Politics of the moon after 50 years
Vice President Mike Pence recently announced, “The first woman and the next man on the moon will both be American astronauts, launched by American rockets, from American soil.” This priority for the administration, along with the Space Force and other NASA investments, are sure to ignite further debate over the costs of space exploration. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, history is ripe with lessons. First, the whimsical.
In the summer of 1969, a collegial spat emerged in the Roman Catholic church over who would be the Bishop of the Moon. In jest, Bishop Borders of Orlando informed Pope Paul VI that canon law placed any newly discovered territories under the jurisdiction of the diocese from which the expedition departed, Cape Canaveral. Cardinal Cooke of New York, vicar of the Military Ordinariate, claimed the title because the Apollo 11 mission launched from the air force station on the Cape.
Meanwhile, Archbishop Carroll of Miami claimed he was the rightful Bishop of the Moon since everyone knew the moon was always over Miami. Whoever had the legitimate claim as bishop, Pope Paul VI embraced the moon landing. Controversial and politically hot for some leaders of faith, Paul VI showed the world a modern faith that embraced science, technology, and innovation.
Paul VI’s difficult reign began in June of 1963 — five months before President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and amidst the controversial, reform driven Second Vatican Council. Aggiornamento, or implementing the modernizations of the council, was his responsibility. Reforms pleased Roman Curia progressives eager to see the church embrace modernity while frustrating traditionalists around the globe who feared doctrinal compromise.
Four years after the conclusion of Vatican II, as liberating reforms in practice and ecumenical relations were spreading globally, Paul VI published his encyclical Humanae Vitae. With this encyclical Roman Catholics were prohibited the use of artificial contraception, notably the increasingly popular birth control pill. Progressives were caught off guard as it seemed to be a step backwards from the work of Vatican II. Conservatives rejoiced; they witnessed a defense of traditional conviction over life and sexual relations.
Progressive Catholics and the global media questioned if this supposedly modern pope was anti-science. Cardinal Suenens, moderator of the ecumenical council, spoke against the encyclical saying to his peers, “I beg you my brothers, let us avoid another Galileo affair. One is enough for the Church.” Suenens feared another rejection by the church of a great scientific moment, as it did when Galileo was condemned in the 17th century for his heliocentric view of the universe.
The moon landing was politically fortuitous for Paul VI. The church’s public embrace of the moon landing countered the narrative following Humanae Vitae of the church moving backward. Paul VI showed the world that faith and science are not antithetical. Humankind’s giant leap to the moon came at just the right moment.
From May to October of 1969 the Vatican practically shadowed NASA’s communications office. Paul VI’s general audience address applauded the moon mission on a weekly basis, once saying it is, “the accomplishment of science, technology, and human ingenuity.” He, along with 73 other global leaders, provided a message for a silicon disc NASA created to leave on the moon’s surface. Paul VI quotes the eighth Psalm adding, “We ardently pray for this wonderful beginning.”
Newsreel footage shows Paul VI hosting a press conference at the Vatican Observatory on the day of the lunar landing. He peers into the massive Schmidt telescope before being seated to watch the landing on television. That afternoon he telegraphed congratulatory remarks to President Nixon, and later that autumn received Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, and their wives, for an audience.
Opposition for the moon landing did come, however, from within the Catholic church and faith leaders across the United States. German theologian Karl Rahner said, “…but we must still ask ourselves whether it is not moral vulgarity of a low order to pour out so many billions to send people to the moon, while at the same time we are faced with worldwide hunger.”
Similarly, pastor and civil rights leader Hosea Williams led 200 protesters to march on Cape Canaveral two years after Apollo 11 objecting to the amount of money being spent on space travel. Some said the missions were merely sending “lazy white boys” for moon rocks.
The controversies and political landscape of the Apollo 11 mission fade for us 50 years hence. We tend to focus on the bravery of the astronauts, the anxiety of a watching world, and the statement the moon landing made for the Cold War. Yet, for many leading in those days the implications of mankind’s giant leap impacted religious and social movements on earth.
Might we expect the same with NASA’s push to the moon and Mars? Well, perhaps. John Noonan, the current Bishop of Orlando, had the best advice for us all concerning any claim he may or may not have on being Bishop of the Moon. “Since Pope Francis wrote Laudato Si,” an encyclical warning of the environmental degradation on Earth, “I have left it in the Lord’s hands for now. No doubt with the increased interest in space travel and the moon my successor will have to give some consideration to this.”
Case Thorp is moderator-elect of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the senior associate pastor at First Presbyterian Church of Orlando.