Integral Ecology for a More Sustainable World: Dialogues with Laudato Si' 149858005X, 9781498580052

Citation preview

Integral Ecology for a More Sustainable World

Integral Ecology for a More Sustainable World Dialogues with Laudato Si’

Edited by Dennis O’Hara, Matthew Eaton, and Michael Ross

LEXINGTON BOOKS

Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Lexington Books An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com 6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom Copyright © 2020 The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available ISBN: 978-1-4985-8005-2 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN: 978-1-4985-8006-9 (electronic) ∞ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

For Gerard Mannion

Contents

Preface: The Evolution of the Concept of Integral Ecology in Papal Teaching Cardinal Peter Kodwo Turkson, Cardinal-Priest of San Liborio

xi

Introduction 1 Dennis O’Hara, Matthew Eaton, and Michael Ross PART I: LAUDATO SI’ IN CONTEXT

11

1 Laudato Si’: Social Analysis and Political Engagement in the Tradition of Catholic Social Thought Christopher P. Vogt, St. John’s University

13

2 A Compassionate Science: Pope Francis, Climate Change, and the Fate of Creation Stephen Bede Scharper, University of Toronto

29

PART II: THE THROWAWAY CULTURE: CONSUMPTION AND ECONOMICS

39

3 Growth is an Idol in a Throwaway Culture: Ecotheology against Neutrality Timothy Harvie, St. Mary’s University

41

4 Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism: The Power of Joined-Up Social Ethics Gerard Mannion, Georgetown University

57

vii

viii

Contents

5 Wealthy Hyperagency in the Throwaway Culture: Inequality and Environmental Death Kate Ward, Marquette University

77

6 The Peril and the Promise of Agriculture: An Agroecological Reading of Laudato Si’ 91 Matthew Philipp Whelan, Baylor University PART III: THE GOSPEL OF CREATION: THEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY 7 The “Brown Thread” in Laudato Si’: Grounding Ecological Conversion and Theological Ethics Praxis Dawn M. Nothwehr, Catholic Theological Union 8 Ecological Conversion in the Light of Ecofeminist Concerns: A Post-Lonergan Dialogue Susan Rakoczy, St Joseph’s Theological Institute/University of KwaZulu-Natal 9 Reframing Ecotheological Anthropology within a More Integral Ecology Dennis Patrick O’Hara, University of St. Michael’s College 10 Locating Laudato Si’ along a Catholic Trajectory of Concern for Nonhuman Animals Charles Camosy, Fordham University PART IV: THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

109 111

127

143

159

177

11 From Galileo to Laudato Si’ 179 Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ, Vatican Observatory 12 Cosmology, Theology, and Laudato Si’ John F. Haught, Georgetown University

195

13 The Technocratic Paradigm: Diagnosis and Therapy Neil Ormerod, Australian Catholic University

209

14 Personhood, Bodies, and History in Google’s Manifestation of the Technocratic Paradigm Brianne Jacobs, Fordham University

221

Contents

ix

PART V: SOCIAL ECOLOGIES: POLITICS AND ACTIVISM

235

15 Ecological Citizenship and the New Habitus Anne Marie Dalton, St. Mary’s University

237

16 Preservationism, Environmental Justice, Smart Growth: Care for Our Common Home Laura Stivers, Dominican University of California 17 Resisting Nuclear Energy in South Africa: Drawing Inspiration from Laudato Si’ Andrew Warmback, St. Paul’s Church, Diocese of Natal, Anglican Church of Southern Africa 18 An Integral Issue: Population and Birth Control in Laudato Si’ and Roman Catholic Teaching Michael Taylor Ross, University of St. Michael’s College PART VI: NEW LIFESTYLES: EDUCATION AND SPIRITUALITY 19 Placing Integral Ecology at the Heart of Education: Transformative Learning, Laudato Si’, and Cooperation Christopher Hrynkow, St. Thomas More College

251

267

281

299 301

20 Laudato Si’: The Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy Peter McGrail, Liverpool Hope University

317

21 Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming Nicholas Smith, University of Westminster

337

Conclusion: Ecocide as Deicide: Eschatological Lamentation and the Possibility of Hope Matthew Eaton, Kings College

359

Index 373 About the Editors

381

About the Contributors

383

Preface The Evolution of the Concept of Integral Ecology in Papal Teaching Cardinal Peter Kodwo Turkson

The Encyclical Letter, “Laudato Si’, on the care for our common home” of Pope Francis takes its name from the invocation of St. Francis of Assisi: “Laudato Si’ mi’ Signore” . . . “Praise be to you, my Lord,” which in the Canticle of Creatures calls to mind that the earth, our common home, “is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us” (LS 1). The reference to St. Francis also indicates the attitude upon which the entire Encyclical is based, that of prayerful contemplation, which invites us to look toward the “poor one of Assisi” as a source of inspiration. Still significantly for Pope Francis and as the Encyclical affirms, St. Francis is “the example par excellence of care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyfully and authentically. . . . He shows us just how inseparable is the bond among concern for nature, justice for the poor, commitment to society, and interior peace” (LS 10). Thus, integral ecology is inseparable from integral society, understood as a concrete form of integral human development! ECOLOGY IN THE SOCIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH It is customary to begin the account of Catholic social teaching with the Encyclical Rerum novarum, issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891. While that Encyclical focused on the conditions and rights of workers, it also contained some seeds of current ideas about our natural environment. For example, it stated that those who receive God’s bounty in the form of natural resources or property should exercise their responsibility “as the steward of God's providence, for the benefit of others.”1 xi

xii

Preface

Saint Pope John XXIII would be the first to introduce the idea of "integral development of the person" in the Encyclical Letter, Mater et Magistra (1961). He taught about the need for "Christian education" to be “integral” and encompassing every kind of duty. This meant that a Christian should behave as a Christian in all the areas of life: at work, in the family and as a parent, in the fields of economics or politics being a responsible citizen, and in the social activities, too. But it was Vatican Council II that inspired a committed study of the relationship between humanity and the environment. Having chosen the task/mission of showing solidarity and respectful affection for the various experiences/problems of humanity as we journey through history, the Church of the Vatican Council II and post-Vatican II displayed a sharp and a keen interest in the role and the place of the environment/nature in our response to and pursuit of our vocation to develop. Thus, the Apostolic Constitution, Gaudium et spes (1965), speaks of our “integral vocation,” the “integral perfection of the human person,” and an “integral culture.” Against this background, Saint Pope Paul VI would articulate the scope/ place of nature in human development in his Encyclical Letter, Populorum Progressio (1967). That Encyclical Letter taught that “authentic development must foster the development of each man and of the whole man,” thus promoting a full-bodied humanism and the fulfillment of the whole person.2 Two of its key ideas were that development is the new name for peace and that we need some effective world authority to cope with the scale of the challenge in the environmental and financial realms.3 In Octogesima Adveniens (May 1971), St. Pope Paul VI further addressed the inseparable relationship/interdependence between human life and the natural environment, saying: “Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation. Not only is the material environment becoming a permanent menace—pollution and refuse, new illness and absolute destructive capacity—but the human framework is no longer under man's control, thus creating an environment for tomorrow which may well be intolerable” (§21). Similarly, and with reference to St. Pope John XXIIII, he warned against ideological threats to the nature of the person deriving from positivist thinking of his day, saying: But outside of this positivism which reduces man to a single dimension even if it be an important one today and by so doing mutilates him, the Christian encounters in his activity concrete historical movements sprung from ideologies and in part distinct from them. Our venerated predecessor Pope John XXIII in Pacem in Terris already showed that it is possible to make a distinction: 'Neither can false philosophical teachings regarding the nature, origin and destiny of

Preface

xiii

the universe and of man be identified with historical movements that have economic, social. cultural or political ends.' (§ 30)

In November of the same year and just before the Stockholm Conference (1972) launched the UN Environment Program (UNEP), St. Pope Paul VI convoked the Synod on Justice in the World, which first gave prominence to the link between justice and ecology. Its line of thought suggested a close link between concern for the poor and a concern for the earth, the cry of the poor and the cry of the earth, and adverted to the culture of waste of the rich.4 I offer you these historical touchstones to demonstrate that our current Popes have always built their contemporary perspectives on ecology on earlier foundations. Another reason is to assure you that Catholic social teaching offers a rich storehouse for further exploration of these topics. Saint Pope John Paul II In his first encyclical on the human person (Redemptor Hominis), St. Pope John Paul II already warned about the threat of pollution to nature.5 Later, in his social encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis (1987), on the twenty-eighth anniversary of Populorum progressio, he focused on the nature of authentic human development and its moral character. In this regard, he adverted to the need for individuals and communities to have full respect for the nature of the human person, whose origin and goal are found in God. He called attention to the need to respect the constituents of the natural world, which the ancient Greeks referred to as the “cosmos” (an ordered system with beauty). Such realities demand respect by virtue of three considerations that may be summed up in the three words: connection, limitation, and pollution. The first consideration, he wrote, is the need for greater awareness “that one cannot use with impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or inanimate—animals, plants, the natural elements—simply as one wishes, according to one’s own economic needs. On the contrary, one must take into account the nature of each being and of its mutual connection in an ordered system, which is precisely the cosmos.”6 The second consideration is the realization that natural resources are limited. Not all resources are renewable. If we treat them as inexhaustible and use them with absolute dominion, then we seriously endanger their availability in our own time and, above all, for future generations. The third consideration reminds us of the effects of a certain type of development on the quality of life in industrialized areas—the sort of development that causes pollution of the environment, with serious consequences for the health of populations.7

xiv

Preface

When we take these considerations together, I believe they suggest a clear moral message from St. Pope John Paul II. We readily understand that the demands of morality are a sine qua non for the well-being not only of the environment but also of humanity. We should extend our fundamental conception and application of morality to natural ecology—the use of the elements of nature, the renewability of resources, and the consequences of haphazard industrialization—and to the life of humanity (human ecology). A few years later, on the one hundredth anniversary of Rerum novarum, St. Pope John Paul II expanded further on this theme in his social encyclical Centesimus annus. Regarding the nature of private property and the universal destination of material goods, he drew attention to what he termed “the ecological question” and its connection with the problem of consumerism. Here he referred to a widespread anthropocentric error, namely, our failure to recognize that our capacity to transform and in a certain sense re-create the world through human work is always based on God’s prior and original gift of all that exists. We might imagine that we can make arbitrary use of the earth and subject it without restraint to our will. Rather than carry out our roles as co-operators with God in the work of creation, we set ourselves up in place of God. The final outcome is a rebellion on the part of nature which is more tyrannized than properly governed by us.8 To correct these faulty ideas, St. Pope John Paul II pointed out that all of us humans, as individuals and in our community, must respect the created world and be conscious of our duties and obligations toward future generations. Certainly, the things that God has created are for our use. However, they must be used in a responsible way, for we are not the masters but the stewards of creation. The Holy Father did not stop at the natural environment when he drew attention to the ecological question. He focused as well on the destruction of the human environment. Here he introduced the concept of human ecology. While damage to the natural environment is serious, destruction of the human environment is more serious. We see people concerned about the balance of nature and worried about the natural habitats of various animal species threatened with extinction. But meanwhile, too little effort is made to safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic human ecology. Not only has God given the earth to humanity, who must use it with respect for the original good purpose for which it was given, but the human being too is God’s gift to us—indeed, it is the greatest gift. For this reason, we must respect the natural and moral structure with which we have been endowed. The encyclical applies this thought to the serious problems of modern urbanization, calling for proper urban planning which is concerned with how people are to live, and for attention to a social ecology of work.9

Preface

xv

With these teachings, St. Pope John Paul II expanded the church’s Social Thought on the ecological question, leading to the teaching in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church that "the relationship of man with the world is a constitutive part of his human identity,"10 and that the cry of the earth and that of the poor are related.11 In his World Day of Peace Message (1990), St. Pope John Paul II wrote: “The proper ecological balance will not be found without directly addressing the structural forms of poverty that exist throughout the world”;12 and this inspired the Canadian Bishops' Conference to teach that “ecological harmony cannot exist in a world of unjust social structures; nor can the extreme social inequalities of our current world order result in ecological sustainability.”13 Pope Benedict XVI In the new millennium, Pope Benedict XVI recalled the teaching of his immediate predecessor and elaborated further on the nature of ecology. In his Message for the World Day of Peace (2007), he pointed to four variants of ecology: the ecology of nature, and alongside it, a human ecology which, in turn, demands a social ecology, and, finally, the ecology of peace. For peace to be effected in the world, we must be conscious of the relationship between natural ecology and human ecology. The ecology of peace is comprised of peace with creation and peace among men, which presupposes peace with God.14 He affirmed the urgent need in international relations for commitment to a human ecology that can favor the growth of an ecology of peace, and this can occur only when it is guided by a correct understanding of the human person, that is, an understanding not prejudiced by ideology or apathy.15 The following year (2008), during his Apostolic Visit to Australia, Pope Benedict drew attention to the beauty of the natural environment created by God. But, as he noted, the beauty of the natural environment bears scars too, such as erosion, deforestation and the effects of devastating drought. Similarly, the world’s mineral and ocean resources are being squandered and water levels are rising.16 But the social environment also had its scars, such as alcohol and drug abuse, the exaltation of violence and sexual degradation, and the false notion that there are no absolute truths to guide our lives. He affirmed the true nature of human life that entails a search for the truth, the good and the beautiful, that to this end we make our choices, and that for this we exercise our freedom, knowing that there we find happiness and joy.17 In his landmark Social Encyclical, Caritas in veritate, Pope Benedict XVI dedicates an entire chapter (4) to the issue of the environment and human

xvi

Preface

existence: “The Development of Peoples, Rights and Duties, The Environment.” Because “the way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice versa,”18 Pope Benedict XVI speaks of an inseparable relationship between human life and the natural environment which supports it as “that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.”19 This bond between humans and the world paves the way for the very famous teaching of Pope Benedict XVI that the Book of Nature is one and indivisible, and that it includes not only the environment, but also individuals, family and social ethics. Accordingly, as he goes on to teach, our duties toward the environment flow from our duties toward the person.20 But, for Pope Benedict XVI, the "decisive issue," in the relationship between us and the world “is the moral tenor of society”21 and our redemption implies the redemption of creation which groans (Rom 8:22–24). During his apostolic visit to Germany in 2011, the Holy Father elaborated further on the importance of respecting both natural ecology and human ecology. There he drew attention to the fact that, in the ecological movement in Germany in the 1970s, “young people had come to realize that something is wrong in our relationship with nature, that matter is not just raw material for us to shape at will, but that the earth has a dignity of its own and that we must follow its directives.” Yes, he affirmed that the importance of ecology was no longer to be disputed. But, he quickly tagged on to the ecology of nature, the ecology of humanity, saying: Yet I would like to underline a point that seems to me to be neglected, today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.22

Human ecology must be rooted in genuine Christian anthropology. What Pope Benedict affirmed here is a mutual relationship between natural ecology and human ecology: that we must respect the created world and that we must respect the way in which the human person has been created, for only in these ways will we be able to fulfill our freedom. Such an affirmation, moreover, is not a religious claim but the statement of a natural fact.23 Thus, the Holy Father calls for an integral understanding of the world and the human person, one which respects both the created world and the highpoint of creation which is the human person.

Preface

xvii

INTEGRAL ECOLOGY IN THE HOLY SEE INTERVENTIONS Postponing momentarily the contributions of Pope Francis to the church’s teachings on the issue, I wish to turn now to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development that took place in June 2012. Representatives of the international community came together to discuss many concerns regarding the environment and the need for common commitment on the part of the international community to chart a course forward to address these issues in a sustainable manner. This process had begun in Stockholm in 1972 and had two high points, in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 at the so-called “Earth Summit” and at Johannesburg in 2002. Now, they once again came together at Rio+20 to discuss sustainable development and the interplay of the three acknowledged pillars of such development, namely, economic growth, environmental protection, and the promotion of social welfare. During the initial preparations for the Conference, the Holy See noted that unanimous consensus had emerged in the international community: first, that protecting the environment means improving people’s lives; and second, that environmental degradation and underdevelopment are closely interdependent issues needing to be approached together, responsibly and in a spirit of solidarity. It then focused on the first principle of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which had been adopted at the 1992 Conference—the principle that “human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.”24 Expanding upon this fundamental theme, the Holy See called for the discovery of an art of living together—one that respects the covenant between human beings and nature, without which the human family risks dying out. The Holy See explained that there exists a stable and inseparable covenant between human beings and nature in which the environment conditions the life and development of human beings, while human beings in turn perfect and ennoble the environment by their creative, productive, and responsible labor.25 Indeed, the term “covenant” has a rich history in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In this context, covenant is not a public contract between God and humanity but rather a gift given by God to humanity. Covenant is not a pact built on reciprocity, but is rather a gift, a creative act of God’s love.26 Applied to the relationship between human beings and the environment, it becomes increasingly clear that what we have in view is the fact that creation has been given to humanity as a gift by God. For this reason, humans must use this gift for its purpose, not taking advantage of it, not abusing it, but using it wisely for integral human development and thus for the present and future generations.

xviii

Preface

During the negotiations of what would become the outcome document of the Conference, the delegation of the Holy See regularly drew attention to principles that underpin the protection of human dignity. They called for the following: (a) responsibility, even when changes must be made to patterns of production and consumption in order to ensure that they reflect an appropriate lifestyle; (b) promoting and sharing in the common good; (c) access to primary goods, including such essential and fundamental goods as nutrition, education, security, peace and health, which stem from the right to life; (d) a universal solidarity capable of acknowledging the unity of the human family; (e) the protection of creation which in turn is linked to inter-generational equity—and inter-generational solidarity; (f) intra-generational equity, which is closely linked to social justice and which requires taking into account the ability of future generations to discharge developmental burdens; and (g) the universal destination not only of goods, but also of the fruits of human enterprise.27 These seven principles were the contribution of the Holy See Delegation to shaping the Rio+20 position; and they merit reflections and practical action in pursuit of sustainable development. Sustainable Development As we have seen, the Catholic Church affirms that there is an essential relationship between natural ecology and human ecology and that ignoring one will be to the detriment of the other. She also affirmed a link between sustainable development and integral human development because every economic decision has moral premises and consequences. For this reason, the Holy See Delegation argued that consideration must be given to the ethical and spiritual values that guide and give meaning to economic decisions and to technological progress. Development must be considered not simply from an economic point of view but from an integrally human point of view; that is to say, one which necessarily takes into account the economic, social, and environmental aspects of development and is based on the dignity of the human person.28 It followed for the Holy See Delegation that any neo-Malthusian approach to development must be totally rejected. Such views hold that people are an obstacle to development. The solution to global poverty cannot be to

Preface

xix

eliminate the poor.29 Instead, people are the drivers of development. As the Rio Declaration had rightly pointed out in its first principle, people are at the center of concerns for sustainable development.30 Accordingly, during negotiations, the delegation of the Holy See regularly drew attention to the inherent dignity of the human person and thus the role of the family in integral development, and resisted efforts to impose language suggestive of population control.31 In the outcome document of Rio+20, titled The Future We Want,32 Member States agreed to launch a process to determine a set of sustainable development goals. While much discussion surrounded what these goals would be like, agreement was reached during negotiations that they would be “actionoriented, concise and easy to communicate, limited in number, inspirational, global in nature and universally applicable to all countries while taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities.”33 For the Holy See Delegation, then, sustainable development goals must not ignore, but must fully take into account, the dignity of the human person—from conception onwards to natural death—and this includes the needs of the poor, the aged and of future generations. POPE FRANCIS ON INTEGRAL ECOLOGY: THE ENCYCLICAL LETTER, LAUDATO SI' Pope Francis’ core message can be summarized as follows:34 • Our nature is created by God and surrounded by the gifts of creation. • Our failures are that we overconsume and that we do not share the gifts of creation. • This has dire consequences for the poor and the planet. • And so it is urgent that we change our sense of human progress, our management of the economy, and our style of life. • Such change is going to require major shifts in our thinking and commitments—indeed, a conversion of groups and institutions at every level, from local communities to global humanity. In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis does three essential things: i. He links the vulnerability of the poor and the fragility of the environment. In response to these immense intertwined challenges, he proposes the social teaching of the church in the form of a new integral ecology to reduce our footprint and reverse the deterioration of the natural and social environment.

xx

Preface

ii. He makes an urgent appeal for a new dialogue about how to shape the future of our planet. Such dialogue must include ecological conversion, an education in ecological citizenship and an ethical and spiritual itinerary. iii. He shows profound trust in humanity’s ability to respond and expresses real hope that we can work together to rebuild our common home. CONCLUSION The Catholic doctrine of creation does not regard the world as an accident. Our planet, indeed the universe, is an intentional act of God that is provided to human beings as a gift. Creation is not just passing from nothing to many things with a lot of “stuff” getting made. Rather, creation is the first step in the great vocation of humanity: creation, incarnation, redemption. Humanity is not an afterthought. God did not have two agendas: first, the world and then, humanity. Man and woman are made in the image and likeness of God; they are an intrinsic part of the universe, and their vocation is “to till and to keep” it all. But tilling and keeping cannot include domination and devastation—lest we till too much and keep too little! These make a mockery of dignity and respect of God’s gifts. We are called to participate in ongoing creation and in its ongoing redemption. In this light, we should find it easy to understand the concerns of Pope Francis for the poor and for nature. He is not offering worldly advice on how to be prudent and practical, although his message has immense practical consequences. Rather, he is reminding us of a) the basic consequence of creation, which establishes a threefold level of relationship for the human person: • with God the Creator, • with other human persons in a bond of fraternity, and • with the world as the garden-home for our existence, and b) the basic demands of our vocation to participate in God’s work as co-creators, and so c) our responsibility for the work of God who does not hide his face from any aspect of creation, poor or rich, natural or human. This brings Pope Francis to certain virtues and attitudes that are most appropriate to our relationship with creation. Being so connected to all living things, we must accept that “every act of cruelty towards any creature is ‘contrary to human dignity’” (LS 92). Moreover, “a sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion

Preface

xxi

and concern for our fellow human beings” (LS 91; also 2 and 217). What is needed is the awareness of a universal communion: All are “called into being by the one Father. All of us are linked by unseen bonds and together form a kind of universal family, a sublime communion which fills us with a sacred, affectionate and humble respect” (LS 89). NOTES 1. Pope Leo XIII, Rerum novarum (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 15 May 1891), 22, https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​leo-x​iii/e​n/enc​yclic​als/d​ocume​nts/h​ f_l-x​iii_e​nc_15​05189​1_rer​um-no​varum​.html​. 2. Pope Paul VI, Populorum progressio (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 26 March 1967), 14 and 42, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/p​aul-v​i/en/​encyc​ lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​pvi_e​nc_26​03196​7_pop​uloru​m.htm​l. 3. Pope Paul VI, Populorum progressio, 76–78. 4. World Synod of Catholic Bishops, Justice in the World (30 November 1971), #70, https​://ww​w1.vi​llano​va.ed​u/con​tent/​dam/v​illan​ova/m​issio​n/Jus​ticeI​ntheW​orld1​ 971.p​df. 5. Pope John Paul II, Redemptor hominis (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 4 March 1979), #11, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​ s/doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​04031​979_r​edemp​tor-h​omini​s.htm​l. 6. Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 30 December 1987), 34, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​ lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​30121​987_s​ollic​itudo​-rei-​socia​lis.h​tml. 7. Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, 34. 8. Pope John Paul II, Centesimus annus (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 1 May 1991), 37, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/ doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​01051​991_c​entes​imus-​annus​.html​. 9. Pope John Paul II, Centesimus annus, 38. 10. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social doctrine of the Church (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 2005 (reprint 2010)), 452, http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/rom​an_cu​ria/p​ontif​i cal_​counc​ils/j​ustpe​ace/d​ocume​nts/r​c_pc_​ justp​eace_​doc_2​00605​26_co​mpend​io-do​tt-so​c_en.​html.​ 11. Ibid., 481–484. 12. Pope John Paul II, “Peace with God the Creator, Peace with all of Creation,” World Day of Peace Message, 1990, 11, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​ messa​ges/p​eace/​docum​ents/​hf_jp​-ii_m​es_19​89120​8_xxi​ii-wo​rld-d​ay-fo​r-pea​ce.ht​ml. 13. Social Affairs Commission, “You love all that exists . . . all things are Yours, God, Lover of life. . .” (Ottawa, CA: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 4 October 2003), #17, http:​//www​.cccb​.ca/s​ite/F​iles/​pasto​ralen​viron​ment.​html.​ Cf. Marjorie Keenan, RSHM, From Stockholm to Johannesburg: An Historical Overview of the Concern of the Holy See for the Environment 1972–2002 (Vatican City: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2002); Drew Christiansen and Walter Grazer, And God Saw That It Was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment (Washington,

xxii

Preface

DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1996); John McCarthy SJ., “Catholic Social Teaching and Ecology, Fact Sheet,” http:​//www​.ecoj​esuit​.com/​wp-co​ntent​/uplo​ads/2​ 011/0​6/CST​_ENG.​pdf. 14. Pope Benedict XVI, “The Human Person, The Heart of Peace,” Message of his holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 1 January 2007), 8, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/ b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​messa​ges/p​eace/​docum​ents/​hf_be​n-xvi​_mes_​20061​208_x​l-wor​ld-da​ y-pea​ce.ht​ml. 15. Ibid., 9–11. 16. For example, strip mining which reduces agricultural lands or forests to hillocks of rock-waste and gaping craters, contaminates rivers and springs with mercury, zinc and cyanide. 17. Pope Benedict XVI, Address of his holiness Benedict XVI, Barangaroo, Sydney Harbour (17 July 2008), https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​bened​ict-x​vi/en​/spee​ches/​ 2008/​july/​docum​ents/​hf_be​n-xvi​_spe_​20080​717_b​arang​aroo.​html.​ 18. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 29 June 2009), 51, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​encyc​lical​ s/doc​ument​s/hf_​ben-x​vi_en​c_200​90629​_cari​tas-i​n-ver​itate​.html​. 19. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate, 50; Cf. Pope Benedict XVI, “The Human Family, A Community of Peace,” Message of his holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 1 January 2008), 7, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​encyc​lical​ s/doc​ument​s/hf_​ben-x​vi_en​c_200​90629​_cari​tas-i​n-ver​itate​.html​. 20. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate, 51; Cf. Pope Benedict XVI, Message of his holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the celebration of World Day of Peace (1 January 2010). 21. Ibid. 22. Pope Benedict XVI, Address of his holiness Benedict XVI (Reichstag Building, Berlin, 22 September 2011), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​speec​hes/2​ 011/s​eptem​ber/d​ocume​nts/h​f_ben​-xvi_​spe_2​01109​22_re​ichst​ag-be​rlin.​html.​ 23. Cf. Francis George O.M.I., “Legislation creating ‘same-sex’ marriage: What’s at stake?” Catholic New World, 6–19 January 2013. http:​//leg​acy.c​hicag​ocath​olic.​ com/c​nwonl​ine/2​013/0​106/c​ardin​al.as​px?a=​email​. 24. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, in Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), 12 August 1992, Annex I. http:​//www​.un.o​rg/do​cumen​ts/ga​/conf​151/a​conf1​ 5126-​1anne​x1.ht​m. 25. Cf., Holy See Position Paper, III Preparatory Committee Meeting of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro (13–15 June 2012), 2, http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/rom​an_cu​ria/s​ecret​ariat​_stat​e/201​2/doc​ument​s/rc_​ seg-s​t_201​20614​_posi​tion-​paper​-rio_​en.ht​ml. 26. Cf., Joseph Ratzinger, “The New Covenant: A Theology of Covenant in the New Testament,” Communio: International Catholic Review 22, no. 4 (1995): 636. 27. Cf., Holy See Position Paper, 3. 28. Cf., Holy See Position Paper, 5.

Preface

xxiii

29. Cf., Peter K.A. Turkson, Statement, Summit of Heads of State and Government on the Millennium Development Goals, New York, 20 September 2010, www. u​n.org​/en/m​dg/su​mmit2​010/d​ebate​/VA_e​n.pdf​. 30. Cf., in this regard, also the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development (A/RES/41/128) esp. at Article 1, 1: “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized”; and Article 2,1: “The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development.” 31. In this regard, the delegation of the Holy See and like-minded delegations successfully resisted efforts by some developed countries to insert in the text the term “reproductive rights” which can be interpreted to include abortion and artificial contraception. http:​//www​.un.o​rg/do​cumen​ts/ga​/res/​41/a4​1r128​.htm.​ 32. Cf., A/RES/66/288. 33. A/RES/66/247. 34. http:​//the​popev​ideo.​org/e​n/vid​eo/ca​re-cr​eatio​n.htm​l.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Christiansen, Drew and Walter Grazer. And God Saw That It Was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1996. Keenan, Marjorie, RSHM. From Stockholm to Johannesburg: An Historical Overview of the Concern of the Holy See for the Environment 1972–2002. Vatican City, VA: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2002. Pope Benedict XVI. Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI. Reichstag Building, Berlin. 22 September 2011. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​speec​ hes/2​011/s​eptem​ber/d​ocume​nts/h​f_ben​-xvi_​spe_2​01109​22_re​ichst​ag-be​rlin.​html.​ ———. Caritas in Veritate. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 29 June 2009. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​ ben-x​vi_en​c_200​90629​_cari​tas-i​n-ver​itate​.html​. ———. Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI. Barangaroo, Sydney Harbour. 17 July 2008. https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​bened​ict-x​vi/en​/spee​ches/​2008/​july/​docum​ ents/​hf_be​n-xvi​_spe_​20080​717_b​arang​aroo.​html.​ ———. “The Human Family, A Community of Peace.” Message of his holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1 January 2008. http:​ //w2.​ vatic​ an.va​ /cont​ ent/ b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​ben-x​vi_en​c_200​90629​_cari​tas-i​n-ver​ itate​.html​. ———. “The Human Person, The Heart of Peace.” Message of his holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1 January 2007. http:​ //w2.​ vatic​ an.va​ /cont​ ent/

xxiv

Preface

b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​messa​ges/p​eace/​docum​ents/​hf_be​n-xvi​_mes_​20061​208_x​l-wor​ ld-da​y-pea​ce.ht​ml. Pope John Paul II. Centesimus annus. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1 May 1991. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​ jp-ii​_enc_​01051​991_c​entes​imus-​annus​.html​. ———. “Peace with God the Creator, Peace with all of Creation.” World Day of Peace Message. 1990. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​messa​ges/p​ eace/​docum​ents/​hf_jp​-ii_m​es_19​89120​8_xxi​ii-wo​rld-d​ay-fo​r-pea​ce.ht​ml. ———. Sollicitudo rei socialis. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 30 December 1987. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​30121​987_s​ollic​itudo​-rei-​socia​lis.h​tml. ———. Redemptor hominis. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 4 March 1979. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​ _enc_​04031​979_r​edemp​tor-h​omini​s.htm​l. Pope Leo XIII. Rerum novarum. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 15 May 1891. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/l​eo-xi​ii/en​/ency​clica​ls/do​cumen​ts/hf​_l-xi​ ii_en​c_150​51891​_reru​m-nov​arum.​html.​ Pope Paul VI. Populorum progressio. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 26 March 1967. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/p​aul-v​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​ p-vi_​enc_2​60319​67_po​pulor​um.ht​ml. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2005 (reprint 2010). http:​ //www​.vati​can.v​a/rom​an_cu​ria/p​ontif​i cal_​counc​ils/j​ustpe​ace/d​ocume​nts/r​c_pc_​ justp​eace_​doc_2​00605​26_co​mpend​io-do​tt-so​c_en.​html.​ Ratzinger, Joseph. “The New Covenant: A Theology of Covenant in the New Testament.” Communio: International Catholic Review 22, no. 4 (1995): 635–651. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I). 12 August 1992. Social Affairs Commission. “You love all that exists . . . all things are Yours, God, Lover of life . . .” Ottawa, CA: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. 4 October 2003. http:​//www​.cccb​.ca/s​ite/F​iles/​pasto​ralen​viron​ment.​html.​ World Synod of Catholic Bishops. Justice in the World. 30 November 1971. https​:// ww​w1.vi​llano​va.ed​u/con​tent/​dam/v​illan​ova/m​issio​n/Jus​ticeI​ntheW​orld1​971.p​df.

Introduction Dennis O’Hara, Matthew Eaton, and and Michael Ross

While the ethical spirit of Laudato Si’ is clear, the encyclical does not explore the multitude of concrete public responses that could follow its vision1. This is ideal. The explicit responses required among diverse, global communities to address the ecological crisis are deeply complex and necessarily plural. Any attempt to prescribe specific sociopolitical action would fall short of the need to address the cry of Earth in contextually meaningful ways. It is, however, imperative that individuals and communities wrestle with Pope Francis’s vision and determine the concrete responses needed to mitigate, if not resolve and eliminate, the anthropogenic violence that interrupts the creativity of Earth. Insofar as humans disrupt this creativity, the possibility of anything resembling a viable planetary common good is bound to fade and eventually die. Obviously, no single piece of writing can provide a comprehensive set of public theologies and ethics to adequately address anthropogenic violence and planetary creativity. Nevertheless, this volume aims to contribute to the colossal task of envisioning some of the personal and systemic changes necessary if we wish to overcome human sin against Earth and our more-thanhuman neighbors. Such sin—historic and systemic in nature—manifests as human domination over the processes that promote Earth’s creativity and thus interrupt the possibility of planetary flourishing. It is the desire for mastery over others, human or otherwise, incarnate in actions aimed at controlling an absolutely objectified realm of nature, a realm which the human purportedly transcended long ago. As such, we might identify this sin as the attitudes and habits accompanying anthropocentrism, a logic of domination that shares a structurally parallel logic with all sorts of attitudes and habits we might broadly label as colonialism.2 1

2

Introduction

One cannot, of course, speak of sin without a discussion of salvation. As such, beyond an understanding of the anthropocentric sins committed against Earth, the authors in this volume are ultimately interested in redemption. Such salvation, like the sin just mentioned, must be historic in nature and not simply pushed off into an other-worldly eschatology that allows us to lamentably discard one creation in hope of another. This volume thus clings to a hope for redeeming Earth and its inhabitants, insofar as possible, from the logic of domination that manifests in material oppressions that ring in our ears and are visible to our eyes. Social and historical sin necessarily demand social and historical liberation, and thus, following Ignacio Ellacuría, “we understand salvation as liberation—as integral liberation in our situation.”3 Liberation requires change in both attitudes and habits and thus the fundamental cultures in which we operate. Such changes must necessarily call into question the sovereignty of some of most basic facets of contemporary cultures that reductively instrumentalize and objectify Earth and its inhabitants. As such, the changes called for throughout this volume are economic, technological, political, educational, and religious in nature. Without dramatic change within these systems, there is little reason to hope of inheriting a meaningful history going forward, at least in the short term. Such changes are anything but superficial. To continue to draw on not only the language of liberationist theologians but also the language and spirit of the Catholic social tradition, we must understand any serious approach to ecological theology and ethics as revolutionary. In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis embraces the urgency and power brought by the idea and language of revolution. After a discussion of globalization and the potential harm of our contemporary technocratic paradigm, Francis speaks of “the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution” (LS 114). Such revolution is rooted in the love of God modeled on Christ’s care for other cruciform bodies, vulnerable and broken by sovereign violence. Francis thus speaks of a revolutionary love that insists on liberative changes to the current sociopolitical world insofar as they draw strength on and operate according to a logic of domination. Francis utterly eschews the logic of domination, opting instead for a Christ-centered logic of revolutionary love, or, as he declares in Evangelii gaudium, a “revolution of tenderness.”4 What follows is not a banal, otherworld spirituality—“a purely spiritual Christ, without flesh and without the cross”—but a bold resistance against the oppressive human cultural structures, which necessarily includes our economies, industries, politics, educational systems, and our religions. Francis thus insists that “the Gospel tells us constantly to run the risk of a faceto-face encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their joy which infects us in our close and continuous interaction. . . . The Son of God, by becoming flesh, summoned us to the revolution of tenderness.”5

Introduction

3

In Laudato Si’, Francis’s revolution of tenderness reveals its full demands for how we encounter Earth and our more-than-human neighbors. “The universe did not emerge as the result of arbitrary omnipotence, a show of force or a desire for self-assertion. Creation is of the order of love. . . . Every creature is thus the object of the Father’s tenderness, who gives it its place in the world. Even the fleeting life of the least of beings is the object of his love, and in its few seconds of existence, God enfolds it with his affection” (LS 77). Unfortunately, the systems of human culture often promote the opposite of tenderness, the globalization of indifference, which Francis has continually denounced throughout his pontificate. There is no room in Francis’s thought for indifference arising from blind acceptance of exploitative economies, industries, politics, and ideologies. As such, “when our hearts are authentically open to universal communion, this sense of fraternity excludes nothing and no one” (LS 92). There is no place for indifference and thus no place for blind participation in any logic of domination that systemically exploits others, animal, vegetal, elemental, or otherwise. We must instead embrace the invitation of Jesus “to recognize the paternal relationship God has with all his creatures” (LS 96). Of course, we are often inextricably woven into exploitative systems operating by a logic of domination, to the point where our own survival means regular participation in such systems. Nevertheless, divine, revolutionary love insists that we look for ways to resist in spite of our complicity with sinful structures. And so, following Francis’s public theology and liberationist ethic, we must continuously seek to be converted from the sin of anthropocentrism to the revolutionary tenderness of God manifest in Christ’s love for the cruciform other. With conversion comes the possibility of revolutionary change and thus the possibility of hope. “This conversion calls for a number of attitudes which together foster a spirit of generous care, full of tenderness . . . . By developing our individual, God-given capacities, an ecological conversion can inspire us to greater creativity and enthusiasm in resolving the world’s problems” (LS 220). These problems—manifest in a plurality of ways, from anthropogenic climate change, to losses in biodiversity and species extinction, from extreme weather patterns that displace human populations, to extensive practices of animal cruelty—are nothing short of the lamenting cry of Earth itself and the demand for historical and material change. They have caused sister earth, along with all the abandoned of our world, to cry out, pleading that we take another course. Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last two hundred years. Yet we are called to be instruments of God our Father, so that our planet might be what he desired when he created it and correspond with his plan for peace, beauty and fullness. The problem is that we still lack the culture needed to confront this crisis. (LS 53)

4

Introduction

The chapters in this volume play a small role in embracing this trajectory from sin to salvation through revolutionary conversion in the hope of restoring the creative tension needed for any semblance of a planetary common good that includes the entire Earth community. Throughout this book, the authors explore the practical consequences of ecological conversion and the need for a revolution of tenderness that challenges the sovereignty of systems and logics of domination. In the chapters that follow, Laudato Si’ is related to a plurality of disciplines roughly, though not precisely, following the divisions of the encyclical itself. The book contains five major parts, along with introductory and concluding chapters. To introduce the volume, the Preface authored by Cardinal Peter Kodwo Turkson situates a concern for the environment within the social teaching of the Catholic Church. He examines the role of integral ecology in the Holy See’s interventions at the United Nation’s Conference on Sustainable Development (2012) and considers how Pope Francis continues this work in Laudato Si’. In Part I, “Laudato Si’ in Context,” Christopher Vogt and Stephen Scharper place Laudato Si’ in its context, specifically by situating the encyclical within the Catholic social tradition and by exploring its engagement with the scientific community. Vogt’s chapter places Laudato Si’ within the history and trajectory of Catholic social teaching by exploring the tradition’s predominant themes and methods. Additionally, Vogt explains why engagement with history and the social and natural sciences is an integral part of the method of moral reflection characteristic of Catholic social teaching and how these are taken up in Francis’s teachings. This culminates in a discussion of the encyclical’s concept of “ecological conversion” as a way of examining its call for change at the personal, social, and political levels. Scharper moves outside of the Catholic context of Laudato Si’ and addresses the question of “What does faith have to do with ecology?” and thus explores the encyclical as a part of the broader dialogue between religion and science. Scharper’s work deals with the possibility of religion and science working together to form a more sustainable future for the Earth community, how Pope Francis’s efforts have been received by scientists, and how his thought fits in with the thought of classic environmental advocates and movements beyond the scope of the Church. In Part II, “The Throwaway Culture: Consumption and Economics,” Timothy Harvie, Gerard Mannion, Kate Ward, and Matthew Whelan address the possibilities, promises, and problems of living within hyper-consumptive economies and industries. Harvie and Mannion offer biting critiques of neoliberal capitalist economics. Harvie questions the fundamental presumption that economics is a neutral discipline governed by objective scientific data and that growth is a fundamental prerequisite for a healthy economy. He

Introduction

5

interrogates these claims by using Pope Francis’s concept of a “throwaway culture,” suggesting that faith in economies of growth at all costs is idolatrous. Mannion, likewise, critiques capitalist economies by tracing the public theology and economic views found in Francis’s pontificate. He argues that Francis upholds a biblical ethic that emphasizes the need for revolution in economic thinking to create a truly integral ecology that cares for the poor, human, and nonhuman alike. Ward explores the sociological paradigm “hyperagency” and applies it to Pope Francis’s critique of wealthy consumers determining the fate of the global poor and Earth alike. Ward adds a theological dimension to hyperagency by revealing it as a form of anthropocentrism rooted in a distorted understanding of the human person that ignores embodied interconnectedness and moral responsibility. She concludes with the need to develop personal virtues and seek revolutionary social-structural change. Finally, Whelan examines global agricultural systems. His analysis examines how such systems not only drive resource consumption and climate change but also envisions alternative and more sustainable ways to practice agriculture. While Laudato Si’ does not develop its teachings on agriculture in detail, Whelan shows how Francis offers a preliminary criticism of agricultural systems that refuse to account for the wisdom of the natural order given by God and how this critique could be developed in the future. In Part III, “The Gospel of Creation: Theology and Anthropology,” Dawn Nothwehr, Susan Rakoczy, Charles Camosy, and Dennis O’Hara address the theological implications of the encyclical and show how Christian doctrine and tradition have and continue to develop and where they must go in the future to be more consistent with the revolutionary tenderness we are called to show the planet. Nothwehr reveals the degree to which Pope Francis’s understanding of integral ecology draws from the Franciscan intellectual tradition. She explores the numerous references to Franciscan sources within LS, revealing a “brown thread” from Francis of Assisi to St. Bonaventure, to nineteenth-century theologian Romano Guardini, and finally to Leonardo Boff. This analysis reveals how the brown thread of Laudato Si’ not only understands technology, modernity, and the poor but also highlights the importance of personal virtues at the heart of the encyclical. Rakoczy’s critiques expands Laudato Si’s notion of ecological conversion through an ecofeminist understanding of Bernard Lonergan and Robert M. Doran’s levels of conversion. Her critique of Laudato Si’ insists that the encyclical is incomplete without an ecofeminist interpretation of conversion and she draws on a variety of ecofeminist perspectives from around the world in an effort to develop what is missing in Pope Francis’s teachings. Camosy examines Laudato Si’s perspective on animal ethics, offering both an overview of the recent developments of animal ethics in Christian moral theology, as well as an historical account of the moral status of nonhuman animals in the Christian

6

Introduction

tradition. He locates Laudato Si’ in the modern Church’s “tension” with respect to the relationship between human and nonhuman, with particular attention to anthropocentrism, arguing that Pope Francis does not go far enough in his concrete explorations of nonhuman animal dignity and offers ways forward beyond this missed opportunity. O’Hara insists that cosmology matters and that developments in modern cosmology must inform us about the proper place of humanity within creation. In his chapter, he shows how Laudato Si’ represents an increasingly healthy cosmology within the Catholic tradition and how its notion of integral ecology supports the care for our common home. Laudato Si’, he insists, not only expands the church’s understanding of Catholic social teaching, but also shifts magisterial thinking into the twentieth century, if not yet the twenty-first. In Part IV, “The Technocratic Paradigm: Science and Technology,” Guy Consolmagno SJ, John Haught, Neil Ormerod, and Brianne Jacobs explore the relationship between religion and science as well as the ethics of technology in the modern era. Consolmagno picks up on the criticism that Pope Francis should not be talking about scientific matters in the public sphere, drawing on the Galileo affair to better understand this phenomenon. In the face of criticisms that Pope Francis ought not speak of scientific matters, he explores the beginnings and development of the unity between science and religion leading to Francis’s teachings. Laudato Si’, he argues, brings together science and religion as the compatible activities of fallible human beings searching for truth. Haught considers the question of teleology in Laudato Si’ and asks whether our current ecological predicament is related to the deepening of a suspicion that the universe has no point, meaning, or purpose. He argues that Francis implies that a sense of cosmic purpose is required to deal with our crises and that a core purpose of the universe is the emergence of beauty, an aesthetic, relational vision of reality. Ormerod examines Laudato Si’s articulation of the technocratic paradigm, with particular attention to the influence of twentiethcentury priest and philosopher, Romano Guardini. While he finds much insight in Guardini’s and Francis’s accounts of the rise of technology and its effect on human relationships with nature, out of a concern that Guardini, and therefore Laudato Si’s account of history is too simplistic to take the modern environmental movement into account, he brings Francis into dialogue with Gibson Winter’s and Robert Doran’s philosophies as a way to account for ecological flourishing. Jacobs uses Francis’s critique of the technocratic paradigm to reflect on the moral dimensions of the Internet. Jacobs argues that many tech companies, Google in particular, disregard personhood, bodies, and history and wrongly conflate technological progress with human well-being. She suggests two ways that we might combat the destructive traits of the technocratic paradigm, namely algorithmic transparency and eschewing the equation of dignity with the accumulation of knowledge and data.

Introduction

7

In Part V, “Social Ecologies: Politics and Activism,” Laura Stivers, Andrew Warmback, Michael Ross, and Anne Marie Dalton explore the integral nature of Laudato Si’ insofar as it makes demands on political action and accountability. Stivers connects Laudato Si’ to issues of urban design in her analysis of smart growth. She differentiates between environmental preservationists, typically focused on preventing urban development as such, and environmental justice advocates who factor in wider issues of race and class in their approach to urban planning. Stivers demonstrates that Laudato Si’s integrated approach to ecological and social issues is more in keeping with environmental justice advocates, yet she suggests that the encyclical lacks an intersectional analysis—particularly concerning gender—that is at the heart of the environmental justice movement. Warmback offers a firsthand account of South Africa’s nuclear court case and the role of faith-based groups in this historic legal fight. As Warmback demonstrates, the debate over nuclear energy involves more than just ecological and economic issues. It involves wider civic issues pertaining to government transparency, civic engagement and national autonomy—issues that are all seamlessly integrated within Laudato Si’. Ross wrestles with population and contraception, questioning how Pope Francis’s vision of integral development could be achieved without some form of birth control. Bringing Laudato Si’ into dialogue with development and population experts, he argues that the church has still not yet worked out the implications of the ecological crisis for sexual ethics, but suggests that the encyclical’s notion of integral ecology challenges the traditional, deontological approach to reproductive ethics and opens new pathways for a dialogue about responsible parenthood. Dalton explores the increasingly necessary concept of ecological citizenship. She suggests that the church, no less than political institutions and other social groups, has been entrusted with helping to raise people’s awareness of political responsibility. Such responsibility of citizenship is, Dalton insists, characterized by virtue and evident in the revolutionary habits that Francis calls forth in Laudato Si’. In Part VI, “New Lifestyles: Education and Spirituality,” Christopher Hrynkow, Peter McGrail, and Nicholas Smith examine what is taking place in the institutional life of the church to address the environmental crisis. Hrynkow focuses on ecologically minded pedagogies that are taking the contemporary climate crisis into account. He argues that in spite of the progress made in ecological education, its anthropocentric and Western biases often fail to name and address the roots of the socioecological crisis. He suggests a pedagogy of transformative learning inspired by Edmund O’Sullivan wherein educators ought to be activists and integrates his vision into the educational perspectives of Laudato Si’. McGrail analyzes the connections of liturgy to the more-than-human realm of nature, suggesting that there are correlations between liturgy and ethics. Focusing on the Easter Vigil as an initiation rite of

8

Introduction

the church, he looks at how Christians are confronted by an inescapable link between the environment and Christian identity. He insists that if Christian initiation takes place through symbolic actions that immerse one in nature, then any sense that the relationship between a Christian and the natural world might be merely casual is clearly false. Smith addresses climate change and the warming of the planet as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the public role Catholics play in confronting the crisis. He explores how energy use, consumer behavior, social norms, and support for or resistance to climate and energy policies are approached by Catholics in the public realm as well as the role Laudato Si’ plays in how Catholics, and the public more broadly, are engaging climate change. To conclude the volume, Matthew Eaton grapp with eschatological trauma and the possibility of maintaining hope for change in the face of ecological devastation. He suggests that while we are not hopeless in the face of ecological devastation and may rejoice in future ecological justice, we cannot hope to forget the unforgettable, lamentable violence done to this world. This is done in the context of Laudato Si’s Christology and broader conversations in ecotheology concerning the possibility of an ecocide that overflows into deicide—that is, the irreparable feeling of loss and lament within the divine as a result of anthropogenic violence. In these ways, this volume thus responds to ecological sin and the hope for redemption through conversion to the revolutionary tender love of God. The chapters to follow offer suggestions for conversion that call the sovereignty of anthropocentric systems into question, offering some pathways forward for the bold cultural revolution that Pope Francis invites. We hope that it might partner meaningfully with the plurality of voices already booming throughout the world demanding revolution. Furthermore, insofar as it merely scratches the surface concerning the revolutionary changes needed in the world, we hope that it inspires further analyses that question anthropogenic violence and suggest new pathways going forward that facilitate Earth’s well-being and a planetary common good. NOTES 1. The editors would like to thank Jason Mills, a doctoral student at the University of St. Michael’s College, for his tireless work copy editing the volume along with the editors. 2. While we speak of the collective nature of human sin, we recognize that such sin is not equally distributed among human communities. The nature of the sin we have in mind is social and historical, carried out principally in the exploitation of the vulnerable by the hands of those controlling and wielding political, economic,

Introduction

9

ideological, and technological power. As such, we note that anthropocentrism is essentially a colonial logic resulting in injustice toward Earth through attitudes and habits that dominate ecosystems as well as individual creatures. Anthropocentrism, then, ought to be understood as part of the larger logic of domination that characterizes the oppression of the vulnerable. This is not a new idea. For a classic articulation of such, see Leonardo Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001). 3. Ignacio Ellacuría and Michael Edward Lee, Ignacio Ellacuria: Essays on History, Liberation, and Salvation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2013), 129. 4. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium—The Joy of the Gospel: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/ apo​st_ex​horta​tions​/docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_esor​tazio​ne-ap​_2013​1124_​evang​elii-​ gaudi​um.ht​ml, 88. 5. Francis, Evangelii Gaudium—The Joy of the Gospel. See also Ibid., 288.

Part I

LAUDATO SI’ IN CONTEXT

Chapter 1

Laudato Si’ Social Analysis and Political Engagement in the Tradition of Catholic Social Thought Christopher P. Vogt

Laudato Si’ received considerable attention from mainstream media outlets when it was released, and in the years since, organizations such as Catholic Climate Covenant and the Vatican itself have maintained vigorous efforts to promote it. As a result, many people are encountering a papal encyclical for the first time in Laudato Si’, and they may not realize that it is part of a tradition of Catholic social and political engagement that stretches back to the nineteenth century. The purpose of this chapter is to situate Laudato Si’ within the context of Catholic social teaching by introducing the tradition’s distinctive themes and methods. It will focus particularly on explaining why engagement with history and the social and natural sciences is an integral part of the method of moral reflection characteristic of Catholic social teaching. In addition, we will explore the encyclical’s concept of “ecological conversion” as a way of examining how it calls for change at the personal, social, and political levels. LOCATING LAUDATO SI’ WITHIN CATHOLIC SOCIAL THOUGHT Since the emergence of Christianity itself, Christians have reflected, written, and acted upon issues of justice and offered commentaries on societies, political powers, and economies. In sermons, letters, books, and articles, theologians and church leaders have attempted to explain the implications of Christian belief for the social, political, and economic spheres of life. In addition, lay people, ordained clergy, and members of religious orders have 13

14

Christopher P. Vogt

given witness to the meaning of Christian discipleship by founding charitable institutions, organizing social movements, and engaging in political action. That scholarship and that witness together constitute the broad tradition of Catholic social thought. In 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical letter Rerum Novarum, addressing the rights and duties of capital and labor in the context of Europe.1 This document and subsequent authoritative statements of church teaching addressing the social and political order (including Laudato Si’) make up “Catholic social teaching” or the social doctrine of the church, a subcategory of Catholic social thought.2 This literature is set apart by the fact that it comes from the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, most typically the pope, but sometimes bishops who gather regionally to write joint statements on social and political issues. Given their authorship, these statements make an authoritative claim on the consciences of Catholics. SOCIAL ANALYSIS AND POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT IN CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING From 1962 to 1965, Catholic leaders converged on Rome for the Second Vatican Council. The impact of the council would be wide-ranging (e.g., Catholics would begin celebrating the Eucharist in the vernacular instead of in Latin). One of most significant and enduring changes brought about by Vatican II was a shift in the church’s stance toward the world from suspicion or hostility to collaborative engagement. In one of the most quoted passages from the Council, we read that “the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the [people] of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ.”3 The role of the church is not to sit in judgment nor to condemn, but to foster unity and a sense of kinship among all members of the human family and to share its insights into the questions, problems, and challenges facing all people in the world today.4 Reading the Signs of the Times The Second Vatican Council’s document on the church in the modern world describes the church’s approach to social, political, and economic matters as “scrutinizing the signs of the times and . . . interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.”5 Exactly what the signs of the times are, how they should be interpreted, and by whom has remained a matter of theological debate.6 Nevertheless, it is beyond doubt that this approach has become emblematic of Catholic social teaching from the early 1960s to the present day. In order to

Laudato Si’

15

understand better what it means to scrutinize the signs of the times, it might be helpful to invoke a popularized formula for the application of Catholic social teaching: see, judge, and act.7 These three steps were originally articulated by Pope John XXIII as a method for applying Catholic Social teaching to particular questions, but these three dimensions of moral deliberation can also illuminate the theological method within Catholic social teaching itself.8 “Seeing”: A Careful Examination of Our Contemporary Reality One of the primary purposes of Catholic social teaching is to engage all people of good will on pressing issues of mutual concern. In order to have a meaningful conversation about justice or any social or political challenge, it is necessary to come to a deep understanding of the issue at hand. For this reason, “seeing” reality rightly is the first step in engaging any issue. Roman Catholics believe that faith and reason are not in competition with each other, but rather complementary ways of pursuing the truth.9 Although the church maintains that it has a special competence when it comes to insights into values and morality, it recognizes that it should defer to the natural and social sciences in order to understand what is happening in the world. This is particularly true when it comes to phenomena as complicated as global development and climate change. It is for this reason that Laudato Si’ begins by seeking to explain “what is happening to our common home.” In that chapter, Francis seeks to encapsulate an accurate, empirical description of what is happening in the world around climate change, the availability of fresh water, loss of biodiversity, pollution and the degradation of space in urban areas, and the rise of global inequality. To use the language of Catholic social teaching, the first chapter of Laudato Si’ seeks to name the signs of the times. Each of the topics in chapter one of the encyclical calls out for more detailed engagement. The very logic of Catholic social teaching demands a more comprehensive engagement of the crises we face, using not only the lens of the natural sciences but also history, sociology, and political science in order to arrive at a comprehensive understanding. It should be clear that “Seeing” entails much more than mere observation. It requires a careful analysis of the nature and causes of a particular social problem. “Seeing” properly requires not only making sure that multiple academic disciplines are employed to understand an issue as completely as possible, it also requires attention to perspective. Observations and analyses are always rooted in a particular point of view. One of the principles of Catholic social teaching is the preferential option for the poor. This principle calls upon everyone to prioritize the perspective of people who lack privilege and

16

Christopher P. Vogt

power—those who live on the margins of society. In a global context, this means prioritizing the perspective of people living in the global South. Within societies, this means examining issues and policy decisions in terms of how they impact people who are economically disadvantaged or who lack voice or power due to their race, ethnicity, gender, or other forms of marginalization. Laudato Si’ modeled this principle by consistently placing poor and marginalized people at the center of discussions on development, and by drawing from voices from around the world when describing what is happening to our common home. It is striking for a papal encyclical to cite so many bishops’ conferences from around the world including Argentina, Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, South Africa, the Philippines, and many more. “Judge”: Applying the Moral Framework of Catholic Social Teaching Having described the signs of the times as carefully as possible, the next step is to offer a moral analysis of the situation or to “judge.” Of course, some degree of judgment is implicit in very act of reading the signs of the times. The ability to see instances of injustice and recognize moral problems depends upon our character and the moral framework we bring to the task of interpreting reality.10 The task of “judging” is to make explicit the values and moral principles that we perceive to be relevant for interpreting the signs of the times and for guiding our response to the most pressing issues of our day. In its analysis of how we should understand and respond to what is happening to our common home, Laudato Si’ draws upon many principles and concepts that have been at the heart of Catholic social teaching. It is not possible to elaborate on all of the principles of Catholic social teaching in this introduction, so I will focus on the encyclical’s guiding principle (the common good) and discuss a few other principles in relation to it. The Common Good The key to understanding much of Catholic social teaching is its understanding of the human person, or its theological anthropology. The social doctrine of the church maintains that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. This claim implies that every human being has intrinsic worth, but it says much more than that. Catholics believe in the Trinity, that is, that God in God’s very self is a communion of love “in which the Three Divine Persons mutually love one another and are the one God.”11 Furthermore, in the creation stories in Genesis, we find an emphasis on the importance of relationship and community for human happiness. Both scripture and doctrine point to the fact that a human life lived in solitary isolation is incomplete.

Laudato Si’

17

The cultivation of authentic relationships with God and other people, and participation in community, is not morally “optional” but rather essential to living an authentic human life.12 The importance of community for human flourishing has implications for social ethics. Human beings are social not only in the context of familial and interpersonal friendships but also in economic, cultural, religious, and political spheres.13 A good society fosters the well-being and fulfillment of its members. Therefore, a good society must be ordered or organized in ways that allow its members to participate fully in all of those social spheres and to flourish. Catholic social teaching has used the concept of the common good as a way of talking about the just organization of society. The Second Vatican Council defined the common good as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.”14 These “conditions” or elements of the common good take on many forms. It includes individual, material goods that every person needs in order to survive and thrive such as food, water, shelter, and clothing. These goods need not be provided by the state or society, but there must be a means by which every person in the community can meet those needs (e.g., by access to employment that pays a living wage). The common good also includes public goods that are made possible only in the context of a flourishing community such as healthcare, education, culture, and so on. Access to clean water and the right to live in an environment free from pollution has come to be recognized among those essential elements of the common good.15 David Hollenbach has explained that for these goods to be truly public and part of the common good, they must be universally available and provided in a manner by which enjoyment of that good by one member of society does not make it unavailable to be enjoyed by others.16 Finally, the common good includes the good of being a community at all. Society and human relationships should not be regarded as merely a means for supplying goods that individuals cannot furnish on their own. The goods of human relationship, of being part of a society in which shared speech, cooperative action, and self-governance take place are all part of the common good.17 Of course, the common good does not come into existence magically. The concept implies both that members of a community should have access to a vital set of goods and that a person has a duty to contribute to building up the common good. The principle within Catholic social teaching that provides guidance regarding how responsibility for the common good is to be shared among individuals, governments, and nongovernmental organizations is subsidiarity. It holds that it is best to empower individuals, groups, and

18

Christopher P. Vogt

governments at the most local level possible to maintain the common good. At the same time, whenever individuals and local groups and governments are not able to protect the common good on their own, it falls upon larger entities (e.g., the national government, or even international organizations) to take on that responsibility.18 The concept of the common good in Catholic social thought has expanded in significant ways over the last sixty years. It was traditionally understood within the context of a specific community or nation, but as economic and political systems became increasingly global in scale, Pope John XXIII expanded the scope of the common good from the national level to the global level.19 This was significant because it required communities and nations always to look beyond their own borders when considering how their policies and actions had an impact on the common good and human well-being. In addition, if we apply the principle of subsidiarity globally, we realize that there is a need for international cooperation or perhaps even an international government authority to address threats to the common good that individual nations cannot address alone.20 Thus, these concepts are foundational for the way Francis approaches issues of global inequality and advocates for strategies of global development. In more recent years, some Catholic theologians have begun to write of the necessity of moving past a global, but nevertheless anthropocentric notion of the common good.21 For example, drawing upon Catholic social teaching, classical sources such as Augustine and Aquinas, and insights drawn from comparative theology, Daniel Scheid has put forward a sustained argument for shifting the tradition past a planetary common good toward a cosmic conception of the common good.22 At this moment in time, Catholic social teaching has not made the move to a cosmo- or even geo-centric notion of the common good. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church warns against placing all of nature on an equal footing with humanity, and instead maintains that there is an ontological difference between humanity and other creatures.23 At the same time, a growing recognition of the dignity and intrinsic worth of all of creation and the emerging concept of integral ecology point to the need for further expansion of the Catholic understanding of the common good. ECOLOGICAL CONVERSION: PERSONAL, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis wrote that a lasting and genuine solution to the planetary environmental crisis would require nothing short of “a change of humanity.”24 The language Christians typically would use for that sort of profound change is conversion. The encyclical uses the term “ecological

Laudato Si’

19

conversion,” but its treatment of the concept is quite brief. Nevertheless, the model of Christian conversion is helpful for understanding the scope of change necessary for us to learn to care properly for our common home. This entire document could be interpreted as a call to ecological conversion and as an extended reflection on everything such a conversion would entail.25 Personal Transformation Perhaps more than any previous encyclical, Laudato Si’ is addressed to individual persons. It calls each of us to self-examination and spiritual renewal. It demands a shift in our understanding of our place in the world and our relationship to the other creatures of the earth, and it points to the need for concrete action in the form of a changed lifestyle as well as social and political activism. Much of these changes can be understood under the heading of growing in the virtue of solidarity as I will explain below. Responsibility and Repentance As the Latin root of the word suggests, conversion is about a change in direction—a turning around. It is a new beginning that requires leaving something else behind—a way of living, a way of understanding the world, and so forth.26 The first step in making such a change is to recognize the need for it. One of the most consistent themes among the authors who have written on ecological conversion is the need for repentance.27 The structure of Laudato Si’ also suggests the need to start with repentance by taking the reader through a series of very grave facts about the condition of the world today. This review of the economic and environment challenges we face makes it clear that we cannot go on as we are now.28 Repentance requires more than the acknowledgment of the need for change; it also requires taking responsibility for wrongs that we have done. For those of us with power and privilege, we must accept our own complicity in the destruction of many of the goods of creation.29 To put it in more traditional language, it requires an acknowledgment on our own sinfulness.30 A Shift in Self-Understanding and Our Sense of Place in the World Underneath our propensity to put our personal needs and desires above the common good and our tendency to pursue the comfort and development of our own species at the expense of the good of other creatures lies an erroneous theological anthropology. As Daniel Scheid and many others have argued, at the root of the climate crisis and other environmental devastation is a faulty, sinful conception of the human person and his or her role in creation.31 Furthermore, there are other ideologies and worldviews to which many of us cling such as individualism, consumerism, and a refusal to accept

20

Christopher P. Vogt

the possibility of planetary change that predispose us to act in ways that contribute to environmental degradation. Hence, ecological conversion must include intellectual and religious dimensions. Perhaps the most crucial dimension of the predominant theological anthropology from which one must turn away to embrace ecological conversion is its anthropocentrism. This point of view is often constructed upon a particular reading of the Genesis creation stories that emphasizes the particularity and special role of human beings in creation. This reading also portrays the goods of the earth as having been created for the benefit of human beings and thus having a largely or exclusively instrumental value. Celia Dean-Drummond has proposed reading the divine speeches in Job as offering a theology of creation that dislodges human beings from their place at its crown of creation, instead placing them alongside other animals and creatures as participants in creation. The themes of human responsibility for creation or stewardship can remain but with a much deeper sense of humility.32 Rather than a concept of stewardship that arises out of a sense of human beings rising above creation, those themes arise from a deep affection for it. She writes “the special place and privilege of humankind is the ability to perceive the created world in a manner analogous to the way God does.”33 Growing in Virtue: Nurturing Solidarity For much of its history, Catholic social teaching was conceived primarily as a doctrine and popularized as a set of principles to be observed. More recently, however, alongside the principle-based approach, many have come to recognize Catholic social teaching as a call to a life of virtue as well. This is particularly true when it comes to solidarity.34 This turn to virtue is well suited to a discussion of conversion because virtues lie at the level of character or our identity as persons. The change envisioned by ecological conversion requires a virtuous citizenry if it is to be achieved. Alain Thomasset writes that it is impossible to maintain a just, democratic society without a base of virtuous citizens because some virtues such as tolerance, respect, and solidarity are prerequisites for life in community.35 Likewise, the development of a more just approach to global development that takes full account of the intrinsic goodness of creation will be impossible without virtuous people pressing for that change. Obviously, laws and economic structures will need to be changed, but changes in law will not be enough by themselves and will never come without organized pressure from everyday people. A virtue is “a stable quality of the intellect, will, or passions through which an individual can do what morality demands in a particular instance, and do it in the right way, i.e., with an appropriate motivation.”36 Here I will focus on solidarity as a way of thinking (intellect) and acting (will).

Laudato Si’

21

To think in a manner that reflects the virtue of solidarity is to recognize certain truths about what it means to be a human person. The central insight of solidarity is the recognition that I cannot flourish or reach my full potential on my own, and my own growth and fulfillment as a person is tied up with the fate of the rest of humanity and indeed deeply intertwined with that of the whole of creation.37 A further dimension of the sort of knowing characteristic of solidarity is coming to true knowledge of the current state of the world with particular attention to the ways in which the social, economic, and political structures currently operative negatively impact the well-being of human beings and the rest of creation. Thus, learning to “see” well is a dimension of living in solidarity and something we all are called to cultivate. Individual Action Solidarity requires more than thought; it requires action. What would the praxis of solidarity look like? First, for those living in North America, it will entail lifestyle changes that move a person away from high consumption toward simplicity—quotidian changes regarding what one eats, transportation choices, and so on. These are expressions of solidarity in that they reflect a sense of commitment to the common good and an awareness that the good of all creation rightfully falls within the scope of my moral concern. Second, the cultivation of solidarity and the pursuit of ecological conversion more broadly will require conscious steps to cultivate a spirituality that reinforces a conscious sense of the ways in which our own lives are tied up with the rest of creation and an appreciation for the intrinsic worth and goodness of that creation. This will require finding ways to experience and encounter nature.38 In order to know God in nature, you must experience nature! Peter Saunders suggests, for example, that it is necessary to encounter nature or even wilderness on retreat.39 Social Action Ecological conversion must also entail social and political engagement. The causes of suffering, environmental degradation, and injustice are not merely the result of discreet individual choices, but rather they are collective and built into the heart of our society. Therefore, our response must also be collective and structural.40 The practice of solidarity is not timid, but sometimes requires naming social sin and holding up a mirror to oppressors. It can require the use of coercion to achieve necessary change.41 The practice of solidarity may sound like a lot to ask of an individual person. How might an individual person become informed about the complicated threats to creation or to the dignity of the human person or the variety

22

Christopher P. Vogt

of possible ways to promote justice and the common good? How might one make one’s voice heard? These tasks may seem overwhelming and leave one feeling powerless. In his book, Structures of Grace, Kevin Ahern offers lay social movements as a viable way for everyday people to become engaged in the sort of social action and political activity that solidarity requires.42 These groups can serve a mediating role between local communities, fostering a productive dialogue about the shape of the common good and the best ways to promote and protect it. These groups also provide a framework for giving marginalized people and their allies as well as groups that advocate for nonhuman creatures a voice in the political arena, and can play a role in bringing moral discourse to bear on contemporary political issues.43 Sociologists and social psychologists tell us that relationships and community connections are crucial for effecting change. Furthermore, membership in community organizations helps people to keep one another motivated and to remain hopeful in the face of great challenge and adversity.44 Political Action Pope John Paul II defined solidarity as a “firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good.”45 Hence, the virtue of solidarity must lead ultimately to political action—to the reshaping of economic and political structures so that they serve the common good. Catholic social teaching typically has stopped short of advocating for specific laws or policies. Over the years, church leaders have consciously steered clear of aligning Catholic social teaching with a specific economic system or political ideology. However, there is a risk of irrelevance if Catholic social teaching remains at the level of pure abstraction or theory. For that reason, church leaders have sometimes engaged in some of the more salient policy debates of the day in an effort to articulate the concrete implications of the common good, solidarity, universal human dignity, and so forth.46 We find the same pattern in Laudato Si’. A central claim in this encyclical is the need to assert political control over the global development and economies. We can hear echoes of John XXIII’s call for the establishment of political structures that have the organization and means that are co-extensive with the global dimensions of the problems we face.47 There is an implicit call for the growth of political dialogue and cooperation when Francis says this encyclical is an appeal for the whole human family about how we are shaping the future of the planet (LS 13–14). He warns that market forces and technical innovation will not be sufficient to meet the ecological challenges of our day nor to create more inclusive patterns of economic development that have poverty and inequality as their by-products. He calls for a new legal framework that can set clear boundaries

Laudato Si’

23

and enforce the protection of ecosystems (#53). It is only through careful analysis of the challenges of global development and the ecological crisis together with rigorous policy analysis of the sort found in this volume and others like it that we will come to know how to build up political structures equal to the task of reshaping patterns of economic and social life in ways that empower the most vulnerable to build dignified lives that are in harmony with the flourishing of all of creation. NOTES 1. Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 15 May 1891) http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/l​eo-xi​ii/en​/ency​clica​ls/do​cumen​ts/hf​_l-xi​ ii_en​c_150​51891​_reru​m-nov​arum.​html.​ 2. David J. O’Brien and Thomas A. Shannon, eds., Catholic Social Thought: Encyclicals and Documents from Leo XIII to Francis, Third Revised Edition (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2016). For background essays and commentaries see Kenneth R. Himes, et al., eds., Modern Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries and Interpretations, Second Edition (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2018). 3. Paul VI, Gaudium et spes: Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 7 December 1965), 1, http:​//www​.vati​ can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​il/do​cumen​ts/va​t-ii_​const​_1965​1207_​ gaudi​um-et​-spes​_en.h​tml. 4. Paul VI, Gaudium et spes, 3. 5. Ibid., 4. 6. Laurie Johnston, “The ‘Signs of the Times’ and Their Readers in Wartime and in Peace,” Journal of Moral Theology 2, no. 2 (2013): 21–39 at 21. 7. Erin M. Brigham, See, Judge, Act: Catholic Social Teaching and Service Learning (Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2013). 8. John XXIII, Mater et Magistra: On Christianity and Social Progress (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1961) http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-x​xiii/​ en/en​cycli​cals/​docum​ents/​hf_j-​xxiii​_enc_​15051​961_m​ater.​html.​ 9. John Paul II, Fides et ratio: “On the Relationship Between Faith and Reason” (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998), 17, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​14091​998_f​i des-​et-ra​tio.h​tml. 10. Christopher P. Vogt, “Mercy, Solidarity, and Hope: Essential Personal and Political Virtues in Troubled Times,” Journal of Catholic Social Thought 14, no. 2 (2017): 214. See also William C. Spohn, Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics (New York, NY: Continuum, 1999), 75. 11. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), 34, http:​//www​ .vati​can.v​a/rom​an_cu​ria/p​ontif​i cal_​counc​ils/j​ustpe​ace/d​ocume​nts/r​c_pc_​justp​eace_​ doc_2​00605​26_co​mpend​io-do​tt-so​c_en.​html.​ 12. Megan J. Clark, The Vision of Catholic Social Thought: The Virtue of Solidarity and the Praxis of Human Rights (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014), 59.

24

Christopher P. Vogt

13. Todd David Whitmore, “Catholic Social Teaching: Starting with the Common Good,” in Living the Catholic Social Tradition: Cases and Commentaries, Kathleen Maas Weigert and Alexia K. Kelly, eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), 65. 14. Gaudium et spes, 26. 15. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 466. 16. David Hollenbach, The Common Good and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 8. 17. Hollenbach, The Common Good, 79–83. 18. Thomas Massaro, Living Justice: Catholic Social Teaching in Action, Second Edition (Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012), 89–92. 19. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1963), 98–100 and 132–37. 20. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, 130–135. 21. Donal Dorr, Option for the Poor and for the Earth (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2012). 22. Daniel P. Scheid, The Cosmic Common Good: Religious Grounds for Ecological Ethics (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016). 23. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 463. 24. LS 9. 25. Neil Ormerod and Cristina Vanin, “Ecological Conversion: What Does It Mean?” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2016): 328–352 at 329. 26. Ormerod and Vanin, “Ecological Conversion,” 330. 27. For example, see Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference, A New Earth: The Environmental Challenge (Alexandria, AU: Australia Catholic Social Justice Council, 2002), #218, http:​//www​.soci​aljus​tice.​catho​lic.o​rg.au​/file​s/SJS​andre​sourc​es/20​ 02_SJ​SS_st​ateme​nt.pd​f. Peter Saunders, “Laudato Si’ and the Giving of the Spiritual Exercises: An Australian Perspective,” The Way 54, no. 4 (October 2015): 118–28 at 124. 28. LS 23, 26. 29. Cherice Bock, “Climatologists, Theologians, and Prophets: Toward an Ecotheology of Critical Hope,” Cross Currents 66, no. 1 (March 2016): 8–34 at 13. 30. Dawn M. Nothwehr, “Keeping Current: Called to Ecological Conversion,” New Theology Review 22, no. 1 (April 2013): 84–87 at 86. 31. Daniel Scheid, Cosmic Common Good, 2. 32. Celia Deane-Drummond, “Ecological Conversion in a Changing Climate: An Ecumenical Perspective on Ecological Solidarity,” International Journal of Orthodox Theology 3, no. 1 (2012): 86. 33. Deane-Drummond, “Ecological Conversion in a Changing Climate.” 34. Christopher P. Vogt, “Fostering a Catholic Commitment to the Common Good: An Approach Rooted in Virtue Ethics,” Theological Studies 68, no. 2 (2007): 394–417. 35. Alain Thomasset, S.J., Les vertus sociales: Justice, solidarité, compassion, hospitalité, espérance (Paris, FR: Lessius, 2016), 8. 36. Jean Porter, “Virtue,” in The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, ed. Richard P. McBrien (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1996), 1316.

Laudato Si’

25

37. Clark, Vision of Catholic Social Thought, 101, 108. 38. Scheid, Cosmic Common Good, 78. 39. Saunders, ““Laudato Si’ and the Giving of the Spiritual Exercises,” 125. 40. Thomasset, Les vertus sociales, 210. 41. Gerald J. Beyer, “The Meaning of Solidarity in Catholic Social Teaching,” Political Theology 15, no. 1 (2014): 20. 42. Kevin Ahern, Structures of Grace: Catholic Organizations Serving the Global Common Good (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2015). 43. Ahern, Structures of Grace, 22–25. 44. Bock, “Climatologists, Theologians, and Prophets,” 18. 45. John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 30 December 1987), #38, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​30121​987_s​ollic​itudo​-rei-​socia​lis.h​tml. 46. For example, see United States Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for all (Washington, DC: NCCB/USCC, 1986), Chapter 3 (197–293). 47. John XXIII, Pacem in terris, 137.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahern, Kevin. Structures of Grace: Catholic Organizations Serving the Global Common Good. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2015. Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference. A New Earth: The Environmental Challenge. Alexandria, AU: Australia Catholic Social Justice Council, 2002. http:​//www​.soci​ aljus​tice.​catho​lic.o​rg.au​/file​s/SJS​andre​sourc​es/20​02_SJ​SS_st​ateme​nt.pd​f. Beyer, Gerald J. “The Meaning of Solidarity in Catholic Social Teaching.” Political Theology 15, no. 1 (2014): 7–25. Bock, Cherice. “Climatologists, Theologians, and Prophets: Toward an Ecotheology of Critical Hope.” Cross Currents 66, no. 1 (March 2016): 8–34. Brigham, Erin M. See, Judge, Act: Catholic Social Teaching and Service Learning. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2013. Clark, Megan J. The Vision of Catholic Social Thought: The Virtue of Solidarity and the Praxis of Human Rights. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014. Deane-Drummond, Celia. “Ecological Conversion in a Changing Climate: An Ecumenical Perspective on Ecological Solidarity.” International Journal of Orthodox Theology 3, no. 1 (2012): 78–104. Dorr, Donal. Option for the Poor and for the Earth. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2012. Himes, Kenneth R. et al., eds. Modern Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries and Interpretations. Second Edition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2018. Hollenbach, David. The Common Good and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Johnston, Laurie. “The ‘Signs of the Times’ and Their Readers in Wartime and in Peace.” Journal of Moral Theology 2, no. 2 (2013): 21–39. Massaro, Thomas. Living Justice: Catholic Social Teaching in Action. Second Edition. Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012.

