I thought your whole point was to point out that people with “true faith” wouldn’t act the way we have here. Hence, what you wrote is both a judgment and a criticism. That (my judgment and criticism, right here) is a fact.

” It is as if the beliefs are defended so fervently that they seem to be possessions to hold on to. The problem with that is the fact that the judge and the advocate are the same person or persons which no sane person should accept.”

Once again, you are criticizing/judging other people’s actions and ideas in this very statement. To be self-consistent, you shouldn’t be doing that. You leave yourself open to the charge of hypocrisy. Secondly, yes, the faith is most definitely a possession to be held on to. Are you familiar with the parables of Our Lord? He compares the Faith to a pearl of great price. Further, God is both Judge and Advocate. God will judge us, and the Holy Spirit is an Advocate. The True Faith is infallible, so it is not susceptible to the prejudices that enter into natural knowledge and prudential decisions when judge and advocate are the same. Furthermore, we are called on to go forth and evangelize. Hence, we need to judge what needs to be corrected and advocate the correction. That’s perfectly sane, as we are dealing with divinely revealed truths, not with human opinion. So actually we are not the “judge” at all — we are just the footsoldiers (remember Confirmation? we’re soldiers of Christ) executing (hopefully) what Our Lord (and Judge) tells us to do, and advocating it.

Sure there are some good things in most every false system. But there is also falsehood. And since a perfectly true system of morals and dogma exists (Roman Catholicism) we don’t need to put up with falsehood, nor should we.

Think of it this way: we are criticizing the incorrect view first and foremost. Naziism (like environmentalist radicalism) is a false ideology. Are we not to resist falsehood? And are we not to resist people to the extent that they defend falsehood, and attempt to bring them to the truth. If there is a ban on “judging the views of others,” then we cannot judge Naziism, since some people ascribe to it, nor can we criticize racism, since some people are racists. If we are to point out errors (with the ultimate goal of spreading the truth, of course), then we inevitably criticize the “views of others.” Not *because* they are the views of others — that would be bigotry — but in so far as the other views are in fact wrong. And it is precisely because we have the true Faith (you are Catholic, right?) that we know that, to the extent that someone differs from our Faith, they are in fact wrong. That is not some psychological “need” of those who lack true Faith; rather, it is the *sign* of someone who truly believes the Truth of his own Faith to reject the incorrect beliefs of others.

And by the way, Buddhism is an atheistic, nihilistic “system” (or it would be, if they could make it a “system”). It consists of a vehement rejection of the reality of the world and a hatred of creation. It is the exact opposite of the Incarnational teaching of the Church. So they deserve as much “denigration” as anyone else.

The Darby O’Gill stories? They are fun to read, but I’m sure their cosmology was not meant to be taken seriously.

Two collections of the stories are available, by the way, from the financially struggling Sophia Institute Press, publisher of many fine Catholic books.

Thank you for your suggestions and especially your book recommendation. I have not read much by Archbishop Sheen (though I’ve certainly heard of him) but going by the excerpts I’ve found on the Internet, it seems like a great read. I certainly agree with him that married love has to be open to life, or else wither and die. I will try to get it for her.

Mr Kevin Jones — thank you also for suggesting “Communion and Stewardship” — I’ve forwarded it to her and suggested that we chat about it when she has the time.

God bless,
Jeannine

The next question…Santa Claus?

For your information, there is a notable document from the International Theological Commission called “Communion and Stewardship” which covers environmentalist themes with aptitude.

“The only theologically questionable section of the poem is the conceit that there are spirits that are neither blessed (angels) nor damned (devils). I rather think that the middle ground has been ruled out by the Church.”

Where has that been ruled out authoritatively? I ask because I have read some old stories claiming that the Leprechauns of Ireland were the neutral party of angels during the battle between St. Michael and Satan, temporarily condemned to Earth but ultimately destined for Hell. That story itself might have been a Romantic accretion, but I would like to know the context of any related theological questions.

Those evil jerks.

The movie was indeed an atrocious piece of garbage all Christians should protest.

Then again I might start sounding like a Sound of Music hater…

Ok, seriously, I do get your points.

