Mark Shea wrote a fine piece looking at the question of when demons first appear in the Old Testament. Then he wrote a follow up post which addresses the progressive nature of revelation in the Old Testament, and how that affects our interpretation of it.
There are two things I really like about these posts. First of all, the topic of demons is an interesting one, which helps make the articles engaging to those who might not have interests in other theological topics. More importantly, though, is that he provides a great illustration of how doctrines develop over time. So many people today want to treat the Bible as a static manual that someone sat down and wrote to explain a system of religious belief. They act as if any reference to a topic found in the Bible, no matter where, should be taken at face value as a definitive statement about the topic without regard to its historical context.
It is true that we believe that in one sense, through the process of divine inspiration, the Bible has a single author who provides a unity to the text not found in any other collection of writings. Even so, God chose to work through human authors, limiting himself to their cultural perspective and knowledge of the world. Therefore, we see the understanding of the nature of demons is probably influenced by exposure to other belief systems which provide a vocabulary for biblical writers to use to express in a concrete way what was only vaguely understood before.
The stereotype of traditional Catholic education is dominated by the image of strict nuns whacking knuckles with rulers. Today is the feast of John Bosco (1815 - 1888). Here is a brief write-up about him.
He was born in Piedmont of a peasant family, and he was brought up by his widowed mother. He became a priest, and his particular concern was for the young. He settled in Turin, where, as in so many cities in the 19th century, the industrial revolution was bringing enormous movements of population and consequent social problems, especially for the young men who came there to work. John Bosco devoted himself to the care of the young, first of all by means of evening classes, to which hundreds came, and then by setting up a boarding-house for apprentices, and then workshops for their training and education. Despite many difficulties, caused both by the anti-clerical civil authorities and by the opposition of some senior people within the Church, his enterprise grew, and by 1868 over 800 boys and young men were under his care. To ensure the continuation of his work, he founded a congregation, which he named after St Francis de Sales (a saint for whom he had great admiration), and today the Salesians continue his work all over the world.
The following is from a letter John Bosco wrote, and it is read on his feast day in the Office of Readings. It very much reflects the philosophy of education that our Headmaster at Cistercian is constantly telling us. Since he is a Cistercian monk, he hears this read every year, so he is surely familiar with it.
First of all, if we wish to appear concerned about the true happiness of our foster children and if we would move them to fulfil their duties, you must never forget that you are taking the place of the parents of these beloved young people. I have always laboured lovingly for them, and carried out my priestly duties with zeal. And the whole Salesian society has done this with me.
My sons, in my long experience very often I had to be convinced of this great truth. It is easier to become angry than to restrain oneself, and to threaten a boy than to persuade him. Yes, indeed, it is more fitting to be persistent in punishing our own impatience and pride than to correct the boys. We must be firm but kind, and be patient with them.
I give you as a model the charity of Paul which he showed to his new converts. They often reduced him to tears and entreaties when he found them lacking docility and even opposing his loving efforts.
See that no one finds you motivated by impetuosity or wilfulness. It is difficult to keep calm when administering punishment, but this must be done if we are to keep ourselves from showing off our authority or spilling out our anger.
Let us regard those boys over whom we have some authority as our own sons. Let us place ourselves in their service. Let us be ashamed to assume an attitude of superiority. Let us not rule over them except for the purpose of serving them better.
This was the method that Jesus used with the apostles. He put up with their ignorance and roughness and even their infidelity. He treated sinners with a kindness and affection that caused some to be shocked, others to be scandalised, and still others to hope for God’s mercy. And so he bade us to be gentle and humble of heart.
They are our sons, and so in correcting their mistakes we must lay aside all anger and restrain it so firmly that it is extinguished entirely.
There must be no hostility in our minds, no contempt in our eyes, no insult on our lips. We must use mercy for the present and have hope for the future, as is fitting for true fathers who are eager for real correction and improvement.
In serious matters it is better to beg God humbly than to send forth a flood of words that will only offend the listeners and have no effect on those who are guilty.