26

Christopher P. Vogt

McBrien, Richard P., ed. The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1996. Nothwehr, Dawn M. “Keeping Current: Called to Ecological Conversion.” New Theology Review 22, no. 1 (April 2013): 84–87 at 86. O’Brien, David J. and Thomas A. Shannon, eds. Catholic Social Thought: Encyclicals and Documents from Leo XIII to Francis. Third Revised Edition. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2016. Ormerod, Neil and Cristina Vanin. “Ecological Conversion: What Does It Mean?” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2016): 328–352. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004. http:​//www​.vati​can. v​a/rom​an_cu​ria/p​ontif​i cal_​counc​ils/j​ustpe​ace/d​ocume​nts/r​c_pc_​justp​eace_​doc_2​ 00605​26_co​mpend​io-do​tt-so​c_en.​html.​ Pope John XXIII. Pacem in Terris. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1963. https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​john-​xxiii​/en/e​ncycl​icals​/docu​ments​/hf_j​-xxii​ i_enc​_1104​1963_​pacem​.html​. ———. Mater et Magistra: On Christianity and Social Progress. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1961. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-x​xiii/​en/en​cycli​ cals/​docum​ents/​hf_j-​xxiii​_enc_​15051​961_m​ater.​html.​ Pope John Paul II. Fides et ratio: “On the Relationship between Faith and Reason.” Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/ j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​14091​998_f​i des-​et-ra​tio.h​tml. ———. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 30 December 1987. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​30121​987_s​ollic​itudo​-rei-​socia​lis.h​tml. Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 15 May 1891. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/l​eo-xi​ii/en​/ency​clica​ls/do​cumen​ts/hf​_l-xi​ ii_en​c_150​51891​_reru​m-nov​arum.​html.​ Pope Paul VI. Gaudium et spes: Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 7 December 1965. http:​// www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​il/do​cumen​ts/va​t-ii_​const​ _1965​1207_​gaudi​um-et​-spes​_en.h​tml. Saunders, Peter. “Laudato Si’ and the Giving of the Spiritual Exercises: An Australian Perspective.” The Way 54, no. 4 (October 2015): 118–128. Scheid, Daniel P. The Cosmic Common Good: Religious Grounds for Ecological Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016. Spohn, William C. Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics. New York, NY: Continuum, 1999. Thomasset, Alain, S.J. Les vertus sociales: Justice, solidarité, compassion, hospitalité, espérance. Paris, FR: Lessius, 2016. United States Catholic Bishops. Economic Justice for All. Washington, DC: NCCB/ USCC, 1986. Vogt, Christopher P. “Mercy, Solidarity, and Hope: Essential Personal and Political Virtues in Troubled Times.” Journal of Catholic Social Thought 14, no. 2 (2017): 205–228.

Laudato Si’

27

———. “Fostering a Catholic Commitment to the Common Good: An Approach Rooted in Virtue Ethics.” Theological Studies 68, no. 2 (2007): 394–417. Whitmore, Todd David. “Catholic Social Teaching: Starting with the Common Good.” In Living the Catholic Social Tradition: Cases and Commentaries. Edited by Kathleen Maas Weigert and Alexia K. Kelly, 59–86. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.

Chapter 2

A Compassionate Science Pope Francis, Climate Change, and the Fate of Creation Stephen Bede Scharper

Two decades ago, I taught a course on religion and the environment at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. When people heard this, they would often scrunch up their faces and ask, “What does faith have to do with ecology?” (The connection between football and faith at Notre Dame, on the other hand, was well understood—no explanation necessary!) In the past few years, teaching a similar course on religion and ecology at the University of Toronto, this question is posed less often, and the faces are far less scrunched. And now, thanks to Pope Francis, I hope to encounter fewer confused minds—and looks—when speaking of my pedagogical religion and ecology nexus. With the promulgation of Laudato Si’ in May 2015, the first papal encyclical on the environment, Francis sent tremors across the speaking notes of climate change deniers worldwide and certain Republican presidential hopefuls in the United States. “The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours,” declared Senator James Inhofe, who chaired the environment and public works committee. Roman Catholic Republican presidential aspirant Rick Santorum, perhaps forgetting Pope Francis’s background in chemistry, declared the church would be better off “leaving science to the scientists” and focusing on what the church is “good at, which is theology and morality.”1 And fellow Catholic Jeb Bush, also seeking to take up residence in the White House, told news reporters that he doesn’t take economic policy from “my cardinals or my pope.”2 These, it must be noted, are representative, rather than rogue, voices, as evinced by current Republican U.S. president Donald Trump, who in 2012 declared climate change a Chinese “hoax” and has vowed to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord.3 According to The Guardian, most Republicans in the U.S. Congress deny the existence 29

30

Stephen Bede Scharper

of human-engendered climate change and have actively resisted legislation limiting greenhouse gas emissions.4 And among former Tea Party members, climate change skepticism runs near the 80 percent level, according to the Pew Research Center.5 Yet these initial reactions to Pope Francis’s encyclical speak to a lamentable but very serious impasse. Climate change science has emerged in the last three decades as one of the most vexed and contentious areas of contemporary scientific endeavor. From the muzzling of environmental scientists and the closing of ecological research centers in Canada to the censorship of leading climate change researchers in the United States, such as NASA climate scientist James Hansen, politics has tinctured, tethered, and at times eclipsed scientific data on one of the most crucial issues of our times. But these skeptical reactions to the pope have a context. Beyond the contemporary climate change morass, they are somewhat understandable, given the fraught history of the science and religion cotillion in the West, from the heliocentric crisis of Galileo’s time to the Creationist debates of our own. These responses point to some pointed questions: What role can, or should, a Catholic voice play in the science climate change debate? What “credentials” does Pope Francis have in addressing climate change science? What are the potential benefits and pitfalls of the pope using contemporary science to fashion a moral and spiritual argument? Can climate change science in particular and environmental science in general help call people of faith to a deeper understanding of their relationship to and responsibilities for creation?6 I will attempt to explore some of these questions by reflecting on Pope Francis’s use of science in Laudato Si’ and its reception by scientists, his continuity with pioneering environmental voices, his contextualization of science within a social and spiritual “integral ecology,” and his call for a “cultural revolution” unseating what he sees as an unhealthy marriage between a technology and a globalized economy.7 TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE AND POLLUTION HEAD-ON In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis takes on the climate change issue head-on, directly utilizing contemporary scientific research on climate change and its effects, such as global warming, rising sea levels, the acidification of oceans, and species loss. The pope begins his reflection on the climate crisis by “drawing on the results of the best scientific research available today, letting them touch us deeply and provide a concrete foundation for the ethical and spiritual itinerary that follow” (LS 15). Though the pope studied chemistry as a youth, and worked as a trained chemist, he did not rely solely or primarily

A Compassionate Science

31

it seems on his own science background in drafting the encyclical. To help him harvest cutting-edge environmental research, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences hosted an impressive workshop in May 2014 entitled, “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility,” which brought together leading scientists and social scientists from around the world, including Jeffrey Sachs, the Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute; Paul Crutzen, Winner of the 1995 Noble Prize in chemistry; Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; and Naomi Oreskes, Geologist and Professor of History of Science at Harvard.8 Filtered through these presentations, the scientific sections concerning climate change, loss of biodiversity, destruction of the oceans, and the carbon cycle have a welcome level of sophistication. As Catholicism scholar Michael Higgins of Sacred Heart University pithily observes, when it comes to climate science, the pope “did his homework.”9 In delineating the science of climate change, the pope writes: “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” He continues: “[A] number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space” (LS 23–25). The pope’s concern for scientific processes is reflected in his description on the carbon cycle: Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity. The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas, while the decomposition of frozen organic material can further increase the emission of carbon dioxide. Things are made worse by the loss of tropical forests which would otherwise help to mitigate climate change. Carbon dioxide pollution increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food chain. (LS 24)

Francis’s high level of discernment in this area is manifest not only in his understanding of ecological processes but also in his identification of lacunae in environmental research and assessment. His critique of environmental impact processes is a case in point (LS 35), in which he avers that the potential impact on threatened species is often absent when such impacts are assessed. Showing a sensitivity to policy issues surrounding environmental impacts, the pope also invokes the “precautionary principle,” a type of policy

32

Stephen Bede Scharper

of “preemptive prudence” which claims that incursions into nature can be blocked even when the scientific data suggests, but cannot prove, long-range environmental harm.10 RESPONSES FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY According to many environmental scientists interviewed, including those by the political news group, ThinkProgress, such as Anthony Broccoli of Rutgers and Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, the pope generally handled the science sections accurately. As Broccoli noted in a recent interview, “Based on what I have seen of the science in the encyclical, most climate experts would find little to disagree with.”11 While some scientists noted one or two minor technical shortcomings in the encyclical, it seems the majority interviewed in post-publication reports observed the pope had done well in handling the science. After all, they recognize this is an encyclical, not a peer-reviewed science journal. Climate scientist Danny Harvey of the University of Toronto, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, thinks not only did the pope get the science right, but he put it into a moral and social justice context, which is, according to Harvey, “awesome” and much needed. PAPAL AMBIVALENCE REGARDING SCIENCE Notwithstanding his background in chemistry, and his careful elucidation of climate change science, the pope is not a science “booster.” He carefully weighs the promises and perils of science, particularly when it is united with powerful technological and economic forces. On the salutary side, the pope sees science as an essential dialogue partner in determining the common good. He writes: “If we are truly concerned to develop an ecology capable of remedying the damage we have done, no branch of the sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out” (LS 63). Francis is perhaps turning to environmental sciences the way Gustavo Gutierrez and liberation theologians turned to social sciences in the 1960s and 1970s to understand their reality. Philosophy, the traditional handmaiden of theology, has not been displaced, but now shares the stage with the sciences and social sciences. On the less than sanguine side, the pope notes that the modern empirical method itself can be part of an aggressive objectification of nature. Despite its many wonders, and the marvelous medical and aesthetic discoveries it has contributed to, modern science can also be part of a technoeconomic worldview that is baleful.

A Compassionate Science

33

Ecology studies the relationship between living organisms and the environment . . . It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. Time and space are not independent of one another, and not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation. Just as the different aspects of the planet— physical, chemical and biological—are interrelated, so too living species are part of a network which we will never fully explore and understand. A good part of our genetic code is shared by many living beings. It follows that the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance, unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality. (LS 67)

Thus, while science can help us get a broadened perspective of interconnection, if it becomes too specialized and segmented, it can actually become a type of blinder on the wider interconnections of creation. Once we lose our humility and become enthralled with the possibility of limitless mastery over everything, we inevitably end up harming society and the environment. It is not easy to promote this kind of healthy humility or happy sobriety when we consider ourselves autonomous, when we exclude God from our lives or replace him with our own ego, and think our subjective feelings can define what is right and what is wrong. (LS 109) Men and women have constantly intervened in nature, but for a long time this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves. It was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us. . . . This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that “an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed. (LS 106)

RESONANCES OF LAUDATO SI’ WITH PIONEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS The Land Ethic of Aldo Leopold Like Aldo Leopold, the father of environmental ethics and the progenitor of deep ecology, the pope affirms the intrinsic, rather than instrumental value of nature. The pope also exhibits a simpatico approach to Leopold’s “land ethic,” which states that a “thing is right when it tends to maintain the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends

34

Stephen Bede Scharper

otherwise.” Leopold also advances that we must learn to develop a “love, respect and admiration for the land and a high regard for its value”—an ethic of the heart, as it were, that resonates with Francis’s approach.12 Web of Life: Rachel Carson Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, dedicated to Albert Schweitzer, and motivated in part by the notion of a spring bereft of bird song, has resonance with the papal approach.13 Both see a web of life, a pattern of interconnection, and speak against a mindset and a chemical, technical, and governmental union that promoted pesticides such as DDT complex that were poisoning the earth, all in the name of boosting profits and food production. Like the pope, Carson saw a deleterious hubris in the human that threatened our survival. As Carson also sensed, “It is hard for us to accept that the way natural systems work is exemplary” (LS 22). POPE AS AN INTEGRAL ECOLOGIST “We are faced not with two separate crisis, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature” (LS 139). “An integral ecology includes taking time to recover a serene harmony with creation, reflecting on our lifestyle and our ideals, and contemplating the Creator who lives among us and surrounds us, whose presence ‘must not be contrived but found, uncovered’” (LS 225). As Naomi Oreskes affirms, the pope “adamantly rejects that dichotomy— people versus the planet, or people versus plants and animals—and says that’s a false dichotomy. It’s all one, the planet, the people on it, the plants and animals. . . . These are all interconnected. For scientists, the answer is it’s because we’re all part of an ecosystem. For the pope the answer is because it’s all God’s work.”14 Leonardo Boff: Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor Francis provides an overview of pollution and climate change, including its effects on water, loss of biodiversity, effect on oceans, but links it to human issues, such as threats posed to the poor in coastal areas and environmental refugees. He speaks of the climate as a common good, linking it to Catholic social teaching on the common good. As the first Latin American pope, and one who, in Argentina, was deeply influenced by the economically bereft barrios he would frequent on his

A Compassionate Science

35

pastoral visits, Francis developed a critique of a global economic system that has privileged the financially elite and shown enfeebled concern for the over one billion souls worldwide mired in grinding poverty. The pope recently articulated this critique in his 2015 visit to Bolivia, combining a forthright apology for the church’s complicity in Spanish colonialism with a forceful excoriation of a “new colonialism” in global economics, marked by consumerism, social injustice, and a profit-before-persons mindset.15 This critique was further enshrined in the encyclical Laudato Si’, which links the global economic system with global climate change. As Francis declares in the encyclical, “the same mindset” which prevents leaders from dealing seriously with climate change “also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty” (LS 175). “Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility,” Francis declares, “above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most” (LS 169). But this ecological decline leads to a social decline, a decline in the quality of human life, and the breakdown of society. People have become disposable. In all of this, the pope is a social ecologist, with a perspective that sees social concern, environmental destruction, and spirituality as a “seamless garment” of his faith. He reviews the science, but always shows the implications for the most vulnerable. He relates this to global inequality, and then points out how international responses have been “weak,” declaring that “there is no room for the globalization of indifference” (LS 52). St. Francis of Assisi and an Ecology of Kinship “[Saint]Francis helps us to see that an integral ecology calls for openness to categories which transcend the language of mathematics and biology, and take us to the heart of what it is to be human” (LS 11). The Pope shows that this is a Christian question, not just a social, scientific, or political question. “Clearly, the Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures” (LS 33). After reviewing the creation accounts in Genesis and the story of Cain and Abel, Francis writes: “These ancient stories, full of symbolism, bear witness to a conviction which we today share, that everything is interconnected, and that genuine care for our own lives and our relationships with nature is inseparable from fraternity, justice and faithfulness to others” (LS 70). A Christian Ecology in Joy and Song For the Pope, this environmental movement, though sobering, is not all sacrifice, hair shirts, and ashes. It is an invitation to joy, beauty, awe, and wonder—an invitation to fall in love with the earth. “In union with all

36

Stephen Bede Scharper

creatures, we journey through this land seeking God. . . . Let us sing as we go. May our struggles and our concern for this planet never take away the joy of our hope” (LS 239). CONCLUSION Pope Francis is not simply regurgitating or rehashing contemporary findings in climate change science. Rather, in his understanding of integral ecology, he is really adopting a more holistic perspective of “environmental” science, one reflected in the work of Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, and other pioneering environmental thinkers. This is a science that is multidisciplinary, inclusive, and open to both natural and cultural biodiversity. Hence, Francis is not simply engaging with “science,” per se, but engaging with and reflecting environmental science, a challenging and integrative knowledge trajectory. Folded into an “option for the poor” and “an option for the earth” from Catholic social teaching, it becomes, in Pope Francis’s hands, a “integral ecology” that is not only interdisciplinary, but subversive of political, scientific, and cultural patterns that besmirch, rather than befriend, the created world. NOTES 1. Suzanne Goldberg, “Angry U.S. Republicans Tell Pope Francis to ‘Stick with His Job and We’ll Stick with Ours,’” The Guardian, 13 June 2015, https​://ww​w.the​ guard​ian.c​om/us​-news​/2015​/jun/​13/cl​imate​-chan​ge-co​nserv​ative​s-cat​holic​-teac​hing.​ 2. Chris Mooney, “Top Cardinal Says Jeb Bush is Wrong about the Link Between Faith and Politics,” The Washington Post, 18 June 2015, https​://ww​w.was​hingt​onpos​ t.com​/news​/ener​gy-en​viron​ment/​wp/20​15/06​/18/t​op-ca​rdina​l-say​s-jeb​-bush​-is-w​ rong-​about​-the-​link-​betwe​en-fa​ith-a​nd-po​litic​s/?ut​m_ter​m=.3d​609e4​7ca73​. 3. Edward Wong, “Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chinese Hoax. Beijing Says It Is Anything But,” The New York Times, 19 November 2016, https​://ww​w.nyt​ imes.​com/2​016/1​1/19/​world​/asia​/chin​a-tru​mp-cl​imate​-chan​ge.ht​ml. 4. Goldberg, “Angry U.S. Republicans”; Wong, “Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chinese Hoax.” 5. Ibid. 6. See also Stephen Bede Scharper, “Pope Francis’s Important Ecology Lesson,” Toronto Star, 21 June 2016, in which some of these ideas are also explored, https​:// ww​w.the​star.​com/o​pinio​n/com​menta​ry/20​15/06​/21/p​ope-f​ranci​ss-im​porta​nt-ec​ology​ -less​on.ht​ml. 7. The author wishes to thank Ryan Nash for his research assistance with this chapter. 8. P.S. Dasgupta, V. Ramanathan, and R. Minnerath, “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility,” Joint Workshop of the Pontifical Academy

A Compassionate Science

37

of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Vatican City, 2–6 May 2014, http:​//www​.pass​.va/c​onten​t/sci​enzes​ocial​i/en/​event​s/201​4-18/​susta​inabl​e.htm​l. 9. Michael W. Higgins, personal conversation, Massey College, Toronto, September 18, 2015. 10. For a fuller description of the precautionary principle, see Stephen Bede Scharper, For Earth’s Sake: Toward a Compassionate Ecology (Toronto, ON: Novalis, 2013), 115–20. 11. Emily Atkin, “What Did Actual Scientists Think of The Pope’s Climate Encyclical?,” ThinkProgress, 18 June 2015, https​://th​inkpr​ogres​s.org​/what​-did-​actua​ l-sci​entis​ts-th​ink-o​f-the​-pope​s-cli​mate-​encyc​lical​-59f0​848ba​fb9/.​ 12. Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1949), 224–225. 13. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1962). 14. Andrew C. Revkin, “As Pope Francis Meets America, a Climate Science Scholar Offers a Fresh View of the Encyclical,” The New York Times, 23 September 2015, https​://do​teart​h.blo​gs.ny​times​.com/​2015/​09/23​/as-p​ope-f​ranci​s-mee​ts-ob​ama-a​ -clim​ate-s​cienc​e-sch​olar-​offer​s-a-f​resh-​view-​of-th​e-enc​yclic​al/. 15. Pope Francis, “Address to the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements,” Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 9 July 2015, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/ e​n/spe​eches​/2015​/july​/docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_2015​0709_​boliv​ia-mo​vimen​ti-po​ polar​i.htm​l.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Atkin, Emily. “What Did Actual Scientists Think of The Pope’s Climate Encyclical?” ThinkProgress, 18 June 2015. https​://th​inkpr​ogres​s.org​/what​-did-​actua​l-sci​entis​ ts-th​ink-o​f-the​-pope​s-cli​mate-​encyc​lical​-59f0​848ba​fb9/.​ Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1962. Dasgupta, P.S., V. Ramanathan, R. Minnerath. “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility.” Joint Workshop of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Vatican City, 2–6 May 2014. http:​// www​.pass​.va/c​onten​t/sci​enzes​ocial​i/en/​event​s/201​4-18/​susta​inabl​e.htm​l. Goldberg, Suzanne. “Angry U.S. Republicans Tell Pope Francis to ‘Stick with His Job and We’ll Stick with Ours.’” The Guardian, 13 June 2015. https​://ww​ w.the​guard​ian.c​om/us​-news​/2015​/jun/​13/cl​imate​-chan​ge-co​nserv​ative​s-cat​holic​teac​hing.​ Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1949. Mooney, Chris. “Top Cardinal Says Jeb Bush Is Wrong About the Link Between Faith and Politics.” The Washington Post, June 18, 2015. https​://ww​w.was​hingt​ onpos​t.com​/news​/ener​gy-en​viron​ment/​wp/20​15/06​/18/t​op-ca​rdina​l-say​s-jeb​-bush​ -is-w​rong-​about​-the-​link-​betwe​en-fa​ith-a​nd-po​litic​s/?ut​m_ter​m=.3d​609e4​7ca73​. Pope Francis. “Address to the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements.” Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 9 July 2015. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/

38

Stephen Bede Scharper

e​n/spe​eches​/2015​/july​/docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_2015​0709_​boliv​ia-mo​vimen​tipo​polar​i.htm​l. Revkin, Andrew C. “As Pope Francis Meets America, a Climate Science Scholar Offers a Fresh View of the Encyclical.” The New York Times, 23 September 2015. https​://do​teart​h.blo​gs.ny​times​.com/​2015/​09/23​/as-p​ope-f​ranci​s-mee​ts-ob​ama-a​ -clim​ate-s​cienc​e-sch​olar-​offer​s-a-f​resh-​view-​of-th​e-enc​yclic​al/. Scharper, Stephen Bede. For Earth’s Sake: Toward a Compassionate Ecology (Toronto, ON: Novalis, 2013), 115–120. ———. “Pope Francis’s Important Ecology Lesson.” Toronto Star, 21 June 2016. https​://ww​w.the​star.​com/o​pinio​n/com​menta​ry/20​15/06​/21/p​ope-f​ranci​ss-im​porta​ nt-ec​ology​-less​on.ht​ml. Wong, Edward. “Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chinese Hoax. Beijing Says It Is Anything But.” The New York Times, 19 November 2016. https​://ww​w.nyt​imes.​ com/2​016/1​1/19/​world​/asia​/chin​a-tru​mp-cl​imate​-chan​ge.ht​ml.

Part II

THE THROWAWAY CULTURE CONSUMPTION AND ECONOMICS

Chapter 3

Growth is an Idol in a Throwaway Culture Ecotheology against Neutrality Timothy Harvie

For those living in the Anthropocene, neutrality is not a moral option. Human civilization has altered the trajectory of Earth’s natural health and evolution through anthropogenic climate change, and it has imbalanced the entangled relationships humans have with other species. As one recent study notes: “Over the relatively short span of human history, major innovations, such as the domestication of livestock, adoption of an agricultural lifestyle, and the Industrial Revolution, have increased the human population dramatically and have had radical ecological effects.”1 Such innovations are, in considerable measure, the outworking and development of human economic activity. The growth and extension of economic activity correlates with the deepening of environmental impact through industrial expansion.2 The association between capitalist economic activity and environmental degradation is so strong that some scholars have identified the current era as the “capitalocene.”3 Compounding this degradation is a neoliberal ideology of deregulation which impacts not only the living biosphere but also millions of poor people who struggle for basic subsistence. This instrumentalization of others in the name of economic growth is what David Harvey has called “accumulation by dispossession.”4 Under such a regime, neoliberal economists make two central assertions: (1) economics is a neutral discipline providing the precision and objectivity of the natural sciences, and (2) growth is a fundamental prerequisite for a healthy economy. Both of these claims must be interrogated. This chapter analyzes the presuppositions of these statements and, in dialogue with Pope Francis, develops an ecotheological approach to global economics where the fundamental value and lives of Earth’s creatures are affirmed. It is further 41

42

Timothy Harvie

argued that care for these lives must come at the expense of the ideology of unending growth. Francis’s notion of a throwaway culture provides the conceptual ammunition to critique both neutrality and growth ideologies. In keeping with Catholic Social Teaching, moral claims pertaining to the preferential option for the poor must include concern for the poor among both human and nonhuman communities.5 In Francis’s view, the church must be steadfastly against the purported neutrality that dispossesses the most vulnerable and the exploitation resulting from the worship of GDP growth alone. Such worship is idolatrous. NEUTRALITY AND GROWTH Consider the following statement: “Positive economics is in principle independent of any particular ethical position or normative judgments. . . . Its performance is to be judged by the precision, scope, and conformity with experience of the predictions it yields. In short, positive economics is, or can be, an ‘objective’ science, in precisely the same sense as any of the physical sciences.”6 The assertion that positive economics is a science whose work disseminates objective truth which may be deployed in societal arrangements and governmental policy reveals the sociopolitical shifts attendant with the rise of a neoliberal era.7 Borrowing from the work of Langdon Gilkey, Mary Doak argues that the Enlightenment produced a move away from theology as “queen of the sciences” to the natural empirical sciences. This gave rise to a desire in other disciplines to be held in similar esteem and thus convey their work in terms analogous to that of the natural sciences. Such a move resulted in the discipline of economics viewing its own methods as on par with empirical approaches to knowledge.8 Alex Rosenberg has argued that the nearest disciplinary correlation with economics are the biological sciences. He writes, “Almost everything mysterious and problematical to the empiricist philosopher of science about economics is resolved once we understand economics as a biological science.”9 With the subsequent ability of economics to dominate and shape social and political life, to reach into spheres not immediately within its disciplinary purview, to shape human reality and global action, economics has now supplanted the empirical sciences as the queen of the sciences. Knowledge claims such as the ones made here not only provide economics the descriptive power of “irrefutable facts” but also the normative authority to shape opinion, society, and policy in the use of the Earth as a mere deposit of resources for human consumption. Economics claims to provide the hermeneutical and existential key to providing meaning and wisdom for human life. It offers itself not only as a science but as an object of ultimate

Growth is an Idol in a Throwaway Culture

43

concern, to borrow Tillich’s phrase.10 In doing so economics becomes an object of faith, which may no longer be interrogated and against which no protest can be made on pain of heresy. From the standpoint of the Christian tradition, any totalizing claim to allegiance made by an object constructed by human hands is an idol.11 That economics has become idolatrous is seen most prominently in its creedal demands for growth apart from the moral frameworks that give creeds their coherence. Chris Doran has spoken of “the idol of economic growth” and the demands that the “priests” of growth make for unquestioning allegiance: “Economics has indeed expanded its influence beyond its own horizons by making vast anthropological, political, and even theological claims.”12 The totalizing claims of economics and the idolatrous tendencies of capitalist economy have been clearly identified by Pope Francis. In the apostolic exhortation with which he set the programmatic agenda for his papacy, he writes: “The worship of the ancient golden calf . . . has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose.”13 Here Francis distinguishes between two separate, yet related claims. First, the type of allegiance demanded by capital economies and the devotion offered to financial growth is idolatrous. Second, the alleged neutrality of an “impersonal economy” is disconnected from any moral framework aimed at the growth of the human as but one member of creation in communion with other species and the Earth. The reduction of economic activity to a neutral, amoral phenomenon has particularly devastating effects when the discipline is seen as something separate from the historical, cultural, and sociopolitical structures that arrange human activities and from which the alleged laws of exchange and reciprocity cannot be extricated.14 Reductionist accounts of economics as an amoral and objectively neutral approach to human choices neglects the ways in which multitudes are excluded from participating in the supposedly free market.15 In this setting, neutrality only serves to perpetuate systems of exclusion through the maintenance of the status quo. Those who are deemed “disposable” by the powers which construct the terms of economic participation are precisely those with whom Christians are called to enter into communion and together seek to retradition our lives in relationship.16 In the Anthropocene, it is not only humans who are deemed disposable. Myriad species of animals and fish, water systems, plant life, and the Earth itself may be cast asunder and exploited for the benefit of only a few. Pope Francis brings this reality into focus at the outset of his encyclical. He laments, “This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor.”17 Using Earth’s resources without discrimination or limitation is a by-product of the consumer culture endemic to the idolatry of growth ideologies.18

44

Timothy Harvie

In 2008, the World Bank published The Growth Report, with many of the world’s most prominent economists as signatories.19 This report defines growth in terms indicative of the economics profession: Gross Domestic Product (GDP). “Gross domestic product (GDP) is a familiar but remarkable statistic. It is an astonishing feat of statistical compression, reducing the restless endeavor and bewildering variety of a national economy into a single number, which can increase over time.”20 The sense of awe at economic ingenuity is palpable. Moreover, despite the alleged moral neutrality of the discipline, GDP is described in ethical terms: “A growing GDP is evidence of a society getting its collective act together.”21 While climate change is recognized as “the quintessential global problem”22 it does not dampen the appetite for growth. The report declares that successful levels of growth occur at rates of 7 percent for twenty-five years and advocates that all nations ought to follow this model. While it recognizes that low-income nations are disproportionately affected by changes in climate without having equally contributed to the phenomenon, it does not question the logic of growth present since the industrial revolution which created the environmental crisis. Rather, it describes the same mantra of growth as a “triumph” when applied to poorer nations, regardless of the environmental impacts.23 Much of what has been described goes largely unquestioned in economics. Both the scientific neutrality of the discipline and the demands of growth are considered axiomatic. However, there are some countervoices. Herman Daly has written on the problem of growth with specific reference to the devastating ecological consequences entailed in the creed. Following The Growth Report, Daly disputed whether the type of growth experienced in thirteen wealthy countries was sustainable as a planetary goal. He questions whether such goals are laudable or even achievable given environmental realities. For Daly, who is also a Protestant Christian,24 the growth of a nation’s GDP is just as easily understood as a society depleting its resources as it is a country getting its act together.25 The broad and normative declarations of the report did not invite debate or dialogue on its content, which is the hallmark of a mature science. Rather, it simply declared that the findings had a consensus among competent economists, thus dictating that disagreement or debate should be construed as incompetence.26 Daly argues that the failure to see claims to value-neutrality as themselves value-laden and placing hope in increased technical capacity and efficiency reveals an empty vision of human participation with the Earth. “We are urged to change the planet, not ourselves!”27 For Daly, the claims of economists to participate in a science have revealed a scientism. Moreover, the repeated creedal mantra for growth in the continuing environmental crisis has revealed growth itself to be “uneconomic” insofar as it produces “illth” rather than wealth.28

Growth is an Idol in a Throwaway Culture

45

Predictably, the degradation of economic well-being occurs with the legislative removal of regulatory processes from economic activity and failure to self-regulate is endemic to idolatrous economies. This is so because underpinning the ideology of an allegedly free market is occlusion of the poor and a fundamentally bourgeois outlook on the world. Catholic philosopher and advocate of free-market systems, Michael Novak, argues for a philosophy of economics that favors a bourgeois system simply because it is better than an aristocratic system. He writes that nearly all the beautiful lace, millinery, tapestries, and clothing, and nearly all the most elegant wines, best cheeses, and most beautifully wrought swords, cutlery, and woodwork of the West have been executed by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are precisely those who are neither lords nor serfs, but skilled craftsmen living independently by their wits.29

Novak’s advocacy for a bourgeois system based upon the creative ingenuity of individuals who are craftspersons facilitating work and leisure is described as though poverty does not exist and the Earth is not in ecological crisis. The binary of either a feudal aristocracy or a skilled landed gentry is a false one. Pope Francis responds to these problems by issuing a clarion call for humanity to reorient itself to relationship with the Earth and the other species within it. Moreover, this relational reorientation has been a theme in the Jesuit Pope’s thought long before his papacy. In his dialogues with Rabbi Abraham Skorka, Jorge Bergoglio argued, “[t]he preaching of human and religious values has a political consequence.”30 Later in Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis addresses the false claims for a neutral account of growth found in neoliberal economies. Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile the excluded are still waiting.31

Francis emphasizes those who have been excluded from growth economies and addresses the underlying morality of neglecting the marginalized poor. Further, he identifies the allegedly neutral economy as being sacralized. While some pundits have argued the pope ought not to address such matters, in Laudato Si’ Francis has expanded his account of who is excluded to include other species and the Earth itself.32 In doing so he deepens his critique of neoliberal economies and growth ideologies.

46

Timothy Harvie

LAUDATO SI’ AND AN ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY The postconciliar approach to economics has shifted since the time of the council. While documents such as Gaudium et Spes emphasized human solidarity, it adopted the narrative of secularization prominent in the era where the public realm was typified as vacated of sacral realities. The document neglected those parts of the world which “groaned . . . under the oppression of materialism and consumerism.”33 This emphasis on an absence of religiosity in secularization also characterized the council’s account of economics. William Cavanaugh argues that in the conciliar era, “The realm of economics remains the realm of sober and rational men attempting to properly arrange the material world of good.”34 Cavanaugh notes that Pope Francis shifts the discourse away from an affirmation of the neutrality of economics to an argument that it has been made an object of sacred devotion for those in the West and therefore has become an idol. An economy that treats natural life and the stock of the Earth as mere instruments of human consumption bifurcates reality into two categories: humanity and that which humans consume. Such a division neglects the shared evolutionary history and ongoing interrelationships which illuminate the interconnectedness of life within the Earth as “our common home.” This was previously noted by Pope Benedict, who spoke of duties to the natural environment in our economic considerations.35 In Laudato Si’ Pope Francis writes, “if we feel intimately united with all that exists, then [a] sobriety and care will well up” which refuses “to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled.”36 Francis appears to think that such sobriety and care will well up “spontaneously.” This does not account adequately for the human propensity for selfish action or the current systems diligently working to reinforce the power of an elite few. What is required, and what the encyclical does not accomplish, is a broader account of the political structures enacting systemic violence, both economically and environmentally. Moreover, a thoroughgoing development of the affective dimensions of human participation in the political economy with the concomitant ecological impacts alongside its changing creaturely relationships is necessary given the seeming naïveté of hope for a spontaneous welling up of human compassion overcoming aggression. How do we nurture and develop feelings of unity given the current practice of being schooled theologically, economically, and politically to accept a false narrative of human superiority over other species? A nonexploitative economic theory is one based upon an interpersonal emphasis of embodied empathy, which is the fruit of relational activities aimed toward joy. Such “ludic activities” offer training in a relational politics that recognizes human animality and thus does not elevate the human above other animals or their habitats.37 The relational

Growth is an Idol in a Throwaway Culture

47

and joy-filled development of embodied economic activities leads to cooperative motifs guiding economic principles rather that the current deployment of competition and consumption. The unity expressed in the natural, evolutionary, and ecological relationships between humans and the living biosphere is repeated when Francis explicitly considers the role of economics: “It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected.”38 This emphasis on the interconnectedness of living beings and the impact of economic activity on natural life also echoes Francis’s predecessor: Every violation of solidarity and civic friendship harms the environment, just as environmental deterioration in turn upsets relations in society. Nature, especially in our time, is so integrated into the dynamics of society and culture that by now it hardly constitutes an independent variable . . . . The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere. In so doing, she must defend . . . earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone.39

Expanding upon these themes, Francis argues that “economic growth” simplifies the complex social relationships into a calculus of “simplifying procedures and reducing costs.” He calls for a “broader vision of reality” by way of response.40 This broader vision calls for a moral reorientation to the poor in the world, both human and nonhuman alike. For Michael Northcott, this vision is recognition of the idolatrous consumptive practices in a neoliberal economy and necessitates a conversion to the nonhuman other.41 These two themes—idolatrous economic practice and conversion to the Earth and its nonhuman inhabitants— can be seen together in Northcott’s analysis. He argues that despite the destructive outcomes of deregulated market economies in the exacerbation of climate change, it is assumed that market solutions from those very fossil fuel-based economies will provide the solutions. “Francis rejects markets as the preferred neoliberal form of climate and ecological governance.”42 Francis argues that market solutions, even with increasing technical capabilities, do not recognize either the extent of the environmental problem or the necessary change in human relations to remedy the issues. He is critical of buying and selling carbon credits as these enhance dangerous speculative economic practices and does nothing to discourage the burdensome consumptive practices of the globe’s wealthiest.43 Furthermore, it fails to recognize how idolatrous systems co-opt institutional life and practice for their own end. This is true in the case of the failure of carbon credits to reduce emissions within current market practice.44 In order to rearrange the relationships between humans, the Earth, and creaturely life, the ideology of growth must be dethroned.45

48

Timothy Harvie

One central issue is that growth ideologies found in an idolatrous economy have aided in the development of a throwaway culture. The throwaway culture extracts, uses, and discards the resources of the Earth so that the “earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.”46 This is because our economic systems, with their creedal faith in technocratic development, have yet to find ways of operating in harmony with the model of production, life, death, and return that makes natural life sustainable in a healthy ecosystem.47 Francis argues that the deification of economic practice has proved fruitless because it is never neutral: “Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.”48 The nurturing of healthy relationships is the antidote to a throwaway culture.49 Francis argues emphatically that humans do not have a right to exploit the Earth without regard for the individual lives and species that become extinct as a result: “We have no such right.”50 What is needed is the establishment of relationships of mutual aid and reciprocity where concern for humans living in poverty and care for the living biosphere are not framed in a zero sum game. Concern for and solidarity with water systems, forests, and other species of animals are central to the fulfillment of human life in relationship.51 This concern cannot be expressed in the abstract. It occurs not in internal rational dispositions, but in embodied encounters that are transformative.52 Idolatrous economies narrate human existence as autonomous rational actors motivated by self-interest. Ecological economies are driven by the well-being of the living biosphere, which includes the human but is by no means coextensive with it. Ecological economies can learn from the embodied relational tasks present in what Erik Olin Wright calls a social economic logic. Wright contends, “The capitalist logic of meeting needs is that it is only worth doing when you can make a profit from it: I help you because it’s good for me. The social economy logic of meeting needs is other-directed: I help you because it is good for you.”53 In the Anthropocene, other-directed economies must acknowledge and seek flourishing relationships with the myriad inhabitants of the Earth and seek to enhance the lives, practices, and communities of each. This requires acknowledgement of the integrity of ecosystems and affirmation that natural resources are not merely for human exploitation. They exist as a result of the natural evolutionary processes of the Earth and not merely for use by one species at the expense of all other species. As such, humans must limit extractive activities and thus condemn the idolatry of growth. To do this, neutrality is not a moral option. Partisanship on behalf of the poor, human, and nonhuman alike is properly expressed as a preferential option in theology and praxis. Christians in the so-called “developed world”

Growth is an Idol in a Throwaway Culture

49

claiming to love our fellow human neighbor in poverty and our fellow creatures are condemned by our very wealth. Speaking to the wealthy of his time, St. Basil the Great exposes the contradiction of being rich while also being a loving Christian: “You profess this to be true with your tongue, but your hand gives you the lie; silently, your hand bears witness to the falsehood, flashing as it does with the jewels from your ring.”54 Other-oriented approaches to economic relationships extend to earth-others in our midst and those hidden from view. Humans must limit and reduce our consumptive practice, which requires the correction of our assumptions in economic thought and practice. CONCLUSION The two central convictions of economic theory are disciplinary neutrality that results from empirical objectivity and the necessity of growth. These two claims are criticized by Pope Francis as sacral assertions demanding allegiance and devotion. As such, they are idolatrous. Pope Francis seeks to reorient human life in light of relational categories that draw each person into relationship with the world’s poor. The poor of the Earth includes marginalized human communities as well as nonhuman communities of animals, plants, and entire ecosystems. Rearranging economic relationships so as to interrogate idolatrous economies with their creedal demands for growth draws humans to limit growth and divest excess from accumulative practice. Only in adopting economies of reduction is there hope for the living Earth. NOTES 1. Yinon M. Bar-On, Rob Phillips, and Ron Milo, “The Biomass Distribution on Earth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) May 2018, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1711842115. 2. Kjetil Fretheim has noted three general phases in the development of the Anthropocene: industrialization, the industrial acceleration that occurred after 1945, and the burgeoning awareness of the global scope of human impact on Earth. See Kjetil Fretheim, “Democracy and Climate Justice: Public Theology in the Anthropocene,” International Journal of Public Theology 12, no. 1 (2018): 58. 3. Christophe Bonneuil and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, The Shock of the Anthropocene (New York: Verso Books, 2015), 222–252. 4. David Harvey, “The ‘New’ Imperialism: Accumulation by Dispossession” Socialist Register 40 (2004): 63–87; A Brief History of Neoliberalism (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), 178. For a critique of Harvey’s use of the concept, see Raju Das, “David Harvey’s Theory of Accumulation by Dispossession: A Marxist Critique,” World Review of Political Economy 8, no. 4 (2017): 590–616.

50

Timothy Harvie

5. It is only relatively recently that Catholic Social Teaching has sought to explicitly account for nonhuman animals and other beings in nature. John Berkman and Celia Deane-Drummond have written on the occlusion of nonhuman animals in Catholic moral thought and the emergence of other species in academic theological discussions. See John Berkman and Celia Deane-Drummond, “Catholic Moral Theology and the Moral Status of Non-Human Animals,” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (2014): 1–10. 6. Milton Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 2. 7. “Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.” Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, 2. Harvey proceeds to quote Paul Treanor, who argues, “Neoliberalism is a philosophy in which the existence and operation of a market are valued in themselves, separately from any previous relationship with the production of goods and services, and without any attempt to justify them in terms of their effect on the production of goods and services; and where the operation of a market or market-like structure is seen as an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action, and substituting for all previously existing ethical beliefs.” Paul Treanor, “Neoliberalism: Origins, Theory, Definition” http:​//web​.inte​r.nl.​net/u​sers/​Paul.​Trean​or/ne​olibe​ ralis​m.htm​l (accessed 26 November 2018). 8. Mary Doak, “Evangelizing in an Economy of Death,” in Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism: Evangelii Gaudium and the Papal Agenda, Gerard Mannion, ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 186–88. 9. Alex Rosenberg, “If Economics Is a Science, What Kind of a Science Is It?,” The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics, Harold Kincaid and Don Ross, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 59. 10. Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers Inc., 2001). 11. The biblical origin for an account of idolatry stems from the prohibition of images. Gerhard von Rad notes that images were bearers of revelation and hence communicated divinity. As such, images intended to share something of the way divinity acts on Earth, which in turn reflects its nature. See Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology Volume 1 trans. D. M. G. Stalker (London: SCM Press, 1975), 214. Hence, to confuse the images pertaining to divinity was to violate the revelation of divinity itself. Eichrodt notes how the intermingling of images leads to confusion on the part of those who claim to worship God by misrepresenting God. See Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Volume 1, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1961), 118. More recent archaeological scholarship has shown that historical Israel was constantly commingling divine imagery and mythologies of Canaanite and other Ancient Near Eastern cultures with those pertaining to Yahweh. Following prophetic texts which argue for the disconnection between human creations and God as creator, Freedman has argued that “Nothing of human invention could ever be adequate to capture all that Yahweh is.” For a discussion

Growth is an Idol in a Throwaway Culture

51

on idolatry see, David Noel Freedman, The Nine Commandments: Uncovering the Pattern of Crime and Punishment in the Hebrew Bible (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 23–45. This is not to affirm Freedman’s broader, more controversial thesis pertaining to the structure of the Tanak, but simply to highlight the fruitful discussion of idolatry and images in ancient Israel. The prohibition in Exodus 20:4–6 emphasizes the role that “bowing down” and “serving” idols has in the mindset and cultures of the Ancient Near East. See Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991), 225–27. Such demands for allegiance by human creations, which cannot bear or reveal divinity, leads to the critique of this chapter that current neoliberal economies are idols and ought to be prohibited as such. 12. Chris Doran, Hope in the Age of Climate Change: Creation Care this Side of the Resurrection (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2017), 113. 13. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013), 55, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/apo​st_ex​ horta​tions​/docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_esor​tazio​ne-ap​_2013​1124_​evang​elii-​gaudi​ um.ht​ml. 14. See Ilsup Ahn, Just Debt: Theology, Ethics, and Neoliberalism (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017), 13–36. 15. “To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish passion for mathematics. . . . This obsession with mathematics is an easy way of acquiring the appearance of scientificity without having to answer the far more complex questions posed by the world we live in.” Thomas Picketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014), 32. 16. See Orlando Espín, Idol and Grace: On Traditioning and Subversive Hope (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2014). 17. LS 2. 18. See Sallie McFague, Blessed are the Consumers: Climate Change and the Practice of Restraint (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013). 19. Commision on Growth and Development, The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2008). Chris Doran has called the World Bank one of the priests of the cult of growth. See Chris Doran, Hope in the Age of Climate Change, 108. 20. Commission on Growth and Development, The Growth Report, 17. 21. Ibid., 17. 22. Ibid., 9. 23. Ibid., 85. The report does indicate the triumph is a qualified one. 24. Herman E. Daly, “Thoughts on Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’,” Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, https​://st​eadys​tate.​org/t​hough​ts-on​-pope​ -fran​cis-l​audat​o-si/​ (accessed 27 November 2018). 25. See Herman E. Daly, “Growth and Development: Critique of a Credo,” Population and Development Review 34, no. 3 (2008): 511–18. 26. Herman Daly, “A Further Critique of Growth Economics,” Ecological Economics 88 (2013): 20–24. Daly lists eleven potential errors in the report’s analysis and advocacy for growth.

52

Timothy Harvie

27. Herman Daly, “Ethics in Relation to Economics, Ecology, and Eschatology,” The Oxford Handbook of Professional Economic Ethics, George F. DeMartino and Deirdre N. McCloskey, eds. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016), 179. 28. “Illth” is a neologism coined by Daly to contrast the well-being indicated by “wealth.” See Daly, “Ethics in Relation to Economics,” 169–183. See also Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endanger Our Future (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013). 29. Michael Novak, “A Philosophy of Economics,” in Faithful Economics: The Moral Worlds of a Neutral Science, James W. Henderson and John Pisciotta, eds. (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 75. 30. Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka, On Heaven and Earth, trans. Alejandro Bermudez and Howard Goodman (New York, NY: Image Publishing, 2013), 136. 31. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 54. 32. See Tim Worstall, “In Which a Good Catholic Boy Starts Shouting at the Pope,” Forbes, November 26, 2013, http:​//www​.forb​es.co​m/sit​es/ti​mwors​tall/​2013/​ 11/26​/in-w​hich-​a-goo​d-cat​holic​-boy-​start​s-sho​uting​-at-t​he-po​pe/. The accusation that religion should not interfere with the “neutral” discipline of economics is a recurring theme that has been raised throughout the history of modern Catholic Social Teaching (CST). On the historical development of postconciliar CST and the political economy, see Uzochukwu Jude Njoku, “The Influence of Changes in Socio-Economic Thinking on the Development of Post-Vatican II Catholic Social Teaching,” Political Theology (April 2007): 235–48. 33. Such was the concern raised by Karol Wojtyla John W. O’Malley, What Happened at Vatican II (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008), 250. On reading Gaudium et Spes in the half-century since the council, see Michael G. Lawler, Todd A. Salzman, and Eileen Burke-Sullivan, The Church In The Modern World: Gaudium et Spes Then and Now (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2014). 34. William T. Cavanaugh, “Return of the Golden Calf: Economy, Idolatry, and Secularization since Gaudium et spes,” Theological Studies 74, no. 4 (2016): 702. 35. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 29 June 2009), 48, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​encyc​lical​ s/doc​ument​s/hf_​ben-x​vi_en​c_200​90629​_cari​tas-i​n-ver​itate​.html​. 36. LS 11. 37. See Brian Massumi, What Animals Teach Us About Politics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014), 1–54. 38. LS 138. 39. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 51. 40. LS 141. 41. Michael S. Northcott, “Planetary Moral Economy and Creaturely Redemption in Laudato Si’,” Theological Studies 77, no. 4 (2016): 886–904. On “ecological conversion,” see LS 216–21. 42. Northcott, “Planetary Moral Economy,” 893. 43. LS 171.

Growth is an Idol in a Throwaway Culture

53

44. This can also be seen in how economic institutions of the state co-opt religious institutions for divine validation and confirmation of their idolatrous practices. This can be seen in ancient Rome as it can today. The book of Revelation criticizes the blending of cultic offices supporting Imperial practice with the economic modalities that nurture allegiance to Rome. While this chapter was being written, the act of Cardinal Timothy Dolan ringing the bell to open the New York Stock Exchange on June 18, 2018 can be seen as an analogous contemporary example of participation in and support for idolatry. See Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 35–37; “The Economic Critique of Rome in Revelation 18” The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 338–383. Callahan argues, “The text of Revelation 18 is an indictment, an indictment of wealth and those who worship it.” See Allen D. Callahan, “Apocalypse as a Critique of Political Economy: Some Notes on Revelation 18,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 21, no. 1 (1999): 46–65. See also Craig R. Koester, “Roman Slave Trade and the Critique of Babylon in Revelation 18,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70, no. 4 (2008): 766–86. 45. “A key implication of the sustainable development agenda is the dethroning of economic growth as the sole goal of economic life.” Anthony Annett, “The Economic Vision of Pope Francis,” in The Theological and Ecological Vision of Laudato Si’: Everything is Connected, Vincent J. Miller, ed. (New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017), 160–174. 46. LS 21. 47. LS 22. 48. LS 20. 49. The document promulgated jointly by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development in January 2018 begins by emphasizing the relational capacities of humanity in curing economic ills. It further argues that growth and neutrality cannot be affirmed uncritically: “The objective of mere profit easily creates a perverse and selective logic that often favors the advancement of business leaders who are capable, but greedy and unscrupulous, and whose relationship with others is prevalently driven by a selfish and personal gain.” Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones, §23. The problem with this document, despite its periodic reference to Laudato Si’, is that it limits human relationships primarily to relations between humans and neglects reflection on the modes of relationship between humans, other species of animals, and the Earth itself. Notwithstanding the anthropocentric vision of the document it is helpful in criticizing neoliberal economies and affirms a thorough regulating of economic exchange within a relational framework. 50. LS 33. 51. Ibid., 8, 11, 25, 30. See also Anatoly Angelo R. Aseneta, “Laudato Si’ on NonHuman Animals” Journal of Moral Theology 6, no. 2 (2017): 230–45; Christiana Z. Peppard, “Hydrology, Theology, and Laudato Si’,” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2017): 416–35. 52. See Trevor Bechtel, Matthew Eaton, and Timothy Harvie eds., Encountering Earth: Thinking Theologically With a More-Than-Human World (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018).

54

Timothy Harvie

53. Erik Olin Wright, Envisioning Real Utopias (New York, NY: Verso Books, 2010), 210–11. 54. St. Basil the Great, On Social Justice, 49.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahn, Ilsup. Just Debt: Theology, Ethics, and Neoliberalism. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017). Annett, Anthony. “The Economic Vision of Pope Francis,” in The Theological and Ecological Vision of Laudato Si’: Everything is Connected, edited by Vincent J. Miller, 160–174. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017. Aseneta, Anatoly Angelo R. “Laudato Si’ on Non-Human Animals.” Journal of Moral Theology 6, no .2 (2017): 230–245. Bar-On, Yinon M., Rob Phillips, and Ron Milo. “The Biomass Distribution on Earth.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). May 2018. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1711842115. Bauckham, Richard. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. ———. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Bechtel, Trevor, Matthew Eaton, and Timothy Harvie eds. Encountering Earth: Thinking Theologically With a More-Than-Human World. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018. Bergoglio, Jorge Mario and Abraham Skorka. On Heaven and Earth. Translated by Alejandro Bermudez and Howard Goodman. New York, NY: Image Publishing, 2013. Berkman, John and Celia Deane-Drummond. “Catholic Moral Theology and the Moral Status of Non-Human Animals.” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (2014): 1–10. Bonneuil, Christophe and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz. The Shock of the Anthropocene. New York: Verso Books, 2015. Callahan, Allen D. “Apocalypse as a Critique of Political Economy: Some Notes on Revelation 18.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 21, no. 1 (1999): 46–65. Cavanaugh, William T. “Return of the Golden Calf: Economy, Idolatry, and Secularization Since Gaudium et spes.” Theological Studies 74, no. 4 (2016): 698–717. Commission on Growth and Development. The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2008. Daly, Herman E. “A Further Critique of Growth Economics.” Ecological Economics 88 (2013): 20–24. ———. “Growth and Development: Critique of a Credo.” Population and Development Review 34, no. 3 (2008): 511–518. Das, Raju. “David Harvey’s Theory of Accumulation by Dispossession: A Marxist Critique.” World Review of Political Economy 8, no. 4 (2017): 590–616.

Growth is an Idol in a Throwaway Culture

55

DeMartino, George F. and Deirdre N. McCloskey, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Professional Economic Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016. Doak, Mary. “Evangelizing in an Economy of Death.” In Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism: Evangelii Gaudium and the Papal Agenda, edited by Gerard Mannion, 179–201. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Doran, Chris. Hope In The Age Of Climate Change: Creation Care This Side of the Resurrection. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2017. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Volume 1. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1961. Espín, Orlando. Idol and Grace: On Traditioning and Subversive Hope. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2014. Freedman, David Noel. The Nine Commandments: Uncovering the Pattern of Crime and Punishment in the Hebrew Bible. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000. Fretheim, Kjetil. “Democracy and Climate Justice: Public Theology in the Anthropocene.” International Journal of Public Theology 12, no. 1 (2018): 56–72. Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991. Friedman, Milton. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. ———. “The ‘New’ Imperialism: Accumulation by Dispossession.” Socialist Register 40 (2004): 63–87. Kincaid, Harold and Don Ross, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Koester, Craig R. “Roman Slave Trade and the Critique of Babylon in Revelation 18.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70, no. 4 (2008): 766–786. Lawler, Michael G., Todd A. Salzman, and Eileen Burke-Sullivan. The Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes then and Now. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2014. Massumi, Brian. What Animals Teach Us About Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014. McFague, Sallie. Blessed Are The Consumers: Climate Change and the Practice of Restraint. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013. Njoku, Uzochukwu Jude. “The Influence of Changes in Socio-Economic Thinking on the Development of Post-Vatican II Catholic Social Teaching.” Political Theology, April (2007): 235–248. Northcott, Michael S. “Planetary Moral Economy and Creaturely Redemption in Laudato Si.’” Theological Studies 77, no. 4 (2016): 886–904. Novak, Michael. “A Philosophy of Economics.” In Faithful Economics: The Moral Worlds of a Neutral Science, edited by James W. Henderson and John Pisciotta, 73–88. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005. Peppard, Christiana Z. “Hydrology, Theology, and Laudato Si’,” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2017): 416–435. Picketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014.

56

Timothy Harvie

Pope Benedict XVI. Caritas in Veritate. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 29 June 2009. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ ument​s/hf_​ben-x​vi_en​c_200​90629​_cari​tas-i​n-ver​itate​.html​. Pope Francis. Evangelii Gaudium. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/apo​st_ex​horta​tions​ /docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_esor​tazio​ne-ap​_2013​1124_​evang​elii-​gaudi​um.ht​ml. St. Basil the Great. On Social Justice. Translated by C. Paul Schroeder. Crestwood, NY: St Vladamir’s Seminary Press, 2009. Stiglitz, Joseph E. The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endanger Our Future. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013. Tillich, Paul. Dynamics of Faith. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers Inc., 2001. von Rad, Gerhard Old Testament Theology. Volume 1. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. London, UK: SCM Press, 1975. Wojtyla, Karol and John W. O’Malley. What Happened at Vatican II. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008. Worstall, Tim. “In Which a Good Catholic Boy Starts Shouting at the Pope.” Forbes, 26 November 2013. http:​//www​.forb​es.co​m/sit​es/ti​mwors​tall/​2013/​11/26​/inw​hich-​a-goo​d-cat​holic​-boy-​start​s-sho​uting​-at-t​he-po​pe/. Wright, Erik Olin. Envisioning Real Utopias (New York, NY: Verso Books, 2010.

Chapter 4

Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism The Power of Joined-Up Social Ethics Gerard Mannion

A CHURCH OF AND FOR THE POOR From the very outset of his papacy, Pope Francis made an unswerving commitment to justice for the poor and wider questions of social justice both his own and the church’s key priority. In fact, the key reason why he chose the name of Francis was because after he had been elected at the conclave, his friend, the Brazilian Cardinal Cláudio Hummes congratulated, embraced, and whispered to him, “Don’t forget the poor.” Pope Francis said that was the moment he knew to choose the inspiring name of Saint Francis of Assisi, who had worked so hard to serve the poor. That choice of name upon election already signaled so much about what his pontifical priorities would be. And when elaborating upon the latter, just three days into his papacy, he signaled his intentions by saying, “How I would like a Church which is poor and for the poor!,” a phrase that was translated in multiple places as “a poor church, for the poor”—this became a defining phrase for the new pope’s priorities and has continued to be so ever since.1 Pope Francis’s vision for the church embodies the most important developments in Catholic Social ethics from the past six decades. However (as I have discussed elsewhere),2 with the pontificate of Pope Francis what we are seeing unfold is not simply a new way of being church but also a new way of being pope. And Francis’s approach to issues of social justice stand among the most refreshing and impactful aspects of his pontificate to date. Francis’s style and approach to issues of social justice, however, is considerably different from that of his predecessors. It is not the actuality of a commitment to social justice that makes Francis’s approach stand out, it is rather the style, the resolute commitment to social justice, and the prioritization of social 57

58

Gerard Mannion

justice at the forefront of his vision for the church that stand out. So when we have a pope calling unfettered capitalism the “dung of the devil,” it is safe to suggest that here is a pope who will engage social questions not simply in a different way, but, crucially, in a radically direct and courageous way. Equally distinctive is the coherent and intertwined attention that has been given to a wide variety of social issues—what he has termed the call for an “integral ecology.” However, while Francis’s approach to social issues is markedly different to that of his predecessors in a variety of ways, there are multiple parallels between Francis and Pope John XXIII and I believe many of these are not accidental. Following John XXIII’s openness to the world, collaboration with other churches, faiths, and people of good will, Francis has emphasized human dignity, peace, and justice over and against being bogged down on doctrinal squabbles and internal church divisions. Like John, Francis wants a church open to and engaged with the wider world. He accentuates what people share in common rather than what divides them. He offers a vision of how the church can and should be open to the world, that is outward looking and that is willing to engage in dialogue and cooperation in the service of social justice.3 A further parallel with Pope John XXIII is seen in how Jorgé Bergoglio brought with him to Rome many of the priorities he had formed in his earlier ministry. For Francis, this especially meant the experience as the “bishop of the slums” when he worked among some of the poorest back in Argentina. Time and again social justice and the option for the poor featured as the core focus of the writings and interviews from Bergoglio when he was a bishop in Argentina. So this is a crucial area of consistency between his episcopal ministry prior to election and now his papacy as universal pastor of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis’s agenda has also reflected aspects of the collective CELAM priorities set down at the 2007 meeting, in Aparecida, of the Latin American region’s bishops, the final document of which Bergoglio was influential in drafting. Pastoral priorities took precedence for Archbishop Bergoglio over all theological and doctrinal debating points. The same is true of Pope Francis. As one of his biographer’s, Mario Aguilar puts it, “the challenge of Bergoglio’s life and theology was a focus on mission above ecclesiology, a focus that he brought with him to the Vatican when elected the first Latin American bishop of Rome.”4 Thus (as I also suggested elsewhere),5 Francis’ priorities can be summed up as indicative of a vision of the church, an ecclesiology, driven first and foremost by liberative orthopraxis, shaped by Latin American liberation theology, and this helps explain each and every one of Francis’s subsequent areas of focus and his vision of the church in general. Indeed, more than any of his recent predecessors, Pope Francis has firmly wedded

Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism

59

the church’s overall mission to its social mission, a social revolution that lies at the very heart of the gospel.6 The core target at which this revolutionary social vision is aimed is contemporary global capitalism. In tandem with the associated notion of “an integral ecology,” the remainder of this chapter will unpack why this is so. JOINED-UP SOCIAL ETHICS: AN “INTEGRAL ECOLOGY” Pope Francis’s vision for the church is one that embraces multiple aspects that collective social actors within and beyond the church (even previous pontiffs) have all too often treated separately and in isolation. Time and again, Francis stresses how intertwined key questions and challenges are. In Evangelii Gaudium, Francis explores three ideas that speak volumes about both his vision for the church, all of which are fully intertwined in the notion of an integral ecology. First, the gospel exists to be put into practice— faith is a gift that can and should literally change the world. Second, it gives a vision of the church that is outward looking, open to the world, and that encourages a church, at every level, that is willing to engage in dialogue, a church that excludes no one from its compassion. Third, following from the first two, Francis envisions a church that teaches with authority only for the sake of putting the gospel into practice in an open and dialogical fashion. Francis’s priority is pastoral care and the church’s pastoral mission must come over and above doctrine and church structures and offices which only exist to serve the church’s pastoral and social missions and not the other way around. Francis, therefore, unlike his immediate two predecessors, does not want the church to spend its energies on doctrinal squabbles and theological divisions. Addressing multiple aspects of the crises the church has faced in recent times, Evangelii Gaudium calls for a church that realizes it must not become obsessed with doctrinal disputes and alienating lines in the sand. The gospel, rather, is about responding to the love of God in like kind. Thus, Francis is conscious of the enormous good that the church has and can continue to do for the word in collaboration with others. Indeed, an unswerving commitment to the poor, to justice, and to peace, is another key reason why he has equally made dialogue and relations between churches, faiths, and wider communities a priority: only as a community can we effectively fight poverty, injustice, and the structures of social sin indicative of the stark reality that poverty, inequality, and injustice exist in spite of the world’s enormous wealth and resources. As he states at the outset of his groundbreaking encyclical Laudato Si’, “We need a conversation which includes everyone, since

60

Gerard Mannion

the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all” (LS 14). This vision, therefore, is an example of what might be termed a both/and vision for the church. First, it marries approaches to the church and its missions both from the center, or “from above,” and from the periphery and the margins, or “from below.” It also brings together reflections upon the church ad intra and those upon the church ad extra, allowing the two areas to mutually inform and shape one another in a more consistently successful, if less systematic, fashion than was achieved at Vatican II when one considers its texts on the whole. Furthermore, it is a vision for the church that brings together theoretical and institutional questions and aspirations with practical ones—social, moral, missionary, and pastoral concerns alike. Again, we can see Francis adopting this approach from early on in his papacy, as is illustrated especially well by Evangelii Gaudium. In particular, this exhortation, with its emphasis upon orthopraxis throughout, turns back and forth between more traditional ecclesiological issues and questions alongside more pressing and pertinent issues for our times, just as it alternates back and forth between concerns treated somewhat separately in Lumen gentium and Gaudium et Spes.7 This has continued throughout his pontificate. One of the most consistent characteristics of Francis’s social vision is how he has gone to great lengths to offer “joined-up thinking” on issues of social justice. His social teaching offers a powerfully holistic and intertwined social vision. This “joined-up” social thinking is aimed toward promoting joined-up social praxis—and that is why Francis has promoted an innovating “integral” approach to social issues. This is clearly demonstrated by his commitment to ecology and care for the environment but it does not stop there, for these issues he relates firmly to wider issues of social justice. Laudato Si’ makes clear that care for Earth, our common home, cannot be divorced from care for the poor and marginalized, from upholding and protecting human dignity, nor from the quest for peace and the banishment of weapons of mass destruction. It is thus that Laudato Si’ seeks to offer an “integrated ecology.” I like to explain this notion with reference to Francis’s commitment to “joined-up social ethics.” Rather than isolated and piecemeal social issues and action, Francis urges those within and beyond the church alike to see the bigger picture and to appreciate how interrelated are all the most pressing social challenges for our times. This is fundamental to the message of Laudato Si’. “Nothing in this world,” Francis insists, “is indifferent to us” (LS 3). The encyclical therefore tackles the pressing challenges of today including not simply ecological issues but the causes of breakdown in social and community life, such as rampant global inequality, consumerism, the need for fairer distribution and the common utilization of goods, the social consequences of new biotechnologies, employment protections and worker

Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism

61

rights, and the need for justice across generations. This sense of “joined-up social ethics,” which Francis has articulated variously both as “integral development” and, especially in Laudato Si’, as “integral ecology,” conveys a linking together of environmental, economic, social, cultural and human, day-to-day ecologies. The latter term is unpacked by Francis as follows: Ecology studies the relationship between living organisms and the environment in which they develop. This necessarily entails reflection and debate about the conditions required for the life and survival of society, and the honesty needed to question certain models of development, production and consumption. It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. Time and space are not independent of one another, and not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation. Just as the different aspects of the planet—physical, chemical and biological—are interrelated, so too living species are part of a network which we will never fully explore and understand. A good part of our genetic code is shared by many living beings. It follows that the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance, unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality. (LS 38, my italics)

The encyclical further demonstrates Francis’s now familiar emphasis upon orthopraxis, which is ever-present throughout his thought. Laudato Si’ builds upon the holistic social vision already demonstrated in Evangelii Gaudium, which was unusual in how it made no attempt to keep apart areas of concern pertaining to fundamental ecclesiology, social issues, and church-world relations. Nor were questions of dialogue treated in isolation. Laudato Si’ is no exception. Throughout this document, Francis continues to commit the church to collaboration on social justice with other people of churches and other religions.8 This has also been a fundamental constant in his papacy from its earliest days. WALKING THE WALK AS WELL AS TALKING THE TALK: JOINED-UP SOCIAL ETHICS MEANS JOINED-UP SOCIAL PRAXIS Aside from the innumerable public statements, as well as interviews, homilies, and official teachings, Pope Francis has demonstrated his unswerving commitment to the poor and social justice through numerous gestures and policy decisions since becoming pope. In other words, Francis has led very much by example—he has walked the walk. Here many striking examples can be pointed to, and there are more numerous lesser-known instances to sit alongside those that have captured the media headlines around the

62

Gerard Mannion

globe. From his simple lifestyle to his resolute commitment to migrants and refugees, bringing some families forced from their homes back to Rome with him; to his steadfast opposition to nuclear weapons, making unilateral disarmament the official church policy; his calls for an end to racial and religious discrimination and persecution; his reaching out to the homeless and poor at the Vatican itself—Francis has lead by example. Such exemplary actions provoke the consciences of societies and politicians alike, particularly at a time when many populist politicians are spreading anti-immigrant rhetoric and promoting exclusion, especially in places such as Italy itself. Re-emphasizing the Common Good In Laudato Si’, Francis also develops the integral ecology a step further in returning explicit attention toward promoting the common good, going so far as to state that “an integral ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good, a central and unifying principle of social ethics” (LS 156). Francis goes on to explain what promoting the common good entails, why it is essential, and how the notion, itself, is a focal point of the integral ecology Francis seeks to promote, draws together fundamental social goods and goals. Underlying the principle of the common good is respect for the human person as such, endowed with basic and inalienable rights ordered to his or her integral development. It has also to do with the overall welfare of society and the development of a variety of intermediate groups, applying the principle of subsidiarity. . . . Finally, the common good calls for social peace, the stability and security provided by a certain order which cannot be achieved without particular concern for distributive justice; whenever this is violated, violence always ensues. Society as a whole, and the state in particular, are obliged to defend and promote the common good. (LS 157)

If the common good is to be promoted, if a new politics and a new economics oriented toward the good of all rather than a few is to become reality, then there is need to confront and to defeat the rampant individualism that has dominated many societies for far too long. Francis speaks evocatively of an alternative, stating that “we are always capable of going out of ourselves towards the other” (LS 208). He unpacks this powerful idea at length throughout the encyclical, continuing to embrace the wide and interlocking social and programmatic concerns of an integral ecology. “Disinterested concern for others,” he insists “and the rejection of every form of self-centeredness and self-absorption, are essential if we truly wish to care for our brothers and sisters and for the natural environment. . . . If we can overcome individualism, we will truly be able to develop a different lifestyle and bring about significant changes in society.” (LS 208)

Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism

63

Furthermore, Francis has challenging words for those in positions of economic and political power who embrace such individualism. He essentially accuses them of moral deficiency and of giving mere lip service to issues such as the wider common good and the rights of workers when making decisions, “The dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which ought to shape all economic policies. At times, however, they seem to be a mere addendum imported from without in order to fill out a political discourse lacking in perspectives or plans for true and integral development” (LS 203). Francis further deepens this critique in his elaboration of a call for a new politics and a new economics specifically attuned toward promoting the common good (outlined in more detail below), rather than a self-centered political and economic vision that erodes social cohesion and harmony. Francis: A Public Theologian and a Political Theologian We have seen that Francis’s vision, then, is for a church that goes forth. What might that mean in the light of his call for an integral ecology? The church that goes forth must firmly engage the world where the world is at and not from a distant position of perceived moral and social superiority. This is why Francis has repeatedly stressed that faith and the gospel only exist to have practical outcomes. They do not exist to simply serve pious individual needs, and thus the church has an obligation to enter the public and political fray. In Evangelii Gaudium, Francis states: No one can demand that religion should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without influence on societal and national life, without concern for the soundness of civil institutions, without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society. . . . An authentic faith—which is never comfortable or completely personal—always involves a deep desire to change the world, to transmit values, to leave this earth somehow better that we found it. We love this magnificent planet on which God has put us, and we love the human family which dwells here, with all its tragedies and struggles, its hopes and aspirations, its strengths and weaknesses. The earth is our common home and all of us are brothers and sisters. If indeed “the just ordering of society and of the state is a central responsibility of politics,” the Church “cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.” (EG 183)

One could say that Francis should be seen as a profoundly public theologian—indeed no other religious figure is as public as Francis and therefore no other religious figure has the potential influence to encourage positive change in the world. In many respects then, alongside the call for the church that goes forth, we might say his words and actions reflect components of a

64

Gerard Mannion

deep public theology—indeed a political theology, one that seeks to make a difference in the midst of the real world with all of its messiness and failings.9 But it is a political theology shaped firmly by his background and ministry in Latin America, by the thinking and praxis of the theology of liberation. Hence, Francis addresses multiple aspects of the church’s public mission today and this clearly means the church cannot remain aloof to the world of politics and economics. The public and political dimensions of Francis’s vision are therefore particularly demonstrated in his elaboration of the need for a radical overhaul of the prevailing political and economic systems in today’s world. He makes clear that the new politics which today’s world needs must be integrated with morally driven economic thinking and practice.10 This call runs throughout Laudato Si’ as a core theme in the final three chapters. While this encyclical has many themes—especially, of course, environmental ethics—it is important to emphasize the wide reaching political and public dimensions of an integral ecology. Francis calls upon the international community to commit to new political ways of tackling our most pressing social, economic, and ecological problems. He speaks of the need for “Dialogue and Transparency in Decision-Making,” and for “Politics and Economy in Dialogue for Human Fulfillment” (LS 182–198). He calls out political and economic shorttermism, the source of so many problems blighting the planet and those who live upon it alike.11 Indeed, he speaks out against instrumental thinking and policies, arguing that “economics without politics cannot be justified, since this would make it impossible to favour other ways of handling the various aspects of the present crisis” (LS 196). His is literally a revolutionary call. What Francis offers is a brave and frank realism that identifies the real deep-seated problems generated by leadership failures in our times. Furthermore, he does not criticize without solutions—he speaks of the need for new models of progress and global development, and the need for major educational programs to promote the components of an integral ecology. This integral ecology is aimed at the radical transformation of the single biggest stumbling block toward social justice in our world today. One could say that the majority of the social issues Francis confronts have one root cause: global capitalism. UNCOMPROMISING SOCIAL ETHICS GROUNDED ON THE GOSPEL When Pope Francis speaks about the poor, the cause of poverty, a throwaway culture and society, exclusion and indifference, and the evils of economic systems that lead to vast inequalities, he equally engages questions that

Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism

65

demand political, social, and economic analysis. This is why the majority of his pronouncements and proposed programs to promote social justice reveal a consistent indictment of the dehumanizing forces of global capitalism. This is why is accurate to speak of him as a public theologian and, more accurately still, as a political theologian. We have seen how Pope Francis does not pull any punches when it comes to addressing social issues—and the most heavy-hitting of these are aimed directly to the body of global capitalism. While he may not always explicitly name capitalism, indeed, perhaps strategically, diplomatically, the word does not even appear in either Evangelii Gaudium or Laudato Si’, it is nonetheless clearly evident throughout his social teaching and pronouncements that this is the social evil in his sights. Evangelii Gaudium provided one of the most vivid illustrations of this in a passage lamenting how a homeless person dying on the streets is not news, while a two-point drop in the stock exchange is. Francis insists: “This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless” (EG 53). Likewise, in May 2013, Francis called for an end to “the cult of money” and told the world that “money has to serve not rule” and dismissed the “throwaway culture” of our times.12 These messages would be expanded upon at greater length in November that same year in Evangelii Gaudium, denouncing the “idolatry of money” and calling for “the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favors human beings” (EG 55–58). Such themes reappear time and again in his statements and public pronouncements, especially in Laudato Si’.13 Here, Francis has further hard words for politicians and the world of business, calling for a complete reordering of their priorities toward the common good and arguing that an obsession with profit at all costs has proved destructive to our world in so many ways. He condemns any political or economic system that forgoes “a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system,” and ones that reaffirm “the absolute power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises after a slow, costly and only apparent recovery” (LS 189). As such, Francis challenges the received wisdom and orthodoxy of the economic and political world in recent times, which is clearly driven by moral indifference and an obsession with capital. Laudato Si’ broadens the integral sweep of this political and economic ethic to embrace the ecological justice cried out for in our times. Francis writes: The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy.

66

Gerard Mannion

As long as production is increased, little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the environment; as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or the increased pollution. In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved. (LS 195)

Francis’s strong words against the prevailing political and economic ideas and practices of contemporary times go further still. Indeed, his ethics have led to much controversy and a backlash against his social vision. Francis Contra Capitalism and Controversy: a Marxist Pope? In taking on the world’s most powerful and predominant political-economic ideology, Francis has encountered much opposition. These are the ideas that have proved the most controversial in his pontificate, particularly in some countries where capitalism almost holds the status of a religion. Such is the case, for example, in the United States and seen particularly insidiously among American Catholics of a particular political persuasion. Indeed, Francis has been regularly pilloried by those of the political and religious right. Rush Limbaugh, for example, called the section on social justice in Evangelii Gaudium “pure Marxism.”14 Others have called him a communist or accused him of preaching socialism. Among the statements and teachings from Francis that have attracted the most vociferous opposition have been his denunciations of trickle-down economics and his critique of cultures of exclusion where economics is the source of injustice.15 Francis is as uncompromising in denouncing trickle-down economics as he has been on any other moral and social topic, because he understands that this economic “myth” is a cancerous social evil that causes untold misery to billions around the globe. Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new

Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism

67

to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us. (EG 54)

His words are uncomfortable for those who bury their heads in the sand of their own comfort: individuals, societies, corporations, and even church dioceses alike. They cut to the core of the key challenges facing our world today, particularly that false determinism which all too often leads to a paralysis of political actors, who become incapable of genuinely serving the common good rather than the vested interests of corporations and elites, that is, serving selfishness and moral and social evil. A morally vicious circle ensues, “which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule” (EG 56). Later in Evangelii Gaudium, when discussing the economy and income distribution, and explicitly addressing the structural sins that cause poverty, Francis develops this denunciation of trickle-down economics further still. He calls for the dismantling of “the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation” and for an assault upon “the structural causes of inequality,” making clear that “inequality is the root of social ills” (EG 202). Calling for such a firm and outright rejection of tickle down theory and the dominant economic models that have dictated political, economic, and social policies throughout most of the West since the late 1970s, Francis demonstrates he is certainly no fan of Adam Smith: “We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market” (EG 204). Furthermore, he chastises those political and economic actors and institutions that have compounded the myths of such theories by arguing that the root of the sickness, itself, can somehow alleviate and even cure its symptoms, “Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality” (EG 204). Francis is equally unambiguous is stating that we must say “no to a financial system which rules rather than serves” because “behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God” (EG 57). Indeed, he urges political leaders to a conversion to an ethically driven reform of financial systems and markets from top to bottom.16 He demands that we give all our effort to working toward the “inclusion of the poor in society,” stating that “the word ‘solidarity’ is a little worn and at times poorly understood, but it refers to something more than a few sporadic acts of generosity” (LS 186). “It presumes the creation of a new mindset which thinks in terms of community and the priority of the life of all over the appropriation of goods by a few” (EG 188).

