Catholic Environmental Statement

What I found from the Catholic Church, in lieu of their environmental statement, is an address that the Pope John Paul II made on January 1, 1990. I found this statement to be fascinating because it set forth a very unique Environmental Statement that was both true to the spirit of Environmentalism, while being uniquely Catholic at the same time. What follows are my reflections on the statement, taking into consideration the blend of Catholic and Environmental orthodoxies.

There were a few areas of this statement that reflect the unique contributions that the Catholic Church is making to the environmental discussion. Though Catholic language and influences clearly run throughout John Paul's statement, I pulled out a few that I thought were particularly interesting.

Throughout the address, John Paul II uses language of "order and creation." What this does is allude to a larger worldview that Catholic theology operates from. For example, the address says,

Today, the dramatic threat of ecological breakdown is teaching us the extent to which greed and selfishness - both individual and collective - are contrary to the order of creation, an order which is characterized by mutual interdependence. - point 8

An ordered universe is a concept that I find interesting because it suggests that creation has a specific way that it must exist. When we break away from this order, there are natural consequences that arise according this theory. Though it may be a myopic understanding of creation, it does help us to think of the "natural" order as being a God given gift. The trouble of course, is when we try to define what is and what isn't natural or part of the order.

John Paul's statement develops a close link between social ills and environmental ills that is interesting. For example, the address states,

It must also be said that the proper ecological balance will not be found without directly addressing the structural forms of poverty that exist throughout the world. -Point 11

What it does, is to take seriously the interconnectedness of all life. Lack of environmental education is tied to poverty which is tied to war, which is tied to famine, which is tied to economically unjust structures (etc.). I found these connections to be a particularly helpful for thinking about environmental injustice as a system rather than an isolated problem

The Pope's address also reflected more orthodox environmental concerns (if such a thing exists). For example this part of the address has echoes of Earth in Mind by David Orr. It reads,

An education in ecological responsibility is urgent: responsibility for oneself, for others, and for the earth. This education cannot be rooted in mere sentiment or empty wishes. Its purpose cannot be ideological or political. It must not be based on a rejection of the modern world or a vague desire to return to some "paradise lost" . Instead, a true education in responsibility entails a genuine conversion in ways of thought and behaviour. - pt. 13

Specifically this statement places an emphasis on the importance of education for ecological responsibility, but more importantly, I think it takes seriously the conversations that are going on in the broader context of the church. It also does not let us off the hook by denying our own personal responsibility towards environmental renewal.

Reflecting on my Earth Care Practice

I'm the sort of person who cringes whenever I have to spend money. I like to hunt for bargains and find the best deals on products. When I am grocery shopping, I am the guy who bends over to find out what the price per ounce of a product that is printed on 8pt. font on the price tag of the product. In short, I'm cheap. I hate to admit it (partly because I think that I inherited this trait from my parents), but the fact is, I often need that extra little bit of motivation to spend money on a product that I could purchase at a better price somewhere else. So when I have to eat the 29% price increase to buy organic foods, I hesitate to pull the trigger.

My guess, is that this is the case for a lot of people (not just the overly frugal). Buying Organic has proven to be very difficult on the micro level, and my suspicion is that a lot of the problem exists because we still refuse to deal with the issue of sustainability on the macro level. Consider the huge amount of subsidies that are dolled out to unsustainable, big business, agricultural farms every year. Though these farms produce cheap food, they also wreck havoc on the environment. This is just one example of an entire system that makes buying organic food less practical than buying non-organic food. What I am proposing, is that we need to ask two questions. First, how can we affect systemic change on a macro level and second, how can we affect change on an individual level, micro level?

There are a lot of people out there who, like me, have a very genuine desire to buy organic products. One website that I found, said that about only 10% of the American Public bought organic groceries. However it also mentioned that nearly 70% of those who didn't buy organic foods on a regular basis cited cost as the main reason why they didn't. This is not a problem of information. Most people understand that buying organic is better for the environment and our bodies. Nor is it a crisis of ethics. People genuinely want to buy organic products. It's a question of practicality.

