Concern for Our Common Home

Ecology is a word we are all familiar but that was not always the case. We now realize the harm done to nature returns to harm us and many are crying out to take care of our common home and respect and care for what we have been given. There are degrees of urgency seen in the proposals but still many see it as a non-issue.

How many of us are conscious of the 'light pollution' that is part of our daily life and will continue to grow. We like comfort and ease that has enabled great progress but we don't realize the price we pay.

 

The Catholic News Weekly in Light of the World column helps the readers to appreciate some of the issues involved.  

 

In 1962, during the Cold War era, society was pouring everything into post-war recovery and economic growth, Rachel Carson, an American writer, and environmentalist, wrote The Silent Spring. A classic in the environmental field, this work explains environmental destruction and human greed under the theme of reckless development and destruction, chemical use, and nuclear waste. It also warns that pollutants and harmful chemicals will threaten not only plants and animals, but also humans, and emphasizes the need for a civilization that lives with nature, not just for convenience and pleasure.

What's interesting is the title 'Silent Spring', why is it silent? The silence of spring symbolizes two things. First, it means broken nature and ecology, and second, it means ecosystems and environments that do not work. Furthermore, the silence of spring will lead to the silence of life— death, and devastation. Humans and nature are closely connected and deeply influence each other.

When referring to the environment, the two words eco and environment are quite different. The English word environment means our surroundings, the external situation. The English word 'eco', means ecology, nature, and habitat, (way of life) not just the environment. 'Eco' comes from the Greek word "Oikos", meaning home or place to live— based on the fact that nature and humans are connected as one body. 

 

Therefore, the two words essentially contain differences in the way they view ecology and the environment. The environment is a human-centered concept that can be limited to plants and animals being used and controlled. 'Eco' nature is very close to humans and humans are healthy only when nature is healthy. In the past, nature had mythical attributes and was worshiped, but in modern society, it has become an object of use and exploitation.

Ecology emphasizes the responsibility and vocation to care for and cultivate God's created nature and the world, in which humans humbly view themselves as a part of nature. We are talking about doing the right thing together. Isn't that the beginning of establishing the correct thinking about nature and life? 

 

Recently, we have seen shocking images of a beach on Jejudo Island, famous for its beauty. They were shown on TV and SNS after tourists visited the area and enjoyed its beauty. The beach was a mess with empty bottles of alcohol, and all kinds of garbage left behind. Local residents cleaned up the stench from the mess and appealed that visitors clean up after eating. 

But is it just a concern for summer vacation? Shopping and excessive consumption are increasing, plus the use of disposable items, and waste increases. Our common home, Earth, is getting sick with trash and garbage. Now, it is not the level of environmental pollution and destruction, but the degree of environmental disaster we are experiencing. Actions are urgent. Again, it requires our will and effort to accept inconveniences and difficulties and to respect our neighbors and nature at the same time.

The biblical message and the Church's Magisterium represent the essential reference points for evaluating the problems found in the relationship between humans and the environment. The underlying cause of these problems can be seen in man's pretension of exercising unconditional dominion over things, heedless of any moral considerations which, on the contrary, must distinguish all human activity (#461 Compendium of Social Principles).

Was Jesus a Liberal or Conservative?

 

Was Jesus a liberal or conservative? Each will answer in the way each sees the world and select from the many words and deeds of Jesus to bolster their already formed opinion. It was very clear that he was opposed both by the conservatives and liberals of his day: Pharisees and Sadducees. They both joined together in killing him.

Jesus was for truth and that is not easily categorized as left or right, progressive or traditional, presented often in the media as an ideological conflict.  

The conservatives see the liberals as lacking in spirituality, morality, respect for tradition, and common sense while liberals see the conservatives as lacking compassion, understanding of justice, and being filled with bigotry and selfishness. This type of stereotyping is of no help in working for the common good of society.

It is often easy to put the liberals under one heading and the conservatives in another but that is not reality. We have the ultra-liberal, the liberal, the moderate, the conservative, the ultra-conservative, and countless degrees of adherence and adjectives that describe each position.

Besides these divisions we have: rich and poor, religions, philosophies, political positions, etc. A priest writing for a diocesan weekly bulletin wants to examine the left and right divisions which is one of the most divisive in our present world society and in Korea.

He goes back to the French Revolution where the parliament had the revolutionary party on the left and the ones supporting the king on the right. The present distinctions are not so easily made. He sees the left emphasizing government intervention to achieve economic equality and progress while the conservatives fight for freedom in economics and order in society.