68

Gerard Mannion

Some have tried to water down the force of this message on social justice. For example, New York’s Cardinal Dolan rushed to the media after the release of Evangelii Gaudium to say that when the pope criticized the capitalistic system for the harm it did to countless poor people around the globe, he did not have in mind “US-style capitalism.” While Dolan, of course, is not an open opponent of Francis, others echoed this perspective, suggesting Francis’s real target was rather some other, perhaps Argentine-style, form of capitalism that is perceived somehow to be grossly inferior to the style of capitalism that ensures a fraction of the U.S. population enjoy the vast majority of the country’s wealth. As with Dolan, this response came from many Catholics who might even publicly state that they are not opposed to Pope Francis. And yet what they say stands in contradiction to his social vision.17 To this, I would respond with two brief points. First, is there any other sort of capitalism controlling the world today than that which prevails and dictates the millions of lives of countless U.S. citizens and noncitizens living and working there, as well as the lives of countless people around the globe? Second, is Francis really only saying extreme forms of capitalism are at fault? His consistent condemnation of the prevailing economic and political mindsets that are holding our world in their vice-like grip suggests otherwise. Indeed, his solutions sound far more like socialism than like “caring or compassionate capitalism,” which, in reality, is a contradiction in terms. Many of Francis’s critics, then, claim to be supportive of him. Yet, they are deliberately ignoring and distorting the actual focus and intention of his social vision, which forcefully and consistently critiques global capitalism at every turn.18 A Traditional Vision of Social Justice Francis has directly responded to some of the criticisms he has received. Speaking in October 2014, he stated that fighting for the poor does not make him a communist.19 In fact, in many ways, Francis is a very “traditional” pope, insofar as popes have been saying similar things about poverty, equality, and social justice for a long time. The centrality of Francis’s commitment to the poor and social justice in general is perhaps something distinctive to his pontificate. Indeed, he has given these issues much needed new prominence and inspired debates and discussion worldwide. For, in truth, the church has always been on the side of the poor and has always had many uncomfortable truths for the sections of society who are fortunate enough to be privileged and wealthy and yet who ignore the systemic causes of the injustices suffered by their brothers and sisters. This commitment to the poor, to equality, to building a just society are core principles in the gospels themselves, in the Acts of the Apostles, in the

Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism

69

epistles of Paul, and the other New Testament writers. The commitment to building a just community with concern for the poor and less privileged—a commitment to sharing goods among the community so that those who have more should give to those who have less—permeate the New Testament, as they do the Hebrew Bible. The church’s social teaching and social thought and practice have been more consistent, especially on these issues, than church teaching on so many other issues, moral or otherwise. Even before the phrase “option for the poor” became so well known in the ecclesial discourse of the late 1960s and afterward, a commitment to justice for the poor, oppressed, and marginalized was brought to prominence thanks to the efforts of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. This focus was further brought to prominence thanks to the social vision articulated in the documents of Vatican II and given an even more detailed articulation for contemporary times by the 1971 Synod of Bishops document Justice in the World.20 A focus on the poor was also relentlessly emphasized in so many teachings documents from Pope John Paul II and was a continuous theme in major teaching documents during the pontificate of Benedict XVI. So, in all, Pope Francis is actually offering a Catholic traditional social vision. As he insists, this commitment to the poor and social justice, to transforming our societies for the better so they are more just and egalitarian, so that love, charity guides our interrelationships, lies at the very heart of the gospel itself. Pope Francis makes this categorically clear. In a 2014 interview, later published in Papa Francesco. Questa economia uccide (Pope Francis: This economy kills),21 he stated the following, which is worth citing at length because it captures the essence of the church’s mission and teaching on such issues so well. A month before the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII said: “The church reveals itself as it aspires to be, that is, everyone’s church, and particularly the Church of the poor.” In the following years, the preferential option for the poor has emerged in the documents of the magisterium. Some may think of it as something new, but it is a concern that originates in the gospel and is documented in the early centuries of Christianity. If I repeated some passages from the homilies of the fathers of the church—say, of the second or third century—about how we should treat the poor, there would certainly be someone saying that my homily is Marxist. “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor, but you are giving him back what is theirs. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.” These were St. Ambrose’s words, which Pope Paul VI cited in Populorum Progressio to affirm that private property does not constitute an absolute and unconditional right for anyone and that, when others lack basic

70

Gerard Mannion

necessities, no one is allowed to keep for their exclusive use things superfluous to their needs.22 Francis, as such, takes us to the heart of the tradition—across recent decades, previous centuries, and the history of the tradition itself. “God’s heart has a special place for the poor, so much so that he himself ‘became poor’ (2 Cor 8:9). The entire history of our redemption is marked by the presence of the poor” (EG 197). These sentiments were further fleshed out echoed throughout the pages of Laudato Si’, where this sense of an “integral ecology,” the commitment of the church to a “joined-up social ethics” that commits to care for the poor as well as our common home, is articulated so clearly. Francis’s integral ecology, then, is something very traditional indeed; it is inherent in the gospel itself, even if the church, at various stages of history, has been remiss in joining-up the various social and ethical dots and applying its social tradition consistently. THE BOTTOM LINE: MORAL AND SOCIAL LEADERSHIP FOR A WORLD IN NEED Under Pope Francis, the church has increased its engagement in world affairs on multiple issues. The message from the church has been a courageous and uncompromising one. It is a message that makes world leaders, their aides, and many of the privileged and powerful uncomfortable. That is the precise point and serves as a model for us to follow in our social and political actions. This, too, carries on a long tradition in the history of the church. Recall how Francis has repeatedly stressed that faith and the gospel only exist to have practical outcomes; they do not exist to serve pious individual needs. Speaking to a gathering of children from different ethnic backgrounds who were visiting the Vatican on May 12, 2015, as part of a project called the “Peace Factory,” Pope Francis listened with great interest to their many intelligent and important questions. In response to one child’s huge question, “In your opinion, will we all be equal one day?” Francis’s response was equally profound. We can answer this question in two ways. . . . We are all equal—all of us—but this truth is not recognized, this equality is not recognized, and for this reason some people are, we can say, happier than others. But this is not a right! We all have the same rights. When we do not see this, society is unjust. It does not follow the rule of justice, and where there is no justice, there cannot be peace. I would like to repeat this with you: where there is no justice, there is no peace!’23

This echoes what Francis had stated earlier in Evangelii Gaudium,

Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism

71

Peace in society cannot be understood as pacification or the mere absence of violence resulting from the domination of one part of society over others. Nor does true peace act as a pretext for justifying a social structure which silences or appeases the poor, so that the more affluent can placidly support their lifestyle while others have to make do as they can. Demands involving the distribution of wealth, concern for the poor and human rights cannot be suppressed under the guise of creating a consensus on paper or a transient peace for a contented minority. The dignity of the human person and the common good rank higher than the comfort of those who refuse to renounce their privileges. When these values are threatened, a prophetic voice must be raised. (EG 218)

Indeed, Francis has consistently repeated this point—echoing his immediate predecessors and Vatican II alike in emphasizing this fundamental maxim that “Where there is no justice, there is no peace.” This is further underlined by his call in Laudato Si’ for a renewed commitment to the common good appropriate to our times, where he stated that “When the common good and distributive justice are neglected, violence results” (LS 157). It is expanded upon in his attention to the need, in today’s world, for efforts to be channeled toward fostering what Laudato Si’ terms, a “Civic and Political Love,” that extends integrally throughout Earth, to humans and nonhumans alike (LS 228–232). The message is clear: peace, harmony, and social justice in our societies and world are inseparable. In Rome that day, with those ethnically diverse and bright children, the audience of seven thousand people continued in a refrain, repeating those final words—where there is no justice, there is no peace. A holistic vision for a just world indeed. This itself, encapsulates integral ecology. We need one another—we have a shared responsibility and we share a common home. An integral ecology, then, is a resounding Yes! to ethics that confronts violent politics and economics. For today’s world that may be literally countercultural, but this is precisely why Pope Francis’s social message is so hard hitting and much needed today. As increasing numbers of Catholics find renewed inspiration in the socially transformative power of the gospel once more, and partner with collaborators who share such values, the coming decades could prove to be the most fruitful of all for the church’s call to justice. Francis’s vision has set about making such a commitment a steadfast reality across ever increasing areas of our societies. Walking the most challenging walk. To follow Francis, we must recognize that core social values have eroded for so long that a prophetic voice is now deeply needed. In the social vision of Pope Francis, such a voice is being heard at last. Above all else, this prophetic voice challenges the very basis of global capitalism so that we might leave the Earth somehow better than we found it. Yet, let us make

72

Gerard Mannion

no mistake, a prophetic voice aimed at changing the world is nothing short of revolutionary—“All of this shows,” Francis insists, “the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution” (LS 114). And yet this is a different type of revolution than we may be accustomed to; it is above all else a “revolution of tenderness,” rooted in caritas, the love and charity at the heart of the gospel (EG 88). Ultimately, then: We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it. We have had enough of immorality and the mockery of ethics, goodness, faith and honesty. . . . When the foundations of social life are corroded, what ensues are battles over conflicting interests, new forms of violence and brutality, and obstacles to the growth of a genuine culture of care for the environment. (LS 229)

NOTES 1. “Address of the Holy Father Pope Francis, Audience to Representatives of the Communications Media” (16 March 2013), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​ n/spe​eches​/2013​/marc​h/doc​ument​s/pap​a-fra​ncesc​o_201​30316​_rapp​resen​tanti​-medi​ a.htm​l. 2. See Gerard Mannion, “‘Francis’ Ecclesiological Revolution: A New Way of Being Church, a New Way of Being Pope,” in Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism: Evangelii Gaudium and the Papal Agenda, ed. Gerard Mannion (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017), 93–122. 3. See Gerard Mannion, “Pope Francis and Hope in the Ecumenical Future: A Papacy of Encounter,” in Hope in the Ecumenical Future, ed. Mark D. Chapman (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 103–131. 4. Mario I. Aguilar, Pope Francis: His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2014), 179. 5. Mannion, “Francis’ Ecclesiological Revolution.” 6. “The kerygma has a clear social content: at the very heart of the Gospel is life in community and engagement with others. The content of the first proclamation has an immediate moral implication centered on charity.” Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium – The Joy of the Gospel: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/apo​st_ex​horta​tions​/docu​ments​/papa​ -fran​cesco​_esor​tazio​ne-ap​_2013​1124_​evang​elii-​gaudi​um.ht​ml, no. 177. Henceforth EG, cited in text. While Francis had earlier released an encyclical, Lumen Fidei, this was primarily written under the pontificate of his predecessor, Benedict XVI and so EG constitutes the first major teaching document primarily from Francis’s own hand. 7. For example, EG 115 even cites them one after another. While Gaudium et Spes does not get directly cited in the footnotes very often, it nonetheless permeates the whole document—a church going forth, a church serving the world, a sacrament

Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism

73

of salvation, the joys, fears, sufferings, hopes and aspirations of people are encountered in phrases throughout. 8. See especially, LS 163–201. 9. Elsewhere, I have spoken about the interrelationship of public and political theology and suggested that the former term is, in many ways, superfluous given the existence of the latter, see Gerard Mannion, “A Brief Genealogy of Public Theology, or Doing Theology when it seems nobody is listening . . . ,” Annali di Studi Religiosi 10 (2009): 121–154. 10. LS 197. See, also “Conferral of the Charlemagne Prize—Address of His Holiness Pope Francis” (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 6 May 2016), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/spe​eches​/2016​/may/​docum​ents/​papa-​franc​ esco_​20160​506_p​remio​-carl​o-mag​no.ht​ml, which is a further example of Francis’s hard hitting language relevant to the political and economic arenas of our times, as well as of his integral approach to a multitude of pressing social and ethical challenges. 11. LS 128, 178, 181, 184. 12. “Address of Pope Francis to the new Non-Resident Ambassadors to the Holy See: Kyrgyzstan, Antigua and Barbuda, Luxembourg and Botswana” (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 16 May 2013), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​ sco/e​n/spe​eches​/2013​/may/​docum​ents/​papa-​franc​esco_​20130​516_n​uovi-​ambas​ciato​ ri.ht​ml. 13. Indeed, his vision here inspired a groundbreaking document issued by two of the key offices of the Roman Curia: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery For Promoting Integral Human Development, “Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones Considerations for an Ethical Discernment Regarding Some Aspects of the Present Economic-Financial System,” (6 January 2018), http:​//www​.vati​can. v​a/rom​an_cu​ria/c​ongre​gatio​ns/cf​aith/​docum​ents/​rc_co​n_cfa​ith_d​oc_20​18010​6_oec​ onomi​cae-e​t-pec​uniar​iae_e​n.htm​l#. 14. See http:​//rel​igion​.blog​s.cnn​.com/​2013/​12/02​/rush​-limb​augh-​vs-th​e-pop​e/com​ ment-​page-​73/. 15. See EG 54, 204. 16. EG 58. 17. A further example here is the position taken by the dean of Business and Economics (and later provost) at the Catholic University of America. See, for example, Andrew V. Abela, “In Pursuit of Caring Capitalism,” The Tablet (3 July 2014), http:​ //www​.thet​ablet​.co.u​k/fea​tures​/2/27​49/in​-purs​uit-o​f-car​ing-c​apita​lism.​ 18. There are, of course, outright opponents to Francis’s vision. See, e.g., Steve Moore’s apparently Catholic critique that Francis’ vision “is a complete disaster when it comes to his public policy pronouncements. On the economy, and even more so on the environment, the pope has allied himself with the far left and has embraced an ideology that would make people poorer and less free.” Steve Moore, “Vatican’s Turn to the Left Will Make the Poor Poorer,” Forbes (5 January 2015), http://onforb.es/1Ap6fyM. 19. “Pope: Fighting for the Poor Doesn’t Make Me Communist – It Makes Me Catholic” (29 October 2014), http:​//www​.cath​olicn​ewsag​ency.​com/n​ews/p​ope-f​i ghti​ ng-fo​r-the​-poor​-does​nt-ma​ke-me​-comm​unist​-it-m​akes-​me-ca​tholi​c-990​88/. Note,

74

Gerard Mannion

Francis has, however, previously praised the efforts of communists in fighting for the poor. 20. Philip S. Land, Pedro Arrupe, Juan Alfaro, Mary Linscott, and Barbara Ward, Justice in the World: Synod of Bishops (Vatican City: Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace, 1972). 21. Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi, Papa Francesco. Questa economia uccide (Milan, IT: Edizioni Piemme, 2015). An English translation by Demetrio Yocum was published as This Economy Kills: Pope Francis on Capitalism and Social Justice (Collegville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2015). 22. Yocum, This Economy Kills, 152–153. 23. “Pope Francis: Where There Is no Justice, There Is no Peace” (12 May 2015), http:​//www​.indc​athol​icnew​s.com​/news​.php?​viewS​toryP​rinte​r=274​13.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abela, Andrew V. “In pursuit of caring capitalism.” The Tablet, 3 July 2014. http:​// www​.thet​ablet​.co.u​k/fea​tures​/2/27​49/in​-purs​uit-o​f-car​ing-c​apita​lism.​ Aguilar, Mario I. Pope Francis: His Life and Thought. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2014. Mannion, Gerard. “A Brief Genealogy of Public Theology, Or Doing Theology when it seems nobody is listening . . . .” Annali di Studi Religiosi 10 (2009): 121–154. ———. “Francis’ Ecclesiological Revolution: A New Way of Being Church, a New Way of Being Pope.” In Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism: Evangelii Gaudium and the Papal Agenda, edited by Gerard Mannion, 93–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. ———. “Pope Francis and Hope in the Ecumenical Future: A Papacy of Encounter.” In Hope in the Ecumenical Future, edited by Mark D. Chapman, 103–131. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Moore, Steve. “Vatican’s Turn to the Left Will Make the Poor Poorer.” Forbes, 5 January 2015. http://onforb.es/1Ap6fyM. Pope Francis. “Address of Pope Francis to the new Non-Resident Ambassadors to the Holy See: Kyrgyzstan, Antigua and Barbuda, Luxembourg and Botswana.” Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 16 May 2013. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/ cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/spe​eches​/2013​/may/​docum​ents/​papa-​franc​esco_​20130​516_n​ uovi-​ambas​ciato​ri.ht​ml. ———. “Address of the Holy Father Pope Francis, Audience to Representatives of the Communications Media.” Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 16 March 2013. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/spe​eches​/2013​/marc​h/doc​ ument​s/pap​a-fra​ncesc​o_201​30316​_rapp​resen​tanti​-medi​a.htm​l. ———. “Conferral of the Charlemagne Prize—Address of His Holiness Pope Francis.” Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 6 May 2016. http:​//w2.​ vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/spe​eches​/2016​/may/​docum​ents/​papa-​franc​esco_​ 20160​506_p​remio​-carl​o-mag​no.ht​ml.

Pope Francis Contra Twenty-First-Century Capitalism

75

———. Evangelii Gaudium—The Joy of the Gospel: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/apo​st_ex​ horta​tions​/docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_esor​tazio​ne-ap​_2013​1124_​evang​elii-​gaudi​ um.ht​ml. Tornielli, Andrea and Giacomo Galeazzi. Papa Francesco. Questa economia uccide. Milan, IT: Edizioni Piemme, 2015. This Economy Kills: Pope Francis on Capitalism and Social Justice. Translated by Demetrio Yocum. Collegville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2015.

Chapter 5

Wealthy Hyperagency in the Throwaway Culture Inequality and Environmental Death Kate Ward

Laudato Si’, popularly known as Pope Francis’s “environmental encyclical,” is much more than that: a tour de force manifesto on anthropology, ecology and economic life, and the connections among them. Throughout, Francis shows how a correct understanding of human dignity and purpose—one which places human life in the context of an “integral ecology”––encourages caring for those in need. This includes concern for those harmed by unjust economic systems, as well as for Earth itself. In contrast, those who misunderstand human nature waste the planet’s riches and accept the wanton destruction of human lives. They reject encounter with others, particularly those in need. The encyclical reiterates that climate change and pollution have disparate impacts, visiting displacement, poor health, and even premature death to many groups of people, but most disproportionately to the poor (LS 20, 25, 29, 48, 51). Climate change has disparate causes as well as effects, with consumers in wealthy countries bearing most of the blame: “It is not possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society, where the habit of wasting and discarding has reached unprecedented levels” (LS 27). Although Francis does not use the term, the power of rich-world consumers to destroy nature and harm others can fairly be described as hyperagency. I will discuss the sociological use of the term “hyperagency” and demonstrate how Laudato Si’ helps construct a theological account of this outsize power and privilege. In the encyclical’s broadened theological understanding, hyperagency would be viewed as a misguided anthropocentrism. It manifests in ignorance and self-justification by those in power, with fatal consequences for the poor. This outsize power occurs at the nexus of personal spirituality 77

78

Kate Ward

and social structure; thus, it is no surprise to see Francis prescribing both personal virtues and social measures in response.

HYPERAGENCY “Hyperagency” is a term that Paul Schervish uses to describe wealthy philanthropists who exert control over their own and others’ lives and circumstances to a degree unavailable to those of ordinary means.1 As a sociologist, Schervish describes hyperagency without morally normative language, capturing its practical impact on hyperagents, and on societies: Wealth holders are uniquely endowed with material resources and cognitive dispositions that enable them, both as a group and as individuals, to fashion outcomes they desire to effect. . . . Whereas all individuals exercise agency, the distinctive class trait of hyperagency is the capacity to establish rather than merely receive the social matrix within which they live.2

Schervish’s descriptive work offers a useful language to address a long-standing concern in theological ethics: the wealthy wield power over the poor, often without even realizing how profoundly they affect the lives of those in need.3 Laudato Si’, which also explores this theme, will be used to provide a theological dimension to the concept of hyperagency. I will expand on Schervish’s usage of the term in two ways: I will take the normative position that hyperagency harms the poor practically and harms hyperagents spiritually, and I will locate hyperagency among well-off consumers everywhere, not limiting it to wealthy philanthropists. With his global perspective, Francis identifies the many ways citizens of wealthy nations exert hyperagency over those in poorer societies. Even middle-class citizens of wealthy nations are wealthy by comparison to the world’s poor, and by consuming at normal standards in their own context, they exercise the power of hyperagents—thoughtlessly degrading the environment and inflicting suffering disproportionately on the poor of the world. Hyperagency is visible in many sinful practices detailed in Laudato Si’: ignorance of the condition of the poor, self-justification for consumption practices known to be destructive, and the death-dealing consumption practices themselves. Francis finds it utterly appropriate for members of societies to exercise their collective power to constrain the hyperagency of the wealthy through such measures as laws governing environmental practices and redistributing wealth (LS 179). Francis shows how the outsize power of the wealthy is not simply an accident of history, wherein the naturally generated fruits of the free market

Wealthy Hyperagency in the Throwaway Culture

79

simply happen to flow disproportionately to certain groups of people. Rather, hyperagency both results from and encourages a fatally flawed anthropology. “Misguided anthropocentrism” is a key theme in Laudato Si’, allowing Francis to explain how disregard for human lives and for the environment roots in a false understanding of human potential, purpose, and power. He explains: When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests. (LS 122)

“One cannot prescind from humanity” (LS 118), meaning that human nature, rightly understood, and human flourishing must form our priorities. When we falsely imagine that the goal of human life is to wield power over other creatures, it is a short step to seeing other creatures as tools for our use, valueless unless they can be bent to our power. While all persons are touched and wounded by sin (LS 2), those who wield power by virtue of their wealth and social position both cause greater harm and experience feedback that rewards their misperception of humanity. Hyperagency encourages the false perception that we can, indeed, control our environment and control others, encouraging the “misguided anthropocentrism” Francis so strongly cautions against. Francis reminds us that “the ultimate purpose of other creatures is not to be found in us,” but rather in God’s “transcendent fullness” (LS 83). While technology is not harmful in itself, much of it is currently used in ways that exacerbate the problems of hyperagency and misguided anthropocentrism. Francis describes and criticizes a “technocratic paradigm” (LS 101) which places no limits on human freedom (LS 6). The technocratic paradigm encourages compulsive consumption and “leads people to believe that they are free as long as they have the supposed freedom to consume. But those who are really free are the minority who wield economic and financial power” (LS 203). Indeed, the technocratic paradigm valorizes hyperagency as it upholds the powerful, acting subject: This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. . . . This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. (LS 106)

The power of technology and the assumption that control is the way to interact with Earth contributes to hyperagency.

80

Kate Ward

Ignorance One of the most insidious powers that hyperagency bestows is the ability to remain unaffected by the needs of others, proceeding in blissful ignorance of the plight of other human beings and of Earth. Francis explicitly connects global financial power with the ability to remain ignorant of the condition of the poor. In their privilege, the wealthy have structured societies to enable this: There is little in the way of clear awareness of problems which especially affect the excluded. . . . This is due partly to the fact that many professionals, opinion makers, communications media and centres of power, being located in affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact with their problems. . . . This lack of physical contact and encounter, encouraged at times by the disintegration of our cities, can lead to a numbing of conscience. (LS 49)

“Encounter” is widely recognized as a keystone of Francis’s spirituality, particularly visible in the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.4 For Francis, the believer’s encounter with Christ inspires a practice of encounter with poor and marginalized persons that is transformative, humanizing, and spiritually “healthy.”5 Choosing to live a life structured around the avoidance of encounter with the poor betrays a failure to understand how profoundly we are all interrelated. Self-justification Those with hyperagency struggle to maintain their blissful ignorance by presenting self-justifying perspectives regarding their own complicity in the oppression of Earth and the poor. Francis elaborates: We are tempted to think that what is happening is not entirely clear. . . . Such evasiveness serves as a license to carrying on with our present lifestyles and models of production and consumption. This is the way human beings contrive to feed their self-destructive vices: trying not to see them, trying not to acknowledge them, delaying the important decisions and pretending that nothing will happen. (LS 59)

This passage subtly evokes Thomas Aquinas’s concept of “vincible ignorance,” present in situations where agents could have known better and are therefore culpable for their own ignorance.6 This is not exculpatory, but a reminder that proper knowledge of the state of environmental and human affairs demands, and deserves, some effort from those with hyperagency. Hyperagency is taught by cultures and within families. Francis points out how family responsibilities can be used to justify excessive consumption, treating the family as a prideful extension of the individual:

Wealthy Hyperagency in the Throwaway Culture

81

Men and women of our postmodern world run the risk of rampant individualism, and many problems of society are connected with today’s self-centered culture of instant gratification. . . . Parents can be prone to impulsive and wasteful consumption, which then affects their children who find it increasingly difficult to acquire a home of their own and build a family. (LS 162)

While the hyperagency of rich-world consumers has pernicious global effects, in the everyday lives of hyperagents, it can appear not only banal but also defensible, even virtuous. Francis gently yet searchingly indicts the ways that those with hyperagency indulge in self-justification even in their environmental responses, shifting blame and suffering away from themselves onto others. He strongly warns those with hyperagency who shift environmental responsibility to those in poverty, perhaps in an effort to legitimate and continue their own destructive consumption. One example is attempts to impose population controls on impoverished countries, blaming ecological destruction on birth rates among the poor instead of “extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some” (LS 50). Indigenous peoples should be involved in decision-making over what happens to land, rather than solutions being imposed from outside without regard to local practice (LS 144–146).7 Well-meaning hyperagents even inflict unintentional injustice in attempts to cultivate appreciation of nature: “Frequently, we find beautiful and carefully manicured green spaces in so-called ‘safer’ areas of cities, but not in the more hidden areas where the disposable of society live” (LS 45). Death-Dealing We saw that Schervish’s sociological definition of hyperagency focuses on material reality; it is observable fact that the very wealthy have disproportionate power to shape material environments and the lives of others. While Francis would say that hyperagency stems from the spiritual problem of misguided anthropocentrism, Laudato Si’ also acknowledges that hyperagency does not simply impact the spirit, but has fatal material outcomes. Whether we simply wield our hyperagency thoughtlessly or view it as a positive good to actively pursue, it erodes human relationships, destroys nature, and takes human lives. “When nature is viewed solely as a source of profit and gain, this has serious consequences for society,” Francis writes. “This vision of ‘might is right’ has engendered immense inequality, injustice and acts of violence against the majority of humanity, since resources end up in the hands of the first comer or the most powerful: the winner takes all” (LS 82).

82

Kate Ward

For Francis, the accumulation of wealth and power by a few is not a coincidental parallel to the suffering and need of many. Rather, the two are as intimately connected as clouds and rain: We should be particularly indignant at the enormous inequalities in our midst, whereby we continue to tolerate some considering themselves more worthy than others. We fail to see that some are mired in desperate and degrading poverty, with no way out, while others have not the faintest idea of what to do with their possessions, vainly showing off their supposed superiority and leaving behind them so much waste which, if it were the case everywhere, would destroy the planet. In practice, we continue to tolerate that some consider themselves more human than others, as if they had been born with greater rights (LS 90).

Francis draws a loop through mistreatment of children and the elderly, laissez-faire economic policies, “human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds,” abortion and the sale of poor people’s organs (LS 123). Each of these exploitative ways of treating humans and the environment stem from the “culture of relativism,” relying on created beings for one’s own profit and power. Hyperagency extends to appropriating for private gain natural resources that sustain life and should be considered human rights, foremost among them water (LS 30). When those with hyperagency fail to distribute resources justly, they are responsible for the deaths of those who must go without. Francis insists: If we make something our own, it is only to administer it for the good of all. If we do not, we burden our consciences with the weight of having denied the existence of others. That is why the New Zealand bishops asked what the commandment “Thou shall not kill” means when “twenty percent of the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive.” (LS 95)

Francis demonstrates detailed understanding of the banality with which many wealthy world consumers destroy the environment in the service of their own comfort, without giving it a thought: “A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning” (LS 55). The volume of cars carrying single persons around cities, “consuming enormous quantities of non-renewable energy,” justly earns his criticism (LS 153). Less banal, but equally damaging, are certain illicit consumption practices of wealthy consumers, which Francis does not hesitate to indict: “Drug use in affluent societies creates a continual and growing demand for products imported from poorer regions, where behaviour is corrupted, lives are destroyed, and the environment continues to deteriorate” (LS 142).

Wealthy Hyperagency in the Throwaway Culture

83

THEOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO HYPERAGENCY Francis demonstrates how understanding the human person in light of integral ecology ought to deter us from making hyperagency a goal or accepting its practice. The introduction of sin into human existence described in Genesis indicates that the mandate to “have dominion” over Earth (Gen. 1:28) is fractured by sin (LS 66). Interpreting this as a mandate for unlimited destruction of nature for human purposes “is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church” (LS 67). Maintaining a correct understanding of human life oriented toward God helps combat hyperagency: “The best way to restore men and women to their rightful place, putting an end to their claim to absolute dominion over Earth, is to speak once more of the figure of a Father who creates and who alone owns the world” (LS 75). In addition, we should correctly see nature neither as divine nor exploitable, but as fragile. “A fragile world, entrusted by God to human care, challenges us to devise intelligent ways of directing, developing and limiting our power” (LS 78). We honor our integral anthropology by using our human creativity to voluntarily limit our own power, which will help humans live in harmony with persons in need, Earth, and one another. One human-devised method of voluntarily limiting power is the biblical Jubilee observance, described as a further reminder that “we are not God” (LS 67). Observing periodic years when the earth is reaped only for subsistence, not for wealth-building, reminded the Israelite people, and reminds us today, that “the gift of the earth with its fruits belongs to everyone” (LS 71). Latin American Biblical scholars have called for a new perspective on economic life inspired by Jubilee, one which resists free-market doctrine and resets unequal wealth accumulated by unjust social structures.8 Francis recommends this practice as a reminder that domination of Earth is also domination of poor persons who depend on Earth and do not have the economic power to protect themselves from others’ destructive power. The divine requirement to periodically forego the power one could otherwise wield seeks to reset understandings of one’s own place in the cosmos and in economic relationships with others. Francis is specific and prescriptive about “differentiated responsibilities” in responding to climate change. Wealthy, high-consuming nations and their citizens have different duties than poorer nations whose resources are often extracted without benefiting their own people (LS 167). He specifies: Developing countries, where the most important reserves of the biosphere are found, continue to fuel the development of richer countries at the cost of their own present and future. . . .The developed countries ought to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy and

84

Kate Ward

by assisting poorer countries to support policies and programs of sustainable development. (LS 52)

Francis supports this challenge by quoting the U.S. bishops. Referencing an episcopal statement from a powerful, wealthy, high-consuming nation is a clear reminder of his expectation that wealthy nations step up to their differentiated responsibilities and practice preference for the poor. No less appropriate and urgent than voluntary measures are legal restrictions societies could introduce to constrain and distribute the power of those with hyperagency: The establishment of a legal framework which can set clear boundaries and ensure the protection of ecosystems has become indispensable; otherwise, the new power structures based on the techno-economic paradigm may overwhelm not only our politics but also freedom and justice. (LS 53)

It is not simply the responsibility of governments to institute such restrictions: citizens must organize to demand them (LS 179). Global agreements must be enforceable and attentive to potential exploitation of poorer nations by richer ones (LS 173). Francis shows the consistency of Church teaching in urging this, affirming Benedict XVI’s call for “a true world political authority” (LS 175) and referencing John Paul II when he says, “Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in ‘lifestyles, models of production and consumption, and the established structures of power which today govern societies’”(LS 5). To ensure meaningful distribution of the resources God has given to all of humanity, restraints on economic power are entirely appropriate as well (LS 129). Boycotts are an effective way of constraining the power of businesses that also honors the social nature of human beings, who are stronger when they work together (LS 206). ECOLOGICAL VIRTUES FOR HYPERAGENTS In the ecumenical prayer with which Francis closes Laudato Si’, he makes a special request for those with hyperagency, asking God: “Enlighten those who possess power and money that they may avoid the sin of indifference, that they may love the common good, advance the weak, and care for this world in which we live.” His prayer highlights both divine and human agency, reminding the faithful that hyperagents need God’s grace for moral growth while encouraging the wealthy to take action on behalf of others. This dual focus on God’s action and human response exemplifies Christian virtue ethics, which focuses on the consistent qualities of moral goodness humans

Wealthy Hyperagency in the Throwaway Culture

85

pursue and acquire with God’s help. The prayer’s intentions—that those with hyperagency care for the good of others and restrain their own power to serve others and the planet—parallel the ecological virtues Francis prescribes to hyperagents throughout Laudato Si’; virtues of solidarity and temperance. With its focus on everyday practices (LS 230–31) and habits (LS 209, 211) and its integral connection between personal spirituality and social behavior, Laudato Si’ is ripe for reading through a virtue lens. Solidarity Solidarity is the virtue through which we commit ourselves to the good of others with “a firm and persevering determination.”9 It describes an emotional feeling, an intellectual commitment, and an active practice, and Laudato Si’ demonstrates the full range of its potential. “We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it” (LS 229), Francis writes. Clearly, hyperagency can tempt us away from the pursuit of this virtue. Demonstrating the integral logic of Laudato Si’, Francis connects selfishness and turning away from others with consumer greed and disdain for the common good: The current global situation engenders a feeling of instability and uncertainty, which in turn becomes “a seedbed for collective selfishness.” When people become self-centered and self-enclosed, their greed increases. The emptier a person’s heart is, the more he or she needs things to buy, own and consume. It becomes almost impossible to accept the limits imposed by reality. In this horizon, a genuine sense of the common good also disappears. (LS 204)

Social factors, while they may powerfully affect our moral formation, do not fully determine virtue (LS 205). Despite the many pressures eroding solidarity, it is a built-in part of human nature: “For all our limitations, gestures of generosity, solidarity and care cannot but well up within us, since we were made for love” (LS 58). “We are always capable of going out of ourselves towards the other” (LS 208) Francis adds, echoing a resonant theme from Evangelii Gaudium. “Going out of ourselves” is a key criterion for encounter, where solidarity is sparked. Catholic social thought rejects utilitarian notions of social good—that societies pursue the greatest good for the greatest number—and affirms the common good, which seeks the flourishing of all members of society, particularly the most vulnerable. Francis calls particular attention to two groups whose needs should be paramount among those who seek to display solidarity by

86

Kate Ward

pursuing the common good. Those who pursue solidarity must demonstrate particular concern for the poor in today’s world (LS 158) and future generations who depend on our actions in the present, in need of our “intergenerational solidarity” (LS 159). Virtue ethics acknowledges that dispositions develop through practices. Francis acknowledges the symbiotic relationship between laws, the practices they encourage, and the spiritual dispositions they can help persons develop: “If [environmental] laws are to bring about significant, long-lasting effects, the majority of the members of society must be adequately motivated to accept them, and personally transformed to respond. Only by cultivating sound virtues will people be able to make a selfless ecological commitment (LS 211).” Laudato Si’ proposes many concrete actions of solidarity, though they may differ depending on one’s role in global environmental and economic systems. We have already discussed the responsibilities of high-consuming countries to make sacrifices in addressing climate change (LS 169, 170); while Francis understands that poor countries may need to prioritize improving conditions for their poorest citizens, he points out that even poor countries have many wealthy citizens who may need to hear similar calls to sacrifice as those in wealthy countries (LS 172). For poor people, solidarity is directed to those who share their plight. Francis notes the real presence of solidarity in the lives of the poor, describing how despite the overcrowding, crime and violence to which many poor communities fall prey, “many people in these conditions are able to weave bonds of belonging and togetherness” (149). Laudato Si’ proposes practical ways to inculcate solidarity from the local to the global context. Grace before meals is a simple practice to cultivate both humility before God and solidarity with those who lack enough (LS 227). Societal structures can be useful as well; urban planning can either encourage or discourage encounter among humans and with nature, and thus can be a powerful tool to promote solidarity (LS 151). Activism on the local level is effective in developing renewable sources of energy and promoting responsible consumption, as well as transforming persons by encouraging responsibility, solidarity, and community spirit (LS 179–180). Francis specifies that both personal moral transformation and collective social action are necessary to address such a vast, complex problem as climate change (LS 219). Temperance Temperance is the virtue through which we moderate our use of goods, including food and drink, sex, and power. While Francis does not use the term in Laudato Si’, a key disposition in the integral anthropology he proposes is described as “sobriety.” Sobriety follows on solidarity: “If we feel intimately

Wealthy Hyperagency in the Throwaway Culture

87

united with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously,” as we see in the life of St. Francis (LS 11). Francis points out that an attitude of sobriety or temperance toward the use of possessions is believed by many religious traditions to be a key to happiness: We need to take up an ancient lesson, found in different religious traditions and also in the Bible. It is the conviction that “less is more.” . . . It is a return to that simplicity which allows us to stop and appreciate the small things, to be grateful for the opportunities which life affords us, to be spiritually detached from what we possess, and not to succumb to sadness for what we lack. . . . Such sobriety, when lived freely and consciously, is liberating (LS 222–223).

Temperance is not simply about actions, about what we do or do not consume. Rather it describes our disposition to what we do consume; an attitude of enjoyment, gratitude, and satisfaction with enough, even (or especially) in a consumerist atmosphere where too much is never enough. As a disposition toward all the goods one uses in life, temperance ramifies through all our relationships; it demands a recognition of our dependence on God, peace with one’s self, and connection to others and to nature (LS 224–225). Temperance is not a crabbed self-denial, but a disposition to use goods according to their proper purpose. A temperate life incorporates celebration and joy. Francis notes that a spirit of celebration and rest from work “prevents that unfettered greed and sense of isolation which make us seek personal gain to the detriment of all else . . . and motivates us to greater concern for nature and the poor” (LS 237). Conversion to pursuit of the ecological virtues “entails gratitude and gratuitousness, a recognition that the world is God’s loving gift” (LS 220). We can clearly see that Francis’s vision of celebration is not the giddy consumerism of the “throwaway culture”; perhaps there are no paper plates or meat on the tables at this celebration. Temperate celebration appreciates the goods of creation for what they are: signs of our reliance on the graciousness of God and of others; gifts for our use but not tools to be used and wasted. CONCLUSION Hyperagency is a material problem with spiritual effects. Due to the way humans have chosen to structure economic systems and to engage with the created environment, a small group of persons control humans, spaces, and time to a degree that is unavailable to others and destructive of human dignity. The way rich-world consumers use resources deals a death to the poor of the world and harms the spiritual lives of hyperagents as they self-justify their

88

Kate Ward

own destructive and ignorant lifestyles. Despite his frank acknowledgement of this particular manifestation of universal human sinfulness, Francis holds out hope for the spiritual improvement of hyperagents, with the help of God and their own communities. By practicing solidarity and temperance, hyperagents can aspire to become persons who deeply commit to the needs of others and who use goods with wisdom, gratitude, and joy. Practicing these environmental virtues contributes to an integral anthropology, a way of understanding, and living human life in right relationship with God, Earth, and one another. NOTES 1. Wealthy people also control space quite literally when they use their financial resources to build or change existing spaces. Paul G. Schervish, “Introduction: The Wealthy and the World of Wealth,” in Gospels of Wealth: How the Rich Portray Their Lives, eds. Paul G. Schervish, Platon E. Coutsoukis, and Ethan Lewis (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994), 4–5. 2. Paul G. Schervish, “Hyperagency and High-Tech Donors: A New Theory of the New Philanthropists” (14 November 2003), 10, https​://ww​w.bc.​edu/c​onten​t/dam​/file​ s/res​earch​_site​s/cwp​/pdf/​haf.p​df. 3. Denunciations of wealthy indifference to the poor in the Hebrew Bible prophets fall into this category, as do sermons by patristic figures such as Augustine and Chrysostom about the sinful disregard of the poor by the wealthy. Contemporary theological depictions of inequality as exclusion and fragmentation share these concerns: see David M. Cloutier, “Exclusion, Fragmentation, and Theft: A Survey and Synthesis of Moral Approaches to Economic Inequality,” Journal of Moral Theology 7, no. 1 (January 2018): 141–172; Kate Ward and Kenneth R. Himes, “‘Growing Apart’: The Rise of Inequality,” Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (March 2014): 118–132, https​://do​ i.org​/10.1​177/0​04056​39135​19045​; Willis Jenkins, “Is Plutocracy Sinful?,” Anglican Theological Review 98, no. 1 (Winter 2016): 33–50. 4. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/apo​st_ex​horta​ tions​/docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_esor​tazio​ne-ap​_2013​1124_​evang​elii-​gaudi​um.ht​ml. See especially para. 87–92. For a review of Francis’s approach to encounter in EG, see Kate Ward, “Jesuit and Feminist Hospitality: Pope Francis’ Virtue Response to Inequality,” Religions 8, no. 4 (19 April 2017): 71, https://doi.org/10.3390/ rel8040071. 5. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 87. 6. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. Dominican Fathers of the English Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1921), I–II 76.2. 7. Francis should have mentioned the church’s own history of complicity with the ongoing dominance and exclusion of indigenous peoples in formerly colonized nations. See e.g. Sebastian C. H. Kim, “Editorial [Globalization and Global

Wealthy Hyperagency in the Throwaway Culture

89

Inequality],” International Journal of Public Theology 7, no. 1 (2013): 1–4, https​:// do​i.org​/10.1​163/1​56973​20-12​34127​5. 8. José Severino Croatto, “From the Leviticus Jubilee Year to the Prophetic Liberation Time: Exegetical Reflections on Isaiah 61 and 58 in Relation to the Jubilee,” in God’s Economy: Biblical Studies from Latin America, ed. Ross Kinsler and Gloria Kinsler (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005), 89–111; Pablo Richard, “Now Is the Time to Proclaim the Biblical Jubilee,” in God’s Economy: Biblical Studies from Latin America, ed. Ross Kinsler and Gloria Kinsler (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005), 43–58. 9. John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 30 December 1987), 38, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​ s/doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​30121​987_s​ollic​itudo​-rei-​socia​lis.h​tml.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by Dominican Fathers of the English Province. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1921. Cloutier, David M. “Exclusion, Fragmentation, and Theft: A Survey and Synthesis of Moral Approaches to Economic Inequality.” Journal of Moral Theology 7, no. 1 (January 2018): 141–172. Croatto, José Severino. “From the Leviticus Jubilee Year to the Prophetic Liberation Time: Exegetical Reflections on Isaiah 61 and 58 in Relation to the Jubilee.” In God’s Economy: Biblical Studies from Latin America, edited by Ross Kinsler and Gloria Kinsler, 89–111. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005. Jenkins, Willis. “Is Plutocracy Sinful?” Anglican Theological Review 98, no. 1 (Winter 2016): 33–50. Kim, Sebastian C. H. “Editorial [Globalization and Global Inequality].” International Journal of Public Theology 7, no. 1 (2013): 1–4. https​://do​i.org​/10.1​163/1​56973​ 20-12​34127​5. Pope Francis. Evangelii Gaudium. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/apo​st_ex​horta​tions​ /docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_esor​tazio​ne-ap​_2013​1124_​evang​elii-​gaudi​um.ht​ml. Pope John Paul II. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 30 December 1987. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​ lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​30121​987_s​ollic​itudo​-rei-​socia​lis.h​tml. Richard, Pablo. “Now Is the Time to Proclaim the Biblical Jubilee.” In God’s Economy: Biblical Studies from Latin America, edited by Ross Kinsler and Gloria Kinsler, 43–58. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005. Schervish, Paul G. “Hyperagency and High-Tech Donors: A New Theory of the New Philanthropists.” 14 November 2003. https​://ww​w.bc.​edu/c​onten​t/dam​/file​s/res​ earch​_site​s/cwp​/pdf/​haf.p​df. Schervish, Paul G., Platon E. Coutsoukis, and Ethan Lewis, eds. Gospels of Wealth: How the Rich Portray Their Lives. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994.

90

Kate Ward

Ward, Kate. “Jesuit and Feminist Hospitality: Pope Francis’ Virtue Response to Inequality.” Religions 8, no. 4 (19 April 2017): 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/ rel8040071. Ward, Kate and Kenneth R. Himes, “‘Growing Apart’: The Rise of Inequality.” Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (March 2014): 118–132. https​://do​i.org​/10.1​177/0​ 04056​39135​19045​.

Chapter 6

The Peril and the Promise of Agriculture An Agroecological Reading of Laudato Si’ Matthew Philipp Whelan

But ask the animals, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? —Job 12:7–9 No longer do natural forces traverse [the farmer’s] field, but economic forces, social forces, human forces . . . . —Jean Jaurès, Speech to the French Chamber of Deputies, 1897

What follows dwells upon the peril and the promise of agriculture as articulated by Pope Francis in his 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’, that is, both agriculture’s role in damaging our common home and its place in envisioning alternative and more sustainable futures. From the encyclical’s very first paragraphs, the centrality of the work of agriculture is implied. “Praise be to you, my LORD, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with colored flowers and herbs,” begins Pope Francis, citing St. Francis of Assisi in his Canticle of the Creatures, the line from which the title to the encyclical is taken.1 The earth is not only kin to us, the dust from which our bodies, like all creaturely life, are fashioned. The earth also “sustains” us, and that sustenance inescapably ties human life to agriculture.

91

92

Matthew Philipp Whelan

Yet the encyclical’s initial paragraphs also presage the problem of agriculture, for our mother does not simply sustain us, but she governs us as well. In other words, like any mother, she is obliged a certain kind of obedience from her children. I think Pope Francis means this quite literally. For, as I will argue, Francis locates a major source of the crisis we face—a crisis which, as he reminds us, is always both social and ecological (LS 139)2—in our refusal of that governance and obedience. Rather than learning from an earthly and natural order given by God, in which we are placed and for which we have a unique responsibility, humankind has opted instead to govern the earth as its “lords and masters” (LS 2), submitting it to ourselves. The problem to which Francis is pointing is admittedly complex and multifaceted. It is, above all, theological and anthropological because it concerns the God who creates heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible, as well as humankind’s place and vocation within the creation. But, as I intend to show, this problem also has significant agricultural implications. To this end, I read Laudato Si’ through the lens of the dominant agricultural system and its damage to our common home. Agriculture is currently the primary cause of land and water use.3 It is also a main contributor to toxic emissions and a driver of habitat and climate change.4 According to the encyclical, the damage can be traced to this agricultural system’s refusal to defer to and learn from the wisdom of the earthly and natural order given by God. Additionally, I argue that the solution Pope Francis consistently suggests—though admittedly does not develop at great length—is an approach to agriculture, and to human work more generally, that defers to this order and is receptive to its pedagogy. This is precisely the path envisioned by the science, practice, and politics of agroecology, which will serve as my primary interlocutor in exploring this relatively underdeveloped aspect of Laudato Si’. Agroecology emerged as a science at the end of the twentieth century.5 As the name suggests, agroecology applies ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of food production systems, and it locates the study and practice of agriculture within ecosystems. Agroecology characteristically begins with careful consideration of the place of agriculture within local ecosystems, and it attempts to design and manage agriculture on this basis. For instance, John Vandermeer and Ivette Perfecto highlight that healthy agroecosystems should: cultivate diversity, protect and preserve soil, convert vegetable and animal waste into humus, waste nothing, balance growth and decay, and maintain large fertility reserves. Industrial agriculture falls short of such healthy functioning.6 Taking seriously this agroecological approach, I contend, helps fill out the agricultural implications of Francis’s invitation to—in the tradition of his namesake—“see nature as a magnificent book in which God speaks to us and grants us a glimpse of [God’s] infinite beauty and goodness” (LS 12).

The Peril and the Promise of Agriculture

93

THE PERIL OF AGRICULTURE The litany of damage associated with the dominant form of agriculture today—what I will refer to as modern, industrial agriculture—is well known and extensively documented.7 Stephen Gliessman defines this kind of agriculture as a system ordered by the twin goals of the maximization of production and profit, and with trends toward minimizing reliance on labor and maximizing reliance on technology. According to Gliessman, such agriculture centers upon seven basic practices: intensive, mechanized tillage; specialization, and especially monoculture (growing a single crop, oftentimes at an extensive scale); irrigation of land from underground aquifers, reservoirs, or diverted rivers; application of inorganic fertilizer; chemical control of pests and weeds; genetic manipulation of domesticated plants and animals; and finally, confined animal feeding operations (or CAFOs).8 In this section, I limit myself to canvasing the peril of such agriculture as it appears in the pages of Laudato Si’, focusing especially upon chapter 1, “What is Happening to Our Common Home.” Like Francis, I treat pollution, climate change, water, and biodiversity loss, and agriculture’s effects upon them in turn. Pollution Francis explains how the use of fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and other agro-toxins, along with other industrial and agriculture waste, can lead to bioaccumulations in local populations (LS 20–21). Popularized in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the term “bioaccumulation” refers to a process whereby toxins are absorbed by the body at faster rates than it is lost. Biomagnification occurs when such substances increase in concentration at successively higher levels in a food chain.9 Recent studies have shown bioaccumulation to be a continuing concern, and scientists have called for more study of how toxins enter the food chain by way of agriculture.10 Moreover, Francis repeatedly remarks upon agriculture’s adverse effects upon water quality. He notes the deaths attributable to chemical substances in water, as well as how water sources are increasingly harmed by pollution from farming and other industrial activities (LS 29, 41). All of these pollution-related problems, Francis observes, are closely tied to what he calls “a throwaway culture.” He contrasts the dominant industrial system, which “quickly reduces things to rubbish,” and which lacks the capacity or foresight to re-absorb and re-use its waste and by-products within nature’s economy.11 In Francis’s words: “It is hard for us to accept that the way natural ecosystems work is exemplary: plants synthesize nutrients which feed herbivores; these in turn become food for carnivores, which produce significant quantities of organic waste which give rise to new generations

94

Matthew Philipp Whelan

of plants” (LS 22). Francis is highlighting that virtually nothing is wasted in ecosystems. Indeed, the very notion of “waste” as unserviceable material remaining from any process of manufacture is closely tied to industrialism itself. By contrast, in an ecosystem, sunlight, water, and minerals supply the energy. The “waste” from living organisms does not accumulate and cause damage but, rather, is used as nutrients by other living things. Climate Change Francis critiques the dominant model of development that is based on intensive fossil fuel consumption. This releases carbon dioxide—the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities—and other greenhouse gases as waste (LS 23). Indeed, this model of development is not only at the heart of the throwaway culture, but it directly implicates agriculture as well. Industrial agriculture, like all agriculture, depends upon the natural energy flows from the sun and the energy stored in the soils for the production of food and fiber. But, in addition, industrial agriculture, as the name suggests, relies heavily upon fossil fuels at all levels: farm mechanization, agrochemical production and use, food processing and transportation, and so on. All told, the food sector alone accounts for approximately 30 percent of the world’s total energy consumption, according to one recent estimate.12 And these processes produce not only abundant food and other agricultural goods but also abundant waste—in this case, especially carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide, and other greenhouse gases. Yet another way agriculture exacerbates the problem of climate change, as Francis notes, is transformations in the use of soil, especially deforestation related to agriculture (LS 23). Indeed, agriculture is the key driver of deforestation and forest degradation worldwide.13 This further contributes to global warming because of the release of the carbon dioxide sequestered in the trees themselves when land is cleared for agriculture and livestock ranching or logged for timber. Water Francis warns that water waste has reached unprecedented levels. Although he does not specifically make this connection, industrial agriculture is both the leading cause of water pollution (LS 29) and its consumption—approximately 80 percent of the water consumed in the United States, according to the USDA. Globally, agriculture is by far the largest user of water with 70 percent of all water withdrawn from aquifers, streams, and lakes devoted to agriculture, according to the FAO.14

The Peril and the Promise of Agriculture

95

Biodiversity Francis points out how agriculture has important effects upon biodiversity. Agrotoxins are responsible for the deaths of countless organisms that “give glory to God by their very existence,” besides playing important roles in the good functioning of ecosystems (LS 32–35). But apart from biodiversity loss related to agricultural pollution, agriculture is the prime contributor to deforestation and forest degradation worldwide, which not only releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere but also entails habitat loss. Oftentimes, what replaces these biodiverse habitats, Francis observes, are monocultures of agricultural crops or trees (LS 38–39). In this way, because of the conversion of diverse, natural habitats to intensively managed agricultural fields, the release of pollutants, as well as the energy-use, transport, and waste associated with them, modern, industrial agriculture contributes to biodiversity loss more than any other human activity.15 This brief sketch, which takes the framing of Laudato Si’ as its cue, suggests the extent to which modern, industrial agriculture crucially contributes to the problems of pollution, climate change, excessive water use and contamination, and biodiversity loss. Above and beyond these problems, Francis notes that approximately one-third of all food produced by such agriculture is thrown away (LS 50). Although Francis does not always make the links explicit or single out agriculture as I have done, these links exist, and agriculture as it is presently practiced threatens our common home. A WAY FORWARD? We have been examining the peril of industrial agriculture as it informs Francis’s assessment of our situation in Laudato Si’. In imagining more hopeful agricultural futures, we must look more closely at Francis’s comments about how a throwaway culture is at the heart of the problems we face, and how the exemplarity of natural ecosystems offers a way forward. To this end, I want to look more closely at one of the basic practices that characterizes industrial agriculture: monoculture or the cultivation of a single crop. For most of human history, agriculture involved growing a diversity of crops along with raising livestock. But over the course of the twentieth century, and for a host of complex reasons, agriculture throughout the world has moved toward monoculture, and has separated crops from livestock.16 This trend has facilitated the use of farm machinery for cultivation, sowing, weed control, and harvest, and it also tends to cohere with (and even necessitate) many the other practices characteristic of industrial agriculture mentioned above: irrigation, the use of agrochemicals, and genetically manipulated plant

96

Matthew Philipp Whelan

varieties. As Rachel Carson observed in Silent Spring, the links between monoculture and pesticide use are particularly clear. By ignoring “the principles by which nature works,” and by radically simplifying the variety of ecosystems and undoing “the built-in checks and balances by which nature holds species in bounds,” she writes, such agriculture established the ideal conditions for explosive increases in pest outbreaks and reliance upon chemical control.17 But we must take even a further step back and reflect upon the logic at work in this approach, because before a monoculture can be established, the land must be cleared for cultivation. We have already noted this action of clearing in terms of deforestation. But this simple fact of clearing displays the presumption that the local ecosystem and its flora and fauna is irrelevant to the practice of agriculture or its place within the ecosystem. To be sure, all agriculture involves simplification of the landscape, with humans encouraging certain flora and fauna and discouraging others.18 But it is the sheer radicality and scale of this particular simplification that is especially significant. In Seeing Like a State, James C. Scott argues that industrial agriculture and its productionist orientation habitually fails to account for the actual “space” in which farmers work—its microclimates, its water and its movement, its microrelief, its local flora and fauna, and so on. Because the guiding idea of such agriculture and its framing vision is a maximization of the crop yield or profit—the preconditions of which is the existence of markets and the submission of agricultural space to their logic—not only can the local flora and fauna be cleared, but they can also be completely ignored unless they directly impinge upon the target crop (and hence the profitability of the farm) in the form of pests or weeds.19 But even “weeds” and “pests” are not precise taxonomic classifications but designate what is undesirable from the vantage of this particular utilization of the land. Consider the case of Helda Morales, who trained in agronomy and entomology, and began her research on traditional maize producers in the Guatemalan Highlands and how they managed pests with the question, “What are your pest problems?” The almost unanimous response she received was, “We don’t have any pest problems.” Implicit here is how the vision of certain creatures as pests presupposes, not only particular scientific and cultural formations but also a particular approach to agriculture, as well as the conditions that generate the perception of pests and the problems they generate. It was only after Morales reformulated the initial question to “What kind of insects do you have?” did she receive different, more illuminating answers. These answers both identified the insects often taken to be pests and offered insight into the management practices that kept these insects from becoming problems in the first place.20

The Peril and the Promise of Agriculture

97

In this way, modern industrial agriculture not only damages the spaces it occupies but at an even more basic level, it enacts the very problem signaled in the introduction to this chapter: the refusal, not only to learn from the natural order given by God but also to discern any order at all that could constrain or shape its practice—in this case, an order or even a wisdom displayed in the local ecological context in which such agriculture is inescapably situated. One way to think about Carson’s achievement in Silent Spring was that it revealed the extraordinary ignorance of pesticide science and the approach to agriculture with which it is implicated. For while such science required considerable knowledge of a certain sort—especially chemistry—what Carson showed was how the deployment of such chemicals displayed an ignorance of ecology, as well as of ourselves, and how our bodies are permeable to the poisons we employ. In suggesting that industrial agriculture disregards natural order, it is important to clarify that there are always certain basic ecological constraints to agriculture; some land is simply unfit for agriculture, for example. There are constraints to where agriculture can be practiced, as well as to what and when it is possible to cultivate in any particular place. The increasing specialization of agriculture over the previous two centuries is in part a function of these ecological conditions and the constraints they inevitably impose.21 But, beyond these basic ecological constraints, industrial agriculture, I am suggesting, encounters little in the way of a natural order to which it must attend, and which substantively shapes its practice. Rather, the landscape functions like a tabula rasa, a blank slate without any preexisting content. Learning to read the local ecological context rightly and to discern an order in it, just like learning to read anything at all, requires interpretive skills and training, and is a complex cultural accomplishment. As Norman Wirzba observes, “[T]he theoria that enables us to make sense of what we are looking at always develops within an ethos [the character or beliefs of a people or community] and an askesis [exercise, training, discipline] that opens, directs, and disciplines our access to the world. It would be naive to think that we could evaluate what others are telling us about the world without also attending to the ethos and askesis . . . at work in their looking.”22 We see this, for instance, in how Helda Morales’s work shifted from studying how farmers solve their pest problems to studying why they do not have such problems. Crucial here is the theoria that helped her make the shift, and the ethos and askesis implied by it. In the Morales episode, the ecologist John H. Vandermeer discerns not just a subtle difference in perspective, but distinct cultures of agricultural science, with divergent philosophical premises and orientations. According to Vandermeer, while the agronomist asks about the problems which farmers face in production and how to solve them, the agroecologist asks instead

98

Matthew Philipp Whelan

about why insects that could become problems are not problems, and what agricultural conditions prevent them from becoming so. With this former, agronomic focus, Vandermeer writes, “we see only the sick farm, the farm with problems, and never fully appreciate the farm running well, in ‘balance’ with the various ecological factors and forces that inevitably are operative.”23 In what remains, we will look more closely at the agroecological alternative to which Vandermeer points, how it defers to and learns from what local ecosystems teach, and finally, its coherence with Francis’s exhortation to care for our common home. The Promise of Agriculture: Agroecology We have already seen how, in responding to the throwaway culture, Francis sees a less wasteful alternative exemplified by natural ecosystems. “A serious consideration of this issue,” he writes, “would be one way of counteracting the throwaway culture which affects the entire planet” (LS 22). Throughout the encyclical, we find Francis express similar comments. He calls for “[g] reater investment . . . in research aimed at understanding more fully the functioning of ecosystems” (LS 42) and their protection (LS 53), imploring respect for “creation and its inherent laws” (LS 69), and the “message contained in the structures of nature itself” (LS 117, 190). In this regard, Francis critiques what he calls a “technocratic paradigm” that disregards this functioning and displays no such respect. Precisely through scientific and experimental procedures, it not only controls and possesses its objects but also regards them as “something formless, completely open to manipulation” (LS 106).24 Something very much like this is the case with industrial agriculture and the science that supports it, which is ordered by the goals of production and profitability, and which inscribe this vision in the landscape. As the very name indicates, the approach to agriculture known as agroecology attempts, as the entomologist Miguel Altieri explains, to “reinstate a more ecological rationale into agricultural production.”25 This integration of ecology into agriculture has important implications for the practice of agriculture, the science of agriculture, and for the politics of the preservation and promotion of this approach to agriculture in our world.26 Among the many features that distinguish agroecology from industrial agriculture is its view of the agricultural field. Rather than a blank slate onto which we may impose our vision, agroecology regards the agricultural field as a diverse and complex community of organisms and their interactions. The agricultural field is an ecosystem (an agroecosystem) in which we and our agricultural practices are not only participants but also from which we can learn and into which we should integrate. Vandermeer can therefore write that agroecology’s “central core” is the acknowledgment that “the agroecosystem

The Peril and the Promise of Agriculture

99

is foremost an ecological system,” and that “the fundamental natural laws of ecosystems are involved and need to be taken into account in the design and operation of the agroecosystem.”27 Along these same lines, Altieri claims that what characterizes agroecology is “a deep understanding of the nature of agroecosystems and the principles by which they function.”28 This is a rather radical suggestion, and implicit in agroecological science and practice is a strong critique of industrial agricultural science and practice. The appeal by agroecologists to the fundamental natural laws of ecosystems and the principles by which they function has a kind of subversive character. This appeal also coheres with Francis’s diagnosis of the root of the problems we face: our refusal to attend and even to obey the earthly and natural order given by God, in which we are ourselves rooted as creatures and for which we have a unique responsibility. This is most fundamentally a theological and anthropological problem, but it also has inescapable agricultural implications, which agroecology helps illumine and concretize. Plant ecologist Judith Soule and botanist Johh K. Piper indicate another characteristic feature of agroecology—which relates to the point above regarding obedience to earthly and natural order—in describing agroecology as “farming in nature’s image.”29 In other words, instead of stamping the image of industry upon the landscape, Soule and Piper argue that agriculture should begin with the study of local ecosystems, which it should strive to mimic through the incorporation of ecological patterns and processes into agriculture. As Soule and Piper explain: Natural communities have been tailored by climactic and evolutionary forces to accommodate particular environments and to endure. They provide the best examples of the characteristics necessary for sustaining an agriculture that neither depletes the environment nor depends upon exhaustive resources. . . . These natural plant communities constitute the best structural fit to their native region and have much to teach about how to farm sustainably.30

The authors observe that most natural ecosystems are characterized by low levels of erosion, high species diversity in dynamic equilibrium, flora that is perennial and adapted to local conditions, exclusive reliance upon solar energy, internal recycling of nutrients, steady-state biomass production, efficient energy transfer across food webs, herbivore and disease resistance, and so on. The basic idea of agroecology is that, through careful attention to ecosystemic structure and functioning, these processes and principles can be discerned and agriculturally imitated. Soule and Piper focus on three agroecological practices in particular: (i) biological control and other forms of pest management, which attend closely to predator-prey and host-parasite relationships and life-history patterns;

100

Matthew Philipp Whelan

(ii) intercropping or cultivating multiple crops simultaneously, which enhance the efficiency of land use by taking advantage of different species’ niches and the overyield potential of certain cropping combinations; and (iii) conservation tillage, such as no-tillage or reduced-tillage, which attempt to minimize or even eliminate the frequency or depth of plowing and so foster the formation of soil, and preserve and enhance the life within it; and a host of other such practices.31 Of course, this list of practices is by no means exhaustive.32 Moreover, agroecology is highly differentiated depending on the region, precisely because local ecology is so differentiated. Examples can be found everywhere—in deserts,33 tropical forests,34 temperate forests,35 grasslands,36 and so on. Soule and Piper’s Farming in Nature’s Image, for instance, grew out of their work at The Land Institute (LI), a pioneering research, education, and policy organization dedicated to agroecology (or what it often refers to as “natural systems agriculture”) and the development of an agriculture modeled upon the prairie. In particular, LI’s work focuses on perennial grain crops or what Wes Jackson, the founder of LI, calls “herbaceous perennial seed-producing polycultures.” In contrast to the annual grain monocultures that currently dominate the landscape—which, in addition to the problems described above, are also characterized by massive rates of soil erosion37—the LI envisions fields of grain perpetually under vegetative cover, like a prairie. Also, like a prairie, such fields would not be planted to a single crop but rather to a mixture, which would increase productivity, while reducing dependence upon agrochemicals and the susceptibility of crops to pests and diseases. Moreover, in contrast to the rates of erosion that currently beset monoculture, perennial grains, once established, would remain so, not only protecting the soil and preventing erosion but also enabling soil restoration. Furthermore, because of the perpetual vegetative cover, the soil would absorb and retain more water, and so use it more efficiently.38 The work of the LI is not uncontroversial, even among agroecologists themselves.39 But it is one particularly prominent instance of agroecology, helping us to appreciate agroecology’s distinctive approach to agriculture and its stakes. CONCLUSION In this chapter, I have examined Laudato Si’ in light of industrial agriculture and the damage it does to our common home, arguing that a distinguishing characteristic of this agriculture is its failure to defer to and to learn from the wisdom of the earthly and natural order given by God. I have also contended that the solution Pope Francis points to in Laudato Si’ is an approach to

The Peril and the Promise of Agriculture

101

agriculture—and to human work more generally—that defers to this order and learns from it, which is precisely the path envisioned by agroecology. Admittedly, much more remains to be said. Doing justice to this topic would, among other things, involve examining the practice of smallholder agriculture across the world, which preceded industrial agriculture and continues to exist in spite of it. In many ways, this smallholder agriculture is the prototype of agroecology, both in terms of how farmers work with ecological processes rather than override them, as well as in terms of the social organization of agriculture.40 Francis refers to this smallholder agriculture repeatedly in Laudato Si’, and not as a relic of the past but a model for the future, commending its scale and diversity (LS 94, 129, 164, 180). In learning from the practice of smallholder agriculture, agroecological science enacts what Francis recommends in terms of attending “to local cultures when studying environmental problems, favoring a dialogue between scientific-technical language and the language of the people” (LS 143). Indeed, together with the wider natural order, these cultures are likewise under threat, among the many signs that the great transformation of the previous centuries has not always led to integral development and flourishing (LS 46). Above all, much more remains to be said about how the approach of agroecology coheres with the claim that the earth is a common gift, whose harvests and fruits are given by God for the benefit of all, both in the present and across time (LS 93–95). Even our cursory examination shows the extent of the social, economic, and cultural transformations required to support and extend agroecology. In studying and learning from the ecology of a given locale, and in striving to model agriculture upon the particularities of that locale, agroecology not only offers an alternative to industrial agriculture. It suggests a different vision of what it means to be human and how we might draw nourishment from the earth that sustains and governs us. Finally, it offers a political model for restructuring agriculture. Among other things, what agroecology makes particularly clear is that agriculture is never simply a matter of science and technology alone, and that production is never the only good at stake. In light of Francis’s diagnosis, this should not come as a surprise. As he reminds us, “decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build” (LS 107). And when we speak of the “environment,” we are always speaking about a relationship between the wider created order and all of its inhabitants. Consequently, we find ourselves faced “not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental” (LS 139). At the beginning of Laudato Si’, Pope Francis, invoking his namesake, invites us to see nature as a magnificent book in which God speaks to us and grants us a glimpse of God’s infinite beauty and goodness. This is why,

102

Matthew Philipp Whelan

he explains, St. Francis “asked that part of the friary garden always be left untouched, so that wild flowers and herbs could grow there, and those who saw them could raise their minds to God, the Creator of such beauty” (LS 12). St. Francis’s concern, the passage suggests, is to display how the chief end of creation is praise. Clearing the land and planting it exclusively to crops might very well increase the friars’ food supply, but it would diminish their knowledge of God and creation’s own language of praise. Of course, this is not only a doxological image; it is also an agricultural one. There is still much to learn from pondering its message.41 NOTES 1. Canticle of the Creatures, in Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1 (New York, NY: New City Press, 1999), 113–114. 2. Unless otherwise indicated, all in-text citations are from Laudato Si’. 3. See Arjen Y. Hoekstra and Ashok K. Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008). See also FAOSTAT resource database, land use data accessible at http:​//fao​stat.​fao.o​ rg/si​te/37​7/def​ault.​aspx.​ 4. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials (Nairobi, KE: UNEP, 2010). 5. Stephen Gliessman, Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems (Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis, 2007), 18–19. 6. John Vandermeer and Ivette Perfecto, Ecological Complexity and Agroecology (New York, NY: Routledge, 2018), 9–10. 7. One of the best treatments of this topic is Eric Kimbrell, ed., Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002). 8. Gliessman, Agroecology, 1–7. 9. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2002). See also: Fredrick Rowe Davis, Banned: A History of Pesticides and the Science of Toxicology (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011). 10. Sylvain Corbel, Christian Mougin, and Noureddine Bouaïcha, “Cyanobacterial Toxins: Modes of Actions, Fate in Aquatic and Soil Ecosystems, Phytotoxicity and Bioaccumulation in Agricultural Crops,” Chemosphere 96 (2014): 1–15. 11. Ernst Haeckel, who coined the term “ecology,” drew upon the same root found in economy: the Greek oikonomia, which referred to household management. In an 1869 lecture, he defined ecology as “the body of knowledge concerning the economy of nature [Naturhaushalt], . . the study of all those complex interrelations referred to by Darwin as the condition of the struggle for existence.” See Donald Worster, Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 192. 12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Energy Smart” Food for People and Climate (Rome, IT: FAO, 2011), www.fao.com.

The Peril and the Promise of Agriculture

103

13. G. Kissinger, M. Herold, V. De Sy, Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers (Vancouver Canada: Lexeme Consulting, August 2012). 14. National Water Quality Inventory (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017), https​://ww​w.ers​.usda​.gov/​topic​s/far​m-pra​ctice​s-man​ageme​nt/ ir​rigat​ion-w​ater-​use/;​Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture: Managing Systems at Risk (The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Earthscan, 2011), http:​//www​.fao.​org/d​ocrep​/017/​i1688​e/i16​88e00​.htm.​ See also Christiana Z. Peppard, Just Water: Theology, Ethics, and the Global Water Crisis (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2014). 15. Nigel Dudley and Sasha Alexander, “Agriculture and Biodiversity: A Review,” Biodiversity 18, no. 2–3 (2017): 45–49; U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, The Global Land Outlook (Bonn: UNCCD, 2017); Philip Lymbery, The Dead Zone: Where the Wild Things Were (New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017). It is important to point out in this regard that we live in an age of ecocide—the sixth extinction—with species loss at a rate unparalleled in human history. The current mass extinction, which is thousands of times above the background rate, can only be compared to cataclysmic extinctions millions of years ago. E. Chivian and A. Bernstein, eds., Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008). See also Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History (New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, 2014). 16. Marcel Mozoyer and Laurence Roudart, A History of World Agriculture (New York, NY: Monthly Review Press, 2006). 17. Carson, Silent Spring, 10. 18. For an interesting case of this, see Darrell Addison Posey, “Indigenous Management of Tropical Forest Ecosystems: The Case of the Kayapó Indians of the Brazilian Amazon,” Agroforestry Systems 3 (1985): 139–158. 19. James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 262–263. 20. Hilda Morales, “Pest Management in Traditional Tropical Agroecosystems: Lessons for Pest Prevention Research and Extension,” Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7 (2002): 145–163. 21. Mozoyer and Roudart, A History of World Agriculture, 394. 22. Norman Wirzba, “Christian Theoria Physike: On Learning to See Creation,” Modern Theology 32, no. 2 (2016), 214. 23. John H. Vandermeer, The Ecology of Agroecosystems (Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2011), 19. As Altieri explains, “If the cause of disease, pests, soil degradation, and so forth, is understood as imbalance, then the goal of the agroecological treatment is to recover balance. In agroecology, biodiversification is the primary technique to evoke self-regulation and sustainability” and to ensure “the agroecosystem is productive and healthy.” Miguel A. Altieri, Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture (Boulder, CO; London: Westview Press, 1995), ix–x. 24. “Men and women have constantly been in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves,” Francis continues. “It was a matter of

104

Matthew Philipp Whelan

receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones who lay our hands on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us” (LS 106). 25. Altieri, Agroecology, ix. 26. See A. Wezel et al., “Agroecology as a Science, a Movement and a Practice,” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, no. 4 (2009): 503. For a helpful response, see V.E. Méndez, C.M. Bacon, and R. Cohen, “Agroecology as a Transdisciplinary, Participatory, and Action-Oriented Approach,” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (2013): 3–18. 27. John H. Vandermeer, The Ecology of Agroecosystems (Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2011), xiii; Stephen R. Gliessman, Agroecology, The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems (New York, NY: CRC Press, 20076), 18. 28. Altieri, Agroecology, ix. 29. In this regard, agroecology relates to the more general approach to human making known as biomimesis (from the Greek bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation). Janine M. Benyus, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature (New York, NY: Quill, 1997), 11–58. See also Elizabeth Groppe, “The Way of Wisdom: ‘Keep Hold of Instruction; Do Not Let Go; Guard Her, for She Is Your life’ (Prov. 3:14),” in Environmental Justice and Climate Change: Assessing Pope Benedict XVI’s Ecological Vision for the Catholic Church in the United States, ed. Jame Schaefer and Tobias Winwright (New York, NY: Lexington Books, 2013), 127–148. 30. Judith D. Soule and Jon Piper, Farming in Nature’s Image: An Ecological Approach to Agriculture (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1992), 123–157. 31. Soule and Piper, Farming in Nature’s Image, 128–133, though note the authors’ word of caution about even these process-oriented approaches and why they are, in and of themselves, insufficient. 32. For a more extensive discussion of these and other agroecological practices, see C. Ronald Carrol, John H. Vandermeer, and Peter M. Rosset, Agroecology (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1990); Altieri, Agroecology; Gliessman, Agroecology. 33. Gary Paul Nabhan, The Desert Smells Like Rain (San Francisco, CA: North Point Press, 1982); Gary Paul Nabhan, Gatherng the Desert (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1985). 34. Víctor M. Toledo et al., “The Multiple Use of Tropical Forests by Indigenous Peoples in Mexico: A Case of Adaptive Management,” Ecology and Society 7, no. 3 (2003), http://www.consecoLorgivol7/iss3/art9. 35. J. Russell Smith, Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture (New York, NY: The Devin-Adair Co., 1953). 36. Wes Jackson, New Roots for Agricultural Research (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1980). 37. Although erosion occurs naturally, annual grain monocultures, with their intensive tillage and lack of protective groundcover, have dramatically increased rate of erosion. Soil is now being lost between 10 and 40 percent times faster than the rate of renewal. D. Pimentel, “Soil Erosion: A Food and Environmental Threat,” Environment, Development and Sustainability 8, no. 1 (2006): 119–137.

The Peril and the Promise of Agriculture

105

38. My description of the work of the LI relies on Jackson, New Roots for Agriculture, vii–xv, 93–117. 39. See Chris Smaje, “The Strong Perennial Vision: A Review,” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39 (2015): 471–499; Timothy E. Crews and Lee R. Dehaan, “The Strong Perennial Vision: A Response,” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39 (2015): 500–515. 40. On this point, see Eduardo Sevilla Guzmán and Graham Woodgate, “Agroecology: Foundations in Agrarian Social Thought and Sociological Theory,” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (2013): 32–44; Jan Dowe van der Ploeg, The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization (New York, NY: Earthscan Food and Agriculture, 2009). 41. As Thomas R. Rourke, the local flora and fauna also has a broader significance for inculturation, exemplified how the Jesuits in their early missions in South America—which have had an important influence on Pope Francis’s thought—wove them into altarpieces. See Thomas R. Rourke, The Roots of Pope Francis’s Social and Political Thought (New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2016), 18.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Altieri, Miguel A. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995. Benyus, Janine M. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York, NY: Quill, 1997. Carrol, C. Ronald, John H. Vandermeer, and Peter M. Rosset. Agroecology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1990. Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Chivian, E. and A. Bernstein, eds. Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008. Corbel, Sylvain, Christian Mougin, and Noureddine Bouaïcha. “Cyanobacterial Toxins: Modes of Actions, Fate in Aquatic and Soil Ecosystems, Phytotoxicity and Bioaccumulation in Agricultural Crops,” Chemosphere 96 (2014): 1–15. Crews, Timothy E. and Lee R. Dehaan, “The Strong Perennial Vision: A Response,” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39 (2015): 500–515. Davis, Fredrick Rowe. Banned: A History of Pesticides and the Science of Toxicology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011. Dudley, Nigel and Sasha Alexander. “Agriculture and Biodiversity: A Review.” Biodiversity 18 (2017): 2–3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Energy Smart” Food for People and Climate. Rome, IT: FAO, 2011. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture: Managing Systems at Risk. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Earthscan, 2011. http:​//www​.fao.​org/d​ocrep​/017/​i1688​e/i16​88e00​.htm.​

106

Matthew Philipp Whelan

Francis of Assisi. Canticle of the Creatures. In Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1. New York, NY: New City Press, 1999. Francis, Pope. Laudato Si’: Care for Our Common Home. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 May 2015. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/enc​ yclic​als/d​ocume​nts/p​apafr​ances​co_20​15052​4_enc​iclic​a-lau​dato-​si.ht​ml. Gliessman, Stephen. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis, 2007. Groppe, Elizabeth. “The Way of Wisdom: ‘Keep Hold of Instruction; Do Not Let Go; Guard Her, for She Is Your life’ (Prov. 3:14).” In Environmental Justice and Climate Change: Assessing Pope Benedict XVI’s Ecological Vision for the Catholic Church in the United States, edited by Jame Schaefer and Tobias Winwright, 127–148. New York, NY: Lexington Books, 2013. Hoekstra, Arjen Y., and Ashok K. Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008). Jackson, Wes. New Roots for Agricultural Research. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1980. Kimbrell, Eric ed. Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002. Kissinger, G., M. Herold, V. De Sy. Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers. Lexeme Consulting, Vancouver Canada, August 2012. Kolbert, Elizabeth. The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, 2014. Lymbery, Philip. The Dead Zone: Where the Wild Things Were. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017. Méndez, V.E., C.M. Bacon, and R. Cohen. “Agroecology as a Transdisciplinary, Participatory, and Action-Oriented Approach.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (2013). Morales, Hilda. “Pest Management in Traditional Tropical Agroecosystems: Lessons for Pest Prevention Research and Extension.” Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7, no. 3 (2002): 145–163. Mozoyer, Marcel and Laurence Roudart. A History of World Agriculture. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press, 2006. Nabhan, Gary Paul. The Desert Smells Like Rain. San Francisco, CA: North Point Press, 1982. Nabhan, Gary Paul. Gatherng the Desert. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1985. National Water Quality Inventory. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017. https​://ww​w.epa​.gov/​water​data/​natio​nal-w​ater-​quali​ty-in​vento​ry-re​ port-​congr​ess. Peppard, Christiana Z. Just Water: Theology, Ethics, and the Global Water Crisis. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2014. Pimentel, D. “Soil Erosion: A Food and Environmental Threat.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 8, no. 1 (2006): 119–137.

