Ethics and the Environment

Preliminary Considerations

The title that I have chosen for these considerations, Towards Oneness in Life, is an attempt to give expression to my growing conviction that the present ecological crisis represents a privileged moment for each one of us to integrate, in a new and perhaps fuller way, our faith and our social attitudes and behavior. That is to say, a greater awareness of the theological and ethical exigencies regarding the environment can, I believe, lead us to ongoing conversion (metanoia), to closer union with God and with our brothers and sisters. This, in turn, can result in very concrete decisions concerning the protection of the environment.

I should also like to think that, in the ever-growing desire for unity, a theologically sound and ethically coherent approach to the environmental question could open up new and mutually enriching ways for Christians to collaborate in carrying out God’s plan for creation, for the good of all of humanity.

At the same time, the environmental question can leave no one indifferent. It affects every individual on this planet as well as the good of future generations. Dedication to the promotion of a sound ethics of the environment will be a considerable contribution to building up the one human family willed by God. Ethical concern for the environment is not limited to the Christian community; far from it.

Finally, the environmental question is highly technical and multi-faceted; it has economic, social, political, legal and even military consequences. A well thought out ethics of the environment can, therefore, open the door to an effective dialogue with those forces that are shaping society today.

I shall begin by looking at the foundations of such an ethics from a Catholic point of view. In order to do so, I must first go back over its scriptural roots before examining some of the principles drawn from the Catholic social teaching or doctrine of the Church (Part One). I shall then take up one manifestation of the ecological crisis and look at it in the light of some of these principles before briefly considering the social mission of the Church in this regard (Part Two).

Part One: Ethical Foundations

In his World Day of Peace Message for 1990, Peace with God, Peace with All of Creation, Pope John Paul II stated that we must go to the very heart of the present ecological degradation and address the profound moral crisis of which the destruction of the environment is but one troubling aspect. Ultimately, the ecological problems so evident today such as desertification, resource depletion, deforestation, air, land and sea pollution – are not in the first place environmental, nor can the solution to them be found in the technological or economic fields alone. They are rather profoundly theological and moral.

Prescinding from all philosophical discussions in this regard, I should like to postulate that it is impossible to separate religious belief – or lack of – and ethical considerations in the environmental field because of their intimate relationship to our world view. When there is apparent dissonance between our religious belief and our behavior, we must, in the first place, examine our fidelity to God’s revealed word, transmitted to us in and through the Church. Ethics, taken in this sense, becomes a living out in human history, and in very concrete situations, of this revelation.

For this reason, I should like to begin by examining very briefly some of the essential scriptural bases that underlie equally fundamental ethical principles and criteria that apply to the promotion of a sound environment. It is patently evident that, in neither case, are these abstract considerations. The practical applications are immediate.

A Scriptural Approach

The creation accounts in Genesis are of particular importance for our subject. From them, we learn not only why we should care for the environment but also with what attitude we should do so. Let me therefore recall some of the extraordinary truths revealed in these first chapters of the Bible. They are so familiar that it is difficult to capture all their force and vitality, but let us try to reflect, to meditate, on them as if we were savoring them for the first time.

Listen to the first words of the Bible, to God’s own self-revelation: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth;” before there had been only void. Then, in a growing crescendo, God created light, water, dry land, plants, fish, animals. Each time, he “saw that it was good.” This phrase is repeated six times. Creation is good; it could not be otherwise, since it is a free act of God.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” How easy it is to pass over these words without realizing their full import: the human person is made in the image and likeness of God. The respect due to this divine image in ourselves and in others, consciously lived, colors all our relationships, all our actions.

But the account continues: “God saw everything that he had made and, behold, it was very good.” The creation of the human person had completed God’s work. Each thing is good in itself; everything taken as a whole is very good.