However, when we add ultra to each of these divisions the criticism and divisions intensify. In a small landmass like Korea, school relationships, regional and blood relationships added to the political divisions makes the opposition more pronounced. We can't say this is the majority but a minority that talks as if they are the majority.

It is not easy to say what is true or false. However, it is necessary to emphasize that acceptance and compromise are necessary if the common good is to be in some way realized—especially the case here in Korea with the North-South Divide.

Therefore, we, who believe in and follow the Lord, are members of his team, who understand, forgive, and accept others, rather than slandering and pushing them away. We are the first to extend our hand in friendship, hoping and working for a new beginning.

Left and Right Reconciliation within the Church

 

Bible and Life magazine on the Mass readings for the feast of St. Pontian and St. Hippolytus are meaningful especially these days. These two saints died together in exile during the persecution in the 3rd century. Yesterday was their feast day. 

In the meditation, the writer mentions how on one occasion he was talking to a fellow priest about the future of the church in Korea. It was a heated discussion with raised voices that ended awkwardly. For some time they never made contact. Later they met at a retreat they both were making. In the discussion on church matters, both different in their approach but very much together in their love and concern for the church, made up for their quarrel. 

Korea does not have the kind of church conflicts exposed in the way other countries are experiencing. The progressive and conservative dynamics of much of the Catholic world are managed rather charitably.

St. Pontian and St. Hippolytus were in conflict on what to do with sinners who wanted to return to the church, these included especially those who gave in to the demands of the Romans and sacrificed to the pagan gods to save their lives. Hippolytus thought their sin was so great they could not return. 

During the pontificates of popes who preceded Pontian, Hippolytus left the community of the Roman Church and had himself elected antipope by his small band of followers. He is considered the first of the antipopes in history. (An antipope is a person in opposition to the legitimately elected Pope, makes a significant attempt to occupy the position of Bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church)

The Church at that time was divided into two camps: those who allowed such Christians to return, after a period of penance and those who believed that their sin was so grave that they could never return. The Sacrament of Reconciliation was not fully developed, a reason for the difference of opinion.

Pontian was among those who were open to their return. Hippolytus took the firm stand that such return was impossible, putting himself in open and hostile opposition to the Pope. 

In time, they recognized that this controversy caused great harm to the Church. In addition, Hippolytus showed great humility by seeking reconciliation with the Pope. These are lessons we should reflect upon in our own age. While the differences within the Church raise important questions and may even pose great challenges, they must never lead to divisions or worse. 

Pope Pontian was elected in 230 and was able to reconcile with Hippolytus and restore unity to the Church. At the restart of the persecution of the Christians, Pontian and Hippolytus were exiled to Sardinia, where they both died working in the mines. Before his arrest, Pontian stepped down from his role as pope so that the Christian community could select another leader in his absence. Here we have two saints: the first antipope and the first pope to resign, whose love for the church moved them to think more of the church than themselves. 

 

Double Standard Used for Life

 

The number of households living with pets is increasing. Walking the streets, you often meet people with their pets. As relationships with animals become more familiar, social resentment against animal abuse and abandonment is growing. So begins a column in the Catholic Peace Weekly by a bioethicist.

Thanks to this social atmosphere, the Ministry of Justice recently stepped up efforts to protect and respect animals as living creatures and improve their legal status. Article 98-2 of the Civil Code decided to include the clause: "Animal is not an object." If the amendment passes the National Assembly, animals will be recognized for their legal status. The level of punishment for animal abuse is expected to be strengthened.

When she heard the news, she was greatly moved. "Why can't we grant the same rights to the fetus when we improve the legal status of animals to protect and respect them as living things." The double standard of capitulation in one and accepting aborting the fetus in the other is incomprehensible.

Animals are increasingly being treated like humans; sad that fetuses are increasingly treated worse than animals. It seems appropriate to protect animals by strengthening punishment for abusing and abandoning them. But why is the standard silent about the pain a fetus suffers in the abortion process?
 
We often meet people passionately in favor of abortion, claiming to be advocates of animal rights. Among them are those who want to amend the law to allow abortion in all circumstances until just before birth. It is natural to give charity to animals suffering from injury, disability, or abuse, but it is argued that abortions should be allowed to humans with disabilities until just before childbirth.

The dogma of abortion rights can obscure human reason and strengthen the human mind to the extent that those who sympathize with animal suffering may lack compassion for fetuses suffering from violence and extreme pain in abortion. How should we look at this double standard of protecting animals from suffering as creatures and legally respecting their status?

