In Genesis, God gives man "dominion" over God's creation (1:26). Soon enough, humans learned that creation is better suited for their needs if manipulated. Some translations of the text have people believing that humans can do whatever they please in the world, because it is their right to do so. In the past several centuries, the Catholic Church has made statements, from the papal arena down to parochial priests and lay people, on the subject of environmentalism. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were two of the forefathers of the idea that Catholics should respect all of God's creation, whether or not it is vital to our own existence. These two men made sure to note that humankind is at the top of the hierarchy of nature, and other creatures fell below. Francis of Assisi, however, thought of the prior statement as misinterpreted, and in "Canticle of All Creatures" believes that creation is familial. Which of these views do you feel are true?
Later in Church history, there have been direct addresses by several popes, most notably Leo XIII and John Paul II on the subject of the common good. In their cases, the common good only deals with humankind, but both men state that the rest of creation needs to be taken care of for our own (as well as its own) well-being. Others not directly affiliated with the Church, such as Rosemary Radford Ruether and Leonardo Buff, maintain the position of ecojustice, and all of creation is equivalent. Should the Church stay with its Tradition, with the hierarchy of creation, or should it change its perspective and side with all of the earthly environment?
Radford's "Religious Ecofeminism" also deals with Genesis 1:26 verse, but instead focuses on the word "man." Radford's main point is to confirm the interconnection between the domination of women and the domination of nature. Aristotle and Pluto's claims of feminine inferiority are discussed, and ultimately lead to how a misogynistic interpretation of The Fall lead many to believe that women are subjected to serve man. Later, it is described how Christians made diverse groups into barbarians simply because of their differences, especially race, religion, and gender. Unfortunately, these actions from our ancestry live with us today, and these prejudices continue today. What do you feel is the best way for a truly equal world, both in regards to humankind as well as the rest of creation? Additionally, we have spoken about bias on several occasions in class. How would you feel if Radford was a male and wrote this piece. Would any of your opinions change on the matter?
It is interesting to trace the history of Catholicism and to analyze the different ideas of many religious leaders. In reading about the thoughts of Augustine and Aquinas we learn that humans are placed on top of the pyramid of God's creations. Later Francis of Assisi teaches a different lesson in which he sees all of God's creations as equals. Francis of Assisi's view is clearly one that is absent in our current society as our entire society is based off of a hierarchy. This hierarchy places people above all of God's other creations similar to the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas. The second part of the reading tells readers about the Catholic Church's view on the environment. While in the past we learned that the Vatican Council was never concerned with environmental issues I think it would be in society's best interest to promote the church to change it's view and understand their responsibility to the environment.
ReplyDeleteI think the main point that the first reading was trying to make was that, with a few exceptions like Francis of Assisi, the Catholic tradition perpetuates an anti-environment view. This view stems from the creation story, where God gave "dominion" over nature to man. Because the Bible teaches that nature is there to be used by man, many would say that there is not need to pay any attention to the well-being of the environment. Why would anyone want to preserve the rights of the environment when it was given to us to use at we wish? The reading states that in order to correct the ecological crisis, this fundamental view must be change. I agree with this. I think that until people can view the environment as equal to us, we will continue to abuse it.
ReplyDeleteThe second reading was really interesting; I had never thought about the link between the way Catholics treat the environment and the way they treat women. But the similarities are abundant. I like how the author talked about how Eve, and by extension all women, became scapegoats for men to blame the evils of the world on. It is interesting that the subjugation of women can be related so closely to the subjugation of the environment.
I agree that the first reading mainly stated that Catholicism places humans over nature. Humans view nature as something they control, not something they need to live in harmony with. As we discussed in class, Catholicism has anthropogenic views and beliefs. The creation story says that man was built before nature and that nature was made for man to keep him pleased. This also relates to how Catholicism views women. The creation story says that man was created first and then God made nature so he would not be lonely and then women was created. Women were placed second to nature so in the hierarchy of things, women fall below nature. The second reading made very interesting points regarding women, nature, and Christianity.
ReplyDeletePosted by Helen Gaynor
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the main point of the first reading was to explain how man is put before nature. As previously stated, God created man, and then created nature for him to control. However, I do not agree that in order for nature to recover from human abuse, the church would need to recognize that man needs to live in harmony with nature. Catholicism is not the only religion in the world and there are plenty of other groups of people who understand that man must live in harmony with the environment, not control it. Sure it would help if we could change the opinions of the church, but you can never make everyone agree with you, which makes me believe that in this situation, my opinion on the matter would not make much difference in the eyes of the church. The parallels the second article made were very interesting and something I had never really thought of before, but after reading, it made complete sense.