Already, we can draw some conclusions from these accounts, so rich in their imagery and rhythm. First of all, creation belongs to God, all of it. Secondly, creation is a work of harmony and beauty which forms a whole in its diversity. There is, in fact, an existential bond among everything that exists from the very fact of its having been created by God. One creature stands out however: the human person. Created in the image and likeness of the Creator and utterly dependent on him, this person exists in relationship: male and female he created them. No individual is an end in self, still less an object to be exploited by others.

Returning to Genesis, we learn that the human person, alone of all creation, is given a specific responsibility for the rest of the earth. It is expressed in different ways: “to have dominion over every living thing,” to “subdue” the earth, or, according to the second creation account, “to till it and keep it.” God has actually entrusted the earth to us; we are to make it productive, fruitful. We do so however as God’s stewards, not as masters in our own right. In fact, the first mention of this “dominion” is in the account of our creation in God’s image.

Solomon tells us precisely how this trust is to be exercised:

God of my fathers and Lord of mercy,
who has made all things by your word,
and by your wisdom has formed man, to have dominion over the creatures you have made, and rule the world in holiness and righteousness… give me the wisdom that sits by thy throne…

Our “dominion” is to be inspired by God’s gift of wisdom; we are to rule with justice.

As the creation accounts continue, the depth of the relationship between human activity and the rest of creation becomes still clearer. Adam and Eve made a choice not to live according to God’s plan. Not only were they were barred from the Garden, the very earth revolted at their sin. And God said to Adam: “Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.”

This first sin finds terrible confirmation in a fratricide: Cain’s killing of his brother, Abel. And Abel’s blood cried out to God from the ground which had opened its mouth to receive it. Again the earth revolts at human sin. “And now you are cursed from the ground. When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength….”

It is interesting to note the parallel between the creation accounts and God’s blessing of Noah and his sons after the flood. Human responsibility for all of creation is once again stressed:

Into your hand are delivered [every animal of the earth, every bird of the air, everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the Sea] … I give you everything…

God’s covenant, however, is not established with Noah and his sons alone but also with every living thing:

As for me, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, and the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you… This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth… I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh…

All that God has created is ordained towards him. Think of the many psalms in which mountains, waves, animals praise the Lord.

In the New Testament, this same emphasis on the utter dependence of everything on God and the close interrelationship between the human person and the earth is maintained. The sublime dignity of the human person does not negate his being part of the whole of creation.

Sin had brought division into the world, and continues, through the ages, to trouble the order of creation. God, however, did not cease to cherish the work of his hands. In fact, he so loved the world that he sent his own Son to redeem it. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul speaks to us in terms that echo those of Genesis:

[Christ Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible… all things were created through him and for him… For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

The redemptive act of Jesus extends to all of creation: such is the plan of God. We find the same thought expressed still more clearly in the well-known passage of the letter to the Romans:

Creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God…in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

The liberation of all of creation cannot be separated from the reconciliation of the human person with God. Our responsibility for the good of the earth and all that dwells in it is indeed great.

But what about the end times: those of the “new heaven and the new earth?” Revelation speaks of the Holy City, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. Could there be a more striking image when we consider our world of today? We have moved through history from the Garden to the City, the epitome of human activity. We are already preparing the end times in an increasingly urban milieu. We cannot forget, however, that the new Jerusalem comes from God.

Let me summarize the principal points of this brief scriptural reflection:

• All of creation is fundamentally good.
• God’s plan for creation is one of harmony and order. Creation forms a whole, a cosmos.
• Within creation, the human person enjoys a consummate dignity. Inherent to this dignity is that of exercising a wise and just stewardship over the rest of creation.
• Sin brought division into the entire world, but not only within and between human persons.The consequences of sin also affect the earth. 
• In a mysterious way, Christ’s redemptive mission extends to all of creation.

An Approach from the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church

The social teaching or doctrine of the Catholic Church is an application of theology, and especially of moral theology, to the questions raised by human societies. While its sources are in revelation and the tradition of the Church from the earliest times, as an organized body of teaching, it dates from 1891, with the promulgation of Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the condition of the worker. This social teaching is an integral part of the Catholic heritage. Just recently, however, Pope John Paul II raised the question as to how many Catholics really know and put into practice its principles.

