What the Holy See Is Telling the UN Rio+20

What the Holy See Is Telling the UN (Part 1)
Archbishop Chullikatt Explains Rio+20

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, JUNE 27, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, the permanent observer of the Holy See's Mission to the United Nations, participated last week in a major UN conference in Brazil, Rio+20.

He explained to us both the conference itself, and the message the Holy See tried to promote there.

Part 2 of this interview will be published Thursday.

ZENIT: What is Rio+20?

Archbishop Chullikatt: It is the short name for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20-22 June 2012. It marks the 20th Anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which also was held in Rio de Janeiro (the so-called Earth Summit). The scope of Rio+20 was to foster truly sustainable social, economic and environmental development for our planet and for present and future generations.

ZENIT: How was it organized?

Archbishop Chullikatt: It was organized within the United Nations system pursuant to General Assembly Resolutions 64/236 and 66/197 and was envisaged as a UN Conference which would bring together world leaders along with thousands of participants from governments, with a view to reducing poverty, advancing social equity and ensuring environmental protection. The Conference was attended by many Heads of State/Government, several intergovernmental organizations, such as the European Union, the African Union, the Group of Latin American Countries, the private sector and numerous Non-Governmental Organizations. Also present at the Conference were a good number of Catholic non-governmental organizations active in civil society, both in Brazil and internationally, who support the Holy See and work at the grass-roots level with communities in need.

Prior to the commencement of the Conference, there were a series of three preparatory meetings and a number of informal meetings where the final Outcome Document was negotiated and ultimately agreed upon (A/CONF.216/L.1, dated 19 June 2012).

ZENIT: What is the nature and structure of the Outcome Document and what themes were discussed?

Archbishop Chullikatt: The Outcome Document was formally adopted by the Conference on Friday night, 22 June 2012. It is a non-binding document entitled “The Future We Want”. It is 49 pages long with 283 paragraphs divided into six parts. Part I: Our Common Vision; Part II: Renewing Political Commitment; Part III: Green Economy in the Context of Sustainable Development and Poverty eradication; Part IV: Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development; Part V: Framework for Action and Follow-up; VI Means of Implementation.

Rio+20 focused on issues mentioned above and various priority areas including, among others, decent jobs, energy, sustainable cities, food security and sustainable agriculture, water, oceans and disaster readiness.

ZENIT: What is the Holy See’s Position on these themes?

Archbishop Chullikatt: The Holy See underlined its key priorities for the Rio+ 20 Conference in two “Position Papers” which were presented to the first and third Preparatory Committees of the Conference for its consideration:

http://www.holyseemission.org/statements/statement.aspx?id=385;http://www.holyseemission.org/statements/statement.aspx?id=383

In addition, the Holy See further outlined its vision for sustainable development during a Side-Event held during the Conference and in its formal intervention to the Plenary of the Conference.

http://www.holyseemission.org/pdf/Remarks%20of%20Cardinal%20Scherer.pdf

http://www.holyseemission.org/statements/statement.aspx?id=385

Q: Which were the issues of particular concern raised by the Holy See?

Archbishop Chullikatt: The Centrality of Human Beings in Sustainable Development

The Holy See underscored the many threats to the human family and its earthly home. It emphasized that the human person stands at the centre of the created world, and therefore, at the centre of sustainable development. In this way, it reaffirmed the first principle of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

The rights to water and sanitation, food, basic health care and education are intrinsically linked to the right to life, survival and development. These rights are at the service of the human person and the family.

The Need for a Profound and Farsighted Review of Development

From this perspective, the key principles which must permeate sustainable development policies include: responsibility, promotion and sharing in the common good, access to primary goods, universal solidarity capable of acknowledging the unity of the human family, protection of creation linked to intergenerational equity and solidarity, universal destination of goods as well as the fruits of human enterprise, and finally, subsidiarity, which enables public authorities from the local level to the highest institutions, to operate effectively for the enhancement of each person and family, the protection of resources and the promotion of the common good.

When such principles are applied at the international level, especially in relation to the transfer of technology to developing countries, the promotion of a more just global financial system and increasing aid-for-development, they should place inherent human dignity, integral human development, the family, the common good, the solidarity and safeguarding of the environment at the centre of economic activity.

