Mt 22:35-39 (McBrien-Kmiec edition)
35 And one of them, an editor from US Catholic, asked him a question, to test him. 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 And He said to them, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 The second is like it, You shall love Nature more than yourself."
The journal US Catholic routinely publishes crazy articles. This one is no exception.
"Problem Children: Making Trouble For Mother Earth" by Bryan ConesScientists tell us that, by their count, the universe is somewhere between 13 and 14 billion years old, with the earth coming in at somewhere between 5 and 6 billion. According to traditional Jewish reckoning, on the other hand, creation is celebrating a much more modest 5,771 years this September 9. That date is Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, which rolls around every autumn, just as the earth is yielding crops bountiful enough to fill every table. Jewish tradition has it that when God created the heavens and the earth, they came into being in their fullness, each ripe fruit and ear of grain a sign of the divine goodness literally pushing out at the end of every branch and stalk.
Genesis tells two different stories of this wonder. The first is a tale of goodness built upon goodness, the fullness of which is the divine likeness borne by humankind. The second recounts a more complicated beginning, one that ends in a tragic fall. Yet both give pride of place to women and men: Though part of nature, humankind is charged with governing what God has made by virtue of the divine image they bear.
So far so good - but then he falls off the rails.
At least that's how the story goes, though the myth is contradicted over and over by the facts on the ground, or in the case of the oil-sullied Gulf of Mexico, under the sea. We may be forced to judge the ancient writers of Genesis overly optimistic when it comes to humanity's alleged capacity for the divine gifts of knowledge and wisdom. A modern biblical writer would probably be forced to recount how the Creator saved his most spectacular blunder for last, creating the stupidest, most shortsighted fools to ever walk on two legs.
First of all, Catholics are not required to believe the 'scientific' aspects of the Creation story - you know, done in six days, fashioned from the clay and all that. We are required to believe, though, that God is the creator of everything, and that we are made in His likeness and image, and that at some point, and in some way, we have fallen from grace and sin was introduced into creation as a result of our common ancestors' original sin.
Perhaps the writer is engaging in hyperbole when describing humanity as God's "most spectacular blunder", the "stupidest, most shortsighted fools to ever walk on two legs". I hope he's not including Jesus and Mary in that blanket description. And I happen to think that although I'm capable of committing stupid and shortsighted sins, I'm also capable of performing works of beauty and displaying acts of love and mercy (all thru God's grace, of course). I know that countless folks before me have done so - Mother Teresa, Michelangelo, Padre Pio, Mozart to name 4 - and I doubt God considers them to be spectacular blunders. God doesn't consider any of his creation as spectacular blunders, seeing as how He called all his creation "good". So I'll err on the side of discretion here - that Cones is using hyperbole - in order to make a greater point. So let's read on.
I can think of no other way to describe a species that has, in the mere 150 years since the Industrial Revolution, so recklessly trashed its environment, fouling both land and water to such extremes that creation's other inhabitants, innocent bystanders to our bipedal menace, must either flee or die. What God created as a biosphere, humanity has made an anthroposphere-all about us. It is bad enough that the endless human quest to mine and process the earth's guts has resulted in the obscene catastrophe that is still washing up on our shores. What is worse is that neither this devastation nor scores of others have provoked any meaningful soul-searching about our future as a species or our deleterious effect on God's handiwork.
Okay, I retract the hyperbole angle. I think he means what he writes.
Arguments can be made pro and con about the Deepwater Horizon crisis - was it a result of our insatiable quest for oil, or the result of stupid regulations which made it necessary to drill so far off-shore, or the result of our need to import foreign oil due to homegrown enviro-screwballs influence, or a combination of all of the above - but the bottom line, to me, is this: God created the world, including the oil, and the coal, and the natural gas. It's there for us to use. The creative nature of mankind - a reflection of our being made in God's image - enables us to harness those resources. To summarily abandon parts of creation is contrary to our being good stewards of creation. God desires we use His gifts wisely - the material ones as well as the immaterial ones - but He doesn't desire we just refuse them.
