I did a double-take when I saw at Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) the title of their most recent editorial. I am not making this up:
Climate change is church’s No. 1 pro-life issue
Is there a face-palm icon?
If there is a certain wisdom in the pro-life assertion that other rights become meaningless if the right to life is not upheld, then it is reasonable to assert that the right to life has little meaning if the earth is destroyed to the point where life becomes unsustainable.
Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodríguez Maradiaga described the problem during a talk opening the Vatican conference. He described nature as neither separate from nor against humanity, but rather existing with humans. “No sin is more heartless than our blindness to the value of all that surrounds us and our persistence in using it at the wrong time and abusing it at all times.”
Okay, let us stipulate that there is climate change. That having been stipulated, it is unimaginably far more likely that a big asteroid out there will do us in before we can do anything about climate change on our own. A coronal mass ejection will take us out before acid rain does.
Let us not be taken in by the n to the nth power attempt by the catholic Left to distract us from abortion by rattling the shiny object of care for Earth.
They never lose an opportunity to diminish the primal significance of defending life from conception.
(NB: We have to acknowledge that a few of the writers at Fishwrap are solidly pro-life and give no quarter on abortion. Phyllis Zagano, for example, for all her goofy notions about ordination of women, has been, so far as I can tell, a defender of the unborn. She may not like men, but she defends our right to be born. I give her props for that.)
They want us to divert our resources, attention, and prayers to care of the planet as if that were of greater urgency than defense of the unborn, from conception.
BTW… we can do both. We can both care for the planet and defend the unborn.
But let us circle back to something upon which the editors of the Fishwrap hang their claim.
“No sin is more heartless“… than not caring for the environment in the way that they think it must be cared for? Thus, NSR to say that “Climate change is church’s No. 1 pro-life issue”.
No sin is more heartless than not fighting climate change? Really?
Without even engaging my brain, I can think of a few sins that are more heartless. We could, first of all, consult the classic list of “sins that cry to heaven“. Hint: ignoring climate change isn’t among them.
Heartless? How about the slaughter of 6 million Jews? Serial rape? Exploitation of the poor? Human trafficking. Child labor?
How about sexual abuse of minors by priests?
We could list many others, and they are of far greater urgency than hand-wringing and truisms about climate change, over which we exercise infinitesimally small influence.
The Fishwrap editorial reminds me of the logic of those maniacs who see humanity as a parasite on Gaia, and who would stand by as vast numbers went back into the earth so that Earth and the innocent animals could once again flourish without the repression of blind, heartless humanity. Fewer births! More TLC for Mother Earth! The population bomb is ticking!