The Peril and the Promise of Agriculture

107

Posey, Darrell Addison. “Indigenous Management of Tropical Forest Ecosystems: The Case of the Kayapó Indians of the Brazilian Amazon.” Agroforestry Systems 3, no. 2 (1985): 139–158. Rourke, Thomas R. The Roots of Pope Francis’s Social and Political Thought. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2016. Scott, James C. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998. Sevilla Guzmán, Eduardo and Graham Woodgate. “Agroecology: Foundations in Agrarian Social Thought and Sociological Theory.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37, no. 1 (2013): 32–44. Smaje, Chris. “The Strong Perennial Vision: A Review.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39, no. 5 (2015): 471–499. Smith, J. Russell. Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture. New York, NY: The DevinAdair Co., 1953. Soule, Judith D. and Jon Piper. Farming in Nature’s Image: An Ecological Approach to Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1992. Toledo, Víctor M., Benjamín Ortiz-Espejel, Leni Cortés, Patricia Moguel, and María de Jesús Ordoñez. “The Multiple Use of Tropical Forests by Indigenous Peoples in Mexico: A Case of Adaptive Management.” Ecology and Society 7, no. 3 (2003). http://www.consecoLorgivol7/iss3/art9. U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification. The Global Land Outlook. Bonn, DE: UNCCD, 2017. https​://ww​w.unc​cd.in​t/act​ions/​globa​l-lan​d-out​look-​glo. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials. Nairobi, KE: UNEP, 2010. http:​//www​.unep​.fr/s​hared​/publ​icati​ons/p​df/dt​ix126​ 2xpa-​prior​itypr​oduct​sandm​ateri​als_r​eport​.pdf.​ Vandermeer, John H. The Ecology of Agroecosystems. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Vandermeer, John and Ivette Perfecto. Ecological Complexity and Agroecology. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018. van der Ploeg, Jan Dowe. The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. New York, NY: Earthscan Food and Agriculture, 2009. Wezel, A. et al., “Agroecology as a Science, a Movement and a Practice,” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, no. 4 (2009): 503–515. Wirzba, Norman. “Christian Theoria Physike: On Learning to See Creation.” Modern Theology 32, no. 2 (2016): 211–230. Worster, Donald. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Part III

THE GOSPEL OF CREATION THEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY

Chapter 7

The “Brown Thread” in Laudato Si’ Grounding Ecological Conversion and Theological Ethics Praxis Dawn M. Nothwehr

The central moral challenge of Laudato Si’ is for everyone to undergo ecological conversion. In outlining a path forward, Pope Francis draws heavily from the Franciscan intellectual tradition (FIT). Here I first situate key figures referenced in LS in the FIT. Then I show the relevance of Bonaventure’s On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology for today, as a precursor for understanding integral ecology, a focal concern of LS.1 The FIT is an integrated, highly relational, spiritual, theological, and ethical system characterized by a set of core values and beliefs including conversion; peacemaking; emphasis on Trinitarian divine love and freedom; the primacy of Christ; the centrality of the Incarnation; Christ crucified; the sacramentality of creation; the goodness of the world; the human person as imago Dei; the importance of the virtues of poverty, humility, obedience, and love as well as the development of affectus.2 Franciscans understand the Trinity as a dynamic, creative, communion of persons that is self-diffusive love.3 Thus, God is relationship, and all God creates is related. The primacy of Christ reveals an integral relation between the Incarnation and the Creation, assigning to it soteriological and cosmological purposes. Central to the emergence of the Franciscan school were formal works in philosophy, systematic theology, and spirituality rooted in biblical wisdom, and the spirit of St. Francis developed by Bonaventure of Bagnoregio at the University of Paris in the thirteenth century.4 Bonaventure’s use of Neoplatonic and Christian sources transformed patristic philosophical and theological concepts and thus provides a more conducive metaphysical and epistemological basis for dialogue with contemporary social and natural sciences, including ecology and evolution.5 111

112

Dawn M. Nothwehr

WEAVING THE BROWN THREAD: TOWARD INTEGRAL ECOLOGY At least thirty-five explicit citations of Franciscan sources frame the central theses of LS. The theologians cited employed the Franciscan tradition, stressing its various dimensions according to historical and contextual demands: Francis of Assisi (1181/1182–1226, “the Patron of Ecologists;”6 St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (1217–1274);7 Italian-German theologian Romano Guardini (1885–1968);8 and Brazilian Franciscan ecotheologian Leonardo Boff (1938–).9 This lineage provides a distinctive “brown thread” that runs throughout LS.10 Francis of Assisi was a “semiliterate vernacular theologian.” His disciple, St. Bonaventure, as a scholastic theologian developed a radically relational Trinitarian theology, cosmology, Christology, and virtue ethics. St. Bonaventure’s method, theology of salvation, and teaching on the illumination of the mind were the subject of Romano Guardini’s doctoral dissertation (Freiburg 1915) and his Habilitationschrift (Bonn 1922).11 Following Bonaventure, Guardini developed an inductive theological method, utilizing phenomenological and dialectical approaches. In the1980s, at Munich, the student, Jorge Mario Bergoglio began a dissertation on Romano Guardini’s corpus. While yet unfinished, Bergoglio—now Pope Francis—continues to utilize Guardini’s thought. Finally, while drafting LS, Pope Francis invited Leonardo Boff to bring his corpus on Franciscan liberation ecotheology to a private meeting.12 St Francis of Assisi (1182–1226) St. Francis wrote at least twenty-eight documents, exposing his vernacular theological reflections.13 These reveal his extraordinary spiritual vision and the exemplary character Pope Francis upholds in LS 221. The Poverello was a dedicated disciple of Jesus Christ, one devoted to the Incarnation, a lover of the Gospel and the Eucharist, a religious visionary of the human family, a practitioner of intense contemplative prayer, and popular preacher of God’s peace and love.14 St. Francis and Incarnation St. Francis provides a singularly powerful inspiration for contemporary environmental ethics. Profoundly moved by the humility of God in the Incarnation, Francis responded with a deep desire to “follow in the footprints of Jesus” (intimacy).15 As Thomas of Celano noted, St. Francis was “the saint

The “Brown Thread” in Laudato Si’

113

who loved animals.”16 St. Francis’s “animal stories” bear profound religious and ethical significance.17 Sighting earthworms, St. Francis educed Psalm 22:7 as a Christological text, suggesting a Christian praxis of care for creation. Similarly, “in the flesh” encounters with numerous “others” (a leper, religious brother, or sultan) shaped his religious conversion, enabling him to see God in all things.18 Gradually, Francis saw Christ present in all things as well as sacred scripture. St. Francis’s biographer, Bonaventure, emphasized the theological significance of the role of the senses in the Poverello’s human experience of Jesus Christ in the material world.19 St. Francis and Trinity Pope Francis (LS 87) cites St. Francis’s illustrious “Canticle of the Creatures.”20 From the heart of SFrancis, suffering from a painful eye infection and near death, reflecting Psalm 148 and Dan. 3:57–88, and his sensory knowledge of the elements, the “Canticle” celebrates God’s fecund love expressed through the incarnate world.21 As scholars hold, the “Canticle” presents a radically related world, with weighty moral meaning.22 Significantly, the “Canticle” is built around the classical life-sustaining four elements—earth, air, water, and fire. As an exercise in moral imagination and a call to conversion, it exposes Francis’s relationship with God as the Creator, Sustainer, and Governor of human relationships with all creatures and elements.23 Scientifically unschooled, Francis voiced a remarkable insight into the natural world, and the mutually sustaining cosmic relationships of humans and God, God and creatures, and creatures and humans.24 Those relationships with God make humans and all other creatures relatives—and that makes all the difference! Thus, Francis’s vernacular theology irrevocably links Franciscan spirituality, theology, and ethics: the humanity of Christ, the mystery of God as generous love, and the sense of creation as family (Jn 14:6–9).25 St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (1217–1274) St. Francis’s three themes run deeply in Bonaventure’s theology. A university professor, Bonaventure systematized St. Francis of Assisi’s vernacular theology, formalizing the Franciscan theological tradition,26 while remaining the most clear interpretive voice of the Poverello’s Christocentric spiritual and ethical vision.27 Bonaventure stressed God as the Supreme Good; the great love, respect, and responsibility of the world for God’s creation; and a Christocentric spirituality formulated in metaphysical terms, and as integral to the Christian cosmological vision. Bonaventure’s evangelical theological synthesis gives Francis’s vision intellectual structure and method.28 His integration

114

Dawn M. Nothwehr

of a rigorous theology and a powerful spirituality gives Bonaventure’s work great promise for our time. Bonaventure’s Method Influenced by St. Augustine, Bonaventure valued knowledge accrued through contemplation of both the cosmos and the scripture. One can access the deeper mysteries of humanity, creation, and God, and then act with ever more complete conformity to God.29 Bonaventure’s theology utilized a holistic wisdom (sapientia) approach that integrated the various ways of knowing, including the intellect (scientia). All knowing must serve the singular goal (beyond philosophy alone)—Jesus Christ. Thus, Bonaventure employs two kinds of language: the imagination and metaphysics.30 Significantly, Bonaventure sees imagination and metaphysics as interconnected and understands that they impact one another. Bonaventure and Trinity At the core of Bonaventure’s theology is the doctrine of the Trinity.31 Bonaventure understands the Trinity as divine exemplarity (Neoplatonism)— that is, as the immense fecundity of the goodness of God expressed in the emanation (outward movement) of the Three Persons and flowing into the created cosmos. Bonaventure’s theology of the Trinity develops St. Francis’s intuitive, spiritual understanding of divine family. Bonaventure advances and expands the fourth-century Cappadocian patristic tradition that favors Trinity as a community of divine persons.32 Grounded in the Pseudo-Dionysius and Richard of St. Victor, Bonaventure understood the Divine Trinity as self-diffusive goodness and ultimate love. The divine persons of the Trinity are not only intimately related to one another, but they mutually inhere in one another and draw life from each other. God is Trinitarian community, inviting us to share God’s life by entering into communion with Godself. In the Franciscan school, the Trinity is an organic, relational system animated by love.33 Bonaventure and Creation Bonaventure’s theology of Creation originates in his understanding of the Trinity and develops Francis’s cosmic vision. All life is like a circle—we originate from God, we exist in relation to God, and we will return to God. For Bonaventure, God does create, and thereby, communicates God’s self to others. The self-communicative goodness of the Father is God giving God’s self away in the Word, who proceeds from the Father as the perfect expression and Image of God. For Bonaventure, the Word is the inner self-expression

The “Brown Thread” in Laudato Si’

115

of God, and the created order is the external expression of the inner Word. The Trinity is the template for all creation. Thus, Bonaventure views all creation as theophanic. The Trinity as a communion of persons proposes God as relationship. The divine persons are interdependent, as is the relationship between the Godhead and the creation. Bonaventure’s theology of the Trinity is remarkably compatible with the modern scientific notion of the ecosystem, for the emphasis on relationship between entities is fundamental to both. Romano Guardini (1885–1968) Guardini retrieved the theology of Bonaventure during the critical period after Vatican I, during Hitler’s reign, prior to Vatican II. As a kerygmatic theologian, his break with a moribund neo-scholasticism, his insistence on an experiential starting point, an inductive theological method, and use of phenomenological categories and reasoning in theological reflection typify the Franciscan school. Giardini studied for the priesthood, and having challenged the Catholic Church’s neo-scholasticism, was ordained for the diocese of Mainz on May 28, 1910. Guardini’s Method Guardini created his own synthesis of idealism, following Plato, as evidenced in the Christian Johannine writings, and in the Neoplatonism of Plotinus and Porphyry.34 He identified with the German phenomenology movement of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger.35 Guardini’s ontological starting point was “concrete living persons.”36 God is absolute being, and the personal existence of human persons is second. Personal existence occurs as a whole, but in tensions or polarities. For example: I am an individual, but also a family member; a knower of head knowledge and also heart knowledge. Those polarities take the form of opposition—where the two are bound together or presuppose each other, or as contradictions such as good an evil. Guardini’s epistemology distinguishes two cognitive processes—insight, which allows us to see the inner unity of something, to make a leap from knowing a part to grasping the whole and the relationships of the parts.37 That process “involves a perception ‘which illumines not by means of reasons but by inner means of interior authenticity and clarity.’”38 Second, we understand the essence of something by means of concepts that oppose each other. Simply put, “our ability to know the underlying meaning of personal existence depends upon our acceptance of intuition as a legitimate way of knowing and also our readiness to accept potentially creative tensions and paradoxes into our philosophical and theological reflections.”39

116

Dawn M. Nothwehr

Already attracted to St. Francis of Assisi, Guardini found Bonaventure’s theology—that is, the latter’s use of the Christian wisdom tradition, his inductive method, especially his soteriology and “illumination of the mind”— remarkably compatible with and supportive of his own method and theory of opposition, clarifying and legitimating it.40 Guardini’s theology addressed the believer’s questions, integrated spirituality, and was open to new issues. For Guardini, God is absolute love and the subject of the human heart’s longings. The memory, understanding, and will are all engaged in the believer seeking God and understanding. In over seventy-five books, Guardini pursued a Christian worldview through a dialogical correlation of faith and culture. Most notable was his concern to sustain the polar tensions between Christian identity and relevance, faith and world, and to transform them into a creative dynamism to the benefit of the church and the society. Guardini’s The End of the Modern World, cited in LS, reveals his struggles with modernity and the power of technology.41 His theory of opposition is visible in the acknowledgment that modern technology has wrought some goods but also the evil of declining interpersonal responsibility in 1954 secularized Germany. Therein, Guardini saw the end of the third epoch of Western civilization. Moderns believed life relationships, fully determined by atomistic human intellect, were goods. That miscalculation brokers evils of self-indulgent autonomy, and ignorance of the FIT’s radically relational God as source of all goods. The technological mindset views nature as merely prime matter for unlimited exploitation.42 Technology’s motive was pure power to drive people to ever new commodities. Technological power grew fundamentally more centralized and concentrated, fueling the competitiveness that inevitably generates more losers than winners over time. This is far from the FIT’s connected relational worldview. Yet, Guardini found hope in the secularized notion of collegiality demanded by life in a very complex world; no single person can survive independently. Empirical social scientific data fails to adequately account for the human spirit; people desire more.43 Those realities open potential for dialogue with Christian truths. Humans are a mystery called into being by God and given inviolable dignity.44 A person’s dignity depends only on their very being (not status or achievements).45 These decisive elements constitute what is genuinely human and is known only by Divine Revelation.46 Being a person is essential to being human. Guardini held that the only guarantee against totalitarian or utilitarian control of people and the created world was to recognize that existence is grounded in the God of Jesus Christ and bound together in a community of “I” and “you” (Buber) relationships with a sense of creation as family.

The “Brown Thread” in Laudato Si’

117

Leonardo Boff (1938–) Allusions to Leonardo Boff’s Franciscan liberation ecological theology are visible throughout LS, though he is never specifically named.47 Boff’s works frequently discuss “integral ecology” (LS 10, 11, 62, 124, 137, 159, 225, 230) and “global inequality” (LS 48–52); Boff was a coauthor of The Earth Charter (LS 207),48 and LS 240 reflects Boff’s understanding of the Trinity.49 In LS 49, Boff’s landmark, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor (CECP), is certainly referenced. There Boff, drawing deeply from the FIT, biblical, and doctrinal sources, defined the pillars of Catholic ecotheology and environmental ethics—justice for the poor and justice for the earth.50 He reasserted people’s place within creation and their moral obligation to be its guardians: Liberation theology and ecological discourse have something in common: they start from two bleeding wounds. The wound of poverty breaks the social fabric of millions and millions of poor people around the world. The other wound, systematic assault on the earth, breaks down the balance of the planet, which is under threat from the plundering of development as practiced by contemporary global societies. Both lines of reflection and practice have as their starting point a cry: the cry of the poor for life, freedom, and beauty . . . and the cry of the Earth groaning under oppression.51

A strong interconnection binds the ecological, human, social, and spiritual aspects of life. A banalized interconnection drives dominant populations to oppress the marginalized and plunder the earth. This evil has deep roots in the spiritual malaise of socialism and capitalism. Boff’s Method Boff’s experiences with direly poor people in Petropolis, a slum near Rio de Janeiro, and of developers raping the Amazon rainforests threatening people’s very survival, sparked his pairing of ecojustice and social justice within liberation theology. There, faith and life, God and suffering were one. Thus, the poor must be “the point from which one attempts to conceive of God, Christ, grace, history, the mission of the churches, the meaning of the economy, politics, and the future of societies and of the human being.”52 Concern for the poor requires concern for the whole of creation, precisely because capitalist and socialist abuses of the earth most egregiously victimize the poor. Following Jan Smuts, Boff articulates a holistic ecological model. Using the “new physics,” evolutionary biology, and environmental science, Pascalian and existentialist traditions, Boff integrates ecological and theological concerns. Informed by Brian Swimme, Thomas Berry,53 Meister Eckhart,54 and Teilhard

118

Dawn M. Nothwehr

de Chardin,55 Boff finds God within the “cosmogenic process of the universe.” Finally, Bonaventure’s social relations of the Trinity grounded Boff’s liberation vision of the just society. This vision requires spiritual conversion. Boff offers living St. Francis of Assisi’s “cardinal ecological virtues” as the pathway forward. Through prayer, St. Francis’s gained self-understanding and insight into the sacramentality of all things; desired well-being for all things (love); recognized familial caring relationships among God and creatures (obedience); understood a common dignity originating in One Creator (humility); and became available to serve others (poverty). Francis lived virtuously with God and creation, and especially the poor. ST. BONAVENTURE OF BAGNOREGIO ON THE REDUCTION OF THE ARTS TO THEOLOGY The FIT defines, illumines, and advances the necessity for what Pope Francis calls integral ecology and ecological conversion.56 This confluence is visible when considering Bonaventure’s On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology.57 There Bonaventure shows how all forms of knowledge originate in divine revelation and that reality signals a particular understanding of the moral life. Bonaventure grounds a vision and practice useful for moral and religious responses to today’s human-induced ecological crisis, and informs a wellreasoned dialogue among economics, politics, earth sciences, and theological environmental ethics. His reflections supply a virtuous stance, the values, and attitudes useful for dialogue in our highly conflicted world. Genuine dialogue—a core goal of LS—requires morally concerned partners who grapple with ultimate value and meaning, and can imagine their own role in building a more just, sustainable, relational, and loving world.58 Bonaventure asserts Francis and Christ as exemplifying the kenosis required for such an undertaking. Bonaventure presumed the foundational equality and capacity of all people for virtue.59 “[T]wo things are necessary, namely, knowledge of the truth and the practice of virtue” for Imitation of Christ.60 For Bonaventure, one goal of education is “that in all . . . character may be formed.”61 In today’s antagonistic world, such formation is a necessary precursor to any dialogue. Character formation involves training in the “practice of the virtues.”62 The “intellectual life” is “situated within the larger context of values that need to shape human life.”63 St. Francis’s virtue was “worthy of love by Christ, imitation by us, and admiration by the world.”64 Francis was transformed as he “strove to keep his spirit in the presence of God” (prayer) and dedicated himself to “a continual exercise of virtue.”65 Virtue is a “good quality of [the innermost self—mens] worked in us by God by which one lives rightly.”66 It aims to “avoid an extreme, be it

The “Brown Thread” in Laudato Si’

119

deficiency or excess.”67 Bonaventure focused on three core virtues: “live rightly” (rectitude vivendi), to live in “right relationship” (pietas), and to love in a “right and well-ordered” way (caritas). The accompanying values are charity, right relationship, discretion, sisterhood/brotherhood, discerning condescension, and austerity. Virtues challenge people to choose and pursue a particular good, to understand their meaning, and to learn when and how to live them out according to the “right ordering of love.”68 Most challenging is the virtue of austerity (austeritas), which concerns learning through effort, experience, practice, and grace to “adjust” one’s “inner spirit” to a “norm and a rule.” It requires the self-discipline to regulate the senses; to desire what is good, pleasing, and beautiful. It involves one managing responsibly one’s “affections and thoughts” appropriately in a given situation.69 Austerity includes finding the healthy self-discipline enabling one to grow, preserve with “good will,” and live justly in the world. Different types of self-discipline free us to choose the way of justice, right relationship, and right loving required in various circumstances. Bonaventure provided three categories for discerning how to live austerely, moderately, temperately, and a well-disciplined manner of life: to refrain overeating and to ensure one’s behavior is never excessive; to behave modestly as opportunity requires and right reason dictates; to regulate and to order one’s acts—as required by moral integrity and right living.70 Today, we can imagine the positive environmental impact of such a behavioral framework on food and water security, just use of Earth’s natural goods, and sustainable living. Bonaventure’s term, circumspectionum condescensionem, names an essential Franciscan practice, particularly useful in difficult multidimensional dialogues involving environmental issues. Circumspectio refers to the deliberate and well-considered attention to circumstances that is required in the process of making a judgment (discretio) about the best course of action. Condescendere literally means to step down in relation to the need of another. It assumes a personal, self-deprecating readiness and willingness of the decision-maker to be primarily concerned with another. That requires three things: the inner discipline through which a person would be able to recognize that the proposed ideal of austerity is not an end in itself; true humility—that is, a sense of one’s “great littleness”—that would enable one to be attentive and responsive to genuine needs, and the generosity of spirit (poverty) that would enable one literally to bend down and serve the other.71 Such “stepping down” is visible in the works of St. Francis, St. Bonaventure, Romano Guardini, and Leonardo Boff, particularly their contributions to environmental ethics. They propose relational, sustainable living and respectful use of Earth’s natural and human goods. This is possible through the interdisciplinary and integrated thought that engages the theology, ethics, and spirituality of the FIT.

120

Dawn M. Nothwehr

NOTES 1. St. Bonaventure, “On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology,” in St. Bonaventure’s On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology, ed. Zachary Hayes, vol. 1, in Works of St. Bonaventure, ed. F. Edward Coughlin (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1996). 2. Ilia Delio, “The Franciscan Intellectual Tradition: Contemporary Concerns,” in The Franciscan Intellectual Tradition, ed. Elise Saggau, CFIT/ESC-OFM Series No. 1, Washington Theological Union Symposium Papers, 2001 (St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 2002), 1–19. The Franciscan Intellectual Tradition, https:// www.franciscantradition.org/. 3. Anne Hunt, Trinity: Nexus of the Mysteries of Christian Faith (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005), 23. She cites Augustine’s De Trinitate 8:14; 9, 2; and 15, 10. 4. Kenan B. Osborne, OFM, ed., The History of Franciscan Theology (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 1994). 5. David A. Clairmont, “Bonaventure on Moral Motivation: Trajectories of Exemplification in His Treatment of Voluntary Poverty,” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 25, no. 2 (2005): 109–136. 6. Pope John Paul II, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sanctos, Franciscus Assisiensis Caelestis Patronus Oecologiae Cultorum Eligitur (Vatican, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 29 December 1979), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/la/​apost​_lett​ ers/1​979/d​ocume​nts/h​f_jp-​ii_ap​l_197​91129​_inte​r-san​ctos.​html.​ LS 1, 10, 11, 12, 66, 87, 91, 125, 218, 221. 7. LS 11, 66, 233, 239. 8. LS 105, 108, 115, 203, 219. 9. LS 49. 10. Brown is the traditional color of the habit worn by Franciscans. See: “Franciscan Colors,” https://ofm.org/blog/franciscan-colors/. 11. Robert A. Krieg, Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany (New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc., 2004), 145. 12. Paul Vallely, “Pope Francis: Has His Revolution Even Started?” The Guardian, 11 March 2014, http:​//www​.theg​uardi​an.co​m/wor​ld/20​14/ma​r/11/​pope-​franc​ is-re​volut​ion-e​ven-s​tarte​d-cat​holic​-chur​ch-va​tican​. 13. Thadee Matura, OFM, Francis of Assisi: The Message in His Writings (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Press, 1997). “General Introduction,” in Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. Ι, The Saint, trans. and ed. Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short (New York, NY: New City Press, 1999), 11–30. Hereafter English critical edition sources are cited: “Document Title” (date), chapter, section, line, in FA:ED, vol. number, volume title, page number. 14. Murray Bodo, Francis: The Journey and the Dream, 40th anniversary ed. (Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Press, 2011); Leonardo Boff, St. Francis: A Model for Human Liberation, trans. John W. Diercksmeier (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006); Eric Doyle, St. Francis and the Song of Brotherhood and Sisterhood (St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 1997). [Reprint of St. Francis and the Song of Brotherhood (New York, NY: Seabury Press, 1981).]; Roger D. Sorrell, St.

The “Brown Thread” in Laudato Si’

121

Francis of Assisi and Nature: Tradition and Innovation in Western Christian Attitudes toward the Environment (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988). 15. The Life of St. Francis by Thomas of Celano (1228–1229), bk. I, chap. I, 88, in FA:ED, vol. I, The Saint, 131. Also, The Legend of the Three Companions (1241–1247), chap. XVIII, 73, in FA:ED, vol. II, The Founder, trans. and ed. Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short (New York, NY: New City Press, 2000), 110. The Tree of the Crucified Life of Jesus, Book Five (Excerpts), by Umbertino DaCasale (1305), chap. III, 54, in FA:ED, vol. III, The Prophet, trans. and ed. Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short (New York, NY: New City Press, 2001), 148. 16. William J. Short, OFM, “Hagiographic Method in Reading Franciscan Sources: Stories of Francis and Creatures in Thomas of Celano’s First Life (58–61),” Greyfriars Review 4, no. 3 (1990): 33–50. 17. Thomas of Celano, “The Life of Saint Francis by Thomas of Celano,” ch. XXIX, in FA:ED, vol. I, The Saint, 250–251. 18. Pierre Brunette, OFM, Francis of Assisi and His Conversions, trans. Paul La Chance OFM and Kathryn Krug (Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1997). “The Latter Admonition and Exhortation,” 4–6, in FA:ED, vol. I, The Saint, 46. See Ewert H. Cousins, “Francis of Assisi and Bonaventure: Mysticism and Theological Interpretation,” in The Other Side of God: A Polarity in World Religion, ed. Peter Berger (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1981), 79; “The Admonitions” 1: 15–18, FA:ED, vol. I, The Saint, 129. 19. Bonaventure, Major Legend of St. Francis, IX, 1b in FA:ED, vol. II, The Founder, 596–597. 20. “The Canticle of the Creatures” (1225), in FA:ED, vol. I, The Saint, 113. 21. William J. Short, OFM, “Recovering Lost Traditions in Spirituality: Franciscans, Camaldolese and the Hermitage,” Spiritus 3 (2003): 209–218. 22. Doyle, St. Francis and the Song of Brotherhood and Sisterhood, 41–59. 23. Thomas A. Nairn, “St. Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Creatures as an Exercise of the Moral Imagination,” in Franciscan Theology of the Environment, ed. Dawn M. Nothwehr (Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2003), 175–187. 24. Sorrell, St. Francis of Assisi and Nature. 25. St. Francis, “Admonition I,” in Francis and Clare, ed. Regis Armstrong and Ignatius Brady (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1982), 25–26. 26. Osborne, ed. The History of Franciscan Theology, vii–ix. Hayes, “The Life and the Christological Thought of St. Bonaventure,”62–64. 27. Timothy Johnson, “Lost in Sacred Space: Textual Hermeneutics, Liturgical Worship, and Celano’s Legenda ad usum Chori,” Franciscan Studies 59 (2001): 112. Daniel, The Franciscan Concept of Mission, 48. Daniel, E. Randolph, The Franciscan Concept of Mission in the High Middle Ages (St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 1992). 28. Delio, “The Franciscan Intellectual Tradition,” 8. Ilia Delio Crucified Love: Bonaventure’s Mysticism of the Crucified Christ (Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1998). 29. Zachary Hayes, “Franciscan Tradition as a Wisdom Tradition,” Spirit and Life 7 (1997): 32.

122

Dawn M. Nothwehr

30. Zachary Hayes, “The Cosmos, a Symbol of the Divine,” in Franciscan Theology of the Environment, ed. Nothwehr, 250–252. 31. Hayes, “Bonaventure: Mystery of the Triune God,” in The History of Franciscan Theology, ed. Osborne, 53–60. 32. Zachary Hayes, The Hidden Center: Spirituality and Speculative Christology in St. Bonaventure (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1992). 33. Ilia Delio, Simply Bonaventure: An Introduction to His Life, Thought and Writings (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2001). 34. Michael D. Guinan, The Franciscan Vision and the Gospel of John: The San Damiano Crucifix, Francis and John, Creation and John, Heritage Series, Volume 4 (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2006). John is the Gospel most frequently cited by St. Francis. 35. Krieg, Romano Guardini: A Precursor of Vatican II, 13–14. 36. Ibid., 15. 37. Ibid. 38. Ibid., 16. Krieg cites Roman Guardini, Der Gegensatz, 3rd edition (Mainz, DE: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1985), 19. 39. Ibid. 40. New critical editions of St. Bonaventure’s work were published 1882–1902, at the Franciscan center of Quarrachi, Italy. Guardini was among the first to use them in his doctoral dissertation (Freiburg, 1915) and his Habilitationschrift (Bonn, 1922). 41. LS 105, 108, 115, 203, 219 cite Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1998). 42. Guardini, The End of the Modern World, 51–57. 43. Ibid., 78–79. 44. Ibid., 63–64. 45. Ibid., 62–64. 46. Ibid., 98. 47. Dawn M. Nothwehr, “Leonardo Boff’s Franciscan Liberation Ecological Theology and ‘Integral Ecology’ in Laudato Si’,” in All Creation is Connected: Voices in Response to Pope Francis’s Encyclical on Ecology, ed. Daniel R. DiLeo (Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2018), 94–112. 48. Earth Charter Initiative, Earth Charter, Earth Charter Associates, Ltd., June 29, 2000, http://earthcharter.org/discover/. Boff was a board member and author of the Charter. 49. Leonardo Boff, Trinity and Society (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988). 50. Ecologia: Grito da Terra, Grito dos Pobres (São Paulo, BR: Editora Attica, S.A., 1995). Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, trans. Phillip Berryman (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997). See especially pp. 116–118, 152–154, 163–169. 51. Cry of the Earth, 104. 52. Ibid., 107. 53. Ibid., 74, 106. 54. Ibid., 157, 192, 215. 55. Ibid., 144, 153–154, 178, 183–184. 56. Integral ecology – LS 10, 11, 62, 124, 137, 159, 225, 230. Ecological conversion – LS 5.

The “Brown Thread” in Laudato Si’

123

57. Dawn M. Nothwehr, “Bonaventure of Bagnoregio’s imitatio Christi as an Agapistic Virtue Ethics,” in On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Cultivating a Contemporary Theology of Creation, ed. David Vincent Meconi (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2016), 123–145. 58. F. Edward Coughlin, “‘that in all . . . character may be formed’: Exploring a Vision of Formative-education in the Spirit of St. Bonaventure,” The Franciscan Colleges and Universities Journal 12, no. 1 (March 2015): 26. 59. St. Bonaventure, “Collations on the Six Days,” in Collations on the Six Days, ed. José De Vinck, vol. 5 in Works of St. Bonaventure, ed. F. Edward Coughlin (Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1970), 10. 60. St. Bonaventure, “Collations on the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit,” in Collations on the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, ed. Zachary Hayes and Robert J. Karris, vol. 14, in Works of St. Bonaventure, ed. F. Edward Coughlin (St. Bonaventure, NY: St. Bonaventure University, 2008), 28. 61. St, Bonaventure, “On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology,” 25, 61. 62. St. Bonaventure, “Collations on the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit,” I.1, 28. 63. St. Bonaventure, “On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology,” 10. 64. St. Bonaventure, “The Major Legend of St. Francis-1263,” in FA:ED, vol. II: The Founder, 525–527. 65. Ibid., Chapters X–XII. 66. St. Bonaventure, “Collations on the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit,” I.2, 28. 67. St. Bonaventure, “On the Reduction of the Arts,” 49; cf. St. Bonaventure, “Collations on the Six Days,” VI, nn. 11–20, 100–104; St. Bonaventure, “Collations on the Seven Gifts,” 27–44. 68. St. Bonaventure, “Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection,” in Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, ed., Robert J. Karris, vol. 13 in Works of St. Bonaventure, ed. F. Edward Coughlin (St. Bonaventure, NY: Saint Bonaventure University, 2008),49–50. 69. St. Bonaventure, “On the Way of Life,” trans. Olav Bychekov in Writings on the Spiritual Life, ed. F. Edward Coughlin (St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 2006, 363. 70. St. Bonaventure, “On Governing the Soul,” Writings on the Spiritual Life, §8, 205–206. 71. Coughlin, “‘that in all . . . character may be formed,’” 35–36.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, Regis J, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short, eds. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. Ι, The Saint. Translated and edited by Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short. New York, NY: New City Press, 1999. ———. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. ΙI, The Founder. Translated and edited by Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short. New York, NY: New City Press, 2001.

124

Dawn M. Nothwehr

———. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. ΙII, The Founder. Translated and edited by Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short. New York, NY: New City Press, 2001. Bodo, Murray. Francis: The Journey and the Dream. 40th anniversary ed. Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Press, 2011. Boff, Leonardo. Ecologia: Grito da Terra, Grito dos Pobres. São Paulo, BR: Editora Attica, S.A., 1995. Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Translated by Phillip Berryman. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997. ———. St. Francis: A Model for Human Liberation. Translated by John W. Diercksmeier. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006. ———. Trinity and Society. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988. Clairmont, David A. “Bonaventure on Moral Motivation: Trajectories of Exemplification in His Treatment of Voluntary Poverty.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 25, no. 2 (2005): 109–136. Coughlin, Edward F. “‘that in all . . . character may be formed’: Exploring a Vision of Formative-education in the Spirit of St. Bonaventure.” The Franciscan Colleges and Universities Journal 12, no. 1 (March 2015): 25–41. Cousins, Ewert H. “Francis of Assisi and Bonaventure: Mysticism and Theological Interpretation.” In The Other Side of God: A Polarity in World Religion, edited by Peter Berger, 74–103. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1981. Daniel, E. Randolph. The Franciscan Concept of Mission in the High Middle Ages. St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 1992. Delio, Ilia. ———. Crucified Love: Bonaventure’s Mysticism of the Crucified Christ. Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1998. ———. Simply Bonaventure: An Introduction to His Life, Thought and Writings. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2001. ———. “The Franciscan Intellectual Tradition: Contemporary Concerns.” In The Franciscan Intellectual Tradition, edited by Elise Saggau, CFIT/ESC-OFM Series No. 1, Washington Theological Union Symposium Papers, 2001, 1–19. St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 2002. Doyle, Eric. St. Francis and the Song of Brotherhood and Sisterhood. St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 1997. Earth Charter Initiative. Earth Charter. Earth Charter Associates, Ltd. 29 June 2000. http://earthcharter.org/discover/. Guardini, Romano. The End of the Modern World. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies, 1998. Guinan, Michael D. The Franciscan Vision and the Gospel of John: The San Damiano Crucifix, Francis and John, Creation and John, Heritage Series, Volume 4. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2006. Hayes, Zachary. “Bonaventure: Mystery of the Triune God.” In The History of Franciscan Theology, edited by Kenan B. Osborne, OFM, 53–60. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 1994. ———. “Franciscan Tradition as a Wisdom Tradition.” Spirit and Life 7 (1997): 27–40.

The “Brown Thread” in Laudato Si’

125

———. “The Cosmos, a Symbol of the Divine.” In Franciscan Theology of the Environment, edited by Dawn M. Nothwehr, 249–267. Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2003. ———. The Hidden Center: Spirituality and Speculative Christology in St. Bonaventure. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1992. Hunt, Anne. Trinity: Nexus of the Mysteries of Christian Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005. Johnson, Timothy. “Lost in Sacred Space: Textual Hermeneutics, Liturgical Worship, and Celano’s Legenda ad usum Chori.” Franciscan Studies 59 (2001):109–131. Krieg, Robert A. Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc., 2004. Matura, Thadee OFM, Francis of Assisi: The Message in His Writings (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Press, 1997). ———. “General Introduction.” In Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. Ι, The Saint. Translated and edited by Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short, 11–30. New York, NY: New City Press, 1999. Nairn, Thomas A. “St. Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Creatures as an Exercise of the Moral Imagination.” In Franciscan Theology of the Environment, edited by Dawn M. Nothwehr 175–187. Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2003. Nothwehr, Dawn M. “Bonaventure of Bagnoregio’s imitatio Christi as an Agapistic Virtue Ethics.” In On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Cultivating a Contemporary Theology of Creation, edited by David Vincent Meconi, 123–145. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2016. ———. “Leonardo Boff’s Franciscan Liberation Ecological Theology and ‘Integral Ecology’ in Laudato Si’.” In All Creation is Connected: Voices in Response to Pope Francis’s Encyclical on Ecology, edited by Daniel R. DiLeo, 94–112. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2018. Osborne, Kenan B. OFM, ed. The History of Franciscan Theology. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 1994. Pope John Paul II. Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sanctos, Franciscus Assisiensis Caelestis Patronus Oecologiae Cultorum Eligitur. Vatican, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 29 December 1979. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/la/​apost​ _lett​ers/1​979/d​ocume​nts/h​f_jp-​ii_ap​l_197​91129​_inte​r-san​ctos.​html.​ Short, William J. OFM. ———. “Hagiographic Method in Reading Franciscan Sources: Stories of Francis and Creatures in Thomas of Celano’’s First Life (58– 61).” Greyfriars Review 4, no. 3 (1990): 33–50. ———. “Recovering Lost Traditions in Spirituality: Franciscans, Camaldolese and the Hermitage.” Spiritus 3 (2003): 209–218. Sorrell, Roger D. St. Francis of Assisi and Nature: Tradition and Innovation in Western Christian Attitudes toward the Environment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988. St. Bonaventure. Collations on the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Edited by Zachary Hayes and Robert J. Karris, vol. 14, in Works of St. Bonaventure, edited by F. Edward Coughlin. St. Bonaventure, NY: St. Bonaventure University, 2008.

126

Dawn M. Nothwehr

———. Collations on the Six Days. Edited José De Vinck, vol. 5 in Works of St. Bonaventure, edited by F. Edward Coughlin. Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1970.Brunette, Pierre, OFM. Francis of Assisi and His Conversions. Translated by Paul La Chance OFM and Kathryn Krug. Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1997. ———. Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection. Edited by Robert J. Karris, vol. 13 in Works of St. Bonaventure, edited by F. Edward Coughlin. St. Bonaventure, NY: Saint Bonaventure University, 2008. ———. St. Bonaventure’s On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology. Edited by Zachary Hayes, vol. 1, in Works of St. Bonaventure, edited by F. Edward Coughlin. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1996. ———. Writings on the Spiritual Life. Translated by Olav Bychekov, edited by F. Edward Coughlin. St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 2006. St. Francis. “Admonition I.” In Francis and Clare, edited by Regis Armstrong and Ignatius Brady, 25–26. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1982. Thomas of Celano. “The Life of Saint Francis by Thomas of Celano.” In Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. Ι, The Saint, translated and edited by Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short, 171–310. New York, NY: New City Press, 1999. Vallely, Paul. “Pope Francis: Has His Revolution Even Started?” The Guardian, 11 March 2014. http:​//www​.theg​uardi​an.co​m/wor​ld/20​14/ma​r/11/​pope-​franc​isre​volut​ion-e​ven-s​tarte​d-cat​holic​-chur​ch-va​tican​.

Chapter 8

Ecological Conversion in the Light of Ecofeminist Concerns A Post-Lonergan Dialogue Susan Rakoczy

Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ which he addressed to “every person living on this planet” (LS 3)1 has met a generally positive response. Laudato Si’ ’s ecological theology and spirituality include the term “ecological conversion.” This chapter focuses on the question: How can the understanding of “ecological conversion” in Laudato Si’ be expanded through an ecofeminist understanding of the levels of conversion as articulated by Bernard Lonergan and Robert M. Doran? This reflection will engage with this question by outlining Laudato Si’ ’s understanding of “ecological conversion” and interpreting conversion through Lonergan’s and Doran’s fourfold typology. Since ecofeminism is a dimension of feminist theologies, the contributions of two feminist Lonergan scholars demonstrate the usefulness and limits of Lonergan’s thought. After laying this foundation, Neil Ormerod’s and Cristina Vanin’s work on Laudato Si’ and Lonergan is presented and then ecofeminist concerns are brought into the conversation in order to argue that Laudato Si’ is incomplete without an ecofeminist understanding of ecological conversion. LAUDATO SI’ ’S CALL TO ECOLOGICAL CONVERSION “Ecological conversion” is not a concept original to Pope Francis. Early in Laudato Si’ (LS 5) he calls attention to Pope John Paul II’s use of the term in 2001: “. . . encourage and support the ‘ecological conversion’ which in recent decades has made humanity more sensitive to the catastrophe to which it has been heading.”2 In chapter six of Laudato Si’ Pope Francis outlines its meaning and implications. 127

128

Susan Rakoczy

His call is for an ecological spirituality that “can motivate us to a more passionate concern for the protection of our world,” a spirituality that inspires and moves to action (LS 216). Noting that some Christians ridicule concern for the natural world and remain passive even as the ecological crisis intensifies, he uses the term “ecological conversion” to describe the “profound interior conversion,” which “is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience” (LS 217). This is a Christological conversion whereby “the effects of their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them” (LS 217). All conversions involve a recognition of how the past is no longer adequate for personal or communal identity. So too with ecological conversion: “A healthy relationship with creation is one dimension of overall personal conversion, which entails the recognition of our errors, sins, faults and failures, and leads to heartfelt repentance and desire to change” (LS 218). Pope Francis enumerates several dimensions of ecological conversion. These are first gratitude and graciousness since “the world is God’s loving gift,” and we are called to imitate this overwhelming generosity (LS 220). This conversion is a waking up to the reality that “we are not disconnected from the rest of creatures, but joined in a splendid universal communion” (LS 220). It is a new seeing as we experience looking at the world “from within” (LS 220). Its effects generate action since “an ecological conversion can inspire us to greater creativity and enthusiasm in resolving the world’s problems and in offering ourselves to God” (#220). Additionally, ecological conversion fosters “an attitude of heart” which can be linked with Franciscan spirituality’s term affectus (LS 226).3 LONERGAN ON CONVERSION Bernard Lonergan asserts that “fundamental to religious living is conversion”4 and one of his most important contributions has been his analysis of the multiple dimensions of conversion. For Lonergan, conversion is ontic— factual, real—since the person “apprehends differently, values differently, relates differently because he has become different.”5 While conversion is deeply personal, it is also communal and historical. Conversion exists as a “dynamic transformative pattern”6 as a new self “attempts to emerge from a present self.”7 In religious conversion this is the struggle between “the self as transcending and the self as transcended.”8 This is clearly true of “ecological conversion.” The converted self is within history and thus ecological conversion has communal, social, and cultural dimensions. It is a gradual process which “continues its work indefinitely.”9 Conversion is judged by its fruits, using discernment to “distinguish between

Ecological Conversion in the Light of Ecofeminist Concerns

129

authentic and unauthentic conversion with regard to both the process and results of conversion.”10 Lonergan and Doran: Dimensions of Conversion In Method in Theology, Lonergan presents three dimensions of conversion— namely, intellectual, moral, and religious conversion. Robert Doran adds a fourth: psychic conversion. Intellectual conversion is “a radical clarification and, consequently, the elimination of an exceedingly stubborn and misleading myth concerning reality, objectivity, and human knowing.”11 The “myth” is that knowing is like looking—what is “out there” is what is real; it is the immediacy of the senses. But this experience has not yet moved beyond the visual experience “to understanding, judging and believing.”12 I see the tree, but I also recognize that it is a living entity which participates in the life of the planet. Intellectual conversion is impeded by bias “which is a block or distortion of intellectual development.”13 Lonergan distinguishes between several types of bias: “the individual bias of egoism, the group bias with its class conflicts and a general bias which tends to set common sense against science and philosophy.”14 Individual bias is “an incomplete development of intelligence” in which the world is organized around “my” ideas, needs, and actions.15 Group bias “operates in the very genesis of common-sense views.”16 The well-being of the group is undergirded by the scotosis of isms, for example, racism, sexism, nationalism, and so forth. General bias “involves violations of the deepest orientation of our consciousness to be attentive, intelligent, reasonable, and responsible.”17 General bias combines with group bias “to account for certain features of the distorted dialectic of community.”18 The human community ignores or dismisses ideas that challenge accepted thinking and call for change. This is evident today when some disdain climate change as the ideology of eco-fascists. Moral conversion is a profound shift which “changes the criterion of one’s decisions and choices from satisfaction to values.”19 It is opting for the truly good. But bias—individual, group, and general—prevents the person from consistently deciding on the basis of what is “good” for me, my group, the world as I understand it, on the basis of what enables human growth and flourishing. Walter E. Conn notes that in this conversion “one discovers one’s conscience and begins to take it seriously.”20 He also emphasizes that “while moral conversion is a matter of discovery and decision . . . it is also a matter of desire.”21 Lonergan describes religious conversion as “being grasped by ultimate concern . . . total and permanent self-surrender without conditions, qualifications, reservations.”22 Within a Christian perspective, “it is God’s love flooding our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us.”23

130

Susan Rakoczy

Robert Doran added to Lonergan’s triad the category of “psychic conversion.” This conversion, establishes or re-establishes a link that should never have been broken, the link between the intentional operations of understanding, judgment, and decision, and the tidal movement that begins before consciousness, emerges into consciousness in the form of dream images and affects, continues to permeate intentional operations in the form of feelings, and reaches beyond these operations and states in the interpersonal relations and commitments that constitute families, communities, and religions.24

The richness of our conscious life includes conscious and unconscious resistance to the fourfold dynamic of experiencing, understanding, judging, and deciding. We experience “a psychic resistance to raising relevant questions: from our sensations, images, emotions, desires, fears, joys, sadness, as well as from the individual, group, and general biases that are addressed by moral and intellectual conversion.”25 The operations of the levels of consciousness described in the three conversions must be integrated with our experience of feelings, dreams, and symbols. Doran’s later work on psychic conversion involved Rene Girard’s mimetic theory and Jung’s concept/process of individuation.26 Feminist Analysis of Lonergan Lonergan scholars are predominantly male; however, there are a few women such as Paulette Kidder and Cynthia Crysdale who engage with Lonergan’s thought. Kidder is aware that to bring feminist thought, which is very critical of objectivist epistemologies, into dialogue with Lonergan’s epistemology “seems widely improbable” since his thought is “deeply rooted in in Platonic, Aristotelian, Thomist and modern scientific thinking.”27 Theses objectivist epistemologies have been and continue to be oppressive to women, especially since these philosophers “have explicitly denied that women possess the same rational capacities as men.28” The objectivist position imagines a “knower” without history, context, beliefs, and feelings. Of course, no such human person exists. Knowing is not an isolated experience, but one in “an environment in which knowers depend on one another for their information and beliefs.”29 It is a collective experience since from infancy, we learn from others even as we develop the ability to discover the new ourselves. Feminist standpoint theory, which developed out of Marxism, takes seriously women’s situated experience of knowing. It joins gender, race, class, and sexual orientation in order to assert that what and how we know is shaped by who we are. Kidder describes this dynamic:

Ecological Conversion in the Light of Ecofeminist Concerns

131

Women bring a valuable “outsider’s” or “stranger’s” perspective to the understanding of societies ruled by men; women have less interest in maintaining the status quo than men do and so are more free to question it; women see the oppressive effects of sexist social practices more easily than men do because they experience these effects personally.30

A feminist epistemology takes experience seriously; indeed, it is the starting point of ongoing thought and reflection.31 Lonergan’s concept of bias is also useful in feminist thought. The various forms of bias block the person’s ability to be attentive, intelligent, reasonable, and responsible since bias “substitutes blindness, dullness, rationalization, and inaction.”32 Androcentrism is a particularly virulent form of general bias. Kidder asserts that when androcentrism is analyzed “one would expect to find inattention to women’s experience, devaluation of images associated with the feminine, and suppression of questions raised by women.”33 All of these are apparent in social and religious structures. Crysdale’s Critique of Lonergan Cynthia Crysdale critiques Lonergan’s thought as problematic for feminist thinkers in a number of areas. The first is that he asserts that “the structure of operations to which he is alluding is invariant (as written).”34 Even as a woman analyses his thought, she is using the very operations which he describes. “This self-affirmation of the knower” which is the title of chapter 11 in Insight can raise problems for feminist thinkers. The first is the universalism of his thought. He posits that all human knowing follows the same pattern and thus is cross-culturally normative for all of humanity. Crysdale refers to the body of feminist literature which looks with suspicion to claims of the “essence” of humanity because “what it means to be human has been defined throughout history as synonymous with what it means to be male . . . while ‘female’ has been considered deviant or, at best, derivative.”35 Lonergan’s claims about the universalism of the structure of human consciousness “evoke immediate suspicion from feminists who might otherwise be inclined to pursue his method.”36 A second area of critique is the individualism embedded in his thought. It is possible to read Lonergan and understand that “persons are assumed to be the prime unit of society, isolated monads who then choose to enter into social contracts of one sort or another.”37 This ignores the social construction of all knowledge which is situated knowledge. Crysdale asserts that “Lonergan’s invitation to self-appropriation is not necessarily (as written) a rejection of the social construction of reality and one’s knowledge of it.”38 Lonergan’s analysis of bias does add a social dimension to his cognitional theory.

132

Susan Rakoczy

Another problematic aspect of his thought is its intellectualism. Lonergan invites the readers to reflect on their lived experience in order to observe its recurrent pattern. This is an exercise which can be perceived as heavily weighted on reason. Thus “appeals to rationality are often met with suspicion by feminists” who affirm the goodness of the whole person.39 Lastly, feminist thinkers critique Lonergan’s lack of attention to pluralism which is a very significant value in feminist thought. Even as he asserts that the structure of human knowing is the same for everyone, everywhere, Crysdale wonders “whether Lonergan recognizes the contribution of his own ‘social location’ to his work.”40 He was male, white, North American, Catholic, and a Jesuit priest of the twentieth century. Crysdale concludes her critique of Lonergan’s work with an invitation to a “hermeneutic of suspicion”41 and to take into account the “warning flags” of universalism, individualism, intellectualism, and lack of pluralism. Strengths of Lonergan With this critical background, Crysdale invites feminist scholars to consider several aspects of his thought that are congenial to feminist reflection. One is bias. Patriarchy, kyriarchy, sexism, and androcentrism are all dimensions of general bias, “a refusal to ask the relevant questions when one suspects that the answers to these questions might challenge one’s own interests.”42 A second positive aspect of Lonergan’s thought for feminist thinkers is his concept of “foundations.” He insists “that the foundations of theology lie in the theologian herself, in her religious experience or, more exactly, in her experience of intellectual, moral and religious conversion.”43 We can also include psychic conversion. Assessment While taking into account the warning signs for feminist scholars that are embedded in his cognitional theory, I argue that his typology of conversion in its fourfold dimensions provides a useful way to understand “ecological conversion” and expand it through ecofeminist lenses. In addition, his understandings of self-appropriation and the dimensions of bias are also helpful. ORMEROD AND VANIN: ECOLOGICAL CONVERSION The use of Lonergan’s understanding of the multiple dimensions of conversion has direct implications for how “ecological conversion” can be understood. Neil Ormerod and Cristina Vanin have provided a helpful analysis of ecological conversion using Lonergan’s work. They begin with “religious

Ecological Conversion in the Light of Ecofeminist Concerns

133

conversion” and delineate a number of ways in which this conversion strengthens the meaning of “ecological conversion.” First, “as religious, then, ecological conversion is the recognition of the sacredness of creation.”44 A secular, commonsense interpretation of the world is transformed into a recognition of the holy within it. Second, “ecological conversion as religious also invites us to greater intimacy with the natural world.”45 Third, religious ecological conversion challenges the person and community to make commitments and lifestyle choices for the sake of creation which is God’s good gift to humanity. The faith and hope of this conversion are the dynamic of the strength to move beyond an instrumental view of creation. Many aspects of Laudato Si’ are explicitly religious, especially its Christology, that states “the effects of [people’s] encounters with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them” (LS 217). Lonergan’s concept of “moral conversion” as the choice of values rather than satisfaction is especially relevant to “ecological conversion” since “the present environmental destruction is the end product of generations of decisions based on a failure to attend to the ecological impact of those decisions.”46 There is a great deal of worldwide “climate change denial” together with a lack of willingness to make hard decisions for the future of humanity. Living for the now blinds us to the alarming results of the lack of moral conversion. Laudato Si’ calls humanity’s attention to the effects of the degradation of the earth on the poor emphasizing the effects of toxicity on the food chain (LS 21) and on fresh water for drinking (LS 27–31). Moral conversion—personal, communal, social—calls humanity to consider “the environmental impacts of our technologies, our economic processes, and our political policies, inasmuch as these affect our global ecology both positively and negatively.”47 Laudato Si’ ’s strongest criticism is directed at political bodies whose failure to act and failure to implement decisions to literally save the earth and all who share it are placing our only home in true mortal danger. Speaking of climate change, the pope notes that international agreements have been “poorly implemented” (LS 167) and positive advances have been “regrettably few” (LS 169). Moral ecological conversion is weak since many national and international values are focused on the satisfaction of personal and national needs, not the good of all of creation. Ormerod’s and Vanin’s analysis of intellectual ecological conversion is especially significant in two areas. One is the nature and role of science which needs to move beyond analyzing data and relying on individual insights to “the communal self-correcting process of learning with its mix of immanently generated knowledge and reasonable belief in the results of others.”48 A second key contribution is the healing of humanity’s disproportionate reliance on reason to think through and respond to the earth’s ecological crisis that has so alienated us from the natural world “that we are not even aware that

134

Susan Rakoczy

we are alienated.”49 A major sign of this alienation is the view that nature is a “machine” that if we work hard enough we can “fix.” The weak experience of ecological intellectual conversion is linked to ecological psychic conversion. Psychic conversion engages with “the pulsing flow of life” which includes feelings, sensations, images, and dreams.50 One sign of the lack of psychic conversion is “internal resistance to even asking relevant questions.”51 The truly apocalyptic forecasts such as the oceans drowning cities on coast lines, temperatures on earth rising, at least in some places, to levels which the human body cannot withstand, can lead to such fear that humanity is unable to act responsibly for the good of all creation. AN ECOFEMINIST INTERPRETATION OF ECOLOGICAL CONVERSION Ecofeminism is one dimension of the many ways in which women do theology: African women’s theology, Western feminist theology, womanist theology, mujerista theology, Asian women’s theology, and more. The word was coined by Francoise d’Eaubonne in 1974. Linking analyses of class, race, and culture together with critiques of patriarchy and sexism, it “brings together feminism and ecology into a matrix which exposes the domination of women by men and the domination of the natural world by human beings.”52 The goal of ecofeminism is “a radical transformation of how we as human beings view ourselves, our relationships with other people and the earth itself.”53 It is lamentable that Laudato Si’ has not a single reference to how climate change and ecological degradation impact women, especially poor women. The signs of climate change such as “the collapse of eco-systems, the spread of polluted water sources, and the lack of sustainable means of cooking (that) force women and girl children in Africa, Asia and Latin America to walk increasing distances to find water and firewood for their families” are ignored.54 Laudato Si’ pays no attention to the gendered dimensions of the ecological crisis. Brazilian theologian Ivone Gebara situates ecofeminism in reference to epistemology. She asserts: “Philosophical theories of knowing created within the western tradition have always had an anthropocentric, or human-centered, and androcentric, or male-centered, bias . . . . They refer to the experience of one part of humanity as though it were the experience of all.”55 Hierarchical Dualism A binary interpretation of the relationships between men and women, humanity and the earth, has been a virus infecting humanity, including Christian

Ecological Conversion in the Light of Ecofeminist Concerns

135

theology. This is a heritage of the Greek philosophical tradition. Males have dominated and subjugated women and the earth for their own use and have often done so in the name of God. Elizabeth Johnson describes how this “virus” has wreaked havoc for humanity and the earth: “Our eyes have been blinded to the sacredness of the earth, which is linked to the exclusion of women from the sphere of the sacred, which is tied to a focus on a monarchical, patriarchal idea of God and a consequent forgetting of the Creator Spirit, the Lifegiver who is intimately related to the earth.”56 Translations of Genesis 1.28 describe the understanding of human power that is male power in relation to creation: “dominion” (Revised Standard Version); “masters” (New Jerusalem Bible); “power” (Good News Version). These words describe different dimensions of this over and against relationship with God’s creation. South Africans Denise Ackermann and Tahira Joyner enumerate the many dimensions of this ideology: “This chain of command from God to man, from animals to inanimate objects is replicated in human relations, men over women, rich over poor, white over black, ablebodied over disabled, heterosexual over homosexual, and so on” (Ackermann and Joyner 1996, 124).57 The cumulative effect is that nature becomes an “instrumentalist” other, to be dominated and exploited. Ecofeminist intellectual ecological conversion principally engages with the notion of “bias” in its various dimensions. The ideology of using both women and nature as instruments for male domination permeates human cultures in every part of the world. Bias informed Laudato Si’ with its lack of attention to ecofeminism and the effects of ecological degradation on women, especially poor women. It is true that LS is addressed to “every person living on this planet” (LS 3) and that the gender inclusive language such as “men and women” is used throughout the document; however, even in the discussion on the impact of climate change on the poor, including migrants, women are not mentioned specifically. None of the sources used in Laudato Si’ include women theologians and ecologists. This is true of all papal documents. Women read the theological writings of both women and men, but few male theologians (and papal advisors) read women’s theological writings. Ecofeminist ecological moral conversion moves beyond the instrumentalization of women and nature to affirm their positive worth and value. An evocative symbol in ecofeminist thought is “Mother Earth.” Ecological degradation violates Mother Earth and puts our shared future in peril. Too often the experience is marked by violence—the rape of nature and the rape of women. Vandana Shiva, an Indian feminist, affirms “mother earth” imagery as positive: “The symbolism of Terra Mater, the earth in the form of the great Mother, creative and protective, has been a shared but diverse symbol across space and time, and ecology movements today in the West today are inspired

136

Susan Rakoczy

in large part by the recovery of the concept of Gaia, the earth goddess.”58 This ecofeminist dimension of ecological conversion calls humanity to move from the understanding of the natural world as “mine” to use as I/we choose to the profound recognition of the worth of all that exists. African Perspectives African perspectives on the relation of humanity and nature are not dualistic but reflect harmony. There is an ontological connection between them. “Since all beings are ultimately related to a common creator and to a central sources of force and being, all entities are related to each other and are ontologically connected with each other not only at the superficial and accidental level of physical being and material interaction, but at the much deeper level of their being.”59 Sophia Chirongoma of Zimbabwe has been formed as an ecofeminist by both her mother’s experience of gardening and agriculture and the Shona principle of Mutopo which has three fundamental dimensions. The first is the unity of all nature; the second is “a cosmological principle in which everything that exists is free and has some rights-to-be.”60 The third relates to Mwari, the author of creation who continues to create. She focuses on the Shona understanding of ukama (interconnectedness/inter-relatedness) between humanity and other forms of life. Ecofeminist ecological religious conversion is a new way of loving nature, and thus loving humanity, women and men, in all their light and shadow. Lonergan asserts that “Being in love with God, as experienced, is being in love in an unrestricted fashion.”61 This experience “dismantles and abolishes the horizon in which our knowing and choosing went on and sets up a new horizon in which the love of God will transvalue our values and the eyes of that love will transform our knowing.”62 Ecofeminist ecological religious conversion can be understood as falling in love with the natural world, an experience of panentheism, of experiencing the presence of God in all that exists. Everything reflects the divine presence in multiple ways. Ecofeminist ecological psychic conversion pays attention to one’s inner psychic life and especially influences discernment processes. The Ignatian tradition of discernment describes both consolation and desolation in strong affective language. Consolation occurs with “every increase of faith, hope and love, and all interior joy which calls and attracts the soul to that which is of God and to salvation by filling it with tranquility and peace in its Creator and Lord.63 Desolation is strikingly different and is marked by “darkness of soul, confusion of spirit, attraction to what is base and worldly, restlessness caused by many disturbances and temptations which lead to lack of faith, hope or love.”64

Ecological Conversion in the Light of Ecofeminist Concerns

137

Although Laudato Si’ only uses the words “discern” and “discernment” in section 185 in reference to integral development, underlying the encyclical’s analysis is the call to choose life for all who share our common home. In his exhortation on holiness in today’s world, Gaudete et Exsultate, Pope Francis devotes chapter five of that document to discernment. Listening is essential in discernment: “Only if we are prepared to listen, do we have the freedom to set aside our own partial or insufficient ideas, our usual habits and ways of seeing things.”65 The call is to listen to the cries of the earth and of the poor (LS 49). The dynamic of ecofeminist ecological psychic conversion is the call to pay attention to feelings, movements, resistance, confusion, and the deepening of faith, hope, and love that lead to action. Ecofeminist discernment praxis is both personal and communal. Persons are called to discern their lifestyle choices, daily activities, patterns of consumption in light of how they impact our home, the earth. Communities large and small, nations and international bodies such as the UN also have the responsibility to choose life for the earth, not only for their own people. The engagement of ecofeminist theology with ecological conversion thus opens up new dimensions of Lonergan’s and Doran’s typology of conversion. To exclude women’s voices and insights from this theological conversation, whether by design or unconsciously, impoverishes theological reflection on the future of the earth, our common home. CONCLUSION Bernard Lonergan’s theology has had a profound impact on philosophy and theology. While it is limited by the general bias of patriarchy and androcentrism, feminist scholars have found certain aspects of his thought helpful. This is especially true of his analysis of conversion and its intellectual, moral, and religious dimensions, with the addition of Robert Doran’s concept of psychic conversion. “Ecological conversion” is a significant theme in Laudato Si’. But because Laudato Si’ lamentably omits any reference to the impact of ecological degradation on women, especially poor women, and references no writings by women, ecofeminist thought is necessary to expand the meaning of this concept. The ecofeminist analysis provided in this chapter reveals other dimensions of this concept. Since the earth and all who share it are confronting an extraordinary crisis, psychic conversion may be the most important dimension of conversion. The human community is called to join its understanding of the crisis, recognize what is at stake, and be drawn to love creation through the experience of psychic conversion which will lead to awareness of one’s

138

Susan Rakoczy

inner experience in its complexity in order to act responsibly for the future of all who share our common home. NOTES 1. All quotations from Laudato Si’ are from the Vatican text: http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​ /cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/enc​yclic​als/ /papa​-fran​cesco​_2015​0524_​encic​lica-​lauda​to-si​ .html​. 2. John Paul II, Catechesis (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 17 January 2001), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​audie​nces/​2001/​docum​ ents/​hf_jp​-ii_a​ud_20​01011​7.htm​l. 3. See Dawn Nothwehr, “The ‘Brown Thread’ in Laudato Si’; Grounding Ecological Conversion and Theological Ethics Praxis” in this volume. 4. Bernard J. F. Lonergan, “Theology in Its New Context,” in Conversion Perspectives on Personal and Transformation, ed. Walter E. Conn (New York, NY: Alba House, 1978), 12. 5. Lonergan, “Theology,” 13. 6. Chae Young Kim, “William James and Bernard Lonergan on Religious Conversion,” Heythrop Journal of Theology 51, no. 6 (2010): 986. 7. Kim, “William James,” 987. 8. Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Method in Theology (New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1972), 111. 9. Kim, “William James,” 993. 10. Ibid., 995. 11. Lonergan, Method, 238. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., 231. 14. Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (New York, NY: Philosophical Library and London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1958), 218. 15. Lonergan, Insight, 220. 16. Ibid., 222. 17. Vernon Gregson, “The Desire to Know: Intellectual Conversion,” in The Desires of the Human Heart, ed. Vernon Gregson (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1988), 33. 18. Lonergan. Insight, 226. 19. Lonergan, Method, 240. 20. Walter E. Conn, “The Desire for Authenticity: Conscience and Moral Conversion,” in The Desires of the Human Heart, ed. Vernon Gregson (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1988), 45. 21. Conn, “The Desire for Authenticity,” 52. 22. Lonergan, Method, 240. 23. Ibid., 241. 24. Robert Doran, “Two Ways of Beings Conscious: The Nature of Psychic Conversion,” accessed 30 May 2018, https​://lo​nerga​nreso​urce.​com/p​df/le​cture​s/201​1-12-​ 10_Do​ran_-​Two_W​ays_o​f_Bei​ng_Co​nscio​us.pd​f.

Ecological Conversion in the Light of Ecofeminist Concerns

139

25. Robert Doran, “What Does Lonergan Mean by Conversion?” accessed 30 May 2018, https​://ww​w.lon​ergan​resou​rce.c​om/pd​f/lec​tures​/What​%20Do​es%20​ Berna​rd%20​Loner​gan%2​0Mean​%20by​%20Co​nvers​ion.p​df. 26. Robert Doran, “Two Ways of Being Conscious.” 27. Paulette Kidder, “Woman of Reason: Lonergan and Feminist Epistemology,” in Lonergan and Feminism, ed. Cynthia S. W. Crysdale (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1994), 34. 28. Kidder, “Woman of Reason,” 35. 29. Ibid., 39. 30. Ibid., 40. 31. See Susan Rakoczy, “Trusting Experience: The Foundation of Feminist Spirituality,” Religion and Theology 18 (2011): 32–55. 32. Kidder, “Woman of Reason,” 43. 33. Ibid. 34. Cynthia S. W. Crysdale, “Lonergan and Feminism,” Theological Studies 53, no. 2 (1992): 241. 35. Crysdale, “Lonergan and Feminism,” 241, 242. 36. Ibid., 242–243. 37. Ibid., 243. 38. Ibid., 244. 39. Ibid., 245. 40. Ibid., 247. 41. Ibid. 42. Ibid., 251. 43. Ibid., 250. 44. Neil Ormerod and Cristina Vanin, “Ecological Conversion: What Can It Mean?,” Theological Studies 77, no.2 (2016): 334. 45. Ormerod and Vanin, “Ecological Conversion.” 46. Ibid., 336. 47. Ibid., 338. 48. Ibid., 345. 49. Ibid., 347. 50. Robert Doran, “Two Ways of Beings Conscious.” 51. Ormerod and Vanin, “Ecological Conversion,” 347. 52. Susan Rakoczy, In Her Name: Women Doing Theology (Pietermaritzburg, ZA: Cluster Publications, 2004), 300. 53. Rakoczy, In Her Name, 302. 54. Susan Rakoczy, “Is Pope Francis an Ecofeminist?”, accessed 30 May 2018, https​ ://op​endem​ocrac​y.net​/tran​sform​ation​/susa​n-rak​oczy/​is-po​pe-fr​ancis​-ecof​emini​st. 55. Ivone Gebara, Longing for Running Water: Ecofeminism and Liberation (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 25. 56. Elizabeth Johnson, Women, Earth and Creator Spirit (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1993), 21. 57. Denise Ackermann and Tahira Joyner, “Earth-Healing in South Africa,” in Women Healing Earth: Third World Women on Ecology, Feminism, and Religion, ed. Rosemary Radford Ruether (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996), 124.

140

Susan Rakoczy

58. Vandana Shiva, “Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Survival in India,” accessed 26 November 2018, https​://ar​chive​.org/​strea​m/Sta​yingA​live-​Engli​sh-Va​ ndana​Shiva​/Vand​ana-s​hiva-​stayi​ngAli​ve_dj​vu.tx​t. 59. E. A. Ruch and K. C.Anyanwu, African Philosophy (Rome, IT: Catholic Book Agency, 1981), 151. Italics are given in the text. 60. Rakoczy, In Her Name, 312. 61. Lonergan, Method in Theology, 105. 62. Ibid., 106. 63. Ignatius of Loyola, The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, trans. Elisabeth Meier Tetlow (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987), 316. 64. Ignatius of Loyola, The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, 317. 65. Pope Francis, Gaudete et Exsultate (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 19 March 2018), #172, https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​franc​esco/​en/ap​ost_e​xhort​ ation​s/doc​ument​s/pap​a-fra​ncesc​o_eso​rtazi​one-a​p_201​80319​_gaud​ete-e​t-exs​ultat​ e.htm​l.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Chirongoma, Sophie. “Karanga-Shona Rural Women’s Agency in Dressing Mother Earth: A Contribution to an Indigenous Eco-feminist Theology.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 142 (2012): 120–144. Conn, Walter E. “The Desire for Authenticity: Conscience and Moral Conversion.” In The Desires of the Human Heart, edited by Vernon Gregson, 36–56. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1988. Crysdale, Cynthia S.W. “Lonergan and Feminism.” Theological Studies 53, no. 2 (1992): 234–256. Doran, Robert. “Two Ways of Beings Conscious: The Nature of Psychic Conversion.” Accessed 30 May 2018. https​://lo​nerga​nreso​urce.​com/p​df/le​cture​s/201​1-12-​10_Do​ ran_-​Two_W​ays_o​f_Bei​ng_Co​nscio​us.pd​f. ———. “What Does Lonergan Mean by Conversion?” Accessed 30 May 2018. https​ ://ww​w.lon​ergan​resou​rce.c​om/pd​f/lec​tures​/What​%20Do​es%20​Berna​rd%20​Loner​ gan%2​0Mean​%20by​%20Co​nvers​ion.p​df. Gebara, Ivone. Longing for Running Water: Ecofeminism and Liberation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999. Gregson, Vernon. “The Desire to Know: Intellectual Conversion.” In The Desires of the Human Heart, edited by Vernon Gregson, 16–35. New York, NY: Paulist Press. 1988. Ignatius of Loyola. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Translated by Elisabeth Meier Tetlow. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987. Johnson, Elizabeth A. Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1993. Kidder, Paulette. “Woman of Reason: Lonergan and Feminist Epistemology.” In Lonergan and Feminism, edited by Cynthia S. W. Crysdale, 33–48. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 1994.

Ecological Conversion in the Light of Ecofeminist Concerns

141

Kim, Chae Young. “William James and Bernard Lonergan on Religious Conversion.” Heythrop Journal of Theology 51, no. 6 (2010): 982–999. Lonergan, Bernard J. F. Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. New York, NY: Philosophical Library and London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1958. ———. Method in Theology. New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1972. ———. “Theology in Its New Context.” In Conversion: Perspectives on Personal and Social Transformation, edited by Walter E. Conn, 3–21. New York, NY: Alba House, 1978. Ormerod, Neil and Cristina Vanin. “Ecological Conversion: What Can It Mean?” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2016): 328–352. Pope Francis. “Gaudete et Exsultate.” Accessed 15 November 2018. http:​//w2.​vatic​ an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/apo​st_ex​horta​tions​/docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_esor​ tazio​ne-ap​_2018​0319_​gaude​te-et​-exsu​ltate​.html​. Rakoczy, Susan. In Her Name: Women Doing Theology. Pietermaritzburg, SA: Cluster Publications, 2004. ———. “Is Pope Francis an Ecofeminist?” Accessed 30 May 2018. https​://op​endem​ ocrac​y.net​/tran​sform​ation​/susa​n-rak​oczy/​is-po​pe-fr​ancis​-ecof​emini​st. Ruch, E. A. and K.C. Anyanwu. African Philosophy. Rome, IT: Catholic Book Agency, 1981. Shiva, Vandana. “Women, Ecology and Survival in India.” Accessed 26 November 2018. https​://ar​chive​.org/​strea​m/Sta​yingA​live-​Engli​sh-Va​ndana​Shiva​/Vand​ana-s​ hiva-​stayi​ngAli​ve_dj​vu.tx​t.