While, by their very nature, these principles remain constant, their application has considerably developed as society evolves, facing us with new challenges. From the time of the Second Vatican Council, concern for the environment has assumed an increasingly important place within this teaching. As we look very briefly at some of its principles, we cannot fail to note the biblical resonances in them.

One of the primary principles that governs our approach to environmental questions is that there is an order in the universe which must be respected. This principle not only sets limits to human activity, it also directs it towards a careful and reverent use of the earth. When the human person or human societies ignore or consciously violate this order, an imbalance is provoked that has inevitable consequences in several fields. Let us think simply of uncontrolled industrialization and the resultant pollution of air, land and water.

A second principle is no less essential: the human person occupies a distinctive place within creation. There is a strong tendency today to deny this centrality of the human person, to place human beings on the same level as animals and fishes. The reasons for this are complex. One pretext is that an anthropocentric approach to the environment has resulted in its destruction. This argument ignores, among other, the relationship of the human person to God. It can also lead to a dangerous negation of human responsibility. Without a doubt, human persons and, indeed, entire societies, have abused of the environment with impunity. We all see the result. Without a doubt, the human person lives in close relationship to his or her environment and is part of it. Without a doubt, we must care for the rest of creation. But, it is by heightening the centrality of the human person, not by denying it, by stressing the responsibility of the human person for creation, not by denying it, that we shall be able to promote and preserve a sound environment for all.

Another ethical principle with immediate applications to the environment is that of the inalienable dignity of the human person. The promotion of this dignity is “the ultimate guiding norm for any sound economic, industrial or scientific development.” Inordinate depletion of resources without thinking of the needs of others, reckless land use, exploitative industrial practices and so forth are contrary to this principle.

Today, there is another rather widespread anthropological error that directly affects the relationship between the human person and the environment. The modern person, fascinated by the capability of the human mind, can set him or herself up in the place of God. The person effectively becomes the center of a universe built in his or her own image. All that is possible is permissible. At other times, everything is judged in relation to the individual whose needs must be met at all costs. These needs are often artificially created, and, in the thirst to satisfy them, the person uses and abuses the goods of this world without any thought for others and still less for future generations. Entire societies, built on an economic system that favors profit almost as an end in itself, can suffer from this anthropological error that saps the notion of the common good, the dignity of all.

On the contrary, the goods of the earth, including those produced by human activity, are ultimately destined for the benefit of all, not of the few. In this regard, Pope Paul VI did not hesitate to say that “all other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle.” Consequently, all peoples, all countries, must have access to those goods – natural, technological, intellectual and spiritual – that assure their integral development, that is a development that promotes the good of the whole person and of the entire human community. A development that is oriented towards the true good of the human person – and particularly of the poorest, the preferred of God – will also care for the environment, because to destroy it would precisely harm the human person and also damage God’s creation entrusted to human care. An all-consuming desire for profit and a thirst for power run directly counter to this caring attitude.

We began with an affirmation concerning creation. I should like to close this section with an expression of our belief in the unity of the human family: created by God in wonderful diversity, called in Christ to overcome all distinctions that divide. The ethical principle springs from the greatest of all the Commandments, pronounced by Jesus, echoing the words of the Old Testament: “Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” “The second,” continues Jesus, “is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

In his encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Pope John Paul II, considering a divided and fragmented world, pointed out the urgent necessity of solidarity. This moral virtue, he says “is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and afar. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all.” I do not have to elaborate on this in relation to the environment.

As I did at the end of our brief reflection on Scripture, let me close by summarizing the fundamental principles of the social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that I have just presented as they relate to the environment:

• respect for the order in the universe;
• the distinctive place of the human person within creation;
• the inalienable dignity of the human person;
• the universal destination of created goods;
• our obligation to commit ourselves to the good of all and of each individual.

