Al Gore's secular clericalism at the service of "human redemption"

This morning at about 2:00 a.m. I took a little journey into the world of Al Gore via his February 27, 2010, essay in the New York Times, "We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change". It was very much what I expected and I wouldn't even be commenting about it here and now except for this line near the very end, which followed upon an extended demand for massive government intervention in dealing with what Gore insists is a rapidly approaching apocalyptic crisis (and what his critics consider to be a global con artistry):

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

Hmmm. Redemption? Really? This is, I think, a rather amazing sentence. Even if you, unlike myself, agree with Gore's stance toward so-called "the climate crisis", this sort of soteriological language in a piece about the science involved in climate research should give pause. Is Gore suggesting that salvation is the primary work of law and government, or that redemption must come somehow through the political order? This is a temptation addressed directly in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Truth and Tolerance (Ignatius Press, 2004), in which, addressing liberation theology, he writes:

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic. (p. 116)

Gore, of course, has a long history of blurring religious language and political exhortation. Earth in the Balance (1992) has all sorts of interesting claims (or sermons, at times) that mix spiritual pondering with political activism. Here is one example, which I find just as troubling as the quote above:

I have come to believe that we must take bold and unequivocal action: we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization…Adopting a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily – means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action – to use, in short – every means to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system. (pp. 269, 274).

Gore insists there "are terrible moral consequences to the current policy of delay..." This is not the standard rhetoric of a scientist (which Gore is not), but of a wanna-be prophet-priest-king who hardly attempts to disguise his desire to remake civilization through pseudo-religious warnings of impending apocalyptic doom and political machinations, forcing massive changes (albeit with gloves, smiles, and sugary slogans) in every facet of our lives—all, apparently, for the sake of our redemption. It brings to mind Raymond Aron's penetrating insights into what he called "secular religion" and "secular clericalism."

Pope Benedict XVI's Caritas in Veritate, while noting some of the same evils and errors that Gore points out in his book (rampant consumerism, selfishness, hyper-individualism, etc.), does not view politics, increased governance, and burgeoning bureaucracy to be the ultimate answers to abuses and misuses of the environment:

The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice versa. This invites contemporary society to a serious review of its life-style, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences. What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new life-styles “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments”. Every violation of solidarity and civic friendship harms the environment, just as environmental deterioration in turn upsets relations in society. Nature, especially in our time, is so integrated into the dynamics of society and culture that by now it hardly constitutes an independent variable. Desertification and the decline in productivity in some agricultural areas are also the result of impoverishment and underdevelopment among their inhabitants. When incentives are offered for their economic and cultural development, nature itself is protected. Moreover, how many natural resources are squandered by wars! Peace in and among peoples would also provide greater protection for nature. The hoarding of resources, especially water, can generate serious conflicts among the peoples involved. Peaceful agreement about the use of resources can protect nature and, at the same time, the well-being of the societies concerned. (par 51)

Whereas Gore seems to be envision "redemption" as being brought to people (whether they want it or not) by an all-wise government that knows best how the unwashed, unenlightened masses should do this, that, and the other thing, Benedict proposes what he calls "a human ecology":

The deterioration of nature is in fact closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when “human ecology” is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits. Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.

Part of the problem is that Gore sees politics as foundational to culture. But it is culture—which is rooted in "cult", or religion—that provides the foundation of the political order (even communist political regimes, as Aron argues convincingly, were based, however shakily, on a form of secular religion and culture). In fact, it sometimes seems that Gore collapses politics, culture, and religion into a confused and massive monolithic entity, without proper distinctions. So, while Gore insists that "we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization," Benedict insists that we must make the rescue of man from sin and moral disorder the center of an authentic civilization:

In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society.

Paul VI, in Populorum Progressio, which Benedict refers to often in his encyclical, summed it quite well:

The ultimate goal [of development] is a fullbodied humanism. And does this not mean the fulfillment of the whole man and of every man? A narrow humanism, closed in on itself and not open to the values of the spirit and to God who is their source, could achieve apparent success, for man can set about organizing terrestrial realities without God. But "closed off from God, they will end up being directed against man. A humanism closed off from other realities becomes inhuman."

True humanism points the way toward God and acknowledges the task to which we are called, the task which offers us the real meaning of human life. Man is not the ultimate measure of man. Man becomes truly man only by passing beyond himself. In the words of Pascal: "Man infinitely surpasses man." (par. 42)

Related Ignatius Insight Links and Articles:

• Caritas in Veritate: "Its Principal Driving Force" | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• CWR Round-Table: Caritas in Veritate | Catholic World Report
• The State Which Would Provide Everything | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Are Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Compatible? | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Why Do We Need Faith? | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• What Is Catholic Social Teaching? | Mark Brumley

Comments

[T. Shaw]

Camus: "Every attempt to establish Heaven on Earth has reuslted in hell on Earth."

The dishonest extremists would both bankrupt us and enslave us. AGW (and statist health seizure for that matter) is a "Trojan Horse": one big lie. The supposed "cure" (making unaffordable electricity, gasoline and home heating oil) will be far more disastrous to the common man than the global warming "disease.""

[Howard]

@T. Shaw: I disagree about AGW being "a big lie", but I agree that it is both a "Trojan horse" to concentrate more wealth and power in the hands of a select few, and also that the "cure" is worse than the disease.

Just think about another, smaller, environmental problem: the proliferation of invasive constrictor snakes (pythons, anacondas, etc.) in the swamps of Florida. The problem is real, frightening, and expected to get worse. However, there is probably nothing we can do to stop it, no matter how much money we were to spend. (Hiring huge armies of people to manually remove the snakes wouldn't even work, since they hide very effectively in such an environment.) Most attempts at eradication would do more harm to the local ecosystem and the people in and around it than the snakes will do -- and would still fail. I suspect it's much the same with AGW.

Not only would many of the proposed solutions to AGW lead to human suffering, they would be disastrous for the environment, too. Environmentalism is a hobby of the rich. Just ask the wooly mammoth -- there is no animal on Earth more dangerous than a hungry human.

[LJ]

It has been apparent for some time, particularly in Al Gore's movie that the discussion has long since ceased being about science and Al Gore is not an instructor, or even a salesman. He is a preacher, an evangelist. This talk of redemption then makes perfect sense.

It is interesting that there is also a certain brand of conservatism that takes on a similar character of "redemption" based thinking. I remember hearing a lot during the Bush administration from some quarters about spreading democracy, with a fervor that suggested, to me at least, that those promoting this foreign policy doctrine believed it to be the answer to humanity's problems, in and of itself. Likewise, from some quarters there is an ideal of free markets that again is apparently not nuanced by any independent recognition of the moral state of human nature, particularly as we would see it from a Catholic point of view.

I think that the far left's redemptive solution is by far the more evil of the two, but in fighting it there is also the danger of the redemptive counter proposal, equally secular, and which also contains the seed of its own demise.

That is the point of Benedict's discussions of freedom, capitalism and communism, I think; to make it clear that without God's redemptive plan, T. Shaw's quote from Camus above is exactly right.

[Barry Bruss]

AGW is the biggest hoax of our lifetime. Gore and his ilk are titanic con artists.