the Dalai Lama to Seattle, it was commented that Seattle is perhaps the US city least appreciative (right word?) of organized religion; and that while the participation of the Dalai Lama in events at a public university was not viewed askance by anyone -- perhaps because Buddhism generally has positive and non-religious connotations on the West Coast -- , it would likely have caused some tension if the Pope had been invited to those same events.

I greatly admire the Dalai Lama.  But I wonder if the science-loving members of the Grist community quite understand that he and his followers sincerely believe that he is the same person who first came to prominence in Tibetan history in the 15th century, and who has been alive in one male human body after another in unbroken succession from then to now.  Crazy, no?

As a heterodox liberal Catholic, I like Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, a good bit less than the Dalai Lama -- one quarrels more bitterly with members of one's own family than with strangers, after all.  But I like what the Pope has been saying during this visit, for the most part.

His emphasis on human rights, in today's speech at the UN, was very good, especially his support of the doctrine of a country's "responsibility to protect" all its citizens, failure to do which can justify intervention by others.

He is something of a johnny-come-lately on environmental matters, but his words are welcome and good.  In the quoted sentence, it should be understood that "rediscovering the authentic image of creation" has nothing to do with endorsing fundamentalist creationism and rejecting the Darwinian theory of evolution.  Catholics are NOT fundamentalists, and have no problem with either evolution or deep-time cosmology.  What he said seems to be closer to what Richard Cizik and the creation-care evangelicals mean, when they say that environmentalism (without using that word) is a virtue, because it means taking responsibility for the world that God created and loves.  And probably Benedict intends an even deeper theological significance.

As for not having to choose between science and ethics, I am not altogether sure what the Pope has in mind, but I cannot help avoiding the thought that he is referring to embryonic stem cell research.

CC-Can you explain to us the connection St. Francis would or would not have to a modern green ethic and the traditional Catholic church?

I have some vague woo-woo notion of how these things are supposed to work but it's likely wrong.

A little help?

...he warned of how we need to take action to help the Earth as well.  He even practiced what he preached, and opened Vatican City's first "green" parking lot (which is no small feat for a country less than 1/2 of a square kilometer in size).

But did the Catholic population in general listen?  Not really.

And they won't listen this time either.

Their too concerned 'bout how their children will catch the disease of homosexuality if they don't disinfect their lunchboxes, or tryin' to argue how much better off orphans are in halfway houses and shelters rather than with lovin' parents who happen to be Jewish or Muslim or interracial, or 'bout how fetuses are people but the abortionsit doctors aren't so it's okay to kill 'em in bombings.

Ya know, that kinda stuff.

Like most organized religions, they're very selective 'bout what they listen to and decide to obey in general.

The Catholic Church is at the forefront of the population problem.  By prohibiting abortion and even birth control, it has caused massive population growth among its members, most notably in Latin America.  Considering that overpopulation is one of the two root causes of all environmental and ecological harm, there's no way anyone with any sense could possibly take what this former Nazi says seriously.

That is a great question, Pangolin.  And the famous story that San Francesco preached to a treeful of birds, encouraging them to carry on with their praises of God the Creator of us all -- thus his sentimental interpretation of birdsong, presumably -- just touches the surface of what San Francesco evidently believed regarding the miracle of this created world.

Franciscans have generally cultivated a sense that they are separate from the Pope's Church of Rome, that they are a separate movement of reform, still in communion with the Pope and Rome, as radical as the Reformers of the 16th century. but not quite so politically radical as they.

Historically, I think it is clear that San Francesco believed that all creatures in the world are good creatures of God, and their existences in joy all reflect God's essential goodness.  The most famous testimony of this is his famous "Hymn of the Creatures," the earliest great literary work in Italian, from which the early-1970s movie "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" received its title.

That said, I am afraid I do not believe that loving nature and the animals was an important part of the preaching of the historical San Francesco.

And on the other hand, though I have not researched this, I suspect that San Francesco's appearance as patron of nature, ecology and the animals is a relatively modern phenomenon.

Nevertheless, that is what church history is about: Our experiences grow, over time, and those experiences add to what we know about God.

Catholics and Orthodox understand; it is a bit over the head of Protestants.