Taken as a whole, these principles form a consistent ethical framework against which to measure human intervention in the environment, worthy of care in its own right. In the second session, I should like to look more closely at their application to one specific problem, that of waste.

Part Two: In Search of A Solution

I should like to begin by citing the words of Pope Paul Vl to the 1970 Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization. They both sum up the previous reflect ions, which were general in nature, and open the way to an exploration of an ethical approach the concrete problems we face today:

…everything is bound up together. You must be attentive to the great consequences which follow on every intervention of man in the balance of nature, whose harmonious richness has been placed at his disposal in accordance with the living design of the Creator. (Cf., for example, Ps 64: 10-14)…

[The] problems surely are familiar to you. We have wished to evoke them briefly before you only in order to underline better the urgent need of a radical change in the conduct of humanity if it wishes to assure its survival… The hour has now come for [man] to dominate his domination [of the earth]; this essential undertaking requires no less courage… than the conquest of nature itself.

Responsibility: A Key Concept

The human person, alone among all the creatures on this earth, is morally responsible for his or her acts which must be oriented towards the good: that of self, of others and of the very earth and all that is in and on it. These three form an inseparable whole. This assertion is the keystone of a sound ethics of the environment over and against one based on sentiment, on a vague nostalgia for a nonexistent “paradise lost” or on a pseudo-religious exaltation of nature.

The concept of responsibility can also be translated into the language of identifiable rights and duties. These, in turn, can, and often do, find expression in juridical instruments that regulate relationships between and among peoples and groups, as well as between and among States, regarding a given question. structures are often set in place that assure the observance of such defined rights and duties. That is, the concept of responsibility concerns not only individual behavior but also relates to entire societies and to the international community as well.

As regards the environment, the fundamental right is that of individuals and peoples to a safe environment. Given the transboundary nature of environmental and ecological problems, our duties are universal, extending to all peoples and to all regions. Equity demands, however, that the responsibilities be differentiated and complementary according to the needs and abilities of each. In other words, the weaker peoples or states have a special claim on the solidarity of others.

Responsibility ordained towards the good of all is not, however, merely a spatial notion; it is also temporal. Today, we are the beneficiaries of the wonderful fruits of the human mind that have helped so many to live a better life. We are, however, also both the protagonists and victims of uncontrolled development. Thoughtless exploitation now endangers future life on this earth: plant, and animal as well as human. We must take into account the future good of the earth, that of future generations.

It would be possible to approach the question of our ethical responsibility as regards the environment from many starting points. I have chosen to dwell on just one aspect: that of waste. First of all, it is a familiar concept. We are all aware of what it is, and we know equally well that we can all do something, however small, about it. But waste has another connotation. It is a also a by-product of a capitalistic, consumer-oriented society and of certain technologies that have been developed without concern for their long term consequences.

As we reflect together, I should also like you to keep in mind another question:

that of the need to determine the proper levels at which a given environmental question could or should be addressed by the Church. Some aspects of care for the environment are proper to its very mission, while others are deeply rooted in Christian tradition, spirituality and prayer, that is, in Christian life as such. Still others more directly concern the organization of life in society: economics, politics and so forth. When it is both possible and opportune, the Church has a duty to speak to such problems, especially if human dignity or life is in danger. At other times, the laity, in their professional capacities, are the ones who are fully responsible for acting, precisely out of an ethical context to which the Church has the responsibility of forming them. Should we not make these distinctions, we could unconsciously or even consciously, falsify the role of the Church, reducing it to that of any other organization interested in environmental questions. This is a danger that we cannot ignore.

Waste as a Factor in a Consumer Society

It is certainly not necessary to dwell at any length on the striking inequalities that characterize today’s world; we are very much aware of them. They have penetrated into the very marrow of society’s structures, setting up or reinforcing sharp divisions between North and South – and between that “North and South” that can be found within each country. That such inequalities remain, or are even increasing, despite this heightened awareness, is a moral scandal that cannot leave us indifferent. A relatively small number of people of plenty actually live in the midst of a world of want. Their societies are characterized precisely by an excessive demand on the earth’s resources and by their disproportionate contribution to the degradation of the world’s environment. Some of these people of plenty live on small islands of richness in the very midst of societies, of vast want. They are found on all continents.