I especially liked the second reading from today's Office of Readings. It is from The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council. I think it makes clear why the Catholic Church teaches that missing Sunday mass is a serious sin.
Christ is always present to his Church, especially in the actions of the liturgy. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, in the person of the minister (it is the same Christ who formerly offered himself on the cross that now offers by the ministry of priests) and most of all under the eucharistic species. He is present in the sacraments by his power, in such a way that when someone baptizes, Christ himself baptizes. He is present in his word, for it is he himself who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church. Finally, he is present when the Church prays and sings, for he himself promised: Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in their midst.
Indeed, in this great work which gives perfect glory to God and brings holiness to men, Christ is always joining in partnership with himself his beloved Bride, the Church, which calls upon its Lord and through him gives worship to the eternal Father.
It is therefore right to see the liturgy as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ, in which through signs addressed to the senses man’s sanctification is signified and, in a way proper to each of these signs, made effective, and in which public worship is celebrated in its fullness by the mystical body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the head and by his members.
Accordingly, every liturgical celebration, as an activity of Christ the priest and of his body, which is the Church, is a sacred action of a pre-eminent kind. No other action of the Church equals its title to power or its degree of effectiveness.
In the liturgy on earth we are given a foretaste and share in the liturgy of heaven, celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem, the goal of our pilgrimage, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God, as minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle. With the whole company of heaven we sing a hymn of praise to the Lord; as we reverence the memory of the saints, we hope to have some part with them, and to share in their fellowship; we wait for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, until he, who is our life, appears, and we appear with him in glory.
By an apostolic tradition taking its origin from the very day of Christ’s resurrection, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery every eighth day, the day that is rightly called the Lord’s day. On Sunday the Christian faithful ought to gather together, so that by listening to the word of God and sharing in the Eucharist they may recall the passion, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus and give thanks to God who has given them a new birth with a lively hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The Lord’s day is therefore the first and greatest festival, one to be set before the loving devotion of the faithful and impressed upon it, so that it may be also a day of joy and of freedom from work. Other celebrations must not take precedence over it, unless they are truly of the greatest importance, since it is the foundation and the kernel of the whole liturgical year.
I shared the following fine video on my Facebook page, which provoked a long response from an old friend of mine, Kenny Mansfield. Because the comment was so long, I thought the FB comment system was too awkward to adequately respond to it, so I'm using a blog post for that purpose.
First of all, here is the video, which was created by Patrick Gothman, a member of my parish.
Now I will respond to Kenny's post a section at a time.
OK, I listened to 2:03, when he said "...without the Catholic church, you would have no Bible." That, and other misstatements caused me to prematurely stop him and start writing. The Torah existed long before the Catholic church. And, while the canon was born in the 4th and 5th century by writers in the Catholic church, it was the leaders of the same church that tried to suppress it's distribution 1000 years later. It was during the Protestant Reformation that the Bible was printed in modern languages and made available to common people for all to see the heresies that the Catholic church had forced into the lives of Christians.
There are two issues I will address here: first is the accusation that the Catholic Church suppressed the distribution of the Bible in order to keep people from knowing about the heresies they were teaching. The second issue is the greater question raised by Patrick in the video: did the Bible came from the Catholic Church?
Regarding the first issue, Kenny repeats a common story among Protestants that is a gross simplification of a much more complex history. It is true that Bible translators Wycliffe and Tyndale were opposed by the Church, but it was due to their doctrine, not merely for translating the Bible. A quick check of Wikipedia shows that there was some translations of Scripture into English and several versions of the Bible in German before the Reformation. I have heard it said that there were Catholics who thought that vernacular languages were to "low" for the words of Scripture, and only a lofty language like Latin was a proper way to express the Bible. That would be an incorrect position, and one that has since been corrected by the Church. I also know that in reaction to what was seen as misuse of the Bible by Protestants, a fear developed in the Catholic Church that the Bible could not be correctly understood by those without a proper theological education. That mindset has since been reversed. Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI have all strongly taught that knowledge of the Bible is important for all Christians, quoting St. Jerome that "ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."