What I am suggesting is this: people will not begin to buy organic products in mass until prices begin to fall to something comparable to the prices of regular groceries. This is something that can only be affected on the macro level. However, I do think that individually there are things that we can do - things that affect the decisions of people of influence in the macro level. We can change who we vote for. We can change our own buying habits. We can change the awareness levels in our communities. We can change many things, but if we do nothing, then we can change nothing.

Earth in Mind - All in

It's pretty tough to take issue with any of the points made by David Orr in his book Earth in Mind. He lays out a very passionate argument about why we need to think deeper and more clearly on the issue of environmental education. It's his passion however, that sometimes leads him to step onto shaky ground in terms of laying out practical solutions to problems.

Orr at times reminds me of one particular friend who I play poker with from time to time. He is the sort of poker player who very often plays the cards that are on the table rather than the cards that are in his hand (we play Texas Hold 'em if you're familiar with the game) and often are often disproportional to his cards. In poker, you would call that overplaying your hand and I feel that Orr does this throughout the book.

For example, in chapter 14 he lays out some suggestions for reforms to the educational system. One of those suggestions was to begin the process of environmental education through immersion into a particular environment - a hands on sort of approach. However, then Orr proceeds to make this suggestion "For example, a course on a nearby river might require students to live on the river for a time, swim in it, canoe it, (etc.)." (96). Suggestions like this trip me up not because it's a bad concept, but because it seems so impractical. He took what was a good concept - integrating hands on knowledge - with the idea that we should all go and live on a river for a week (what seems to me to be a practical nightmare). And so, Orr really overplays his hand here by taking a good idea too far.

Yet at the same time, the audacity of Orr's thinking makes his argument that much more irresistible. He writes,

A constituency able and willing to fight for the ong-term human prospect must be educated into existence. It must be scientifically literate enough to recognize politicized science for what it is. It must be courageous enough to face facts squarely. It must be committed enough to avoid seductions of cheap citizenship. It must be intellectually alive enough to demand careful and thoughtful analysis of public problems. It must be able to tell the difference between ecological sense and nonsense. This will require, in Paul Kennedy's words, 'nothing less than the reeducation of humanity." (126)

He has ambitious goals and big dreams about creating an education system that takes seriously environmental concerns for our day. A legitimate question that could be asked of him is "Is all this really necessary?" or even more to the point "Is all of this really possible?" Can we reeducate humanity? However, it also seems that a larger question stands behinds Orr's argument, and that is "Can we afford not to?" His case is compelling, but what is even more compelling are the facts that indicate that we are living on the brink of an unsustainable world. To put it in poker terms, Orr is arguing that we have to go "all in." We have to change our understanding of the environment, consumption, politics and education or we simply will face consequences that we are not prepared for.

ELCA Environmental Statement

The ELCA, I think, did a very thoughtful job on their mission statement. What I like about it most is that it takes a very integrative approach to environmental ethics and its relationship to religion. What struck me most is the language that it uses about sin. The statement reads:

Not content to be made in the image of God (Gen 3:5; Ezek 28:1-10), we have rebelled and disrupted creation. As did the people of ancient Israel, we experience nature as an instrument of God's judgment (cf., Deut 11:13-17; Jer 4:23-28). A disrupted nature is a judgment on our unfaithfulness as stewards....Our sin and captivity lie at the roots of the current crisis.

It doesn't let us off the hook. We are part of God's creation and called to be stewards of it, yet the statement affirms that our actions have a very real and direct consequences. The judgment language is a little unsettling though, because it brings God into the equation of natural disasters. For instance, some have made the argument that Katrina was a man-made disaster due to loss of the marshland in the southern Louisiana. Are we to say then that this consequence was a judgment by God of our poor stewardship to the earth? We don't like to think about God in these terms, but in times of crisis and national disaster, we are faced with tough questions like this that require serious reflection.

The statement also looks at the dual roles that hope and action play in our response to these environmental threats. Of hope, the statement reflects on how the cross of Christ empowers us to be stewards saying:

Sin and captivity, manifest in threats to the environment, are not the last word. God addresses our predicament with gifts of "forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation" (Luther, Small Catechism). By the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God frees us from our sin and captivity, and empowers us to be loving servants to creation.

Frequently the voice of the hopeful is labled as naive, but without the belief that restoration of the earth is possible, there would be no sense in any behavioral changes. Our hope lies in Christ, that in him we are able to overcome sin and do good in this world.

