Categoria: Idiomas

Animals: endowed with rights

Leonardo Boff5 Comentários

Whether one acknowledges the dignity of animals depends on that person’s paradigm (vision of the world and values). Two paradigms have been handed down to us since the most remote antiquity, and still endure today.

The first partadigm understands the human being as part of nature and, with her, another inhabitant participating in the immense community of life that has existed for 3.8 billion years. When the Earth was nearly complete, with all her biodiversity, we arose on the evolutionary scene as one more member of nature, one endowed with a singular characteristic; that of having the capacity to feel, think, love and care. This does not give us the right to consider ourselves masters of the reality that preceded us and that created the conditions for us to emerge. The culmination of evolution occurred with the appearance of life, not with the human being. Human life is a sub-chapter in the main chapter of life.

The second paradigm starts with the idea that the human being is the apex of evolution, and that all things are at his disposal to dominate and use as the human being pleases. He forgets that to emerge, humans needed all the natural factors that preceded us. Humans joined everything already in existence; he was not placed above everything else.

The two positions have had representatives throughout the centuries, who exhibited very different behavior. The first position finds its best manifestation in the Orient, with Buddhism and the religions of India. Among us, besides Bentham, Schopenhauer and Schweitzer, its main proponent was Francis of Assisi, considered by Pope Francis in his Encyclical letter “On the caring for the Common Home” as someone «who lived a marvelous harmony with God, with others and with himself… an example of integral ecology» (n. 10). But this tender and fraternal behavior of fusion with nature is not the vision that prevailed.

In the second paradigm, the human being is the “master and lord of nature”, as Descartes put it, who made himself hegemonic. It sees nature from the outside, not part of nature, but as her master. This is the root of modern anthropocentrism. Humans dominated nature, subjugated peoples and exploited all the Earth’s resources, such that we now have reached a critical point of insustainability. Its representatives are the founding fathers of the modern paradigm, such as Newton, Francis Bacon and others, and contemporary industrialism, which views nature merely as a collection of resources for its enrichment.

The first paradigm –the human being as part of nature– enjoys a fraternal and amicable relationship with all beings. The Kantian principle must be widened: not only is the human being an end in itself, but so are all living beings, which therefore must be respected. There is scientific data favoring this position. When Drick and Dawson decoded the genetic code in the 1950’s, it was shown that all living beings, from the most ancient amoeba, through the great jungles and the dinosaurs, and down to us, the human beings, possess the same basic genetic code: the 20 amino acids and four phosphoric bases. This led The Earthcharter, one of UNESCOS’ principal documents on modern ecology, to affirm that «we have a kinship spirit with all life» (Introduction). Pope Francis is more emphatic: «we walk together as brothers and sisters, and a link binds us with tender affection to Brother Sun, Sister Moon, to Brother River and Mother Earth» (n. 92). From this perspective, all beings, since they are our cousins and bothers and sisters, and possess their own form of sensibility and intelligence, are endowed with dignity and rights. If Mother Earth has rights, as the United Nations has affirmed, they, as living parts of the Earth, participate in those rights.

The second paradigm –the human being as the master of nature– has a utilitarian relationship with other beings and animals. On learning how cattle and poultry are slaughtered, we are terrified by the suffering to which they are subjected. The Earthcharter warns us: «wild animals must be protected from hunting methods, traps and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged and avoidable suffering» (n. 15b). Here we remember the wise words of the Suquamish-Duwamish Elder Grandfather Si’aul, aka, Seattle, (1854): «What is man without the other animals? If all the animals disappeared, man would die of spiritual loneliness. Because what happens to the animals will also happen to man. We all are related».

If we do not convert to the first paradigm, we will continue with the barbarity against our brothers and sisters in the community of life, the animals. As ecological consciousness grows, we become ever more aware that we are related, and as such we should treat each other as Saint Francis treated the brother wolf of Gubbio, and the simpler beings of nature.

Leonardo Boff Eco-Theologian-Philosopher Earthcharter Commission

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

What to think of the new forms of cohabitation

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

Besides the marriage-families constituted in the socio-juridic and sacramental framework, more and more appear families of simple cohabitation and free unions that are mutually agreed outside the traditional framework that exist as long as the consensus lasts giving origin to the common law non conjugal families.