There is only one word for this-sin-and it's the same one first described in Creation Story No. 2: That sin had little to do with fruit or snakes or sex; it was rather an attempt to be, in the words of the tempting serpent, "like God," a refusal to be rooted in the soil from which we were drawn. Our first parents tried to escape their created nature, and their children down these many generations continue to commit the same sin against nature over and over. And as we refuse to admit that we belong to-and are not above or apart from or better than-the world around us, we continue to make an open sewer of the only home we have.
Now we get to the heart of the matter: sin. Sin manifests itself in varied ways - pride, gluttony, avarice, lust...you know the list. But according to Cones, the
numero uno sin, perhaps the only sin that matters, is mistreatment of God's creation. Not turning our backs to God, or being uncharitable to our neighbor. He's treating the effect as if it were the cause, rather than the other way around. Adam and Eve turned against God first, which resulted in nature turning against us, and us against each other. In Cones' mind, Adam and Eve turned against nature first, which resulted in....I guess our continued abuse of creation. And thus the logic train has completely jumped tracks.
We know well that the remedy for sin is conversion, and the conversion this sin demands is that we remember what we are: earth people, clay vessels made alive by divine breath. We must begin by putting our bare feet on whatever soil we can find, to dig our toes in among the grasses and roots and crawling things, to run our hands over rough bark and through clear water, to love creation as God does, and so discover again our first and primary vocation as vicars of the Creator.
I thought the remedy for sin was repentance - perhaps he's using the words interchangeably here. His recipe for conversion sounds more like a return to some orgy-istic pantheism, devoid of love and charity for fellow people, with nary a mention to our debt owed to God - a debt that was paid for by the death of Christ on the cross. Our primary vocation is to love God - that's what Jesus said, remember? - and playing footsie with worms or molesting trees are not God-centered activities. Using worms to bait a hook in order to catch a fish so I can provide for my family is a better way to show I love God. Chopping down a tree so I can make a fire or produce boards in order to build a shelter for my family shows I love God. How? Because I'm using the gift of creation in the way He intended. Nature isn't to be worshiped, or merely admired (although appreciating a crisp bright sunrise, or the incredible expanse of a star-filled sky ought to lead us to express gratitude to God for blessing us). It's to be used in accordance to its purpose. Plants exist to provide for animals; animals exist to provide for people; people exist to give glory to God (yes, I'm oversimplifying things, but you get the basic idea). We are stewards of nature, not merely passing through an exhibit of Beautiful Things God Made To Be Looked At, But Not Used.
But it is not enough to repent; we must also atone for what we have done and what we are still doing. That atonement requires an abrupt change in how we go about our lives-particularly how we create and use energy-but it cannot stop there. It must include reparation-literal repairs-for the earth scarred so terribly by our wickedness. Perhaps our penance may restore the oneness God intended in the beginning, in which human beings have our proper place as members of the created order.
Just how the heck are we to "repair the Earth"? For crying out loud, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, tsunamis and other natural disasters do more to upend God's creation than a thousand years of strip mining or a hundred Deepwater Horizon's could ever do.
I've got news for Mr Cones. The order has been restored - through Christ's atonement on the cross. The only possible way for peace is through Christ and His Church and her sacraments - not through oil boycotts and pollution-less energy sources. Not through getting in touch with nature. The chasm has been filled, and the rough ways have been made smooth. By grace we have been saved - by grace we are being saved - and by grace we will be saved. We won't be, and can't be, saved by switching to CFL bulbs or electric cars. Nor is choosing not to use them a sin.
And let's presume we could make reparations. Then what? Does that mean some idyllic balance will be restored? That Yankee and Red Sox fans will cheer each other on over a friendly beer and brat? That traffic jams will cease? That peace will come to the Mideast? Or does it only mean that some folks will merely feel good about themselves, without really working on the important issue - that of fighting against
personal sin, and doing the hard work of loving our neighbor, and obeying God. I'm going with the latter. It's much easier to hug a tree that lacks free will than it is to love the unlovable person who may reject you, and even hate you.
One thing is for sure - the jury is still out for the "proper place" of Catholyc magazine editors. Here's a thought - maybe this one ought to go out and wriggle his feet in the grass, ya think?