Please read Genesis 1:26-31 and paragraph #48 Caritas en Veritate (this encyclical can
be found here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html)
How does the Church
view nature? This is a basic question, but a complex one. Knowledge of the
Church’s teachings is essential for leading environmental stewardship
initiatives; if we are unaware of doctrine we won’t know when we deter or
contradict it.
As you move through the readings, keep these questions in
mind.
If creation was made for man, doesn’t that justify
destroying it? Wouldn’t a society truly dedicated to living in harmony with
nature see themselves as equal to nature, and not above it?
Why does the Church see the human person as more important
than nature? Doesn’t this contradict stewardship?
What are the moral implications of seeing nature as an
untouchable taboo, or of thinking that humans are separate from it and only
degrade its beauty?
How does the Pope address science and technology in the
encyclical?
Further food for
thought:
"Science can purify religion from error
and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false
absolutes." - Pope John Paul II
If possible, please copy the paragraph from
the encyclical and print it out or bring your laptop; I think it will be useful
to have specific sentences to draw from. Thanks!
This reading from the Creation narrative has some very interesting implications.
ReplyDelete1) The first is in regards to vegetarianism. While the text tells us that humans were given all plants to eat, there is no mention of humans being permitted to eat animal meat or milk before the Fall. St. Thomas Aquinas held this view, stating that "in the state of innocence man would not have had any bodily need of animals . . . for food, since they fed on the trees of paradise" (Summa, I, 96, 1).
(It is interesting to note here that in human evolutionary history, archaeological evidence seems to suggest that hominins began eating meat around 2 million years ago. For reasons I won't go into here, I tend to think that if we are to understand the Creation narrative in terms of the chronology of human evolution, the creation of human beings in the image of God and subsequent Fall would instead have occurred 100,000 - 200,000 years ago. In such a case, for all we know, there may have been a First Family at that time who did not eat meat before the Fall, in line with what Genesis 1 seems to be suggesting.)
But while he teaches that Adam and Eve were vegetarians, St. Thomas Aquinas also tells us that carnivory, pain, and death among animals surely existed before the Fall, because "the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin" (Summa, I, 96, 1). In any case, we know that, under the New Covenant, it may not be said that eating meat is always sinful, because Peter is instructed in a vision to "kill and eat" (Acts 10:10-15). Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether it may be an exercise of heroic virtue to abstain from eating meat for the sake of ordering our lives to the harmony that existed before the Fall, as our lives are to reflect and prefigure the New Creation.
For additional interesting, though not authoritative, reading on this topic:
http://biologos.org/questions/death-before-the-fall
http://biologos.org/blog/series/death-and-pain-in-the-created-order
2) God gave man the directive to "be fruitful and multiply" before the Fall, so sex — in both its procreative and unitive functions — isn't a result of human sin but is an essential part of God's plan for human life on Earth.
3) Man is meant to rule over Creation and subdue it. But why should we? The full text of the Aquinas quote referenced earlier:
"In the state of innocence man would not have had any bodily need of animals--neither for clothing, since then they were naked and not ashamed, there being no inordinate motions of concupiscence -- nor for food, since they fed on the trees of paradise -- nor to carry him about, his body being strong enough for that purpose. But man needed animals in order to have experimental knowledge of their natures. This is signified by the fact that God led the animals to man, that he might give them names expressive of their respective natures."
In the state of innocence, humans had the need to subdue animals only in order to study God's Creation and to better appreciate God Himself. Still today, we should never neglect to "subdue" creation for this purpose.
4) While Genesis tells us to rule the earth, St. Francis praises "Mother Earth, who feeds us and rules us." There is a tension within this dual hierarchical conception. On the one hand, the lesser creatures are at humans' service, because we understand them and are able to appreciate them. On the other hand, we are at the other creatures' service, since we depend upon them (through God's providence) for sustenance, health, and well being.
I want to point us to another super-relevant resource. When Pope Benedict XVI was Cardinal Ratzinger, he wrote a book called " 'In the Beginning…': A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall".
ReplyDeleteI'd like to pose a big Thank You to all who were at our discussion this past week!!! Last weekend while at work my supervisor, fellow interns, and I had a beautiful conversation about the exact topic we discussed last week--the role of humans in the ecosystem as destroyers, outsiders looking in, or stewards. Honestly, best conversation ever! Thanks for all the insight :)
ReplyDelete