In an address given during his return to Germany in 2011, Pope Benedict XVI called upon the legislators who had gathered not to neglect what he called the “ecology of man.”  The ecology of man, that is, the realization that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will” is at the heart of environmental ecology.  Although this was a recurring theme of the Pope, but his repeated call fell mainly on deaf ears because the care of the environment, like nearly all social issues, has been politicized.  There is little interest in solving the problem, only using it to exert political control over other people.  But for those who are interested in solving the problem, the Church has offered a true path forward with her emphasis on human ecology.

Although this used to go without saying, any discussion of the environment must first point out that man is different from all of the other visible creatures in the environment.  He is not just one creature among many, but he is nature’s steward.  Both sides of the debate recognize this fact, even if they loathe to admit it.  Any discussion of environmental policy is predicated on the fact that only man is responsible for the environment.  It would be absurd to speak of curbing man’s actions if he did not have the freedom to do so.  In laying the responsibility for the environment at the feet of men, you are, at least implicitly, saying that he is different than the other animals and that he alone can offer a solution.  This admission matters because it implies that man, as governor of creation, also transcends it. 

Avoiding the Extremes

As awesome as it is then, we cannot worship nature as something divine.  We reverence creation because it reveals the Creator, but it is not divine.  It is, like all material things, passing away.  We, made of matter and spirit, are above it, pilgrims as it were, just passing through.  But just because it isn’t divine doesn’t mean that we can use it as we see fit.  Nature is made up of natures, all of which must be respected, if they are going to actually serve mankind. 

Like all issues that become political footballs, the environment is prey to the either/or fallacy.  Either it must be divinized or it must be raped.  Politics has no room for qualifications and the blame must always rest squarely on the other side.  The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church summarizes what might be called a “Catholic Environmentalism” when it says:

“A correct understanding of the environment prevents the utilitarian reduction of nature to a mere object to be manipulated and exploited. At the same time, it must not absolutize nature and place it above the dignity of the human person himself. In this latter case, one can go so far as to divinize nature or the earth, as can readily be seen in certain ecological movements that seek to gain an internationally guaranteed institutional status for their beliefs.”

CSD, 463

Fixing the Problem

But even with a correct understanding of the environment, we cannot fix the environmental problems without first practicing the “human ecology” proposed by Pope Benedict.  Until we acknowledge that certain types of activities fulfill our nature and others don’t, the problem of the ecology of the environment will never be solved.  These activities are known as virtues and it begins with the virtue of prudence.  Prudence is the habit of governing our actions such that we only use things in a manner in which we truly thrive.  Justice is the habit of taking responsibility for the effects our actions have on other people and not just being motivated by self-interest.  Temperance is the habit of living with sufficiency and not hoarding resources because we can.  Fortitude is the habit of remaining committed to the right use of the environment in the face of wide scale abuse where each person is trying to hoard as much as possible.

The environmental movement lacks any real teeth because they systematically ignore, what Pope Benedict called, “the inner pollution” of which the environmental pollution is just a consequence.  They speak of what we ought to do, but still exalt license as if it was true freedom.  You cannot promote license, especially in the sexual realm, while simultaneously demanding that people act temperately in their use of the environment.  If you will (ab)use other people then you will most certainly abuse the environment.  It will never gain any moral authority until it acknowledges a moral law.  Without a true respect for human freedom and the conditions in which it thrives, it will have to resort to the hammer of power to beat all non-compliants into submission. 

It is the inner pollution of overconsumption that causes untold damage to the environment.  But until this is framed as fundamentally a moral problem, it will never get better.  As John Paul II put it in his Message for the World Day of Peace in 1990:

“Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its life style. In many parts of the world society is given to instant gratification and consumerism while remaining indifferent to the damage which these cause. As I have already stated, the seriousness of the ecological issue lays bare the depth of man’s moral crisis. If an appreciation of the value of the human person and of human life is lacking, we will also lose interest in others and in the earth itself. Simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life, lest all suffer the negative consequences of the careless habits of a few.”

Environmental ecology then is a fruitless endeavor without first emphasizing a moral ecology.  The crisis in the environment is first and foremost a catastrophic crisis in the moral environment of mankind.  Until we solve that problem, we should only expect the environmental crisis to get worse.  A Catholic Environmentalism then would be one that emphasizing the proper use of the environment by inculcating the necessary virtues.