Minnesota, Nuestra casa común: A Resource for Evangelization

Declaración de la Conferencia Católica de Minnesota (MCC) Director Ejecutivo Jason Adkins en respuesta a un artículo engañoso que aparece en ChurchMilitant.com

Diciembre 2, 2019

Nos decepcionó leer la publicación engañosa y basada en la agenda de militantes de la Iglesia sobre nuestro recurso educativo, "Minnesota, Nuestro hogar común." Desafortunadamente, el puesto busca escandalizar y causar división, atacar innecesariamente a los obispos de Minnesota. En lugar de informar a los lectores sobre lo que la iniciativa busca lograr, que ha sido bien documentado en numerosos puntos de venta (Crux, Ecología católica, Agencia Católica de Noticias), simplemente difunde la desinformación.

Militante de la Iglesia no se comunicó con el personal de MCC para comentarios, ni está claro que lean completamente los materiales.

El propósito de la iniciativa es doble: catequesis y evangelización. Es cierto, como afirma el autor, que las respuestas a la degradación ambiental son, en muchos casos, religiosos, y a menudo neo-paganos y panteístas. Tal respuesta espiritual por parte de muchos subraya que todas las cuestiones políticas son en última instancia teológicas.

Pero dogmatismo ambiental pone de relieve la necesidad de que la Iglesia traiga a la conversación los principios adecuados para pensar en estas preguntas, tanto como una forma de ayudar a los católicos que se encuentran y los consideran, y para otros que buscan dirección. En nuestra experiencia, El Papa San Juan Pablo II tenía razón cuando declaró que la doctrina social de la Iglesia es una poderosa herramienta de evangelización. Y los impulsos espirituales del movimiento ambiental, una fuente importante de preocupación entre los jóvenes, necesita ser canalizado y evangelizado.

El marco de la "ecología integral" es una forma útil de pensar en la doctrina social de la Iglesia y destaca su arraigo en la ley natural. Minnesota, Nuestra casa común es un intento de hacerlo más digerible que la discusión extendida del Papa Francisco sobre ella en "Laudato si’". Es un desafío para los católicos de todo el espectro político y eclesial ver la conexión de las cuestiones, y la necesidad de ofrecer una respuesta coherente, no una prenda sin costuras, sino una ética consistente de vida arraigada en la ecología integral.

A couple of factual points need to be addressed. Primero, the claim that the bishops of Minnesota do not have their priorities correct because the small staff of their shared public policy office puts out an educational resource on a significant matter of public debate (and priority of Pope Francis), borders on the absurd. It’s as though the author believes that the institutional Church cannot do two (or more) things simultaneously, or that until the Church addresses the author’s particular concerns (and to the author’s satisfaction), we cannot do anything else. And this initiative consumed very little in the way of MCC resources, let alone the Church as a whole.

We also note that the resources, including the “Ecological Examen”, were being developed well in advance of either the Amazon Synod or Pope Francis’s statements about adding ecological sins to the Catechism. We do not know what amendments to the universal Catechism will actually say or address, but the imperative to protect creation is hardly eco-theology; it’s just the plain application of the biblical exhortation to man “to till and to keep” (Génesis 2:15). Church Militant would do well to recall the large corpus of writings from Pope Benedict XVI (The Environment y message for World Day of Peace 2010) y Pope Saint John Paul II on these matters.

As for the accusations that the Minnesota Catholic Conference does not focus on the difficult public policy questions, even the most cursory familiarity with our work in the public arena makes that claim laughable. MCC is on the frontline defending life and dignity in Minnesota. Irónicamente, in a difficult legislative environment, we have spearheaded the passage of legislation that takes aim at pornography, fragmentación familiar, y aborto—the very issues on which the author accuses us of doing nothing.

Finalmente, many of the issues raised in the article are simply off-topic. They may or may not be legitimate issues worth discussing, but most have no relevance to the actual substance of what Minnesota, Nuestra casa común actually says. The unsigned article is a string of ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

If people have complaints about the substance of the resources, then we are happy to receive and have a conversation about them. Pero de nuevo, this article did not engage the substance of the message, which is that “ecological conversion” and a proper vision of creation stewardship rooted in right relationships can be found ONLY when we are in right relationship with God the Father through his Son, Dios mío. Is Church Militant really against that?

Nos, también, are concerned about problems and infidelity plaguing the Church today. But imposing the hermeneutics of suspicion on every initiative, filtering it through a partisan lens, and assuming bad faith on the part of all bishops and Church employees, is an incredibly destructive dynamic.

Church Militant often complains about the Church’s catechetical failures, and then when the Church steps boldly into the conversation, they still complain. One could be forgiven for believing that this was just another brand-building exercise instead of an attempt to truly inform. We appreciate some of the work Church Militant has done exposing legitimate corruption in the Church. But in this posting, it has missed the mark.

–30–