Pope Francis’s Environmental Encyclical: A Guide for the Perplexed Gregory Bassham* Pope Francis’s 2015 Encyclical “Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home”1 is a landmark papal document on the environment and social justice. In this work, the Francis issues a bold call for action to address urgent environmental concerns, including climate change, environmental degradation, pollution, and the rapid global collapse of biodiversity. More broadly and deeply, he calls for an “ecological conversion” (217)2 that entails radical changes in the way people live, view nature, treat the environment, organize social life, and act toward one another. Though written very clearly and engagingly, the document is lengthy (about 80 printed pages) and may be confusing to some not familiar with Catholic social teaching. In this brief paper, I shall try to do three things: (1) explain what’s new and important about the document, (2) briefly summarize its principal claims and conclusions, and (3) offer some personal reflections on some of its strengths and weaknesses. What’s New and Important about the Encyclical “Laudato Si’” is an encyclical, which is an especially solemn and authoritative form of papal teaching. Most papal encyclicals tend to be focused narrowly on Catholic doctrine, are addressed to the Pope’s fellow Bishops or to the Catholic faithful, cite only authoritative Church sources (such as the teachings of Church Councils, prior papal documents, reports of Bishops’ conferences, and the views of venerable Catholic theologians), and are not widely read outside of Church circles. “Laudato Si’” is different in all these respects. It is addressed to all of * Formerly Professor of Philosophy, King’s College (Pennsylvania). 1 humankind; discusses science, technology, and many other non-doctrinal topics; cites many unusual and non-authoritative sources (including Dante, a 9th-century Sufi mystic,3 the current Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church,4 and Teilhard de Chardin); and has been widely read and praised by non-Catholics around the world. It probably will be the most discussed and important source of Catholic social teaching since Pope John XXIII’s 1963 encyclical, Pacem in terris (“Peace on Earth”). A second thing that is new and important about “Laudato Si’” is the way it updates Church teaching about the environment and brings it into fruitful conversation with modern ecology and the global environmental movement. Traditionally, Catholic theologians have paid little heed to ecology, and most have adopted strongly human-centered views that view humans as being separate from nature, superior to nature, and commissioned by God to have “dominion” over the earth and to “to fill” and “subdue it” (Gen. 1:28). In “Laudato Si’,” Pope Francis offers a strikingly different vision of how humans should regard nature. Instead of thinking of ourselves as masters and conquerors of the natural world, we should regard earth as the “common home” we share with our “mother,” “sisters,” and “brothers”—our “family” and “community” of fellow life-forms.5 Though humans have a special kind of dignity and were given the earth as a gift, we not should confuse “dominion” with domination. Instead, we should recognize that God created and loves all creatures, that all living things have value in themselves, that plants and animals were not created solely for human benefit, that all life-forms on earth share a common home and are part of the same family, and that humans were meant to be faithful and just trustees of earth’s ecological treasures, not conquerors or ruthless exploiters of them. In short, Francis seeks to modernize Church teaching about the environment by substituting an ecologically informed “good stewardship” model for the strongly anthropocentric views that prevailed in previous 2 centuries. As we shall see, there are elements of Francis’s stewardship ethic that sound a strikingly new emphasis and tone in Catholic theology. Principal Claims and Conclusions “Laudato Si’” is divided into six chapters. These are respectively titled: Chapter 1: What Is Happening to Our Common Home Chapter 2: The Gospel of Creation Chapter 3: The Human Roots of the Ecological Crisis Chapter 4: Integral Ecology Chapter 5: Lines of Approach and Action Chapter 6: Ecological Education and Spirituality Here’s a brief summary: The first chapter, “What Is Happening to Our Common Home,” examines a number of urgent threats to the environment, including climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and access to clean drinking water. Pope Francis makes no effort to prove that humans are contributing to climate change, simply commenting that this is supported by “a very solid scientific consensus” (23). He also looks at broader social issues connected to the environment, such as global inequalities and the many ways the environmental crisis has led to a general “decline in the quality of human life and the breakdown of society” (41). The second chapter, titled “The Gospel of Creation,” examines what the Bible and Church teaching have to say about environmental responsibility. Francis acknowledges that for too long Catholic theologians have embraced an overly human-centered view of nature and the purpose of the universe. He quotes many passages from the Bible suggesting that, when God gave humans “dominion” over the earth, he did not mean tyrannical rule or unconditional 3 ownership. The Bible teaches that God is the true owner and ruler of the earth, but that he has entrusted it to our care as a shared gift, with the proviso that we act as just and faithful trustees of its beauties and bounties, both for our generation and for all generations to come. In Chapter 3, “The Human Roots of the Ecological Crisis,” Pope Francis explores the leading causes of environmental degradation. He acknowledges that religion is partly to blame, notably in the form of a “misguided anthropocentrism” (35) that mistakes “dominion” for a right of ruthless exploitation and conceives of nature simply as a resource for human benefit and exploitation.6 Other principal causes of the ecological crisis include rampant consumerism; a “throwaway culture” that places little value on future generations, sustainability, or the needs of others: a globalized free-market economy that prizes short-term profits over the common good and the health of the planet: