I’ve received a few emails lately expressing concern about how Catholic teaching impacts the environment. As the thinking goes, orthodox Catholicism is bad for the planet because it encourages people to have too many kids, and there are already enough people on the earth. As a religion, its carbon footprint is too big.
Are you as Catholics not concerned about this?, people want to know. I think the right answer is: yes and no.
The “yes” part…
First of all, let’s clear up some common misconceptions. I’m surprised at how often people perceive that the Catholic stance is that every married couple must aim to have as many children as possible. This is not the case; the Church does not teach that everyone must have a large family. It’s also worth noting that lack of contraception does not automatically lead to uncontrollably mushrooming populations, even without the use of modern natural family planning methods (DarwinCatholic has an informative post about that here).
Also, though Catholics may not always be as vocal as some people who heavily identify with environmentalism as a social movement, my experience has been that serious Catholics are quite mindful of their impact on the world around them. It makes sense: Respecting the environment is all about not taking more than you need and thinking about how your actions impact the greater good, and these are actually quite “Catholic” ideals. This is the religion of the crucifix; joyful self-sacrifice is at the core of the true Catholic lifestyle.
As Simcha Fisher has pointed out, even big families do not typically have the impact on the environment that people might imagine. Tight budgets mean that they’re naturally incentivized to consume less and re-use more, and the logistical difficulties of leaving the house with so many people means they do a lot less gas-consuming running around. On top of that, the option of celibate religious life means that not every child will necessarily go on to have children of his or her own.
So I think it’s safe to say that not only are Catholics concerned about the environment, but the self-sacrificial principles at the core of environmentalism are a part of our lives at an even more fundamental level than with most of society.
The “no” part…
“But you’re still having more kids than most people!” is usually the answer I get when I say all of the above. On average, faithful Catholics do tend to have larger families than the general population. And no matter how careful we are about our consumption, fewer people means fewer resources used. If the Church truly cared about the environment, wouldn’t it start telling people to stop having kids?
This, I believe, is where Catholics and secular environmentalists diverge.
The Church sees people as more than just resource-consuming machines. It recognizes the limitless potential that comes with each life, the fact that a person’s worth has nothing to do with his or her carbon footprint. It sees the truth that population growth and resource consumption do not play out along perfectly predictable lines (e.g. who’s to say that that big family’s seventh child won’t be the one to revolutionize solar power?) It understands that as long as people are having sex, you have to accept that there will be babies, and you can’t always perfectly control when they arrive.
I think it’s a natural human reaction to be concerned about the specter of “too many people” drinking all our water and filling up our landfills. But to take that thinking too far, as some modern environmentalists do, is to adopt a loveless, hopeless worldview that dehumanizes our fellow human beings. It’s worth noting that people never put themselves, their friends, or their family members in the “overpopulation” category. When you actually know someone, you see that this person is valuable and full of potential, that the world would not be better off without her, no matter what the carbon footprint calculators say—in other words, you see what the Catholic Church has seen all along.
As usual, God’s Church gets it right. It was preaching environmentalism before the term existed, and continues to call people to transform their lives in a way that would naturally lead to less consumption and less waste. In fact, the only big difference between Catholicism and secular environmentalism is that the Church’s teachings are founded on love, and therefore it says to each and every person, those born and those yet to be born: You are welcomed. You are loved. And you are worth the resources you use.
Comments
Post a Comment
One of the most eye-opening lines for me in Jurassic Park (the book) is when Ian Malcolm points out that the planet doesn’t need us to save it but we need to save ourselves. Part of the problem with extreme environmentalists is they tend to personify and even deify the earth and look at humans like they were scorpions or something. (Sorry, Jen, couldn’t resist.)
Not scorpions. Viruses that breed and multiply and damage the single organism “Gaia”.
Great article, Jennifer. It was Chesterton I think who remarked that the Catholic Church has this astonishing ability, supernatural some would call it, to hold unfailingly the middle position between any two extremes whatsoever. She taught the true Faith when confronted with Monophysitism and Nestorianism, condemned idolatry but did not slip into iconoclasm and so many, many more examples could be furnished.
The Catholic view of population, is the most environmentally friendly way to populate the earth. And it is normal, biologically speaking, for a species to want to reproduce. Here are the three options for Catholic living: (1) Celibate life either as priest or religious. Requires ecomonic frugality if not outright poverty, usually living in community and sharing resources. (2) Married life. One man, one woman, for life, accepting children and the responsibilities of raising them. Again, the goal is for resources to be used in the developoment of the next generation, not just amassing wealth. By staying married, communal living means resources shared. (3) Single life. According to Catholic teaching, there would be no offspring since single people are not free to mate. Also because of the requirement of charity and to embrace a spirit of poverty, even single people who do make a lot of money would be expected to share the wealth rather than living as high as they can.