The Need for an Integrally Human Model of Development with Ethical and Moral Dimensions

The ongoing economic and financial crisis must also take into consideration the moral and cultural crisis. Admittedly, it is a complex challenge to move from a merely technological model of development to an integrally human model, which takes as its point of departure the inherent dignity and worth of the human person and his/her fundamental social dimension which is the family. In the end, it is people who are charged with stewardship over nature; but as with everything human, this stewardship necessarily possesses an ethical dimension.

The Green Economy, Human Dignity, Integral Human Development and the Family

The Conference sought to place the notion of the so-called “green economy” primarily at the intersection between environment and development. A good number of the developing countries, especially from Africa, while sometimes suspicious of so-called “environment-friendly green economic policy” and the challenges it may place on developing countries which lack access to more environmentally friendly technologies and sources of energy, demanded that such a policy be accompanied by an enhanced and more coordinated support from the developed countries. These developing countries sought capacity building, technology transfer, funding and technical support, as well as closing of technology-gaps between developed and developing countries.

In the end, for a green economy to succeed it must be applied in an inclusive manner, directing it clearly to the promotion of the common good and the eradication of poverty on the local level, an element which is essential to the attainment of sustainable development. In other words, we need to forge an alliance between environment and development, which should benefit each and every human person. Therefore, in order to put this green economy in its right perspective, the Holy See emphasized that the “green economy” must be anchored in principles that are essential in effectively promoting respect for the inherent dignity of every human person, for integral human development and for the institution of the family, based on the marriage of one man and one woman, the natural and fundamental group unit of society (cf. UDHR, art. 16, ICCPR, art. 23, ICESCR, art. 10).

ZE12062807 - 2012-06-28
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-35104?l=english

WHAT THE HOLY SEE IS TELLING THE UN (PART 2)

Archbishop Chullikatt Explains Rio+20

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, JUNE 28, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, the permanent observer of the Holy See's Mission to the United Nations, participated last week in a major UN conference in Brazil, Rio+20.

He explained to us both the conference itself, and the message the Holy See tried to promote there.

Part 1 of this interview was published on Wednesday

ZENIT: How is the Family relevant for sustainable development?

Archbishop Chullikatt: It is the family where life, survival and development begin, and where children are first educated to adopt a vocational and ethical attitude, which freely assumes responsibility, in genuine solidarity with one another and all of creation. The uniqueness of the institution of the family, the legal obligation to protect it, and its importance for sustainable development, poverty eradication and the green economy may be summarized as follows:

The family is a community of solidarity

The family is a community of love, harmony and solidarity, based on the enduring bond of communion between the husband and wife, which is uniquely suited by its nature to give birth to children, teach respect, distinction and complementarity between the two sexes and transmit the cultural, ethical, social, spiritual, and religious values, essential for the integral development and well-being of children, of extended family relations, and of society. (Preamble E, Charter on the Rights of the Family)

The family is a unique social institution

The family is an unrepeatable social institution that cultivates within its members a sense of their inherent dignity, from which rights and duties derive. It also develops each member’s sense of acquired dignity, which comes to fulfilment through a fully and harmonious developed personality, gradually formed and educated in authentic freedom and responsible life in society.

The family is enriched by inter/intra-generational relationships

The family is enriched and extended by inter-generational solidarity and inter/intra-generational transmission of values which assist members to grow in human wisdom to appreciate a sustainable comprehensive management of the environment, natural resources, and the universal destination of goods, while ensuring that the inherent dignity of the human person is not violated in attempts to preserve the environment.

The family is a principal agent of peace

The family is a principal agent of peace where the same love that nurtures its members, and builds and maintains unity and harmony in the family, is vital to the building of peace in society.

The family is an economic unit

The family is an economic unit which naturally produces and forms human capital and provides workers, consumers, and service providers, especially for its most vulnerable members.

It is deeply unfortunate that the aforementioned role of the family has not been fully recognized in the Outcome Document despite having been proposed many times by the delegation of the Holy See.

ZENIT: What are your key concerns regarding the Outcome document?

Archbishop Chullikatt: The Outcome Document is the result of a series of complex multilateral negotiations which lasted almost a year. It is not a perfect document. However, the international community, with the required political will and through strict implementation of the applicable measures, can render it fruitful.

