Mary Kenny“The danger area of modern environmentalism is not the love of nature, but a hatred of people”, writes Mary Kenny
Pope Francis’ encyclical on climate change, Laudato Si, has been widely welcomed and much praised. And everything he says about caring for our earth is quite right – as is his concern for the poor, and those exploited by the rich.
Yet the notion that we are stewards of God’s creation, which must be treated respectfully, is not new, and has long been part of Christian tradition. Farmers and fishermen have always known that natural resources must not be plundered, but replenished and recycled.
Granted, there have been some bishops who were concerned that love of nature could tilt into pantheism, and a pagan worship of nature: St Francis himself was within an ace of being denounced for veering in that direction.
The danger area of modern environmentalism is not the love of nature, but a hatred of people, and it wasn’t long before the Pope’s encyclical was prompting comment to the effect that the greatest enemy of the environment is population. Green movements everywhere are bent on reducing the population by all means possible, and Greens are usually unstinting supporters of abortion and euthanasia.
Germany has the most successful Green movement politically, and indeed, Germany is reducing its population so rapidly that it now has the lowest birth-rate in the world.
A German scientist and climate change crusader, Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber, has been the Vatican’s advisor on matters environmental, and some see in this, a worrying influence.
I’m sure Pope Francis can make up his own mind, but Prof. Schnellnhuber’s contribution to Vatican policy is regarded as significant just the same.
The New York Times is the darling of the liberal commentariat in this country: during the same-sex marriage referendum, we were reminded that we didn’t want Ireland disgraced as anti-progressive on its front pages.
But it was The New York Times which disgraced itself, with a horrible commentary on the tragic deaths of the young Irish students at Berkeley. Referring to the “thousands” of Irish students on summer work visas, the newspaper wrote that: “the work-visa programme that allowed for the exchanges has in recent years become not just a source of aspiration, but also a source of embarrassment for Ireland, marked by a series of high-profile episodes involving drunken partying and the wrecking of apartments in places like San Francisco and Santa Barbara.”
This was not just odiously insensitive at a time of grief, but rotten journalism – rushing to judgement, and to a wrong judgement. It has emerged that that balcony collapsed because of dry rot. Wrong call, NYT.
What our pets say about us
According to a study published in Paris-Match, Europe is divided on the issue of pets. Northern European countries prefer cats, whereas southern Europeans favour dogs. By this measure, Ireland falls into the ‘southern European’ camp: Ireland chooses dogs.
The pet question could also be deconstructed according to faith divisions. It could be said that Protestant countries are attached to cats (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany) while Catholic countries prefer dogs: Ireland, Poland, Spain, Portugal. Is this because doggies are emotional and warm-hearted, whereas cats are cool and reserved? Or because in some Latin countries cats are still seen as sinister, while dogs have long been working animals who assisted humankind?
Yet there are some anomalies. France, historically Catholic, favours the feline – but that so suits the French personality. Austria is also a cat-country. Italy and Belgium prefer birds as pets. The United Kingdom likes dogs and cats equally.
The preferences are no doubt linked, as well, with climate and tradition: but then the way that Christianity divided after Luther also had some parallel links.