By 
The Vatican has released a new document titled “Integral Ecology in the Life of the Family” aimed at promoting the care of creation and human life within the family, warning against the advancement of certain ideologies that encourage abortion and sterilization as means to control population growth.
The document, issued April 27, notes that there is currently “a tendency to perceive population growth as the primary threat to humanity” and deplores the policies of certain governments that “spread abortion“ and promote ”the adoption of sterilization practices in poor countries, thereby imposing ‘strong birth control measures.’”
The volume draws upon the magisterium of the last four pontiffs. The earliest document to which it refers is Gaudium et Spes from the Second Vatican Council, promulgated by St. Paul VI on Dec. 7, 1965. It incorporates contributions from St. John Paul II, who laid decisive foundations in the areas of the family and the Church’s social doctrine — particularly in Familiaris Consortio (1981) and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) — and the 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate by Pope Benedict XVI.
It also incorporates the teachings of Francis, who, in Evangelii Gaudium (2013), calls for a Church that “goes out” centered on proclaiming the Gospel and close to the human peripheries. This pastoral approach is applied to family life in Amoris Laetitia (2016), wherein the importance of discernment and accompaniment is underscored.
Attempts to erase sexual differences
The document refers to “a countless number of children never being born, children who were denied the right to the primary gift of creation, the gift of life itself,” the Vatican laments. It adds that this phenomenon also occurs “when society is disrupted by attempts to erase sexual differences, because it no longer knows how to deal” with them.
In light of this reality, the document calls for focusing attention on other factors it deems truly harmful such as extreme consumerism, pollution, the throwaway culture, and the desire to exercise absolute power over the human body through its manipulation, facilitated by recent technological advances.
These dangerous trends emerge when “the right to life and to a natural death are not respected; when human conception, gestation, and birth are done artificially; or when human embryos are sacrificed for research” as well as when governments “promote abortion, at times encouraging the adoption of sterilization practices in impoverished nations,” and impose “strict birth control measures.”
The importance of sex education
The text further underscores that the comprehensive education of children by their parents must also include formation in love and sexuality. “This subject is currently the object of much debate, which often creates conflicts between schools and families when determining what should be taught.”
The Vatican insists that people “must not forget that learning to accept one’s own body, to care for it and to respect its meanings, is essential for a true human ecology,” since “the acceptance of one’s own body as a gift from God is necessary to welcome and accept the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
In practical terms, the document encourages families to assume the responsibility of educating their members, engaging in age-appropriate conversations “regarding the need to protect human life in the face of abortion, surrogacy, and euthanasia; the need to care for family members facing difficulties; and the beauty, dignity, and meaning of human sexuality.”
It also suggests becoming involved with local schools, promoting ecological improvements both in facilities and in educational content as well as initiatives such as school gardens and the study of botany.
Integral ecology in family life
The document was jointly prepared by the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development and the Dicastery for the Laity, the Family, and Life. As its authors explain, it is the fruit of a collaborative effort involving theologians, consultants, and married couples.
It offers insights and practical advice for confronting current environmental challenges and fostering the integral development of every individual.
The second part, the core of the document, is structured around seven themes inspired by Laudato Si’: listening to the cry of the earth, listening to the cry of the poor and the vulnerable, adopting and promoting an ecological economy, fostering sustainable lifestyles, advancing integral ecology in education, strengthening ecological spirituality within the family, and promoting the participation of families in community life.
Each chapter is structured into four sections: an explanation of the topic, concrete implications, questions for reflection and discussion, and proposed actions. Among these, it poses questions such as: “Has our family experienced situations in which natural resources have been used … in a way that creates or exacerbates social tensions or inequality?” or “Have we attempted to measure, in any way, the level of our consumption within our family and our home?”
Avoid waste and use public transportation
The text also includes concrete recommendations, such as teaching children to “respect and care for animals,” “avoid wasting food or electricity,” use “public transport more frequently,” explore “low-cost options for insulating their home against cold and heat,” and the proper sorting of household waste.
Finally, the document invites participation in projects committed “to assistance and solidarity, paying special attention to vulnerable population groups, such as members of Indigenous communities, refugees, migrants, at-risk children, families experiencing difficulties or bereavement, and illiterate individuals.”
It also raises questions regarding the educational role of parents and the tensions they face when imparting values of moderation in a culture marked by consumerism and social pressure.
“Parents who attempt to instill values such as moderation and a modest lifestyle may be perceived as authoritarian figures — or as individuals who are oblivious to marketing and peer pressure. How can such parents be supported in navigating these challenges?” the text asks.
This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.
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.
POPE JOHN XXIII: “But whatever be the situation, we clearly affirm these problems should be posed and resolved in such a way that man does not have recourse to methods and means contrary to his dignity . . . ” (“Mater et Magistra”, 1961, n. 191).