The negotiations of the Outcome Document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development provided a unique opportunity for the Holy See and for all members of the Catholic community to gather in Rio to articulate a message for the international community, which moves from a charity or concern for our fellow brothers and sisters rooted in self-interest or sentimentality to one which fosters deep love and genuine solidarity for all our brothers and sisters around the world.

During negotiations, movement was slow on certain sections of the outcome document where deep tensions emerged on international economic and financial realities. Inequalities between regions, especially in Africa, put pressure on certain delegations, especially those of the developed world, to concretely demonstrate solidarity by realistically striving to eradicate poverty and hunger as the primary obstacles to development.

The Outcome Document should have adopted measures to transfer suitable technologies to the local level, to promote a more equitable and inclusive global market, to respect commitments made to provide aid-development, and to find new ways to put human dignity, the common good and the protection of creation at the center of economic life.

In addition, there is concern in regard to the meaning and application of certain concepts. While notions such as “green economy” could provide an opportunity to produce and create new avenues for greater care of the environment, we must recognize that technological solutions unaccompanied by just, ethical and responsible considerations and involvement of local communities will not assist the poor.

Those applying the Rio+20 Outcome Document must put the wellbeing of the human person at the center of concern of sustainable development. Such an approach will help to avoid, among other things, the risks of reductionist and sterile neo-malthusian approaches, which view human beings as obstacles to development, an inherently flawed vision which some delegations of developed nations attempted to weave into the Outcome Document.

There is no conflict between human beings and their development. In order to eradicate poverty and hunger we need to empower the human person. We must encourage peoples and nations to shape their own future, “a future they need”, in accordance with their dignity, religious beliefs, cultures and proven traditions.

Regrettably, some delegations promoted the dubious notion of "sexual and reproductive rights". Fortunately, this expression does not appear in the document. This approach to sustainable development would have undermined the First Principle of Rio, namely: that the human being is at the centre of sustainable development. The human being is always an end in himself, and sustainable development is the means which serves that end.  Any anti-life policy is anti-development. Any policy promoting abortion or abortifacients masquerading as contraceptives, fails in the same way by attacking the right to life in the safest sanctuary of the womb, and the health of the woman whose body created this home. In the end, such a policy is not at the service of health, children, their mothers or the family but amounts to violence against women and children and the family.

The Holy See gave a Statement of Position which takes issue with vague and ambiguous wording contained in the Outcome Document. For the Holy See, the term “sexual and reproductive health,” found in the document, should be applied to a holistic concept of health that embraces the person in the entirety of his or her personality, mind and body, and which fosters the achievement of personal maturity in sexuality and in the mutual love and decision making that characterizes the conjugal relationship in accordance with the norms of the natural moral order.

Moreover, unfortunately, the Outcome Document of this Conference neglected the fundamental role that religious organizations play in promoting sustainable development. Religious institutions, such as those of the Catholic Church, play a fundamental role in educating people on the need to love and care for the poor out of love and solidarity. In addition, these institutions provide education to millions of children around the world so that they can be productive and responsible members of society and future leaders of our countries. Moreover, religious organizations also play a vital role of living in solidarity with the most vulnerable persons in society and providing a voice to the voiceless. Failure to fully engage religious institutions in order to achieve a human centred sustainable development is a failure to recognize the true nature of the human person and recognize the innate spiritual dimension of individuals and society.

In addition, it is important to understand that the poor and developing countries arrived at the Conference with a lot of expectations. They sought assistance, solidarity and expertise, especially at the social, financial and economic levels from their brothers and sisters of developed nations. However, many felt disillusioned that the Outcome Document of this Conference failed to deliver for them.  Governments need to make good on their promises; otherwise a prosperous and better future will always remain a dream for the most vulnerable persons in the world.

In conclusion, new development models created or promoted as a result of this recently concluded Conference must be respectful of the human person and promote a more just and caring international community. Moreover, such models should be guided by the principles I mentioned earlier regarding the Holy See’s position on this issue. While political debate is necessary, willingness to live and work in solidarity with our brothers and sisters around the world is needed, otherwise sustainable development will forever remain a distant and unrealized dream. The world has changed a great deal since the first Rio Conference but despite the progress, far too many children go without food, far too many families see their homes and communities destroyed by man-made and environmental catastrophes, and far too many people are depressed, disappointed and disillusioned. Now is the time for governments to recognize that sustainable development starts with the human person and his/her family. This is the way to build “a future we need.” This is the way to true progress.

