The Environment, Poverty and Sustainable
Development: Reflections on our Common Responsibilities
“The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its
proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth,
the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with
creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment:
it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and
cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a
constant guiding criterion.” (World Day of Peace 2008)
Beginning with these words of Pope Benedict XVI, Lucia Ann
Silecchia, a graduate of the Law School at Yale University
and currently Professor of Law at the Catholic University of America ,
spoke on February 19 in the University Center on “The Environment,
Poverty and Sustainable Development: Reflections on our Common
Responsibilities.”
Podcast available at:
http://libraries.stjohns.edu/podcast/Silecchia_02_19_2009.mp3
This lecture was part of a series sponsored by the Rosalie Rendu
Roundtable on Religion and Science established by the Vincentian
Center for Church and Society in 2002 to encourage
interdisciplinary dialogue through the prism of social justice and
poverty.
“’Common Responsibilities’ is a phrase used by Pope John Paul II in
his discussions of ecological issues and is of interest to
lawyers,” stated Professor Silecchia. The notion of “common
but differentiated responsibilities” is a principle of
international law used to allocate treaty obligations with respect
to a number of ecological issues. However, she noted that
“while the law has the ability to effectuate changes, it needs a
moral heart as well.” This is the contribution that religion
and more specifically Catholic Social Thought (CST) can bring to
the deliberations.
After examining the close relationship of ecology and the economy
(both share the root Greek word “eco” meaning “home”),
Professor Silecchia offered a concise overview of the way in which
six traditional principles of Catholic social thought have been
applied to modern ecological questions. She examined each from the
perspective of the human person, and particularly the vulnerable
human person. She developed a strong argument that the
vulnerable human person (and by extension the most vulnerable
nation) who is most disproportionately affected, must be kept at
the forefront of environmental policy making if we are to meet our
“common responsibilities” and promote the “common good.”
Noting that her approach was derived from a moral and ethical
framework, she welcomed the questions and challenges of the
scientists, theologians and students present. Several
questions focused on the application of the principle of
“subsidiarity” as applied to a few complex issues of the
environment such as Love
Canal and the PCB clean up of the Hudson River. She noted the
need for community leadership. In both a literal and figurative
sense the question is: How can we encourage people upriver to
see the effects of their environmental decisions on the people
downriver?
Citing the CST principle that affirms the right to private property
but requires private property to be used for the common good, one
professor pointed out how intellectual property rights can
disadvantage the needs of many poor and developing nations. Another
professor cautioned that the political dimensions of the ecology
discussion may force solutions that are more short-term than
long-term. He pointed out that this can be seen now as the
“powers” of the US, China and India influence the distribution of
energy resources. Others in the group expressed a belief that the
most effective change will be achieved through local grassroots
organizations.
The principle that “obligations to future generations must
influence current environmental decision-making,” generated several
comments. Professor Silecchia added that the precedent exists
as the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 placed the needs of
future generations as one of the principles of its legislative
intent. Professor Silecchia suggested that environmental policy
might benefit from the practice in Trusts and Estates Law of
appointing a guardian for future beneficiaries. To this,
Barrett Brenton, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology and
Anthropology at St. John’s, observed that Native-American
decision-making requires consideration extending even to the next
seven generations.
The dialogue encouraged participants to examine the “larger view”
and relate the issues of the environment with the related issues of
poverty, agriculture and women’s issues. For example,
Professor Silecchia, noting her own experience as one of nine
Americans appointed to participate in the 2007 Vatican Conference
on Climate Change and Development, pointed out that the most
pressing issue of our time is that of access to potable
water. “This often ignored environmental issue
must be integrated into the discussion of the gender
dimensions of economic development because in some parts of our
earth, women and girls spend more than half of their day, securing
water for use in the family,” she explained.
A student questioned whether Catholic Social Thought could be
applied to decision-making about protecting endangered species of
plants. Professor Silecchia responded that CST requires that
each decision be seen in the context of how the ecosystem
serves the human person. She cautioned that we still do not
know how to measure the impact of many species on the human
community and environment. She further explained that under
the “Endangered Species Act,” a committee called the “God
Committee” was set up, to decide if a particular species could be
allowed to become extinct. This linking of the transcendent with
a “secular” public commission suggests awareness of the
Creator and the need to approach the environment, “the home of the
human family,” with reverence and in its totality.
Professor of Biology Frank Cantelmo, Ph.D., who moderated the
session, concluded it by encouraging the students to be involved
with issues of the environment. “We know what has to be done, we
are smart enough to get it done, but the frustration is—that it is
not being done.”