All over the world grow unions of homoaffective persons, (man-man and woman-woman), who struggle for the creation of a juridical framework that guarantees them stability and social recognition.

It is not licit to pass ethical judgement about these forms of cohabitation without having tried before to understand the phenomenon. Concretely, how to think of the family seeing all the varied forms in which a family is presently being structured?

Marco Antonio Fetter, a Brazilian specialist creator of the first University of the Family, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, that offers all the academic degrees, defines family this way: «the family is a unit of persons with common objectives and with links and strong emotional bonds each one of them with a defined role, where naturally appear the roles of father, mother, children and siblings»(Correio Riograndense, 29/10/2003,11).

On the other hand, an important transformation has happened in the family with the apparition of preservatives and contraceptives, now already incorporated into the culture as something normal and that help avoid AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Moreover, with preservatives and the pill, sexuality has been separated from procreation and from steady love.

Frequently now, sexuality and marriage as well are seen as opportunities for personal realization, without including procreation. Conjugal sexuality gains intimacy and spontaneity because with contraceptives and family planning is liberated from non desired and unwanted pregnancies. The children are wanted and decided in common agreement.

The emphasis in sexuality as personal realization has made possible the apparition of forms of cohabitation not strictly matrimonial. Expression of this are the consensual and free unions without any other compromise than the mutual realization of the partners or of the homoaffective cohabitation.

Such practices, new as they are, must also include an ethical and spiritual perspective. It is important to care that they are expressions of love and mutual trust. From a Christian point of view of the phenomenon, if there is love, has to do with God, because God is love (1John 4,12.16). Hence, neither prejudices nor discrimination are correct. Better, there must be respect and openness to understand those facts and also place them before God. If the persons in the compromise do it this way and assume that relationship with responsibility, religious and spiritual relevance to that relationship can not be denied. An atmosphere that helps overcome the temptation of promiscuity appears, stability is enforced and social prejudices diminished.

If there is sex with no procreation, procreation without sex can exist. Is the complex problem of in vitro procreation, of artificial insemination and of the «uterus for rent». All this question is extremely polemic in ethical and spiritual terms, and there seems not to be consensus.

The official Catholic position often tends to a naturalist vision that demands, with respect to procreation, the direct sexual relationship of the spouses when, in fact, is reasonable to admit the legitimacy of the union of an ovule of the wife with a sperm of the husband in an artificial form; and later to implant in the uterus the fecund ovule, as long as such procedure is justified by love.

About this complex question we rely on the opinion of a Catholic Dutch specialist:

«The technification of human procreation is not free of problems. Artificial insemination in its different forms, the fecundation in vitro and the transplant of embryos permit us to have a pregnancy out of the security frameworks of the traditional marriage. Thus, is possible that a woman gets pregnant by the artificial insemination of the sperm of an anonymous donor; sperms and ovules can be unified in vitro, and later implanted them in the woman, a child can be had through a «mother of rent». These technical means are not at our disposal in a neutral form, as a capability merely instrumental: an ethical responsibility must be present in their utilization» («Concilium» magazine, 260, 1995, 36). These are means at the service of parental love.

Is not enough artificial procreation. The human being has the right to be humanly born, from a father and a mother that in love desired him. If for any problem a technical intervention is used that never has to lack a true human inspiration and a well based ethical purpose.

The son or daughter born that way must be able to have a name and last name and be socially welcome. The social identity, in these cases, is anthropologically more important than the biological identity. Moreover, is important that the creature is included in a familiar environment so that, in the process of individuation, the complex of Electra in relation to the mother or of Oedipus in relation to the father, can successfully be realized. This way irreparable damages are avoided.

Finally, life must be always understood as the culmination of the cosmogenesis and the best gift of the Creator.