Animals feel pain because of their abilities of perception, so the moral grounds to protect life. So what about the pain of the fetus? During the abortion process, the fetus is torn to pieces and removed.  
Seeing that the government is taking the lead in promoting a double standard in the respect and protection of life, she is saddened by the imbalance and confusion of moral thinking that children and each of us will face in the future. "But it is also a question, in a certain sense, of the "moral conscience" of society: in a way it too is responsible, not only because it tolerates or fosters behavior contrary to life, but also because it encourages the "culture of death", creating and consolidating actual "structures of sin" which go against life" (Gospel of Life #24).
 
She sincerely hopes the government will raise the status of the fetus that like the animals they will become objects in civil law.

What To Do When 'Misunderstood'

 A counselor and priest spiritual psychologist gives the readers of the Catholic Peace Weekly some thoughts on our failure to understand ourselves and what to do.

As a college student, Matthew agonized over the question: "What is the most meaningful way to live in the world?" As a result, he decided to delay his military enlistment and leave for a year of missionary service on a small island in the Philippines. He wanted to practice a life of sacrifice and service to those who needed him the most. Matthew helped the missionaries and taught English and Korean to the children. Thinking that poverty would eventually be passed down because children were not educated, Matthew taught them with sincerity and love.

The day before returning home, Matthew spent a great deal of the night making small packages of gifts for the children. It was difficult to leave the children he had grown attached to and prepared a snack gift with each child's name on it. The next day, seen off at the airport by the children he handed out the farewell gifts. He tried to hide his sadness because he was worried that the airport would become a sea of tears due to the children's crying.

However, the children, who accepted the gifts, rushed out of the airport with cheers, as arrows shot out from a bow. Matthew was shocked.  Anxious about how to say goodbye to the children from the night before,  he was upset, disappointed with the children leaving the airport without saying goodbye. Thinking only of his unappreciated love for the children he looked at the time spent in volunteer service with the children as empty and was filled with anger.

After returning home, Matthew could not understand why his service to the children had turned into anger and betrayal, not joy and a feeling of satisfaction. Moreover, fearing he would be unable to live a life of sacrifice and service bothered him because of his anger towards the children. Realizing that he had a problem, Matthew asked for counseling.

Matthew was a faithful young man who wanted to live a life of service and sacrifice for others. He had a young man's idealism, a beautiful heart that showed him what a true believer should be like through a life of sacrifice and service. However, Matthew did not know that there was a human need hidden in the practice of love for others that he did not recognize. It was most likely a desire for 'love and recognition'. But Matthew couldn't admit it. Shouldn't children at least express their gratitude for the time he spent with them.? Is it really wrong to expect this much courtesy? He grew even angrier at the fact that he was being dismissed as if he had done volunteer work because he wanted to receive love and recognition.

But before he knew it, Matthew was shedding tears of repentance, feeling truly sorry for the children. This is because a different perspective arose on why children darted off without saying hello. In the meantime, children have met many older brothers and sisters who have volunteered from Korea. The pain of parting for children would have been more unbearable than any other emotion. Children would not have wanted to be hurt by the pain of parting, and the only emotional remedy they could choose was to avoid the reality of parting? Wouldn't he try not to suffer from the feelings of parting by forcing himself to act as if he was not sad?
 

Matthew lamented that he had never thought of such a thing. And he felt so sorry for the children when he realized that the reason was because of his own desire. He left the counseling room with a pledge to seek forgiveness from the children and visit them again. We need to understand ourselves first if someone doesn't understand us. Confucius' words come to mind. "Isn't it a virtuous person who doesn't feel angry when others don't recognize him?" 

Let's Go Beyond a Cease Fire!

The Catholic Times Weekly in its 'Nation, Reconciliation, Unity' column, a priest  representative of  the Bishop's  standing committee gives us his thoughts on  the need to go beyond the Cease Fire situation.

On October 19, 1950, about 300,000 Chinese troops crossed the Yalu River, bringing the Korean War to a new phase.  Kim Il-sung,  boasted a "fast decision," overlooked the U.S. military's willingness to intervene,  MacArthur's wish to ignore China's willingness to participate in the war went awry. The Korean War  turned into a war that neither side could easily win.

In fact, discussions on a ceasefire began early on, even though both sides were confident of winning. After Chinese military intervention, U.N. efforts to support the ceasefire began in earnest. On December 14, 1950, a three-nation negotiation group plan (India, Iran, Canada) was passed, and in March 1951, a ceasefire resolution was introduced again to the U.N and was adopted.
 

