Chris Jepson: Go Pope Francis

“No one has ever said that air pollution is intrinsically evil.” – Catholic League President Bill Donohue

And if one reads the Bible, murder, arguably isn’t either. Intrinsically is an interesting word for Mr. Donahue to employ. Something, let’s say “X,” is evil. It either is or is not. To suggest that something is intrinsically evil is to argue that it is essentially evil. Is Mr. Donahue suggesting that air pollution is a lesser form of evil?

Are there lesser categories of evil? In my world there are. Murdering one’s spouse in a fit of jealous rage is one form of evil, murdering whole populations (see: genocide) is quite another, such as what the Khmer Rouge conducted in Cambodia from 1975-78. Suicide is no doubt a “sin” in Mr. Donahue’s “universe.” Would my committing suicide by car exhaust (in an enclosed garage) be intrinsically evil to Mr. Donahue, yet unregulated environmental air pollution—affecting millions—is not? Things that make you go, “Hmmm?”

On June 14, Pope Francis released an encyclical on the environment and the poor. I welcome the pope’s input on the subject. I appreciate his perspective on how global climate change will specifically affect the world’s poor.

Pope Francis said earlier this year that, “It is man who has slapped nature in the face. I think we have exploited nature too much.” That, to me, seems unequivocal, accurate, candid and uncontroversial. How wrong I am on the “controversial” part.

Every imaginable American conservative (many Catholic) has come out of the woodwork to go on record that Pope Francis should “butt out” of this issue. They argue the pope has no credibility on climate change and should stick to matters of morality.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works suggested, “The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours.” This from the author of that intellectually rigorous classic, “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future” argues that the pope does not have the intellectual bona fides on this matter and should leave it to the politicians. Stay in his area of expertise—that being morality—in other words.

Another bright Republican light is the presidential candidate Rick Santorum (a Catholic) who said—of the pope announcing his intention to comment on climate change—that the church would, “be better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we're really good at, which is theology and morality.” Again, stick with morality, Pope Francis.

My favorite Catholic conservative is the indefatigable Bill Donahue. He argues that the pope should stay out of such environmental matters with some extremely convoluted reasoning. He said, “For example, are we God’s stewards? Are we supposed to take care of the Earth? Of course, that’s out of the Old Testament, it’s out of the New Testament, it’s totally unobjectionable.” But then goes on to say, “No one has ever said that air pollution is intrinsically evil.”

There are a number of reasons (primarily economic and regulatory) conservatives do not want the pope influencing the debate on the subject of climate change.

Because the Catholic Church got it so wrong in the past scientifically speaking doesn’t mean it shouldn’t use its moral authority today to identify what will impact us all, the unbridled, continuing exploitation, pollution and desecration of Mother Earth. Humanity is murdering our planet.

There is no greater moral issue of our times. Go Pope Francis.