Chapter 9

Reframing Ecotheological Anthropology within a More Integral Ecology Dennis Patrick O’Hara

ROLE OF COSMOLOGY Cosmology matters. Every human culture constructs a cosmological vision to describe its understanding of the origins of the universe usually framed with the aid of a creation story. Such cosmologies generally explain the origin of life, the reason for strife in the world, the purpose of existence, and humanity’s role in it. Cosmologies help us to order our lives within the order of creation so that we prosper rather than perish because of ill-informed decisions that are contrary to that order.1 When new empirical data or a colonizing hegemony provides a revised creation story to a culture, or when an operative cosmology becomes so dysfunctional that humanity is no longer flourishing when following its direction, then a cosmological perspective can change.2 In Western cultures, we are currently transitioning from a dominant cosmology that favored the human at the center of creation (an anthropocentric pre-/postCopernican cosmology) to a cosmology of cosmogenesis, and we are experiencing the challenges that usually attend such change. Even when a culture adopts a new cosmology, the adoption is neither instant nor universal, nor are the deeply embedded values associated with the prior story readily or easily altered or abandoned for a new set of norms. The transition to a new cosmology often requires many generations for the new understanding to become fully the horizon of meaning that guides decision-making. Not surprisingly, then, although many of us would argue that we live in an evolutionary universe that emerged from “the Big Bang,” our culture and its economic, social, gender, legal, and political values and norms remain entrenched in an anthropocentric pre-Copernican cosmology, and we and Earth suffer accordingly. 143

144

Dennis Patrick O’Hara

Nevertheless, in Christian-influenced cultures, seven-day creation stories based on literal readings of the book of Genesis continue to be hesitantly updated by a 13.8-billion-year evolutionary story based on the empirical evidence of science.3 Concurrently, even when using conservative estimates, new empirical data argues that “we can confidently conclude that modern extinction rates are exceptionally high, that they are increasing, and that they suggest a mass extinction [is] under way—the sixth of its kind in Earth’s 4.5 billion years of history.”4 The cataclysmic reality that we are living in the midst of a mass extinction event that has been manufactured by humans and profoundly threatens our survival while simultaneously dooming countless other species unambiguously and emphatically judges that our operative cosmology has been woefully dysfunctional by both leading us into this crisis and being unable to respond effectively to it.5 Now, we must not only discern what this new cosmology of cosmogenesis can teach us about the proper place of humanity within creation, we must act quickly in accordance with these insights as we reinvent humanity at the species level so that we once again behave in ways that promote our flourishing and the flourishing of Earth rather than the demise of both.6 Unfortunately for us, we do not have the luxury of slowly transitioning into a new cosmology since, at a species level, we are in the midst of an anthropogenic mass extinction event. Indeed, millions of people are dying each year due to preventable environmental causes; for them, the time for change has already expired.7 For people of faith, this rearticulation of our anthropology to become more Earth-centered must include the development of a new ecotheological anthropology that is informed by both books of revelation—that is, scripture and creation.8 ACCEPTING AN EVOLUTIONARY COSMOLOGY With his encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII declared in 1950 that Roman Catholics were free to form their own opinions on the matter of evolution. While “the Teaching Authority of the Church [did] not forbid . . . research and discussions . . . with regard to the doctrine of evolution,” it advised that opinions “favourable and those unfavourable to evolution [must] be weighed and judged with necessary seriousness.”9 Gradually and cautiously, the Magisterium in succeeding years would develop its teachings on theological anthropology and creation informed by the expanding scientific understanding of cosmogenesis and evolution. Indeed, in 1988, Pope John Paul II sent a letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory, Fr. George Coyne, in which he speculated,

Reframing Ecotheological Anthropology within a More Integral Ecology

145

If the cosmologies of the ancient Near Eastern world could be purified and assimilated into the first chapters of Genesis, might not contemporary cosmology have something to offer to our reflections upon creation? Does an evolutionary perspective bring any light to bear upon theological anthropology . . . and even upon the development of doctrine itself?10

During succeeding decades, concern for the increasing destruction of the planet caused Magisterial reflections on theological anthropology to include the notions of human ecology and integral ecology. Introducing Human Ecology As Amos H. Hawley noted in 1938, “Emerging abruptly in the early 1920s, human ecology quickly became . . . ‘one of the most definite and influential schools in American sociology.’”11 Robert Ezra Park, in 1936, defined human ecology as “an attempt to investigate the processes by which the biotic balance and the social equilibrium (1) are maintained once they are achieved and (2) the processes by which, when the biotic balance and the social equilibrium are disturbed, the transition is made from one relatively stable order to another.”12 When Pope John Paul II wrote about human ecology, his rather anthropocentric understanding of the relationship between humans and the rest of creation judged the value of the latter to be determined by the former. Even though his concern for the ecological crisis would prompt him to call for an ecological conversion13 to address ecological sin,14 he would not concurrently call for theological conversion of a comparable nature, nor an updated theological anthropology.15 Humanity was still to use its intelligence and freedom to fashion a “fitting home” by “dominating the earth.”16 While humanity, he noted, should reject “the irrational destruction of the natural environment, we must also mention the more serious destruction of the human environment, something which is by no means receiving the attention it deserves. . . . [T] oo little effort is made to safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic ‘human ecology.’”17 A Deeper Appreciation for Human Ecology Like his recent predecessors, Pope Benedict XVI would note “that there was no opposition between faith’s understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences” on evolution.18 While he would admonish that “obedience to the voice of the earth is more important for our future happiness than the voices of the moment, the desires of the moment [since] . . . existence itself, our earth, speaks to us, and we have to learn to listen,”19 his

146

Dennis Patrick O’Hara

theologizing on questions of evolution and ecology tended to echo earlier teachings and did not seem to be significantly advanced by new scientific insights. Theologians’ discussions of the need for humanity to frame its derivative role in the universe story in a mutually enhancing context evoked magisterial concerns that humanity was being asked to assume a lesser role than “nature.” As Pope Benedict argued in Caritas in Veritate, “It is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more important than the human person. This position leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism.”20 For Pope Benedict, issues affecting the natural ecology could not be properly addressed until issues affecting the human ecology were first corrected. He argued that “when ‘human ecology’ is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits. . . . In order to protect nature, . . . the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society.”21 Introducing Integral Ecology Integral Ecology Integral ecology “attempts to develop effective solutions to environmental problems by identifying and coordinating interpretations of those problems, interpretations that are generated according to the best practices at work in the most inclusive set of perspectives.” These “interpretations” would include analyses not just from the natural sciences but also from the social sciences, the humanities, and the fine arts.22 Similar to Pope Francis’s call for “new dialogue . . . which includes everyone,”23 integral ecology “recognizes that the cultivation of mutual understanding between perspectives is an essential component in addressing our environmental problems.”24 Reductionistic diagnoses of the past that tended to oversimplify complex issues and isolate data into discrete silos cannot foster the multifaceted dialogues that are necessary in integral ecology approaches fostering sustainable flourishing for all.25 It is critical that we now develop an understanding of a viable human; an understanding that requires that we act in ways that are mutually enhancing for us and the rest of creation, that reverses the perception that we are separate from the rest of creation, especially a creation that lacks inherent integrity and value and its own numinous dimension and purpose. As Thomas Berry admonishes, we need “to reinvent the human at the species level, with critical reflection, within the community of life-systems, in a time-developmental context, by means of story and shared dream experience.”26 Anything less than a profound and sustained reinvention of societies at the species level will be an inadequate response to the magnitude of the challenges before us. As Pope Francis notes, “The problem is that we still lack the culture needed to confront this crisis. We lack leadership capable of striking out on new paths

Reframing Ecotheological Anthropology within a More Integral Ecology

147

and meeting the needs of the present with concern for all and without prejudice towards coming generations.”27 An adequate response will require a reinvention of our economic, political, social, and religious systems where a commitment to the well-being of Earth matches the commitment we have previously made to the prosperity of humanity. During the transition to a more ecocentric approach, the most vulnerable and marginalized humans and otherkind will require particular assistance and protection. The more developed countries that have benefited from economic systems that have most harmed Earth will be assigned a greater portion of this ecological debt based on their differentiated responsibilities and capabilities.28 This ecological anthropology must also be informed by critical reflection because we need our sciences and technologies, our economic and social systems, our politics and jurisprudence, and our religions to be coherent with Earth, not dominant of Earth. Similarly, the human story must be coherent with Earth’s story. A functional cosmology reminds humanity that its story is the universe’s story, that it is the product of 13.8 billion years of evolutionary cosmogenesis, and as such, that it is derived from and dependent upon each chapter and each player in the continuous story that gradually prepared the suitable conditions for its emergence as the most recent words told in that story.29 Since Earth has provided the primary conditions for human emergence, well-being, and perdurance, and since Earth “can do without humans” but “humans cannot do without Earth,” then from a cosmological perspective, Earth can be recognized as primary, while “humans are derivative.”30 Humanity is wholly dependent upon and beholding to everything else, and the demise of contemporary life forms who emerged earlier in the story threatens humanity’s existence.31Accordingly, the decisions made by human cultures—whether through our technologies, our food production, our economic systems, or our built environments—must be “coherent with the integral functioning of the natural life systems” that sustain us on a species level and our genetic coding that sustains us on an individual level.32 Due to the ecological devastation that humanity has caused, a “healing of the Earth is [now] a prerequisite for the healing of the human. Adjustment of the human to the conditions and restraints of the natural world constitutes the primary . . . prescription for human well-being.”33 A functional cosmology will, therefore, acknowledge and respect the intrinsic worth of all of creation as well as the profound interdependence of humanity within the community of life-systems in Earth.34 Furthermore, the magnitude of the change that is required of us is enormous, and we need a mythic story of comparable proportions—that is, a time-developmental universe story that includes the entire expanse of time. Since the dream drives the action, we need to dream on the level of the planet, not just the human;

148

Dennis Patrick O’Hara

we need to tap into the numinous dimension that sustains and inspires us on a cosmic scale; the human scale is inadequate to the task and a misguided focus.35 We need an ethic that functions not only at the personal level but also at the species level and the level of the larger Earth community. As a general operating principle, the individual cannot be favored at the expense of the larger Earth community. Since humans are derivative and Earth is primary, decisions that are not enhancing for the latter on a systems level will invariably be detrimental to the former on both the individual and population levels and must be eschewed.36 Similarly, since all of creation was intended by God from its origin to return to God through a process of its divinization or theosis, humans must at the very least not interfere with this transformation.37 Now, because of our tremendous power to adversely affect the health of Earth, humans must make ethical choices that not only promote their own divinization but do not interfere with the divinization of the rest of creation; harming Earth not only frustrates the theosis of otherkind but also frustrates the theosis of humans because it puts us at odds with God’s desire for the whole of creation.38 Accordingly, we must accept the limits placed on our existence, not as confining but as liberating since they lead to a more authentic self. Challenges to our existence or obstacles to our flourishing can spur creative responses that allow us to transcend those moments by exploring new solutions that concurrently support both our viability and the viability of the community of species, and thereby foster our fuller divinization on an integral level. Pope Francis and Integral Ecology Pope Francis in his encyclical Laudato Si’ has adopted a cosmological focus that better reflects an evolutionary understanding of the universe. “Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings who evolve. . . . [God] created beings and he let them develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time in which He assured them of his continual presence, giving life to every reality.”39 Therefore, human “interventions on nature” need to be beneficial to all of creation, “with respect for the beauty, finality and usefulness of every living being and its place in the ecosystem.”40 Furthermore, “we are called to recognize that other living beings have a value of their own in God’s eyes,”41 that “each organism, as a creature of God, is good and admirable in itself; the same is true of the harmonious ensemble of organisms existing in a defined space and functioning as a system.”42 Accordingly, declares Pope Francis, “the Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures.”43 Eschewing

Reframing Ecotheological Anthropology within a More Integral Ecology

149

a rigid separation of humanity from the rest of creation, he declares that through our bodies, “God has joined us so closely to the world around us that we can feel the desertification of the soil almost as a physical ailment, and the extinction of a species as a painful disfigurement.”44 With a growing awareness and experience of our profound kinship with and dependence on the other-than-human, Francis seemingly wants us to develop an intimacy with creation to overcome traditional forms of anthropocentrism. For these reasons, Pope Francis’s discussions of integral ecology link human ecology with environmental ecology, concluding that climate change and ecological crises are human-made, that the same attitudes and values that foster ecological destruction are also destructive of human flourishing. Rather than using human ecology to claim a role for the human that places it above the rest of creation, he describes a more bilateral approach that places the human “hand in hand” with the rest of creation.45 However, for Thomas Berry and other proponents on a deeper understanding of integral ecology, “human ecology [resides] within nature ecology, rather than the other way around”;46 the relationship is not so much “hand-in-hand” but the human as derivative from the rest of creation, acknowledging the primacy of the latter. Deeper Understanding of Integral Ecology Pope Francis has rightly declared, “There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology.”47 The anthropology articulated by successive popes during the past seventy years has increasingly approximated an anthropology that aligns with a cosmology of cosmogenesis, but remnants of outdated thinking remain. Although Pope Francis has allowed an understanding of integral ecology to inform the arguments that he promulgates in Laudato Si’, he employs it as content rather than as context. Integral ecology as new content merely adds more information about the existing cosmology, perhaps shifting or refining its perspective and values. Adoption of integral ecology as part of a larger context requires us to begin with a cosmology of cosmogenesis as the normative horizon of meaning. We then come to understand the human within the cosmological order from which it is derived rather than understanding creation within the horizon of meaning established by the human. God’s Earth is primary, and the human is derivative.48 Pope Francis hints at this understanding when he notes that the “ultimate purpose of other creatures is not to be found in [humans]”49 since “God is intimately present to each being, without impinging on [its] autonomy.”50 However, while also respecting the unique contribution of each being within the creation story,51 Pope Francis still asserts that this deeper appreciation for creation “can never be at the cost of the freedom and responsibility of human beings who, as part of the world, have the duty to cultivate their

150

Dennis Patrick O’Hara

abilities in order to protect it and develop its potential.”52 According to Pope Francis, “human beings . . . are called to lead all creatures back to their Creator.”53 Thus, while moving closer to a fuller adoption of a cosmology of cosmogenesis, Pope Francis nevertheless continues to privilege the role of the human as if the proper flourishing of the rest of creation was dependent upon humanity rather than the inverse. Just as God respects the “rightful autonomy of earthly affairs,”54 so must humanity respect the autonomy of each being in the rest of creation to contribute to cosmogenesis according to its own subjectivity. Creation has flourished and praised God for 13.8 billion years without the “lead” of humanity and will continue to do so if humanity does not obstruct it from playing its roles. The unique contribution of humanity to the creation story does not supersede the contributions of the rest of the players in that epic. By continuing to privilege the role of humanity, especially when doing so has led us into a mass extinction event, does not establish a context where our normative behaviors will mutually enhance humanity and the rest of creation. Failing to recognize that we are derived from and wholly dependent upon the interdependent players of the universe story, we do not take sufficiently restorative steps to deal with the ecological crisis. For instance, when it comes to establishing new norms for our interactions with our environs, “what is being regulated at present is how much destruction can occur,” not how ecosystems will be properly protected, enhanced, and respectfully engaged.55 In the latter approach, the health and interconnectedness of Earth’s ecology takes on a normative value, and behaviors that compromise that integral ecology are deemed fundamentally wrong. Thus, notions such as the “polluter pays principle” are rejected for lacking sufficient rigor because they permit violators of the common good to pay in exchange for harming the well-being of Earth’s communities.56 Like his predecessor,57 Pope Francis has an aversion to biocentrism which he associates with the notion that “the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism.”58 This is a “misguided” understanding of biocentrism, and the tension seems to derive from a matter of degrees. Both the pontiff and advocates of biocentrism celebrate the integrity of creation as well as the intrinsic and unique value of each player in the universe story, but the latter tend to hold these claims as guiding principles—that is, as part of context—and not mere observations or content that can be sacrificed to support a hierarchical ordering that favors humanity. For biocentrists, no being is simply one being among others as if the diversity of creation was not acknowledged as a key requirement for both evolution and ecosystem health.59 Nor do the biocentrists or ecotheologians (who can be the same) view any part of creation as merely the product of chance although chance does play a role; nor do they tend to favor a deterministic universe.60 Furthermore, positions that echo biocentric

Reframing Ecotheological Anthropology within a More Integral Ecology

151

tendencies that neither diminish human dignity nor champion pantheism can be found within the tradition, perhaps most notably with Francis of Assisi, as John Mizzoni has recalled: “Francis of Assisi—famous as patron saint of ecology—recognised intrinsic value in all living things and believed that humans ought to respect those values; thus, he held a biocentric position.”61 Mizzoni similarly finds the Franciscan theologians Bonaventure (1217–1274) and John Duns Scotus (1265–1308) to be proponents of what can be called a Franciscan biocentrism.62 CONCLUSION By employing the comprehensive and interdependent approaches of integral ecology to support the care for our common home, Laudato Si’ not only expands the church’s understanding of Catholic social teaching but it is also “looking beyond more established concepts of sustainable development.”63 The encyclical is shifting magisterial thinking into the twentieth century, if not yet the twenty-first; it is beginning to situate its work within a more functional cosmology of cosmogenesis. It is understanding that we are not only experiencing an era of change but are transitioning into a change of an era. NOTES 1. Thomas Berry, “The New Story,” Teilhard Studies 1 (Winter 1978): 1–13; David Tracy and Nicholas Lash, “Editorial,” in Cosmology and Theology, ed. David Tracy and Nicholas Lash, Concilium: Religion in the Eighties (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983), vii. 2. It is worth remembering that the cosmology of cosmogenesis, like each one prior to it, is incomplete and biased, and is at best an approximation of reality. See: Gordon D. Kaufman, In Face of Mystery (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 254–256. 3. “Public polls in a range of countries reveal that many people do not ‘believe’ in evolution. These polls suggest that creationism is on the rise in many countries. . . . The US has conducted polls over a 30-year period and the percentage of adults that reject evolution has remained relatively stable, between 43% and 47% (Gallop 2014).” James D. Williams, “Evolution Versus Creationism: A Matter of Acceptance Versus Belief,” Journal of Biological Education 49, no. 3 (2015): 322–333. The resistance to moving from creationism to evolution is not unique to North America. See: Elise K. Burton, “Evolution and Creationism in Middle Eastern Education: A New Perspective,” Evolution 65, no. 1 (2011): 301–304; Amy Unsworth and David Voas, “Attitudes to Evolution Among Christians, Muslims, and the Non-Religious in Britain: Differential Effects of Religious and Educational Factors,” Public Understanding

152

Dennis Patrick O’Hara

of Science 27, no. 1 (2018): 76–93; Salman Hameed, “Making Sense of Islamic Creationism in Europe,” Public Understanding of Science 24, no. 4 (2015): 388–399. 4. Gerarddo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anthony D. Barnosky, Andrés García, Robert M. Pringle, and Todd M. Palmer, “Accelerated Modern Human-Induced Species Losses: Entering the Sixth Mass Extinction,” Scientific Advances 1 (19 June 2015): 1–5. 5. Philip Cafaro, “Three Ways to Think About the Sixth Mass Extinction,” Biological Conservation 192 (December 2015): 387–393. 6. Susan Prescott and Alan Logan have described this time when people would act in ways that are mutually enhancing for them and the rest of the planet as the “symbiocene.” See: Susan L Prescott and Alan C Logan, “Down to Earth: Planetary Health and Biophilosophy in the Symbiocene Epoch,” Challenges 8, no. 2 (January 2017): 1–22. 7. For example, a recent report from the World Health Organization notes that at least 12.6 million people die each year due to preventable environmental causes. Furthermore, “Globally, an estimated 24% of the disease burden (healthy life years lost) and an estimated 23% of all deaths (premature mortality) was attributable to environmental factors. Among children aged zero to fourteen, the proportion of deaths attributed to the environment was as high as 36%.” See: A. Prüss-Ustün, J. Wolf, C. Corvalán, R. Bos, and M. Neira, Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments: A Global Assessment of the Burden of Disease from Environmental Risks (Geneva, CH: World Health Organization, 2016), 9, accessed 1 December 2017, http:​//app​ s.who​.int/​iris/​bitst​ream/​10665​/2045​85/1/​.9789​24156​5196_​eng.p​df?ua​=1. 8. Anne M. Clifford, “Postmodern Scientific Cosmology and the Christian God of Creation,” Horizons 21, no. 1 (1994): 62–84. 9. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 12 August 1950), 36–37, http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/hol​y_fat​her/p​ius_x​ii/en​cycli​cals/​ docum​ents/​hf_p-​xii_e​nc_12​08195​0_hum​ani-g​eneri​s_en.​html.​ 10. Pope John Paul II, Letter of His Holiness John Paul II to Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1 June 1988), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​lette​rs/19​88/do​ cumen​ts/hf​_jp-i​i_let​_1988​0601_​padre​-coyn​e.htm​l. 11. Amos H. Hawley, “Ecology and Human Ecology,” Social Forces 22, no. 4 (May 1944), 398, quoting M. A. Alihan, Social Ecology: A Critical Analysis (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1938), xi. 12. Robert Ezra Park, “Human Ecology,” American Journal of Sociology 42, no. 1 (July 1936): 15. 13. Pope John Paul II, “General Audience: God Made Man the Steward of Creation,” (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 17 January 2001), 4, http:​//w2.​ vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​audie​nces/​2001/​docum​ents/​hf_jp​-ii_a​ud_20​01011​ 7.htm​l. 14. Pope John Paul II, “Homily, Zamosc, Poland (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 12 June 1999), 3, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​homil​ ies/1​999/d​ocume​nts/h​f_jp-​ii_ho​m_199​90612​_zamo​sc.ht​ml. 15. Donal Dorr, “‘The fragile world’: Church Teaching on Ecology Before and by Pope Francis,” Thinking Faith (26 February 2014): 3.

Reframing Ecotheological Anthropology within a More Integral Ecology

153

16. “The original source of all that is good is the very act of God, who created both the earth and man, and who gave the earth to man so that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its fruits. . . . The earth, by reason of its fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human needs, is God’s first gift for the sustenance of human life. . . . It is through work that man, using his intelligence and exercising his freedom, succeeds in dominating the earth and making it a fitting home.” John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1 May 1991), 31, http:​ //www​.vati​can.v​a/hol​y_fat​her/j​ohn_p​aul_i​i/enc​yclic​als/d​ocume​nts/h​f_jp-​ii_en​c_010​ 51991​_cent​esimu​s-ann​us_en​.html​. 17. Ibid., 38; cf., 39. Italics in the original. Cf.: Pope John Paul II, General Audience: God Made Man the Steward of Creation (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 17 January 2001), 4, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​audie​ nces/​2001/​docum​ents/​hf_jp​-ii_a​ud_20​01011​7.htm​l. 18. Pope Benedict XVI, Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the Occasion of their Plenary Assembly (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 31 October 2008), http:​//pre​ss.va​tican​.va/c​ onten​t/sal​astam​pa/it​/boll​ettin​o/pub​blico​/2008​/10/3​1/068​5/016​91.ht​ml. 19. Pope Benedict XVI, Meeting of the Holy Father Benedict XVI with the Clergy of the Dioceses of Belluno-Feltre and Treviso (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 July 2007), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​speec​hes/2​007/ j​uly/d​ocume​nts/h​f_ben​-xvi_​spe_2​00707​24_cl​ero-c​adore​.html​. 20. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 29 June 2009), 48, http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/hol​y_fat​her/b​enedi​ct_xv​i/enc​yclic​ als/d​ocume​nts/h​f_ben​-xvi_​enc_2​00906​29_ca​ritas​-in-v​erita​te_en​.html​. For a comparable view, see: Pope Benedict XVI, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation,” World Day of Peace Message (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1 January 2010), 13, http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/hol​y_fat​her/b​enedi​ct_xv​i/mes​sages​/peac​e/doc​ument​ s/hf_​ben-x​vi_me​s_200​91208​_xlii​i-wor​ld-da​y-pea​ce_en​.html​. For a response to Pope Benedict’s concerns, see: Christopher Hrynkow and Dennis O’Hara, “The Vatican and Ecospirituality: Tensions, Promises and Possibilities for Fostering and Emerging Green Catholic Spirituality,” Ecozon@ 2, no. 2 (2011): 177–197. 21. Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 51. Italics in the original. 22. Michael Zimmerman, “Integral Ecology: A Perspectival, Developmental, and Coordinating Approach to Environmental Problems,” World Futures 61, no. 1–2 (2005): 50. 23. LS 14; cf., 15, 47, 60. 24. Sean Esbjörn-Hargens, “Integral Ecology: The What, Who, and How of Environmental Phenomena,” World Futures 61, no. 1–2 (2005): 6. 25. Sam Mickey, Adam Robbert, and Laura Reddick, “The Quest for Integral Ecology,” Integral Review 9, no. 3 (2013): 12. 26. Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future (New York, NY: Harmony/Bell Tower, 1999), 159. 27. LS, 53. 28. Dennis Patrick O’Hara and Allan Abelsohn, “Ethics of Climate Change,” Ethics & The Environment 16, no. 1 (2011): 32, 42; United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (New York, NY, 1992), article 3.1,

154

Dennis Patrick O’Hara

accessed 16 July 2008, http:​//unf​ccc.i​nt/re​sourc​e/doc​s/con​vkp/c​onven​g.pdf​; Francis, Laudato Si’, 49, 51, 52, 170. 29. If a million years of universe history were recorded on a page, and if each volume contained 500 pages, the writing of the universe story would require approximately 28 volumes, and the story of human civilization would be told in the last two words on page 500 of volume 28. 30. Thomas Berry, “A New Era: Healing the Injuries We Have Inflicted on Our Planet,” Health Progress 73, no. 2 (1992): 63. Cf., Expert Panel on Earth Jurisprudence, “Harmony with Nature” (United Nations, 1 August 2016), accessed 1 December 2017, http:​//www​.un.o​rg/ga​/sear​ch/vi​ew_do​c.asp​?symb​ol=A/​71/26​6&Lan​g=E. 31. Terrence L. Nichols, “Evolution: Journey or Random Walk?,” Zygon 37, no. 1 (March 2002): 193–210. 32. Thomas Berry, “A New Era,” 63; cf., Berry, The Dream of the Earth (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1988), 210–212. 33. Berry, The Great Work, 66–67. 34. Berry, The Dream of the Earth, 10, 16–17, 42, 53–55, 180–190. 35. Thomas Berry and Edmund V. Sullivan, The Dream Drives the Action: Planetary Education in the Ecozoic Era (Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1991); Berry, The Great Work, 164–166. 36. Berry, The Great Work, 58, 61. 37. LS, 53, 92. 38. Daniel Munteanu, “Cosmic Liturgy: The Geological Dignity of Creation as a Basis of an Orthodox Ecotheology,” International Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010): 333–343. 39. Pope Francis, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 27 October 2014), https​ ://w2​ .vati​ can.v​ a/con​ tent/​ franc​esco/​en/sp​eeche​s/201​4/oct​ober/​docum​ents/​papa-​franc​esco_​20141​027_p​lenar​ ia-ac​cadem​ia-sc​ienze​.html​. 40. Pope Francis, “Fraternity, the Foundation and Pathway to Peace,” World Day of Peace Message (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana,1 January 2014), 9, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/mes​sages​/peac​e/doc​ument​s/pap​a-fra​ncesc​ o_201​31208​_mess​aggio​-xlvi​i-gio​rnata​-mond​iale-​pace-​2014.​html.​ 41. LS, 69. 42. Ibid., 140. 43. Ibid., 68. 44. Ibid., 89, quoting Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013), 215, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/ apo​st_ex​horta​tions​/docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_esor​tazio​ne-ap​_2013​1124_​evang​elii-​ gaudi​um.ht​ml. 45. Pope Francis, General Audience (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 5 June 2013), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/aud​ience​s/201​3/doc​ ument​s/pap​a-fra​ncesc​o_201​30605​_udie​nza-g​enera​le.ht​ml. 46. Berry and Clarke, Befriending the Earth: A Theology of Reconciliation between Humans and Earth (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1991), 97. 47. LS, 118.

Reframing Ecotheological Anthropology within a More Integral Ecology

155

48. Thomas Berry, “A Cosmology of Religions,” in Pluralism and Oppression: Theology in a World Perspective, ed. Paul Knitter (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991), 99–113. 49. LS, 83. 50. Ibid., 80. 51. Ibid., 84 52. Ibid., 78. 53. Ibid., 83 54. Ibid., 80. 55. Expert Panel on Earth Jurisprudence, “Harmony with Nature” (United Nations, 1 August 2016), 43, accessed 1 December 2017, http:​ //www​ .un.o​ rg/ga​ /sear​ ch/vi​ ew_do​c.asp​?symb​ol=A/​71/26​6&Lan​g=E. 56. Ibid., 59–60. 57. Benedict XVI, If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation: Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace January 1, 2010 (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 8 December 2009), 13, http:​ //www​ .vati​ can.v​ a/hol​ y_fat​ her/ b​enedi​ct_xv​i/mes​sages​/peac​e/ docum​ents/​hf_be​n-xvi​_mes_​20091​208_x​liii-​world ​ -day-​peace​_en.h​tml. 58. “When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then ‘our overall sense of responsibility wanes.’ A misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to ‘biocentrism,’ for that would entail adding yet another imbalance, failing to solve present problems and adding new ones. Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility are recognized and valued.” LS, 118. 59. David R. Keller, “Deep Ecology,” in Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, ed. J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman (Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2009), 206–211. 60. Berry, The Dream of the Earth, 211; Gordon Kaufman, “Nature, History, and God: Toward an Integrated Conceptualization,” Zygon 27, no. 4 (1992): 387–388. 61. John Mizzoni, “Franciscan Biocentrism and the Franciscan Tradition,” Ethics and the Environment 13, no.1 (2008): 122. 62. Ibid. 63. Eoin O’Neil, “The Pope and the Environment: Toward an Integral Ecology?,” Environmental Politics 25, no. 4 (2016): 752.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alihan, M. A. Social Ecology: A Critical Analysis. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1938. Berry, Thomas. “A Cosmology of Religions.” In Pluralism and Oppression: Theology in a World Perspective, edited by Paul Knitter, 99–113. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991.

156

Dennis Patrick O’Hara

———. “A New Era: Healing the Injuries We Have Inflicted on Our Planet.” Health Progress 73, no. 2 (1992): 60–63. ———. The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1988. ———. The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future. New York, NY: Harmony/Bell Tower, 1999. ———. “The New Story.” Teilhard Studies 1 (Winter 1978): 1–13. Berry, Thomas and Edmund V. Sullivan. The Dream Drives the Action: Planetary Education in the Ecozoic Era. Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1991. Berry, Thomas and Thomas Clarke. Befriending the Earth: A Theology of Reconciliation Between Humans and Earth. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1991. Burton, Elise K. “Evolution and Creationism in Middle Eastern Education: A New Perspective.” Evolution 65, no. 1 (2011): 301–304. Cafaro, Philip. “Three Ways to Think About the Sixth Mass Extinction.” Biological Conservation 192 (December 2015): 387–393. Callicott, J. Baird and Robert Frodeman, eds. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2009. Ceballos, Gerarddo, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anthony D. Barnosky, Andrés García, Robert M. Pringle, and Todd M. Palmer. “Accelerated Modern Human-Induced Species Losses: Entering the Sixth Mass Extinction.” Scientific Advances 1 (19 June 2015): 1–5. Clifford, Anne M. “Postmodern Scientific Cosmology and the Christian God of Creation.” Horizons 21, no. 1 (1994): 62–84. Dorr, Donal. “‘The fragile world’: Church Teaching on Ecology Before and by Pope Francis.” Thinking Faith, 26 February 2014. Esbjörn-Hargens, Sean. “Integral Ecology: The What, Who, and How of Environmental Phenomena.” World Futures 61, no. 1–2 (2005): 5–49. Hameed, Salman. “Making Sense of Islamic Creationism in Europe.” Public Understanding of Science 24, no. 4 (2015): 388–399. Hawley, Amos H. “Ecology and Human Ecology.” Social Forces 22, no. 4 (May 1944), 398–405. Hrynkow, Christopher and Dennis O’Hara. “The Vatican and Ecospirituality: Tensions, Promises and Possibilities for Fostering and Emerging Green Catholic Spirituality.” Ecozon@ 2, no. 2 (2011): 177–197. Kaufman, Gordon D. In Face of Mystery. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. ———. “Nature, History, and God: Toward an Integrated Conceptualization.” Zygon 27, no. 4 (1992): 379–401. Mickey, Sam, Adam Robbert, and Laura Reddick. “The Quest for Integral Ecology.” Integral Review 9, no. 3 (2013): 11–24. Mizzoni, John. “Franciscan Biocentrism and the Franciscan Tradition.” Ethics and the Environment 13, no.1 (2008): 121–134. Munteanu, Daniel. “Cosmic Liturgy: The Geological Dignity of Creation as a Basis of an Orthodox Ecotheology.” International Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010): 333–343.

Reframing Ecotheological Anthropology within a More Integral Ecology

157

Nichols, Terrence L. “Evolution: Journey or Random Walk?” Zygon 37, no. 1 (March 2002): 193–210. O’Hara, Dennis Patrick and Allan Abelsohn. “Ethics of Climate Change.” Ethics & the Environment 16, no. 1 (2011): 25–50. O’Neil, Eoin. “The Pope and the Environment: Toward an Integral Ecology?” Environmental Politics 25, no. 4 (2016): 749–754. Park, Robert Ezra. “Human Ecology.” American Journal of Sociology 42, no. 1 (July 1936): 1–15. Pope Benedict XVI. ———. Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the Occasion of Their Plenary Assembly. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 31 October 2008. http:​//pre​ss.va​tican​ .va/c​onten​t/sal​astam​pa/it​/boll​ettin​o/pub​blico​/2008​/10/3​1/068​5/016​91.ht​ml. ———. Caritas in Veritate. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 29 June 2009. http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/hol​y_fat​her/b​enedi​ct_xv​i/enc​yclic​als/d​ocume​nts/h​ f_ben​-xvi_​enc_2​00906​29_ca​ritas​-in-v​erita​te_en​.html​. ———. “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation.” World Day of Peace Message. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1 January 2010. http:​ //www​.vati​can.v​a/hol​y_fat​her/b​enedi​ct_xv​i/mes​sages​/peac​e/doc​ument​s/hf_​ben-x​ vi_me​s_200​91208​_xlii​i-wor​ld-da​y-pea​ce_en​.html​. ———. Meeting of the Holy Father Benedict XVI with the Clergy of the Dioceses of Belluno-Feltre and Treviso. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 July 2007. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​speec​hes/2​007/j​uly/d​ocume​nts/ h​f_ben​-xvi_​spe_2​00707​24_cl​ero-c​adore​.html​. Pope Francis. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 27 October 2014. https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​franc​ esco/​en/sp​eeche​s/201​4/oct​ober/​docum​ents/​papa-​franc​esco_​20141​027_p​lenar​ia-ac​ cadem​ia-sc​ienze​.html​. ———. “Fraternity, the Foundation and Pathway to Peace.” World Day of Peace Message. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1 January 2014. (http​://w2​ .vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​franc​esco/​en/me​ssage​s/pea​ce/do​cumen​ts/pa​pa-fr​ances​co_20​ 13120​8_mes​saggi​o-xlv​ii-gi​ornat​a-mon​diale​-pace​-2014​.html​). ———. General Audience. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 5 June 2013. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/aud​ience​s/201​3/doc​ument​s/pap​ a-fra​ncesc​o_201​30605​_udie​nza-g​enera​le.ht​ml. ———. Evangelii Gaudium. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/apo​st_ex​horta​tions​/ docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_esor​tazio​ne-ap​_2013​1124_​evang​elii-​gaudi​um.ht​ml. Pope John Paul II. Centesimus annus. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1 May 1991. http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/hol​y_fat​her/j​ohn_p​aul_i​i/enc​yclic​als/d​ocume​ nts/h​f_jp-​ii_en​c_010​51991​_cent​esimu​s-ann​us_en​.html​. ———. General Audience: God Made Man the Steward of Creation. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 17 January 2001. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​audie​nces/​2001/​docum​ents/​hf_jp​-ii_a​ud_20​01011​7.htm​l. ———. Homily, Zamosc, Poland. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 12 June 1999. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​homil​ies/1​999/d​ocume​nts/ h​f_jp-​ii_ho​m_199​90612​_zamo​sc.ht​ml.

158

Dennis Patrick O’Hara

———. Letter of His Holiness John Paul II to Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1 June 1988), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​lette​rs/19​88/do​cumen​ts/ hf​_jp-i​i_let​_1988​0601_​padre​-coyn​e.htm​l. Pope Pius XII. Humani Generis. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 12 August 1950. http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/hol​y_fat​her/p​ius_x​ii/en​cycli​cals/​docum​ents/​ hf_p-​xii_e​nc_12​08195​0_hum​ani-g​eneri​s_en.​html.​ Prescott, Susan L. and Alan C. Logan. “Down to Earth: Planetary Health and Biophilosophy in the Symbiocene Epoch” Challenges 8, no. 2 (January 2017): 1–22. Prüss-Ustün, A., J. Wolf, C. Corvalán, R. Bos, and M. Neira. Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments: A Global Assessment of the Burden of Disease from Environmental Risks. Geneva, CH: World Health Organization, 2016. http:​// app​s.who​.int/​iris/​bitst​ream/​10665​/2045​85/1/​.9789​24156​5196_​eng.p​df?ua​=1. Tracy, David and Nicholas Lash. Cosmology and Theology. Concilium: Religion in the Eighties. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983. Unsworth, Amy and David Voas. “Attitudes to evolution among Christians, Muslims, and the Non-Religious in Britain: Differential effects of religious and educational factors.” Public Understanding of Science 27, no. 1 (2018): 76–93. Williams, James D. “Evolution Versus Creationism: A Matter of Acceptance Versus Belief,” Journal of Biological Education 49, no. 3 (2015): 322–333. Zimmerman, Michael. “Integral Ecology: A Perspectival, Developmental, and Coordinating Approach to Environmental Problems.” World Futures 61, no. 1–2 (2005): 50–62.

Chapter 10

Locating Laudato Si’ along a Catholic Trajectory of Concern for Nonhuman Animals Charles Camosy

Once dismissed as a fringe topic for activists and extremists, concern for the moral and legal status nonhuman animals is exploding throughout Western culture. Major documentaries like CNN’s “Blackfish” run in prime time— and lead directly to the kind of pressure which forces previously untouchable organizations like Sea World to radically change their relationship to orcas.1 Major news coverage of how elephants and other animals are decimated by the ivory trade lead to the United States proposing a ban.2 Denmark is now even proposing a special tax on beef and other meats in order to combat this kind of consumption’s disproportionate contribution to climate change.3 The move to plant-based diets, particularly as a response to the horrific suffering of billions and billions of animals in factory farming, has gone mainstream.4 One could make a strong argument that this is the result of decades of attention these issues have received from moral philosophy. Peter Singer in particular, as perhaps the most influential philosopher over the last forty years, has driven the arguments, interest, and concern for the topic. His Animal Liberation kicked off the beginning of an era in which philosophers and activists worked together to bring attention to an issue that was previously neglected.5 The growing level of support and urgency they created then led to important books like J. M. Coetzee’s The Lives of Animals and Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals which would bring the concern to whole new audiences.6 It took much longer for the issue to get off the ground in moral theology. As John Berkman and Celia Deane-Drummond note in their introduction for a recent edition of the Journal of Moral Theology completely devoted to nonhuman animals (the first of its kind), only a decade ago the little Catholic work that was being done on animal ethics was widely dismissed and even 159

160

Charles Camosy

ridiculed.7 Berkman recounted his disturbing story as a pretenure professor at the Catholic University of America actually being ordered by his department chair to stop writing on the topic. Deane-Drummond reported being mocked by major figures in moral theology when she gave a paper on the topic at a major conference. I know from my own experience writing on the topic how difficult it has been to bring up animals as an issue of concern in the context of Catholic theology. But in just the past few years, the moral-theological landscape has shifted dramatically. Not only has there been an entire issue of a respected journal devoted to the topic (featuring eminent theologians like Jean Porter and Julie Hanlon-Rubio), but the Society of Christian Ethics (SCE)—in addition to regularly featuring concurrent sessions on the topic—recently approved a special “Animal Ethics” interest group for the annual convention. Stanley Hauerwas’s presidential address at the 2012 SCE convention was dominated by his reflections on Coetzee’s concern for animals. David Clough, a moral theologian who has devoted most of his career to concern for animals, was named president of the United Kingdom’s Society for the Study of Christian Ethics and devoted the 2016 annual conference to this topic. Perhaps the most important living Catholic theologian, Elizabeth Johnson, recently completed an entire book on the topic of nonhuman animals.8 Simply put, attention to this topic has gone from marginalized to prime time in the virtually the blink of an eye. And this is no mere “niche” concern on the theological and political left. Indeed, the pro-life movement is now starting to embrace concern for animals as a significant issue. John Berkman and I have both written on the topic from a pro-life perspective,9 and we’ve been joined by people like the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Mary Eberstadt and former speech-writer for George W. Bush, Matthew Scully.10 Most importantly, Pope Francis has connected concern for animals, and ecological concern more generally, with his pro-life commitments.11 In this chapter, I will argue that in promulgating Laudato Si’, Pope Francis has laid down a significant marker along the trajectory of Catholic concern for nonhuman animals. This marker signals an important shift away from the approach of the post-Vatican II era, and a return to scriptural and traditional resources which are much friendlier to animals. I will set up this trajectory beginning with scriptural and historical highlights—then turning to contemporary discussions with a focus on Vatican II, St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This will lead us to the Laudato Si’ moment, which I will examine in some detail. Finally, I will suggest some ways the conversation might go from here. At each level of the argument, I will have three central organizing ideas that will be of special concern:

Catholic Trajectory of Concern for Nonhuman Animals

161

1. How should we think about the moral status of nonhuman animals? Do animals have inherent value or can we ultimately link moral concern about animals to human concerns and interests? How, if at all, are animals morally distinct from the rest of creation? How, if at all, are they distinct from each other? 2. When thinking about concern for animals, how should we think about anthropocentrism? Post-Vatican II theology problematically lifts up the human animal to the exclusion of the nonhuman animal, but can the proper response be to eliminate anthropocentrism altogether? Is it possible to speak about a “soft” anthropocentrism which at once preserves the hierarchical tradition while giving due weight to nonhuman animals? 3. Given the clear moral-theological commitments of the tradition on this topic, should there be any practical guidance for how we are to treat nonhuman animals in specific circumstances? THE TRAJECTORY OF CONCERN LEADING UP TO LAUDATO SI’12 From the very first page of scripture, we learn that animals were created “good,” period. Their value comes from God creating them as the kinds of things that they are, not from their usefulness to human beings. Even in Genesis 2, when God brings the animals to human beings, it is because “it is not good man should be alone.” Human animals, though created on the same day as nonhuman animals (and, according to Eccles. 3:19, sharing the same breath of life), are special because God has made them in God’s own image and after God’s likeness. We have been given dominion and rule over the Earth and the other animals have not. But Christians are to interpret this kind of dominion and rule through the Lordship of Jesus Christ, a dominion characterized by servanthood, selfemptying, and sacrifice. Whatever this dominion over creation might mean, it is anything but a license to dominate and exploit. This dominion must be consistent not only with God’s bringing the animals to Adam because he was alone but also with God, at the end of Genesis 1, giving all animals (human and nonhuman) a vegetarian diet. According to the creation story, God’s original creation is a place of deathless nonviolence. Of course, the same creation story reveals that this beautiful creation was sullied by the sin of human beings, and with sin came violence and death. It is only after sin that God first gives human beings limited permission to kill and eat animals. Nevertheless, Christians are to witness to the return of the Peaceable Kingdom which the prophet Isaiah claims will see lambs lie down with lions, and babies play with snakes. Why, then, do so many claim

162

Charles Camosy

that animals were created by God for our use and exploitation? And why is scripture invoked to defend it? David Clough calls this the “it’s all about us” position, and blames it on both self-interest and an uncritical acceptance of the influence of Platonic, Gnostic, and Stoic thought.13 But if one’s view is grounded in scripture, then one comes to a much more complex conclusion about right relationship between human and nonhuman animals. This tension between Scripture and the “it’s all about us” position, however, would come to dominate much of the tradition. Many of the early church fathers were outspokenly in favor “it’s all about us,” but at the same time were strongly critical of Christian participation in sport hunting and going to the Roman games were animals were slaughtered for the entertainment of the crowd.14 The historian Thomas Wiedermann notes that early Christian leaders were concerned about the effect that witnessing the violence would have on spectators. In the view of Tertullian, for instance, repeated watching of exotic wild animals from around the Empire fighting each other to death turned the crowd into “savages.” Gregory of Nazianzen considered “men killing one another” and “the slaughter of wild beasts” on the same list of problems with the games themselves. Basil the Great criticized the “wealthy men” who for “secular honor” make men fight wild beasts.15 But about what, precisely, were these great church leaders worried? Consider that it was not unheard of to have over 10,000 nonhuman animals killed during a single celebration season: from tigers, to elephants, to pythons, to bears, to crocodiles. Would they would have been similarly concerned about their fellow Christians watching, say, 10,000 trees get hacked to death? Of course not. It was precisely the high moral status of the nonhuman animals being killed which caused those who witnessed thousands of their vicious and violent deaths to become savages. And the tension would persist. Despite being mentored by Albert the Great, the most prominent zoologist of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas would have little to say about animals. What he did say, however, was full of tension. On the one hand, following Aristotle, he insisted nonhuman animals did not have a rational soul and on this basis argued that they cannot, strictly speaking, be wronged. It can be wrong for human persons (who do have rational souls) to treat animals with cruelty, but ultimately the wrong we do is to ourselves by acting counter to virtue. Several centuries later, Peter Singer would lift up Thomas Aquinas’s disproportionate influence as a primary reason he considered the Christian tradition an enemy of animal protection. (This is a position he has since abandoned, however.16) But on the other hand, Thomas also insisted that the highest good after God is not the good of human beings, but rather the good of all creation. Indeed, he ranks humans lowest on the hierarchy of rational beings. Furthermore, as John Berkman has pointed out, Thomas believed that nonhuman animals

Catholic Trajectory of Concern for Nonhuman Animals

163

share with human animals a spiritual reality or soul.17 There are a host of activities which human and nonhuman animals perform “without rationality” as Thomas understood the term. In addition to learning certain motor skills, memorizing information for a test, or even making a sandwich, Berkman and certain other Thomistic thinkers believe that even for Thomas animals “have a reason” for doing what they do. An animal soul can also know and feel via emotions such as feel fear, hate, joy, anger, sympathy, and indignation. Jean Porter points out that that these emotions, as Thomas understood them, were strongly related to moral capacity.18 The tension between “it’s all about us” and a more Scriptural position on animals would persist from the Middle Ages through the manualist tradition of moral theology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Indeed, Berkman argues the manuals would take animals seriously in a way that the humanism of Vatican II and its successor movements in moral theology would simply ignore. Shockingly, if you do a word search for “animal” in Gaudium et Spes—Vatican II’s major work on the church in the modern world—you will find exactly zero entries. To make matters worse, chapter one begins with this unfortunate sentence: “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.” It may have been correct to say this was the opinion of nearly all people in 1965, but it is not an opinion grounded in scripture and the tradition of the church. After Vatican II, we have a collapse of the tension in favor of the “it’s all about us” position. As Berkman laments, moral theologians after the Council—even among those interested in ecology and care for creation more broadly—“ignored both the general issue of human responsibilities to non-human animals, and the specific issue of animal cruelty.”19 The pontificates of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, however, would go a long way to reclaiming the tension. Everyone who knows Benedict well, for instance, is aware that he is a huge animal lover and as Pope had to be reminded that he could not take in stray cats from the surrounding Roman streets. PETA took advantage of this fact and promoted his words in their advertisements. One flier that got a lot of public attention focused on his response to a question asked of him by German journalist Peter Seewald not long before he became Pope when he was in charge of safeguarding Catholic doctrine. Seewald asked, “Are we allowed to make use of animals, and even to eat them?” His response would eventually become the basis of a PETA advertisement: That is a very serious question. At any rate, we can see that they are given into our care, that we cannot just do whatever we want with them. Animals, too, are God’s creatures. Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese

164

Charles Camosy

are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.20

St. John Paul II, invoking St. Francis on the 800th anniversary of his death, said, “It is necessary and urgent that with the example of the little poor man from Assisi, one decides to abandon unadvisable forms of domination, the locking up of all creatures.”21 He would go on to publish a new Catechism of the Catholic Church which had very interesting things to say about animals. It leads off in paragraph #703 by citing the aforementioned chapter of Ecclesiastes in claiming both humans and animals have the breath of life. But the most detailed teaching is in paragraphs 2416–2418: Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals. God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

This passage leaves no doubt but that the tension has returned to a Catholic understanding of animals. The Biblical view that God cares about nonhuman animals is stressed, but then, quite interestingly, we see that it is precisely because of God’s providential care that we human beings owe nonhuman animals kindness. Very strong language is used. Indeed, it is the language of justice: we owe animals kindness. Then comes the tension: the Catechism rightly points out that God has entrusted human beings with the care and stewardship of nonhuman animals, but this apparently goes beyond caring for the well-being and flourishing of such animals. We are told that they may be used for food and clothing and may be domesticated for help with work or leisure. This has much more in common with “it’s all about us.” But the very next line prohibits causing nonhuman animals to “suffer or die needlessly.” The use of animals is limited not only by our obligation to show them kindness, but we are told not to cause them to suffer or die unless doing so rises to the level of need. Unfortunately, the Catechism gives us no suggestions for what might be an example of the kind of need which could justify causing an animal to suffer or die. So, what can we say about the three central issues that are the focus of this article?

Catholic Trajectory of Concern for Nonhuman Animals

165

1. Moral Status. We know that animals are not mere things which exist to be used by humans. God created them good, cares about their welfare, and asks us to care for their welfare as well. But they do not rise to the level of persons, who are ends in themselves and can never be radically reduced as a mere means to an end. In short, the trajectory of Catholic thinking on this question leading up to Laudato Si’ is ambiguous. 2. Anthropocentrism. While it is clear humans have a special place in God’s created order, being created in the image of God, we do not hold the highest place. And while human beings hold a higher place in creation than do nonhuman animals, nonhuman animals still hold a higher place than the does the rest of creation, and make significant moral claims on human beings. 3. Practical guidance. While some general norms are put in place, we are not given practical guidance about how to treat animals in specific situations. It may seem obvious that eating meat for pleasure doesn’t rise to the level of “need,” while doing medical experiments on mice to cure cancer does meet the standard, but this kind of guidance simply is not forthcoming. This leads up to our day where, as mentioned above, there is good-but-relatively-new work being done by theologians on these questions. Many of us were looking to the summer 2015 release of Laudato Si’ to push the tradition forward on what is becoming an urgent set of questions for our culture. POPE FRANCIS AND LAUDATO SI’ Perhaps the central theme of Pope Francis’s encyclical on Our Common Home is that of “integral ecology.” Invoking Francis of Assisi, the Pope argues we must adopt his deep connection to the whole of creation: If we approach nature and the environment without this openness to awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their immediate needs. By contrast, if we feel intimately united with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously. The poverty and austerity of Saint Francis were no mere veneer of asceticism, but something much more radical: a refusal to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled.22

If it is truly an integral approach, Pope Francis says we must be radically aware of how interconnected human beings are to the rest of

166

Charles Camosy

creation. Thinking of “the environment” as something radically separate from ourselves risks “fragmentation of knowledge” that leads to “a kind of ignorance.”23 But especially given the close connection between human and nonhuman animals—both socially and genetically (Francis specifically brings up the latter metric as quite significant24)—it is striking how little explicit attention the encyclical gives to nonhuman animals. This is particularly surprising, not only given how much attention the topic has received in the years leading up the encyclical but also because this pope named himself after the greatest animal lover of all time, Francis of Assisi. In what follows I will lay out the few-but-significant places where Laudato Si’ takes on either something specific about nonhuman animals, or something so directly related that it bears mentioning. I will then mention some significant omissions—omissions that are even more significant given the framework and goals of the encyclical. I will conclude the chapter by making an argument on “where we need to go from here” in the trajectory of Catholic thought on nonhuman animals. The encyclical does offer significant thoughts on the moral status of nonhuman animals, even if it is not as clear as it might be. There is, for instance, quite strong language used when it comes to preservation of biodiversity. Such diversity, the pope says, is good for human beings, but it is a mistake to “think of different species merely as potential ‘resources’ to be exploited, while overlooking the fact that they have value in themselves.”25 But while reinforcing the Biblical view that creation has value in itself, parts of Laudato Si’ are explicitly skeptical of making distinctions between creatures. While it may “disturb us to learn of the extinction of mammals or birds,” Pope Francis urges us to nevertheless focus our attention “the good functioning” of “fungi, algae, worms, insects, reptiles and an innumerable variety of microorganisms,” as well.26 There are several other passages which drive home this point. We “must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures” (LS 67).27 Creation has “an intrinsic value” which is “independent of [its] usefulness. Each organism, as a creature of God, is good and admirable in itself” (LS 140).28 But these passages make no distinctions between creatures. To what do phrases like “other creatures” and “each organism” refer? Does the pope mean to say that fungi and insects are on the same moral level as dolphins and chimpanzees? While in the above passages it seems the answer is “Yes,” in other places the answer is more ambiguous. For instance, in a striking section in which he invokes Mary, Pope Francis says the following: “Mary, the Mother who

Catholic Trajectory of Concern for Nonhuman Animals

167

cared for Jesus, now cares with maternal affection and pain for this wounded world. Just as her pierced heart mourned the death of Jesus, so now she grieves for the sufferings of the crucified poor and for the creatures of this world laid waste by human power.”29 Again, precisely what is being said here is not clear, but the passage seems to focus on pain and suffering in a way that suggests those creatures who are capable of pain and suffering are of particular concern for the Blessed Mother. However, a reasonable person could also read this passage as her being pained for literally all creatures who are laid waste by human power—from algae to elephants. The text supports either reading. Much media attention was paid to Laudato Si’ coming down on the side of animals making it to the afterlife.30 But here also the ambiguity remains stubborn. Francis claims that “each creature,” “resplendently transfigured,” will have a shared experience of eternal life.31 On the one hand, it just isn’t clear what it would mean for microorganisms to have experiences of anything, so this passage seems to privilege creatures who can have experiences. But when read through the lens suggested by the previous passages, again, a reasonable person could take a wide view of what is meant by “each creature.” Frustratingly, as we will see in more detail below, the encyclical is only clear about the special status of animals when it quotes the Catechism.32 One clear hierarchy present in the encyclical, however, is the distinction between human beings and the rest of creation. On the one hand, a “hard” anthropocentrism is very clearly ruled out by Francis given his underlining of creation’s inherent dignity, independent of its value for human beings. What the pope describes as a “distorted” understanding of the dominion God has given us over creation, one which refuses to acknowledge this inherent value, is under fierce assault throughout the encyclical. On the other hand, it is just as clear that humans have a special place in creation, having been created in the image and likeness of God, and priority is given to human concerns. For instance, of the several sections present in Francis’s discussion of “integral ecology,” only one section is concerned explicitly with nonhuman concerns. What one might call a “soft” anthropocentrism present in the other sections where Francis focuses on issues like the economics, intergenerational justice, and “daily life” of human beings. It is also worth noting how Francis decides to quote the Catechism on animals. He doesn’t even mention the teaching that human beings “owe animals kindness,” and instead focuses on the anthropocentric idea that our mistreatment of animals is mistaken because it is “contrary to human dignity.”33 There are other places, however, where Francis appears to downplay even a soft anthropocentrism. He claims, for instance, that the “disappearance of a culture can be just as serious, or even more serious, than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal.”34 It is once again less than clear what is being

168

Charles Camosy

said here, but this could reasonably be read as the pope being unsure about whether the disappearance of a human culture could be on par with the disappearance of, say, a species of fern or rat. It could also be read as the pope suggesting that the existence of culturally specific practices (like, say, whalehunting or seal clubbing) could trump the existence of a nonhuman species. But the very fact there is ambiguity here sends a very interesting message in itself. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given how little Francis said about nonhuman animals in the abstract, there is also little practical guidance to be found in Laudato Si’ for how we are to treat them in specific circumstances. One exception involves a brief discussion of the use of animals in biomedical research. While human intervention on plants and animals is permissible when it pertains to the necessities of human life, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in sections 2415 and 2417-18, teaches that experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only “if it remains within reasonable limits [and] contributes to caring for or saving human lives.” The Catechism firmly states that human power has limits and that “it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.” All such use and experimentation “requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.” Again, the use of the Catechism here is selective; no mention is made of the fact it also teaches that we owe animals kindness. And for those seeking moral guidance with respect to how they should treat animals in a biomedical context, the language is hopelessly vague. Lots of people who agree that research on animals ought to be done only for “the necessities of human life” within “reasonable limits” will nevertheless radically disagree about what sort of research protocols that would require. Shockingly, at least for those of us who work on animal ethics, there is nothing explicit in the encyclical about factory farming. There is a reference to the need to support smaller farms,35 and such a move would necessarily move us away from the business model of monstrously large factory farms which conceive of animals as nothing more than opportunities to grow the maximum amount of protein units per square foot. But nothing at all is said about the billions and billions of animals haplessly tortured and killed in these farms. This social structure of sin intersects with so many concerns of the encyclical. From the biotechnology used to breed the feeling of satiation out of chickens, to the horrific treatment of workers, to the creation of super-drug-resistant bacteria, to the huge contribution these farms make to climate change, it would be difficult to come up with a topic more in need of a critique coming from the encyclical’s commitment to integral ecology. And yet, inexplicably, we find no direct mention of the practice.

Catholic Trajectory of Concern for Nonhuman Animals

169

We are also given no tools to make distinctions in our treatment of specific creatures. When Francis says, “Each organism, as a creature of God, is good and admirable in itself; the same is true of the harmonious ensemble of organisms existing in a defined space and functioning as a system,” again, it looks as if he is shying away from a moral hierarchy of creatures. But are there not moral distinctions to be made between biomedical research which kills fungi and research which (painfully) kills cats? Are there not moral distinctions to be made between our decisions to eat a genetically modified orange and a genetically modified chicken? Remarkably, Laudato Si’ gives us no direct reason to answer these questions in the affirmative. WHERE WE MIGHT GO FROM HERE Laudato Si’ does firmly reject the peculiar (post) Vatican II’s emphasis on the special moral status of human beings—an emphasis which excluded moral consideration of nonhuman animals. When a pope writes an encyclical so firmly on one side of the pre-Vatican II tension discussed above, it is difficult to see how the church could ever go back to the bad-old-days of the utter exclusion of nonhuman animals from serious consideration. Beyond this, however, Laudato Si’ does not make many clear advances in the conversation. In concluding this article, I suggest some directions in which Catholic thinking could go that would address some pressing questions and gaps. At a foundational level, apart from any consideration of humans, the tradition must come to grips with the moral status of nonhuman animals compared with the rest of creation. Nearly everyone has the strong intuition that killing and eating a head of lettuce because it gives us pleasure is a fundamentally different moral act from killing and eating a dog because it gives us pleasure. Is such an intuition morally justified? Yes? Then what, precisely, justifies a hierarchy of moral status among the many entities in creation? Does this have implications for how we are to think about the moral status of different kinds of animals? Again, most of us have a strong intuition that using a chimpanzee in a medical experiment is a very different thing from using a mouse. What, if anything, justifies our thinking this way? We also need to think hard about the kind of moral obligation that such a moral status demands of us. The Catechism uses the language of justice on the one hand (animals are “owed” something from us) and the language of virtue (treating animals poorly violates human dignity) on the other. Is it one or the other? Is it both? Some Christian ethicists claim that justice only applies to human beings and could never apply to animals, while others claim that the specific wrong done to animals when they are treated with cruelty violates a clear duty of justice we have to them.36 Especially if some

170

Charles Camosy

nonhuman animals have a high moral status, more reflection is needed on the precise kind of wrong that is involved when treating them with cruelty. Another tension (or at least uncertainty) in the Catechism comes with its claim that we must not cause animals to “suffer or die needlessly.” Pope Francis also says in Laudato Si’ that the Genesis narrative “implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature” and that we human beings may take only what our community “needs for subsistence.”37 But what is meant by the use of the term “need,” in either context, is simply not clear. On the one hand, the Catechism seems to imply that this is consistent with eating animals, using them for clothing, and for research, labor, and entertainment. But on the other hand, we are told to treat animals with kindness. Is there ever a context in which it is kind to an animal to kill him and wear his skin? Or does the term “kind” only refer to the manner in which we kill (and perhaps grow and house) the animal? The tension between “being kind to animals” on the one hand, and “taking from them what we need” on the other, is a specific example of the general kind of tension between the Scriptural position and the “it’s all about us” position. Part of how this gets resolved in any particular case will involve the moral status of the animal or animals involved. But it also depends in part on answers to the questions of anthropocentrism engaged above. If one has the “it’s all about us” position, then “needlessly” might be interpreted here as “thoughtlessly” or “recklessly.” But if one has a softer anthropocentrism, one more in tune with Laudato Si’, then “needlessly” sounds like a much higher threshold to meet. Since our duty is to care for animals as God’s creatures, not ours, then that which could justify using animals for our own purposes would be an actual need—like health promotion or disease prevention. Killing them simply because they taste good, or because they look good on us when we wear them, would not meet the requirement. A certain kind of anthropocentrism, based on the fact God creates human beings in God’s image and likeness, is an essential part of the tradition. But spelling out how “hard” or “soft” that anthropocentrism is—particularly when it comes to our relationship with other animals—is an important direction for further work. Especially after Laudato Si’, we are also left wondering about the implication that Christians are to witness to a peaceable creation of harmony and nonviolence. The Kingdom of God is not yet fully realized, obviously, but yet the pope says this: It is significant that the harmony which Saint Francis of Assisi experienced with all creatures was seen as a healing of that rupture. Saint Bonaventure held that, through universal reconciliation with every creature, Saint Francis in some way returned to the state of original innocence. This is a far cry from our situation today, where sin is manifest in all its destructive power in wars, the various

Catholic Trajectory of Concern for Nonhuman Animals

171

forms of violence and abuse, the abandonment of the most vulnerable, and attacks on nature.38

Is Pope Francis asking us here to live as witnesses to the original state of nonviolence in Eden? If so, this means living in a nonviolent relationship with nonhuman animals. God gave us dominion over them, yes, but also gave us a vegetarian diet. More work needs to be done in thinking about whether Christians are called to live toward a Genesis 2 world in which God brings the animals to use because it is not good for us to be alone, or a Genesis 9 world in which we inspire “fear and dread” in other animals. Finally, it is long past time that some direct moral claims be made about specific practices with regard to nonhuman animals. Regardless of how we answer the above difficult questions, there are some practices so terrible that they ought to be directly and forcefully condemned, even at this early stage of the conversation. Genesis 2 is strong evidence that companion animals are legitimate, but surely a very basic commitment to the welfare of animals prohibits spending huge sums of money on “show” pets who have been bred in horrific conditions.39 Even if one comes to a conclusion that eating some meat is morally acceptable, surely the kind of profit-centered breeding of factoryfarmed chickens so that they feel constantly hungry is a cruelty which goes beyond the pale. Expert marksmen hunting animals so that they do not starve during the winter is a morally defensible practice, but hung-over weekend warriors shooting deer in the stomach and causing a long, painful death is a terrible way to accomplish this goal. Using animals in medical research is perhaps the best example of use that rises to the level of “need,” but current biomedical research practices are now pushing toward fundamental manipulation of animals, creating them as mere tools of research that is no way respects them as belonging to God rather than us.40 The tradition has been quite clear in giving specific moral guidance with respect to actions which clearly contract the fundamental dignity of human beings. It is high time similar guidance is given with respect to actions which clearly contradict the fundamental dignity of nonhuman animals. NOTES 1. Amena Schelling, “Sea World Explains Why It Stops Breeding Orcas,” 4 February 2016, accessed 17 May 2016, https​://ww​w.the​dodo.​com/s​eawor​ld-br​eedin​g-ban​ -reas​on-17​02760​044.h​tml. 2. Kate Gibson, “Proposed US Ban on Ivory Faces Powerful Foe,” 31 July 2015, accessed 17 May 2016, http:​//www​.cbsn​ews.c​om/ne​ws/pr​opose​d-u-s​-ban-​on-iv​ory-t​ rade-​faces​-powe​rful-​foe/.​

172

Charles Camosy

3. Fox News, “Denmark Considers Tax on Beef and Other Red Meat to Combat Climate Change,” 27 November 2016, accessed 17 May 2016, http:​//www​.foxn​ews.c​ om/le​isure​/2016​/04/2​7/den​mark-​consi​ders-​tax-o​n-bee​f-oth​er-re​d-mea​ts-to​-comb​at-cl​ imate​-chan​ge/. 4. Elizabeth Crawford, “Vegan Is Going Mainstream, Trend Data Suggests,” 17 March 2015, accessed 17 May 2016, http:​//www​.food​navig​ator-​usa.c​om/Ma​rkets​/ Vega​n-is-​going​-main​strea​m-tre​nd-da​ta-su​ggest​s. 5. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1975). 6. J.M. Coetzee, The Lives of Animals (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999) and Jonathan Safran, Foer Eating Animals (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 2009). 7. John Berkman and Celia Deane-Drummond, “Catholic Moral Theology and the Moral Status of Non-Human Animals,” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (June 2014): 1–10. 8. Elizabeth Johnson, Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love (New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2014). 9. John Berkman, “Prophetically Pro-Life: Pope John Paul II’s Gospel of Life and Evangelical Concern for Animals,” Josephinum Journal of Theology 1, no. 6 (1999): 43–59. Charles Camosy, For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics, Consistent Action (Cincinnati, OH: Franciscan Media, 2013). 10. Mary Eberstadt, “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life” (June 2009), http:​//www​.firs​tthin​ gs.co​m/art​icle/​2009/​06/pr​o-ani​mal-p​ro-li​fe; and Matthew Scully, “Pro-Life, ProAnimal,” 7 October 2013, http:​//www​.nati​onalr​eview​.com/​artic​le/35​9761/​pro-l​ife-p​ ro-an​imal-​matth​ew-sc​ully.​ 11. “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? ‘If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.’” Laudato Si’, 120, quoting Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 29 June 2009, #28. 12. Some of this material comes from my book: For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics: Consistent Action (Cincinnati, OH: Franciscan Media, 2013). 13. David Clough, On Animals: Systematic Theology (London, UK: T&T Clark, 2012). 14. See, for instance, Jerome’s commentary on Ps 90.3: “Esau was a hunter because he was a sinner. In the Holy Scriptures we do not find any saints who are hunters.” (quoted in Short, William, “Animal Symbolism,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, ed. Allison Jr. D., C. Helmer, S. McKenzie, T. Römer, J. Schröter, C. Seow, B. Walfish, and E. Ziolkowski (Berlin, DE: de Gruyter, 2009). Also, see St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who says “Now the pomp of the devil is the madness of theatres, and horse-races, and hunting, and all such vanity: from which that holy man praying to be delivered says unto God, “Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity.” (“Five Catechetical Lectures to the Newly Baptized”, Lecture 19, §6, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff (Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark, 1997), vol. 7.

Catholic Trajectory of Concern for Nonhuman Animals

173

15. Thomas Wiederman, Emperors and Gladiators (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1995). 16. Mark Oppenheimer, “Scholars Explore Christian Perspectives on Animal Rights,” New York Times (6 December 2013), accessed 17 May 2016, http:​//www​ .nyti​mes.c​om/20​13/12​/07/u​s/exp​lorin​g-chr​istia​n-per​spect​ives-​on-an​imal-​right​s.htm​l. 17. John Berkman, “Toward a Thomistic Theology of Animality,” in Creaturely Theology: On God, Humans and Other Animals, ed. Celia Deane-Drummond (London: Hymns Ancient and Modern, Ltd., 2009), 21–40. 18. Jean Porter, “A Thomistic Interpretation of Moral Emotions in Human and Non-Human Animals,” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (June 2014): 93–108. 19. John Berkman, “From Theological Speciesism to a Theological Ethology: Where Catholic Moral Theology Needs to Go,” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (June 2014): 11–34. 20. “Pope Benedict XVI Continues Tradition of Papal Concern for Animals,” (n.d.), accessed 17 May 2016, http:​//www​.peta​.org/​featu​res/p​ope-b​enedi​ct-xv​i/. 21. United Press International, “Pope Urges Respect for Animals,” October 3, 1982. 22. LS, 11. 23. Ibid., 138 24. “A good part of our genetic code is shared by many living beings.” Ibid. 25. LS, 33. 26. Ibid., 34. 27. Ibid., 67. 28. Ibid., 140. 29. Ibid., 241. 30. Bruce Friedrich, “All Dogs, and Cats, and Pigs, and Goats, and Cockroaches Go to Heaven: So Says Pope Francis,” 23 July 2015, http:​//www​.nyda​ilyne​ws.co​m/ opi​nion/​bruce​-frie​drich​-pope​-clea​r-ani​mals-​heave​n-art​icle-​1.230​2320.​ 31. LS, 243. 32. Ibid., 130. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid., 145. 35. Ibid., 129. 36. I had a spirited debate on this very topic with Christopher Tollefsen. See, Charles Camosy, “Justice and Animals: A Brief Reply to Christopher Tollefsen” (19 December 2013), accessed 17 May 2016, http:​//cat​holic​moral​theol​ogy.c​om/ju​stice​ -and-​anima​ls-a-​brief​-repl​y-to-​chris​tophe​r-tol​lefse​n/. 37. LS, 67. 38. Ibid., 66. 39. The Humane Society of the United States, “The Horrible Hundred 2013: Uncovering U.S. Puppy Mills,” accessed 17 May 2016, http:​ //www​ .huma​ nesoc​ iety. ​ o rg/n ​ e ws/p ​ r ess_​ r elea​ s es/2​ 0 13/0​ 5 /hor​ r ible​ - 100- ​ p uppy ​ - mill ​ - repo ​ r t-05 ​ 0 913 .​html.​ 40. Charles Camosy, “The Use of Animals in Biomedical Research—Can Moral Theology Fill the Gap?,” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (June 2014): 54–71.

174

Charles Camosy

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allison Jr. D., et al., eds. Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Berlin, DE: de Gruyter, 2009. Berkman, John. “From Theological Speciesism to a Theological Ethology: Where Catholic Moral Theology Needs to Go.” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (June 2014): 11–34. ———. “Prophetically Pro-Life: Pope John Paul II’s Gospel of Life and Evangelical Concern for Animals.” Josephinum Journal of Theology 1, no. 6 (1999): 43–59. ———. “Toward a Thomistic Theology of Animality.” In Creaturely Theology: On God, Humans and Other Animals. Edited by Celia Deane-Drummond, 21–40. London, UK: Hymns Ancient and Modern, Ltd., 2009. Berkman, John and Celia Deane-Drummond. “Catholic Moral Theology and the Moral Status of Non-Human Animals.” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (June 2014): 1–10. Camosy, Charles. For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics, Consistent Action. Cincinnati, OH: Franciscan Media, 2013. ———. “Justice and Animals: A Brief Reply to Christopher Tollefsen.” 19 December 2013. http:​//cat​holic​moral​theol​ogy.c​om/ju​stice​-and-​anima​ls-a-​brief​-repl​y-to-​chris​ tophe​r-tol​lefse​n/. ———. “The Use of Animals in Biomedical Research—Can Moral Theology Fill the Gap?” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (June 2014): 54–71. Clough, David. On Animals: Systematic Theology. London, UK: T&T Clark, 2012. Coetzee, J.M. The Lives of Animals. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. Crawford, Elizabeth. “Vegan is Going Mainstream, Trend Data Suggests.” 17 March 2015. http:​//www​.food​navig​ator-​usa.c​om/Ma​rkets​/Vega​n-is-​going​-main​strea​m-tre​ nd-da​ta-su​ggest​s. Eberstadt, Mary. “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life.” June 2009. http:​//www​.firs​tthin​gs.co​m/art​ icle/​2009/​06/pr​o-ani​mal-p​ro-li​fe. Foer, Jonathan Safran. Eating Animals. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 2009. Fox News. “Denmark Considers Tax on Beef and Other Red Meat to Combat Climate Change.” 27 November 2016. http:​//www​.foxn​ews.c​om/le​isure​/2016​/04/2​7/den​ mark-​consi​ders-​tax-o​n-bee​f-oth​er-re​d-mea​ts-to​-comb​at-cl​imate​-chan​ge/. Friedrich, Bruce. “All Dogs, and Cats, and Pigs, and Goats, and Cockroaches Go to Heaven: So Says Pope Francis.” 23 July 2015. http:​//www​.nyda​ilyne​ws.co​m/opi​ nion/​bruce​-frie​drich​-pope​-clea​r-ani​mals-​heave​n-art​icle-​1.230​2320.​ Gibson, Kate. “Proposed US Ban on Ivory Faces Powerful Foe.” 31 July 2015. http:​ //www​.cbsn​ews.c​om/ne​ws/pr​opose​d-u-s​-ban-​on-iv​ory-t​rade-​faces​-powe​rful-​foe/.​ Johnson, Elizabeth. Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love. New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2014. Oppenheimer, Mark. “Scholars explore Christian Perspectives on Animal Rights.” New York Times. 6 December 2013. http:​//www​.nyti​mes.c​om/20​13/12​/07/u​s/exp​ lorin​g-chr​istia​n-per​spect​ives-​on-an​imal-​right​s.htm​l.

Catholic Trajectory of Concern for Nonhuman Animals

175

PETA. “Pope Benedict XVI Continues Tradition of Papal Concern for Animals.” http:​//www​.peta​.org/​featu​res/p​ope-b​enedi​ct-xv​i/. Porter, Jean. “A Thomistic Interpretation of Moral Emotions in Human and NonHuman Animals.” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (June 2014): 93–108. Schaff, Philip, ed. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series, vol. 7. Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark, 1997. Schelling, Amena. “Sea World Explains Why It Stops Breeding Orcas.” 4 February 2016. https​://ww​w.the​dodo.​com/s​eawor​ld-br​eedin​g-ban​-reas​on-17​02760​044.h​tml. Scully, Matthew. “Pro-Life, Pro-Animal.” 7 October 2013. http:​ //www​ .nati​ onalr​ eview​.com/​artic​le/35​9761/​pro-l​ife-p​ro-an​imal-​matth​ew-sc​ully.​ Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1975. The Humane Society of the United States. “The Horrible Hundred 2013: Uncovering U.S. Puppy Mills.” May 2013. http:​//www​.huma​nesoc​iety.​org/n​ews/p​ress_​relea​ ses/2​013/0​5/hor​rible​-100-​puppy​-mill​-repo​rt-05​0913.​html.​ United Press International. “Pope Urges Respect for Animals.” 3 October 1982. Wiederman, Thomas. Emperors and Gladiators. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1995.

Part IV

THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Chapter 11

From Galileo to Laudato Si’ Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ

The distance between Galileo and Laudato Si’ may seem immense; the thesis of this chapter is that it is indeed immense, but not absolute. Both involve the church seemingly “interfering” in matters of science. Indeed, opponents of the encyclical have even cited the Galileo affair as evidence that Pope Francis should have somehow learned to keep silent. Such an argument, however, both misunderstands the Galileo affair and the message of the encyclical. There are, in fact, important lessons to learn from Galileo’s interaction with the church, but those lessons are not the ones often cited. Furthermore, the distance between Galileo and Laudato Si’ is not evidence of the irrelevance of one for the other, but rather evidence for how our understanding of the relationship between church and science has grown and continues to evolve. GALILEO The Galileo affair has been the subject of countless articles and books, and I cannot possibly do justice to its history in this short chapter. Suffice to say that Galileo’s notoriety came about due to the confluence in him of both a brilliant scientist and a brilliant public spokesperson for science. Because this dual issue of science and its expression in the public sphere is the crux of the debates about climate change today, I argue that we can see a parallel between the Galileo affair and the current discourse concerning climate change, and the understanding of one shines light on the other.1 A modern reader must attempt to put Galileo’s life into a proper chronological context. In 1543, Copernicus published his book, On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres.2 This was shortly before the eighteen-year-long Council of Trent, during which the Catholic Church defined many aspects of 179

180

Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ

its traditional teachings and argued against the many heresies flourishing at the time. Interestingly, Copernicus and his book, though well-known, were never addressed in any theological sense. Galileo was born in 1564, twentyone years after the publication of Copernicus’s book. The year 1610 saw the publication of Galileo’s first book about the telescope, The Siderius Nuncius or The Sidereal Messenger.3 In 1615, he wrote his notable “Letter to the Grand Duchess” on the relationship between science and faith.4 Though in subsequent centuries the ideas in that letter would be endorsed by numerous popes, the book led to his first confrontation with the church over his science, particularly in his meeting with Cardinal Bellarmine in 1616. This led, in 1619, to the church’s “correction” of Copernicus’s work. Owners of the book were instructed to cross out certain passages and insert words to the effect that the ideas of the book were a mathematical construct, not an actual cosmology of the universe. As Owen Gingrich has pointed out, most copies of this book were never so corrected.5 The 1617 Amsterdam edition held by the Vatican for many years, now at the Specola, does not have the corrections inserted. It is not until 1632 that Galileo would return to the topic of Copernicanism in his book, the Dialogue on Two World Systems, which led to his infamous trial in 1633.6 After his house arrest in Tuscany, he completed his final book on physics, published outside of Italy, in 1638, and he died in 1642. Before moving forward, it will be helpful to undo a couple of major misconceptions about Galileo. First, it is illuminating to examine what Galileo’s early life tells us about his personality and his style of doing science. He was the son of a noted musician, comparable in many ways to a modern “rock star.” Galileo’s father was significantly older than his mother (he was in his forties when Galileo was born), often not at home, and famous for being a rebel and iconoclast. Galileo was educated at home until age eleven. When his family moved to Florence, he attended a monastery in Vallombrosa, thirty kilometers east of town, famous for its instruction in arts, astrology, mathematics, rhetoric, and cosmology, all subjects that Galileo used to great effect later in his career. By 1578, Galileo was living in Pisa, and in 1580, he enrolled at the University of Pisa to study medicine. In those days, this meant knowing Aristotelian physics and astrology as a way of finding out what planets were influencing the patient (i.e., the sources of “influenza”). His physics teachers were notable for promoting Aristotle even as they rejected the Christian compromise provided by Aquinas; they were proud of their rebel status and their encounters with the local Inquisition. A mathematician with the Medici court, Ostilio Ricci, visited Pisa in 1583 while the nineteen-year-old Galileo was there. Noticing how well Galileo took to Euclidean geometry, Ricci persuaded Galileo’s father to allow him to

From Galileo to Laudato Si’

181

change his studies. However, in 1585, Galileo quit school without a degree. He stayed in Pisa, however, making a living tutoring mathematics while continuing studies informally with an eclectic group of artists, poets, and literary men. There he learned the techniques of painting and perspective, while also attempting his hand at literary criticism and a number of quite forgettable poems. Through these contacts, he eventually earned a post teaching mathematics in Padua, where he stayed for eighteen years. In retrospect, he would count these years as his most productive and enjoyable. In 1609, Galileo’s friend and mentor in Padua, Paolo Sarpi, shared with him instructions on how to build a telescope. With Galileo’s skill and good Venetian glass, Galileo improved on the Dutch telescope he had used as a model, and, likely at Sarpi’s suggestion, freely donated its design to the Venetian government. This, along with the influence of his friends, led to a promotion at double his earlier salary. In early December, Galileo trained his best instrument (x20 power, about 1 inch aperture) at the Moon and observed its craters. Seeing with eyes trained in perspective, he recognized these lunar features as mountains on the surface of a sphere. Using the watercolor technique he had learned in Pisa, he illustrated this vision of the Moon in a way that any modern scientist could recognize. By contrast, Thomas Herriot’s telescope drawings, done earlier than Galileo’s, look like childish scribbles with no scientific value. With the publication of The Siderius Nuncius, Galileo’s reputation was made. Soon he abandoned his new Venetian position, along with his friends, his mistress and their three children, to move back to Florence, with frequent visits in Rome. During those visits, he was feted by the Jesuits (1611) who later became his enemies. During this time, he was elected to the Academy of the Lynxes, one of the world’s first scientific societies, a point of such pride that he forever after styled himself “Galileo Galilei Linceo.” Second, the heliocentric idea was hardly new at the time of Galileo, nor was it immediately and precipitously rejected by church authorities on theological grounds. Unlike his teachers, Galileo was not someone who was constantly at odds with the church. The original opposition that led to him being called before Bellarmine arose as much from jealousy of Galileo’s fame and acclaim, as over any theological issues. And Galileo gave as good as he got, attacking his opponents with skill and wit, if not always with justification. As often as someone would speak against him, others would come to his defense. It was clear that Galileo’s position as the official philosopher and mathematician of the Medici family kept him personally safe. Still, things came to a head after he wrote a “private” (but well circulated) letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (the mother of Galileo’s patron Duke Cosimo) outlining theological arguments for why the Copernican system

182

Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ

was not contrary to the faith. This did tread on dangerous ground, since Galileo had neither the education nor the license to publish theology (and this was at a time when new theologies could start riots and wars, from the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre to the Thirty Years’ War). A consultant to the Holy Office asserted that Galileo’s views actually conformed to church teaching, but a second group of theologians there decided that his arguments that Earth, rather than the Sun, was in motion contradicted scripture. Cardinal Bellarmine (who himself had once been censored by an earlier church tribunal) was instructed to speak with Galileo. The result was that Galileo agreed to no longer actively promote the Copernican system, and in return received from Bellarmine a certificate of good standing in the church. Fifteen years later, under a different pope, Urban VIII—who was a countryman and friend of Galileo—he produced his Dialogue. Galileo had good reason to believe that this would be tacitly approved by his friends in the church. And by writing it as a dialogue, producing both sides of the issue without overtly preferring one over the other (though it is clear that the Copernican supporter has the better arguments), he felt he could get around his agreement of 1616. The book was approved first by censors in Rome, then in Florence, and published to great acclaim. But then, for no discernable reason, his friend Pope Urban VIII suddenly insisted that Galileo—partly blind and approaching seventy years old—be brought to Rome and tried for heresy. The reasons for this trial make up a voluminous literature; suffice to say that few historians believe the stated reasons for the trial. The transcript shows that most of the arguments were not about the science or theology in question. Galileo readily conceded that he would be happy to change any sections that the examiners found problematic. Rather, it centered more on whether he had actually violated his agreement with Bellarmine from 1616 which, frankly, it did. At the end, Galileo was not convicted of heresy but “vehement suspicion of heresy” and when he publicly abjured any heresy to be found in the Copernican system, no one actually outlined what those heresies might be. Was Galileo a villain or a hero? It is easy to find reasons to critique Galileo’s behavior. He hated those who copied ideas—especially his ideas. But Galileo borrowed copiously from his teachers, without credit. To quote Heilbron, “Where a new idea appears in Galileo’s writings it is wise to look for it in Sarpi’s notebooks.”7 Galileo also famously distrusted authority, an attitude he likely adopted (ironically enough) on the authority of his father and teachers in Pisa. Galileo could be furious at unfaithful friends, yet he himself abandoned his friends, patrons, and even his family and mistress when he left Venice for richer pickings in Florence. On the other hand, we must certainly honor Galileo for his scientific accomplishments. He may not have been the first or only person to observe

From Galileo to Laudato Si’

183

the sky through an early telescope, but, far more than anyone else of his era, he understood what he was seeing and why it mattered. Moreover, he understood that it was important to tell the world about his discoveries; not just the world of science and scholarship, but the world in general. It is important to remember that his ability to see and his ability to communicate what he saw were both strongly based on the unusual education he had received as a young man in Pisa. Beyond his professional accomplishments, however, it is also important to recognize that for all his ability to create personal animosities he could also inspire deep personal affection. His children (especially Virginia, the subject of Dana Sobel’s book Galileo’s Daughter) and his students—many of them clergymen—cherished him deeply. Finally, it is notable that he stayed faithful to his home city of Florence, and to his church. The trial that he suffered was patently unfair, but rather than attempting to overthrow or abandon the church that had so mistreated him, instead of fleeing to the Protestant north, for example, he accepted its findings and his punishment. This speaks to a personal character far more complex than modern caricatures are capable of containing. THE NEW STYLE OF SCIENCE Why did Galileo’s work, Dialogue on Two World Systems, ultimately land him in trouble with the church in Rome? The number of answers to this question in the vast Galileo literature is instructive. To name a few, it may have grown out of “a tragic conflict of worldviews”; his secret “atomist” heresy; his proclivity to make personal enemies; the desire of philosophers, or the Jesuits, to see him fall; his personal insulting of the pope in his final book; or it was all tied up in the politics of the Thirty Years War, which was reaching a climax at the same time as the infamous trial was being held. The sheer number and diversity of answers to this question demonstrates, if nothing else, that the question is not solved. Some, or even all, of those suggestions may be true. What I wish to note here, however, is yet another aspect of this conflict, growing out of the nature of the early modern scientific community. In the time of Galileo, science was done differently than it is today. Indeed, Galileo’s work was arguably the beginning of the change to a modern understanding of science. Neither Galileo nor the community of scholars who had to read and evaluate Galileo’s work—what today we call “the Academy”—were prepared for these changes. But if we think of Galileo’s work as being presented to this community as if they were referees of a scientific paper, and indeed their approval functioned in just this way, we must recognize two important factors.