In "Catholicism", the author emphasizes that even when church leaders began to focus on being mindful of creation, caring for people took priority over caring for the environment. I do not condone any reckless attitude or behavior toward the environment but I also do not think I can denounce completely the tradition carried by the church. This is so because although I realize that its position may at times produce negative results, it still makes sense, too. As humans, it is natural to think we would want to put the need of humans before the needs of anything else. Although it is a selfish position, I think it is a natural one. For this reason, the contributions of leaders such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were so essential. The ideological transition Hart concludes with shows that this tradition has definitely evolved. So I think that despite struggles with this issue of reconciling human interests with nature's well being, we can still be encouraged by the evident progress in our understanding and of view of it.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, she basically asserts that there is a fundamentally religious attitude that fosters a sense of superiority. Until we eradicate this conventional and now deeply rooted view, theoretical methods for overcoming the ecological crisis will continue to prove to be only superficial. She seems to believe that we have simplified our situation regarding the environment. This article is very insightful and full of extensive research, I am just still not completely convinced that certain religious beliefs or traditions are meant to depreciate women. Personally, I think it is a good thing that men and women can have distinct and separate roles in certain aspects. I thought it was particularly interesting when she mentioned the cycles of renewal and restoration in the Old Testament. It would seem that adapting this idea and the kind of mentality it entails would be a significant stride in confronting major ecological concerns.
In regards to the feminism issue: because Genesis is believed to be divinely inspired, does this mean that God is accepting of male superiority? Were the writers (who are assumed to be male) trying to sublimely create this point? Or is it simply all up to our own interpretation?
ReplyDeleteI think that it is right to respect all of God's creation as depicted by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, however am starting to develop, over the course of this class a respect for more than just the human race. I would have to say that as of now, I agree more so with the teachings of Francis of Assisi. He addresses the oneness and "circle of life" style relationship with the environment, which coincides with Native American culture, a budding interest of mine.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Church will stick with its Tradition, regardless of my beliefs. Saying this, I think that it has progressed immensely in and of itself with regards to environmental issues. I think that Christianity has a large focus on man over nature, so it would be difficult for them to transition to a new position on the topic. I think it would have several repercussions that would change more than just an outlook on environment.
I strongly dislike feminists, they just annoy me, so reading this with a feminist slant was slightly distracting. I do see the bias in her work, however the fact that the small groups have been discriminated against cannot be argued. I think that a more equal world comes with time, and with how we present the world to our children. Through their eyes, they will form the next generation of equality, policy and society. I don’t think my opinions would change if this were written by a man, however I would have a little bit more respect for the piece.
Although it is obvious through the readings but also through natural observations, that man has dominion over nature and may do with it as he pleases. But the intention of the creation of nature was for man to control and use to help insure his existence on earth. But at what cost? we depend on nature in order to live, and yes we can use it however we please. So with that in mind, are we going to use it up and not replenish it, leaving future generations unable to survive? Are we going to pollute the earth so bad that it will soon be unhabitable? Being the supreme species on this earth we have the ability to make decisions that will ultimately affect every other species on this planet, as well as the planet itself. So when reading the creation stories in Genesis, we cant read it literally, instead we must think about the message that the "story" is trying to relay.
ReplyDeleteThis was interesting to read because I am reading Thomas Aquinas in Philosophy class. I think that in the readings I am doing for that class, he provides perspectives about human intelligence that are without the influence of theology. He says that humans and animals share some corporal perspectives of the universe, but besides that, humans are superior because of their ability to derive abstractions from their perceptions of objects. I think this is a legitimate claim, as we have no evidence that animals are able to do this on the same level. However, I do not believe that just because humans may be superior on some levels that they should exploit the Earth, because I do not share the Christian view that Earth was created for humans. In regards to tradition, it is hard for me to say that I think change is viable in our society. While tradition is less apparent in today's society, people are still very religious and traditional. Somethings discriminations are just so intensely controversial that it is hard for me to see them ever disappearing-- no matter how much I want them to.