and a “technocratic paradigm” (101) that wrongly assumes that earth’s resources are unlimited and that all human problems ultimately have technological solutions.7 In Chapter 4, “Integral Ecology,” Francis argues that environmental problems cannot be understood or addressed in isolation. Environmental degradation is usually rooted in deeper causes, such as poverty, injustice, poor housing, lack of education, economic pressures, and overcrowding. For these reasons, we need an “integral ecology” that addresses all interrelated environmental, economic, social, and cultural factors. Chapter 5, titled “Lines of Approach and Action,” offers ideas for tackling the ecological crisis on a national and international basis. He notes that so far, the global response to climate change and other major ecological problems has been feeble and largely ineffectual, adding that “the post-industrial period may well be remembered as one of the most irresponsible in history” (165). Effective responses require immediate, far-ranging, and transparent dialogue on many 4 fronts. Enforceable international agreements are urgently needed to deal with climate change, species extinction, and justice between rich and poor nations. Wealthy nations must accept decreased growth to provide resources for other places to experience healthy development (193) and to deal with the pervasive and hugely complex problems of climate change (170). The final chapter, “Ecological Education and Spirituality,” talks about what individuals, families, and local communities can do to help the environment and live fuller, more authentic Christian lives. Ultimately, he believes, nothing less than an “ecological conversion” (216) is necessary, requiring far-reaching and fundamental changes in attitudes, lifestyles, and values. Rampant consumerism, unsustainable growth, faith in the technocratic paradigm, and oppression of the poor by the rich must stop. People in rich countries must moderate their spending, tread more lightly on the earth, and live simpler, lower-consumption lifestyles. For Christians, calls to such changes should be familiar, for Christianity “encourages a prophetic and contemplative lifestyle,” a concern for the poor, and “a capacity to be happy with little” (222). Christianity also fosters a love and respect for nature, for it views the world as “God’s loving gift” and a “splendid universal communion” (220) of created and interconnected life-forms. More deeply, Christianity teaches that God is not wholly separate from nature, but pervades it and “fills it completely” (223). Because of this immanent divine presence, “there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face” (233). Such things are “sacramental signs” (233) of God’s beauty, majesty, artistry, and presence.8 Though nature is not divine, so intimate is the connection between God and His creation that in a deep mystical sense “all things are God.”9 (234) Critical Responses and Appraisal 5 “Laudato Si’” has been generally well-received by the environmental movement and has been widely praised by believers and nonbelievers around the world. Not surprisingly, it has been criticized by many religious and political conservatives, as well as by business groups and internationalists concerned by Francis’s critiques of consumerism, global inequalities, nationalism, technocracy, and unregulated free-market global capitalism.10 The encyclical has been broadly praised for its readability, its scope, its undogmatic tone, its bold modernization of Catholic social teaching, its scientific and ecological literacy, its stress on dialogue and internationalism, and its inspirational calls for responsible stewardship, environmental activism, urgent collective action on climate change, a personal ecological conversion, and global economic justice. Those familiar with Catholic theology and social teaching will find in the encyclical many familiar themes—the preferential option for the poor, the stress on economic justice, the subordination of private property to the common good,11 a critique of free-wheeling capitalism, to name a few. But the document is also boldly innovative—some might say too innovative—in several notable respects. Let me mention just two examples. Historically, many respected Catholic theologians have recognized that non-human lifeforms have intrinsic or inherent value—that is, value in themselves—for their own sakes—and not simply as a means to other ends or goods. For example, the great 13th-century theologian St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) taught that everything in the created world has intrinsic value because God “brought things into being in order that His goodness might be communicated to creatures, and be represented by them; and because His goodness could not be adequately represented by one creature alone.”12 Pope Francis, however, goes well beyond this traditional view. He argues that all living things should “be cherished with love and respect” (42) because 6 we are all “profoundly united” (246) as part of one “universal family” (88). Why? Not merely because ecologically “everything is connected” (91), but because “the Spirit of Life dwells in every living creature” (26) and because “all creatures are moving forward with us and through us toward a common point of arrival, which is God” (83). In other words, the deepest reasons we should love and cherish nature are not ecological, but theological. Nature should be intrinsically valued and cherished because (1) “God is present in the whole universe13 and in the smallest of creatures” (246) and (2) because all creatures are journeying towards God’s “infinite light” (246). To some traditional Catholic ears, such language is shocking, because—whether intended or not—it sounds animistic, blurs the distinction between humans and animals, problematizes the notion of the unique sanctity of human life, and smacks of the Eastern idea of universal salvation, that is, the notion that all creatures will eventually be liberated or saved.14 A second example of Pope Francis’s boldly new tone is the utopian anti-modernism that suffuses the document. Francis clearly detests much of the modern world.15 Urbanism, nationalism, consumerism, a wasteful throwaway culture, secularism, technology, social media, growth-based free-market capitalism, libertarian notions of private property, economic inequalities—all arouse his ire and are symptoms of a general “decline in the quality of human life and the breakdown of society” (43). In his utopian vision of a post-ecological-conversion world, the rich gladly share their wealth with the poor; nations happily surrender much of their sovereignty to “stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions” (175); people flee the cities to live simple, low-tech lives in close harmony with nature;16 and men and women of faith abandon the pursuit of personal wealth to live deeply “prophetic and contemplative” (222) spiritual lives in which “less is more” (222). This is no longer—to put it mildly—the language of your grandmother’s Church. 