This is the way to a more just and equitable world for all.

Holy See to UN Climate Change Conference

"The Way Humanity Treats the Environment Influences the Way It Treats Itself"
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, DEC. 18, 2009 ( Zenit.org ).- Here is the statement Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See at the United Nations, delivered Thursday to the U.N. conference on climate change, currently under way in Copenhagen. Archbishop Migliore is head of the Holy See delegation to the meeting.

* * *

Mr President,

This conference reiterates how long it takes to create the clear and firm political will necessary to adopt common binding measures and adequate budgets for an effective mitigation and adaptation to ongoing climate change.

Is this political will slow in taking shape due to the complexity of the interlinking issues that we must tackle? Is it mainly a problem of conflicting national interests? Or is it the difficulty in translating into numbers the by-now acquired principle of common and differentiated responsibility? Or is it still the predominance of energy policies over care of the environment? Undoubtedly, there is a little of all of this.

However, it should be noted how the many considerations that are being developed during this process converge on a central aspect: the necessity of a new and deeper reflection on the meaning of the economy and its purposes, and a profound and far-reaching revision of the model for development, to correct the malfunctions and distortions. This, in fact, is required by the good ecological health of the planet and especially as an urgent response to the cultural and moral crisis of man, whose symptoms have long been evident all over the world.

With realism, trust and hope we must assume the new responsibilities which call us to the scene of a world in need of a deep cultural renewal and a rediscovery of fundamental values on which to build a better future. The moral crises that humanity is currently experiencing, be they economic, nutritional, environmental, or social -- all deeply interlinked -- oblige us to redesign our way, to establish new guidelines and to find new forms of engagement. These crises become thus the occasion for discernment and new thinking.

Obviously, this obligation requires the collection of detailed and accurate scientific analysis to help avoid the anxieties and fears of many and the cynicism and indifference on the part of others. It also requires the responsible involvement of all segments of human society to search for and discover an adequate response to the tangible reality of climate change. If the diagnosis -- by force of circumstances in the hands of science, information and politics -- finds it difficult to provide clarity and to motivate the concerted and timely action of those responsible for human society, reason and the innate sense of shared responsibility of the people once again must prevail.

Civil society and local authorities did not wait for the expected political and legally binding conclusions of our meetings, which take such an incredibly long time. Instead, individuals, groups, local authorities and communities have already begun an impressive series of initiatives to give form to the two cornerstones of the response to climate change: adaptation and mitigation. While technical solutions are necessary, they are not sufficient. The wisest and most effective programs focus on information, education, and the formation of the sense of responsibility in children and adults towards environmentally sound patterns of development and stewardship of creation.

These initiatives have already started to build up a mosaic of experiences and achievements marked by a widespread ecological conversion. These new attitudes and behaviors have the potential to create the necessary intra-generational and inter-generational solidarity and dispel any sterile sense of fear, apocalyptic terror, overbearing control and hostility towards humanity that are multiplied in media accounts and other reports.

Mr President,

The Holy See, in the albeit small state of Vatican City, also is making significant efforts to take a lead in environmental protection by promoting and implementing energy diversification projects targeted at the development of renewable energy, with the objective of reducing emissions of CO2 and its consumption of fossil fuels.

In addition, the Holy See is giving substance to the necessity to disseminate an education in environmental responsibility, which also seeks to safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic human ecology. Many Catholic educational institutions are engaged in promoting such a model of education, both in schools and in universities. Moreover, Episcopal Conferences, Dioceses, parishes and faith-based NGOs have been devoted to advocacy and management of ecological programs for a number of years.

These efforts are about working on lifestyles, as the current dominant models of consumption and production are often unsustainable from the point of view of social, environmental, economic and even moral analysis. We must safeguard creation -- soil, water and air -- as a gift entrusted to everyone, but we must also and above all prevent mankind from destroying itself. The degradation of nature is directly connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when the human ecology is respected within society, the environmental ecology will benefit. The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself.

In his recent encyclical "Caritas in Veritate" and World Day of Peace Message 2010 Pope Benedict XVI addressed to all those involved in the environmental sector an inescapable question: how can we hope that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves?

Mr President,

Environment and climate change entail a shared responsibility toward all humanity, especially the poor and future generations.