ReplyDelete“Catholicism” describes the small amount of attention we pay to our environment. As humans, we see it as our utmost need to preserve ourselves rather than our surroundings. Thus, being backed up with the thought that we are at the top of a hierarchy of creation clearly cannot be beneficial to our environment and the ecology we are surrounded in. On the other hand though, important figures in history like Pope Leo XIII and John Paul II have interpreted these texts entirely differently keeping an ecologically sane mindset. The article was interesting in that it coupled a wide variety of opinions on a similar subject. That being said though, I don’t believe that changing our current habits will really have so much of an effect on our planet. Our traditions lie in ancient beliefs that legitimize our superiority over the ecology. Traditions and ritualistic practices are extremely hard to break away from and unfortunately, our earth is destined to be doomed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a combination of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Assisi’s ideas. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a hierarchy of nature and that human beings are on top and the rest of the creatures all follow below. However, I also think that just because there is a hierarchy does not mean that you should necessarily treat those creations below you as inferior. Going along with that, everything should be kept in moderation so I again believe that the Church can keep its Traditional view but at the same time start incorporating environmental elements into its view. To create a truly equal world, the only thing that in essence needs to be changed is the perception people have of our world and their position in it. Once you can change people’s attitudes, everything else falls into place. The same goes the opposite way: you can impose as many laws as you want promoting equality but the world will never truly be equal until people change their thought process to believe that it is. If Radford was a male, that almost might add more strength to the argument just because we know a woman would vouch for woman’s rights or, for example a black person would vouch for black rights. However, if someone of a gender or race vouched for another gender or race’s right, then that would show the world that the idea of rights is a universal thing and other people that are not just those people fighting for the rights think that everyone should deserve rights.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of one’s views in respect to man and nature, humanity needs to understand that it cannot destroy the environment around us. Even if humanity has come to be what some consider as the dominant species, one can respect the fact that the environment is essential to humanity’s development. My views lie not only in the intellectual idea that without a safe and healthy environment we cannot thrive, but also within the moral stance that is is wrong to take advantage of others. We should be able to coexist to the point of a mutually beneficial relationship in which our lives compliment and better each other’s.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I feel that when reading and commenting on the Bible, it is essential to read it with the understanding that there are a number of different ways to interpret it. My first interaction with the Bible was in my high school years when I was taught not to take it literally. Although it was divinely inspired, I learned that we were supposed to take its stories as metaphorical teachings instead of actual occurrences. Therefore, when I read about the issues regarding male superiority, I begin to question whether or not it is truly what the Bible is suggesting. There is no doubt of woman inferiority from history, however, sexist beliefs are not typically respected in developed countries today. While I would like to believe that the Bible does not hint at male superiority, I would not be surprised to find passages support such beliefs.
With the exception of Francis of Assisi, I found it so interesting that the general consensus of the Catholic church - for a very long time - has been that man sits higher on a the ladder than nature and environment. I never realized that there were such prominent people in the Catholic Church and of the faith that wrote exclusively about man's dominance over his surroundings. For some reason this probably wouldn't even cross my mind to justify if I were a prominent church figure. I like that Hart points out that it was the efforts of ethicists and theologians, rather than originating from the church hierarchy, who prompted and encouraged awareness of caring for the earth. It almost seems unique that people from a lower part of the church were able to create such a fluster and influence the ones sitting higher up. Throughout this chapter I was consistently reminded that in these opinions that "God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people," or some form of this conclusion. Despite all of these writings, I agree that unless humans begin to work with the earth as an equal, rather than treating it as a possession, the environmental crises we face will only continue to get worse.
ReplyDeleteIn Ruether’s essay addressing the relationship between women and the domination of nature, I appreciated that she took responsibility for her argument by speaking about her own faith, Christianity. Ruether’s argument that the treatment of women is comparable to the treatment of nature is backed up by some very convincing facts. For example, when Reuther points out how women (starting from Eve) have been used as scapegoats for men to pin evils and problems on, she is making the comparison that the earth has also been treated as an object that can easily be used to man’s advantage. This was an intriguing essay, and certainly had some strong ideas.
Ruether’s creates an interesting argument that links the treatment of women to the treatment of nature. Women have been the scapegoats, sometimes fairly, other times stereotypically, for men to blame evils on. Similarly, she is connecting this metaphorically to how the earth is being manipulated the same ways as women. And yet, I agree with Ashley in my distaste for overly annoying feminists. There was an obvious feminist bias in her work.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that the general consensus of the Catholic church - for a very long time - has been an anthropogenic one (I think that is the correct term!), where man dominates over nature. Throughout this reading I could not contain my complete disagreement with the staunch idea that God has created this Earth for humans to use and abuse. The environmental crises we face will only exacerbate, until we treat our planet with more respect and not a tool. Until we eradicate this useless conceited view that humans are superior, overcoming the ecological crisis will be impossible.
I also found it interesting that the Catholic church though so higly of man over the envirorment. I did not know that was such a big thing before I read this. I actually wondered while reading how other religions feel about this topic becuase it was never something that I really thought about when I would think/discuss religions. I go along with the arguement that was made that there is in fact a hierarchy that God crreated of man being on top but just becuase we are on top doesn't mean that we should take for granted and abuse the nature that is "below" us. The second article was definently interesting in regards to women even though I didn't quite agree with what it was saying.