Those in the world of want are often so poor that all their energies are focused on procuring the minimum necessary for survival. It is beyond their ability to make the necessary individual and societal choices that would protect the environment, even as regards proper land use and the avoidance of water pollution. They actually increase the degradation of an already damaged environment. They do not consciously choose to do so.

The people of plenty do not face such limitations to their ability to chose. On the contrary, their life style is marked by an over-abundance of possible choices that quickly become needs, artificially created and fostered by commercial interests or by the mass media. A generalized pattern of over- consumption affects the life of individuals, of families, and of entire societies. The concomitant waste actually has become a problem in its own right: what do to with it, where to dispose of it.

A society oriented towards meeting artificial needs ultimately saps the moral fiber of its members, and especially of its youth. It inevitably results in the person consuming not only the resources of the earth but also his or her own very life in an excessive and disordered way. There is, in fact, an intimate link between a materialistic, consumption-driven society and environmental pollution and degradation.

The Christian ethos is in sharp contrast to this: it is one of simplicity, of sharing, of assuring that all have enough to meet their basic needs, including their Spiritual and cultural ones. Attention is focused on the quality of life, not on the accumulation of goods.

We have all experienced an often momentary compassion, or even moral outrage, before the spectacle of people in dire want. We have contributed to helping to alleviate crisis situations. This is clearly not enough. We must, in fact, develop that “firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good…because we are all really responsible for all” of which I spoke earlier. That is we must live in a solidarity that entails a modification of individual and societal behavior and a readiness to assure that the superabundance of waste created in some regions ceases to weigh upon those who have nothing they can afford to waste.

While the problems are vast and require structural change, we still remain responsible for doing what we can to assure that all have the opportunity to live in the dignity that is their due. This can entail challenging, among other, production and distribution patterns in a concerted effort to assure greater justice, more care for the environment, greater respect for the order that exists in God’s creation.

Despite the need for collective responses, individual attitudes and behavior are immensely important. In democratic societies, public opinion can eventually effect societal change. We have seen this in such simple things as the increasing use of biodegradable packaging and the recycling of paper, tins and bottles. Small things, perhaps, but important in themselves and for their educational value as regards the effects of an over-consumption that actually produces waste.

Hazards and Wastes: By-Product of Technological Advance

We have witnessed extraordinary advances in technology during this past century, with changes taking place at an ever-accelerating rate. While many of them are highly positive, others actually put life at risk and place a heavy mortgage on the future well-being of peoples and the environment. I shall take just two examples: chemical hazards due to the use of synthetic pesticides and radioactive waste.

Thanks to the development of modern synthetic chemical pesticides, vast strides were made in the control of disease-bearing and crop consuming insects. We are now faced, however, with the consequences of their over-abundant use which dramatically increases the danger of pollution. The very insects that were controlled by certain pesticides have become resistant to them, leading to an increasing use of an ever-wider variety of these pesticides. Not only are diseases thought conquered reappearing, modern medicine is unable to control them with what were formerly highly effective remedies. Sprayed food is now found to be a possible health hazard. The run-off from treated fields is polluting water sources and entering the food cycle far away from the fields where they were used.

The very production of some of these chemicals presents health risks. In the industrialized world, rigid safety standards have been developed to protect workers and the environment to the degree possible – human error always remains a factor, as we know so well. In the developing world, however, such standards are often lacking, as is the expertise for dealing with either imported chemical substances or with highly polluting industries no longer welcome in the developed world and transferred to countries where safety standards are lower or nonexistent. To export dangerous substances and to transfer polluting industries are clearly serious abuses and, in the words of Pope John Paul II, it is “an offense against human solidarity when industrial enterprises in the richer countries profit from the economic and legislative weaknesses of poorer countries to locate production plants or accumulate waste which will have a degrading effect on the environment and on people’s health.”