POPE PAUL VI: “Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon the peoples, if they were considered necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious….” (“Humanae Vitae,” 1968, n. 17).
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL: “Contemplating this melancholy state of humanity, the Council wishes to recall first of all the permanent binding force of universal natural law and its all-embracing principles. Therefore, actions which deliberately conflict with these same principles, as well as orders commanding such actions, are criminal” (“Gaudium et Spes,” n. 79).
ST. JOHN PAUL II: “…the commandment of love of God and neighbor does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, BUT (Caps added) it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken” [….] And lest moral ambiguity itself be made into an absolute (!), this: “The relationship between faith and morality shines forth with all its brilliance in the ‘unconditional respect due to the insistent demands of the personal dignity of every man’ [italics in the original], demands protected by those moral norms which prohibit without exception [!] actions which are intrinsically evil” (“Veritatis Splendor,” 1993, nn. 52, 90).
“Integral ecology”: What nonsense. Always new-fangled terminology which serves as a very poor substitute for honesty.
Yes, “new-fangled terminology,” but…
The headline refers to one obscured paragraph to be found on page 29 of the family-oriented ecological handbook. In decades ahead the case might be made that, under this handbook, targeted Catholic families at least are not responsible for feared instances of ecological Armageddon.
First the quote, and then four comments and a summary:
FIRST, “there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research” (Caritas in Veritate, CV, 51); when governments “work actively to spread abortion, at times promoting the practice of sterilization” and impose “strong birth control measures” (CV 28). This leads to a countless number of children never being born, children who were denied the right to the primary gift of creation, the gift of life itself. Closely linked to this is ‘fear and hostility towards disability’ or more broadly a ‘eugenic 29 mentality’ (Francis, Address to the Participants in the Conference ‘Yes to Life! Taking Care of the Precious Gift of Life in its Frailty,’ 25 May 2019). This also occurs when society is disrupted by the attempts ‘to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it’” (Laudato Si 155).
SECOND, the document cites Centesimus Annus (1991), but not the totally germane Veritatis Splendor (1993) which offers direct clarity about the universal Natural Law and moral absolutes.
THIRD, regarding the term “integral ecology,” this is a problematic but useful neologism from Laudato Si, combining the earlier “integral human development” (probably Jacques Maritain as early as the 1920s, meaning the whole person and every person) and “ecology,” meaning the natural ecology—which, unlike God, is not infinite. Think the view from Apollo 8 of our “spaceship earth,” or Apollo 13 on life support, or the unsinkable and high-life Titanic without enough lifeboats.
FOURTH, earlier in Centesimus Annus, St. John Paul II already alerts us “Equally worrying is the ‘ecological question’ [italics] which accompanies the problem of consumerism and which is closely connected to it” (n. 37); and yet maintains a clear distinction (!) between the interrelated (!) “natural ecology” (the physical laws of nature) and the “human ecology” (the morals of the Natural Law) (nn. 37, 38, 39). And, “This may mean making important changes in established lifestyles [!], in order to limit the waste of environment and human resources, thus enabling every individual and all the peoples of the earth to have a sufficient share of those resources” (n. 52).
SUMMARY: The new document encourages family-level engagement in sustainable and intergenerational living, while also flagging (and understating?) the very frightening danger from draconian elitist governments who are intent on violating families—the foundation of civilized society—and on further routinizing and even imposing fetal infanticide and physician assisted suicide.
An urgent message, both simple and complex, and a work in progress…
Love the kernel of truth wrapped in a wholesale surrender to Malthusian imbecility.
Public transport? dirty, dangerous and inconvenient. Super spreader events for communicable diseases. Hunting grounds for predators. I have no desire to be felt up by a stranger looking for concealed contraband. I’m not interested in risking being stabbed to death by a multiple-time released deranged animal the way Iryna Zarutska was last year or being harassed by the “legal system” the way Daniel Penny was for his heroic actions.
Does the Pope fly coach? Advocacy of public transport betrays one of two things: Either a complete dissociation from the value of time, or a view of humanity that reached its moral nadir when people were herded into the “public transportation” of box cars nine decades ago.
Worse it’s a vacuous platitude. Airplanes are “public transportation”, but burn thousands of gallons of highly distilled petrochemicals on every flight. We could easily reduce that number by limiting airline speed, but won’t-because the economic sweet spot for commercial flight is `Mach .80-.85. Slower won’t sell, and the Concorde was a vanity project. Even the subsonic but still slightly faster Convair 990 (Mach .87) burned too much fuel to be profitable.
Once again, the Francine fallacy rears its ugly head. The prudential is imperative and the imperative is prudential.
Will nobody spare us from the preening prelature and the inane nonsense of Paul R. Ehrlich, who hated humanity, but hung on to being the drop that wasn’t part of the flood, until the curse upon humanity that was the failed entomologist’s life finally ended a month and half ago.