7 Such bold departures from traditional Catholic language and thought will be praised by some and condemned by others. Whatever else can be said, “Laudato Si’” is likely to have a powerful impact on the Church—and quite possibly the planet. Dated May 24, 2015, published on June 18, 2015. The phrase “Laudato si” (“Praise be to You!”) is Italian, and is taken from a famous medieval poem, “The Canticle of the Sun,” written by the Pope’s namesake, St. Francis of Assisi (1181 – 1226). 2 The encyclical is written in numbered paragraphs. Citations will be to paragraphs, not page numbers. 3 Ali al-Khawas, cited in endnote 159. 4 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (multiple citations in paragraphs 7-9). 5 The notion that we should regard living things and their ecocentrisms as an interdependent and morally significant “communities” is widely shared among environmentalists. For a classic expression of this ecocentric view, see Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (Oxford, 1949). 6 As famously argued by the medieval historian, Lynn White Jr. in his seminal and controversial 1967 paper, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” Science 155 (March 10, 1967), pp. 1203-1207. White claims that Christianity is largely to blame for our current environmental problems, because for centuries it taught an arrogant and highly human-centered view of nature that, when combined with advanced technology following the Scientific Revolution, had lethal effects on the environment. As a Christian, White did not recommend that we ditch religion. Instead, he proposed that we fundamentally rethink it. Specifically, he suggested that we look to the thought of the “patron saint of ecologists,” St. Francis of Assisi. Francis preached to the birds and sang hymns to “Sister Mother Earth,” “Brother Sun,” and “Sister Water.” In White’s view, St. Francis was not an orthodox Christian, but a kind of vestigial, pagan-ish “pan-psychist,” who believed that all things in nature are alive and imbued with spirit. As we shall see, Pope Francis rejects this interpretation of St. Francis, but he does embrace a kind of quasianimistic mysticism that allows us to “rethink and re-feel” our relationship with nature—precisely as White suggested. 7 Conspicuously missing from the Pope’s discussion of the roots of the environmental crisis is human overpopulation. In fact, he explicitly denies this is a problem (50), claiming that there is ample carrying capacity on the planet if the rich share with the poor, and people abandon high-consumption lifestyles. Some critics see this as major lacuna in the document. 8 Nature, he says, invites us, “to see nature as a magnificent book in which God speaks to us and grants us a glimpse of his infinite beauty and goodness” (12). 9 A quote from the sixteenth-century Spanish mystic, St. John of the Cross. 10 For representative quotations, see “Laudato Si’,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudato_si%27. 11 “The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone. If we make something our own, it is only to administer it for the good of all” (95). The implications of this view of private and public property are staggering. 12 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-I, Q. 47, article 1. This is the traditional idea of “the great chain of being”—the notion that the universe is a graded and diverse hierarchy of beings, because it is the product and sign of overflowing Love and Goodness. See Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1936). Aquinas also held that goodness and being are identical, so that “a thing is good in so far as it is being.” Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-I, Q. 5, art. 1. Aquinas is thus not a complete anthropocentrist, though his largely Aristotelian vision of the cosmos was far more human-centered than any scientifically informed person would accept today. For more on Aquinas’s views of nature and the environment, see Jill LeBlanc, “Eco-Thomism,” Environmental Ethics 21:3 (1999), pp. 293-306. 13 This notion of God’s omnipresence is a prime example of how Francis often gives old theological language new twists. The doctrine that “God is everywhere present in created space” is a binding article of Catholic faith. But the traditional theological ground for this is that God continually conserves all created things in existence, is causally active in all beings, and there are no limits to the reach of God’s knowledge or power. See Patrick Toner, "The 1 8 Nature and Attributes of God," The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 6. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909); available online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm. Francis’s mystical notions that “all things are God” (234), that all living things are family members imbued with the same “Spirit of Life” (88), and that all created things are “sacramental signs” of God’s goodness (233) go well beyond traditional Catholic language. 14 The generally accepted Catholic view is that there will be no plants or non-human animals in heaven, because in Paradise there will be nothing imperfect or corruptible. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, vol. 4, translated by Charles J. O’Neill (Garden City, NY: Hanover House, 1957), pp. 346-347. 15 As R. R. Reno argues in “The Return of Catholic Anti-Modernism,” First Things (June 8, 2015), https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/the-return-of-catholic-anti-modernism. 16 A notion widely shared by deep ecologists and radical environmentalists. See, for example, Bill Devall and George Sessions, Deep Ecology; Living as If Nature Mattered (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 1985). 9