Finally, the ELCA statement acknowledges that action is necessary for the care of creation. As a Christian people, we are moved by our faith into the process of reconciliation with creation. The statement says:

We of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America answer the call to justice and commit ourselves to its principles--participation, solidarity, sufficiency, and sustainability. In applying the principles to specific situations, we face decisions made difficult by human limitation and sin. We act, not because we are certain of the outcome but because we are confident of our salvation in Christ.

As a people of faith, if we are not compelled to act, then we must assume that our faith is no longer alive in us. Neglect for God's creation has created many problems in our environment and only action can help us avoid further disaster.

Shopping List

I finally got a chance to go a do some grocery shopping this week and compare the prices of the organic products to that of their non-organic counterparts. I had some interesting findings, but first, I'll show you what those findings were. This particular shopping trip was to the Target off of County Rd. B. in Roseville, MN.

My Organic Shopping List: Adjusted Prices are in parentheses. Total amount spent on organic food in red if different than listed price.

Regular Green Peppers: $.99/pepper
Organic Green Peppers: $2.29/pepper

Regular Carrots: $.89/lb
Organic Carrots: $1.09/lb

Bananas: $.49/lb ($.88) - I bought regular bananas instead of organic.
Organic Bananas: $.89/lb

Tomatoes: $2.99/lb
Organic Tomatoes: $4.99/12oz ($6.67/lb)

Beef: $3.29/lb(sale)
Grass Fed Beef: $4.49/lb (sale)

Chicken: 5.99/14oz
Free Range Chicken: 4.49/14oz (sale)

Milk: 1.74/.5 gal
Organic Milk: 3.19/.5 gal

So how much more expensive is organic than regular groceries? In total, on these organic items, I spent $20.54. In comparison, if I had bought the regular items I would have spent $15.89. Buying organic then, was a 29% increase over the cost of non-organic items. I'll try to put that in perspective a bit. Normally, I spend about $75, every time I go to the grocery story (on average). If I were trying to buy everything from my grocery list organic, I would end up spending about 96.75 (based on a 29% price increase).

However, that's not the whole story either. If you look closely at some of the price comparisons per item, you'll notice that some are more significant than others. Tomatoes and green peppers had the highest increase in price over my entire list. On the other hand, I found that it really wasn't too much more expensive to buy carrots or bananas organic. These items respectively cost $.20 and $.40 more per lb. Even if you bought large quantities of them, it's unlikely you would notice a huge hike in your grocery bill since both items are available for less than $1.25/lb.

I was also able to find some meat on sale for cheaper than what I would have expected. The Free Range Chicken was actually cheaper on sale than the the regular chicken and the grass fed beef wasn't exorbitantly more expensive than the regular beef. Though I doubt this is always the case, what it does prove is that you can find good deals on these items if you look hard enough.

Of course when making these purchases we have to weigh the costs of the environmental impact as well. It may not be too long before humanity realizes the impact of many industrial farming practices. However, it's equally hard to tell a poor person living from paycheck-to-paycheck that they should spend 29% more on groceries. The questions then are twofold. They are "Can we afford to buy organic food?" and "Can we afford not too?"

Simpler Living, Compassionate Life

The tricky thing about simple living is that sometimes it's a lot more complicated than what the typical anglo-european American lifestyle is. The problem is, that we like to be comfortable in our Suburban homes with our suburban fences, our suburban stores with suburban convenience, and our suburban lifestyles with suburban isolation. It's all too convenient. We buy things that we just have to throw away when we're done. We go home and don't have to talk to our neighbors when we're there. We shop without ever bumping into our neighbors, and we spend without ever having to know where our purchase comes from. It's easy! It's uncomplicated!

As I read Simpler Living: Compassionate Life, I couldn't help but notice that most of the writers were calling us to things that required intentional living. The suggestions therein were not simple in the sense that they made life easier for us. However, the more that I read the reflections and the thoughts of the advocates for a simple life, the more that I fell in love with their stories and their intentional living. Evy McDonald reminded us of how easily we fall into the trap of seeking fulfillment in our jobs and in the acquisition of money. Juliet Schor and Henry Nouwen reminded us that although we may be materially rich, we are poor in the area of time. Cecile Andrews reminded us that in our suburban lifestyles, we've forgotten how to laugh and to enjoy the presence of our neighbors.