These are prudential decisions. I guarantee you none of the people involved with this document know or care about the tradeoffs involved in the magic rituals they propose. They lack both the competency or charism to opine on these matters. I don’t need Bishops or Cardinals parroting monsters like Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates.
“When the Church is not obligated to speak, it’s obligated NOT TO SPEAK”.
A most welcome document from the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development and the Dicastery for the Laity, the Family, and Life incorporating with sound theology tenets of Laudato Si.
Some of the counsel on utilities, goods control, amending wasteful habits may sound like the usual secular platitudes, although we are wasteful. That the growing evil of population control is critically addressed and the value of human life is upheld – is a hopeful, positive trend.
No Father, it doesn’t “sound like the usual secular platitudes” it doesn’t even arise to that level of ignorance, and it certainly isn’t “counsel”, which among other things would entail being informed, actionable and practical. But gotta’ Love that kernel of truth wrapped in a wholesale surrender to Malthusian imbecility. Sorry, but you aren’t shining this ecclesial emesis.
Public transport? Dirty, dangerous, inconvenient and uncomfortable. Super spreader events for communicable diseases. Hunting grounds for predators. Here in Pennsylvania, we have SEPTA or more accurately SEPTIC, firmly attached to the teat of the public treasury, because the people of Coudersport (Potter County “God’s Country”) surely need to be taxed to buy Canadian hand-me down railcars.
I have no desire to be felt up by a stranger looking for concealed contraband or risking being stabbed to death by a multiple-time released deranged animal the way Iryna Zarutska was last year or being harassed by the “legal system” the way Daniel Penny was for his heroic actions.
Airplanes are “public transportation” but burn thousands of gallons of highly distilled petrochemicals on every flight. Why not just direct people to sailing ships? We can’t I guess expect to inconvenience the Epstein class.
Advocacy of public transport betrays one of two things: Either a complete dissociation from the value of time, or a view of humanity that reached its moral nadir when people were herded into the “public transportation” of box cars nine decades ago.
And then there’s the gem about “insulation”. You know what happens with a little too much insulation? Fun things like mildew, black mold, and if you’re lucky, radon gas accumulation.
Will nobody spare us from the preening prelature and the inane nonsense of Paul R. Ehrlich, who hated humanity, but hung on to being the drop that wasn’t part of the flood, until the curse upon humanity that was the failed entomologist’s life finally ended a month and half ago.
Once again, the Francine fallacy rears its ugly head. The prudential is imperative and the imperative is prudential. These are prudential decisions. I guarantee you none of the people involved with this document know or care about the tradeoffs involved in the magic rituals they propose. They lack both the competency and the charism to opine on these matters. I don’t need Bishops or Cardinals parroting monsters like Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates, or the clown from the English House of Lords who welcomed homosexuality as a brake on human fecundity, who regard OTHER humans as mere parasites to be limited or eradicated.
“When the Church is not obligated to speak, it’s obligated NOT TO SPEAK”. Sort of like when it rushes to judgement about law enforcement actions.
We have to live in this world and make the best of it, rather than be overwhelmed. We have faith and look forward to a better day in a better place.
I was a fan of The Police as a younger man. Concocted phrases such as that remind me of one of their earlier hits.
“De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da”
especially these lines:
“Poets, priests and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for your submission
And no-one’s jamming their transmission
And when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you”
Now while I’m not so irreligious as to ascribe the tyranny of words to all priests-especially the good fellow who heard my confession on Saturday, or hypocritical enough to be a lyricist complaining about poets, there is some validity to the idea of the tyranny of eloquence. It’s no accident tyrants (and charlatans) have a penchant for neologisms, Deacon.
Group think environmental hysteria has always had moral displacement as its prime motivation. If an argument can be made that the imagined disaster can be attenuated with reductions of population, then the extermination of inconvenient life can be viewed as benign.
Combining moral cowardice with a refusal
We read: ” If an argument can be made that the imagined disaster can be attenuated with reductions of population.” In agreement here, but following the Socratic method, we then have a further question…
About the “argument,” surely we recall one of the earliest ecological gurus, the contrarian Barry Commoner, who in his “The Closing Circle” (1971) demonstrated against Paul Ehrlich and others—to show that the core issue was not population but rather the amplifying form of technology attached to each human person, and that the “Population Bomb” hysteria was really a veiled agenda to suppress undeveloped nations. Commoner, instead, focused on four ecological principles: “Everything is connected to everything else; everything must go somewhere; nature knows best; [and] there is no such thing as a free lunch.”
This perspective brings us to whether the high-life Titanic of modernity, as an ideological whole, is on a collision course with such laws of nature (resource exhaustion, tipping points, feedback loops, etc.), or not. And, then as a moral question and with lead-time requirements, what to do about it.
And, here, we might loop back to my first two hunks of verbiage, above.
Everyone started out at the end of a lifeline.