Praying the world halts climate change? There's now a Catholic Mass for that
For centuries, Catholic priests have been able to celebrate special Masses to pray for their country, give thanks after a harvest or ask God to end a natural disaster.
The new "Mass for the care of creation," prepared by two Vatican offices, allows priests to pray that Catholics will "lovingly care" for creation and "learn to live in harmony with all creatures".
"This Mass … calls us to be faithful stewards of what God has entrusted to us – not only in daily choices and public policies, but also in our prayer, our worship, and our way of living in the world," said Cardinal Michael Czerny, presenting the rite at a Vatican press conference on Thursday.
Catholic priests have the possibility of offering Masses for a range of special needs. The new rite, approved by Pope Leo, is the 50th option offered by the Vatican.
The late Pope Francis was a firm proponent of care for creation. He was the first pope to embrace the scientific consensus about climate change and urged nations to reduce their carbon emissions in line with the 2015 Paris climate accord.
"Pope Leo clearly will carry this pastoral and civil concern forward," Rev. Bruce Morrill, a Jesuit priest and expert on Catholic liturgy at Vanderbilt University in the U.S., told Reuters.
"This new thematic Mass indicates the Church's recognition of the serious threats human-caused climate change is now fully realising," he said.
The new Vatican rite comes two days after Catholic bishops from Asia, Africa and Latin America called on global governments to do more to address climate change, publishing a joint appeal that was the first of its kind.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
London's low-traffic zones ‘cut deaths and injuries by more than a third'
Low-traffic neighbourhoodscut road injuries and deaths by more than a third within their boundaries with no apparent negative safety effect on nearby roads, a study has shown. Based on comparisons of more than a decade of road casualty statistics between 113 London LTNs and other roads that did not have them, the report's authors found that LTNs were associated with a 35% reduction in all injuries, rising to 37% for deaths and serious injuries. In absolute terms, the study concluded, this meant that creating the LTNs prevented more than 600 road injuries that would have otherwise taken place, including 100 involving death or serious injury. On boundary roads, those just outside the LTNs, there was no observable change in the number of casualties. LTNs aim to make smaller residential streets more friendly for walking, wheeling and cycling by using filters to stop through-traffic by motor vehicles. While they have been used in various forms in the UK for decades and are ubiquitous in many European cities, an expansion in their use from 2020 led to pushback from some politicians and parts of the media. A common criticism has been that LTNs simply displace traffic to boundary roads, which become more dangerous. However, studies have found a negligible impact on traffic levels and the new paper, published in Injury Prevention, a spin-off from the British Medical Journal, indicates this is the same for deaths and injuries. Of the 113 LTNs studied, 27 were subsequently taken out. According to analysis by the authors, from Westminster University and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, if the LTNs had not been removed there would have been 116 fewer injuries overall, 16 of which involved death or serious injuries. Across the LTNs as a whole, the authors said, an estimated 613 injuries were prevented, including 100 deaths or serious injuries. The study involved analysing road casualties from 2012 to 2024 on all so-called road links – a sections of road between two junctions – in London, some of which became part of or a boundary to an LTN, while others did not were treated as a control group. This allowed the authors to observe changes within LTNs and also compare them with changes on other road links, to take account of separate, longer-term changes in injury rates, including lower traffic levels during Covid. One phenomenon that was apparent between schemes was that the safety benefits of being within an LTN in outer London seemed notably less than those in inner London. Some outer London schemes have been shown as less successful in reducing overall traffic. Even with such caveats, the results across a relatively large-scale study give supporters of LTNs the ability to argue that they provably prevent injuries and deaths, as has also been shown to be the case for 20mph speed limits in Wales. Although modal filters, the technical name for LTNs, have been repeatedly shown to be effective when implemented properly, negative