There is an inseparable link between the protection of creation, education and an ethical approach to the economy and development. The Holy See hopes that the process in question can ever more appreciate this link and, with this outlook, continues to give its full cooperation.

Thank you, Mr President.

WORLD DAY OF PEACE: BENEDICT XVI PRESENTS A COSMIC VISION OF PEACE

WORLD DAY OF PEACE






VATICAN CITY, 15 DEC 2009 (VIS) - Today in the Holy See Press Office Cardinal Renato Martino, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and Bishop Mario Toso S.D.B., secretary of the same dicastery, presented the Pope's Message for the forty-third World Day of Peace, which is due to be celebrated on 1 January 2010. The Message has as its theme: "If You Want To Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation".



In his remarks the cardinal recalled how, in previous Messages, Benedict XVI had spoken of peace as "a gift of God in Truth" (2006), as "the fruit of respect for the human person" (2007), as "an expression of the communion of the human family" and as "a call to eliminate all forms of poverty, material and immaterial" (2009). Thus, he went on, "following this ideal 'itinerary of peace', the Pope comes to the context in which humanity receives its vocation to peace: the creation".



In his Message this year the Pope presents "a cosmic vision of peace" a peace which "comes about in a state of harmony between God, humankind and the creation. In this perspective, environmental degradation is an expression not only of a break in the harmony between humankind and the creation, but of a profound deterioration in the unity between humankind and God", said the cardinal.



The Holy Father highlights the "urgent need for action", although he "does not propose technical solutions and does not seek to interfere in the policy of governments. Rather, he recalls the Church's commitment to defending the earth" and enumerates a series of "perspectives for the shared progress of humankind". This series includes "a non-reductive vision of the nature of human beings", a call to collective responsibility, and "a profound revision of development models".



Cardinal Martino also explained how the text of the papal Message calls for a coherent approach to "the universal destination of the goods of creation" and underlines "the need for renewed solidarity, extended over space and time, between generations" and "between developed and developing countries, while at the same time avoiding partial viewpoints that tend to exaggerate certain responsibilities more than others". Finally, the cardinal noted, the Pope calls "for a balanced use of energy resources".



Benedict XVI concludes his message with an "expression of hope in the intelligence and dignity of man" tracing "a path of profound harmony, both interior and exterior, between the Creator, humankind and the creation", said Cardinal Martino.



In conclusion, the president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace noted the Pope's deliberate decision to dedicate his Message this year to the theme of ecology, as it coincides with the thirtieth anniversary of the proclamation of St. Francis of Assisi , author of the 'Laudes Creaturarum', as patron saint of the environment. "Love for the creation, if projected onto a spiritual horizon, can lead mankind to brotherhood with his fellows and to union with God", he said.

OP/MESSAGE PEACE/MARTINO VIS 091215 (500)



MESSAGE FOR WORLD DAY OF PEACE



VATICAN CITY , 15 DEC 2009 ( VIS ) - The Message of Pope Benedict XVI for the celebration of the forty-third World Day of Peace was made public today. the Day is due to be celebrated on 1 January 2010 and has as its theme: "If You Want To Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation".



Extracts from the English-language translation of the Message are given below:



Man's inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace and to authentic and integral human development - wars, international and regional conflicts, acts of terrorism, and violations of human rights. Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect - if not downright misuse - of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us. For this reason, it is imperative that mankind renew and strengthen "that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying".



In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an "ecological crisis" and ... pointed to the "urgent moral need for a new solidarity". His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of "environmental refugees", people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it - and often their possessions as well - in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development.



The ecological crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from ... the notion of development itself and our understanding of man in his relationship to others and to the rest of creation. Prudence would thus dictate a profound, long-term review of our model of development, one which would take into consideration the meaning of the economy and its goals with an eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications. The ecological health of the planet calls for this, but it is also demanded by the cultural and moral crisis of humanity whose symptoms have for some time been evident in every part of the world.



Our present crises ... are ultimately also moral crises, and all of them are interrelated. They require us to rethink the path which we are travelling together. Specifically, they call for a lifestyle marked by sobriety and solidarity, with new rules and forms of engagement, one which focuses confidently and courageously on strategies that actually work, while decisively rejecting those that have failed. Only in this way can the current crisis become an opportunity for discernment and new strategic planning.