Regarding the second issue, which is that the Bible came from the Catholic Church, I raise the question of where did Wycliffe, Luther, and Tyndale get their Bibles from which they produced their translations? Wycliffe used the Latin Vulgate, which came from the Catholic Church. Luther and Tyndale made their translations from Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew Old Testament was available from the Jews, but how did they get a Greek New Testament? They used the Textus Receptus produced by Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus. If it were not for the Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformers would not have had a New Testament to work from.
I want to make one more point about the idea that the Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin in order to keep people from challenging their heretical doctrines. Such an idea rests on the idea that Latin was some secret language that only the evil heretical Catholic clergy could understand. On the contrary, Latin was known by all educated people in Europe, a fact that remained true even among Protestants well into the 17th century. Regardless of the issue of the Latin language, an educated person is more likely to oppose the so-called Catholic heresies and be able to mount a successful attack against them, so keeping the Bible in Latin would not be effective for hiding heresies. If the Church had really been afraid of the Bible, it would have destroyed it.
In Vatican Council II (12/7/1965), the following statement was added into the record: "It [Vatican Council II] longs to set forth the way it understands the presence and function of the Church in the world today. Therefore, the world which the Council has in mind is the whole human family seen in the context of everything which envelops it... This is the reason why this sacred Synod, in proclaiming the noble destiny of man and affirming an element of the divine in him, offers to co-operate unreservedly with mankind in fostering a sense of brotherhood to correspond to this destiny of theirs."
This is blatant idolatry by the Catholic church, a statement giving the green light to self-worship and elevating man to the level of God, which is clearly forbidden in the Torah. And this was written just 45 years ago, showing that even the modern leaders of your religion are still operating in the darkness.
I was not familiar with that quote, but using Google, I was able to find that it comes from Gaudium et Spes, The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, §3.
Kenny appears to object to the phrase, "affirming an element of the divine in him." The English translation on the Vatican website says, "championing the Godlike seed which has been sown in him." I have not studied this document; my studies of Vatican II have focused on the more theological Dogmatic Constitutions, Dei Verbum on Divine Revelation, and Lumen Gentium on the Church. I would have to do more study to be sure of what it was saying, but it appears to me that it is talking about the fact that we are made in the image of God.
The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he create them" (Gen 1:27 RSV-CE). They sinned in the garden, bringing upon themselves spiritual death. The image of God in them was marred, but not completely gone. St. Paul affirms this when he says, "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts..." (Rom 2:14-15a). St. Paul is talking about the law of God being written on the hearts of pagan Gentiles, so there is something from God still remaining in fallen man.
Kenny says that such an idea is idolatry, but idolatry is the worship of a false god, and I see nothing in this quote about worshiping the "element of divine" in man. I agree that such a thing would be idolatry, but the mere mention that there is something divine in man is not idolatry. Even if Kenny thinks like many Calvinists do that the image of God is completely gone from fallen man, he has not eliminated the fact that there was something divine in original man, and that there is something divine in redeemed man. Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19) and will "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). That doesn't mean we worship each other and commit idolatry.
From the same Council, a statement issued on 10/28/1965 reads: "...In Hinduism, men explore the divine mystery and express it both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately defined insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trial of the present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation and recourse to God in confidence and love. Buddhism in its various forms testifies to the essential inadequacy of this changing world. It proposes a way of life by which man can, with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own efforts or by the aid of divine help. The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions."
WHAT?!?! The official position of your religion is that there is a little good in their evil paganisms that deserves recognition (a dip into Taoism)?
I also had to Google this quote, and found that it is from Nostra Aetate, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, §2. Again, I am sorry that I have not studied this document, but I have heard teaching on the subject, including a talk by Cardinal Francis Arinze, former President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. This teaching is rooted in the doctrine of the universal ministry of the Holy Spirit, of which Jesus speaks: "if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment" (John 16: 7b-8). We believe that the Holy Spirit constantly speaks to all people, and some of them respond, even if imperfectly. What I learned from Cardinal Arinze is that we can engage in honest dialogue with non-Christians with the expectation that we might learn something from them. Of course, our hope is to convert them to the Catholic faith, which we believe to have the fullness of God's revelation and gifts for salvation, but even so, we might learn something from their unique perspective, which ultimately comes from the same Holy Spirit who indwells the Church. (Note that we believe someone must be a baptized Christian to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit, but not to be influenced by the Spirit.)