media coverage of the wave of schemes introduced from 2020 prompted a political backlash, with Rishi Sunak's government pledging to clamp down on LTNs. Sunak's government even commissioned a report on LTNs in the apparent hope it would conclude they did not work. When the report found instead they were mainly popular and effective, it was initially buried. Dr Jamie Furlong from Westminster University's Active Travel Academy, who led the new study, said its findings should reassure policymakers about the schemes. He said: 'LTNs have led to considerable reductions in road traffic injuries inside their boundaries for all road users – from pedestrians and cyclists to drivers. At the same time, concerns about nearby main roads becoming more dangerous aren't supported by the evidence.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
London's low-traffic zones ‘cut deaths and injuries by more than a third'
Low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) cut road injuries and deaths by more than a third within their boundaries with no apparent negative safety effect on nearby roads, a study has shown in a boost to proponents of the measure. Based on comparisons involving more than a decade of road casualty statistics between 113 LTNs created across London and other roads that did not have them, the report's authors found that LTNs were associated with a 35% reduction in all injuries, rising to 37% for deaths and serious injuries. In absolute terms, the study concluded, this meant that creating the LTNs prevented more than 600 road injuries that would have otherwise taken place, including 100 involving death or serious injury. On boundary roads, those just outside the LTNs, there was no observable change in the overall number of casualties. LTNs aim to make smaller residential streets more friendly for walking, wheeling and cycling by using filters to stop through-traffic by motor vehicles. While they have been used in various forms in the UK for decades and are ubiquitous in many European cities, an expansion in their use from 2020 led to pushback from some politicians and parts of the media. A common criticism has been that LTNs simply displace traffic to boundary roads, which thus become more dangerous. Earlier studies have, however, found a negligible impact on traffic levels and the new paper, published in Injury Prevention, a spin-off from the British Medical Journal, indicates this is the same for deaths and injuries. Of the 113 LTNs studied, 27 were subsequently taken out. According to analysis by the authors, from Westminster University and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, if the LTNs had not been removed there would have been 116 fewer injuries overall, 16 of which involved death or serious injuries. Across the LTNs as a whole, the authors said, an estimated 613 injuries were prevented, including 100 deaths or serious injuries. The study involved analysing road casualties from 2012 to 2024 on all so-all road links – a sections of road between two junctions – in London, some of which became part of or a boundary to an LTN, while others did not, and were treated as a control group. This allowed the authors to observe changes within LTNs and also compare them with changes on other road links, to take account of other, longer-term changes in injury rates, including lower traffic levels during Covid. One phenomenon that was apparent between schemes was that the safety benefits of being within an LTN in outer London seemed notably less than those in inner London. Some outer London schemes have been shown as less successful in reducing overall traffic. Even with such caveats, the results across a relatively large-scale study give supporters of LTNs the ability to argue that they provably prevent injuries and deaths, as has also been shown to be the case for 20mph speed limits in Wales. Although modal filters, the technical name for LTNs, have been repeatedly shown to be effective when implemented properly, negative media coverage of the wave of schemes introduced from 2020 prompted a political backlash, with Rishi Sunak's government pledging to clamp down on LTNs. Sunak's government even commissioned a report on LTNs in the apparent hope it would conclude they did not work. When the report found instead they were mainly popular and effective, it was initially buried. Dr Jamie Furlow from Westminster University's Active Travel Academy, who led the new study, said its findings should reassure policymakers over the schemes. He said: 'LTNs have led to considerable reductions in road traffic injuries inside their boundaries for all road users – from pedestrians and cyclists to drivers. At the same time, concerns about nearby main roads becoming more dangerous aren't supported by the evidence.'