184

Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ

First, “the Academy” of Galileo’s time was, essentially, the church itself. The church and its universities were the sponsors of knowledge and research. There would be no presumed distinction between disapproval on “scientific grounds” and disapproval on “religious grounds.” Second, given the state of astronomy and physics at the time, Galileo’s work actually did not pass muster. His proofs of the Earth’s motion, depending on the tides, are fallacious. And he had no cogent reply to the argument of his opponents that the revolution of the Earth about the Sun should provide an observable parallax in the positions of the stars, which was not in fact seen until 1838 (with a telescope far more powerful than what was available to Galileo). Indeed, as the historian of science Christopher Graney has recently argued, Galileo’s work itself is the basis of the argument of parallax.8 Looking through his telescope, he saw stars as discernible disks of light. He wrote, “The diameter of the sun contains the diameter of a fixed star of the sixth magnitude 2,160 times. Therefore, if one assumes that a fixed star of the sixth magnitude is really equal to the sun and not larger, this amounts to saying that if the sun moved away until its diameter looked to be 1/2160th of what it now appears to be, its distance would have to be 2,160 times what it is now. This is the same as saying that the distance of a fixed star of the sixth magnitude is 2,160 radii of Earth’s orbit.” Galileo wrote: I do not believe that the stars are spread over a spherical surface at equal distances from one center; I suppose their distances from us vary so much that some are two or three times as remote as others. Thus if some tiny star were found by the telescope quite close to some of the larger ones, and if that one were therefore very very remote, it might happen that some sensible alterations would take place among them.9

They would exhibit parallax, and by Galileo’s own argument, such motion ought to have been seen. It was not. As Graney points out, the disks that Galileo was measuring were not the disks of the stars but artifacts of the narrow aperture of his telescope lenses. Due to the wave nature of light, which would not be understood for several hundred years, no lens system can focus light into perfect points. In fact, no stars would be resolvable in any telescope of the time (and few even in the largest modern telescopes). Their distance cannot be estimated from their size. They are, in fact, so far away that parallactic motion that even the closest stars make shifts them only by well less than one second of arc. Add to this the problem that no known physics of the time could account for how the Earth could move, why the motion of its spin could not be easily detected, or how the motions of the other planets could be explained. These problems would not be resolved until Newton had presented his physics, a

From Galileo to Laudato Si’

185

generation after Galileo. In other words, Copernicanism—which had already been well examined and rejected by other scholars, such as Tycho Brahe, long before Galileo’s work—may have been philosophically pleasing in some manner, but it appeared at the time to be contradicted by the observations. Indeed, Galileo’s famous stance that one should argue from observations, not philosophy, stands in stark contrast to his own behavior when it came to the Copernican theory. As Heilbron outlines in his biography, as early as 1591, Galileo’s mentor Sarpi had suggested that tides were produced by motion of Earth from its center of gravity (the false argument adapted by Galileo much later on).10 In a letter written in 1597, Galileo avers that the theory of Copernicus is “more probable than the opinion of Aristotle & Ptolemy.”11 Following the supernova of 1604, also observed not to show parallax—a challenge to both the Aristotelean and the Copernican systems, but which could be accommodated by Brahe’s system of sun and planets orbiting a fixed Earth—Galileo instead suggests that this “new star” is air from the Earth traveling beyond the Moon, similar to the fallacious arguments he would use fifteen years later against the observed distance of comets. In other words, Galileo believed in the Copernican system long before he had any telescopic evidence for it. And he continued to believe in it even in the face of observational evidence against it. Finally, one must recognize that Galileo’s revolution of the art of science would eventually lead to a new understanding of the standards by which scientific evidence would be accepted, but that these standards were not yet in place in Galileo’s time. The Aristotelian standard, which treated science as a branch of philosophy, demanded that explanations for the physical universe be “demonstrated,” and when using mathematics, as Galileo did (and as Aristotle did not), the standard of “demonstration” becomes that of a mathematical theorem. In other words, the proof is recognized as a truth that (given its axioms) cannot and will not be overturned. The difference between mathematics and science, however, can be easily illustrated by noting that while the mathematics of Euclid is still considered valid, as far as it goes, the science of that epoch has long since been superseded. We now know that science does not prove, but merely describes, and that its descriptions are always open to further improvement. The modern standard for science is not that it comes up with unshakable irrefutable positions, but rather that it moves from degrees of less probable to more probable explanations. And the tools of mathematics (available to us, but not available to Galileo) allow the scientist to quantify that probability. “Probable,” in Galileo’s day, was usually taken to mean that some reputable authority supported it, even if it seemed less likely to be true than other explanations. It was only later, in the 1650s, that Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat first developed a mathematics of “probability” and still another

186

Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ

hundred years into the future before the scientist’s tools of statistics began to become available. Modern science accepts “high probability” as sufficient cause to determine which of any proposed theoretical explanations accounts for the phenomena better than the others. This decision depends on the available empirical evidence and on consistency with accepted background theories, and can change with the addition of new evidence, or a new background theory. Indeed, as in the case of Kepler’s ellipses, the preference of one system over another is not necessarily based on which does the most successful job of reproducing the observations (an infinite number of Ptolemaic epicycles could match planetary positions better than Kepler’s ellipses alone). Rather, the choice is made based on which model is the most fertile in producing newer and deeper insights into the way that nature behaves. Galileo claimed demonstrations instead of good probable arguments for his description of a heliocentric universe. Cardinal Bellarmine realized that such a demonstration would be needed to force a change in the assumed position where both the simplest reading of scripture and the evidence of the lack of stellar parallax both supported a geocentric universe. Galileo was ultimately correct that the geocentric universe was not to be preferred, but certainly, the Copernican system itself was already being improved upon by Kepler’s use of elliptical orbits (which Galileo never accepted). And our modern understanding of the universe completely omits the question of a “center” making moot the argument of Sun-versus-Earth in that role. SCIENCE, THE CHURCH, AND THE SPECOLA VATICANA The seeds of modern science were sown by Galileo but nurtured into fruition by Isaac Newton. From the time when Newton’s laws first made the heliocentric system possible, until the period of the late nineteenth century, what is now considered classical physics flourished. Foremost among the unspoken assumptions of classical physics was a new expectation of how one expects nature to behave. In the pre-Galilean mindset, nature behaves as an organism. One may look for patterns, an expected behavior, in the course of events of nature; but these are not seen as unbreakable laws. A cat may show up at your doorstep every morning looking for milk, but if the cat is absent one day, that does not signify a crucial change in nature. Cats are like that. According to this view, nature, like a cat, is a living organism that may have habits but not rigid laws. As a result, there is no single “critical experiment” that proves or disproves a proposed pattern in nature.

From Galileo to Laudato Si’

187

In the understanding of classical physics, however, nature is bound by rigid rules. The success of a description is based on its repeatability. Even in modern quantum theory, quantum outcomes are predictably unpredictable. In this mindset, observation confirms theory. Galileo, with his observations of moving moons and falling weights, assumes a modern understanding without perhaps realizing that his scientific opponents still maintained a different expectation for natural events. The mechanism of nature brought with it a new sense for the role of God. God might be reduced to a Deist force who acted as a First Cause, but otherwise played no role. For the more traditionally religious, however, God mostly stays silent but perhaps, on occasion, might suspend the laws of nature—a new understanding of the word “miracle” far different from its traditional understanding as a sign from God. Miracles would now indicate that the sign somehow violates God’s own laws. Or, for the more radical, one could contemplate a universe with no God at all. What was clear in any event was that while God might possibly be personal, Nature was certainly not. The realm of science and the realm of faith were separate. Famously, the revolutions in physics that began in the late nineteenth century and came to fruition in the early years of the twentieth century destroyed this simple equilibrium. The effects of this revolution are still being played out in the popular conception of the nature of science and the nature of faith, a change which ironically is only slowly being felt within the church and the laboratory itself. In this regard, it is illustrative to see how various popes over the past 125 years have referred to science. For the 2009 Year of Astronomy, it was my pleasure to edit a book, The Heavens Proclaim, on the history and work of the Vatican Observatory (Specola Vaticana) from its founding in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII up to the year 2009.12 One chapter in that book outlined various public statements made by the different popes in support of the Specola’s work.13 It is fascinating to see the change over this time in how they viewed the role of astronomy in the church. When Pope Leo XIII established the modern Specola in 1891, it was at a time when the Holy See was fighting for its identity as a nation independent of Italy, and when the Enlightenment whispers of a philosophy without God had become a loud chorus declaring religion the enemy of science. This can be seen in Pope Leo XIII’s Motu Proprio: the Specola shall be founded, he said, “that everyone might see clearly that the Church and her Pastors are not opposed to true and solid science, whether human or divine, but that they embrace it, encourage it, and promote it with the fullest possible devotion.”14 In this vision, astronomy does not play any role itself in the religious life of the church. Rather, astronomy is supported solely to counter the prevailing propaganda of the age.

188

Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ

By 1935, however, Pope Pius XI rings a new note in the value of astronomy. In that year he dedicated an elaborate (and expensive) new home for the Specola on top of the papal summer palace in Castel Gandolfo, and speaking of the glory of the sky in his remarks he notes that “from no part of Creation does there arise a more eloquent or stronger invitation to prayer and to adoration.”15 Nature is now seen as an invitation to prayer. Still, it is nature and not its organized study in the field of astronomy that is praised. And the goal is still to bring the contemplator into a more traditional orientation of religious activity. Pope Pius XII, who was known to be an avid amateur astronomer, was perhaps the first to make the connection between astronomy itself and faith. “Man ascends to God by climbing the ladder of the Universe,” he said in his first address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1939.16 More specifically (if less eloquently) in a later address to that Academy in 1951 he noted that “the more true science advances, the more it discovers God, almost as though He were standing, vigilant and waiting, behind every door which science opens.”17 Not merely nature, but the study of nature through science, is now seen as a pathway to discover God. Pope John Paul II moved this duality one step further. The most explicit statement of his thought on this matter is found in his letter to Fr. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, published in 1988 with the proceedings of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences study week in honor of the 300th anniversary of the publication of Newton’s Principia. There he stated that while “both religion and science must preserve their autonomy and their distinctiveness,” nonetheless, there is inevitably an interaction between the two realms.18 “Science can purify religion from error and superstition,” he wrote; “religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”19 However, it is in the writing of Pope Francis that one finds the beginnings of a new unity in the realms of science and religion. A hint of this is found in his addresses to the Vatican Observatory summer schools. At the audience with the 2016 school, he noted that “Scientific research . . . can, and should be, a source of deep joy.”20 The word joy might resonate pleasantly with students who enjoy astronomy, but it also has a deeper meaning found in Jesuit Spirituality. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius (330) speak of God as the source of “consolation . . . without previous cause.” Implicitly, scientific research has now been recognized as a form of prayer. Most recently, to the 2018 school he quoted Psalm 8, “When I consider your heavens, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him?” And yet, he notes, the Psalmist goes on to comment that the Lord has made us only a “little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned with glory and honor.” Francis then told the students, “The ‘glory and honor’ of the Psalmist is . . . astronomy. . . . [T]hrough . . . us this universe can become aware of itself and

From Galileo to Laudato Si’

189

of its Maker. This is the gift, and the responsibility, given to us as rational creatures in this cosmos.”21 And thus we see the development of papal thought about the role of science. From the time of Pope Leo XIII to the present, it has been seen first as a useful tool of the church; as an inducement to prayer; as a route to knowing God; as an equal to religion; and finally, as an activity distinctly of a person, where science and prayer are intimately mixed. LAUDATO SI’ And now we come to the focal point of the chapter. The structure and content of Laudato Si’ is a logical development of a re-animation of science as a human and religious activity. If science is not merely a tool (of technology or of church necessities) but an actual route to God, then it cannot exist without both the graces of the human soul and the dangers of original sin. Furthermore, in this way it is a recovering of the unity of the individual humanity of the scientist to the science that is done. For example, the role of the personality of Galileo, as I have argued in the opening section, was essential to the working out of his science, even as one product of his work for too long was the idea that science itself could somehow exist independent of the scientist. The structure and themes of each chapter of the encyclical demonstrate this unity of science and scientist, achievement and sin. In chapter 1, “What Is Happening to Our Common Home,” Pope Francis notes that the environment is reaching a breaking point, and that there is a need for solutions; these are not merely technological solutions, but a change of humanity. Chapter 2, “The Gospel of Creation,” continues the theme of noting that our relationships with God and creation have been broken, “both outwardly and within us” because of sin (LS 66). This is the breakdown that has led to environmental deterioration. Chapter 3, “The Human Roots of the Ecological Crisis,” argues that technology, science, or economics alone cannot save us. Rather, Christianity, with its rich deposit of truth received from Jesus Christ offers the way to this proper understanding. In chapter 4, “Integral Ecology,” Pope Francis asks a most personal question: “What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?” (LS 160). Chapter 5, “Lines of Approach and Action,” moves from the personal to the societal; we all need to come together to find answers and implement strategies, and Pope Francis suggests paths of dialogue and possible practical solutions in addressing environmental deterioration. Finally, in chapter 6, “Ecological Education and Spirituality,” Pope Francis gives hope that in small ways we can leave the world a better place than we found it. He is

190

Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ

asking that we orient our hearts to others and that we renew our commitment to the practice of solidarity and interdependence. I would draw attention here to three interesting facets to be found in this encyclical. First, consider the following passages. Chapter 1 of the encyclical ends with the comment that “at one extreme, we find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change” (LS 60). And then soon after in the beginning of chapter 2, he notes that “we need to realize that the solutions will not emerge from just one way of interpreting and transforming reality . . . no branch of the sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out, and that includes religion and the language particular to it” (LS 63). “According to the Bible . . . vital relationships [between humanity and nature] have been broken, both outwardly and within us. This rupture is sin” (LS 66). The encyclical is not just about climate change or even about ecology in general. Rather, it emphasizes again and again that eco-problems are symptoms of economic/social justice problems and that all of these are ultimately evidence of personal sin. The world of faith and the world of science in a way had been broken, however unintentionally, by both Galileo and those who had opposed him. By insisting that science and scripture had to operate at the same level, they had left only two alternatives: the traditionalists insisted on the supremacy of scripture over science (and later the Deists would insist on exactly the opposite), while Galileo’s argument was that in scientific matters scripture was irrelevant (“how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”). Instead, Pope Francis reminds us that science is the activity of human beings, searching for truth, but fallible and sinful. One cannot use scripture to supplant science, nor vice versa, but one can never neglect the relevance of the message of scripture. It is a message not of what we would find in nature, but why we choose to look to find anything there in the first place, and how we need to take care with how we use what we have found. A second point to note is that the theme of Laudato Si’ is very much attuned to Jesuit spirituality. Though he never cites St. Ignatius by name, he does connect the writings of those who influenced Ignatius, such as St. Bonaventure and St. John of the Cross (LS 233–234), in a way that echoes Ignatius’s “Principles and Foundations” found in Week One of The Spiritual Exercises. According to them, we are created to praise, reverence, and serve God. The things of this world have been created to help us to accomplish this calling; therefore, we are to only use those things that lead us to this goal, being indifferent to the things that lead us away from this goal. And we are not to desire things such as health, riches, honor, and longevity of life but, rather, to that which helps us become what God created us to be.22 This stands in contrast to what Pope Francis calls

From Galileo to Laudato Si’

191

“The culture of relativism . . . the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires” (LS 123). Again, we see the contrast with Galileo, whose life showed such an intimate mixture of a desire for truth with a desire for repute and glory. In this sense, the fact that he did not argue for the truth of his ideas at his infamous trial in 1633, though it might be seen as respect for the church’s authority, almost certainly was also (and probably principally) motivated by his own desire to maintain his personal reputation and his freedom, especially the freedom to pursue further acclaim. Indeed, the clever style of his arguments against those whom he saw as his enemies ultimately got in the way of him recognizing and engaging with the validity of their ideas. All too often he was more interested in winning the argument than in finding the truth, a trait that, as Pope Francis reminds us and I can attest to from my own life in science, can be found in too many scientists (including myself!) even today. Finally, what is called for in this encyclical is a new ethic of living with science and technology. “When technology disregards the great ethical principles, it ends up considering any practice whatsoever as licit . . . a technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power” (LS 136). But this is true not only of technology and its uses. The modern practice of science itself needs to embrace ethics, not only to advance its own agenda but because there is a spiritual quality to its practice. Science is a gloriously human activity, and as such it cannot exist as a discipline untouched by the deeper meaning of being human in relation to a broader world. But it must be motived toward a search for Truth, which to the believer is ultimately a search for the presence of God. Scientists often discuss whether or not a particular piece of work is “good science.” They need to be aware that science also has a responsibility to be Good. The scientist is human, subject to human sins and human brilliance; and yet, “by the light of God we see our shadows.” Our problems are not technical problems with technical solutions, but human problems of good and evil (see LS 66, quoted above). We are creatures of this universe, equally subject to its laws and God’s laws (LS 68). And so, science and technology must be developed with an awareness of its ethical and human implications. Economics needs more than the invisible hand (LS 123). Ecology cannot be simply aimed to “save the whales” (LS 60). We are not gods, but neither is nature. Judaeo-Christian thought demythologized nature. While continuing to admire its grandeur and immensity, it no longer saw nature as divine. In doing so, it emphasizes all the more our human responsibility for nature. This rediscovery of nature can never be at the cost of the freedom and responsibility of human beings who, as part of the world have the duty to cultivate their abilities in order to protect it and develop its potential. If we acknowledge the value and

192

Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ

the fragility of nature and, at the same time, our God-given abilities, we can finally leave behind the modern myth of unlimited material progress. A fragile world, entrusted by God to human care challenges us to devise intelligent ways of directing, developing, and limiting our power. (LS 78)

Perhaps that theme, of the Christian understanding of our own place within creation, was most brilliantly observed by G. K. Chesterton in his 1908 book, Orthodoxy. Here he too hearkens back to the song of St. Francis, Laudato Si’: The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. . . . The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate. This gives to the typically Christian pleasure in this earth a strange touch of lightness that is almost frivolity. Nature was a solemn mother to the worshippers of Isis and Cybele. Nature was a solemn mother to Wordsworth or to Emerson. But Nature is not solemn to Francis of Assisi or to George Herbert. To St. Francis, Nature is a sister, and even a younger sister: a little, dancing sister, to be laughed at as well as loved.23

NOTES 1. One can find my own views on the Galileo affair outlined in some length in Chapter 3 of Guy Consolmagno and Paul Mueller, Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Strange Questions from the Astronomer’s Inbox at the Vatican Observatory (New York, NY: Image, 2018). For our purposes here, I rely heavily on Heilbron’s recent biography of Galileo: J. L. Heilbron, Galileo (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). While it is quirky at times, with arguments that I might find debatable, I find his overview of Galileo’s early life to be quite important and remarkable. 2. Nicolaus Copernicus, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, trans. A.M. Duncan (Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1976). 3. Galileo Galilei and Albert Van Helden, Sidereus Nuncius or the Sidereal Messenger (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2015). 4. Galileo Galilei and Stillman Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1997). 5. Owen Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read (New York: Walker and Company, 2004). 6. Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican, trans. Stillman Drake (New York, NY: Modern Library, 2001). 7. Heilbron, Galileo, 196. 8. Christopher Graney, “The Telescope against Copernicus: Star Observations by Riccioli Supporting a Geocentric Universe,” Journal of the History of Astronomy 41, no. 4 (November 2010): 453–467.

From Galileo to Laudato Si’

193

9. Galileo, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, 444. 10. Heilbron, Galileo, 115–116. 11. Quoted in, ibid., 111. 12. Guy Consolmagno, The Heavens Proclaim: Astronomy and the Vatican (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2009). 13. Consolmagno, The Heavens Proclaim, 184–216. 14. Ibid., 188. 15. Ibid., 189. 16. Ibid., 191. 17. Ibid., 192. 18. Ibid., 206. Pope John Paul II, “Letter of His Holiness John Paul II to Reverend George V. Coyne S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory” (Vatican, 1 June 1988), http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/hol​y_fat​her/j​ohn_p​aul_i​i/let​ters/​1988/​docum​ ents/​hf_jp​-ii_l​et_19​88060​1_pad​re-co​yne_e​n.htm​l. See, also: Consolmagno, The Heavens Proclaim, 206. 19. Consolmagno, The Heavens Proclaim, 207. Pope John Paul II, “Letter of His Holiness John Paul II to Reverend George V. Coyne. See, also: Consolmagno, The Heavens Proclaim, 207. 20. Pope Francis, “Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to Participants in the Summer Course of The Vatican Observatory” (Vatican Observatory, 11 June 2016), https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​franc​esco/​en/sp​eeche​s/201​6/jun​e/doc​ument​s/pap​a-fra​ ncesc​o_201​60611​_scuo​la-es​tiva-​astro​nomia​-spec​ola.h​tml. 21. Pope Francis, “Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to Participants at the Astrophysics Summer School” (Vatican Observatory, 14 June 2018), http:​//w2.​vatic​ an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/spe​eches​/2018​/june​/docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_2018​ 0614_​speco​la-va​tican​a.htm​l. 22. This is a paraphrase of the Principle and Foundation found in The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola. 23. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2009), 168–169.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Chesterton, G.K. Orthodoxy. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2009. Consolmagno, Guy and Paul Mueller. Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Strange Questions from the Astronomer’s Inbox at the Vatican Observatory. New York, NY: Image, 2018. ———. The Heavens Proclaim: Astronomy and the Vatican. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2009. Copernicus, Nicolaus. On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. Translated by A.M. Duncan. Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1976. Galilei, Galileo. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican. Translated by Stillman Drake. New York, NY: Modern Library, 2001. Galilei Galileo, and Albert Van Helden. Sidereus nuncius or the Sidereal Messenger. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

194

Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ

Galilei, Galileo and Stillman Drake. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1997. Gingerich, Owen. The Book Nobody Read. New York, NY: Walker and Company, 2004. Graney, Christopher. “The Telescope Against Copernicus: Star Observations by Riccioli Supporting a Geocentric Universe.” Journal of the History of Astronomy 41, no. 4 (November 2010): 453–467. Heilbron, J. L. Galileo. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Pope Francis. “Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to Participants at the Astrophysics Summer School.” Vatican Observatory, 14 June 2018, http:​//w2.​vatic​ an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/spe​eches​/2018​/june​/docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_2018​ 0614_​speco​la-va​tican​a.htm​l. ———. “Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to Participants in the Summer Course of The Vatican Observatory.” Vatican Observatory, 11 June 2016. https​://w2​.vati​ can.v​a/con​tent/​franc​esco/​en/sp​eeche​s/201​6/jun​e/doc​ument​s/pap​a-fra​ncesc​o_201​ 60611​_scuo​la-es​tiva-​astro​nomia​-spec​ola.h​tml. Pope John Paul II. “Letter of His Holiness John Paul II to Reverend George V. Coyne S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory.” Vatican, 1 June 1988. http:​// www​.vati​can.v​a/hol​y_fat​her/j​ohn_p​aul_i​i/let​ters/​1988/​docum​ents/​hf_jp​-ii_l​et_19​ 88060​1_pad​re-co​yne_e​n.htm​l.

Chapter 12

Cosmology, Theology, and Laudato Si’ John F. Haught

The great philosopher Immanuel Kant tells us that thoughtful people should ask three big questions: What can I know? What must I do? And what may I hope for? If Kant were here today, however, he might ask a fourth: What’s going on? In the light of discoveries in geology, biology, astrophysics, and other sciences over the last two centuries, the big question today is whether anything of significance is working itself out in the universe. Now that science has shown us that the cosmos is an ongoing story, it must be more than a stage for the human drama or a place to work out our personal salvation. In a sense, the cosmos is now the whole show. What used to be the stage has become the drama. The recent arrival of the human species, in that case, is one epoch in a cosmic production that has been going on since long before we arrived and one that will likely continue long afterward. If the universe is a drama, however, is anything of lasting significance going on in it? This is another way of asking the ageless question of whether the universe has a “purpose.” To have a purpose, any sequence of events must be in the process of bringing about something that is self-evidently valuable. We think of our own lives as purposeful, for example, if they are dedicated day after day to bringing about something important, for example, love, peace, justice, truth, and beauty. But the question here is whether something of self-evident and enduring value is coming to pass in the universe at large. What is the universe all about—if anything? A knee-jerk reaction to such a question today, especially in the secular intellectual world, is that it’s too silly even to ask. To most of the intelligentsia, the whole question of cosmic purpose is so far beyond us that it is pointless even to ponder it. “As long as I can find meaning in my own life,” more than one person has asked, “who cares whether the universe has a point?” In light of contemporary science, however, it is not so easy to separate ourselves so sharply from nature. 195

196

John F. Haught

Chemistry, biology, astrophysics, and many other branches of natural science have now woven life and mind on Earth intricately into the emergent drama of a whole universe; so if the whole “scheme of things” is pointless, then so also are our individual lives. Not everyone agrees with this, of course, but it is interesting to note that the late president of the Czech Republic, Václav Havel, stated in a speech toward the end of his life that ethical irresponsibility all over our planet today is a consequence of the fact that people in general have lost the sense that the cosmos has a purpose.1 And Pope Francis, I think, would agree. Our general indifference to the current ecological predicament has something to do with the growing modern suspicion that the universe itself has no point, no meaning, no purpose. In his recent encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’, Francis implies throughout that a sense of cosmic purpose is essential to our gaining the spiritual incentive and moral strength to deal with one of the most serious terrestrial crises ever. But what does Pope Francis mean by cosmic purpose? He makes it clear that the purpose of our universe has everything to do with the bringing about of beauty. His assumption is that beauty is a self-evident, self-justifying value, an end in itself, indeed the end of all things. “At the end,” he writes, “we will find ourselves face to face with the infinite beauty of God (cf., 1 Cor 13:12), and be able to read with admiration and happiness the mystery of the universe, which with us will share in unending plenitude” (LS 243). Here Francis affirms what Christians have always formally believed but have not always in fact taken seriously, namely, that if God is infinite beauty, then beauty must be the world’s reason for being, the reason for our own being, and the reason why we need to care for our world here and now. Francis, however, is also aware that we have lost the sense that beauty is the universe’s destiny, and he implies that this loss is a major factor in our ecological neglect today. His prayer to God is: “Teach us to contemplate you in the beauty of the universe for all things speak of you” (LS 246). And, he continues, “Pour out upon us the power of your love, that we may protect life and beauty” (LS 246). What Francis is evoking here is nothing less than an aesthetic vision of reality as the appropriate context and motivation for environmental responsibility—and indeed for understanding the meaning of our own existence. Each atom, each cell, and each human life is webbed into a whole cosmos whose purpose is the bringing about of beauty. This aesthetic vision, I want to suggest, should make a difference in our search for a Christian ecological morality and spirituality. Francis’s prayer continues: “Give us the grace to feel profoundly joined to everything that is” (LS 246). The implied metaphysics—the pope’s fundamental vision of reality—is not only aesthetic but also deeply relational. Whether we are talking about God or the slightest subatomic particle, all beings are interconnected, and each creature is invited to become

Cosmology, Theology, and Laudato Si’

197

ever more intensely interconnected with others. We may put it this way: to be is to be related. To be more, is to be more related. To be related without limits is to be God. As far as I know, this relational and aesthetic worldview has never previously been set forth so explicitly in any authoritative Catholic ecclesiastical document. Francis’s emphasis on relationship is profoundly different from the Platonic, Aristotelian, Cartesian, and Thomistic philosophical visions that have shaped Catholic teaching in past centuries. Our ecological age demands that we see and feel the interconnection of everything in the universe—as well as God’s intimate relationship with the universe—in a much more deliberate way than the substantialist Aristotelian and neoplatonic conceptualizations characteristic of much previous Catholic thought had allowed. Following the nearly unanimous claims of contemporary cosmologists, Francis also acknowledges that the universe is on a long journey. Going beyond what the sciences can tell us, however, Francis implies that the journey has a goal, that of contributing to the intensification of a beauty that lasts forever. This means that our own personal vocations and individual destinies are to be shaped in accordance with this cosmic adventure toward the intensification of beauty. The encyclical, however, takes for granted that cosmic and human destiny are inseparable. Hope for our own personal salvation must now include hope for the liberation of the whole universe, as St. Paul understood when he talked about all creation groaning for redemption (Rom 8:19–22). Everything in our vast universe is a companion to other creatures in a shared journey into infinite beauty. Ecclesiastical teaching is still mostly unaccustomed to this itinerant and organismic, as distinct from static and hierarchical, understanding of the universe. In general, Catholic theology has yet to adjust fully to an evolutionary, aesthetic, and relational way of thinking. Understanding the universe in the way suggested by Pope Francis’s challenging encyclical, I suggest, calls for a radically new theological cosmology and ecological morality. It also calls for a new understanding of the main questions in discussions of the relationship of science to religion, namely, whether the universe has a purpose. Most of the issues we deal with in the dialogue of faith and science—for example, the meaning of evolution, whether Big Bang cosmology is consistent with the notion of divine creation, whether life is reducible to chemical processes, whether humans were intended to be here, and so on—these are all part of the larger question of whether the universe has a purpose.2 SCIENCE, ECOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY Contrary to the intuitions of Pope Francis and President Havel, most scientific thinkers, the majority of educated people, and a large number of academic

198

John F. Haught

philosophers today deny, sometimes passionately, that anything of purpose or lasting significance could possibly be going on in the universe. To many of them, the whole notion of cosmic purpose is ridiculous. One of America’s foremost philosophers, Daniel Dennett, for example, declares that the only message the universe has is that “there is no message.”3 The intellectual and theological foundation of Francis’s whole approach to ecological responsibility, on the other hand, is an aesthetic, relational, and purposive cosmology. His ecological vision, moreover, is doctrinally rooted in an incarnational understanding of God who in Christ takes the whole physical universe into the divine life. But does the encyclical stand up well when we bring it into closer conversation with the contemporary intellectual and academic world? I begin with one of the most important observations Pope Francis makes. Citing his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI, Francis notes that “the external deserts in the world are growing because the internal deserts have become so vast” (LS 217). Our current ecological devastation is the result, in great measure, of a void inside ourselves, an intellectual and spiritual emptiness that has grown increasingly influential in modern times and that has had the effect of deeply impoverishing our whole sense of nature. I believe, therefore, that we need to ask how our internal deserts came about in the first place. How did it happen that the natural world has undergone a kind of death inside our minds and hearts? Is science itself perhaps somehow to blame for the desertification of the world? The Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg has famously written that “the more [scientifically] comprehensible the universe has become, the more pointless it also seems.”4 Another renowned twentiethcentury physicist, Richard Feynman (1919–1988), has stated similarly that “the great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behavior has a kind of meaninglessness about it.”5 When asked to comment on Steven Weinberg’s claim, Harvard astronomer Margaret Geller agrees: The universe is merely “a physical system.”6 Many other scientists, asked to comment on Weinberg’s cosmic pessimism, likewise assume that the universe has no underlying meaning or lasting significance.7 The physicist and self-styled “new atheist” Lawrence Krauss recently exclaimed loudly that science is by nature incompatible with any religious understanding of the world: Because science holds that no idea is sacred, it’s inevitable that it draws people away from religion. The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems. Scientists have an obligation not to lie about the natural world. Even so, to avoid offense, they sometimes misleadingly imply that today’s discoveries exist in easy harmony with preexisting religious doctrines,

Cosmology, Theology, and Laudato Si’

199

or remain silent rather than pointing out contradictions between science and religious doctrine.8

Contrary to Krauss and many others who make the same claims, however, I want to say that it is not science but scientism and scientific materialism that have made the universe seem pointless. After all, science by definition is not interested methodologically even in asking the question of purpose, so it is no surprise that it hasn’t found any. Scientism and materialism, however, go far beyond science. Scientism (a term that even the world’s most vocal atheist Richard Dawkins enthusiastically accepts as descriptive of his own way of understanding the world) is the belief that science is the only reliable road to truth.9 And materialism is the related belief that the world is reducible to the measurable physical properties available to modern scientific methods of research. These two beliefs have not been arrived at by scientific research nor can they be verified or falsified by scientific method. Instead, they rest on a logically circular assumption that vitiates their claim to be unquestionably true. Scientism, in effect, says to take nothing on faith, but of course it takes a kind of (simplistic) faith to embrace scientism. Indeed, scientism is a self-subverting dogma that has its origin in a passionately personal— nonscientific—ideological interest. The murky roots of scientism and materialism remain largely unexamined by their fiercest exponents, but they nonetheless function jointly as an unquestionable worldview for Krauss and many other devotees. Krauss is right to point out that science as such does not deal with the sacred, but this does not stop him from sacralizing his own scientific method as having unrivaled access to the totality of being. My point, once again, is that it is not science, but nonscientific beliefs about science that undergird the modern and contemporary idea of a pointless universe. And these beliefs unfortunately also have ecological implications. Obviously, the observations by Weinberg, Krauss, and the others cited above stand in stark contrast to the prescientific theological sense of a world permeated by God-given importance. Most traditional Western theologies, for example, have assumed that the universe is a static, vertical hierarchy of discontinuous levels, a Great Chain of Being, emanating from an eternal divine creative love that, from above or deep inside, gives a sacramental meaning to it all. In this classical hierarchical arrangement “matter” is a relatively inferior mode of being; above, in an ascending series of distinct levels or dimensions, lie plants, animals, humans, invisible angelic spheres— and finally God. This sacramental worldview is beautifully represented by St. Bonaventure’s “Journey of the Soul into God.” When our prescientific religious traditions became literate they also sometimes referred to the universe as a kind of book. For just as an ordinary

200

John F. Haught

book can be read at many levels of meaning so also, they taught, can the universe. And since a process of personal transformation is essential to grasping the deeper meaning and truth in a serious book, an analogous journey of personal conversion would also be a condition for reading seriously the book of nature. To “see” what is really going on in the universe, the great wisdom traditions have insisted that one must first undergo a deeply spiritual conversion and change of heart. Scientific method, by contrast, does not require any such personal conversion or transformation. For that reason, classical theologians and spiritual instructors would insist that modern science is simply not wired to detect any purpose in the universe, even if it exists. However, is a single book enough to represent what is going on in the universe of contemporary science? By the early twenty-first-century scientists had shown that our universe is about 13.8 billion years old. Imagine this cosmic story taking up thirty big books. Each volume is 450 pages long, and each page represents one million years in the new version of cosmic history. The narrative of nature starts off with the Big Bang on page one of volume one, and the next twenty-one volumes consist only of lifeless physical turbulence. Clearly life was not in a hurry to come into the universe. Our solar system arrives around the beginning of volume twenty-one, between four and five billion years ago. In volume twenty-two, around 3.8 billion years ago the first sparks of life begin to glow, though not too brightly, on Earth. Life remains comparatively simple, mostly single-celled, until around the end of volume twenty-nine. At this point, the so-called “Cambrian Explosion” takes place—between 560 million years ago. During the Cambrian period, over a span of several million years, life “suddenly” becomes considerably more complex than before. Dinosaurs appear a little after the middle of volume thirty, and they go extinct on page 385. Not until the last sixty-five pages of volume thirty do mammals begin to flourish, evolving into many different species at a relatively accelerated pace. The first primates appear around fifty pages or so from the end of volume 30. Our hominid ancestors start showing up during the last four or five pages of the final book, but anatomically modern humans don’t appear until roughly the bottom fifth of the very last page of the last volume. This is when reflective thought, ethical aspiration, and religious restlessness finally begin to arrive, at least in our terrestrial precincts. Does this cosmic story have a point, a goal, a meaning, or purpose? Is there some narrative thread that ties together what’s going on in volume 1 with what’s happening on page 450 of volume 30—and any future volumes yet to be written? Does the whole set of books make any kind of overall sense? Does it have any religiously intelligible meaning at all? Currently, as I have noted above, many sincere seekers see no special meaning and no overarching significance in the new scientific story of the

Cosmology, Theology, and Laudato Si’

201

universe. For some—like the atheists Krauss and Dennett, and countless Christian biblical literalists—there is even an irresolvable conflict between the scientific cosmic story and the religious narratives of creation. As many as half of Christians in the United States, for example, find the new scientific story of the universe so strange and disturbing that they explicitly reject recent cosmology and evolutionary biology altogether for making the world look so different from what their holy books had told them. Other people of faith today accept the new cosmic story as interesting and true, but they consider it religiously and theologically inconsequential. For them science raises no really new questions. Finally, there is a third group of theologically interested people who find in the new cosmology an opportunity to think new thoughts about God, human destiny, and what is really going on in the universe. I suspect that the deeper implications of Laudato Si’ will become transparent only to those who dwell comfortably within this third setting.10 Notice, then, that the first twenty-two volumes of our cosmic story consist of lifeless and mindless material stuff. The cosmos does indeed seem to have been a desert throughout most of its history. Picturing vast tracts of lifeless time and space, recent science seems to support the materialist picture of nature. If there is any purpose to it all, one may ask, why did it take so long for life and mind to show up? And notice also how the traditional, prescientific image of a static, vertical, hierarchical universe that had shaped religious and ethical sensibilities of most people for centuries seems to have been flattened, or horizontalized, by the new scientific cosmic story. Lifeless matter which was the lowest level of all in the classical worldview is now the dominant feature in the new narrative of the universe. Lifelessness lingers throughout the first twenty-one volumes or so of our thirty-volume set. Life, since it comes in so late, now seems to be an accident of natural history; mind, in the sense of reflective self-awareness, finally arrives only at the end of volume thirty, almost as a cosmic afterthought; and the idea of divine purposiveness, which occupied the highest level of being in the classical cosmic hierarchy, today seems—in modern and postmodern thought—to be only a human fiction wishfully projected onto an impersonal cosmic canvas. HOW DID THE UNIVERSE DIE? What then are we to make, intellectually, of Pope Francis’s bold religious vision of a universe whose purpose is to intensify beauty? To address this question head on, we need to understand better how the universe came to die in our minds and hearts in the first place. How did the universe in modern thought turn into an “external” desert that reflects what Pope Francis (citing his immediate predecessor) refers to as the desert “inside”?

202

John F. Haught

It was not science alone, nor for that matter even scientism and materialism, that turned nature into a desert. Religion and spirituality had something to do with it. The severe separation of mind and spirit from matter and bodiless in much Christian thought has had the effect at times of making the material world seem fundamentally spiritless and pointless. The Jewish philosopher Hans Jonas gives us a tidy version of how the remote origins of the contemporary desertification of nature might be traceable, at least in part, to religious assumptions. Prescientific cultures, Jonas points out, were panvitalistic. That is, they believed that everything is alive, not just plants and animals, but the whole environment including rocks, rivers, and stars. In a panvitalist setting life is the norm, death the unintelligible exception. Death is somehow unreal or illusory. Imagine that you are a member of a preliterate tribe and you are looking at a deceased animal or family member lying inertly before you. If you were a true panvitalist, you would have asked: “How can anything be dead if everything is alive?” The answer your fellow panvitalists would have given you is that the life-principle that had formerly inhabited the corpse is still present in a wider spiritual world. Life is still around as the hidden but indestructible environment of nature and human existence.11 This ancient belief in an immaterial, spiritual life-world has been a comforting one for ages, but during the course of Western history, the world of spirit came to be increasingly separated from the world of matter. By the time the French mathematician and philosopher René Descartes came along (1596–1650), the world had already begun to be divided, under the influence of both ancient and medieval thought, into two seemingly separate spheres, matter and spirit. Descartes placed “mind” on the spiritual side of the divide, and (measurable) “matter” on the other side. His strict version of metaphysical dualism ensured that matter henceforth would be thought of in major strains of modern thought as essentially mindless and lifeless. Since lifeless matter has the intellectually attractive quality of being measurable mathematically, it has become the main object of scientific interest. Eventually, for modern and contemporary materialists, mindless matter became the only reality. Descartes continued to believe that mind has real existence, but in effect he exiled it to a separate ontological arena from that of lifeless material reality, rendering it inaccessible to empirical and mathematical inquiry. After Descartes, then, the hiddenness of mind and spirit gradually came to be associated more and more with nothingness, and the whole of “nature” was gathered theoretically into the domain of mindless stuff available to science. The resultant materialist worldview, though nowadays questionable because of developments in physics itself, is still dominant intellectually, and this helps explain why the universe today seems so desert-like and pointless to the likes of Weinberg, Krauss, and other materialists.

Cosmology, Theology, and Laudato Si’

203

Meanwhile, for many religious people, the modern division of finite being into the world of spirit on one side and matter on the other has fortified their impression that nothing of lasting significance could possibly be going on in the (deserted) material world. In reaction to the modern idea of an essentially lifeless and mindless universe, religion and theology withdrew into the interior world of spirit—which for them was still real. This retreat may seem forgivable at first, but it has turned out to be a fatal compromise with materialism. For in the process of taking flight to the “inside” world of spirit, modern Christian theology implicitly handed over the (apparently) lifeless “outside” material world to science. This transaction, incidentally, is the main reason why many scientific thinkers today are surprised that a Catholic pope would write an encyclical on the environment. They have come to expect that all Christian religion and theology still seeks an escape from nature as dualists and materialists understand it. The relational and aesthetic metaphysics that shapes the new encyclical, however, decisively renounces the Cartesian worldview and its dualistic spirituality with all that these imply. Francis makes central instead a spirituality based on the Christian doctrines of the Incarnation and Resurrection, both of which imply that God lovingly embraces and saves the physical universe, giving the whole new cosmic story an everlasting significance and meaning that science cannot reach all by itself. A Christian ecological vision features the Christ in whom “all things consist” (Col 1:17). Or, to put this Pauline vision in contemporary terms, in Christ the whole cosmic story becomes God’s story. To summarize, then, the creation of our outside deserts with the resultant ecological neglect is inseparable from the too tame spirituality that separated God, spirit, and Christ decisively from matter. This spirituality has made it very difficult for countless Christians to believe the good news that by taking on the flesh of the man Jesus, an Infinite Love, and Beauty weaves into itself the whole story of our universe—and also any unseen worlds that may be narratively linked to ours. BEYOND SCIENTISM AND MATERIALISM In modern times, unfortunately, materialism has become the intellectual foundation of a cosmic pessimism that is inherently opposed to all ideas of a purposeful universe. Not all scientific thinkers, however, have succumbed to the seductive lure of materialist naturalism. I am thinking here especially of two twentieth-century scientifically sophisticated religious thinkers who offer us a more intelligible framework for understanding the relationship of science to religion, and by implication of ecology to theology. The first of these is the Jesuit priest and evolutionist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

204

John F. Haught

(1881–1955), and the second is the philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947). Each may help us see more clearly that Pope Francis’s ecological vision is completely compatible with what science is now saying about the universe. Teilhard was especially disturbed that Catholics and other Christians traditionally have not been very interested in what’s going on in the universe. Traditional spirituality, he claimed, in its search for communion with a God “up above” sought escape from the physical universe. After science came along, however, interest turned more than ever before to what’s going on in the physical universe. This new secular interest is theologically important, Teilhard thought, since the doctrine of the Incarnation means that, if God has become flesh, Christians cannot be indifferent to what’s going on in the physical universe that gave rise to the body of Christ, nor can they be unconcerned about what will happen to the totality of creation as the cosmos journeys into the future. Teilhard insists that if God loves the world, so should we. By contrast, if the physical universe were “all that is,” as materialists (such as Carl Sagan) maintain, and if it were pointless to boot, as cosmic pessimists declare, then nature can never claim our full love and respect. The problem with materialist naturalism, according to Teilhard, is that since we can love fully only what partakes of eternity, materialism’s cavalier tolerance of the prospect of nature’s final journey into nothingness would seem to detract from its value. If the whole of nature is destined for nothingness in the end, as cosmic pessimists claim, such a belief cannot justify a robust intergenerational ecological morality.12 When Teilhard was living, of course, ecological sensitivity among Christian moralists was not nearly as focused as it is today, and so the well-being of nature was not his main concern. Nevertheless, he taught us a lesson that is indispensable to the acceptance of Pope Francis’s aesthetic and relational ecological vision. Throughout many of his writings, most of which were published only posthumously, Teilhard earnestly tried to show how Christians can love the world without feeling that they have to turn their backs on God, and how they may love God without feeling that they need to detach themselves from the natural world. To make this adjustment, he suggested, all they need to do is learn to think of God not as “up there,” calling people out of the world, but as “up ahead” calling the whole world, including human beings, into a new future. The Teilhardian idea of God calling the universe toward fuller-being from up ahead, moreover, turns out to be consonant with the biblical understanding of the God who called Abraham and Israel into a new future. As the incarnate God gathers creation into the divine mystery, the whole cosmos is promised a new future. Its intrinsic value, therefore, must have something to do with it having a future in the everlasting mystery of God.

Cosmology, Theology, and Laudato Si’

205

My point here is that what goes on in “this world” really matters not only to us and the rest of nature but also to God. The very identity of God is in some way affected by all that happens in creation, including what we humans are doing to our planet. Of course, astrophysicists rightly predict an eventual energy-collapse of the physical universe. But a theological vision of nature shaped by faith in the promises of God, may trust that the whole cosmic story, including the narratives that shape our identities and that of all other living beings here on Earth, will be taken into—and thereby contribute something to—the everlasting and compassionate beauty of God.13 A complementary intellectually sophisticated aesthetic vision, fully supportive of Pope Francis’s theology of beauty, is that of the scientifically skilled mathematician, religious thinker, and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. For Whitehead, as for Pope Francis, what’s really going on in the universe is an aim toward the intensification of beauty. Beauty, as Whitehead defines it, is a synthesis of novelty and order, of contrast and harmony, of unity and multiplicity. If the cosmos were merely novelty, contrast, or multiplicity, it would be pure chaos. And if the world consisted only of order, harmony, or uniformity it would be colorless monotony. Both extremes— chaos and monotony—are antitheses of beauty. So if the world were mere monotony undisturbed by chaos it would indeed be a desert. Monotony, not beauty, defines the natural world as understood by both the scientific materialist and the religious dualist. Beauty, on the other hand, always walks the razor’s edge between chaos on the one hand and monotony on the other, and this explains why it is so fragile and unstable. Our ecological predicament, considered in aesthetic terms, therefore, is the consequence of our turning away from beauty. The sin of ecological abuse is a sin against Beauty which Pope Francis identifies as the world’s destiny and its reason for being. Pope Francis no less than Whitehead understands cosmic purpose to consist of the world’s aiming toward the intensifying of beauty. The meaning of our own lives, it follows, must have something to do with our own contributing to the bringing about and sustaining of beauty. God’s creative function, in that case, is not only to bring about order but also to stir the world into discontent with the status quo. God’s will, according to Whitehead, is the maximizing of beauty. That is why the world cannot stand still, why it is an ongoing story aiming toward more beauty, even though, tragically, it is not always successful in realizing it. In the worldprocess God quietly offers new possibilities to the universe in each moment of its existence, not by forcing the divine will upon the world but by gently luring it toward more intense Beauty. If God is love, after all, God cannot be a dictator. In tenderness and humility God “proposes” new possibilities of more intense beauty, but the world—especially its human dimension—does

206

John F. Haught

not always respond to the invitation. And yet, throughout the cosmic process divine fidelity remains not only the ultimate source of new possibilities for cosmic creativity but also the “fellow sufferer” and “tender care” that nothing in the cosmic adventure will ever be lost and forgotten.14 Since God’s will is the maximizing of beauty, we may conclude that our own “doing of God’s will” must take the form of beautifying the world, keeping it from lapsing into the desert of monotony on the one hand and disorder on the other. We may do so not only in grand ways but also by undertaking the most ordinary obligations, including seemingly small contributions to the maintenance of ecological integrity. In doing so, it is consistent with the message of Laudato Si’ that we continue to trust fervently that the meaning and goal of our lives is not just to contemplate beauty but also to participate here and now in the adventure of bringing it about. NOTES 1. Václav Havel, “Faith in the World,” Civilization (April/May 1998): 53. 2. See my book John Haught, Science and Faith: A New Introduction (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 2012). 3. In John Brockman, The Third Culture (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1995), 187. 4. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1977), 144. 5. Richard Feynmann, The Meaning of It all: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist (New York, NY: Perseus, 1999), 32. 6. Alan Lightman and Roberta Brawer, Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 377. 7. Lightman and Brawer, Origins, 340–377. 8. Lawrence Krauss, “All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists,” The New Yorker (8 September 2015), https​://ww​w.new​yorke​r.com​/news​/news​-desk​/all-​scien​ tists​-shou​ld-be​-mili​tant-​athei​sts 9. Richard Dawkins, “Tanner Lecture on Human Values” (Harvard University, 19–20 November 2003), http:​//www​.stne​ws.or​g/arc​hives​/2004​_febr​uary/​web_x​_rich​ ard.h​tml. 10. I have developed this third point of view more fully in John Haught, Resting on the Future: Catholic Theology for an Unfinished Universe (New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2015). 11. Hans Jonas, The Phenomenon of Life (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1966), 7–26. 12. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, How I Believe, trans. René Hague (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1969), 42–44. 13. That the texture of “heaven” is somehow specified and given its identity by what happens in the unfinished story of the universe is an intuition that runs throughout Teilhard’s writings. See especially Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Heart of Matter, trans. René Hague (New York, NY: Harvest, 2002); The Divine Milieu (New

Cosmology, Theology, and Laudato Si’

207

York,: Harper and Row, 1962); The Future of Man, trans. Norman Denny (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1964); and The Human Phenomenon, trans. Sarah AppletonWeber (Portland, OR: Sussex Academic, 1999). 14. For the above see Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York, NY: Free Press, 1925); Modes of Thought (New York: Free Press, 1938); Adventures of Ideas (New York, NY: Free Press, 1967); and Process and Reality, corrected ed., ed. David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne (New York, NY: Free Press, 1968).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Brockman, John. The Third Culture. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1995. Dawkins, Richard. “Tanner Lecture on Human Values.” Harvard University, 19–20 November 2003. http:​//www​.stne​ws.or​g/arc​hives​/2004​_febr​uary/​web_x​_rich​ard. h​tml. Feynmann, Richard. The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist. New York, NY: Perseus, 1999. Haught, John. Resting on the Future: Catholic Theology for an Unfinished Universe. New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2015. ———. Science and Faith: A New Introduction. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 2012. Havel, Václav. “Faith in the World.” Civilization (April/May, 1998): 53. Jonas, Hans. The Phenomenon of Life. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1966. Krauss, Lawrence. “All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists.” The New Yorker, 8 September 2015. https​://ww​w.new​yorke​r.com​/news​/news​-desk​/all-​scien​tists​-shou​ ld-be​-mili​tant-​athei​sts. Lightman, Alan and Roberta Brawer. Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. How I Believe. Translated by René Hague. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1969. ———. Hymn of the Universe. Translated by Gerald Vann. New York, NY: Harper Colophon, 1969. ———. The Divine Milieu. New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1962. ———. The Future of Man. Translated by Norman Denny. New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1964. ———. The Heart of Matter. Translated by René Hague. New York, NY: Harvest, 2002. ———. The Human Phenomenon. Translated by Sarah Appleton-Weber. Portland, OR: Sussex Academic, 1999. Weinberg, Steven. The First Three Minutes. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1977. Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1967. ———. Modes of Thought. New York, NY: Free Press, 1968. ———. Process and Reality. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York, NY: Free Press, 1968. ———. Science and the Modern World. New York, NY: Free Press, 1925.

Chapter 13

The Technocratic Paradigm Diagnosis and Therapy Neil Ormerod

When presenting talks and workshops on Pope Francis’s encyclical, Laudato Si’, I usually note that the pope is calling for four distinct levels of change: a religious change, in how we view our relationships to God, to one another and to the rest of the created order; a moral change in terms of our lifestyles and the consumer choices we make; a cultural change that challenges the dominant technocratic paradigm; and a social, economic, and political change that confronts our political decisions and economies of waste and overconsumption.1 Each of these aspects flows from what the document refers to as “ecological conversion.” However, I also argue that given the timeframe within which we are operating, it is the political and economic changes that are most urgent, an urgency becoming increasingly apparent with the rapidity of climate change. Cultural change however is a much longer-term project.2 These political and economic changes will only be successful in the long run if they can be sustained by cultural meanings and values that elicit our commitments to such changes rather than having them imposed simply by political fiat. What Pope Francis refers to as the “technocratic paradigm” is a specific set of cultural meanings and values that distorts our relationships to one another and to the created order more generally by viewing the world as a gigantic mechanism open to endless manipulation and tinkering by human agents. He describes this paradigm as at the “roots of our ecological crisis.”3 In this present contribution, I will interrogate this paradigm by bringing it into critical dialogue with two other proposals relevant to the analysis of our ecological crisis. The paradigm itself is drawn by Pope Francis from the writings of Romano Guardini in his short book The End of the Modern World.4 A similar proposal can be found in the work of Gibson Winter, Liberating Creation, where Winter proposes a threefold typology of root metaphors which inform our ethical imagination: the mechanistic, the organic, and the artistic.5 209

210

Neil Ormerod

Winter’s notion of a mechanistic metaphor has clear resonances with Pope Francis’s concerns in relation to the technocratic paradigm. A further contribution can be found in the work of Robert Doran, primarily his Theology and the Dialectics of History, where drawing on the work of Eric Voegelin, he provides a cultural typology in terms of cosmological, anthropological, and soteriological cultures.6 While there are many common features to be found in these three sources, I will argue that Doran’s cultural dialectic provides for a more nuanced diagnosis of the distortions present in the technocratic paradigm and hence a more precise path toward a remedy. On the other hand, Winter’s identification of an artistic metaphor captures well both Doran’s insistence on maintaining the tensive nature of the cultural dialectic and Francis’s concern for the importance of beauty.

LAUDATO SI’ AND THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM In Chapter 3 of Laudato Si’, Francis explores the “human roots of the ecological crisis” wherein he introduces us to the notion of the “dominant technocratic paradigm” (LS, 101). While noting the benefits that have come from our increasingly effective uses of technology leading to “an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world” (LS, 104), he also raises concerns about the mismatch between our technical competence and our ethical maturity to handle our increased power responsibly. “We have certain superficial mechanisms [to control technology], but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint” (LS 105). Francis spells out in more detail just what he means by this technocratic paradigm: it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development according to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation. . . . Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology (LS 106).

While there are some resonances with the stance of critical theory in relation to the sciences and technology, the more proximate source for these concerns raised by Francis is the work of Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern

The Technocratic Paradigm

211

World, whom the pope cites eight times in the encyclical. Guardini’s own work carries with it the pessimism of a world racked by two major global conflicts that witnessed the increased mechanization of killing on an unimaginable industrial scale. He presents his own account of the technocratic vision in terms of an historical periodization that begins with the Middle Ages which itself replaced the “classical man” of the ancient world who “knew nothing of a being existing beyond the world . . . he was neither able to view nor to shape his world from a vantage point which transcended it.”7 The Middle Ages was able to transcend this limitation through the central place revelation held within it, notably in the doctrine of creation.8 This medieval synthesis grounded in revelation began to break down during the fourteenth century as we discovered a different source of authority based in human intelligence: Modern man “chose to probe things with his own intelligence and to reach established judgments which were independent of any pattern first laid down by authority.”9 While this led to a certain demythologizing of the natural world, some balance was maintained through a romanticized vision of nature, as evident in the poetry of Goethe. However, by far the largest part of the book is dedicated to the dissolution of this “modern world” in the third chapter of his work, from whence we find the various quotations used within the encyclical. The encyclical focuses on just a couple of sections within this lengthy chapter. The first concerns the Promethean task undertaken by “technological man” to “remold the world,” wherein nature is simply “raw material to be hammered into useful shape,” a mere “cold body of facts” open to endless manipulation, to be thrown together “with complete indifference.”10 While holding out the position that “technology promoted the well-being of man” in fact it masked “the destructive effects of a ruthless system.” This system is not oriented to profit or well-being but to power: “power is its motive—a lordship of all; that man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature.”11 This single page of Guardini’s work fills out the nature and implications of Francis’s notion of the technocratic paradigm. The second major source within Guardini’s book for the encyclical is a section on the nature and ethics of power. Here Guardini argues that while modern man identified increasing power with “progress” in that “it advances man in his security, usefulness, welfare and vigor,” contemporary technological man “has not been trained to use power well nor has he—even in its loosest sense—an awareness of the problem.” The use of power is “accepted simply another natural process; . . . Power is never considered in terms of the responsibility for choice which is inherent in freedom.” Rather “it unfolds independently from the continuous logic of scientific investigations, from technical problems, from political tension . . . power simply demands its own actualization.” While Guardini falls short of calling this process “demonic”

212

Neil Ormerod

he notes that “we must bring careful reflection to its real meaning before we apply it further.”12 This reading back into Pope Francis’s source helps fill out the encyclical’s notion of the technocratic paradigm with its themes of alienation from the natural world; its utilization of that world as a mere source for raw materials and a dumping ground for our waste; the role and ethics of power; and the way gadgets and technics have become “forms of life itself” that affect our complete worldview.13 However, Guardini’s construct itself suffers from various weaknesses. Its narrative of historical periodization can be challenged for its accuracy and suffers from its own contingent location just after the conclusion of World War II. We are now some seventy years since he wrote and while some of his concerns may well be duly amplified, the birth and flowering of the environmental movement speaks of a human need to reconnect with the natural world on its own terms without instrumentalization, to speak again of “mother earth,” and re-imbue nature with a numinous sensibility.14 It also lacks a clear explanatory account of the shifts over historical timeframes, though he does attempt to avoid a narrative of pure decline from the heights of the Middle Ages to the depths of technological man. None of these comments is to criticize the use made by Laudato Si’ of Guardini’s analysis, which stands or falls on its own merits.15 GIBSON WINTER AND ROOT METAPHORS Gibson Winter in his book Liberating Creation proposes an alternate approach to the same set of concerns raised by both the encyclical and Guardini, through the use of what he calls “root metaphors.” For Winter, root metaphors are overarching symbolizations of conceptions of world processes, or ontologies, that help shape our thinking and feeling and eventually our decision-making. While these are presented within the framework of historical periods in Winter’s account, this is simply when certain metaphors were dominant. In fact, the metaphors are not tied to such historical periods, but can operate at any time, in any context. Still there are clear parallels with Guardini’s suggestions, as one might hope. One strength of Winter’s proposal is that he attempts to point a way forward in a more constructive fashion, in my opinion. The three root metaphors he suggests are the organic, the mechanistic, and the artistic. The organic metaphor can be located in “traditional peoples, and most of the older, higher civilization” where it provides “biological or organic imagery of life and cosmos” constructing a “world of more-than-human powers, ordered according to the rhythms of biological or organic growth and decay.” This imagery “provides coherence in their worlds.”16 In our modern world,

The Technocratic Paradigm

213

this metaphor has been largely displaced by a mechanistic metaphor with a more linear sense of time, and more calculative thinking and organizing. “It has proved useful in organizing mass production, assembly lines, large areas of coordinated activity, systematic planning of transportation, communication, marketing, and military power.” It has also proved to be “damaging to the natural environment” and “inimical to the intimate communities of personal, familial, and neighborhood life.” Winter argues that there is a fundamental clash between these two metaphors, “between a world organized around the rhythms of life and nature versus a world organized by systems of calculation.”17 Moreover, from the perspective of those who adopt the mechanistic metaphor, societies organized around the organic metaphor appear primitive and superstitious. Still Winter refuses a direct value judgment, holding the two as simply “different.”18 There are clear resonances here with the concerns of Laudato Si’. The encyclical highlights positively the values of indigenous peoples as highly congruent with those of ecological sustainability (LS 179) and urges that there be special protection for their plight as they are forced “to abandon their homelands to make room for agricultural or mining projects which are undertaken without regard for the degradation of nature and culture” (LS 146). And, of course, Winter’s account of the mechanistic metaphor parallels quite closely Francis’s concerns with the technocratic paradigm. Winter also avoids an easy historical periodization present in Guardini’s position, noting how in the modern era, while the mechanistic metaphor may dominate our public life, the organic one still holds sway domestically.19 What Winter adds to the account is his notion of an artistic metaphor. Drawing on aesthetic and hermeneutic studies, Winter suggests a third option that brings together the organic and mechanistic metaphors into a new synthesis: This leaves one principal option for the contemporary Westernized world: to accept gratefully its creative powers; to comprehend how these powers may be modes of attunement to nature and knowledge rather than modes of domination and exploitation. It is my thesis that artistic process best provides just such an integration of organic and mechanistic processes in creative dwelling.20

The artistic metaphor breaks through the “univocal, conventional, and stipulated meanings” aimed for in the mechanistic worldview and instead delights in the “ambiguous, deep, paradoxical, and plural realms of meaning” generated through “imagery and ambiguity.”21 While there are suggestions of the importance of such a stance in the encyclical, with its concerns for beauty, they are not as focused as Francis’s material on the technocratic paradigm.22 For Winter, on the other hand, the artistic metaphor provides a resolution of

214

Neil Ormerod

the tension between the organic and the mechanistic. “Artistic process incorporates organistic and mechanistic elements in a world more human than anything human history has yet revealed.”23 In that sense, Winter is offering us through his proposal concerning the artistic metaphor a way forward out of the dominance of the mechanistic or technocratic worldviews that threaten to engulf us. While avoiding some of the weaknesses of Guardini’s analysis, Winter’s project is still marred by its descriptive and potentially relativistic nature. This is most marked in his refusal to directly criticize the mechanistic metaphor—which he describes as simply “different”—despite all the negative associations, notably environmental destruction that it gives rise to. While he offers a remedy through the adoption of the artistic metaphor, without an evaluative turn it is difficult to know why exactly we need such a remedy. A more normative and explanatory account might better locate the problematic nature of the mechanistic metaphor and more accurately diagnose the needed remedy. ROBERT DORAN AND A CULTURAL DIALECTIC Drawing on the work of theologian Bernard Lonergan and political scientist Eric Voegelin, Robert Doran develops a cultural dialectic which, because of its transcendental origins, is relatively free of historical periodization, and has both explanatory and diagnostic potential. From Lonergan, Doran takes the notion of culture as a set of meanings and values that inform a way of life;24 as well as a notion of dialectic as linked but opposed principles of change, in analogy to a dialectic of transcendence and limitation.25 From Voegelin, Doran takes three cultural ideal types, cosmological, anthropological and soteriological, to which he gives a dialectic structure.26 The basic dialectic structure is provided by cosmological and anthropological cultural forms, with the cosmological representing the limitation pole of the dialectic and anthropological the transcendence pole. Both poles of the dialectic represent permanently valid expressions of cultural meanings and values, without representing the whole range. The basic structure of the cosmological cultural type is a worldview in which the earthly society is attuned to the heavenly realm and the individual to the earthly. That attunement is reflected in a sensitivity to the rhythms of nature, the cycles of the seasons, a sense of place, and rootedness in the land. This has clear resonances with Winter’s notion of the organic root metaphor. What it adds to it is the principle of social ordering, wherein the earthly realm reflects the heavenly one.27 The transcendence pole of the dialectic is the anthropological cultural type. Here the ordering is different from that of the cosmological. Here the social order

The Technocratic Paradigm

215

is directed toward the needs of the individual and the individual is ordered toward a world-transcendent source of meaning and value (God or reason).28 In this worldview, the social order is not given (through relationship to the cosmic order) but is a human construct and hence malleable. This cultural form emerged in the era of Greek philosophy where the context-transcending power of reason was pitted against the capricious whims of the gods. At this time of its emergence, Voegelin admits that anthropological truth had “little chance of becoming socially effective, of forming a society in its image”29 but in our own time, it has largely become the default position within our culture that social order is pliable and should be reconstructed according to the demands human reason. These two cultural types, as poles of a dialectic, are meant to be in dialectic tension. When one or other pole dominates, the dialectic is thrown out of balance and cultural distortion arises. Here we can identify a key difference between what Doran is proposing concerning the anthropological cultural type and the other two constructs— the technocratic paradigm (LS and Guardini), and the mechanistic root metaphor (Winter). The latter two are predicated on a rejection of cosmological meanings and values. To this extent they are arising out of a distortion of the cultural dialectic, a breakdown of the dialectic tension between the cosmological and anthropological poles. They demonstrate a rejection and denigration of the cosmological pole, something not inherent in the anthropological cultural form per se. This is significant because it helps us realize that the solution to our plight is not just about the recovery of cosmological meanings and values (important though this is) but also requires the reappropriation of anthropological meanings and values free from the distortions of the breakdown in the cultural dialectic. The technocratic and mechanistic worldviews are a form of hyper-anthropological culture, one that has cut itself off from its cosmological roots. This is how I read the significant section of the encyclical entitled “The Crisis and Effects of Modern Anthropocentrism” (LS 115–136). Pope Francis always qualifies the term “anthropocentric” as “tyrannical” (LS 68), “distorted” (LS 69), “excessive” (LS 116), and “misguided” (LS 118, 119, 122). This is not a rejection of the anthropological pole of culture per se, but of its dialectic distortions. There are also limited but positive appeals to indigenous cultures which are carriers of more cosmologically oriented meaning (LS 146, 179). Indeed, I might suggest that at least some of what Winter proposes in relation to the artistic metaphor is really about a proper recovery of the anthropological pole, of reason properly understood: “to accept gratefully its creative powers; to comprehend how these powers may be modes of attunement to nature and knowledge rather than modes of domination and exploitation.”30 Certainly, our self-understanding of anthropological meanings and values needs a restorative therapeutic to break free from the distortions currently in play in our culture.

216

Neil Ormerod

Doran argues that the restoration of the dialectic balance in the cultural dialectic requires the presences of a distinct and third principle, soteriological culture, which he identifies as most effectively, though not exclusively, present in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Here the upward search for transcendent truth is met by the downward vector of divine revelation, which brings divine truth into effective communication within human history. As Voegelin puts it, “The critical authority over the older truth of society which the soul gained through its opening and its orientation towards the unseen measure [is] now confirmed through the revelation of the measure itself.”31 In a more theological mode, Lonergan speaks of the entry of divine meaning and value into the making of human history.32 Historically, we can witness to the ways in which this revelation has helped foster and sustain the emergence of anthropological culture in the Western world, both through an emphasis on personal over collective responsibility, and through an insistence on the compatibility of faith and reason.33 However, we can also witness the ways in which personal responsibility became distorted into individualism, while reason increasingly supplanted faith as a locus of personal authority. This is the Promethean turn noted by Guardini, wherein the anthropological cuts itself off from both cosmological cultural meaning and values (dismissed as primitive) and soteriological meanings and values (scarcely distinguished from the cosmological and dismissed as superstition).34 Any remedy must address these issues. THE CULTURAL ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS AND ITS REMEDY All three of our interlocutors recognize in their own way the dislocation of our present age, a dislocation at the heart of the cultural roots of our ecological culture: Guardini and Pope Francis with the technological paradigm; Winter and the mechanistic root metaphor; Doran and a breakdown in the cultural dialectic. In their own way they express a rejection of a cosmological vision, of a numinous sense of the natural world, of respect for the rhythms of the seasons, of a sense of connectedness to the land, to view the natural world as simply a pliable source of raw resources and a dumping place for our trash. Nowhere is this more evident than in our disrespect for those indigenous populations who still hold to a cosmological ordering of the world. They are among the most marginalized of people on our planet.35 The resultant cultural distortion being identified here lies at the cultural roots of our ecological crisis. We can barely imagine the world in different terms than those presented to us as a simply a giant machine subject to our endless manipulation. The question that Doran’s analysis raises is why the soteriological vector in human history has proved ineffective in remediating the distorted

The Technocratic Paradigm

217

cultural dialectic? Why has Christianity in the West failed in this historical responsibility? Has it, as Lynn White famously suggested, done nothing but aid and abet in promoting our ecological crisis? Here Winter’s suggestion of an artistic root metaphor as contributing to a solution might be significant. Various critics of western Christianity have bemoaned the loss of its aesthetic sensibility.36 It is perhaps not a coincidence that one of the most powerful voices for promoting ecological conversion has been the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, whose eastern tradition has retained a much stronger aesthetic sense than the West. Pope Francis too makes repeated references to beauty/beautiful in Laudato Si’: God is of “infinite beauty and goodness,” and the creator of all beauty (LS 12); our destructive consumerism “is actually making our earth less rich and beautiful” (LS 34); God’s plan is “for peace, beauty and fullness” (LS 53); Jesus invites us “to be attentive to the beauty that there is in the world” (LS 97); most significantly “the desire to create and contemplate beauty manages to overcome reductionism through a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and in those who behold it” (LS 112, emphasis added); and finally, “By learning to see and appreciate beauty, we learn to reject self-interested pragmatism. If someone has not learned to stop and admire something beautiful, we should not be surprised if he or she treats everything as an object to be used and abused without scruple” (LS 215).37 The soteriological culture that Doran speaks of as entering into our human world and restoring the balance of the cultural dialectic has a constitutive aesthetic dimension. This dimension serves to both heal the distortions of the hyper-anthropological conception of reason as concerned with domination, control, and manipulation (see LS 215 above), and to recapture something of the cosmological meanings and values of our indigenous peoples with their strong aesthetic sensibilities. As Pope Francis notes, the experience of beauty mediates “a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and in those who behold it” (LS 112). CONCLUSION Let me return to an observation I made in my opening comments. While I recognize the importance of this shifting of culture in the long run, there is also an overwhelming urgency to the task at hand. In my home city of Sydney, Australia, we have just experienced our hottest April month (2018) on record, some 4°C above average as we move into winter! This escalation had led to unseasonal bushfires impinging on our urban environment. This is just a microcosm of the rapidity of change being wrought on the planet by global warming. As climate change activist Bill McKibben often says, “this

218

Neil Ormerod

is not a debate, this is a fight,” a fight to save the planet from itself, from those who have manipulated our political and economic systems to maintain their power and privilege built upon the profligate use of fossil fuels. As Pope Francis notes, “Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth” (LS 161). We will only have the luxury of shifting our culture, essential as this shift is, if we win this fight. NOTES 1. Those familiar with my work will recognize here the structure of Lonergan’s scale of values. See Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Method in Theology (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972), 31–32. 2. For an analysis of the notion of ecological conversion see Neil Ormerod and Cristina Vanin, “Ecological Conversion: What Does It Mean?” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2016): 328–352. 3. See the title of Chapter 3 in Pope Francis, Laudato Si’ (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 24 May 2015), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/f​rance​sco/e​n/ enc​yclic​als/d​ocume​nts/p​apa-f​rance​sco_2​01505​24_en​cicli​ca-la​udato​-si.h​tml. 4. Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World: A Search for Orientation (London: Sheed & Ward, 1957). 5. Gibson Winter, Liberating Creation: Foundations of Religious Social Ethics (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1981). 6. Robert M. Doran, Theology and the Dialectics of History (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1990); Eric Voegelin, The New Science of Politics: an Introduction (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1952). I should also note that both Doran and Winter draw on a common source in the writings of Lewis Mumford. 7. Guardini, End of the Modern World, 19. I note the androcentric nature of the language (in translation from the original German), but it is rather apt nonetheless given most of the descriptions within his work are in fact very androcentric. This is especially the case in his discussion of modern and technological “man.” 8. Ibid, 24–25. 9. Ibid, 46. 10. While LS does not mention Prometheus, he is mentioned in the section of material quoted from Guardini in it. 11. Guardini, End of the Modern World, 74. See also LS, 108. 12. Ibid, 101–102. See also LS, 105. 13. Ibid, 78. See also LS, 203. This is so much more evident than at the time of Guardini with the explosive force of the computing revolution that engulfs us. 14. Sadly many in the environmental movement, for example, Lynn White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” Science 155, no. 3767 (1967): 1203–1207, have seen Christianity as part of the problem rather than a contributor to a solution, while on the other hand, some Christians have sought to demonize Green movements as “neo-pagan,” a label Pope Francis studiously avoids, unlike Pope Benedict

The Technocratic Paradigm

219

XVI. See his Caritas in Veritate, 48. In LS 118, Francis adopts the less loaded term “biocentrism.” 15. For example, the encyclical does not adopt or commit to the historical periodization offered by Guardini, simply his analysis of the final phase of the technocratic paradigm. 16. Winter, Liberating Creation, 2. 17. Ibid, 2–3. 18. Ibid, 2. It is for this type of reason that Gregory Baum is critical of Winter’s approach. See Gregory Baum, Essays in Critical Theology (Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1994), 151. 19. Winter, Liberating Creation, 3–4. Hence, he notes that patriarchal arrangement persist in the domestic realm while they break down in the public arena. 20. Ibid, 11–12. 21. Ibid, 21. 22. References to the importance of beauty are scattered throughout the encyclical. 23. Winter, Liberating Creation, 27. 24. See Lonergan, Method, where Lonergan distinguishes between a normative and an empirical understanding of culture See also “The Transition from a Classicist World-View to Historical Mindedness,” in A Second Collection, ed. William F. Ryan and Bernard Tyrrell (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1974), 1–9. 25. Insight: A Study of Human Understanding, ed. Crowe Frederick E. and Robert M. Doran, Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1992), 242. 26. Voegelin, New Science of Politics. Most fully in Doran, Theology and the Dialectics of History. 27. This reflects the origins of the cultural type in Voegelin’s political philosophy. According to Voegelin, cosmological truth is the truth of empire, whereby the empire “is interpreted as a representation of the cosmic order in the medium of human society. The empire is a cosmic analogue, a little world reflecting the order of the great, comprehensive world” (Voegelin, New Science of Politics, 54). 28. This plays out into a larger narrative in modernity, as to the sources of this transcendent measure. Is reason self-sufficient? Can we do away from God? Or does reason itself lead is, left to its own dynamics, to God? See Neil Ormerod, A Public God: Natural Theology Reconsidered (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015). 29. Voegelin, New Science of Politics, 70. 30. Winter, Liberating Creation, 11. In the mechanistic, hyper-anthropological mode, reason is misconstrued as conceptual, logical, and deductive. While part of reasoning this is far from a fuller account of the nature of intelligence and reason. See Lonergan, Insight, for a fuller account of the nature of intelligence and reason. 31. Voegelin, New Science of Politics, 78. 32. “But for the second, one must answer that, however trifling the uses to which words may be put, still they are the vehicles of meaning, and meaning is the stuff of man’s making of man. So it is that a divine revelation is God’s entry and his taking part in man’s making of man. It is God’s claim to have a say in the aims and purposes, the direction and development of human lives, human societies, human cultures, human history.” Lonergan, “Theology in Its New Context,” 61–62.