What I liked about Cardinal Arinze's talk was that he combined the certainty of the superiority of the Catholic faith with the acknowledgment that there could be some truth in other religions. He said we can confidently desire to convert the non-Catholic, while at the same time be open to learning from him.
Assuming that I may not have been convincing about the possibility that other religions might have "a little good in their evil paganisms," I will pose the following questions. What if another religion taught that is wrong to commit murder? Is that good or bad? Should I reject that idea because it comes from another religion? Of course not! I would then be rejecting God's law as revealed in the Bible. I must affirm that their belief in the evil of murder is true, and good, and compatible with God's law. If they teach that there is only one God, I must also agree that this particular belief of theirs is true, good, and compatible with Christian doctrine. However, I cannot stop there. If they do not believe that the one God is triune, I must say that they are wrong in that aspect of their belief.
To be more concrete, when the Muslim says there is only one God, I must say he is correct in that regard, and his belief on that point is good. If I say he is wrong, I am rejecting Christian doctrine, which teaches there is only one God. However, when the Muslim says that Jesus was just a prophet, and not God incarnate, then I must say that he is wrong, and his belief in that particular aspect is evil. I may also point out that the Muslim characterization of God is different from the Christian understanding in many ways.
When the Hindu says there are many gods, I must say he is wrong, and in that aspect his belief is evil. However, when the Hindu says that the things of this world will not bring happiness, I can affirm the truth and goodness in what he says on that particular point. When the atheist astronomer remarks on the beauty of the cosmos, I can agree with him in that regard. I actually believe that his perception of the beauty of the heavens is actually the Holy Spirit speaking to him. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps 19:1).
At 1:30, he talks about the Scientific Method being born in the Catholic church but it is commonly known that Ibn al-Haytham, an Islamic Arab, is considered the father of the scientific method. (Gorini, Rosanna (October 2003), "Al-Haytham the man of experience. First steps in the science of vision" Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine 2 (4): 53–55
I will agree with Kenny that Patrick over-stated the point in this regard. I again checked Wikipedia, and on the History of the Scientific Method, it does mention Ibn al-Haytham, and other Arab scholars through Avicenna. At that point, the history moves to the Catholic bishop Robert Grosseteste, Catholic friar Roger Bacon, Catholic scientist Galileo Galilei, English (Protestant?) philosopher Francis Bacon, French Catholic philosopher René Descartes, and then English Protestant Isaac Newton.
I heard an interesting talk by Robert Reilly, author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist. I will try to state from memory what he said about why the development of science in the Muslim world ended with Avicenna. At that time, an extreme view of God's sovereignty arose in Muslim thought that has persisted to this day, which eliminates all secondary causes. It says that God directly causes the whole state of the universe each moment, entirely according to his will, independent of what the state of the universe was in the previous moment. So if I drop a ball, and I think that gravity is pulling it down to the ground, I am mistaken. Actually, God, in his sovereignty, has decided to create a series of universes in which there is a ball in different positions, such that it appears to be falling due to gravity. However, God could have just as easily caused the ball to exist in different locations, or not at all. Such a worldview tends to take the wind out of the sails of scientific inquiry.
At the same time, the writings of Avicenna, and other Muslim philosophers, including their translations of Aristotle, made their way into the Latin speaking Catholic world. There, although the belief of God's ultimate sovereignty existed, there was also the belief that God created secondary causes which could be studied and understood. That worldview carried forward in the Catholic world, and eventually into the Protestant world, and was the womb in which modern science developed.
And, at 3:04, he says I am welcome? Can I walk into a Mass and partake of the Lord's Supper? I have professed faith in Jesus as my Christ and renounced my sin for over 35 years but your religion won't let me eat at Christ's table without a bunch of legalistic man-made hoop-jumping.
The Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is that it is the Sacrament of the unity of the Church. The desire of the Catholic Church is that all who belong to Christ would come together in unity at the table of the Lord. However, unity does not exist in the Christian world at this time. Protestants believe that the Catholic Church is in error, so for a Protestant to receive communion at a Catholic Church would be a lie, proclaiming a unity that does not exist. The Church does not allow Catholics to receive communion at Protestant churches for the same reason.
The "hoop-jumping" that Kenny speaks of is just an attempt to make sure a person knows what they are getting into before they make that commitment of unity with the Catholic Church. Receiving communion is a very serious thing, and the Church wants to do all it can to make sure people are prepared. "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Cor. 11:29-30). The RCIA program is a 9 month long education program on the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and most priests want people to complete that program before they will receive them into the Church. However, because I already knew something of the Catholic faith, and I went to a small parish where the priest could know about my background, my wife and I were able to receive private instruction in a shorter period of time.
I am struggling with the fact that I know you know a lot about your religion but would still post this video on your wall.
As I said above, Patrick goes to my parish. I don't know him well, but he seems to be a fine young man. He has been to diocesan seminary and is now preparing to become a Dominican friar. Except for his over-statement about the scientific method, I think I have shown that I agree with what he says in the video. I'm hoping that through this post, I might clear up for Kenny and anyone else who reads it, some common misunderstandings about the Catholic Church.
The just man will rejoice in the Lord and put his hope in him; the hearts of all good men will be filled with joy. We must surely have sung these words with our hearts as well as with our voices. Indeed, the tongue of the Christian expresses his deepest feelings when it addresses such words to God. The just man will rejoice, not in the world, but in the Lord. Light has dawned for the just, Scripture says in another place, and joy for the upright of heart. Were you wondering what reason he has for joy? Here you are told: The just man will rejoice in the Lord. Another text runs: Delight in the Lord, and he will give you your heart’s desires.
What are we instructed to do then, and what are we enabled to do? To rejoice in the Lord. But who can rejoice in something he does not see? Am I suggesting that we see the Lord then? No, but we have been promised that we shall see him. Now, as long as we are in the body, we walk by faith, for we are absent from the Lord. We walk by faith, and not by sight. When will it be by sight? Beloved, says John, we are now the sons of God; what we shall be has not yet been revealed, but we know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. When this prophecy is fulfilled, then it will be by sight.
That will be the great joy, the supreme joy, joy in all its fullness. Then we shall no longer drink the milk of hope, but we shall feed on the reality itself. Nevertheless, even now, before that vision comes to us, or before we come to that vision, let us rejoice in the Lord; for it is no small reason for rejoicing to have a hope that will some day be fulfilled.
Therefore, since the hope we now have inspires love, the just man rejoices, Scripture says, in the Lord; but because he does not yet see, it immediately goes on to say, and hopes in him.
Yet already we have the first fruits of the Spirit, and have we not also other reasons for rejoicing? For we are drawing near to the one we love, and not only are we drawing near – we even have some slight feeling and taste of the banquet we shall one day eagerly eat and drink.
But how can we rejoice in the Lord if he is far from us? Pray God he may not be far. If he is, that is your doing. Love, and he will draw near; love, and he will dwell within you. The Lord is at hand; have no anxiety. Are you puzzled to know how it is that he will be with you if you love? God is love.
“What do you mean by love?” you will ask me. It is that which enables us to be loving. What do we love? A good that words cannot describe, a good that is for ever giving, a good that is the Creator of all good. Delight in him from whom you have received everything that delights you. But in that I do not include sin, for sin is the one thing that you do not receive from him. With that one exception, everything you have comes from him.
(Sermo 21, 1-4: CCL 41, 276-278)
From the Office of Readings for Wednesday in the 33rd week of Ordinary Time, courtesy of universalis.com.