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
No more excuses! Men DON'T sleep through the sound of a baby crying, experts reveal
It's a well-worn trope that mothers will wake at the slightest stir from their baby while fathers peacefully doze on. But scientists now say that dads have no excuses for missing midnight nappy changes. Scientists from Aarhus University in Denmark found that men were just as likely to be woken by the sounds of crying as women. While women were slightly more likely to be woken by 'whisper level' sounds, computer modelling shows this cannot explain why they do so much more of the care. The researchers monitored 142 non-parents while they slept and recorded how often they woke up in response to the sound of a baby crying. Women were, on average, about 14 per cent more likely to wake up to sounds between 33 and 44 decibels - about as loud as birdsong or a library. However, men and women woke with the same frequency as soon as the volume started to approach that of a real baby's crying. Lead researcher Professor Christine Parsons told MailOnline: 'We had participants all waking up and we didn't have evidence that men were sleeping through.' Scientists have busted the myth that men are more likely to sleep through a baby's crying than women, finding only minor differences in how the sexes respond to nighttime noises Although the idea that men can sleep through their baby's crying is a myth, there are real reasons to think that women might wake up more frequently in the night. Studies have shown that women tend to report more disturbed sleep overall, regardless of sounds. Likewise, research suggests that women might be more sensitive to high-pitched sounds. However, Professor Parsons' research, published in the journal Emotion, shows that any differences only translate into small changes in waking patterns when the sounds are very quiet. More importantly, these small statistical differences cannot explain the large gap in care burdens. In a second trial, the researchers gave 117 first-time Danish parents an app to log their nighttime care over a week. Then, the researchers used simulations to predict what that distribution of nighttime care would look like if the only factor were those differences found by the first study. Professor Parsons says: 'What we found was that women did 75 per cent of the nighttime caregiving. 'If we estimate how much caregiving would emerge from that small difference [in sound responses], it would look much more equal between men and women.' What this shows is that inherent biological or psychological differences in how men and women respond to sounds in the night cannot explain why women do more of the care. These findings come in stark contrast to the extremely widespread myth that men aren't as easily woken by their children. In particular, Professor Parsons singled out an influential but unscientific survey funded by Lemsip, which claimed that the sound of the wind or the buzz of a fly were more likely to wake men than the sound of a child crying. While these findings weren't peer-reviewed and had no scientific merit whatsoever, these ideas have spread extremely far. Professor Parsons says: 'When I talk to scientists at conferences, they have actually heard of it and say, "Wasn't there that paper on waking behaviour?"' 'But these are phantom papers and phantom ideas, and if an idea confirms a suspicion or a belief that people have, then it is very difficult to change people's minds about it.' The study focused on adults without children in order to see whether pre-parenthood gender differences alone affected nighttime care patterns. However, pregnancy and childbirth cause massive hormonal changes that might affect waking times. There are also good reasons why new mothers might get up more in the night, especially if they are breastfeeding. Similarly, men in the OECD receive an average of 2.3 weeks of parental leave compared to 18.5 weeks for women. This means women get more practice caring for babies at night and don't have to wake up for work in the morning. All of these other factors, alongside societal expectations, are likely to be important in explaining why women do so much more of the nightly care. Professor Parsons says: 'I'm not excluding any of those things, but this is not really what our paper is about. 'What we were trying to test is a very specific question about how men and women can or cannot sleep through different types of sounds.' ABOUT CIRCIDIAN RHYTHMS Our internal circadian rhythms, or circadian clock, is responsible for waking our bodies up in the morning and ensuring they get a good night's rest. In a healthy person, cortisol levels peak at around 8am, which wakes us up (in theory), and drop to their lowest at 3am the next day, before rising back to its peak five hours later. Ideally, this 8am peak will be triggered by exposure to sunlight, if not an alarm. When it does, the adrenal glands and brain will start pumping adrenaline. By mid-morning, the cortisol levels start dropping, while the adrenaline (for energy) and serotonin (a mood stabilizer) keep pumping. At midday, metabolism and core body temperature ramp up, getting us hungry and ready to eat. After noon, cortisol levels start their steady decline. Metabolism slows down and tiredness sets in. Gradually the serotonin turns into melatonin, which induces sleepiness. Our blood sugar levels decrease, and at 3am, when we are in the middle of our sleep, cortisol levels hit a 24-hour low.