220

Neil Ormerod

33. This is one of the themes I pursue in Neil Ormerod, Re-Visioning the Church: An Experiment in Systematic-Historical Ecclesiology (Minneapolis:, MN Fortress, 2014). 34. This is nowhere more evident that in the open hostility toward religion found in the “new atheist” movement. See, for example, Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam, 2006). 35. This is very evident in the treatment of our Australian aboriginal peoples. Within the sway of Enlightenment rationalism, they were just expected to fade away, to die out, to be cared for like a dying person. At best they could be assimilated into the superior white culture, their family, and tribal structures torn apart and their connection to the land broken. The scars of this treatment are ongoing. 36. This is particularly evident in the voluminous writings of Hans Urs von Balthasar. 37. Overall, there are some forty-four references to beauty/beautiful in the encyclical.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Baum, Gregory. Essays in Critical Theology. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1994. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Bantam, 2006. Doran, Robert M. Theology and the Dialectics of History. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1990. Guardini, Romano. The End of the Modern World: A Search for Orientation. London: Sheed & Ward, 1957. Lonergan, Bernard J. F. Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. Edited by Crowe Frederick E. and Robert M. Doran, Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1992. ———. Method in Theology. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972. ———. “The Transition from a Classicist World-View to Historical Mindedness.” In A Second Collection, edited by William F. Ryan and Bernard Tyrrell, 1–9. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1974. Ormerod, Neil. A Public God: Natural Theology Reconsidered. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. ———. Re-Visioning the Church: An Experiment in Systematic-Historical Ecclesiology Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014. Ormerod, Neil and Cristina Vanin. “Ecological Conversion: What Does It Mean?” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2016): 328–352. Voegelin, Eric. The New Science of Politics: an Introduction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1952. White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155, no. 3767 (1967): 1203–1207. Winter, Gibson. Liberating Creation: Foundations of Religious Social Ethics. New York, NY: Crossroad, 1981.

Chapter 14

Personhood, Bodies, and History in Google’s Manifestation of the Technocratic Paradigm Brianne Jacobs

The goal of Laudato Si’, as with all Catholic social teaching, is to name where the holy dignity of creation is degraded, and to suggest ways of promoting its flourishing. Pope Francis identifies this degradation today with the “technocratic paradigm,” that is, the perpetuation of technological progress without regard to creation’s flourishing. Paul VI taught us that humanity does not exist to support and grow the market economy; the market exists to support humanity.1 John Paul II told us labor is not valuable because it creates profit; it is valuable because it is done by a person.2 In LS, Francis suggests something similar: humanity does not exist to develop technology; technology must exist for the development and flourishing of humanity and creation. Francis is no luddite. He extols the great achievements of technologies that have “remedied countless evils” (LS 102). Ethicists have even argued that LS is the most recent iteration of a Catholic history in which the answer to the question of technology is often “an enthusiastic ‘yes!’”3 It is not the technology itself, not machines or programs, but rather the human mindset toward technology that Francis critiques in LS. Francis is critical of the development of technology when it is no longer a means toward the end of creation’s flourishing. Ecological systems are mined and disrupted for raw materials, laborers are enslaved and oppressed, and technology users are addicted and isolated. Creation gasps and withers under the demands of technology’s development, and humanity finds itself the servant of its tools’ demands. This is the mindset Francis defines as the “technocratic paradigm” (LS 106). In this chapter, I expand Francis’s critique of the technocratic paradigm by looking at how it impacts the Internet. The first part of the chapter defines the scope and the nature of the Internet. The second part of the chapter examines the ideologies behind one Internet company in particular, Google.4 I describe 221

222

Brianne Jacobs

Google’s mission and reveal its concomitant disregard for personhood, bodies, and history. The third part judges how Google’s ideologies manifest the technocratic paradigm as they intentionally conflate technological progress and human well-being. Finally, the fourth part of the chapter presents two principles proposing how we might act against these manifestations of the technocratic paradigm to promote human flourishing and the flourishing of creation in the context of our Internet use.

THE INTERNET This chapter is not critical of the existence of the Internet as a moral ill or as the cause of the technocratic paradigm. Culture critic Virginia Heffernan beautifully captures why people are often critical of the Internet as signifying the loss of a better way of being: It seems we are missing something very worthwhile and identity-forming from our pre-digital lives. Is it a handwritten letter? Is it an analog phone call? Is it a quality of celluloid film, a multivolume encyclopedia, or a leather-bound datebook? Is it a way of thinking or being or even falling in love? Between two discourses, two languages, two regimes, something is always lost. And whether or not we admit it, the Internet and its artifacts are not just like their cultural precedents. They’re not even a rough translation—or strong misreading—of those precedents.5

Heffernan makes a seminal point here about what the Internet is not: the Internet is not simply an iteration of some previous thing. To compare an email to the touch of stationery is to miss the point, though that loss is real. The Internet is new; it is our human creation. And as a creation, it is a masterpiece of civilization. My criticisms here are born not out of a love for how things were a misplaced nostalgia and longing to go back in time. We cannot return to previous paradigms, before the Internet. We must forge a place for holiness and flourishing here and now. Ask a coder or a designer what the Internet is, and she might give you an answer about binary and algorithms (which we will get to). I understand the Internet to be the sites, services, and applications we have access to online. For Heffernan, these have become “an integral part of our humanity, as the latest and most powerful extension and expression of the project of being human.”6 The Internet then is an ongoing expression of our humanity that symbiotically shapes what we know and who we are. To be clear, the Internet and the technocratic paradigm are not the same thing. The technocratic paradigm is a mindset that influences the Internet, just as any toxic mindset

Personhood, Bodies, and History in the Technocratic Paradigm

223

influences any expression of humanity. It is this influence I wish to critique. The Internet—as an extension and expression of the project of being human, as a masterpiece of human civilization—is often good. It has the capacity, like all great masterpieces, to expose the tragic, to interrupt, to capture what is authentically human, to reveal beauty and love, and to help us develop in dignity with one another and creation. GOOGLE Google emerges from the Big Tech myth: two (PhD) students buck convention with nothing but some clunky hardware in their garage and a vision change the world, and make a fortune. Many search engines were competing in the late 1990s to navigate Internet users through the vast and growing amounts of information available to them. Most search engines ranked results based on the number of times your desired search term appeared on a page. If, for example, you searched for “Vatican II,” most search engines would rank highest the result with “Vatican II” appearing most often. Larry Page and Sergey Brin developed an alternative method. They wrote an algorithm that ranked sites based on the number of other websites that linked back to, or cited, an original site. A search for “Vatican II” on Google would rank results based on how many websites are back-linked to a page with the search term “Vatican II” on it. The site referenced by the most other sites is ranked highest. They named the search algorithm PageRank (an eponymous name play). They named the search engine and website Google, a play on the word googol, which is the digit 1 followed by 100 zeros, mathematical shorthand for an incomprehensibly high number. For Page and Brin, it represented the incomprehensible amount of information that would be processed for us, in order to retrieve and rank our desired information. Google’s stated mission reflects their name: “Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”7 Google has grown to be one of the most valuable companies on earth and is its most viewed web property. But more importantly, it is the one most integrated into our lives. For those who use it, the number of decisions Google’s algorithms have made and the amount of information they have processed for us in one single day is more than one could fathom; googol indeed. Weather, directions, inbox, news feed, research, music stream, products purchased, businesses patronized; these are not shaped simply by the mission to organize information and make it useful. They are shaped by the algorithms that make choices ranking what content is worth giving to a user. The “thinking” required to sort “the world’s information” and organize it “usefully” forms the deeper mission at Google. In other words, the

224

Brianne Jacobs

development of algorithmic artificial intelligence (AI) and the integration of that intelligence into our lives at the most fundamental level is what Google has successfully done since its founding in 1998, and the expansion of this goal is clearly where it sees its future. Useful services such as Google Maps, Gmail, Google Assistant, Google Translate, Chrome, YouTube, Android, and more do just that. The vision goes further, to what they call AI complete.8 Sergey Brin explained to journalist Steven Levy, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.”9 Journalist Franklin Foer connects this to another interview in which Brin stated, “Perhaps in the future, we can attach a little version of Google that you just plug in to your brain.”10 Foer summarizes this by saying that Google’s goal is to “create machines that replicate the human brain, and then advance beyond.”11 For example, of their project to go into libraries and scan books they have admitted: “we are not scanning all those books to be read by people.”12 The goal is to accumulate all the world’s knowledge for computers to read, and through AI use that data to think “better.” Part of the ideological underpinning of this idea is that it is not only good, but possible, to create a brain “unhindered” by body, by experience, by history, by touch, or by bias. Perhaps the greatest proponent of this idea is Ray Kurzweil, director of engineering at Google since 2012. For Kurzweil, technological changes are getting exponentially more sophisticated and useful. The returns on our advancements in technology accelerate with each achievement, which he calls the “law of accelerating returns.” Nanotechnology, genetics, and robotics, all technologies advancing exponentially, are on the cusp of erasing the boundary between human and computer intelligence. A line that is already blurred by the Google services I outlined above. In Kurzweil’s vision of history, technological developments will finally allow us “to shed our ‘frail’ and ‘limited’ human bodies and brains, what he calls “version 1.0 biological bodies.”13 Neil Jacobstein, a Google executive, has said of our iPhone use, “We’re already in some respects superhuman.”14 I take him to mean that the tools available to us with technology do not just aid and assist us, which they do, but that they augment our humanity for the better. That what makes a human “super” is one’s ability to have and process more information. This moment, when we will fully merge with machines, when we are able to upload our brains, when “we will be software, not hardware, and be able to inhabit whatever hardware we like best,” this moment is the “Singularity.” In the Singularity, computers will be able to complete tasks, life will be leisure, pain will be nonexistent, and most importantly, there will be no death.15 In merging with computers, we will become fully superhuman. The singularity event envisioned is not just an extension or expression of what it means to

Personhood, Bodies, and History in the Technocratic Paradigm

225

be human, it is an evolution. It is evolution from normal human intelligence toward “super” human intelligence. History is an arc, and it bends exponentially toward the singularity. In 2008, Google founded Singularity University (SU). Kurzweil has stated that the purpose of SU is to build, “an in-depth, thoughtful community of people united only in their appreciation of the exponential growth of information technology.”16 SU is not an accredited, degree-granting institution. It seems to be a course of lectures by celebrated tech executives for people who are excited by the idea of accelerating technology and the prospect of the Singularity, with the ability to pay the (high) cost of attendance. In 2015, Google created a parent company, Alphabet Inc, to house its subsidiaries. These are companies whose goals exceed Google’s original mission to house the world’s information and make it useful. These sister companies include Calico, which is dedicated to understanding and arresting the causes of death, and Waymo, which is developing driverless cars. Other projects include the creation of flying cars, flying balloons meant to create Internet access world-wide, cyber-security, and defense, AI that reads maps for government drones, green urban infrastructure, the (now failed) Google Glasses, Google contacts, and other unknown projects. While these projects go beyond the initial mission, they are propelled by Google’s distinct ideology, which drives that mission. Given the above analysis, I can summarize this ideology in three parts. First, Google understands the human as valuable insofar as it is able to have innovative ideas based on the processing of ever-more information. For executives at Google, smarter humans are better, and smartness comes from widening one’s information index. Second, Google understands bodies—our biases, social locations, histories, traumas, triumphs, special abilities, needs, desires, emotions, and suffering—as having little or no value. They are mere glitches in hardware meant to house and process information. Third, and perhaps most compellingly, it has a theory of history as exponential technological progress that ends with humans reaching their peak value as “superhumans,” merged with computers in the Singularity. These are the presumptions that propel Google’s mission and all of its other projects today. These projects in turn shape our lives as the Internet becomes more deeply integrated in our daily routines. THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM AT GOOGLE These three philosophical presumptions—about the person, the body, and history—shape Google’s particular manifestation of the technocratic paradigm. This is to say, the way Google values the person, body, and history prioritizes in each case the development of technology over the flourishing

226

Brianne Jacobs

of humanity and creation. In this section, I explore how the technocratic paradigm is at work in these three presumptions. Google sees people as information indexes. Because Google sees humans as data sets, it conflates technological progress and human well-being.17 Seeing humans as mere quotients of content works two ways. You could put a little Google in my brain, make me a “superhuman,” capable of innovation because I can see the most data points. Conversely, as a set of data, I can be summed up, comprehended, and given to anyone or anything. I can be added to the great pool of data in someone else’s set. The development of technology that sees humans as data sets exemplifies the technocratic paradigm, with little to no transparency or consideration given to how selling that data effects people. Each time we use a Google service, we give them a bit of data about ourselves. Where I go, what politics interest me, what I want to buy, what key words come up in texts, what questions I have about medical issues, what time I ask these questions, where I ask them, and on and on. All that data lets our searches become more and more individualized, so that my subsequent searches render retrievals ever-more likely, perhaps, to be just what I was looking for. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google and later Alphabet, has said he wants people to be able to ask Google, “What shall I do tomorrow” and “What job shall I take?”18 His vision is that with the broadest possible data optimally individualized, Google will be able to provide the best answer to any question. All this for free. But of course, it is not free. Google garners billions a year in revenues, funding its many projects and mightily enriching its many executives and engineers. Where is all this money coming from? “Nearly all the company’s revenue comes from marketers eager to reach the targeted audiences that Google delivers so abundantly. We pay with our attention and our data, the raw material of marketing.”19 In other words, Google rhapsodizes about the promises of big data, about the possibilities of innovation based on giving us information and increasing our knowledge; making us “smarter,” “superhuman.” What is happening is the inverse. We are the data being sold. Google survives, thrives, as a company by getting as much information about us as possible, and selling it to other companies. We pay them in our attention, in our time spent online, and in the information our habits and searches reveal about us. Senator Al Franken put it succinctly: we are not Google’s client; we are its product.20 Critics argue that we pay in more than just our attention, we also pay in our willingness to accept the answers Google provides without asking who might benefiting by pushing a particular product or idea into our feed. “We also pay in our ignorance of how [Google] operates, how it guides us through the web, and how it uses the data it collects on our activities there.”21 We know

Personhood, Bodies, and History in the Technocratic Paradigm

227

how Google’s earliest algorithm, PageRank, worked. We do not know the details of Google’s current ranking methods in its algorithms, or about how it personalizes our searches. Part of the reason for this is proprietary. Google, like all big tech companies, is well known for its ironclad secrecy, fearing its methods will be used by competitors. This secrecy makes it difficult to understand, evaluate, or challenge the way the Google and its algorithms shape our lives. Moreover, “behind the technical inscrutability, there’s plenty of room for opportunistic, exploitative and just plain careless conduct to hide.”22 What debates go on internally about how these algorithms are written? What are the rubrics for what is given value? How is Google manipulating us to stay online, to give them more data? To whom is our data sold, and for what purpose? How do companies to whom data is sold use our data to influence us? Technological progress—the development of algorithms that peel off more and more data from our Google use and that make the Internet all the more indispensable and personalized—rolls on, with little thought to how the collection of our data affects us. Technology is advanced for the sake of advancement itself, and for the financial gain of Google and its shareholders, under the guise of human development. Larry Page even notes in his cheeky letter about the creation of Alphabet, Inc., that “alpha” is in the title because it denotes “investment return above benchmark.”23 It is ironic that he is able to say this while maintaining the outward ethos of freedom and community. The obfuscation and secrecy around algorithms, which treat of people as data sets, functions primarily to “consolidate power and wealth.”24 The second way in which Google exemplifies the technocratic paradigm is its presumption that information can be divorced from bodies, from bias, experience, and history. Big data, algorithms, hardware, software, computing; they are all seen in neutral, objective, scientific terms. There are two problems with this. First, the notion that the people who write the algorithms might have normal biases, but that the programs they write would not have biases, is specious. For example, in 2015, U.S. News and World Report reported a “glitch” in Google’s algorithm that led to problems with its autotagging and facial recognition software: “the photo application automatically tagged African Americans as ‘apes’ and ‘animals.’”25 It is doubtful that this was intentional racism. Yet, the implicit social bias that people of color are less-than-human and more like animals perniciously reiterates itself in human creations. Second, because Google is influenced by the basic “PageRank” logic, the more something is cited, the higher it gets in rankings. The biases of Internet users, which are revealed in the way the users of the Internet link and cite ideas, therefore shapes the experience of the Internet for everyone else. This has been particularly pronounced in the ways that searches for “Jew” render

228

Brianne Jacobs

anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying websites.26 If you walked into a library and asked a librarian about “Jews,” the information you received would not be shaped by the number of anti-Semitic researchers there are. Not so, on the Internet. Similarly, searches for terms like “black girls” retrieve results disproportionally sexualized, pornographic, and derogatory compared with terms like “white girls.”27 Google has responded to criticisms by referring back to the objectivity of the algorithm. In a 2005 statement on anti-Semitism, the “Google Team” writes, “a site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.”28 In 2011, Google began changes to its algorithms under the title Panda; these changes were meant to lower the rank of low-quality sites, pornography, and content farms that aimed to game the algorithm. How it works is opaque to users; what kind of changes were made? New problems persist. While “Jew” and “black girls” no longer return erroneous, racist, or violent pages, in 2016, image searches for “three black teens” versus “three white teens” retrieved pictures of black teens’ mugshots, and white teens looking wholesome and playing together.29 Also in 2016, people found that if they searched “n*gga house” on Google Maps, it would lead to the White House.30 Clearly, the changes made were not systemic enough. Without recognizing that implicit bias shapes “neutral” algorithms, no changes ever will be. Google’s algorithms not only see the human person as a set of data, but the algorithms are created with the presumption that they are somehow above the human bias of their creators. Far from being above bias, far from being “disembodied,” Google’s AI amplifies the social, historical, and cultural meanings assigned to our bodies, propagating many forms of violence including sexism and racism. Safyia Umoja Noble terms this “technological redlining.” She defines this as, “the power of algorithms in the age of neoliberalism and the ways those digital decisions reinforce oppressive social relationships and enact new modes of racial profiling.” She goes on, “I believe artificial intelligence will be a major human rights issue for the twenty-first century. We are only beginning to understand the long-term consequences of these decision-making tools in both masking and deepening social inequality.”31 The technological paradigm is exemplified precisely in the mindset that puts the development of AI and its use above the human consequences, such as the ongoing occurrences of racism, which do not merely repeat but deepen systemic oppression. Google approaches the problem as a “glitch,” a programming error, for which the answer is more and better programming. What is corrupting the system may not be any “glitch” that simply needs to be written out. Rather the whole system, as a product of human creativity, is corrupted by the same biases, moral failings, and systemic oppressions that corrupt our embodied and socially located existence.

Personhood, Bodies, and History in the Technocratic Paradigm

229

Knowledge cannot be divorced from the knower. Engineers and Internet users shape the Internet with their embodied biases in ways that denigrate and oppress others in their embodied realities. No further programming will solve this problem, though programs might address particular problems as they arise one by one. It is only by giving power to those whose bodies are marginalized, and transparency to the public about how their algorithms work, that Google can redress the technocratic paradigm at work in how it shapes the Internet.32 The final way in which Google exemplifies the technocratic paradigm is its theory of history as exponential technological progress that ends with the Singularity, or the realization of our peak value as “superhumans” merged with computers. Theologian Johann Baptist Metz pointed out decades ago that what characterizes humanity is that, unlike computers, we cannot and do not remember all moments in history the same way. History is not progress at all, but a story or narrative that is given meaning by particular points of inflection, which shape and give meaning to all the rest. As humans, we choose how we tell our stories; we decide which moments have definitive meaning and shape the rest. These memories that shape history Metz calls dangerous. Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection form the emblematic Christian dangerous memory. By remembering God as a marginalized Jew who advocated for the poor and was murdered for his message about the Kingdom of God, we elevate this memory, and let it shape history and society. We remember Christ in order to see those who suffer as he did, experience God in their dignity, and spur us toward future that recognizes that dignity. Metz writes that we must be wary of the memory-capacity of a computer, precisely because of its inhuman inability to create dangerous memories by distinguishing them from mundane ones.33 When we make computer-like functioning a human ideal, our most valuable human asset—the ability to tell our own stories and claim our futures—is lost. Google’s ideology propagates a computer’s view of history, a march of equivalent data points heading toward the Singularity, as a human ideal. This ideology functions to erase suffering as a dangerous force in history. Not only, then, does Google’s view of history rob us of what makes us human in history, the promise of the Singularity dulls concern for suffering now, and functions as an opiate for those who benefit from it. Google manifests the technocratic paradigm with these three presumptions about the person, the body, and history. The packaging of our personhood as a mere dataset and the refusal to be transparent about the ways that our embodied realities influence and are affected by algorithms puts technological flourishing above human flourishing. Google’s view of history pushes technological advancement to the detriment of our human ability to remember and be moved by human suffering. Given this diagnosis, which

230

Brianne Jacobs

sees and judges the ways Francis’s “technocratic paradigm” influences our lives through Google products, what actions might LS suggest counteract these influences and foster an Internet culture more conductive to human flourishing? TWO PRINCIPLES TO ACT AGAINST THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM Here I offer two principles for resisting the influence of the technocratic paradigm on the Internet. The first principle is transparency about algorithms and the content they give us. Google and other tech companies would do well to be transparent about who is creating the algorithms that shape the Internet, what exactly they are changing in algorithms to address the amplification of violent hate-based ideologies, and to employ more women programmers and engineers of color. They need to do this in order to check the reiteration of violent bias that privileged programmers promote, intentionally or not. Transparency about how tech companies fight racism, sexism, and other forms of “virtual redlining” is fundamental to upholding the dignity of creation at the foundation of Laudato Si’. In What Algorithms Want, Ed Finn argues that we need to create a new kind of critical thinking and branch of humanities that is able to “read algorithms.”34 Google and other big tech companies need to be more transparent about their algorithms, and the public needs to become better at reading them. In addition to transparency about how we get information and goods, we can also demand more transparency about the information and goods themselves. Our Internet buying makes the history of products and food opaque, delivering them to our doorstops perfectly packaged, right out of thin air. But manufactured items have memories, and as Metz argues, we need to be able to tell those stories as part of our own. No shoe, no article, or wiki entry we read, no engineered seed or chemical, no design or game, no phone, no shirt, no food or meal, comes to us without having been touched by persons. How were they paid for their labor, where, and by whom? How were they treated as laborers? What were the conditions of their interaction with the goods, the information, and content, from which we benefit? What kind of environmental impact do these items and their production have? Google mines data like this and has the capacity to mine data like this. We should be able to see it and take the value of human labor and the dignity of creation into account when we search, learn, and buy. The second principle is that data accumulation does not make us more valuable. Google and tech culture emphasize the idea that we are fundamentally valuable based on how much data we have compiled. The more data we

Personhood, Bodies, and History in the Technocratic Paradigm

231

have, the better choices we can make, the smarter we are, the better people we become. That seems patently untrue from both historical and psychological standpoints. From my standpoint as a theologian, I would point out that in the tradition of Catholic social teaching, there is nothing you can do, no knowledge you can gain or lose, no data set you can compile or waste, that will make you more or less valuable. God is not just present, but fully resplendent and alive, in every person however much knowledge they have or can accumulate. The holiness of creation exceeds the bounds of information that we can quantify and qualify. We are vaster than any data set could capture. When we experience ourselves and others as mere data sets to acquire, it diminishes our sacredness and the sacredness of creation. The meaning of our own humanity becomes real to us when we seek to find God in others just as they are, vast and unquantifiable. There is no innovation or optimal data that will allow one to hack one’s way to being a more valuable human because the value in being human is already there. If big tech started with the presumption that each human is valuable as they are, rather than with the presumption that it needs to make us better, smarter, ideal “superhumans,” it would restore the importance of our bodies and of history, and change the Internet. As an expression of our humanity, it would lead the Internet to prioritize the flourishing of people and creation over the flourishing of technology. CONCLUSION Pope Francis’s critique of the technocratic paradigm helps us see and judge how big tech companies manipulate the Internet to degrade creation and humanity. I have shown how Google in particular contributes to the technocratic paradigm by degrading the human person, human bodies, and history in its ideology and in its many projects. I offered two beginning principles that resist the technocratic paradigm on the Internet. Guy Consolmagno, S.J. writes in a preceding chapter, “If science is not merely a tool (of technology or of Church necessities) but an actual route to God, then it cannot exist without both the graces of the human soul and the dangers of original sin.” Perhaps we could say the same thing of the Internet. That it is not merely a tool, but as “the latest and most powerful extension and expression of the project of being human” the Internet has the capacity to degrade and oppress, but also to interrupt and reveal our most sacred and holy, to point us toward God. If we take this seriously, as the Internet influences more and more aspects of our lives, so too must we take Laudato Si’ seriously. We must understand that the Internet includes human graces and sins. Laudato Si’ calls us to create an ethic that demands our graces in the

232

Brianne Jacobs

realm of technology, for the Internet to be a means of creation’s flourishing, and an icon of what makes creation sacred. NOTES 1. Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 26 March 1967), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/p​aul-v​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ ument​s/hf_​p-vi_​enc_2​60319​67_po​pulor​um.ht​ml. 2. Pope John Paul II, Laborum Exercens (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 14 September 1981), http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​ lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​14091​981_l​abore​m-exe​rcens​.html​. 3. Brian Green, “The Catholic Church and Technological Progress: Past, Present, and Future,” Religions 8, no. 6 (June 2017): 106. DOI:10.3390/rel8060106. 4. Google serves as a good case study, both because it is the largest and most expansive tech company, and because my study applies to similar companies such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft that I could not cover in one short chapter. 5. Virginia Heffernan, Magic and Loss: The Internet as Art (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2017), 17. 6. Heffernan, Magic and Loss, 21. 7. https​://ww​w.goo​gle.c​om/ab​out/o​ur-co​mpany​/ 8. Larry Page, “Envisioning a Future for Google: Always a Search Engine?” (Stanford University, 1 May 2002). 9. Steven Levy, “All Eyes on Google,” Newsweek (11 April 2004), https​://ww​w. new​sweek​.com/​all-e​yes-g​oogle​-1250​03. 10. David Vise and Mark Malseed, The Google Story (New York, NY: Bantam Dell Publishing, 2005), 281. 11. Franklin Foer, World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech (New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2017), 33. 12. George Dyson, Turing’s Cathedral (New York, NY: Pantheon, 2012), 312–313. 13. Ray Kurzweil in The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2006), 9; quoted in Foer, World Without Mind, 48. 14. David Rowan, “On the Exponential Curve: Inside Singularity University,” Wired, May 2013. 15. Foer, World Without Mind, 48. 16. David Rowan, Wired, May 2013. https​://ww​w.wir​ed.co​.uk/a​rticl​e/on-​the-e​ xpone​ntial​-curv​e. 17. Theologian, Jacques Ellul, anticipated this shift midcentury, and critiques it using the Catholic tradition in The Technological Society (New York, NY: Random House, 1967). 18. Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information (Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), 19. 19. Pasquale, Black Box Society, 66. 20. Ibid., 66.

Personhood, Bodies, and History in the Technocratic Paradigm

233

21. Ibid., 66. 22. Ibid., 66. 23. Larry Page, Alphabet, https://abc.xyz/. 24. Pasquale, Black Box Society, 14. 25. Safiya Umoja Noble, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2018), 6. 26. Noble, Algorithms of Oppression, 42. 27. Ibid., 66. 28. Ibid., 43. 29. Ibid., 80. 30. Ibid., 7. 31. Ibid., 1. 32. Ibid., 181. 33. Johann Baptist Metz, “Do We Miss Karl Rahner?,” in Passion for God: The Mystical-political Dimension of Christianity, trans. J. Matthew Ashley (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1998), 101. 34. Ed Finn, What Algorithms Want: Imagination in the Age of Computing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017), 181–196.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Dyson, George Turing’s Cathedral. New York, NY: Pantheon, 2012. Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Society. New York, NY: Random House, 1967. Finn, Ed. What Algorithms Want: Imagination in the Age of Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017. Foer, Franklin. World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech. New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2017. Green, Brian. “The Catholic Church and Technological Progress: Past, Present, and Future.” Religions 8, no. 6 (June 2017): 106. DOI: 10.3390/rel8060106. Heffernan, Virginia. Magic and Loss: The Internet as Art. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2017. Kurzweil, Ray. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2006. Levy, Steven. “All Eyes on Google.” Newsweek, 11 April 2004. https​://ww​w.new​ sweek​.com/​all-e​yes-g​oogle​-1250​03. Metz, Johann Baptist. “Do We Miss Karl Rahner?” In Passion for God: The MysticalPolitical Dimension of Christianity, translated by. J. Matthew Ashley, 92–106. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1998. Noble, Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2018. Page, Larry. Alphabet. https://abc.xyz/. ———. “Envisioning a Future for Google: Always a Search Engine?” Lecture, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1 May 2002. Pasquale, Frank. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.

234

Brianne Jacobs

Pope John Paul II. Laborum Exercens. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 14 September 1981. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​14091​981_l​abore​m-exe​rcens​.html​. Pope Paul VI. Populorum progressio. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 26 March 1967. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/p​aul-v​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​ p-vi_​enc_2​60319​67_po​pulor​um.ht​ml. Rowan, David. “On the Exponential Curve: Inside Singularity University.” Wired, May 2013. https​://ww​w.wir​ed.co​.uk/a​rticl​e/on-​the-e​xpone​ntial​-curv​e. Vise, David and Mark Malseed. The Google Story. New York, NY: Bantam Dell Publishing, 2005.

Part V

SOCIAL ECOLOGIES POLITICS AND ACTIVISM

Chapter 15

Ecological Citizenship and the New Habitus Anne Marie Dalton

The 1914 photograph Three Young Farmers on Their Way to a Dance by August Sanders, inspired the American novelist Richard Powers to write his first novel by the same title. The dance the young men were prepared for is not the dance at which they arrive.1 This, simply put, is the theme of the novel and the sense that inspired Powers. What do we do when we have prepared for the wrong dance: inappropriate clothing, ineffective social skills, no expertise on the floor. We are now in the midst of a whole new reality. What do we do? Where can we turn? These on a planetary scale are the questions Pope Francis addresses in Laudato Si’. Those of us in the rich nations, in particular, have been formed to embrace extreme consumerism and affluence, thus, “making it difficult to develop new habits” (LS 209) that are relevant, functional, and effective for a new dance in which we already find ourselves. To read Laudato Si’ in 2019 is to read under a context of resistance to panic and despair. On the technical and geo-engineering side, the question has become one of buying time. Will sprinkling sand on the ice caps slow the warming process enough to take longer-term action? What do we do about diminishing carbon sinks? Can we safely use nuclear power—must we? and so on. In an article in Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology, Carl Safina and Patricia Paladines use the headings, “What if the Sky is Falling?” and “What if the Sky is not Falling?”2 Laudato Si’ wagers that the sky is not falling, so let’s act as if we have time. This is an act of hope and one that Pope Francis places in the realm of the holy. So what is Pope Francis suggesting, in fact pleading for? This chapter focuses on his response with reference to his mention of ecological citizenship (LS 211) and a transformation in terms of virtues (esp., LS 216ff) in both the public and the private realms.3 “An awareness of the gravity of today’s cultural and ecological crisis must be translated into new habits . . . 237

238

Anne Marie Dalton

this education, aimed at creating an ‘ecological citizenship,’ is at times limited to providing information, and fails to instill good habits” (LS 209, 211). The education Francis is calling for must give ecological ethics “its deepest meaning”; as such, an “effective pedagogy” is needed. The pedagogy must enable people “to grow in solidarity, responsibility, and compassionate care” (LS 210). This kind of education is not confined to schools, but must take place also “in families, in the media, in catechesis, and elsewhere” (LS 213). Political institutions and various other social groups are also entrusted with helping to raise people’s awareness. So too is the church (LS 214). New laws, new education, new aesthetics, new way of thinking, new practices, and new praxis are required. Clearly, the habits and virtues Francis is calling for are not trivial—they are the stuff out of which all this newness is created. The new ecological citizens live in a new habitus; they inhabit a different world, dance a new dance. Some scholars have already set Francis’s reference to ecological citizenship within contemporary scholarship on that topic. This is enlightening and gives academic credibility to the recommendations of the encyclical. The spiritual and “deepest meaning” of Laudato Si’, however, draws more deeply on traditional Christian notions of virtue and habit, in a word, habitus. ECOLOGICAL CITIZENSHIP The notion of ecological citizenship developed near the end of the twentieth century as cultural and social science experts attempted to respond seriously to the ecological crisis. It deals particularly with contemporary liberal democracies. It is also concurrent with and an offshoot from a re-examination of citizenship in more general terms.4 Questions around what is necessary to bend democracies toward an effective ecological response speak to the challenge of Laudato Si’ to the entire world (not only to Christians) and set his proposals within the secular conversation. Three key concerns in the discussion of ecological citizenship are (1) can the current emphasis on rights within liberal democracies extend to ecological citizenship, (2) is ecological citizenship a focus of the private sphere or more correctly of the public sphere, and (3) can the virtue of justice be effectively and functionally extended to include justice to future generations and to the more-than-human natural world? In his consideration of whether or not current liberal democracies can incorporate ecological citizenship, Andrew Dobson argues that a new conception of democracy is necessary. Democracy as now understood has been inherited from two traditions: liberal and civic republican. Either of these, he argues, can accommodate an environmental citizenship, but not an ecological

Ecological Citizenship and the New Habitus

239

citizenship. Environmental citizenship focuses on the managerial within a contractual understanding of citizenship, exercised within a relatively welldefined public. Ecological citizenship focuses instead on nonreciprocated responsibilities of citizens, involves new notions of politics within private spaces, deals seriously with the responsibilities of those with the largest ecological footprints, and requires new virtues particularly related to the exercise of ecological responsibility.5 Dobson, along with most scholars of citizenship, notes that the contractual notion of a democratic state rests on rights and responsibilities. Citizenship is a reciprocal relationship in which the citizen is guaranteed rights, but these rights come with a set of obligations, such as to vote, to pay taxes, and to obey certain laws. Some argue that at present, the drift has been toward an overemphasis on rights and neglect of responsibility.6 Even a correction to the latter, however, is not sufficient in Dobson’s mind. An ecological citizen is defined, in part, by a nonreciprocal sense of responsibility, in which one’s responsibility is not tied to one’s rights; future generations and more-than-human species cannot be expected to reciprocate those now responsible to them.7 Ecological responsibility is based, then, on the nonreciprocal sense of justice and of compassion.8 While it is generally agreed that justice is endemic to citizenship, Dobson has to make the case for a sense of unreciprocated justice. Ecological responsibility, he points out, sits uncomfortably within the exercise of justice, and hence other virtues must be called upon, compassion and care being obvious ones. As is the case with contractual notions of citizenship, the notion that citizenship is associated only with the public sphere is “disrupted” in Dobson’s view of ecological citizenship. As Paul Clarke contends in his concept of “deep citizenship,” ecological citizenship is also characterized by private actions, those centered in the household, for example, that have important public implications.9 In this sense, there is a similarity to feminist contentions that the private is also political. According to this view, much of citizenship inheres in the formative aspects of society and is performed in what the distinction of public and private would designate as private. Likewise, the category of active versus passive citizens is disrupted. Active citizens participate in the public arena, whereas private citizens do not. The former display a sense of public duty, whereas the latter emphasize rights and entitlements. Whether or not it was ever true, however, that the so-called passive citizens did not act in the public sphere (minimally at least in seeking their rights), ecological citizenship does not distinguish between these poles; on the contrary, “it is all about everyday life.”10 Finally, ecological citizenship disrupts the notion of the “nation state.” The nation state as the object of citizenship is challenged already by ideas about universal responsibilities to those suffering from poverty and oppression

240

Anne Marie Dalton

worldwide. As well acknowledged, the ecological crisis also extends beyond national borders. However ecological citizenship pushes the concept of world citizen, to that of Earth citizen. Ecological citizens bear responsibility not only to the stranger in their time as does the world citizen but also to the stranger of the future, to places, and to other species. In the words of Dobson, “Citizenships are not created ex nihilo; they are rooted in particular times, places, and experiences.”11 If ecological citizenship is disruptive of the traditional forms of citizenship, then, he concludes, the standard preconditions for citizenship no longer hold. One articulation of the traditional forms is “a city culture, secularization, the decline of particularistic values, the emergence of the idea of a public realm, the erosion of particularistic commitments and the administrative framework of the nation state.”12 For Dobson, preconditions for ecological citizenship would include connecting the local to the global, not in just any manner, but through networks of transnational activity geared toward “strangers distant in terms of space, time and even species.”13 Ecological citizens, he contends, are formed in the private sphere, primarily in the family. This is not to be understood, however, as an individualistic private activity. The family is part of the solidarity envisioned by ecological citizenship. The stranger, in place, time, and species, is of primary concern. Andrew C. Revkin summarized notions of ecological citizenship simply as the condition in which ecology forms the basis for thinking about citizenship; on the one end, citizens have impact ecologically. On the other, ecological thinking impacts the citizen. “This model is immediately applicable to citizenship, understood as participatory, active and reactive, life of individuals in a community residing in a shared space, even as the borders of this space extend globally.”14 Finally, the state must also play a role, but this role can no longer hinge on the impartiality of the state. Rather ecological citizenship is political and passionate for the good life, which is a way of life that embodies the responsibility required to address urgent ecological issues. Transformation at many levels is required. It is not difficult to see an underpinning for Laudato Si’, in the Dobson’s description of ecological citizenship. Francis mentions ecological citizenship claiming that education must be toward creating “ecological citizenship” (LS 211). He goes further, however, in naming the “solidarity, responsibility, and compassionate care” required of the ecological citizen as “a leap toward the transcendent” (LS 210). “Only by cultivating the social virtues,” he claims, “will people be able to make a selfless ecological commitment” (LS 211). Laudato Si’ is addressed to the world as well as to Roman Catholics. So Francis uses an open language associating the transcendent with the goodness inherent in attempts to be ecological citizens. In Part III of the Laudato Si’, “Ecological Conversion,” he deals overtly with the “heritage of Christian

Ecological Citizenship and the New Habitus

241

Spirituality, the fruit of twenty centuries of personal and communal experience [that] has a precious contribution to make to humanity” (LS 216). As Damian Howard SJ has pointed out, “the whole encyclical can be read as a large-scale and complex exercise in dialogue between the Church and those who are committed to the pursuit of ecological justice.”15 George B. Handley summarizes the particular way in which theology and the secular disciplines come together for Francis in this encyclical: “He does not offer theology, in other words, as the one-time ‘queen of sciences’ but as a tool and partner in rethinking the meaning of human knowing, human loving, and human being in the natural world.”16 In the words of Pope Francis, “If we are truly concerned to develop an ecology capable of remedying the damage we have done, no branch of sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out, and that includes religion and the language particular to it” (LS 63). Further to the bringing together of different forms of knowledge, Handley notes that in his call to ecological citizenship Francis contends that this dialogue of human knowing, leads also to human loving and finally to human being, the goal of all knowing and loving (LS 43). We become ecological citizens through an ecological conversion, an experiential transformation. Such a conversion is “not the fruit of new information but of a concerted practice of reinterpreting and revivifying what we thought we knew.”17 Thus, formation for ecological activity in the world and the conversion it entails has a foundation that is both theologically grounded and experientially based. Reading Laudato Si’ as akin to the reading of ecological citizenship supports Francis’s appeal to the world and not just to Christian or indeed religious believers. Yet it is worth pondering that the notions expanded here by contemporary political ecologists are not so far removed from a more ancient tradition of habitus. Some, such as Chris Hilson, can therefore read the encyclical as fitting into more long-standing republican notions of citizenship. One might take a more accurate clue from the concluding sections of Laudato Si’ in which Francis places his call for ecological citizenship within the Christian tradition. In his article addressing the liturgical significance of the encyclical, Peter McGrail speaks of this last section as giving a “ lens . . . through which to read back into the contents of the letter.”18 Similarly, one can read the encyclical’s focus on formation in ecological virtues through this lens as habitus. Jostrom Isaac Kureethadam has named the ecological virtues on the basis of Francis’ description of an ecological citizen. He has done so calling on the historically deep tradition of Catholicism as well as on contemporary theological attention to virtue and to the ecological crisis.19 Another argument for habitus within the Christian tradition as a correct and enlightening reading of the encyclical is Christopher Hrynkowk’s contention that Francis is choosing to be nonpolitical in the sense of being a peacemaker among

242

Anne Marie Dalton

those committed to strong ideological positions. It is in keeping with the pope’s statement made during the celebration of Eucharist in Cuba, “Service is never ideological, for we do not serve ideas, we serve people.”20 Laudato Si’ describes a habitus that serves the whole Earth but attempts to avoid easy political allegiances. HABITUS Habitus is the Latin translation of the Greek word hexis. As Aristotle understood the concept of hexis, it refers to “an acquired trained disposition to engage in certain modes of activity when encountering particular objects or situations.”21 For Aquinas, the virtuous person resulting from hexus or habitus has become proficient in the exercise of the moral virtues; virtues become habitual. This tradition from Aristotle, through Aquinas, resists the narrow concept of habit as it has evolved through time; habits came to be seen as involuntary acts and therefore, by some accounts, outside the realm of a moral life. Similarly, the notion of virtue has taken on a static meaning, something achieved in the process of formation. However, in their original meanings the virtues, the stuff of habitus, were goal oriented; they contained a telos related both to the external or instrumental aspects of life in the world and to the transformation and sustaining of interiority.22 As well habitus within the Christian tradition carries with it the Christian notion of freedom, and so there is the possibility of formation toward evil or goodness as well as the possibility of acting anew, even the creation of a whole new habitus. Indeed, conversion to Christianity involved the creation within individuals and communities of such a new habitus, a new Way. The candidate for the sacraments of initiation learned the teachings of this new Way, practiced new virtues, and participated gradually in the rituals of Christianity. Artistic expression, public ritual, ascetic practices, holidays and so on were all focused on the creation of this new habitus. Similarly, the minutiae of family life, prayer, fasting, attending church, consecrating homes and religious articles, blessing food as well as land, boats, and animals, ritualizing beginnings—fishing fleet, military operations, voyages to new lands—formed a holistic web within which virtues became habitual. This traditional understanding of habitus is critical in considering the role of habits/virtues in ecological citizenship as Francis constructs it in Laudato Si’. It is the program he proposes for effective and functional responses to the ecological crisis. This is not to say that Francis wants to “go back” to some former way of life. He is well aware of the damage Christianity has done in many areas. But modernity has created its own set of damaging virtues and habits. Those of us who were formed within the techno-capitalist society of

Ecological Citizenship and the New Habitus

243

today and continue to contribute to its sustainability are already operating out of habitus. We have a set of virtues/habits that are not conducive to ecological citizenship: greed, consumerism, indifference, individualism, and so on. These imbedded patterns of life must change and that is very difficult. As Omar Lizardo briefly explains in his short summary of P. Bourdieu’s development of the notions of habitus within sociology, habitus is the product of “the environmental conditions” within which we develop. It is “the product of adaptation” to the social (in the full sense) environment of our developmental past. Hence, “habitus is heavily weighted towards the past.” We are “attracted to, even love” that to which we are best fitted and to avoid those situations for which we are not well prepared. Furthermore, the very structures of our society are isomorphic to the pattern of development, reflecting such social components as class, race, and gender. Change, thus requires according to this understanding, dramatic circumstances “that permanently disrupt the capacity of the habitus” to operate as it has in the past.23 This is not to claim that Bourdieu has the last word on habitus or that this brief summary does justice to his theory. However, the protracted inertia that prevails with respect to the ecological crisis seems to bear out the inertial quality of habitus. This situation is well recognized by Francis alongside the urgency to change. Contemporary scholarship in the biology of evolution as it pertains to the human species, also needs consideration in the understanding of what is at stake in the attempt to change the direction of human presence on the planet. Biologist and theologian Carolyn King argues for the necessity of considering how and why it was that humans came to be the way they are. Natural selection does not prepare the human species for living within limits. Survival and reproduction were the operative factors in the evolution of the human species. Sociability works because the social constraints are perceived to benefit all within the group provided the group is small enough that the benefits are obvious. In the case of the ecological crisis in its global realities, this is challenging. Reciprocity and kinship also seem to have evolved in nature, however, and can when taken up in certain ways contribute to an ecological ethic. However, conversion on the scale of what is required is extremely challenging to our very natures as a human species. What she calls “a habitat of grace” is necessary.24 It is the task of religions, she claims, to capitalize on the relevant qualities of the human species as they mediate a graced presence and a graced community. So is the remedy suggested by Laudato Si’, the building of a new ecological citizenship through an integral system of re-education and conversion, doomed to drown in the depths of an intransigent habitus? There is considerable scholarly discussion in virtue ethics, philosophical ethics, psychology, moral education, cognitive theory, and so on, regarding the nature of habitus; the Aristotelian and Thomist constructions of virtue and habit and the

244

Anne Marie Dalton

intricate operations of human thought, behavior, and change.25 Many of these discussions focus on the re-capturing of the dynamic quality of habitus more faithful to its use by Aristotle and Aquinas. One of the interesting issues that is relevant to the dynamic nature of habitus is the role of desire in the creation and exercise of virtues. David Carr proposes two kinds of virtues—those of self-control and those of desire: The point of crucial importance: . . . an emotion or passion or feeling is just as important a feature of a virtue or attachment as [for] a virtue of self-control, it is not in the former case engaged in a struggle with reason but is joined in alliance with it . . . whereas in the case of virtues of self-control passion is related only externally to reason, passion and reason are related internally in the case of virtues of attachment.26

Of course, both desire and self-control are directed in specific directions within social contexts, and no serious scholarship denies that. The discussion really is about to what extent the habitus is pliable, subject to intentionality for example. Hence, if human behavior is to change on a large scale, either widespread experience of dramatic proportions (as Bourdieu thinks) or a widespread conversion as Francis proposes or some substantial combination of both is necessary. As some virtues are directed to desire or passion, a dramatic experience can provoke both negative responses such as fear or horror but also positive ones of fascination, compassion, and love. CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDINGS OF HABITUS Thomas Berry and Bernard Lonergan each propose what are essentially contemporary understandings of habitus in response to crises in modernity. For Berry, it is story. For Lonergan, it is what he calls cosmopolis. Berry speaks of the way in which story operates as a vehicle of both meaning and action for human life. So for the ecological crisis, what is needed is a new story that redefines the meaning of being human in terms reflecting our new scientific understanding as well as the challenge of the ecological crisis.27 Berry connects the story to virtues, such as reverence, gratitude, asceticism, and to education in much the same way as Pope Francis does.28 What Berry means by story does not imply one story among others—the new story does not cancel all cultural stories but ought to inform them in culturally appropriate ways with values and modes of behavior that can address the ecological crisis. From that story one participates in a great work—that of transforming oneself and one’s society for an ecozoic era.29 In Berry’s sense, we humans live within the story, since it is the universe’s story to tell, yet we

Ecological Citizenship and the New Habitus

245

are the consciousness through which the story is told. The story arises from a critical judgment with regard to the unsustainability and recklessness of the systems we have created. Therefore, the habitus it engenders is characterized by a certain understanding of limits as well as the exercise of freedom in setting a telos for the future. The story is in fact a habitat for a transformed life and a dynamic habitus of ecological citizenship. The effectiveness of the new story relies on the transformation of human consciousness: the deep conversion of manners of thinking, feeling, and acting under a newly integrated horizon of ecological responsibility. For Berry, the universe had a transcendent, religious quality. “I consider this [evolution of the cosmos] revelatory in a magnificent way because it tells us something about the powers that brought the universe into being at the beginning,” he wrote.30 The recognition of that quality was essential in the construction of a new story for the future and hence for the transformation it necessitated. In a more theoretic mode, Bernard Lonergan presents cosmopolis. In Lonergan’s words: Cosmopolis is “a withdrawal from practicality to save practicality.”31 The notion of cosmopolis is offered as a solution to a cycle of decline in which longer views and theoretic explanations become increasingly excluded from the realm of common sense, “the business as usual” affairs of everyday life. Laudato Si’s account of the present human/ecological crisis is an instance of what Lonergan calls “the longer cycle of decline.”32 In Francis’s critique, “the market tends to promote extreme consumerism” causing “a whirlwind of needless buying and selling,” (LS 203), in which freedom comes to mean freedom to consume, whereas “those really free [within the economic system] are the minority who wield economic and financial power.” He continues, “In this horizon, a genuine sense of the common good also disappears” (LS 204). He applauds environmental education’s turn to include “a critique of the ‘myths’ of modernity grounded as they are in a utilitarian mindset (individualism, unlimited progress, competition, consumerism, the unregulated market)” (LS 210). Throughout the encyclical, there are both overt and implicit critiques of the large context in which the ecological crises have developed. Cosmopolis, for Lonergan, rests on a series of conversions, intellectual, psychic, moral, and religious. Through these conversions, humans grow to command their own intellectual operations, recognizing and commanding the ways in which truth can be discerned (always virtually, not absolutely), that is, the methods by which we come to “know” (intellectual) and to feel (psychic). Through moral conversion, we move from self-satisfaction to an apprehension of what is good, the concrete good under a particular horizon. Finally, religious conversion grounds the willingness to act. That willingness and action become an expression of love of God, who speaks a word of love to all human hearts.33 As is the case for Francis in Laudato Si’, Lonergan

246

Anne Marie Dalton

moves finally to the thematization of the love of God to a Christian thematization, the incarnation of God’s love in Jesus Christ. The focus of cosmopolis is transformative change in the world. This involves change in individual interiority, communities of support, as well as in the systems of the wider world. These systems are interactive in the creation of what is good just as they can be the creation of the opposite, the longer cycle of decline. Cosmopolis gives expression to the experience of the transcendent. It is the mediation of the transcendent into culture through stories, metaphors, art, education, formation; it promotes formation of communities in which virtues, such as compassion, respect, gratitude, and asceticism, can flourish and issue into practices and praxis under particular horizons, such as ecological responsibility. Such horizons are those judged, through authentic human processes, to constitute the good in the contexts available at particular times and places. Thus, cosmopolis aims to transform the world. In speaking of conversion, Francis writes: “More than in ideas or concepts as such, I am interested in how such a spirituality can motivate us to a more passionate concern for the protection of our world. A commitment this lofty cannot be sustained by doctrine alone, without a spirituality capable of inspiring us, without an ‘interior impulse which encourages, motivates, nourishes and gives meaning to our individual and communal activity’” (LS 219).34 It is this “impulse” described as God’s love granted to all and thematized in Christianity that gives life and dynamism to habitus. For Francis, it is what moves ecological citizenship to be a transformative force in the light of the present ecological challenge. Francis refers to Laudato Si’ as a “lengthy reflection, which has been both joyful and troubling” (LS 246). Like the destination of the young men in Sanders photograph, we can no longer be one without the other, the dance for which we are ill-prepared is the one in which we already reel. Can we change in time to rescue at least enough of what remains of the natural world? Whatever the answer to this question, despair must not win the day. Whether we choose it or not the present context is re-forming us, Bourdieu claims. Laudato Si’ strongly urges that we become ecological citizens in a way that captures the dynamism of habitus. It means that we place our bets on the side of hope, inspired, held up, and motivated by that impulse which is the transcendent gift of love to the universe. NOTES 1. Emma Brockes, “Magic Powers: An Interview with Richard Powers,” The Guardian, 14 March 2003, https​://ww​w.the​guard​ian.c​om/bo​oks/2​003/m​ar/14​/fict​ion. e​mmabr​ockes​.

Ecological Citizenship and the New Habitus

247

2. Carl Safina and Patricia Paladines, “Oceans,” in Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology, ed. Willis Jenkins, Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim (London and New York, NY: Routledge, 2017), 260. 3. See also Jostrom Isaac Kureethadam, “Ecological Virtues in Laudate sí,” Ethics in Progress 7, no. 1 (2016): 44–66, https://doi: 10.14746/eip.2016.1.4. 4. Cf. Bart van Steenbergen, ed., The Condition of Citizenship (London, UK: Sage Publishers, 1994). 5. Andrew Dobson, “Ecological Citizenship,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Marriott Hotel, Portland, Oregon, 11 March 2004. Online PDF. 2018–04–23 http://citation.allacademic.com. For arguments that Francis’ view of ecological citizenship fits the republican notions of ecological citizenship see: Chris Hilson, “Republican ecological citizenship in the 2015 Papal Encyclical on the environment and climate change,” Critical Review of International and Political Philosophy 21, no. 6 (April 2017): 754–766. The important point for the conversation is the agreement that citizenship is changed in ways that are discussed in this field of study. 6. Cf. Anthony Giddons, The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 1998) and other references in Dobson. 7. Dobson, “Ecological Citizenship.” Dobson defends his view against the neoconservative that the emphasis on unreciprocated responsibility results in views such as the responsibility of all to work, over against receivi social welfare, for example. This view he claims still belongs to the contractual sense of citizenship. 8. Ibid. 9. Paul Barry Clarke, Deep Citizenship (London, UK: Pluto Press, 1996), 117, in Dobson, 11. 10. Dobson, “Ecological Citizenship,” 14. 11. Ibid., 22. See also, his references to David Burchell, “The Attributes of Citizens: Virtues, Manners and the Activity of Citizenship,” Economy and Society 24, no. 4 (November 1995): 549 and ML Harrison, “Citizenship, Consumption and Rights: A Comment on B. S. Turner’s Theory of Citizenship,” Sociology 25, no. 2 (May 1991): 209–210. 12. Bryan S, Turner, “Preface,” in Citizenship and Social Theory, ed. Bryan S. Turner (London, UK: Sage, 1993), vii. 13. Dobson, Ecological Citizenship, 24. 14. Andrew C. Revkin, “Beyond Rio: Pursuing ‘Ecological Citizenship’,” The New York Times, 25 June 2012, https​://do​teart​h.blo​gs.ny​times​.com/​2012/​06/25​/beyo​ nd-ri​o-pur​suing​-ecol​ogica​l-cit​izens​hip/.​ 15. Damian Howard, SJ, “Laudato Si’: A Seismic Event in Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and Ecology,” Thinking Faith: The Online Journal of the British Jesuits, 18 June 2015, https​://ww​w.thi​nking​faith​.org/​artic​les/l​audat​o-si’​-seis​mic-e​ vent-​dialo​gue-b​etwee​n-cat​holic​-chur​ch-an​d-eco​logy.​ 16. George B. Handley, “Laudato Si’ and the Postsecularism of the Environmental Humanities,” Environmental Humanities 8, no. 2 (November, 2016): 280, https​://re​ ad.du​keupr​ess.e​du/en​viron​menta​l-hum​aniti​es/ar​ticle​-pdf/​8/2/2​77Han​dley.​pdf. 17. Handley, “Laudato Si’ and Environmental Humanities,” 283.

248

Anne Marie Dalton

18. Peter McGrail, “Initiation and Ecology: Becoming a Christian in the Light of Laudato Si’” Liturgy 31, no. 2 (2016): 55–62. https​://ww​w.tan​dfonl​ine.c​om/do​i/abs​ /10.1​080/0​45806​3X.20​16.11​23951​. See also McGrail’s contribution to this volume. 19. Jostrom Isaac Kureethadam, “Ecological Virtues.” 20. Christopher Hrynkowk, “The Pope, the Planet, and Politics: A Mapping of How Francis is Calling for more Than the Paris Agreement,” Journal of Church and State 59, no. 3 (1 September 2017): 377. 21. Omar Lizardo, “Habitus,” http://fliphtml5.com/mxlw/wznl/basic. 22. Thomas F. O’Meara, “Virtues in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas,” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 254–285. 23. Lizardo, “Habitus,” 3–5. 24. Carolyn King, Habitat of Grace: Biology, Christianity, and the Global Environmental Crisis (Hindmarsh, AU: Australian Theological Forum, 2002). See fuller discussion in Anne Marie Dalton and Henry Simmons, Ecotheology and the Practice of Hope (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2010), 83–85, 106–109. 25. Cf. Meara, “Virtues in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas,” and Joseph Malikail, “Moral Character: Hexis, Habitus and ‘Habit’,” Minerva-An Internet Journal of Philosophy 7 (2003), http:​//www​.mine​rva.m​ic.ul​.ie/v​ol7/m​oral.​html,​ and references. 26. David Carr, “Two Kinds of Virtues,” Aristotelian Society Proceedings, LXXXV (1985): 54. Cited in Joseph Malikail, “Moral Character: Hexis, Habitus and ‘Habit.’” 27. Thomas Berry, “The New Story,” in The Dream of the Earth (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1988), 123–137. See especially, 135–136; Berry links the new story to the transmission of values. 28. Such references are scattered throughout Berry’s works. Cf. “Human Intimacy,” in Dream of the Earth, 13–23, and “The American College in the Ecological Age,” 89–108. 29. Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future (New York, NY: Bell Tower, 1999), esp. 1–11. 30. Thomas Berry and Thomas Clark, Befriending the Earth, ed. Stephen Dunn, C.P. and Anne Lonergan (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1991), 13. While Berry does not make a systematic attempt to thematize his work through a Christian lens as Pope Francis or Lonergan does, in this book he does address his proposal within some Christian categories. 31. Bernard Lonergan, Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, vol. 3, ed. Frederick E. Crowe and Robert Doran (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press and Toronto: Lonergan Research Institute of Regis College, 1992), 266. 32. Lonergan, Insight, 251–257. 33. Ibid., 266ff. See also, Anne Marie Dalton, A Theology for the Earth: The Contributions of Thomas Berry and Bernard Lonergan (Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press, 1999), 161–167. 34. Francis’s citation is of Romano Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, 9th edition (Wurzburg, 1965), 72. English translation, The End of the Modern World (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 1998), 65–66.

Ecological Citizenship and the New Habitus

249

BIBLIOGRAPHY Berry, Thomas. The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1988. ———. The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future. New York, NY: Bell Tower, 1999. Berry, Thomas and Thomas Clark. Befriending the Earth, edited by Stephen Dunn, C.P. and Anne Lonergan. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1991. Brockes, Emma. “Magic Powers: An Interview with Richard Powers.” The Guardian, 14 March 2003. https​://ww​w.the​guard​ian.c​om/bo​oks/2​003/m​ar/14​/fict​ion.e​mmabr​ ockes​. Clarke, Paul Barry. Deep Citizenship. London, UK: Pluto Press, 1996. Dalton, Anne Marie. A Theology for the Earth: The Contributions of Thomas Berry and Bernard Lonergan. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press, 1999. Dalton, Anne Marie and Henry Simmons. Ecotheology and the Practice of Hope. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2010. Dobson, Andrew. “Ecological Citizenship.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Marriott Hotel, Portland, Oregon, 11 March 2004. Giddons, Anthony. The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 1998. Handley, George B. “Laudato Si’ and the Postsecularism of the Environmental Humanities.” Environmental Humanities 8, no. 2 (November 2016): 277–284. https​://do​i.org​/10.1​215/2​20119​19-36​64396​. Hilson, Chris. “Republican Ecological Citizenship in the 2015 Papal Encyclical on the Environment and Climate Change.” Critical Review of International and Political Philosophy 21, no. 6 (April 2017): 754–766. https​://do​i.org​/10.1​080/1​ 36982​30.20​17.13​15871​. Howard, Damian, SJ. “‘Laudato Si’: A Seismic Event in Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and Ecology.” Thinking Faith: The Online Journal of the British Jesuits (18 June 2015). https​://ww​w.thi​nking​faith​.org/​artic​les/l​audat​o-si’​-seis​mic-e​ vent-​dialo​gue-b​etwee​n-cat​holic​-chur​ch-an​d-eco​logy.​ Hrynkowk, Christopher. “The Pope, the Planet, and Politics: A Mapping of How Francis Is Calling for More than the Paris Agreement.” Journal of Church and State 59, no. 3 (1 September 2017): 377–408. King, Carolyn. Habitat of Grace: Biology, Christianity, and the Global Environmental Crisis. Hindmarsh, AU: Australian Theological Forum, 2002. Kureethadam, Jostrom Isaac. “Ecological Virtues in Laudato Si’,” Ethics in Progress 7, no. 1 (2016): 44–66. https://doi:10.14746/eip.2016.1.4. Lizardo, Omar, “Habitus.” http://fliphtml5.com/mxlw/wznl/basic. Lonergan Bernard. Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, vol. 3, edited by Frederick E. Crowe and Robert Doran. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press and Toronto: Lonergan Research Institute of Regis College, 1992. Malikail, Joseph. “Moral Character: Hexis, Habitus and ‘Habit’.” Minerva-An Internet Journal of Philosophy 7 (2003). http:​//www​.mine​rva.m​ic.ul​.ie/v​ol7/m​oral.​html.​

250

Anne Marie Dalton

McGrail, Peter. “Initiation and Ecology: Becoming a Christian in the Light of Laudato Si’.” Liturgy 31, no. 2 (2016): 55–62. https​://ww​w.tan​dfonl​ine.c​om/do​i/ abs​/10.1​080/0​45806​3X.20​16.11​23951​. O’Meara, Thomas F. “Virtues in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas.” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 254–285. Revkin, Andrew C. “Beyond Rio: Pursuing ‘Ecological Citizenship’.” The New York Times, 25 June 2012. https​://do​teart​h.blo​gs.ny​times​.com/​2012/​06/25​/beyo​nd-ri​ o-pur​suing​-ecol​ogica​l-cit​izens​hip/.​ Safina, Carl and Patricia Paladines. “Oceans.” In Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology, edited by Willis Jenkins, Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, 257–264. London and New York, NY: Routledge Press, 2017. Turner, Bryan S., ed. Citizenship and Social Theory. London, UK: Sage, 1993. van Steenbergen, Bart, ed. The Condition of Citizenship. London, UK: Sage Publishers, 1994.

Chapter 16

Preservationism, Environmental Justice, Smart Growth Care for Our Common Home Laura Stivers

We see headlines every day about the warming of our planet and our rapidly depleting supply of natural resources. From 2014 to 2030, the U.S. population is expected to increase by 40 million people, and by almost 100 million by 2060.1 The nation will need new housing units and economic development. The question is whether we can muster the political will to accommodate population growth in sustainable ways and also reduce our carbon footprint to address climate change. The American love and preference for single-family homes leads to unsustainable sprawl development patterns, heavy car use, and increasingly wider highways. In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis emphasizes that heavy consumers who participate in what he calls “throwaway culture” (LS 22) should change their lifestyle, and he argues that a truly ecological approach must also be a social approach, integrating issues of justice with environmental protection. Such an approach requires us to think regionally in order to pursue development that is more compact and that offers affordable housing options, along with ready access to public transportation and walking/biking trails—a model of development referred to as smart growth. This chapter will focus on development and sustainability efforts in the United States. In the first half of this chapter, I will compare and contrast how proponents of two distinct environmental approaches—anti-growth preservationists and environmental justice advocates—frame their responses to smart growth. While environmentalism and smart growth seemingly go hand in hand, anti-growth preservationists generally oppose development of any kind, including smart growth, while environmental justice advocates support smart growth but are wary of urban planning that does not pay enough attention to race and class justice. In the second half of the chapter, I 251

252

Laura Stivers

will note both the insights and the limitations of Laudato Si’, particularly in relation to smart growth and the goal of creating a common home that is both inclusive to all and sustainable. I especially commend the pope’s integration of social and environmental justice, subordination of private property to the common good, and support of comprehensive solutions to address climate change. While Laudato Si’ closely aligns with social and environmental justice perspectives, I argue that it could have a deeper intersectional analysis, especially in relation to gender and race. Support of inclusive smart growth will require addressing white privilege and structural racism, for example. Second, while Laudato Si’ emphasizes that individuals change their environmental habits in order to live up to the Christian conviction that “less is more” (LS 222), I argue that smart growth will require substantial structural change, not simply individual conversion. The smart growth movement began in the 1970s in response to suburban sprawl and excessive car use and was implemented more widely in the 1990s. The main goal of the smart growth movement is to develop sustainable communities. Smart growth planners are not advocating for no growth but, rather, aim to shape growth in ways that do less damage to the environment. Smart growth focuses specifically on decreasing sprawl and automobile dependence, and protecting farmland and natural lands.2 According to the smart growth model, cities should • create a range of housing opportunities and choices; • create walkable neighborhoods; • encourage community and stakeholder collaboration; • foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; • make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective; • mix land uses; • preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas; • provide a variety of transportation choices; • strengthen and direct development toward existing communities; • take advantage of compact building design.3 The implementation of smart growth faces challenges. Policy obstacles include a zoning model in the United States which supports density prevention and the separation of uses. Politically, land-use planning is largely controlled by local governments, many of whom resist regional planning. Smart growth requires a regional focus to coordinate compact developments with transportation options. Another obstacle is the fact that many citizens in white, suburban, middle- to upper-class enclaves oppose a regional focus under the guise of “local autonomy.” These citizens also tend to appeal to

Preservationism, Environmental Justice, Smart Growth

253

“environmental preservation” as an argument against growth of any kind, thereby excluding more sustainable forms of development and keeping poor and working-class people out of their neighborhoods. Laudato Si’ offers a way to connect the concept of smart growth with broader issues of social and ecological justice. While I will argue that the encyclical aligns quite well with smart growth, I will emphasize that Pope Francis is more closely aligned with a model of smart growth in keeping with environmental justice advocates. That is, he echoes their critique of environmentalists who ignore poverty and social justice. ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORKS IN RELATION TO SMART GROWTH Anti-Development Preservationists The environmental movement in the United States started under the mantle of wilderness preservation, with the creation of the Sierra Club in 1892 and subsequent lobbying to create numerous national and state parks and open space preserves. The movement developed in response to the steady creep of development and environmental destruction affecting the nation. The wilderness preservation movement gained impetus in middle- to upper-class,white communities, in part as the result of particular ideas of the time about cities and wilderness. As urban areas became more industrial and crowded, white, male writers such as Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and John Muir extolled the therapeutic and spiritual benefits of escaping to the wilderness for solitude and aesthetic pleasure, away from “immuring civilization.”4 As preservationist Robert Marshall writes in his landmark 1930 essay entitled The Problem of Wilderness: In a civilization which requires most lives to be passed amid inordinate dissonance, pressure and intrusion, the chance of retiring now and then to the quietude and privacy of sylvan haunts becomes for some people a psychic necessity. It is only the possibility of convalescing in the wilderness which save them from being destroyed by the terrible neural tension of modern existence.5

Of course, the “some people” Marshall refers to were primarily white people who benefited from the industrial revolution and had the means to take time off and travel to hard-to-reach wilderness locales. All others were doomed to the crowded industrial cities and the “tensions” of modernity. Despite the narrowness of the environmental movement at its inception, it was nonetheless responsible for preserving large tracts of land in America. This land has been crucial to the sustainability of many ecosystems, which

254

Laura Stivers

house diverse plant and animal species. Many preservationists support smart growth, seeing it is a way to accommodate inevitable population growth without losing the hardwon gains for open space and farm preservation. However, other preservationists are adamantly opposed to smart growth, equating it with overdevelopment, government social engineering, and developer-profiteering. In this latter view, any kind of growth sacrifices quality of life and undermines environmental preservation and small-town character. Accordingly, critics of the anti-development preservationist perspective contend that a focus primarily on wilderness preservation without any emphasis on social justice is found primarily in white, privileged neighborhoods and that their “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) response to smart growth plans is a form of racism. Anti-development preservationists often adopt sustainable technology such as solar panels, low-flush toilets, and energy-saving appliances. They also support local food movements and drive electric or hybrid cars. Yet, they tend to support forms of sustainability that presume a certain amount of wealth and privilege and do not require significant lifestyle sacrifice. The model of sustainability that smart growth fosters requires a deeper, structural and societal change that challenges the supremacy of big homes, sprawl, and car use. These “no-growth,” anti-development preservationists feel unfairly labeled as promoting NIMBYism and racism when they oppose smart growth plans that include higher-density affordable housing units. They argue that they are not advocating for exclusion but are instead concerned about democratic participation and community choice in how their communities develop. The environmental justice movement is also concerned about participation and choice, but more particularly for residents in impoverished communities of color who need affordable housing and public transportation.6 Environmental Justice Advocates The environmental justice movement has been concerned primarily about environmental racism, a term first coined in 1987. The first National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit met in Washington DC in 1991. The core issue for attendees was not wilderness preservation but rather what constitutes healthy, livable, sustainable, and vital communities in the places people live, work, and play. Environmental justice advocates have documented the disproportionate impact of environmental contamination on communities of color and the adverse health effects that have resulted. They have also noted the racial discrimination in formulating and carrying out environmental policy and have argued that the narrow vision of environmentalism was and continues to be a product of white privilege and white supremacy.7 It is significant that the environmental justice movement began with a 1987

Preservationism, Environmental Justice, Smart Growth

255

study commissioned by the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice which mapped out the intentional location of polluting industrial facilities and hazardous waste sites near communities of color.8 Environmental justice advocates fully support smart growth projects that are truly transit-oriented and include adequate units of affordable housing. They are extremely wary, however, of smart growth efforts that lack an emphasis on regional equity and racial justice, especially in relation to housing, schools, healthcare, and other amenities. They want communities where residents can live, work, shop, and play without owning an automobile or even having to use public transit on a daily basis. Carl Anthony, founder of the Oakland-based environmental justice organization Urban Habitat, puts it this way: The pursuit of metropolitan, regional, and neighborhood equity . . . is a mobilization led by social justice advocates, civil rights organizations, and labor unions concerned with issues of fairness in the way metropolitan regions grow. It seeks to address not only what communities are against but also what they are for: healthy neighborhoods with convenient access to good schools, affordable housing, parks, and grocery stores; equitable public investments; and access to opportunity.9

Environmental justice advocates have been organizing for more than three decades for transportation justice; that is, for more state and federal money to be put toward public transportation in lieu of further expanding highways and freeways. The movement advocates primarily for citizens that already use public transit and do not own a car. Having access to affordable housing near good jobs would be a boon for low-income residents and communities of color. Environmental justice advocates argue that smart growth proposals must be pursued in conjunction with a regional movement to fight structural inequities. They argue that without an “advocacy agenda driven by communityidentified needs,” low-income people are liable to find themselves stranded yet again, with smart growth development projects potentially displacing them from their homes to transit-poor suburbs.10 Environmental justice advocates are also highly critical of development that is being done under the banner of “smart growth” yet devoted to parking and the movement of automobiles. In many areas, light rail systems are only operating at 10 percent capacity.11 Without regionally coordinated and planned, affordable, transitoriented development, along with higher-density housing located near that transit, people are likely to continue using their cars. European metropolitan rail networks, for example, are highly successful because they are supported by regional core area densities.12

256

Laura Stivers

The smart growth principle of creating “a range of housing opportunities and choices” does not necessarily mean that the housing choices will be affordable for low-income families. For example, in November of 2000, affordable housing advocates defeated smart growth management initiatives in Arizona and Colorado because they did not include sufficient low-income housing.13 Smart growth planning sometimes fails to include affordable housing because of the resistance from local homeowners in suburban neighborhoods.14 All too often, middle- to upper-class white communities resist affordable housing developments and some forms of public transportation in their neighborhoods for fear that it will attract poor people or people of color. Responsible leadership from state governments is often required to ensure low-income housing, but even then, the results often do not promote racial justice. For example, in the early 2000s, California required that every locality adopt an affordable housing target, but many of these targets were not met because of lack of funding and the inability to enforce the targets. Around the same time, New Jersey and Massachusetts also adopted a statewide affordable housing policy. Yet, because of local suburban opposition, new occupants have primarily been whites who already lived in the suburbs.15 Environmental justice advocates are also concerned about the issue of gentrification in urban areas. Several studies have shown that smart growth policies have raised property values and rental costs.16 This has especially been the case with development in urban cores where poor people—disproportionately people of color—are often pushed out of their communities due to rapidly increasing rent. While the aim of most smart growth proposals is to have mixed-income housing, some developments end up providing housing for moderate-income but not low-income families. Other developments make housing affordable but only for ten years. In suburban, primarily white, middle- and upper-income communities, the bigger struggle is getting affordable housing units included in smart growth developments. Environmental justice activists know that white communities will do all they can to preserve the socalled “character” of their suburban communities, and thus, local autonomy and control will simply serve to exclude unwanted land uses and people. ANALYSIS OF FRAMEWORKS While anti-development preservationists sincerely support the preservation of open space and personal actions that promote sustainability, the fierce advocacy of some to protect and keep their single-family homes and easily accessible car transportation thwarts regional and state efforts to address climate change through smart growth. Furthermore, while expressed concern about democratic participation and community involvement in planning

Preservationism, Environmental Justice, Smart Growth

257

might appear to be legitimate values that are not intentionally exclusionary or racist, there is plenty of historical data that links promotion of local government and autonomy to exclusion and segregation. There is a subtle form of racism underlying much of the preservationist agenda, often couched in language that is not overtly racist. While these preservationists generally do not consider themselves racist, arguments against smart growth often betray a clear desire to protect white privilege and power. This is one of the ways that the status quo of structural racism and neighborhood segregation remains intact. For example, white communities that resist affordable housing developments often claim that “those people” who will live in affordable housing will negatively affect the quality of the schools, lower property values, and increase crime.17 At community meetings about smart growth and affordable housing in white neighborhoods, it is common for residents to appeal to community participation and democratic open process while fighting supposed “top-down,” regional or state mandates.18 In the early twentieth century, many white communities used the premise of local governance and autonomy to exclude undesired land uses and populations through zoning. Zoning laws such as “one family per house,” and laws forbidding duplexes and apartments, or mandating the separation of industry from residential neighborhoods have excluded low-income families, especially people of color, from particular neighborhoods. The creation of local governance was often a way to stop financing public services to older, low-income cities and a way to exclude people of color.19 While zoning laws might not seem intentionally racist and classist, the results clearly are.20 According to ethicist Karin Case, “One of the most potent mechanisms of white supremacy is the way it becomes invisible to those in a dominant social location.”21 Residents of white communities often call on the well-worn trope of local governance and autonomy as a way to buttress white advantage. They resist regional smart growth efforts, seeing themselves as the victims of oppression by big top-down government in cahoots with developers, while failing to perceive how their arguments preserve a system of white supremacy. Focusing on the ways that their lifestyle is being compromised, anti-growth preservationists have tunnel vision with little to no awareness of the historical and current class and race oppression that supports segregated neighborhoods. Without a regional focus that emphasizes environmental sustainability in conjunction with equity and racial justice, we will not be able to reverse the tide of climate change because local areas will simply stymie efforts to support sustainable and equitable smart growth development plans. The anti-development preservationists argue that more development will be unsustainable (increasing the carbon footprint with more cars, pollution, water use, etc.) and will encroach on open space. Advocates of smart growth,

258

Laura Stivers

however, want to preserve open space precisely by having people live in denser developments near where they work and play so that they use fewer resources and can rely less on cars and more on sustainable forms of transportation. In light of projected population growth in urban and suburban areas and the fact that the average household carbon footprint is higher in suburban areas than it is in urban core cities, a more robust conception of sustainability ought to include some version of smart growth.22 Environmental justice advocates observe that white neighborhoods do not house the polluting industries that support the high standard of living enjoyed by those residents, nor do those residents shoulder the burden of their own waste. With such a reality, environmental justice advocates question whether calls for preserving the small-town feel, character, and sustainability of suburban neighborhoods is really about protecting white privilege and an exclusive understanding of community with respect to both race and class. Such a vision of local “community” ignores the environmental hazards experienced by residents in poor, often minority, communities. Resisting smart growth also puts the burden for addressing increasing population and affordable housing on others, further segregating neighborhoods and increasing inequality. Addressing climate change will not happen by residents simply putting up solar panels, shopping at farmer’s markets, and recycling some of their waste. White privilege and racism have to be addressed if we are to truly create sustainable communities. INSIGHTS FROM LAUDATO SI’ FOR SMART GROWTH AND RACIAL JUSTICE Laudato Si’ is an important contribution for furthering dialogue and action on smart growth and climate change. The encyclical is in continuity with past Catholic Social Teachings but adds the crucial insight that the well-being of humankind is integrally linked to the integrity and sustainability of our Earth. That is, “climate is a common good” for all of creation. Smart growth is but one of many structural approaches that are needed to address the complex issue of climate change. While Laudato Si’ does not use the term “smart growth,” there are three themes from the encyclical that support the smart growth model: “integral ecology,” which links social and environmental justice; subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods; and support of comprehensive solutions over superficial ecology. The most important aspect of Laudato Si’, in my view, is the insistence throughout the document that environmental sustainability, concern for the poor, and commitment to peace are necessarily linked. Pope Francis writes, “We have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social

Preservationism, Environmental Justice, Smart Growth

259

approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both “the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” (LS 49). Pope Francis reaffirms Saint John Paul II’s claim that “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone” (LS 93). While I might critique the anthropocentric focus of this theology, the message is clear that environmental justice must include economic and social justice. In agreement with environmental justice advocates, Pope Francis argues that we have a “social debt to the poor” as well as an “ecological debt” and that it is the responsibility of those who consume the most to change. He critiques a common focus on population growth as the primary cause of climate change, arguing that such a focus legitimizes “the present model of distribution where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption” (LS 50). Thus, for Pope Francis, overconsumption is the bigger cause of climate change and social injustice, and it is the poor who suffer from the overconsumption of a few, “denied the right to a life consistent with their inalienable dignity” (LS 30). In his view, God’s plan would never entail the gift of creation only benefiting a few (LS 93). Pope Francis calls on people in developed countries to pay this debt by “significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy and by assisting poorer countries to support policies and programmes of sustainable development” (LS 52). Unfortunately, as Pope Francis points out, lack of actual contact with poor, as is often the case in white American suburbs, can lead to a “numbing of consciousness” and a “tendentious analysis” that misses parts of the picture, despite the “green” rhetoric (LS 49). The antidevelopment preservationists are prone to this problem. Extolling the virtues of solar paneling or electric cars while simultaneously resisting higher-density housing and public transportation avoids the systemic changes necessary to address climate change and will certainly not pay a social debt to the poor. Whereas, the insistence by environmental justice advocates on affordable housing and transportation responds to “the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor.” While the Catholic Church has historically defended the right of private property, it has also claimed that there is a “social mortgage on all private property” (LS 93). That is, goods and resources are to serve the common good. Building on a quote from John Paul II, Francis writes: “The principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods, and thus the right of everyone to their use, is a golden rule of social conduct and ‘the first principle of the whole ethical and social order’” (LS 93). He then cites the New Zealand bishops who considered the meaning of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” in light of the fact that “twenty percent of

260

Laura Stivers

the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive” (LS 95). Residents of majority-white, middle- to upper-class American suburbs often feel they have worked hard to achieve their standard of living. Yet they are often unaware of the local, state, national, and global policies that led to their social status and wealth accumulation. Pope Francis is critical of the “privatization of certain spaces” and the creation of “ecological” neighborhoods “closed to outsiders to ensure an artificial tranquility” (LS 45). God, not humanity, has the final word, he argues, noting that “freedom” does not come from hoarding our property to ourselves (LS 6). Instead, he calls us to be truly free by being in harmony with God, others, nature, and ourselves, by replacing “consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, [and] simplicity” (LS 9). As the story of Noah illustrates, life is endangered when we fail in our duty to care for our neighbor and Earth (LS 70). Another very important aspect of Laudato Si’ is Pope Francis’s conviction that to address the complexity of climate change, we need transformative structural change. He writes: “A strategy for real change calls for rethinking processes in their entirety, for it is not enough to include a few superficial ecological considerations while failing to question the logic which underlies present-day culture” (LS 197). He argues that we are not faced with two separate crises—environmental and social—but one complex crisis that demands comprehensive and integrated solutions that address poverty, inequality, and environmental destruction (LS 139). He is in seeming agreement with environmental preservationists that we need to set aside natural areas to protect them from human intervention (LS 151). He also supports the creation of “habitable cities,” with developments that are respectful of the environment and support local culture (LS 143), giving people a sense of belonging and rootedness (LS 151). However, Francis is more closely aligned with environmental justice advocates in their critique of exclusionary tactics to keep out affordable housing or public transportation. “Habitable cities,” in the pope’s view, would have adequate and accessible housing for all (LS 152) and “means of production and transportation which consume less energy and require fewer raw materials” (LS 26). Developing habitable cities requires policies that support environmental and social justice (LS 26). He warns that we cannot rely on “false or superficial ecology which bolsters complacency and a cheerful recklessness,” while allowing those who consume the most to maintain their lifestyles without change (LS 59). Pope Francis believes that public pressure through community networks will be necessary to bring about change, and that local legislation can be most effective (LS 179). Pope Francis’s emphasis on habitable cities along with the preservation of open space suggests much common ground with proponents of smart

Preservationism, Environmental Justice, Smart Growth

261

growth. The political obstacles to such transformative change are substantial, however. I would agree that public pressure is essential, but given the power of local NIMBYism and the entrenchment of white privilege in the United States, I doubt we can rely on local legislation alone to promote smart growth. While the Catholic Social Teaching’s principle of subsidiarity advocates for handling matters at the lowest level possible, it simultaneously calls for handling matters at the highest level necessary.23 More regional or state efforts will be necessary to counteract racist resistance to smart growth efforts at the local level. CRITIQUES OF LAUDATO SI’ FOR SMART GROWTH AND RACIAL JUSTICE There are a few aspects of Pope Francis’s encyclical that serve to undercut his powerful connection of social and environmental justice. The prime emphasis on economic injustice misses other forms of oppression such as racism and sexism, and the continuity of hierarchical and patriarchal theology in his encyclical stifles intersectional analysis. In addition, while the pope calls for comprehensive solutions, his primary emphasis is on individual behavioral change. While addressing climate change will no doubt require a paradigm shift for all of us, especially those of us in wealthy countries, infrastructure such as public transportation and green housing are necessary for people in developed countries to have the option of choosing to live more simply. While the encyclical repeatedly calls us to concern for the poor, there is no analysis of the ways in which climate change disproportionately affects not only the poor, but specifically women and people of color. Christian Ethicist Miguel De La Torre writes: “Analysis of social systems is an integral component of ethical deliberation because it provides a necessary critique of how the present social structures justify racist, sexist, and classist norms.”24 Environmental justice advocates also argue that without sustained focus on the racial aspects of implementing smart growth, it can easily become a tool for gentrification and not serve those who are most poor. Intersectional analysis of social problems and their solutions is necessary to truly bring about social justice. The anthropocentric, patriarchal, and hierarchical aspects of the encyclical’s theology undercut its excellent focus on care for our common home. The encyclical consistently uses “God our Father” language and claims that “a spirituality which forgets God as all-powerful and Creator is not acceptable” (LS 75). Pope Francis believes that without an all-powerful God, humans will “try to impose their own laws and interests on reality” (LS 75). Feminist theologians argue, in contrast, that a theological construction of God

262

Laura Stivers

as all-powerful and male reinforces all forms of oppression and can serve to buttress capitalism’s primacy of ownership and private property. Theologian Susan Thistlethwaite speaks for many feminists when she writes, “God conceived as supreme ruler over all from whom other authorities take their cue is a theology of violence. Hierarchy introduces hierarchy: The absolute power of God legitimates the power of the father priests, the father of the country, the father in the family, and so on.”25 While Pope Francis supports comprehensive structural solutions to the complex issue of climate change, he focuses in much more depth on individual transformation. He believes if we can “overcome individualism” (LS 208), “feel intimately united with all that exists” (LS 11), and claim our “common origin” and “mutual belonging” (LS 202), that we will be able to turn away from our “compulsive consumerism” and change our lifestyles. I fully support individual transformation to simpler living and what Rasmussen calls “creation-loving asceticism,”26 but radical lifestyle transformations of those who consume the most requires collective solutions such as smart growth. The options of green housing and appliances, massive public transportation and bike lanes, renewable energy sources, recyclable and repairable goods must be widespread, and public policy must require and/or incentivize people to choose these options and live sustainably. While Pope Francis acknowledges that social problems like climate change cannot be addressed by the “sum of individual deeds” (LS 219), at the end of the encyclical he focuses primarily on individual interior conversion to “ecological citizenship” and cultivation of ecological habits (LS 211, 217) over structural change. CONCLUSION Climate change is the most pressing social issue of our time. Not only are we not acting fast enough to change our lifestyles and economies, but many people don’t even acknowledge climate change as a problem, and some outright deny that we are on a road to disaster. Major political and religious leaders need to be leading us toward change. Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ is a step in the right direction. While many different actions will be necessary to address climate change, Pope Francis is correct that overconsumption by a few must stop, and that this will only happen through a combination of personal conversion and structural change. Care for our common home will require those with the most power and privilege to make change happen. Preservationists cannot simply continue to focus on preserving wilderness areas. They must also think about how we can create sustainable and habitable cities where the majority of the global population lives. While the encyclical supports smart growth plans for cities, it avoids deep

Preservationism, Environmental Justice, Smart Growth

263

engagement with gender and race analysis and would benefit from dialogue with intersectional feminists and/or environmental justice advocates. Racial resistance to smart growth planning in the United States is real. In addition, the encyclical could use a stronger emphasis on structural change. Individuals will be aided in living sustainably if the structural supports for smart growth are instituted. Despite these critiques, the encyclical’s message that we must integrate environmental and economic justice in our efforts to address climate change is crucial for a sustainable and equitable common home.

