, more personal actions that people can take to reduce their energy usage.
Retired biologist Susan Varlamoff. Photo courtesy of Susan Varlamoff
The Atlanta Archdiocese’s efforts have since garnered recognition and praise, Varlamoff said, with at least 35 archdioceses now involved in an inter-diocesan network formed to exchange sustainability ideas based on the latest version of the plan from Atlanta.
“It’s fascinating to see what everybody is doing, and it’s basically based on their talents and imaginations,” Varlamoff said, noting that a large number of young people have gotten involved with their efforts.
As a scientist, Varlamoff told CNA it is clear to her that Pope Francis knows what he’s talking about when he lays out the dangers posed by inaction in the face of climate change.
“He understands the science, and he’s deeply concerned … he’s got remarkable influence as a moral leader,” she said.
“Part of what our religion asks us to do is to care for one another. We have to care for creation if we’re going to care for one another, because the earth is our natural resource system, our life support, and we cannot care for one another if we don’t have that life support.”
Responding to criticisms about the financial costs associated with certain green initiatives, Varlamoff noted that small-scale sustainable actions can actually save money. She offered the example of parishes in the Atlanta area that have drastically reduced their electric bills by installing solar panels.
“[But,] it’s not just about saving money. It’s also about reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting the natural resources for future generations,” she said.
Moreover, Varlamoff said, the moral imperative to improve the natural environment for future generations is worth the investment. “When [Catholics] give money, for example, for a social justice issue like Walking with Moms in Need or special needs, the payback is improving lives. We’re improving the environment here,” she emphasized.
Laocoön and His Sons, Vatican Museums. / Shutterstock
Rome Newsroom, Mar 9, 2023 / 08:11 am (CNA).
The Vatican held a hearing Thursday to try three climate activists for criminal damage to a famous statue in the Vatican Museums.Guido Viero, 61,… […]
Pope Francis, pictured on April 17, 2013. / Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk.
Vatican City, Nov 2, 2021 / 13:00 pm (CNA).
Pope Francis told world leaders attending a United Nations climate summit on Tuesday that “now is the time to act, urgently, coura… […]
14 Comments
When you’ve rejected God, there’s a need to replace Him with just about anything else.
The Media are the evangelists for the new religions. These new religions are organizing a crusade not unlike the ones they rail against from the Medieval times. Their Sacrament of Baptism is now the new rite of initiation into the new religion – advocacy of abortion. The Sacrament of Matrimony is now the sacramentalized and unfettered unleashing of all carnal desires. The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has been replaced with worship at the high altar of Covid-19 which comes with its assemblage of self-appointed priests. Their Sacrament of Confession has been replaced by wokeness, virtue signaling, and endless public postures of phony apologies when one has been caught deviating from the authorized narrative script. And, finally, one takes Communion in the new religion by voting Democrat every time there’s an election; it demonstrates one’s kinship with those of like mind.
TO GW –Wonderfully insightful article – I have two devotees, i.e., ‘climate scientists’ (one self-styled and one professional)in my family – they are not publicly at the ‘devotional “Gaia worship”stage yet ,but definitely above the benighted Christians who do not follow Science. Please note the capital S. And did you know that “SCIENCE SAYS….”
Weigel exhibits welcome clarity when he rejects the Gaia cult while he at the same time he avoids taking sides on conflicted science (“I claim no expertise in climate science.”)
Now, on the latter theme of climate science, might it be that long-term natural cycles (as much or more than our recent human interventions?) do present humanity with an existential problem? Cycles longer than the data points reported by Professor Steven E. Koonin?
Moreover, and again apart from the Gaia culture, another and opposite cultural aberration might be that of Francis Bacon (1561-1626) who both championed the scientific method (hurray!) but also suggested putting nature “on the rack” to reveal her secrets so as to do our bidding. That is, for all of its benefits, is Western global industrial culture/Technocracy—in its current form—also outrunning the capacity of a contracting atmospheric and oceanic amniotic sac?
The first rule of ecology: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” In the context of complex ecological limits, what has the Church to say about the transcendent and inviolable dignity of each person, without exception? In Centesimus Annus (etc.) Pope St. John Paul II exhibited welcome clarity when he distinguished between the “natural ecology” (the domain of science) and the interrelated “human ecology” (the domain of families, morality, solidarity/ subsidiarity, etc.).
Cut from the same cloth are one-at-a-time neighborhood direct abortions and a less direct but possible global triage culture. Indirect disregard for entire populations is a moral issue to be forthrightly addressed by the Church’s Social Teaching. Working with real science, surely, it’s a Christian vocation to get these things right. Weigel’s clarification is a start.
But, we can also wonder when the political “climate” will place Earth Day on Easter Sunday.
“That religion” also has “a Pontiff,” The Pontiff Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio, who orchestrated idolatry to his repurposed, neo-pagan-Marxist fertility goddess Pachamama, in Rome in October 2019.