Environmental degradation is often due to the lack of far-sighted official policies or to the pursuit of myopic economic interests, which then, tragically, become a serious threat to creation. ... When making use of natural resources, we should be concerned for their protection and consider the cost entailed - environmentally and socially - as an essential part of the overall expenses incurred. The international community and national governments are responsible for sending the right signals in order to combat effectively the misuse of the environment. To protect the environment, and to safeguard natural resources and the climate, there is a need to act in accordance with clearly-defined rules, also from the juridical and economic standpoint, while at the same time taking into due account the solidarity we owe to those living in the poorer areas of our world and to future generations.



A greater sense of inter-generational solidarity is urgently needed. ... Natural resources should be used in such a way that immediate benefits do not have a negative impact on living creatures, human and not, present and future; that the protection of private property does not conflict with the universal destination of goods; that human activity does not compromise the fruitfulness of the earth, for the benefit of people now and in the future.



There is an urgent moral need for a renewed sense of intra-generational solidarity, especially in relationships between developing countries and highly-industrialised countries. ... The ecological crisis shows the urgency of a solidarity which embraces time and space. It is important to acknowledge that among the causes of the present ecological crisis is the historical responsibility of the industrialised countries. Yet the less-developed countries, and emerging countries in particular, are not exempt from their own responsibilities with regard to creation, for the duty of gradually adopting effective environmental measures and policies is incumbent upon all. This would be accomplished more easily if self-interest played a lesser role in the granting of aid and the sharing of knowledge and cleaner technologies.



To be sure, among the basic problems which the international community has to address is that of energy resources and the development of joint and sustainable strategies to satisfy the energy needs of the present and future generations. This means that technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency. At the same time there is a need to encourage research into, and utilisation of, forms of energy with lower impact on the environment and "a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them".



A sustainable comprehensive management of the environment and the resources of the planet demands that human intelligence be directed to technological and scientific research and its practical applications. The "new solidarity" for which John Paul II called ... and the "global solidarity" for which I myself appealed in my Message for the 2009 World Day of Peace are essential attitudes in shaping our efforts to protect creation through a better internationally-coordinated management of the earth's resources, particularly today, when there is an increasingly clear link between combating environmental degradation and promoting integral human development.



There is a need, in effect, to move beyond a purely consumerist mentality in order to promote forms of agricultural and industrial production capable of respecting creation and satisfying the primary needs of all. The ecological problem must be dealt with not only because of the chilling prospects of environmental degradation on the horizon; the real motivation must be the quest for authentic worldwide solidarity inspired by the values of charity, justice and the common good.



It is becoming more and more evident that the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our lifestyle and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view. ... We are all responsible for the protection and care of the environment. This responsibility knows no boundaries. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity it is important for everyone to be committed at his or her proper level, working to overcome the prevalence of particular interests. A special role in raising awareness and in formation belongs to the different groups present in civil society and to the non-governmental organisations which work with determination and generosity for the spread of ecological responsibility, responsibility which should be ever more deeply anchored in respect for "human ecology".



The Church has a responsibility towards creation, and she considers it her duty to exercise that responsibility in public life, in order to protect earth, water and air as gifts of God the Creator meant for everyone, and above all to save mankind from the danger of self-destruction. ... Our duties towards the environment flow from our duties towards the person, considered both individually and in relation to others. Hence I readily encourage efforts to promote a greater sense of ecological responsibility which, as I indicated in my Encyclical "Caritas in Veritate", would safeguard an authentic "human ecology" and thus forcefully reaffirm the inviolability of human life at every stage and in every condition, the dignity of the person and the unique mission of the family, where one is trained in love of neighbour and respect for nature.



On the other hand, a correct understanding of the relationship between man and the environment will not end by absolutising nature or by considering it more important than the human person. If the Church's Magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by eco-centrism and bio-centrism, it is because such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the "dignity" of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms.



If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation. The quest for peace by people of good will surely would become easier if all acknowledge the indivisible relationship between God, human beings and the whole of creation. In the light of divine Revelation and in fidelity to the Church's Tradition, Christians have their own contribution to make. They contemplate the cosmos and its marvels in light of the creative work of the Father and the redemptive work of Christ, who by His death and resurrection has reconciled with God "all things, whether on earth or in heaven".

MESS/WORLD PEACE DAY 2010/... VIS 091215 (1640)