For the last couple of weeks, I have been praying with The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary It is a liturgical prayer book which offers a simplified version of the Divine Office, which is the liturgical prayer based on the Psalms that has its roots in pre-Christian Jewish prayer. This book follows the form of the Divine Office which was used in the Catholic Church until Vatican II, but which Pope Benedict recently allowed to be used again.
This copy of The Little Office is dual-column, English on the left, and Latin on the right. The Latin text has changed very little since the Middle Ages, and the English Biblical texts come from the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible that dates back to the 16th century. It has a very traditional feel, and the language is very beautiful. It is not difficult to read, but it would not be mistaken for a modern translation.
Until I got this book, I had been praying with the Liturgy of the Hours, which is a modern reworking of the Divine Office created after Vatican II. While comparing the Liturgy of the Hours to my new Little Office book, I came to the following conclusion. It appears to me that the Liturgy of the Hours does the best it can to remove all traces of the Middle Ages from this ancient form of prayer, including all traces of Latin. Even the traditional Latin names of the prayers, such as Matins, Lauds, Terce, None, Sext, and Vespers, have been replaced with Office of Readings, Morning Prayer, Midmorning Prayer, Midday Prayer, Midafternoon Prayer, and Evening Prayer.
I have the feeling that many Catholics in the 1960s and 70s were ashamed of how much the Catholic Church had held on to its Medieval roots, and they took the changes that came out of the Second Vatican Council as license to jettison everything that was the least bit Medieval.
At the root of this Medieval shame seems to be the belief that the Middle Ages were an unmitigated low-point of human history. I strongly challenge that belief. From what I've seen so far in my exposure to Medieval writings and history is that the Middle Ages, like every age of history, has its faults and blind-spots, but it also has much of great value.
There is a Cistercian monks at the Abbey which runs the school where I work who recently retired after many years of teaching history at University of Texas at Arlington. He has come to me a few times with some computer questions, and has talked to me about my graduate work at University of Dallas. One day he told me I should study the Middle Ages because that was the age in which faith and reason worked together. I think we need to discover how to bring that aspect of the Middle Ages to our world today.
This is a fascinating story about a group of faithful Catholics who rejected the Catholic Church because of radical changes they experienced in the wake of Vatican II. (Sedevacantism is the belief that there is no valid Pope in the Catholic Church. "Sede" is Latin for "chair", so sedevacntism is the belief that the Chair of Peter, representing the Papal office, is vacant.) It is a chapter in the story of the Catholic Church's struggle with modernity. We see some Catholics, including clergy, who embraced modernity to the point of rejecting Catholic tradition, resulting in this group's complete rejection of modernity along with the Catholic Church.
This story illustrates that the whole subject of modernity is complicated, requiring thoughtful and careful examination. Knee-jerk reactions in either direction are problematic.
Mother Kathryn Joseph sat down to have it out with [her brother] on the whole sedevacantism issue. She recalled, “I had an epiphany in one sitting. I realized that I had been wrong for 35 years. But I was happy to have been proven wrong.”
I will not get into the controversy over whether there is actually a global change in climate going on caused by human activity. I think it is likely to be true, but if it's not, there are certainly plenty of other things we are doing to adversely affect our environment, and these also spring from the same root. I will begin by saying I believe the root cause of these environmental problems is greed. I think that greed for more comfort, convenience, and profit works against attempts towards moderation of energy consumption and pollution.
Since greed has been a human problem throughout history, this raises the question of why are we having environmental problems now rather than earlier. There are two reasons which are related to each other. The first is that our technology has enabled a larger population, and greater ability to consume energy and produce pollution. However, the other reason has to do with my previous post about René Descartes.
One of the characteristics of a modern mindset, which is found in Descartes' Discourse on Method is the desire to be "masters and possessors of nature." We want to master nature so that we can have comfortable, trouble-free lives, with good health for many years. This has become so much a part of our thinking that for most people that they don't even think about it. So, if you couple this modern philosophy that we should be masters and possessors of nature for the sake of our own comfort and health with the enduring problem of human greed, it is no wonder that nature suffers as a result.