“Environmentalism has become”, to which we might respond, What else is new? Then that glib response doesn’t go into the details. We know, that is we the vast majority of self proclaimed cognoscenti that Pachamamma reigns. We’ve already had her installment ceremony officiated on the Vatican lawns by Pope Francis, then approvingly celebrated by dancing cardinals into the inner sanctum of St Peter’s She [remember the movie? An Edwardian archaeologist and two companions stumble upon a lost city in East Africa, run by a beautiful queen whose love holds the promise of immortality] carried aloft on canoe [neither can we omit her daring rescue from the Tiber]. Then there’s Environmentalism, an ultramundane pseudo religion. Not a scientist, as George Weigel admits he’s not, nor a journalist which G Weigel however owns with credentials I cannot argue for or against Prof Koonin’s scientific opinion, or as deftly respond to media spin. Consequently, my remaining option is not to opine whether an inordinate climate change is on the verge of destroying our planet [sages AOC, Greta Thunberg give us about 10 years] rather in agreement [fully] with G Weigel on the issue of Gaia worship thinly veiled as Environmentalism. A pseudo religion that’s effectively replaced Christianity among the dilettanti. Added to this is that our supreme leader’s hand cannot be omitted from this unorthodoxy as suggested. An [almost] cleverly concocted cover for the real purpose of recreating Catholicism as the globally friendly Fratelli Tutti religion with Earth worship features secondary to chronic anthropolatry. Whew!
Climate activist Greta Thunberg has set sail from Plymouth on what could be her most daunting challenge yet, crossing the Atlantic in a solar-powered zero carbon emission racing yacht (Guardian News Aug 14, 2019). That some might have endearingly named The Good Ship Lollipop
George Weigel in his continuing crusade against environmentalism has created a strawman. The real environmentalism for a Catholic is the faith driven “integral ecology” not the extremist ideology driven “environmentalism.” This integral ecology is found in Pope Francis’ encyclical “On Care for Our Common Home” or Laudato Si. George Weigel should get beyond his inordinate fixation on St. Pope John Paul II and get into the reigning Pope Francis and read this encyclical on ecology.
Dear Mother Earth—are we still allowed to call her that without being censured?
There was a time, a day of more measured living, Lent of prayer, fasting, penance, silence, reflection, Friday Stations of the Cross, Holy Week, Easter Sunday, controlled burning of meadows before the frost went out, a time when spring brought new hope, new life, fields waiting, prayers that St. Isadore would intercede for a good crop, newly born lambs on unsteady legs, young calves bouncing around in recently gained freedom, young colts running-playing in the sunshine, horses ready to pull the plow, the cultivator, unmodified seeds planted, the days before Monsanto and plastics and airplanes swooping over the terrain with insecticides, the days of overalls, four pair of dress trousers, one sport jacket and one pinstriped suit, two weekday/school dresses, one Sunday outfit, hat, scarf and gloves/mittens–small closet or five foot rod. Days unburdened by the daily rush, family meals, family prayer, “early to bed, early to rise”, Saturday- shine shoes – prepare for Sunday. Sunday Mass, breakfast/meals together, play games and rest.
And so the year went day by day regulating our lives by the seasons of the year, the Liturgical seasons and remembering the charisms of the saints. Living life knowing that the Incarnate God died for our sins and rose from the dead, ascended to the Father, that He sent the Paraclete to strengthen us and He said, “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt. 28:20).
I doubt that humans have much – perhaps nothing – to do with climate change on a macroscopic scale. (I remember when it used to be called global warming.) I understand that science points towards the Sun at the main or sole cause. The whole carbon-dioxide “greenhouse gas” hypothesis is – I understand – pseudoscience.
When you’ve rejected God, there’s a need to replace Him with just about anything else.
The Media are the evangelists for the new religions. These new religions are organizing a crusade not unlike the ones they rail against from the Medieval times. Their Sacrament of Baptism is now the new rite of initiation into the new religion – advocacy of abortion. The Sacrament of Matrimony is now the sacramentalized and unfettered unleashing of all carnal desires. The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has been replaced with worship at the high altar of Covid-19 which comes with its assemblage of self-appointed priests. Their Sacrament of Confession has been replaced by wokeness, virtue signaling, and endless public postures of phony apologies when one has been caught deviating from the authorized narrative script. And, finally, one takes Communion in the new religion by voting Democrat every time there’s an election; it demonstrates one’s kinship with those of like mind.
Dead-On….
TO GW –Wonderfully insightful article – I have two devotees, i.e., ‘climate scientists’ (one self-styled and one professional)in my family – they are not publicly at the ‘devotional “Gaia worship”stage yet ,but definitely above the benighted Christians who do not follow Science. Please note the capital S. And did you know that “SCIENCE SAYS….”
Agree; very timely and insightful article. Thank you, George.
Weigel exhibits welcome clarity when he rejects the Gaia cult while he at the same time he avoids taking sides on conflicted science (“I claim no expertise in climate science.”)
Now, on the latter theme of climate science, might it be that long-term natural cycles (as much or more than our recent human interventions?) do present humanity with an existential problem? Cycles longer than the data points reported by Professor Steven E. Koonin?
Moreover, and again apart from the Gaia culture, another and opposite cultural aberration might be that of Francis Bacon (1561-1626) who both championed the scientific method (hurray!) but also suggested putting nature “on the rack” to reveal her secrets so as to do our bidding. That is, for all of its benefits, is Western global industrial culture/Technocracy—in its current form—also outrunning the capacity of a contracting atmospheric and oceanic amniotic sac?