This is not a case of denying developing countries their right to industrial development. This would be contrary to the moral principle of the universal destination of the goods of this earth. On the contrary, it means taking the necessary steps to assure that industry is not being transferred for the self-interested motive of bending to public pressure to remove a dangerous industry from a certain region by simply transferring it elsewhere where such pressure does not exist. Such transfers are no less illegitimate if the motive is an unwillingness to implement often costly safety standards. The transferring industry or Government must be willing to collaborate effectively with the receiving country or region to assure that adequate controls are established and maintained. This is a concrete expression of solidarity. “It would be difficult to overstate the weight of the moral duty incumbent on developed countries to assist the developing countries in their efforts to solve their chemical pollution and health hazard problems.”

In speaking of chemical hazards, I have used the example mainly of the duties of the industrialized countries and the concomitant rights of developing countries without mentioning those countries whose economies are in transition. This is not because they are free of problems. A totalitarian system oriented towards production showed, over the years, very little concern either for the safety of workers or for that of the product being produced. Several regions of Eastern Europe are suffering from severe environmental damage. Their aging and polluting industry is also slowing down their transition process.

While there are some efforts to control the hazards of modern industry, much remains to be done. The international community needs to continue to develop the necessary global agreements regarding the production, exportation and handling of hazardous substances. It is interesting to note that such agreements often are accompanied by ethical codes that set standards but are devoid of sanctions. Recently, agreements have been reached forbidding the dumping of hazardous wastes in Africa. These and other similar efforts need to be encouraged on both a national and international level. The good of future generations and of life itself can be at stake.

Let me simply mention one more question: that of radioactive wastes: a by-product of nuclear energy, of the dismantling of nuclear weapons and, to a lesser degree, of nuclear medicine. The management, transportation and stockpiling of nuclear wastes presents very serious problems: human health hazards as well as a possible facilitation of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. There is also the long-term danger of severe environmental and health hazards if such wastes are improperly stockpiled. Because of their long life, there are still many unknowns in this field. The nuclear community, both military and civil, is well aware of the problems. I believe that the ethical implications are obvious.

The nuclear waste problem is an example of an incomplete vision of technological advances: the seeking of immediate advantages, even with good intentions, without an adequate consideration of the long-term consequences.

An Education to Environmental Ethics

The Church also has an important mission of education of the faithful regarding the ethical or moral implications of the way we live in relation to the other members of the human family and to the rest of creation. The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church has taken some steps in this regard. It is significant that many of the teachings that touch upon the environment are found in the chapters on the first article of the Creed and under all three sections devoted to the persons of the Holy Trinity. A coherent presentation of this subject as an integral part of catechesis is still lacking, however.

We must not overlook the fundamental role of parents in the education of their children to respect both others and the environment, to sacrifice themselves for the good of others, to care for the environment as God’s gift to all. It is also in the family that a child can develop a sense of beauty, can learn to contemplate the wonders of God’s creation and recognize the need to restore it when damaged, to preserve it when whole, to respect its rhythms.

There are many other questions that could be explored. Several of them go far beyond the question of the environment and ethics but are not unrelated to education and environmental ethics: the liturgical life of the Church and the environment, the importance of the aesthetic value in human planning, respect for the limits of human interference in God’s creation.

All of us, each of us, needs to learn, day after day, to approach the environment with respect, to be aware of what human activity can and does do to harm it. We need to draw upon all the richness of our faith, to turn in prayer to God for light and help, to build solid ethical convictions to guide our actions. As we do so, the mystery of God’s plan for his creation will continue to unfold. The new Jerusalem that we are slowly constructing is God’s, not ours.

Sister Marjorie Keenan, RSHM, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. 2000. Care for Creation: Human Activity and the Environment. Vatican City.

Copyright © 2000 Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Sister Marjorie Keenan, R.S.H.M.