Leonardo Boff Eco-Theologian-Philosopher Earthcharter Commission

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

The Earth’s future will not come from heaven

Leonardo Boff2 Comentários

Most readers will find it difficult to accept what I am going to express here. Even though it is based on the best scientific minds that have been studying the universe, the situation of planet Earth and her eventual collapse, or qualitative leap to another level of reality, for almost a century, it has not penetrated into either the collective consciousness or the major academic centers. The old atomic, mechanistic and deterministic paradigm that arose in the XVI century with Newton, Francis Bacon and Kepler, continues in force, as if Einstein, Hubble, Planck, Heisenberg, Reeves, Hawking, Prigogine, Wilson, Swimme, Lovelock, Capra or so many others who have elaborated a new vision of the Universe and of the Earth had never existed.

For starters, I would quote Christian de Duve, 1974 Biology Nobel Laureate, who wrote one of the best books about the history of life: Vital Dust: life as a Cosmic imperative, (Polvo vital: la vida como imperativo cósmico, editorial Norma, 1999): «Biological evolution moves with an accelerated rhythm towards grave instability. Our time reminds us of the important ruptures in evolution, marked by massive extinctions» (p. 355). This time it will not come from a massive meteor that eliminated almost all life, as in past eras, but from the human being itself, that not only can be suicidal and homicidal, but also ecocidal, biocidal and even geocidal. The human being can put an end to most life on our planet, leaving only the underground microorganisms; bacteria, fungi and viruses, that number in the quadrillions of quadrillions.

Given this threat, the result of the death machine created by the irrationality of modernity, the term «anthropocentric» was introduced to refer to the present as a new geological era, in which the great threat of devastation comes from humanity itself (anthropos ). The human being has intervened and continues to intervene in the rhythms of nature and the Earth in a profound manner, that affects the very ecological basis that support us.

According to biologists Wilson and Ehrlich, between 70 to 100 thousand species of living beings will disappear annually, due to the hostile relationship the human being maintains with nature. The consequence is clear: the extreme events we are witnessing irrefutably show that the Earth has lost her equilibrium. Only the ignorant, such as Donald Trump, deny the empirical evidence.

To the contrary, the well known cosmologist, Brian Swimme, who coordinates a dozen scientists in California who study the history of the Universe, struggles to offer a saving path out. We should note in passing that cosmologist Swimme and cultural anthropologist Thomas Berry, published a history of the universe, based on the best scientific data, from the big bang to the present, (The Universe Story, San Francisco, Harper 1992), which is known as the most brilliant work realized to date. (The translation to Portuguese has been done, but the Brazilian editors were too foolish, and until today it has not been published. The Spanish translation has been devalued because the book devotes too much space to the concrete situation of the United States). The authors created the concept, «the Ecozoic era», or «the ecocene», a fourth biologic era that would follow the Paleozoic, the Mesozoic and our Neozoic.

The Ecozoic starts with a vision of the universe as cosmogenic. Permanence is not its hallmark, but evolution, expansion and auto-creation of ever more complex «emergences», thus allowing for the birth of new galaxies, new stars and forms of life on Earth, including our conscious and spiritual life.

The authors are not afraid of the word «spiritual» because they understand that the spirit is part of the Universe itself, always present, which in an advanced phase of evolution has become self aware, seeing ourselves as part of the Whole.

This Ecozoic era represents a restoration of the planet through a relationship of caring, respect and reverence, towards the magnificent gift of the living Earth. The economy should not seek accumulation, but what is enough for everyone, so that the Earth may replace her nutrients. The future of the Earth does not come from heaven, but from the decisions we take to remain in consonance with the rhythms of nature and the Universe. I quote Swimme:

The future will be decided either by those who are committed to the Technozoic –a future of increasing exploitation of the Earth as a resource, all for the benefit of humans– or by those committed to the Ecozoic, a new mode of relating with the Earth, where the well being of the Earth and the entire community of terrestrial life is the principal interest (p. 502)

If the Ecozoic does not triumph, we will probably experience a catastrophe, this time produced by the Earth herself, to liberate herself from one of her creatures, that violently occupied everything, threatening all other species, species that, because they have the same origins and the same genetic building blocks, are her brothers and sisters, which is not acknowledged, resulting in their abuse, and even murder.