Pressure from international public opinion that didn't want a another world war was present and anti-war public opinion in the U.S. wanted a  ceasefire on the Korean Peninsula. A Gallup survey in October 1950 showed that 65 percent of the Americans thought they should defend South Korea, but the prolonged war also changed public opinion. In January 1951, 66 percent of Americans wanted to withdraw from Korea, and 49 percent said the intervention in the Korean War was a mistake.

In fact, the ceasefire talks were held in the form of proposals from the Soviet Union and agreed to by the U.S. The Soviet Union proposed an armistice negotiation on June 23, 1951 through the United Nations broadcast of Malik the representative of the Soviet Union  and the ceasefire talks began in Kaesong on July 10. They lasted for over two years and countless lives were unfortunately lost during the talks with those in power  insisting on their claims.

However, the Armistice Agreement, which was signed on July 27, 1953, was simply a Military Armistice Agreement to stop fighting. The commander-in-chief of the United Nations Army, the commander-in-chief of the Korean People's Army and the commander of the Chinese People's Support Army, who were involved in the talks at the time, suggested a "political meeting" within three months in an agreement to resolve the Korean Peninsula peacefully. However, political negotiations to end the war did not go well afterwards. All those who started the war, and even those who negotiated the suspension of the war, have disappeared from the stage of history, but we have yet to begin full-fledged efforts to resolve this "old conflict."

The Catholic Church's social doctrine asserts that war is "never an appropriate way to solve problems that arise between countries, never have, and never will." "There is nothing to lose in peace. But war loses everything (see paragraph 497 of the simplified social doctrine), remembering the teachings of the Church and praying more earnestly for the true peace of the land.

Changing the Concept of Peace

Peace a word found in almost every culture, depending on the person speaking, has different meanings.  In the Kyeongyang Magazine, a scholar in peace studies gives us his thoughts on the meaning of Peace and how to achieve it.

In the military and connected fields: if you want peace, prepare for war are words often heard. The longing for peace is often expressed as national security, and the reason peace between countries is often so fragile.

When we have silence and compliance from orders in an undemocratic situation we often look upon it as peace. When we talk about peace of mind and continue with problems of inequality and racial conflict, structurally present and violent, we are closing our eyes to reality.

In the era of imperialism, war scholars believed war was a political maneuver and that power came from the gun barrel. This has passed on to this day.

There was a time when the intelligence agency had posters in subways and bus stations with the text: "When all seems peaceful is when things are dangerous." No one saw any problem with the wording. This way of thinking was around for some time. The resistance to this way of thinking was the beginning of a new understanding.

John Galtung the father of peace studies often mentioned the distinction between 'negative peace' and 'positive peace', direct violence and structural violence. Negative peace is the absence of violence.  Positive peace is working for the restoration of relationships, building social structures that work towards the resolution of conflict. Galtung didn't want the meaning of negative peace used. He also distinguished between direct violence and structural violence.
 
Passive Peace is only intended in the short term to prevent war and violence.  But for long-term results, it is open to all kinds of problems and violence continues. Galtung consequently was for the nonuse of the passive concept of peace. Active Peace requires we get rid of structures of confrontation, national rivalries, contention for domination, structures of inequality, structures that have to be examined. This thinking was hailed in many quarters.
 
Peace-making capabilities are required. He divides them into five steps.
 
1) Continue with capabilities to lay the foundation for peace and its increase.

2) See the many sides of the conflict, analyze and have the capability to manage it.

3) Each nation and citizen needs the capability to be leaders and show this by their words and actions.

4) We need a consistent strategy: dialogue, citizen peace structures, workshops to solve problems, prevent discrimination, and the capability to cope with the aftereffects of conflict.
 
5) Able to deal with the conflicts that will arise, and using this capacity to prevent permanent conflicts and achieve changes in the structures and systems.  

Peacemaking requires we understand prudently the violence and conflicts of daily life and can endure them. We use them to expand our thinking and spread peace and its value—management of conflict and the fostering of capabilities in dealing with frustrations. Need women, young people, and minorities to enter into the discussion and our need to continue the study. We work to make the system less violent and more manageable and regulated.

In the middle of the last century, we began to see a movement away from passive peace to active peace, from direct violence to a concern for structural and cultural violence, We saw a movement away from national security and the armament race, to peacemaking.

Briefly, we can say peacemaking has made an appearance, nations and various citizens groups have fostered non-violent capabilities and have worked to spread this within society. In conclusion, peace is not to imagine or assume others are enemies, but to move forward in looking for ways to live together. This is peace.