There are a couple of themes that really stuck with me after reading this book. The first one is the issue of time. Henry Nouwen writes "In our contemporary society, it often seems that not money but time enslaves us." (54) We often spend this time on the acquisition of money so that we can buy more things, but as Schor poignantly asks "What if our desires keep pace with our incomes, so that getting richer doesn't make us more satisfied?" (33). We put so much time and energy into improving our standard of living, that we've neglected our quality of life. We put in long hours to acquire things that ultimately distance us from the people we love.

The second theme that seemed to run throughout the book was community. Ultimately, it's the people who surround us in our lives that give us the sense of belonging, love purpose that are essential for every human being. Cecile Andrews gives us the best illustration of that by advocating for stronger neighborhoods through community stores, neighborhood centers and more block parties. Andrews writes that these types of establishments help to build community and notes that through these small community businesses, "I can have a great social life on Saturday night just hanging out by the produce." Ha! How often do we seek entertainment by shelling out $10, $20, or even $50? What if we could all just hang out at the produce section and see everybody we need?

Living simple is not as easy as it sounds, but I do think that it makes our lives better: less cluttered, with more time and greater meaning. I think we get more bang for our buck (so to speak) when we learn to do this. I hope and pray that as we grow as a community of faith, we learn how to live better, simpler lives.

What do I need?

Being a poor graduate student with nothing but loans and a moderate salary waiting for me at the end of the seminary tunnel, I've felt a little bit nervous about "going organic." I make a very modest salary as a part time youth director and don't have a lot of extra cash to spend on things like organic groceries. Do I support the idea of organic produce? You bet! But why should I pay for organic produce and groceries that are sometimes two or even three times more expensive than the non-organic variety? Do I really need to buy organic?

But then I look around at my surroundings - I look around at the stuff in my life that I consider to be a necessity, and I wonder how much of it really is. I pay about $60 per month for my cell phone, which includes unlimited texting. The truth of the matter is, I hate having a cell phone. It's always ringing at inopportune times - either when I'm trying to get away from the pressures of modern life, sometimes when I'm driving, or when I'm sitting in class :). Do I really need a cell phone? Do I need people to be able to get a hold of me at all hours of the day? Our society and our culture says that I do, but I'm not so sure that's the case.

I have a car as well as bike and a scooter for transportation. I have an X-Box, for entertainment purposes so I can play DVD's and video games. I own my own laptop and even have a home printer for that laptop. In addition to my oven/stove, I have a George Foreman, an outdoor charcoal grill, a crockpot, and a griddle. Do I really need all of this stuff? I could easily simplify my transportation, I don't need electronics to entertain me, and my oven/stove basically performs all the functions of the other devices I listed. Yet despite all this stuff, there's always something new out there that I want. Do I need it though?

In our book Simpler Living, Compassionate Life, Evy McDonald writes an article called "Spending Money as if Life Really Mattered." In it she says "The inflation of our desiers has resulted in 'poverty consciousness' - where we think we're poor when our salaries are twenty-, thrity-, forty-, or even one hundred-thousand dollars a year. This is a crisis of perception. We have continued to confuse our standard of living with quality of life." (64). So when I look at all the things that I have acquired in my life I have to wonder how much of this stuff is actually improving the quality of my life.

The same thinking applies to our food choices in some ways. Often we confuse food that improves our standard of living with food that improves our quality of life. Take fast food for example. It's quick, cheap and easy. By choosing to eat it, we save time and money, thus giving us a higher standard of living. But the cost of eating fast food hurts our quality of life. Our health suffers, our energy levels drop and we lose out on the joys of learning to cook.

This brings us back to why buying organic food is worth the extra cost. The first reason is obvious: It's a better choice from an environmental standpoint. The second reason is less obvious: It improves our quality of life. By eating organic, we are putting less chemicals into our bodies, we are helping to sustain a healthy environment and are promoting better eating habits. Although buying organic foods might force us to cut back in other areas, I would argue at least for now, that it's worth it.