We must deserve our survival on this planet. But that depends on having an amicable relationship with nature and life; and on a profound transformation of our forms of living. Swimme adds: «We will be unable to live without the special intuition (insight) that women have had in all phases of human existence» (p. 501).

This is the crossroads of our time: either to change or to disappear. But, who believes it? We will continue to raise high our voices.

Leonardo Boff  Eco-theologian-Philosopher and Member of the Earthcharter Commission
Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

An attempt to condemn a just man

Leonardo Boff1 comentário

On September 19th, Judge Vallisney Oliveira of the 10th Federal Tribunal of Brasilia, Brazil, addressed the complaint lodged by the Federal Public Ministry, (FPM)), against former President Inacio Lula daSilva and Gilberto Carvalho, claiming to have seen evidence of corruption, namely, that the Labor Party, PT, had received 6 million reales for reissuing the 2009 471 Provisional Measure, PM, that provided financial benefits to workers in the car sector of the Mid-West and North East.

Curiously, former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso was the author, in 1999, of this Provisional Measure, proposed in the Chamber by Jose Carlos Aleluia (DEM) and in the Senate by Cesar Borges (PFL). The PM was approved by all political parties. The idea was to decentralize the production of cars and create a great many jobs. In fact, between 2002-2013 the number of jobs rose from 291,244 to 532,364.

The extension of MP 471 by Lula was intended to assure the continuity of the enterprises that socially benefit many. Nothing was asked for and nothing was given in exchange. The FPM offered no proof of the accusation that bribery was involved. Only insinuations and suppositions. This is an extremely fragile base on which to base a complaint, which probably suggests another agenda.

I will not undertake the defense of former President Lula, which will be done by competent attorneys. Rather, I will limit myself to a testimonial about Gilberto Carvalho, the person. We met many years ago, in connection with the work with the Base Communities, the Pastoral of the Workers, the theology workshops in Curitiba, and the Faith and Politics encounters. He lived in a very poor favela in the city, worked later on in plastics and metallurgy factories. Some 30 years ago, he began with Lula a friendship of true brothers. He helped found the Labor Party, PT. Once elected President, Lula named him, during his two terms, Minister-Head of the General Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic. Carvalho stood with the former President during the times of both the accomplishments and the tribulations that President Lula endured. He always discharged his duties with discretion and a great sense of equity. He distinguished himself as the spokesperson most accepted by the social movements, the Catholic Church and other religious sectors. He showed a special affection for the collectors of recyclable materials and the indigenous.

Carvalho is well known for his serenity and his tireless capacity for listening, and for seeking, along with others, the most viable paths to follow. Those of us who know him well offer with sincerity a testimonial to the high regard he holds for the spiritual world. How many week ends did he pass in the Benedictine monastery in Goias Viejo, in humble prayer and deep meditation, asking the Spirit lights to serve well the people of his country, especially the most humiliated and debased.

He was always a poor man. By selling an apartment he had in São Paulo he acquired a small farm near Brasilia, and it is a pleasure to see the ecological care he gives the chickens that provide eggs for the whole family, the fruit trees and the small field of corn. He never took advantage of the high position he occupied in the Republic.

This is why we understand his “revolt and indignation” against the absurd denunciation presented by the FPM and accepted by Brasilia’s Federal Judge Vallisney Oliveira. In his note of September 19th, Gilberto Carvalho writes: «It is important to note that there is not one single piece of evidence, only insinuations and strained factual interpretations… Neither President Lula nor I ever came close to engaging in the type of bad conduct with which they would stigmatize us».

Perhaps the final theme of his note expresses his personality, manifesting signs of human virtue of the highest degree: «I receive this denunciation at the moment when I am forced to sell the apartment I had recently acquired and where I lived, because I have been unable to get financing. I have moved to a rented house. But accusations of this nature will not compromise the honor and dignity of a serene and fearless conscience”.

The Scriptures speak often of judges who cast hasty aspersions on the just, or even condemn them. In Brasilia, we are witnessing a malevolent attempt to condemn a just and honest man.

Leonardo Boff philosopher, theologian and member of The Earthcharta Commission.

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.