As for the needling of religious authority, I maintain that it was both blunt and pernicious. I know that it seems almost too ridiculous to be serious, but don’t underestimate the willingness of the left to childishly caricature religion. (Remember the priest in “Million Dollar Baby” who answered every theological question with “I think you just need to have faith” and who told one of his oldest parishioners, “I don’t even know why you bother to come to Mass”?!) I don’t have the transcript of Happy Feet here, but I remember there were two or three near-Biblical references in the speech of the devout-but-evil penguin fogies, along with frequent references to “impiety” and other language obviously intended to parody Christian belief. “The Great Penguin gives, and the Great Penguin takes away…” And when the troop of penguins reaches the settlement of evil, fish-stealing humans, what is the first building they manage to make out on the horizon? A Christian church! Complete with a cross at the top!

Make no mistake, the insult was very much intended.

It was just weird in a cartoon movie. I thought the movie stunk anyways, although some of it was quite funny.

The jabs at religious authority were subtle in my opinion, as if it was really a poke at old fogie authority in general. Take it as you want.

One thing to remember, I think, is that Nature suffers the consequences of Original Sin. The Fall destroyed the right order of things as ordained by God in the Creation. E.g. St Thomas says that mosquitoes had stingers before the Fall but that they wouldn’t have used them against men!

The problem of baggage with converts is a difficult one. I thank God daily that when He brought me into the Church I had no conflicting attachments whatsoever. He made it easy for me. But that is not the case for many, and Protestants and ideologists of all stripes have a tough time of it. It doesn’t make it easier for your goddaughter, Jeanette, that she married a Buddhist! May I suggest a particular devotion of mine which does wonders? Have a Mass said for her once a month. As long as you live!

Jeannine, you have an interesting dilemma. It’s a bit of a problem in that, for all our talk about stewardship, it seems somewhat true that most plant and animal species would be better off if every human being jumped off a cliff tomorrow. For most animal species, we appear to be more a scourge than a kindly shepherd.

I feel somehow that this must not be so. The world was not made exclusively for our benefit — that is, everything created by God is good, regardless of whether it is ever appreciated by a human soul — but at the same time, it seems to me that the world must be ennobled by the presence of human beings within it. For all their follies, this is something the romantic poets sometimes appreciated; think of Wordsworth in “Tinturn Abbey.” So much praise for nature there, and yet, the most lovely strain of all is the “still sad music of humanity.” Even though we interrupt nature’s patterns in ways that are somehow unfortunate, we are still somehow her crowning jewel.

That’s all speculation, though, and it’s rather a mysterious subject. For your goddaughter’s sake, it might be useful to say a couple of other things. The first is this: the greenies were wrong. The world is not becoming overpopulated. Of course, as I already pointed out, if you think (contrary to scripture) that sparrows and swans are more important than people, you might think that the ideal number of human beings on the planet is zero. In that case, obviously there are still too many of us. But what had everyone in hysterics a decade ago was the idea that the population was continuing to grow exponentially, and that this would result in colossal overpopulation in the near future. Well, it just hasn’t happened like that. Birth rates in Western countries are falling, and in Europe they’re falling to dangerous levels. Dangerous to the human population, that is… the rats and termites may be thriving, but the older generations of people won’t be when they have no children to support them after retirement. Our country is in less of a crunch, but a glance across the ocean should keep us from becoming to comfortable. In a selfish, career-oriented, independence and autonomy-happy cultures, people often decide that they don’t need children to be happy, or that one perfect child is all they want. But those childless generations will be in trouble when they grow old and there aren’t enough younger workers to keep the economy healthy, or even to fill essential jobs. This is not a hypothetical problem. It is a real, live, immediately pressing catastrophe hanging over the whole Western world. (Actually, I wrote a little about it just this week in my “Where Are Your Children” post.) I can’t speak for the birds or the bees, but if your goddaughter cares about people, she would do well to raise a family.

That’s one thing that should be said. But if that doesn’t move her, you may do just as well to persuade her that parenthood is not only a wonderful thing, but an integral part of married life as God intended it to be. I’m sure you’ve pointed out to her the tremendous worth of a soul delivered into the dominion of the Church, able to further swell the ranks of the elect. But maybe she needs to come to see in more detail how much her married life will be stunted and incomplete if she and her husband cut themselves deliberately off from the possibility of bringing new life.