Here’s how this plays out in reality. If we think our wages as the “resources” we have at our disposal, then we can compare who wastes more resources. 1) A typical family in our secular society: The family has two working parents, each making 50,000. The have two children. They give 10% to charity, the rest they spend on themselves. So we have 90,000 supporting 4 people, Resource per person ratio of 22,500 per year. 2) A typical Catholic family: This family has one parent working earning 50,000 per year. The other parent stays at home and is the primary childrearer of 5 children. They also give 10% to charity. Now we have a resource per person ratio of 6,329 per year. So who uses the least resources per person?
yes, and the fact that Over Population is a myth. http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
If ethics dealt into consumer behaviour, then one rich person’s footprint may account for many a number of poor persons footprint. But that’s stereotyping wasteful behaviour among the rich, just like stereotyping Catholic families with footprint.
However, a quantitative research may indicate that behaviour of non believers who are materially inclined in the fulfillment of their ambitious desires and striving to keep up with the Jones’ are likely to maintain bigger footprints than Catholics who are usually considerate and share their wealth with others especially the less fortunate ones.
So, coherent with footprint behaviour is more likely to be common among atheists than with Catholics. (I hope so!)
We have bought into the population war and are now suffering the demographic winter.
Want to know why we are broke? We do not replace ourselves.
And let’s not forget the fact that Catholic know the earth and it’s resources WERE CREATED FOR US. We’re not just coincidentally here so we should try to play nice.
Sometime I get a bit nervous and stingy about expensive purchases for my family at which point my husband likes to remind me, “That’s what the money is for!”
And so it is with the earth. Good stewardship? Virtuous use? Storing treasures in heaven? Absolutely! But we are allowed to use this stuff - actually, we are commanded to. We need to be grateful and trust God that he didn’t miscalculate, and that He is a generous God!
The premise this article is intended to address is false, because the world is not overpopulated and an increasing population does not “consume all the resources.” instead, it increases the total amount of resources available through specialization and trade. It’s basic economic law (law as in gravity, not as in the speed limit).
Nice post again, Jennifer!
/
While the overall carbon footprint of a large family is obviously going to be larger than that of a typical parents + 2.2 kids, the footprint of each individual family member will be far, far less for the large family per the reasons listed.
/
Thus, the solution to reducing pollution and rejuvenating the declining birth rate (the “demographic winter”) is for the government to require all couples to either have eight or more children, or no children at all. (Yes, yes, I’m speaking tongue in cheek, but really it’s the “logical” answer, right? Seriously, large families - exercising prudence - will save us all, or at least our Social Security. And they are usually very good environmentalists who raise frugal, non-wasteful, service-oriented individuals. Speaking as someone who doesn’t have a large family.)
Yes! And while I’m not one to indiscriminately throw around the charge of “racism,” I’ve noticed that much of the “overpopulation” worries are targeted towards the traditional “other,” a a fear of the third world. AT least, this was my experience in grad school.
“People are Worth the Resources They Use”
Well, that’s an interesting sound bite. But reality is a little more complicated than your sound bite.
1) 50% of the US population pays no income taxes. 40% receive money after filing their tax return due to tax credits. You can do even better with more children. :-) Until they grow up and want to go to a university. :-( And want a well-paying job.
2) We are using up our energy and water. Just look out your window at Lake Travis. :-(
3) The starving women and children in Somalia are not using as much in the way of resources as you are. :-(
4) Your neighborhood school is now more than 1/2 full of English as a Second Language students who are often children of a single (nominally Catholic?) mother. And their job potential is bleak.
5) From a research study written up in the PuffHo (04/14/2011):
“Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.
“A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.
“The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.”
So it seems that the Catholic church doctrine is ignored.
6) A lot of people use a lot of resources in the last 6 months of their life:
“Health care near the end of life is an emotional topic and patient, family and physician preferences can range from the futilely heroic to minimal comfort care. Across the nation, end-of-life care is responsible for a great deal of overall spending, and that spending often does little to prolong life, much less improve the quality of what remains.”
My impression that the Catholic church doctrine is contrary to rationality concerning end-of-life care.
“It recognizes the limitless potential that comes with each life”
Yet another cute irrational sound bite.
“But to take that thinking too far ... is to adopt a loveless, hopeless worldview that dehumanizes our fellow human beings.”
Now you’ve gone from fluff to irrational stereotyping.
“When you actually know someone ...”
Now you’ve gone to a purely emotional appeal. My point is that the Catholic Church is a hindrance to rationality.
“the big difference is ... the Church’s teachings are founded on love”
and not rationality.
Bottom line: 7 billion is 6.? billion too many for sustainability over the next century or two. Which of the four horsemen will win?
We just need a war a great war that would wipe out atleast a third of the population. Or better yet wipe humanity off the face of the earth.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.