The first rule of ecology: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” In the context of complex ecological limits, what has the Church to say about the transcendent and inviolable dignity of each person, without exception? In Centesimus Annus (etc.) Pope St. John Paul II exhibited welcome clarity when he distinguished between the “natural ecology” (the domain of science) and the interrelated “human ecology” (the domain of families, morality, solidarity/ subsidiarity, etc.).
Cut from the same cloth are one-at-a-time neighborhood direct abortions and a less direct but possible global triage culture. Indirect disregard for entire populations is a moral issue to be forthrightly addressed by the Church’s Social Teaching. Working with real science, surely, it’s a Christian vocation to get these things right. Weigel’s clarification is a start.
But, we can also wonder when the political “climate” will place Earth Day on Easter Sunday.
“That religion” also has “a Pontiff,” The Pontiff Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio, who orchestrated idolatry to his repurposed, neo-pagan-Marxist fertility goddess Pachamama, in Rome in October 2019.
Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never is also quite informative. I haven’t read Koonin’s book yet but I believe I will.
“Environmentalism has become”, to which we might respond, What else is new? Then that glib response doesn’t go into the details. We know, that is we the vast majority of self proclaimed cognoscenti that Pachamamma reigns. We’ve already had her installment ceremony officiated on the Vatican lawns by Pope Francis, then approvingly celebrated by dancing cardinals into the inner sanctum of St Peter’s She [remember the movie? An Edwardian archaeologist and two companions stumble upon a lost city in East Africa, run by a beautiful queen whose love holds the promise of immortality] carried aloft on canoe [neither can we omit her daring rescue from the Tiber]. Then there’s Environmentalism, an ultramundane pseudo religion. Not a scientist, as George Weigel admits he’s not, nor a journalist which G Weigel however owns with credentials I cannot argue for or against Prof Koonin’s scientific opinion, or as deftly respond to media spin. Consequently, my remaining option is not to opine whether an inordinate climate change is on the verge of destroying our planet [sages AOC, Greta Thunberg give us about 10 years] rather in agreement [fully] with G Weigel on the issue of Gaia worship thinly veiled as Environmentalism. A pseudo religion that’s effectively replaced Christianity among the dilettanti. Added to this is that our supreme leader’s hand cannot be omitted from this unorthodoxy as suggested. An [almost] cleverly concocted cover for the real purpose of recreating Catholicism as the globally friendly Fratelli Tutti religion with Earth worship features secondary to chronic anthropolatry. Whew!
For an emotionally bludgeoned and docile populace, the oracle Greta Thunberg is propped up as a modern stand-in for Shirley Temple.
Climate activist Greta Thunberg has set sail from Plymouth on what could be her most daunting challenge yet, crossing the Atlantic in a solar-powered zero carbon emission racing yacht (Guardian News Aug 14, 2019). That some might have endearingly named The Good Ship Lollipop
Greta Thunberg’s conduct bears a strong resemblance to Veruca Salt (I Want it Now) in the 1971 movie “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.”
George Weigel in his continuing crusade against environmentalism has created a strawman. The real environmentalism for a Catholic is the faith driven “integral ecology” not the extremist ideology driven “environmentalism.” This integral ecology is found in Pope Francis’ encyclical “On Care for Our Common Home” or Laudato Si. George Weigel should get beyond his inordinate fixation on St. Pope John Paul II and get into the reigning Pope Francis and read this encyclical on ecology.
Dear Mother Earth—are we still allowed to call her that without being censured?
There was a time, a day of more measured living, Lent of prayer, fasting, penance, silence, reflection, Friday Stations of the Cross, Holy Week, Easter Sunday, controlled burning of meadows before the frost went out, a time when spring brought new hope, new life, fields waiting, prayers that St. Isadore would intercede for a good crop, newly born lambs on unsteady legs, young calves bouncing around in recently gained freedom, young colts running-playing in the sunshine, horses ready to pull the plow, the cultivator, unmodified seeds planted, the days before Monsanto and plastics and airplanes swooping over the terrain with insecticides, the days of overalls, four pair of dress trousers, one sport jacket and one pinstriped suit, two weekday/school dresses, one Sunday outfit, hat, scarf and gloves/mittens–small closet or five foot rod. Days unburdened by the daily rush, family meals, family prayer, “early to bed, early to rise”, Saturday- shine shoes – prepare for Sunday. Sunday Mass, breakfast/meals together, play games and rest.
And so the year went day by day regulating our lives by the seasons of the year, the Liturgical seasons and remembering the charisms of the saints. Living life knowing that the Incarnate God died for our sins and rose from the dead, ascended to the Father, that He sent the Paraclete to strengthen us and He said, “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt. 28:20).
I doubt that humans have much – perhaps nothing – to do with climate change on a macroscopic scale. (I remember when it used to be called global warming.) I understand that science points towards the Sun at the main or sole cause. The whole carbon-dioxide “greenhouse gas” hypothesis is – I understand – pseudoscience.