If you think she might read it, I’d suggest getting her a copy of Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s “Three to Get Married”, which I quoted in the post I already mentioned. It really is a worthwhile book — my fiance and I have enjoyed reading it together — and it illustrates very effectively (and beautifully, I think) why a married couple must be open to children. As the Archbishop explains, love must either be fecund or else wither. Love should be generous, giving, and self-sacrificing. God has ordained that, in the case of married love, the fruits of this generosity should be children, and the married couple should rejoice in those fruits. Those who deliberately frustrate this joyous end will discover the hard meaning of the phrase, “for him that hath not, even what he hath will be taken away.” This is the withering of the sterile love that Sheen mentions.

No doubt you understand all this, but I recommend the Sheen book because I think he does a fine job of capturing both the wonder and joy of being permitted to produce a child, and also the spiritual bleakness of voluntary infertility. It can be hard to persuade a person to bear children purely out of duty, and to avoid overuse of NFP. It becomes much easier if you can persuade them that they really want to have kids, and that their lives and marriages will be much better and happier if they do. Anyway, that’s the best advice I can muster. I hope it helps! May God bless both you and her!

The Church also teaches moderation and prudence, which relate to keeping order and balance in our life. The virtues that lead to cleanliness of body and desires strongly imply we shouldn’t foul our own nest.

Love of our neighbors (and even our enemies) requires we protect the environment and leave our home in good condition for the next generation.

Catholic farmers of the past were very aware of the need to protect their land (sustainable farming) because they knew it would be passed down to their children and grandchildren. For example, my grandfather was from the ‘old country’ and would go out in a heavy rain with a pitchfork and straw. Whenever he saw a rivulet of water beginning to erode his field, he would add straw to stop the water from washing the soil away.

The Church has taught us how we should treat the environment for almost two millenia. Good environmentalism is based on love, temperance, justice, self-control, and the rejection of riches.

Super-environmentalists believe the environment and all that is in it are superior to man. This belief leads to serious errors. Rather, the Church teaches God made the environment for man. Man is responsible before God for using His creation in responsible ways.

Super-environmentalists have made serious scientific errors, such as banning DDT. This has led to many hundreds of thousands of people dying annually from malaria caused by mosquito bites.

DDT is dangerous to eagle’s eggs (making the eggshells thinner), but there is not a shred of evidence that the people who worked many years in DDT manufacturing facilities ever had health problems from DDT exposure.

I agree with you that humans have stewardship over the world and therefore we are charged with its care.

However, my beloved goddaughter (baptised last year at the age of 27, with a BA in Environmental Science) is convinced that people are toxic to the environment (true, actually) and that we have to “save the world” through radically changing the way we live, INCLUDING stopping population growth. As she was married last year (to a Buddhist), she is reluctant to become a mother because she should not contribute to “overpopulation”.

Natually I disagree, and I think she has turned herself into the earth’s slave, instead of its master. She uses all the classic secular greenie arguments about why we should protect the earth, but never in the context of Christian stewardship.

I have told her that while humans should be better to the environment, this shouldn’t translate into “thou shalt not have kids” (as that subordinates human interests to the earth’s, and because God told us to “go forth and multiply”). But that doesn’t convince her. It’s because I have the sunny “God will help us if we do His will” attitude, while she looks at the statistics and doesn’t trust that God will provide for humanity. I know too little about this science.

What can I say? Could the readers of this blog help me out here? She is a very intelligent girl who loves God; it’s just that she has a HUGE mental block where the environment is concerned, perhaps because of her university studies.

PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A DEBATE OVER THE LEGITIMACY OF THE USE OF NFP. (I have told her that it is immoral to use it to put off childbearing forever, and she agrees. She concedes that she will probably have kids “one day” — she also has chronic health problems)

Thank you very much, and God bless.

-Jeannine

“He prayeth best, who loveth best
Both man and bird and beast.
He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.”

I do not think there is much, if any on environmentalism from high up the magisterium because of many reasons one I suppose is that radical environmentalism started fairly recently (in the 70’s). But there are of course principles that are clear and unequivocal that may be applied in such topics. I suspect those clear and unequivocal truths are the ones radical environmentalists screw up in many of their ideas.