RECENT WIRE REPORTS bannered Vatican’s latest pronouncement: Pollution is now a sin. Yes, Virginia, it is now a sin to pollute, according to Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, who was described by Reuters as “the Vatican’’s number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance.”

“If yesterday’s sin had a rather individualistic dimension, today it has a weight, a resonance, that’s especially social, rather than individual,” said Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, as quoted by the Associated Press.

What are the parameters of this sin, we still don’t know. The Roman Catholic Church needs to issue a pastoral letter clarifying this.

We can’t do away with pollution. Pollution is defined as “the introduction by man into the environment of contaminants that cause harm or discomfort to humans or other living organisms, or damage the environment.” This can be in the form of chemical substances, or energy such as noise, heat, or light. Pollutants, according to Wikipedia, can be naturally occurring substances or energies, but are considered contaminants when in excess of natural levels.

And in our daily lives, we introduce contaminants that can harm the environment, consciously or unconsciously and in varying amounts. From the time we wake up in the morning until we hit the sack, we contribute to pollution – from the wastewater that we produce when we brush our teeth or when we take a bath, to the garbage that we generate in our homes, schools or offices. In one way or another, these bring with them contaminants that – if accumulated to certain proportions – can be environmentally harmful. Perhaps, some pollution can be considered venial sins while others can be considered mortal sins.

Example: Every time we fart, we pollute the air. That’s why people nearby cover their nose because they experience discomfort from our flatus. And fart, according to scientists, is composed of nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen and methane, all of which can pose harm at certain degree. Yes, oxygen – the air that we breathe to live – can be toxic and damages body cells at high concentration. Shall we go to confession every time we fart? “Forgive me father for I have sinned. It’s been a week since my last confession, and for this entire week, I have farted 172 times…” I wonder what’s the penance for farting.

When we drive, our vehicles emit considerable amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and other toxic substances such as particle matter and lead, all of which are environmentally harmful. So, is it now a sin to drive because our vehicles pollute? Of course, vehicles don’t pollute per se, it’s the people who use them that do. How about if we drive going to church? We arrive in church, we confess that we pollute because we drove our vehicles. After confession, our sin is cleansed. When we go home from church, we again commit a sin – unless we leave our vehicles at the church parking area.

All kidding aside, we all know that what the Vatican really meant is large-scale pollution. This new declaration is obviously a product of the global climate crisis that we are all facing. According to Archbishop Girotti, while sin used to concern the individual mostly, today it had a mainly a social resonance, due to the phenomenon of globalization. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI had repeatedly advocated for environmental protection.

“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,” the Pope said in his message on the occasion of World Peace Day on 1 January 2008.

Reports from the Vatican also state that the Pope had caused the installation of photovoltaic cells on buildings to generate solar electricity and the hosting of a scientific conference to discuss the ramifications of global warming and climate change, widely blamed on human use of fossil fuels. Solar panels have either been or will be installed on the roofs of the Paul IV auditorium, where pilgrims take their chance to have an audience with the pontiff, and on other buildings in the Vatican, except on St Peter’s Basilica and other historical landmarks.

The Pope’s concern for the environment has been translated in our local archdiocese where, of late, we have seen its strong opposition to the proposal to put up a coal-fired power plant as a way to attract jobs-generating businesses to Iloilo City, which sadly have been shunned by investors due to the instability of power and its high costs. The equation is simple: stable and affordable power = investments = jobs = poverty alleviation. No stable and affordable power = no investments =no jobs = poverty.

But Pope Benedict XVI himself attacked the so-called “climate change prophets of doom,” warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. “Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow,” the Pope said in the same January 2008 message. “It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.”

Simply put, burning coal may be an act of pollution, as it is true with all other forms of fuel, but we really can’t do away with it. If we won’t burn anything, how shall we cook our food? And how shall the poor cook their food when all that they have in their kitchens are charcoal and wood? That’s why there are measures (read: clean coal technology) to limit the impact of pollution so that we can develop as a city even if we burn fuel, fossil or otherwise, to progress. And when the Pope said environmental assessments should be carried out prudently, he quickly added: “Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken.”

Meanwhile, it is easy to say that pollution is a sin and that we must never pollute, but adhering to it is another story. Take the case of a local hospital run by Catholic nuns who are also vocal against the proposed coal-fired power plant but the congregation is now being fined for not installing a wastewater treatment facility that a national law requires for all hospitals. Pollution may now be a sin, but hypocrisy has long been one. But again, that’s another story.

8 Responses to “Thou shalt not pollute”

• 1
  omel
  March 14th, 2008 09:57

  i definitely agree with your views regarding the forminable necessity of progress and this requires compromising even environmental issues. we need to keep up with other countries in terms of tehnology especially that our economy is showing a good deal at start. and with regards to church, they are caught in great fallacy by reciporocating their own claims. they should lease their views or withold with much examination before throwing it to the liberals and technocrats who know much better than these ritual-minded clerics.
• 2
  Admin
  March 14th, 2008 10:46

  Thank you… Keep on visiting IloiloViews.com…
• 3
  omel
  March 14th, 2008 11:27

  hi mr lujan. do you have any access to the projects that migedc is having right now? please have them posted here so we may know the latest development in iloilo. thanks
• 4
  NLujan
  March 14th, 2008 11:30

  i’ll see what i can do. but i guess they can be accessed from the migedc website. tnx
• 5
  omel
  March 14th, 2008 11:33

  ok. thank you very much.love your site.
• 6
  jammer
  March 14th, 2008 14:38

  maayo gid ni pare ner… hehehehehehe
• 7
  blue
  March 29th, 2008 23:35

  the article presents a lot of inconsistencies in terms of moral judgment. the church always uphold the beauty of creation because this is one of the sources of GOD’S REVELATION meaning, we can know GOD through nature.the author of this article too seems to project a ray of misconceptions that eventually will lead to wrong conclusion.and let me cite that when the church define matters in terms of faith and morals only, then in this context the church is free of error and it is applied to every faithful..there is no exception to this..
• 8
  nangtud
  June 29th, 2008 19:52

  in nature there is no right or wrong, only consequences!
  Typhoon Frank is just a preview of the consequences of man’s actions

Leave a Reply