ReplyDeleteposted by Neeki Ahmadi
Before reading this, I did not know how strongly the Catholic Church favored man over nature. I personally do not agree that God solely created the world just for humanity to destroy, so it’s interesting that a whole large sect of Christianity does believe that. Regarding Ruether’s argument, I thought it was a very interesting approach. I’m in a Women’s Studies class and we just finished talking about this topic, so I enjoyed reading more about it. I think her bias did come through maybe a little too much for a scholarly article, but there were definitely some interesting points made.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that impressed me the most about these two essays were the adjustments made continuously by the Catholic church. When something was pointed out as faulty within the church's doctrine, it was altered. Naturally, this almost translates to Catholicism being a progressive religion. One that - and this also impressed me - is capable of consistently keeping women as a parallel with nature! Bias may come into play since the ecofeminism article was written by a woman, but her description of Catholic's idea that humans have "domination over nature and negation or flight from nature" (the latter in the case of the aesthetics) is fairly accurate... especially when she is able to trace it back to Greek origins. To answer the question listed above then, I do think the Catholic church should continue to change its policy when something as severe as environmental crises arises. Tradition is only so useful to God but, and this is just a personal opinion, I think God would be okay with change for the greater good.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Francis of Assisi was an anomaly from most Catholic leaders at the time in terms of his opinions on equality between humans. I think with the Bible verse putting man in dominion over man was meant to be "man", in the over encompassing term of all humankind, not just the male gender. I do believe that Catholicism and Christianity as a whole do put humans above animals, but not in a dominate and conquer sort of way, but in a way that puts moral responsibility and expectations on a higher level for humans. This is turn would promote beneficence towards animals and the ecosystem. Therefore I dont believe that Catholicism is "anti-environment" as some people have stated. But I do agree with the aforementioned comments that the Catholic church seems to change their position on a lot of beliefs (ie stance on gay rights, stance on how to read religious texts, stance on equality of living things, etc).
ReplyDeleteI would agree with most people in saying that it is very interesting how the Catholic Church views man over nature. If you look back to Genesis, or think of anything that you know about the creation story, you recall that God created the earth first. Nature was there before man and if God would have not created nature first, He would have not been able to create man. Nature is essential to the survival of the human kind and we still see that to be true today. While even though humans have changed the earth and made all these technological advances we are still very dependent upon nature and the earth is one of our main resources. If this is so then why does the church view man over nature? Even though humans have the power to change nature, nature has the power to alter the way humans are forced to live their lives.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with everyone and say that Catholicism mainly places human over nature. Although this may seem unfair, I'm not sure how else man should feel about nature, since it does have control over is physically and mentally. It is not as if it has any type of control over man. Having control over nature doesn't necessarily mean taking advantage of it. I do not think that fixing this lies in the hands of the church, but in everyone individually. I do think that it would be in everyone's best interest to respect the environment.
ReplyDeleteI found both readings to be very insightful into the way that Catholicism views our ecological crisis. I enjoyed the first reading cause it gave me an renewed understanding of catholicism as a whole, reaffirming so of the aspects of the religion that I had forgotten since leaving private school. What I found most interesting from these two articles was the way the ecological crisis was viewed. Humans through this religion are placed on a higher level that animals and the environment, without truly understanding the affect nature has on our society as a whole. However, I can understand how the church could have these views because most of society has this same view. I just wondered if these beliefs were a result of the Catholic west.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Andrew's comments. At times, it is essential to realize the importance of abstracting, metaphorically, the messages contained in the Bible. As discussed in class, however, the Catholic view of the human-nature relationship is anthropogenic. I think this poses a problem regarding the environmental challenge today, because I believe that this anthropogenic view has a large following in today's society. In my view, the environment should be placed on the same level as humanity. It is so easy to lose track of how essential the environment is to our, well, humanity. It's something people either don't have the time, commitment, or patience to care about. In my view, environmental damage is not limited to ecological damage as such, but also warfare, hunger, strife, and the other problems that we read about every day. Sadly, many people don't realize what they had until it's gone. It sounds childish, but hopefully that old saying doesn't prove true regarding the environmental challenges that we face today.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible does take a very hardline view on the environment when taken literally. When we think back to Karen Armstrong, it makes a lot of sense because people needed to explain the existence of things with very primitive understanding of the relationships within the environment and between humans and the environment. The correlation made between gender bias and the environment was interesting to read, but I don't buy into it. They are similar only in that they were both created by God, for man. The divergence of gender roles dates back far beyond the earliest biblical stories. The male centered, anthropocentric ideas resulted from thousands of years oral tradition, interpretation and reinterpretation. They mean something totally different today than 1500 years ago. We are more privileged only because we have the ability to see the destruction we cause and have the means to start correcting the problem.
ReplyDelete