NOTES 1. Sandra L. Colby and Jennifer M. Ortman, “Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060,” U.S. Census Bureau (March 2015), https​ ://ce​nsus.​gov/c​onten​t/dam​/Cens​us/li​brary​/publ​icati​ons/2​015/d​emo/p​25-11​43.pd​f. 2. For more information on smart growth and the related new urbanism movement, see Smart Growth America https://smartgrowthamerica.org/ and Congress for the New Urbanism https://www.cnu.org/. See also http:​//www​.newu​rbani​sm.or​g/new​ urban​ism/s​martg​rowth​.html​. 3. Janice C. Griffith, “Green Infrastructure: The Imperative of Open Space Preservation,” The Urban Lawyer 42/43, no. 4/1 (Fall 2010/Winter 2011), 269. 4. Robert Marshall, “The Problem of Wilderness,” in J. Baird Callicott and Michael P. Nelson, eds., The Great New Wilderness Debate (Athens, GA and London, UK: The University of Georgia Press, 1998), 89. 5. Marshall, “The Problem of Wilderness,” 89. 6. There have been a number of critiques of the environmental movement’s racism (most associated with preservationism). See, Jedediah Purdy, “Environmentalism’s Racist History,” The New Yorker (13 August 2015); Myron Orfield, “Segregation and Environmental Justice,” Minnesota Journal of Law Science, and Technology 7, no. 1 (2005), 147–160, https​://co​nserv​ancy.​umn.e​du/bi​tstre​am/ha​ndle/​ 11299​/1559​26/ah​c_ass​et_36​5946.​pdf;s​equen​ce=1. 7. See http://www.ejnet.org/ej/ for resources on the Environmental Justice Movement. 8. See the follow-up report “Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty 1987–2007: A Report Prepared for the United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries, https​ ://ww​w.nrd​c.org​/site​s/def​ault/​files​/toxi​c-was​tes-a​nd-ra​ce-at​-twen​ty-19​87-20​07.pd​f. 9. Carl Anthony, “Livable Communities,” Race, Poverty & the Environment 15, no. 1 (Spring 2008), 9–11. 10. “Transportation Justice,” Urban Habitat, http:​//urb​anhab​itat.​org/p​olicy​-advo​ cacy/​trans​porta​tion. 11. Edward H. Ziegler, “Sustainable Urban Development and the Next American Landscape: Some Thoughts on Transportation, Regionalism, and Urban Planning Law Reform in the 21st Century,” The Urban Lawyer 42/43, no. 4/1 (Fall 2010/Winter 2011), 97.

264

Laura Stivers

12. Ziegler, “Sustainable Urban Development and the Next American Landscape,” 99. 13. Sheryll Cashin, The Failures of Integration: How Race and Class are Undermining the American Dream (New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2004), 313. 14. Anthony Downs, “Growth Management, Smart Growth, and Affordable Housing,” Brookings Institute (29 May 2003), http:​//www​.broo​kings​.edu/​resea​rch/s​peech​ es/20​03/05​/29me​tropo​litan​polic​y-dow​ns. 15. http:​//www​.broo​kings​.edu/​resea​rch/s​peech​es/20​03/05​/29me​tropo​litan​polic​ y-dow​ns. 16. See R. Krueger and D. Gibbs, The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe (New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2007); Anthony Downs, “Smart Growth Why We Discuss It More than We Do It,” Journal of the American Planning Association 71, no. 4 (2005), 367–378; Hamil Pearsall, “From Brown to Green? Assessing Social Vulnerability to Environmental Gentrification in New York City,” Environmental and Planning C: Politics and Space 28, no. 5 (2010), 872–886. 17. I have attended many community meetings on affordable housing in Marin County, California (high income, 80 percent White). Resources from Marin County that make many of the arguments I have heard expressed are the following: Bob Silvestri, The Best Laid Plan: Our Planning and Affordable Housing Challenges in Marin (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) 2012; Richard Hall’s blogsite “Planning for Reality,” http:​//pla​nning​forre​ality​.org/​autho​r/adm​in/. See also: Liam Dillon, “Marin County Has Long Resisted Growth in the Name of Environmentalism. But High Housing Costs and Segregation Persist,” Los Angeles Times (7 January 2018), https​://ww​w.lat​imes.​com/p​oliti​cs/la​-pol-​ca-ma​rin-c​ounty​-affo​rdabl​e-hou​sing-​ 20170​107-s​tory.​html. 18. Ibid. 19. Cashin, “The Failures of Integration”, 108–110. 20. Scoby Wilson, Malo Hutson, and Mahasin Majahid, “How Planning and Zoning Contribute to Inequitable Development, Neighborhood Health, and Environmental Injustice” Environmental Justice 1 no. 4 (2008): 211–216. 21. Karin Case, “Claiming White Social Location as a Site of Resistance to White Supremacy,” in Jennifer Harvey et al, Editors, Disrupting White Supremacy from Within: White People on What We Need to Do (Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press, 2004), 75. 22. Christopher Jones and Daniel M. Kammen. “Spatial Distribution of U.S. Household Carbon Footprints Reveals Suburbanization Undermines Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Urban Population Density” Environmental Science Technology 48, no. 2 (2014), 895–902. 23. Megan Clark, “Subsidiarity is a Two-sided Coin,” Catholic Moral Theology (8 March 2012), https​://ca​tholi​cmora​ltheo​logy.​com/s​ubsid​iarit​y-is-​a-two​-side​d-coi​n/. 24. Miguel De La Torre, Doing Christian Ethics form the Margins (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 62. 25. Susan Thistlethwaite, Sex, Race, and God: Christian Feminism in Black and White (New York, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1989), 121. 26. Thistlethwaite, Sex, Race, and God, 237.

Preservationism, Environmental Justice, Smart Growth

265

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anthony, Carl. “Livable Communities.” Race, Poverty & the Environment 15, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 9–11. Bell, Judith and Mary M. Lee. Why Place and Race Matter. California: PolicyLink, 2011. https​://ww​w.pol​icyli​nk.or​g/sit​es/de​fault​/file​s/WHY​_PLAC​E_AND​_RACE​ %20MA​TTER_​FULL%​20REP​ORT_W​EB.PD​F. Callicott, J. Baird and Michael P Nelson. The Great New Wilderness Debate. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1998. Case, Karen. “Claiming White Social Location as a Site of Resistance to White Supremacy.” In Jennifer Harvey et al., eds., Disrupting White Supremacy from Within: White People on What We Need to Do, 63–90. Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2004. Cashin, Sheryll. The Failures of Integration: How Race and Class are Undermining the American Dream. New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2004. Clark, Megan. “Subsidiarity is a Two-sided Coin.” Catholic Moral Theology, 8 March 2012. https​://ca​tholi​cmora​ltheo​logy.​com/s​ubsid​iarit​y-is-​a-two​-side​d-coi​n/. De La Torre, Miguel. Doing Christian Ethics form the Margins. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004. Dillon, Liam. “Marin County Has Long Resisted Growth in the Name of Environmentalism. But High Housing Costs and Segregation Persist. Los Angeles Times, 7 January 2018. https​://ww​w.lat​imes.​com/p​oliti​cs/la​-pol-​ca-ma​rin-c​ounty​-affo​rdabl​ehou​sing-​20170​107-s​tory.​html.​ Downs, Anthony. “Growth Management, Smart Growth, and Affordable Housing.” Brookings Institute, 29 May 2003. Downs, Anthony. “Smart Growth Why We Discuss It More than We Do It.” Journal of the American Planning Association 71, no. 4 (2005): 367–378. Griffith, Janice C. “Green Infrastructure: The Imperative of Open Space Preservation.” The Urban Lawyer 42/43, no. 4/1 (Fall 2010/Winter 2011): 259–306. Jones, Christopher and Kammen, Daniel M. “Spatial Distribution of U.S. Household Carbon Footprints Reveals Suburbanization Undermines Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Urban Population Density.” Environmental Science Technology 48, no. 2 (2014): 895–902. Krueger, Robb and David Gibbs. The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2007. Orfield, Myron. “Segregation and Environmental Justice.” Minnesota Journal of Law Science, and Technology 7, no. 1 (2005): 147–160. Pearsall, Hamil. “From Brown to Green? Assessing Social Vulnerability to Environmental Gentrification in New York City.” Environmental and Planning C: Politics and Space 28, no. 5 (2010): 872–886. Purdy, Jedediah. “Environmentalism’s Racist History.” The New Yorker, 13 August 2015. https​://ww​w.new​yorke​r.com​/news​/news​-desk​/envi​ronme​ntali​sms-r​acist​-hist​ ory.

266

Laura Stivers

Silvestri, Bob. The Best Laid Plan: Our Planning and Affordable Housing Challenges in Marin (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012). Turner, Robin L. and Diana Pei Wu. “Environmental Justice and Environmental Racism: An Annotated Bibliography and General Overview, Focusing on U.S. Literature, 1996–2002.” Digital Commons@Butler University. Wilson, Scoby, Malo Hutson, and Mahasin Mujahid. “How Planning and Zoning Contribute to Inequitable Development, Neighborhood Health, and Environmental Injustice.” Environmental Justice 1, no. 4 (2008): 211–216. Ziegler, Edward H. “Sustainable Urban Development and the Next American Landscape: Some Thoughts on Transportation, Regionalism, and Urban Planning Law Reform in the 21st Century. The Urban Lawyer 42/43, no. 4/1 (Fall 2010/ Winter 2011): 91–103.

Chapter 17

Resisting Nuclear Energy in South Africa Drawing Inspiration from Laudato Si’ Andrew Warmback

A remarkable story of David and Goliath proportions has emerged from South Africa. It is a story about the people challenging government corruption and demanding transparency in government decision-making. It is also a story about ordinary people of faith joining with other civic groups to take back control of the democratic process. This chapter explores a movement that embodies the spirit of Laudato Si’ and its call to protect and cherish our common home. It is offered as an encouragement to all who seek what Pope Francis refers to as integral development (LS 13). The chapter focuses on energy, a key component of development, and it argues that decisions about energy should be made by those most affected by energy policy. Proper energy policy should empower and enrich everyone in the community, not just those who profit from energy production. For development to be sustainable, energy must be sustainable. As I will demonstrate, Laudato Si strongly supports renewable energy as an important component of integral development. In an era of rapid climate change, already severely affecting South Africa, the move toward renewable energy should be nonnegotiable, as should be the rejection of false or misleading climate change solutions. Drawing on some of the insights of Laudato Si’, I argue that, in the South African context, the continued expansion of nuclear energy does not promote meaningful and lasting development. While Laudato Si’ does not address nuclear energy in-depth, or explicitly oppose nuclear energy, it will be shown that the broader ethical and moral principles articulated in the encyclical raise larger questions about nuclear as an energy source. The particular focus of this chapter is the successful legal action taken against the South African government’s “nuclear deal.” As we will see, this nuclear 267

268

Andrew Warmback

court case was centered mainly on the need for transparency and consultation in decision-making, principles which are well supported in Laudato Si’. The encyclical’s use of the principle of subsidiarity—“which grants freedom to develop the capabilities present to every level of society” (LS 196)—offers another principle with which to critically examine nuclear energy. I argue that renewable energy is, by its very nature, more in line with this principle, whereas nuclear energy tends to give decision-making power to larger corporate and transnational entities. While I acknowledge that the role and value of nuclear energy is widely debated, even among environmentalists, I will draw on these wider encyclical themes to demonstrate that nuclear energy does not make sense for South Africa. After describing the historical and political context of energy use in South Africa, I will review the work of the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who led the court case against the government’s plans to expand nuclear energy. I also review some religious voices that were instrumental in the resistance against further nuclear energy development. This section is followed by a description of the so-called “nuclear deal,” along with the subsequent legal action and court judgment given. The contribution of Laudato Si’ to the debate on nuclear energy is then discussed, as I compare and contrast renewable energy with nuclear energy. Finally, drawing on Pope Francis’s “lines of approach,” I offer suggestions for constructive actions and strategies that the churches and other faith communities may undertake to promote integral development with respect to a just transition to renewable energy. A BACKGROUND ON ENERGY IN SOUTH AFRICA With its rich cultural and religious diversity, stunning beauty, and its triumph over institutionalized racial and social oppression, South Africa once stood as a beacon of hope for the world, offering a model for how to harness both human and natural resources for the benefit of all its citizens. As South Africa remade itself after the end of apartheid in the mid-1990s, renewable energy was poised to play an increasingly bigger role in the country’s energy grid. However, over time, the government expressed its intention to expand the nuclear component of its energy mix, leading to a proposed nuclear deal in an attempt to acquire more nuclear reactors. These developments were resisted by a wide range of groups within civil society.1 Included in this resistance have been various faith communities which share a conviction that nuclear energy is, among other concerns, an expensive and dangerous method of producing electricity.2 Historically, South Africa has relied mainly on cheap coal to generate most of its electricity, a process which is very costly in terms of human health and

Resisting Nuclear Energy in South Africa

269

environmental destruction. Given its abundant potential for solar and wind energy, it was hoped that as the country shifted from the politics of discrimination, elitism, and exclusion to governance by the people, there would be far greater reliance on renewable energy. With its one nuclear power station in Koeberg, nuclear accounts for approximately 5 percent of the country’s total electricity generation. Initially, the African National Congress (ANC) “actively opposed nuclear power in its role of a liberation movement and during its early days as a ruling party.”3 However, this position would change over time as economic policies changed and various players collaborated in an effort to increase the percentage of nuclear power in South Africa’s energy mix. The macroeconomic policy that brought the ANC to power was the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), which aimed at creating a more equal society through various developmental initiatives. Yet, in the latter part of the 1990s, this policy was replaced by a neoliberal-influenced economic plan called Growth, Employment and Redistribution framework (GEAR). GEAR was followed by various other shifts in economic policy, the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (ASGISA); the New Growth Path (NGP) and the National Development Plan 2030.4 One effect of these economic shifts has been an increase in centralized decisionmaking, diminishing the people’s control over their own development. Amid the changing economic and political circumstances, the South African government had increasingly turned to nuclear energy, a policy fully embraced by Jacob Zuma, who became President in 2009. Through President Zuma’s growing friendship with Russian president, Vladimir Putin, the South African government entered into a nuclear deal with the Russians. By this agreement, the Russian state-run energy company, known as Rosatom, was to provide South Africa with a fleet of between six and eight new nuclear reactors. This international agreement, which would have costed South Africa more than R1 trillion ($76bn), did not pass through Parliament and was thus kept secret from the South African public.5 In the aftermath of President Zuma’s presidency, which ended in early 2018, a government investigation referred to as the “State Capture inquiry” revealed widespread corruption, particularly around the proposed nuclear program.6 The political maneuvering around the push for nuclear energy has been evident even in cabinet changes. In 2017, for example, there were three different Energy Ministers: Tina Joemat-Pettersson, who was fired after the nuclear program was stopped by the court ruling; her successor, Mmamoloko Kubayi, was also removed with speculation that the president was not happy with her progress in restarting the nuclear program, and then there was the appointment of David Mahlobo, a vocal supporter for a stronger nuclear energy future. A similar changeover has occurred for the minister of Finance position, with various personnel changes.7 It should be noted that during the

270

Andrew Warmback

years that the government promoted the nuclear deal, the treasury consistently expressed opposition, with successive Ministers of Finance declaring that the deal was unaffordable for the country.8 Under the current South African president, Cyril Ramaphosa, who was inaugurated in February 2018, there have been encouraging and hopeful signs that the nuclear build program will be abandoned. In May 2018, the new minister of Energy, Jeff Radebe, indicated the need to move toward renewable energy. While he has stated that nuclear energy is still part of the government’s energy mix, he has also signaled that there will be no new nuclear projects. In November of 2018, the Portfolio Committee on Energy asserted that “both coal and nuclear will remain important elements of SA’s energy mix,”9 but there are at least signs of hope for more development of renewables.10 RESISTANCE TO NUCLEAR ENERGY Among the NGOs that have opposed nuclear energy in South Africa is the environmental justice organization, Earthlife Africa, as well as the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI).11 Earthlife Africa has had a proud history of challenging environmental abuses in the country, with a particular interest in encouraging women to become more involved in energy and climate policy-making. SAFCEI was established in 2005, under the leadership of an Anglican bishop named Geoff Davies (also known as “the Green Bishop”) and his wife Kate Davies. It was the Johannesburg branch of Earthlife Africa (ELA-JHB) and SAFCEI that initiated the court case against the government to stop the nuclear deal. The case was preceded and galvanized by various forms of activism, much of it led by faith communities. For example, Kate Davies, along with activists of different faiths, staged silent antinuclear vigils outside of Parliament every Wednesday morning. Fittingly, SAFCEI expressed strong support for Laudato Si’. In a press release made on the day of its promulgation, SAFCEI endorsed “the Pope’s call for systemic change, for an acknowledgement that we are one earth, and that human societies should stand together in calling for solutions to heal the earth, not endanger it.”12 Echoing a key theme in the encyclical—that “everything is interconnected” (LS 138)—SAFCEI chairperson and Bahá’í, Tahiri Matthee, stated that “we are all interconnected, and every action we take either positive or negative has some impact on our Earth.”13 She asserted that leaders of South Africa are called upon, “to be accountable to the people, not to squander the resources that belong to all.”14 The statement concludes with Muslim Imam, Dr. A Rashied Omar, who connects Laudato Si’ specifically

Resisting Nuclear Energy in South Africa

271

to the South African nuclear context: “The pursuit of nuclear power is now threatening our democracy, and faith communities and their partners in civil society need to challenge the government to be more transparent and accountable.”15 The court action against nuclear energy was supported by various religious leaders and their organizations. I highlight three examples here. In May 2012, in a letter to then president Jacob Zuma and the minister of Energy, Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, the Chairperson of the KwaZulu-Natal Inter Religious Council (KZN IRC) and Archbishop of Durban, expressed the organization’s concerns, stating that “as people of faith, we believe that men and women are responsible for protecting all life and nature, because they are God’s creation . . . [and] that, in addition to increased energy efficiency, our abundant sustainable and renewable energy sources provide a way that ensures fair access to energy for all in South Africa.”16 He specifically mentions objections to the development of nuclear energy, questioning the economic rationale, the significant safety risks, and whether it is a cost-effective way of mitigating climate change. Similarly, in a 2015 statement issued by its chairperson, Bishop Abel Gabuza, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Roman Catholic Church of Southern Africa affirmed support for the development of renewable energy but expressed concern about the economic and safety risks of nuclear energy. These concerns prompted the Commission to call for a referendum, stating that “it is only fair that the government directly consults its people on the matter.”17 Finally, in 2017, the Southern African Anglican Archbishop, Thabo Makgoba, echoed a statement made by his Synod of Bishops which opposed the expansion of nuclear energy. He urged the government to “pursue the path of renewable energy initiatives,” linking energy to the “education, training and well-being of its citizens.” The Archbishop expressed the Synod’s deep concern that “an expanded nuclear energy program will become an albatross around the necks of our children,” concluding that “we cannot leave to the generations to come the task of disposing of our nuclear waste.”18 THE NUCLEAR COURT CASE In October of 2015, realizing that the South African government was preparing for a secret procurement deal of 9600MW of nuclear energy, SAFCEI and ELA-JHB started legal proceedings in the Cape Town High Court. The case challenged the government’s decision to proceed with procuring nuclear power plants from Russia. The legal argument focused on the lack of a statutory and constitutional basis for the procurement. The signatories, Liz McDaid and Makoma Lekalakala, of SAFCEI and ELA-JHB, respectively,

272

Andrew Warmback

were both women with roots in the anti-apartheid struggle and would face much harassment throughout the trial. In recognition of their contribution to the success of the case, they would go on to win the International Goldman Environmental prize for Africa in 2018.19 As expected, in December of 2015, the government announced legal changes which paved the way for nuclear development. The public then discovered that an agreement had already been made without any consultation and had been kept secret for two years. The application by SAFCEI and ELAJHB was to have this decision reviewed and set aside.20 A final court judgment was given in April 2017, fittingly, a day before South Africa’s Freedom Day. In the ruling handed down by the Western Cape High Court, the judges ruled that both the secret tabling of the Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) with Russia (along with the United States and the Republic of Korea) and the decisions made to procure nuclear power in the first place, were “unconstitutional and unlawful” and were to be “set aside.”21 The Court also noted that future deals would require public participation processes before making any new decisions. It was affirmed that the country’s constitution clearly calls for public participation and a debate in parliament on major decisions affecting its citizens. While the government at the time remained determined to proceed with the further development of nuclear energy, they would at least be forced to have meaningful engagement with the people of South Africa in the future. In effect, it would now be the people of South Africa who would be making decisions on future energy policies. LAUDATO SI’ AND NUCLEAR ENERGY As the legal judgment suggests, good governance means that all of us, as part of civil society, should be able to participate in decision-making processes, and that government should ultimately make decisions that are in the public interest. This includes future generations, which nuclear energy has the potential to affect significantly, as we note below. Laudato Si’ addresses these larger themes in various sections, including one entitled “Dialogue and Transparency in Decision-Making” (Ch. 5), referring, in particular, to the need to consider environmental impacts when making policy decisions. The encyclical also emphasizes the importance of “transparent political processes involving a free exchange of views,” noting that “the forms of corruption which conceal the actual environmental impact of a given project, in exchange for favours, usually produce specious agreements which fail to inform adequately and to allow for full debate.” (LS 182) This concern about concealing the actual environmental impact of a project is a particularly relevant point given that proponents of nuclear energy often fail to account for

Resisting Nuclear Energy in South Africa

273

carbon intensive environmental costs relating to the cradle-to-grave production process of nuclear energy.22 Laudato Si’ emphasizes the principle of the common good, noting that it is based on “respect for the human person as such, endowed with basic and inalienable rights ordered to his or her integral development” (LS 157). When assessing the use of nuclear energy, we have to consider both the health and the well-being of people, as well as that of the natural environment. This important dimension of Catholic social teaching includes “intergenerational justice,” the concept that the common good considers future generations “since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us” (LS 159). The use of nuclear energy can impact future generations for many years. Nuclear accidents can have detrimental health impacts on not just the current generation but also on future generations. Most significantly, the safe storage of nuclear waste becomes the burden of future generations for tens of thousands of years. Another encyclical theme relevant for nuclear energy concerns the ethics of technology. While Laudato Si’ acknowledges that technology “can produce important means of improving the quality of human life,” it also warns that we need more than just technical expertise. Noting that nuclear energy, along with other astonishing technologies, “have given us tremendous power,” Francis offers a warning: “Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used” (LS 104). Laudato Si’ further emphasizes that “our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience,” (LS 105) and that technology can be “dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups.” (LS 107) The encyclical’s affirmation of the principle of subsidiarity (LS 157, 196) is significant in this context. Subsidiarity insists that power and decision-making should be kept at a more local level wherever possible. As the United States Conference of Catholics Bishops writes: “The principle of subsidiarity reminds us that larger institutions in society should not overwhelm or interfere with smaller or local institutions.”23 While Laudato Si’ does not connect the dots between subsidiarity and nuclear energy, the implications should be clear. Energy policy should be controlled at a local level, wherever possible. Renewable energy tends to support this kind of local and regional control, whereas multibillion dollar, transnational nuclear deals––often made in secret—can never allow for local autonomy and decision-making. Given the widespread denial of anthropogenic climate change, it is significant that Laudato Si’ confirms the reality and the seriousness of the effects of climate change: “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system” (LS 23). This

274

Andrew Warmback

view is supported by the latest Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Global Warming of 1.5ºC,” issued in October 2018, which reaffirms the cause and looming disaster of climate change.24 Significantly, for our purposes, the encyclical makes the link between climate change and energy, stating that “the problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system” (LS 23). While proponents of nuclear would argue that the way to move beyond fossil fuels is with more nuclear energy, the reality is that nuclear energy is still dependent on fossil fuels, and so still worsens climate change, even if to a lesser extent than coal. Laudato Si’s critique of economic systems offers another angle to address energy issues, noting that exploitative and unsustainable economic practices further exacerbate both poverty and climate change: “The earth’s resources are also being plundered because of short-sighted approaches to the economy, commerce and production. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit” (LS 106). In my view, expanding South Africa’s nuclear energy production is another form of this short-sightedness. Nuclear energy depends on the continual extraction of limited resources and this is not sustainable. Moreover, increasing nuclear energy capability further reinforces and enables an ever-increasing amount of energy and its consumption. While energy is clearly needed for development, the focus needs to be on what is appropriate development. In the encyclical, Pope Francis points out the problems that give rise to this need for an ever-increasing pattern of consumption by focusing on “rampant individualism,” calling instead for an ethic of simplicity and restraint. Our energy and economic systems need to take heed of this, in the interests of authentic sustainability. While Laudato Si’ does not explicitly condemn nuclear energy, it does emphasize the need for renewables: “There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy” (LS 26). In the South African context, there are various reasons why renewable energy is preferred over nuclear energy. Currently, there is a critical shortage of energy. Nuclear energy would take at least ten to fifteen years, and probably much longer, to become available while renewable energy could be introduced almost immediately. For example, independent power producers could be invited to sell their power into the national electricity grid. Related to this is the greater potential renewable energy has to address the high unemployment situation in South Africa—entrepreneurial opportunities abound. In contrast, the production of nuclear energy requires skilled labor, much of which would need to be sourced from outside of the country.

Resisting Nuclear Energy in South Africa

275

Nuclear energy requires large capital investment. In the case of South Africa, this would mean foreign investment. This, in turn, raises concerns about the undue influence that those outside the country could wield over the energy sector. In a country with an abundance of sun and wind, the accelerated production of renewable energy makes good sense. Continued reliance on fossil fuels, which contribute to pollution and climate change, clearly will not lead to lasting and sustained development. TAKING ACTION: RESISTING NUCLEAR ENERGY AND PROMOTING INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT Achieving just energy within an integral development means taking decisive action on a number of levels, and not just in the legal sphere as in the nuclear court case referred to above. As Pope Francis puts it, it all starts with the need for “ecological conversion,” for personal change and action: “Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption” (LS 23). From personal transformation, systemic change can be effected: “A change in lifestyle could bring healthy pressure to bear on those who wield political, economic and social power” (LS 206). Indeed, change must go beyond the personal; it must lead to systemic change, establishing just economic, social, and political systems. Changing entrenched systems are difficult but we are encouraged that Laudato Si’ provides a strong message of hope that change is possible—“we know that things can change” (LS 13). In this spirit of optimism, Pope Francis writes that “hope would have us recognise that there is always a way out, that we can always redirect our steps, that we can always do something to solve our problems” (LS 61). Rooting this hope theologically, Pope Francis writes that the “Creator does not abandon us” (LS 13), and he insists that “God, who wishes to work with us, counts on our cooperation, can also bring good out of the evil we have done” (LS 80). In recognizing that fundamental change is necessary, Laudato Si’ calls for action on the economic and political level as well as in the area of public policy. It also affirms the role that ordinary people can play in government: “Society, through non-governmental organizations and intermediate groups, must put pressure on governments to develop more rigorous regulations, procedures and controls” (LS 179). Laudato Si’ also serves as a model for the positive role that faith communities can play in helping to solve our contemporary challenges. As we have seen, the document itself was used as inspiration for South African faith communities resisting the nuclear deal. But its emphasis on engagement and the importance of government transparency and public consultation will continue to bolster resistance movements around the world.

276

Andrew Warmback

The encyclical’s holistic, integral approach to social and environmental issues serves to broaden the debate about issues such as nuclear energy. As the South African story demonstrates, energy policy involves not just environmental issues but deeper civic questions around who makes energy decisions for the people and who profits from those decisions. Nuclear energy requires large scale, top-down systems of control, usually involving transnational funding. This removes agency from local people and violates the principle of subsidiarity. If we take these Laudato Si’ values seriously, the case for nuclear becomes more difficult not only in South Africa but also around the globe.

CONCLUSION The experience in South Africa of resisting nuclear power forms part of the ongoing narrative which requires us to work at deepening the country’s democracy to ensure that all its peoples can enjoy human rights, economic justice, freedom, gender, and social equality. Maintaining the ecological integrity of the land and the equitable distribution of resources is critical to this work. Holistic, meaningful, and lasting development in which all people can move toward reaching their full potential is at the heart of Laudato Si’. This ethical approach to integral development also extends to an ethical consideration of the energy that drives the development. Pope Francis states that “we know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels—especially coal, but also oil, and to a lesser degree, gas—needs to be progressively replaced without delay” (LS 165). In partnership with civil society organizations, the religious community needs to develop more effective strategies to support this transition to sustainable energy systems. What might the implications of the South African experience be for the rest of the world?

NOTES 1. See: Penny-Jane Cooke, “This Is How Nuclear Energy Is Being Forced on the South African Public,” Huffington Post, March14, 2017, https​://ww​w.huf​fingt​onpos​ t.co.​za/pe​nny-j​ane-c​ooke/​this-​is-ho​w-nuc​lear-​energ​y-is-​being​-forc​ed-on​-the-​south​ -afri​can_a​_2188​0669/​. 2. Kim Kuyshaar, “Power for People: Nuclear Is a Moral Issue,” SAFCEI Blog, May 26, 2015, https​://sa​fcei.​org/p​ower-​for-p​eople​-nucl​ear-i​s-a-m​oral-​issue​/. 3. Britta Rennkamp and Radhika Bhuyan, “The Social Shaping of Nuclear Energy Technology in South Africa,” in The Political Economy of Clean Energy Transitions, ed. Douglas Arent et al. (Oxford, U: Oxford University Press, 2017), 274.

Resisting Nuclear Energy in South Africa

277

4. For an overview of changing economic policies in South Africa since 1994, see: “South Africa’s Key Economic Policies Changes (1994–2013),” South African History Online, March 1, 2017, https​://ww​w.sah​istor​y.org​.za/a​rticl​e/sou​th-af​rica%​ E2%80​%99s-​key-e​conom​ic-po​licie​s-cha​nges-​1994-​2013.​ 5. Lionel Faull, “Exposed: Scary details of SA’s secret Russian nuke deal,” Mail and Guardian, February 13, 2015, https​://mg​.co.z​a/art​icle/​2015-​02-12​-expo​sed-s​ cary-​detai​ls-of​-secr​et-ru​ssian​-nuke​-deal​. 6. Full transcripts of evidence presented at The Judicial Commission of Inquiry into allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector can be found at: https​://ww​w.sas​tatec​aptur​e.org​.za/s​ite/t​ransc​ripts​. 7. See: Hartmut Winkler, “Zuma’s Cabinet Reshuffle Opens the Door for Nuclear Deal in South Africa,” The Conversation, March 31, 2017, https​://th​econv​ersat​ion.c​ om/zu​mas-c​abine​t-res​huffl​e-ope​ns-th​e-doo​r-for​-nucl​ear-d​eal-i​n-sou​th-af​rica-​75553​ . See, also: David Fig, “Court Ruling on Zuma’s Nuclear Deal Is a Marker of South Africa’s Political Health,” The Conversation, April 28, 2017, https​://th​econv​ersat​ion. c​om/co​urt-r​uling​-on-z​umas-​nucle​ar-de​al-is​-a-ma​rker-​of-so​uth-a​frica​s-pol​itica​l-hea​ lth-7​6870.​ 8. See: Richard Hasley, “Big Nuclear Build Makes No Climate or Economic Sense,” Business Day, April, 18 2016, https​://ww​w.bus​iness​live.​co.za​/arch​ive/2​ 016-0​4-18-​big-n​uclea​r-bui​ld-ma​kes-n​o-cli​mate-​or-ec​onomi​c-sen​se/. See, also: Gary Koekemoer, “Why No to Nuclear? We Simply Cannot Afford It, that’s all,” Business Day, January 21, 2016. https​://ww​w.bus​iness​live.​co.za​/bd/o​pinio​n/201​6-01-​21-wh​ y-no-​to-nu​clear​-we-s​imply​-cann​ot-af​ford-​it-th​ats-a​ll/. 9. Richard Hasley, “The IRP: Members of the Parliamentary Energy Committee Ignoring the Impact of Climate Change,” Daily Maverick, November 29, 2018, https​ ://ww​w.dai​lymav​erick​.co.z​a/art​icle/​2018-​11-29​-the-​irp-m​ember​s-of-​the-p​arlia​menta​ ry-en​ergy-​commi​ttee-​ignor​ing-t​he-im​pact-​of-cl​imate​-chan​ge/. 10. The ANC’s most recent document does not mention the promotion of nuclear energy. See: “Let’s Grow South Africa Together – 2019 Election Manifesto,” https​ ://37​ugp72​ofspp​25ltk​b3ajw​vg-wp​engin​e.net​dna-s​sl.co​m/wp-​conte​nt/up​loads​/6140​ -ANC-​Manif​esto-​Bookl​et-A5​_Digi​tal.p​df. 11. See: Earthlife Africa – JHB: www.earthlife.org.za, and SAFCEI: www.safcei.org. 12. “SAFCEI Responds to Pope’s Encyclical,” SAFCEI Blog, 18 June 2015, https​ ://sa​fcei.​org/s​afcei​s-res​ponse​-to-t​he-po​pes-e​ncycl​ical/​. 13. “SAFCEI Responds to Pope’s Encyclical.” 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, Statement on Nuclear Energy, May 31, 2012. Copy of letter received from author. 17. See: Bronwen Dachs, “South African Bishops Call for a Referendum on Nuclear Power Plants,” Catholic Herald, December 31, 2015, https​://ca​tholi​chera​ ld.co​.uk/n​ews/2​015/1​2/31/​south​-afri​can-b​ishop​s-cal​l-for​-refe​rendu​m-on-​nucle​ar-po​ wer-p​lants​/. 18. Peter Kenney, “S. African Bishop Says Government Should Scrap Nuclear Power; Expand Renewable Energy Sources,” Ecumenical News, February 21, 2017,

278

Andrew Warmback

https​://ww​w.ecu​menic​alnew​s.com​/arti​cle/s​-afri​can-a​rchbi​shop-​says-​gover​nment​ -shou​ld-sc​rap-n​uclea​r-pow​er-ex​pand-​renew​able-​energ​y-sou​rces/​59172​.htm.​ 19. For more information on Makoma Lekalakala and Liz McDaid see: https​://ww​ w.gol​dmanp​rize.​org/r​ecipi​ent/m​akoma​-leka​lakal​a-liz​-mcda​id/. 20. As stated in the original affidavit, ELA-JHB and SAFCEI challenged the legality and constitutionality of: • the Intergovernmental Agreement on strategic partnership and nuclear cooperation signed with Russia (Russian IGA). The IGA was intended to “legally fix” a strategic partnership between Russia and South Africa, the conditions of that agreement (eventually signed on September 22, 2014) include a firm commitment to build 9600 MW, indemnified Russia from liability for damages in the event of a nuclear accident inside South African borders, and gives a veto to Russia regarding the use of any other nuclear suppliers. It is supposed to remain in force for twenty years; • the tabling of the Russian IGA in Parliament under a provision that makes the agreement binding on the international plane without the need for parliamentary ratification; • the tabling of outdated IGAs on nuclear cooperation entered into with the United States and Republic of Korea; • the failure by the minister in terms of s34 of the Electricity Regulation Act 2006, in consultation with NERSA [National Energy Regular of South Africa] and in accordance with a procedurally fair public participation process, to make a determination that new electricity generation capacity is required from nuclear power, and the percentage that is required; • the failure by the minister in terms of s34 of the Electricity Regulation Act 2006 (ERA), read with s217 of the Constitution, in consultation with NERSA and in accordance with a procedurally fair public participation process, to require that the procurement of such nuclear new generation capacity must take place in terms of a specified procurement system; • Various decisions by the minister and/or government to facilitate, organize, commence and/or proceed with the procurement of nuclear new generation capacity prior to making the necessary s34 nuclear determination and nuclear procurement system decision. ELA-JHB and SAFCEI were represented by Adrian Pole and Associates, advised by the Legal Resource Centre. Legal documents related to the court challenge can accessed at, https​://sa​fcei.​org/k​nowle​dge-b​ase/n​uclea​r-dea​l-leg​al-do​cumen​ts-an​ d-med​ia-re​sourc​es/. 21. The full court judgment can be read in the following pdf released by the High Court of South Africa, http:​//www​.safl​ii.or​g/za/​cases​/ZAWC​HC/20​17/50​.pdf.​ 22. It is difficult to determine the carbon footprint of nuclear energy; the levels of carbon emissions during the nuclear life cycle are contested. However, it cannot be claimed that nuclear energy is a “clean” source of energy. Carbon emissions are produced in the overall process of energy production, which includes the mining of uranium, its processing and transportation, and the storage of the waste. The construction, maintenance and eventual decommissioning of every nuclear plant must also be

Resisting Nuclear Energy in South Africa

279

taken into account. The South African website “Nuclear Costs SA” features numerous pieces on its Resources page. See: http://nuclearcostssa.org/resources-2/. For a review of the science on nuclear-related carbon emissions, see: Keith Barnham, “False Solution: Nuclear Power Is Not “Low Carbon,” The Ecologist, February 5, 2015. https​://th​ eecol​ogist​.org/​2015/​feb/0​5/fal​se-so​lutio​n-nuc​lear-​power​-not-​low-c​arbon​. See, also: Liz McDaid, “Nuclear Energy Is Crowding Out Adaptation Responses,” SAFCEI Blog, November 15, 2016, https​://sa​fcei.​org/n​uclea​r-ene​rgy-c​rowdi​ng-ou​t-ada​ptati​ on-re​spons​es/. 23. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” 2016, http:​//www​.uscc​b.org​/issu​es-an​d-act​ion/ f​aithf​ul-ci​tizen​ship/​loade​r.cfm​;jses​sioni​d=772​269FD​86BD5​ACEDB​2EAD7​A81D3​ 0DB4.​usccb​?csMo​dule=​secur​ity/g​etfil​e&​;page​id=20​2452&​CFID=​26698​9597&​ CFTOK​EN=48​01641​2. 24. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C,” October 8, 2018, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnham, Keith. “False Solution: Nuclear Power Is Not ‘Low Carbon.’ The Ecologist, February 5, 2015. https​://th​eecol​ogist​.org/​2015/​feb/0​5/fal​se-so​lutio​n-nuc​lear-​ power​-not-​low-c​arbon​. Cooke, Penny-Jane. “This Is How Nuclear Energy Is Being Forced on the South African Public.” Huffington Post, March14, 2017. https​://ww​w.huf​fingt​onpos​t.co.​ za/pe​nny-j​ane-c​ooke/​this-​is-ho​w-nuc​lear-​energ​y-is-​being​-forc​ed-on​-the-​south​-afri​ can_a​_2188​0669/​. Dachs, Bronwen. “South African Bishops Call for a Referendum on Nuclear Power Plants.” Catholic Herald, December 31, 2015. https​://ca​tholi​chera​ld.co​.uk/n​ews/2​ 015/1​2/31/​south​-afri​can-b​ishop​s-cal​l-for​-refe​rendu​m-on-​nucle​ar-po​wer-p​lants​/. Faull, Lionel. “Exposed: Scary Details of SA’s Secret Russian Nuke Deal.” Mail and Guardian, February 13, 2015. https​://mg​.co.z​a/art​icle/​2015-​02-12​-expo​sed-s​cary-​ detai​ls-of​-secr​et-ru​ssian​-nuke​-deal​. Fig, David. “Court Ruling on Zuma’s Nuclear Deal Is a Marker of South Africa’s Political Health.” The Conversation, April 28, 2017. https​://th​econv​ersat​ion.c​om/co​urt-r​ uling​-on-z​umas-​nucle​ar-de​al-is​-a-ma​rker-​of-so​uth-a​frica​s-pol​itica​l-hea​lth-7​6870.​ Hasley, Richard. “Big Nuclear Build Makes No Climate or Economic Sense.” Business Day, April 18, 2016. https​://ww​w.bus​iness​live.​co.za​/arch​ive/2​016-0​4-18-​ big-n​uclea​r-bui​ld-ma​kes-n​o-cli​mate-​or-ec​onomi​c-sen​se/. Hasley, Richard. “The IRP: Members of the Parliamentary Energy Committee Ignoring the Impact of Climate Change.” Daily Maverick, November 29, 2018. https​://ww​w.dai​lymav​erick​.co.z​a/art​icle/​2018-​11-29​-the-​irp-m​ember​s-of-​the-p​ arlia​menta​ry-en​ergy-​commi​ttee-​ignor​ing-t​he-im​pact-​of-cl​imate​-chan​ge/. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C.” October 8, 2018. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. Kenney, Peter. “S. African Bishop Says Government Should Scrap Nuclear Power; Expand Renewable Energy Sources.” Ecumenical News, February 21, 2017. https​

280

Andrew Warmback

://ww​w.ecu​menic​alnew​s.com​/arti​cle/s​-afri​can-a​rchbi​shop-​says-​gover​nment​-shou​ ld-sc​rap-n​uclea​r-pow​er-ex​pand-​renew​able-​energ​y-sou​rces/​59172​.htm.​ Koekemoer, Gary. “Why No to Nuclear? We Simply Cannot Afford It, that’s all.” Business Day, January 21, 2016. https​://ww​w.bus​iness​live.​co.za​/bd/o​pinio​n/201​ 6-01-​21-wh​y-no-​to-nu​clear​-we-s​imply​-cann​ot-af​ford-​it-th​ats-a​ll/. Kuyshaar, Kim. “Power for People: Nuclear Is a Moral Issue.” SAFCEI Blog, May 26, 2015. https​://sa​fcei.​org/p​ower-​for-p​eople​-nucl​ear-i​s-a-m​oral-​issue​/. McDaid, Liz. “Nuclear Energy Is Crowding Out Adaptation Responses.” SAFCEI Blog, November 15, 2016. https​://sa​fcei.​org/n​uclea​r-ene​rgy-c​rowdi​ng-ou​t-ada​ptati​ on-re​spons​es/. Rennkamp, Britta and Radhika Bhuyan. “The Social Shaping of Nuclear Energy Technology in South Africa.” In The Political Economy of Clean Energy Transitions, edited by Douglas Arent, Channing Arndt, Mackay Miller, Finn Tarp, and Owen Zinaman, 271–291. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. South African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute. “SAFCEI Responds to Pope’s Encyclical.” SAFCEI Blog, June 18, 2015. https​://sa​fcei.​org/s​afcei​s-res​ ponse​-to-t​he-po​pes-e​ncycl​ical/​. South African History Online. “South Africa’s Key Economic Policies Changes (1994–2013),” March 1, 2017. https​://ww​w.sah​istor​y.org​.za/a​rticl​e/sou​th-af​rica%​ E2%80​%99s-​key-e​conom​ic-po​licie​s-cha​nges-​1994-​2013.​ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” 2016. http:​//www​.uscc​b.org​/issu​es-an​d-act​ ion/f​aithf​ul-ci​tizen​ship/​loade​r.cfm​;jses​sioni​d=772​269FD​86BD5​ACEDB​2EAD7​ A81D3​0DB4.​usccb​?csMo​dule=​secur​ity/g​etfil​e&​;page​id=20​2452&​CFID=​ 26698​9597&​CFTOK​EN=48​01641​2. Winkler, Hartmut. “Zuma’s Cabinet Reshuffle Opens the Door for Nuclear Deal in South Africa.” The Conversation, March 31, 2017. https​://th​econv​ersat​ion.c​om/zu​ mas-c​abine​t-res​huffl​e-ope​ns-th​e-doo​r-for​-nucl​ear-d​eal-i​n-sou​th-af​rica-​75553​.

Chapter 18

An Integral Issue Population and Birth Control in Laudato Si’ and Roman Catholic Teaching Michael Taylor Ross

Scholars estimate that 60 percent of girls in ancient Rome died before reaching reproductive age and those who did survive faced a high risk of death during childbirth. Even then, the average life span was in the low twenties.1 Famine, disease, war, and genocide regularly destroyed whole populations. For the ancient Hebrews and the early Christians who wrote foundational religious texts about procreation, the continuation of the human species itself seemed precarious. It would take thousands of years of higher fertility rates for the human species to reach the one billion mark in 1800.2 The United Nations has projected that if current fertility trends were to continue, the human population would rise from the current 7.6 billion to a staggering 28.6 billion by 2100.3 In reality, this scenario would cause such catastrophic climate change and resource scarcity that the resulting mortality would prevent us from ever reaching such a number.4 Thankfully, this projection is based on current fertility rates, which are expected to come down over the coming decades. As we will see from a review of the experts, family planning, including the use of artificial birth control, has played and will continue to play a critical role in allowing us to avoid these catastrophically high numbers. This seems to pose a profound challenge to the very essence of the Roman Catholic tradition, from the Genesis command to “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28) to Humanae Vitae’s teaching that every sexual act must be open to procreation. The Catholic Church finds itself in a seemingly contradictory position with its promulgation of Laudato Si’. On the one hand, the document is praised by scientists and secular leaders for its holistic vision of an “integral ecology” and its universal moral call to address climate change. On the other hand, a tension remains over reproductive issues, with development experts 281

282

Michael Taylor Ross

wondering how it would even be possible to achieve this integral ecology without change in the church’s sexual teachings. In this chapter, I will explore this tension in three steps. First, I will review the limited but significant commentary on population in Laudato Si’, considering what sources the encyclical draws upon (and what it does not draw upon) to frame the issue. Second, building on Pope Francis’s emphasis on dialogue, I will present some key points from development and population experts. Finally, in the spirit of Francis’s call for a “new synthesis,” I will conclude with some brief thoughts on how the Catholic moral tradition might see the current reality of population issues as a challenge to a traditional Catholic understanding of procreation. While it is true that Laudato Si’ was a source of disappointment for many of those concerned about issues such as population, reproductive issues, and women’s rights, I suggest that the encyclical has offered a new context for the discourse around such issues.5 POPULATION IN LAUDATO SI’ AND ITS SOURCES Laudato Si’ does not offer any in-depth discussion on contraception or population, but paragraph 50 contains a key commentary on the subject. Francis reviews various ecological crises and then admonishes the overconsumption of resources by wealthier countries, bringing him to the relevance of population: “Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate.” He laments that poor countries are sometimes offered economic aid only on the condition that they accept funding for “reproductive health.”6 He continues with a full quote from Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: “[W]hile it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development.”7 Here Francis reaffirms the standard argument in modern official Catholic teaching: the problem is not too many people; the problem is greed and overconsumption and the economic manipulation of poor countries by the wealthy. Blaming population growth as opposed to “extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some is one way of refusing to face the issues,” he insists, adding that one-third of all food is wasted. However, paragraph 50 concludes by leaving the door open to further discussion: “Attention needs to be paid,” Francis admits, “to imbalances in population density, on both national and global levels.” Cited in this paragraph and the excerpt from the Compendium are past papal commentaries on population, most of which focus on the issue of coercive

An Integral Issue

283

family planning programs. Pope John Paul II is referenced for his numerous criticisms of an “anti-life mentality” in development circles, including the United Nations.8 Laudato Si also builds on past acknowledgments, dating back to Pope Paul VI, that population is a potential concern, but these statements generally conclude that population growth is not intrinsically incompatible with development.9 As John Paul II put it in the 1980s, it has not been proven “that all demographic growth is incompatible with orderly development”;10 a line seemingly echoed by Francis when he writes that “demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development.” Perhaps most significant, however, are the aspects of the tradition not mentioned in Laudato Si’. Nowhere in paragraph 50 or any other section, is Humanae Vitae, for example, cited. While Francis certainly reaffirms church teaching on abortion (e.g., LS 120), there is no explicit condemnation of artificial birth control. Francis, with his South American perspective on global issues, seems concerned not about artificial methods of birth control per se but a Western understanding of development and reproductive health being imposed on marginalized peoples with very different views about family, sexuality, and gender roles. Elsewhere, he has used the term “ideological colonization” to describe what he perceives as the West’s steamrolling of traditional religious beliefs and customs in the name of progress.11 Francis’s notion of the “throwaway culture” (LS 22) links the exploitation of Earth and the poor with the debasing of life itself. He is questioning how leaders from a cultural tradition with a legacy of such unbridled consumption, exploitation, and degradation of life in all of its forms is now advising, and sometimes coercing, poor countries on the most intimate matters of family life. DIALOGUE AND HINTS OF CHANGE Laudato Si’ strongly emphasizes dialogue, a word used no less than twentyfive times throughout the document. Francis “urgently” appeals for a “new dialogue” that includes “everyone” (LS 14). He calls for an “intense dialogue” between science and religion (LS 62) and declares that a “new synthesis” is needed to overcome the false arguments of the past (LS 112, 121). He emphasizes that the church “continues to reflect on these issues in fruitful dialogue with changing historical situations” (LS 121) while stressing throughout the document that the scale of the crises is so threatening that we have no choice but to develop a new way of thinking about solutions. While Francis does not specifically reference reproductive issues here, it would be hard to find a subject more in need of an intense dialogue and a new synthesis in light of changing historical situations. Not surprisingly, there are signs that Francis is pushing the boundaries on the issue.

284

Michael Taylor Ross

Consider one notable moment with reporters after a 2015 trip to the Philippines, where Francis had met with former street children abandoned by their destitute parents. When asked about family planning by a journalist, he said: “Some think that—excuse me if I use this word—that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No! Responsible parenthood. That is clear.” While he reiterated church teaching on contraception, he also noted that the population experts advise on three children per family and that church teaching offers many ways for families to regulate births (presumably referring to natural family planning methods). He added that he had met a woman in the Philippines who was expecting her eighth child, after having the first seven babies delivered by Caesarean section. Calling the pregnancy irresponsible, Francis noted that the woman said she trusted in God, to which Francis replied: “But God gave us the means to be responsible.”12 Also of note are the many conferences and workshops occurring at both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. In preparation for Laudato Si’, many secular experts on economics, ecology, development, and population were invited to advise the church on current issues and engage in dialogue. Economist Jeffrey Sachs, for example, has been a key dialogue partner and champion of the encyclical. Yet Sachs, like virtually all development experts, are adamant that reproductive health and access to contraception is a necessary component for solving social, economic, and ecological crises. In 2017, the Workshop on Biological Extinction brought various experts together at the Vatican, including controversial population expert Paul Ehrlich as well as John Bongaarts, a world-renowned demographer. Perhaps the clearest sign of change in the air is the relentless panicked coverage of the issue on extremist, Breitbart-style Catholic websites such as Life Site News and Church Militant.13 Vatican officials organizing the Biological Extinction workshop received thousands of emails protesting Ehrlich and Bongaarts’s invitations because of the coverage.14 Yet what these experts say about development and population is critical to understanding all of the issues addressed in the encyclical. It is precisely the kind of dialogue Francis has demanded. DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOGRAPHICS— WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY As John Bongaarts explains, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the human race experienced a population explosion. In the sixty-five years from 1950 to 2015, the world population almost tripled from 2.5 billion to 7.3 billion.15 Monitoring these trends, the United Nations has calculated “four fertility scenarios” for predicting population numbers over the next century. In the

An Integral Issue

285

“low-fertility variant,” the population peaks at 8.3 billion in 2050, declining to 6.8 billion by 2100. The “medium-fertility variant,” considered the most likely scenario, has the population peaking at about 11 billion by 2100. The “high-fertility variant” would result in 16.6 billion by 2100. Finally, the “constant variant”––if current fertility rates remained the same over the next few decades—has the population hitting 28.6 billion by 2100.16 As Sachs bluntly puts it: “The Earth could not sustain this, so it will not happen.”17 One striking feature of the projections is that a very slight change in fertility rate now has a massive compound effect over decades. For example, the difference between the low and medium variant is only 0.5 children per woman. That is, if the average number of children per woman went down by 0.5, it would mean 4 billion fewer people by 2100.18 History has shown a common, century-long “demographic transition” as countries or regions transform from an agricultural to an industrial society. At the beginning of the transition, there is a high birth rate of about five to seven children per woman but because of the high infant mortality rate, the growth rate stagnates. As industrialization occurs, the death rate drops (i.e., as the result of basic sanitation, infrastructure, healthcare and access to food) and population growth then goes up, causing an increase in population. Over time, however, industrialized countries then see a drop in the fertility rate with most families choosing to have two children, generally with the help of some form of artificial contraception.19 Differentiating between “less developed countries” (LDCs) and “more developed countries” (MDCs), Bongaarts explains that the LDCs in Africa, Asia, and Latin America began their demographic transition much later than the MDCs (i.e., North America, Europe, Japan, and Australia/New Zealand). While it is generally expected that this transition will occur eventually in all LDCs (hence the “medium” variant), some regions are experiencing a much higher mid-point of the transition than others, and it is in these countries that we often see major social, economic, and ecological crises as population growth outpaces development. For example, since 1950, the population of LDCs has gone from 1.7 billion to 6.1 billion. While countries in Asia, Latin America, and North Africa are currently transitioning toward limited growth with a 2.2 average fertility rate, sub-Saharan Africa is holding at an average of five children per woman and is therefore projected to almost quadruple by 2100 (from .96 to 3.93 billion). In contrast, the MDCs of North America have dropped to 1.9 and 1.6 in Europe. Seventy-five percent of the 4 billion projected increase in world population to 2100 will occur in sub-Saharan Africa, precisely the countries that are least equipped to handle such growth.20 Compounding the challenges of explosive population growth in LDCs is the rapid process of urbanization as people move from rural to urban settings. The inability of most urban centers in LDCs to keep up with this influx has led

286

Michael Taylor Ross

to the rapid growth of slums along with “continuous traffic jams, lack of public transportation, clean water and sanitation, and overcrowded schools and health facilities.”21 In other words, the concern is not only the global ecological impact of more people on the planet, particularly as LDCs dramatically increase carbon emissions. The concern is also how some regions––even in a world with equitable distribution of wealth––could develop quickly enough without continued widespread suffering and poverty. As Sachs explains: Poor countries with high fertility rates (with more than three children per woman, and in some countries reaching six or seven children per woman) are often stuck in a “demographic trap.” Because households are poor, they have many children. Yet because they have many children, each child is more likely to grow up poor. These societies end up in a vicious circle in which high fertility and poverty are mutually reinforcing.22

Pope Francis is certainly correct to argue that only pointing to the fertility rate of LDCs is “one way of refusing to face the issues,” namely the West’s overconsumption. However, only pointing to overconsumption is also a way of refusing to face the issues. The development experts are clear: the higher the population, the more catastrophic the ecological and social upheaval will be not only for the whole Earth but for the people in those high-population regions. Nonetheless, we find this unfounded idea throughout post-Vatican II teachings that population growth is “fully compatible” with proper development. Another central theme in the work of development experts concerns the status and rights of women. Sachs notes that women’s fertility is affected by several factors, education being one of the most significant. The data is conclusive that as education for girls and women goes up, coupled with less pressure to marry early, the fertility rate goes down.23 In some traditional cultures, girls receive no education and marry as early as twelve, leaving over two decades of childbearing years and no opportunity for political or economic empowerment. Other factors include child survival rates (i.e., if most children in a given region survive to adulthood, parents generally feel less pressure to have more children) and whether or not the family is in a rural setting with a greater need for “farm assets.”24 However, even once all of these factors are addressed and women want smaller families, they cannot do so without access to some type of family planning. Poor women are especially vulnerable to cultural and religious pressures to have more children. In some LDCs, beliefs about male virility, female fecundity, and multiple children as a blessing from God are mixed with a complete lack of understanding of sexual and reproductive health. Family planning workers in LDCs often report that it is the men who undermine the

An Integral Issue

287

women’s attempts to have less children. As one Chadian family planning director described his country: “This is a pro-birth society and a bit macho.” As a result, family planning agencies in the region are constantly fighting misinformation, such as the erroneous idea that condoms cause infertility. It was not uncommon in the past for men to throw stones at workers handing out condoms.25 Laudato Si’ excels in its assessment of poverty overall, but it overlooks the ways in which women are the most vulnerable to social, economic, and ecological problems and that this lack of agency is often rooted in a lack of reproductive control. Women who are poor, uneducated, and miles from a family planning clinic (to say nothing about the cost) cannot “consult their consciences” in the way that Catholic women in MDCs are subtly encouraged to do. This brings us back to the church’s central concern about coercion. Popes in the modern world have certainly had legitimate reasons to denounce attacks on reproductive freedom. John Paul II’s concerns were, in part, a response to China’s brutal one-child policy. Among other things, this led to an imbalanced gender ratio and sex-selective abortion. In 2013, a Chinese official revealed that there had been 336 million abortions since the one-child policy had been implemented in 1979.26 Catholic ethicists such as Christine Gudorf have been writing about the ethical dimensions of fertility-rate reduction since the mid-1990s, critiquing aspects of “developmentalism” and some of the early environmental arguments for fertility-rate reduction (i.e., arguments that overlooked the hypocrisy of the West’s overconsumption). But she was simultaneously arguing that population reduction and access to reproductive health is necessary.27 The church, in contrast, seems stuck in an old argument, conflating all sexual education and family planning programs with coercive fertility reduction. As Bongaarts emphasizes, “there is no need to force any countries to reduce fertility rates because there are tens of millions of women who want to use contraception but lack access.”28 The reality is that the Catholic hierarchy does its own undermining of reproductive freedoms. For decades, Catholic bishops and interest groups have been pressuring governments to prevent funding for family planning programs all around the world. Many LDCs with major population challenges have a strong Catholic presence whereby bishops push Catholic government leaders to vote against contraception funding. Nigeria, for example, is currently experiencing a fourfold population spike and yet the government does not spend anything on family planning.29 Even within the last few years, Nigerian bishops have launched public attacks and misinformation campaigns against foreign aid groups and politicians who want to provide funding.30 Despite a high acceptance of contraception among Catholics in the Philippines and a successful government-backed family planning program in the 1990s, Philippine bishops helped to elect President Arroyo with the

288

Michael Taylor Ross

understanding that she would end funding for family planning, which she did in 2001. Unmet contraceptive need shot up to 38 percent, poverty increased, and the maternal mortality rate reversed its downward trend.31 Meanwhile, the Vatican has consistently undermined the United Nations attempts to make access to contraception part of flagship programs such as the Millennium Development Goals and subsequently the Sustainable Development Goals.32 It is the church that is engaging in coercion and “ideological colonization” when women who want contraception and smaller families are denied it by the political maneuverings of Bishops. For Catholic traditionalists, the bishops are simply doing what they must to prevent both abortions and, as the Nigerian bishops put it, the “hyper-sexualization of our youth.”33 In this line of thinking, more access to contraception leads to permissive sexual behavior and since contraception is not 100 percent effective, it will lead to more abortions. Yet experts who study development and contraception have demonstrated that abortion rates go down as contraception is made available. One study found that in 2017, 25 percent of women of reproductive age in LDCs wanted to avoid pregnancy but did not have access to contraception. Not surprisingly, a staggering 43 percent of the estimated 206 million pregnancies in LDCs were unintended, leading to 48 million abortions. If all the women who wanted contraception had access to it, unintended pregnancy and the resulting abortions would plummet.34 Furthermore, most abortions in LDCs are unsafe, resulting in 22,000 maternal deaths in 2014, according to one study.35 In summary, the Catholic hierarchy and a minority of Catholics maintain that artificial birth control distorts the purpose of human sexuality, promotes promiscuity, and leads to more abortions.36 Meanwhile, development experts argue that access to contraception is not only the way to empower women and to improve social, economic, and ecological problems, but to reduce abortions and maternal mortality. A gridlock remains and a new synthesis is needed. COMMON GROUND: RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD In Bongaarts’s view, the Catholic understanding of “responsible parenthood” is a critical yet underemphasized concept that could offer a way out of this impasse. John Paul II defined responsible parenthood as “the empowerment of couples to use their inviolable liberty wisely and responsibly, taking into account social and demographic realities as well as their own situation and legitimate desires, in the light of objective moral criteria.”37 While the concept remains somewhat underdeveloped, the church has positioned responsible parenthood as having strong roots in the tradition. Humanae Vitae devotes a paragraph to the term, noting that some couples “for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite

An Integral Issue

289

period of time.” Humanae Vitae is, of course, only endorsing natural family planning but it is nonetheless asserting that parents should consciously procreate in the context of “physical, economic, psychological and social conditions.”38 The paragraph cites Gaudium et Spes, which does not use the term but says that parents “need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life.”39 It even cites Thomas Aquinas to anchor the idea in the context of natural law and human reason.40 It is striking, then, that the term is not used at all in Laudato Si’. Yet, Bongaarts’s distinction between birth control and contraception perhaps helps us understand this seeming hesitancy. Broadly speaking, the term “birth control” simply means “accepting the principle that couples are in control of the size of their families and that they can do what is right for them.”41 Contraception (i.e., artificial contraception) is one way of practicing birth control. Bongaarts emphasizes a point that those of us in MDCs fail to appreciate: in many LDCs, it is still controversial to even talk about birth control in the broad sense of the term, as it challenges many traditional ideas––some religious, some cultural––about sex and procreation. Yet, in his view, responsible parenthood could be a major area of common ground wherein the church could contribute to development solutions in a meaningful way. Bongaarts is quick to add that natural methods are not reliable enough if parents truly want to restrict family size to two or three children, particularly in countries where women marry relatively young. However, accepting the basic idea that humans should intentionally limit their family as part of an integral ecology is a critical first step. The Catholic Church could be a powerful leader on this matter. Francis’s lack of emphasis on responsible parenthood and population likely reflects a careful strategy. The procreative norm has been elevated to such a central place in Catholic teaching that talk of fertility reduction in response to a finite, warming world is still a controversial set of ideas for many traditional Catholics. Consider that at the time of Laudato Si’s promulgation, 75 percent of Republican Catholics in the United States (a demographic often against contraception) did not believe in anthropogenic climate change.42 For Francis, acknowledging climate change and giving ecological and social issues a more central place in the Catholic moral tradition seems to have been the more immediate concern. It is up to theologians and other scholars to explore what this integral ecology might mean for issues such as birth control. “CHANGING HISTORICAL SITUATIONS” Many contemporary Roman Catholic theologians have observed that the church uses a different moral reasoning process for sexual and reproductive issues than it does for other social, economic and ecological issues.43 Vatican

290

Michael Taylor Ross

II ushered in a shift in worldview from a classicist to an historical consciousness, enhancing the church’s appreciation for the development of doctrine. In the classicist worldview, truths and morals are fixed, timeless, eternal, and universally applicable. In an historical consciousness, the church understands that the world changes and the church’s understanding of doctrine evolves in the process of reading the “signs of the times.”44 This historical, or empirical approach is on display when the Catechism talks about the church’s social teachings as proposing “principles for reflection,” “criteria for judgment,” and “guidelines for action.”45 In countless post-Vatican II official documents, there is emphasis on consulting with the sciences, the “technical aspects of problems,” and the sense that teaching “develops in accordance with the changing circumstances of history.” There can be timeless principles and yet “contingent judgments” on how to apply them; church teaching “remains constantly open to the new questions which continually arise.”46 When it comes to sexual ethics and reproductive issues, however, the church remains in a thoroughly classicist worldview. Sexuality is judged with an “act-centered” focus. Right intentions and complex circumstances cannot change the supposed pure objectivity of the act. Artificial birth control is “intrinsically wrong.”47 Couples who use contraception or undergo sterilization have a “contraceptive mentality.”48 Sexuality exists in a rigid deontological, natural law ethical system where an objective sin against God can never be justified by other goods (e.g., reducing abortions and maternal death by promoting artificial contraception). Polluting a river, contributing to climate change, or making business decisions that exploit poor countries are wrong, but these situations are governed by “guidelines,” not moral absolutes. Conversely, sexual and reproductive issues—issues which disproportionately affect women—are universally enforced by an all-male hierarchy with absolute certainty. Because sexuality and procreation have remained locked in this immutable ethical system, immune from history and the complexities of lived experience, the church fails to recognize that humanity’s evolution from precarious lifeform to unsustainable population growth is the ultimate “changing historical situation.” The human species, which evolved to have self-reflective consciousness and reason, transcended most of its threats and “hacked” the problem of species survival. Particularly with the Industrial Revolution, humanity achieved what every species has struggled to achieve: explosive population growth. In fact, the Judeo-Christian tradition’s emphasis on procreation was probably instrumental in this achievement.49 But the biblical writers, the fathers of the church, and the Greek and medieval thinkers who developed the natural law tradition never considered climate change and rising sea levels, or 28.6 billion people by the end of the twenty-first century. Humanae Vitae does not factor in the prospect of ecocide, planetary destruction, or the limits of the natural

An Integral Issue

291

world when it asserts its claims about procreation. Artificially regulating our own fertility is “unnatural” but, by such reasoning, so is every other aspect of the industrial world. When humans achieved compounded population growth and an ever-increasing lifespan (largely through the burning of fossil fuels), they also took on a responsibility to regulate that growth in harmony with each other and the rest of creation. Nonetheless, the idea of regulating population hits a nerve in the Catholic tradition because it calls the whole system of traditional Magisterial sexual ethics into question. Even Francis, while acknowledging what the population experts say, seems to cling to the idea that population growth is “fully compatible” with development. However, the promise of Laudato Si’ is that an integral ecology elevates the moral weight of poverty and ecological issues—and the connection thereof— to a more central place in Catholic moral theology. This new horizon dethrones sexuality from its privileged moral status, moving it from an act-centered to a relational context that properly considers intention, circumstances, lived experience, and the very fate of our common home. Sexual ethics and, more specifically, reproductive questions must now be weighed in a proportional application of principles and guidelines. If “everything is related” (LS 92), as Francis rightly insists, then procreation cannot be isolated from social, economic, and ecological realities, including population. When a heterosexual couple with two children decides, as the result of their ecological concerns, that the man will have a vasectomy, they have proportionately weighed procreation within an integral ecology. It is increasingly difficult to make the argument that this is “anti-life” or the result of a “contraceptive mentality.” What is needed, then, in this new synthesis is a more developed sense of responsible parenthood. On a deeper level, moral theologians must accept Francis’s call for a new dialogue and re-examine sexuality in light of an integral ecology. Religious and ethical traditions should guide humanity through the process of adapting to this new responsibility and that will mean undoing many beliefs about procreation that religious traditions themselves have taught for centuries. It is possible to develop an ethic of birth control that also respects the sanctity of life, the freedom of women and parents, all with an awareness of the global power dynamics around fertility and consumption. Just as Laudato Si’ reinterprets what it means to “have dominion” (LS 66–67), a new synthesis must reinterpret what it means to “be fruitful and multiply.” NOTES 1. Guigui Yao and Robert J. Wyman, “Population,” in Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology, eds. Willis Jenkins, Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim (London, UK: Routledge, 2017), 306–307.

292

Michael Taylor Ross

2. John Bongaarts, Population: Current State and Future Prospects (Pontifical Academy of Sciences Workshop on Biological Extinction, 27–28 February 2017), http:​//www​.pas.​va/co​ntent​/acca​demia​/en/p​ublic​ation​s/scr​iptav​aria/​extin​ction​/bong ​ aarts​.html​. 3. United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision – Highlights and Advance Tables (New York, NY: United Nations, 2013), https​://es​a.un.​org/u​npd/ w​pp/pu​blica​tions​/File​s/WPP​2012_​HIGHL​IGHTS​.pdf.​ The more recent 2015 and 2017 revisions do not include the “constant fertility rate,” working on the assumption that family planning programs will continue to reach more women and couples who want to have less children. As I stress below, however, this increase in access to family planning is not inevitable or without obstacles. 4. See Jeffrey D. Sachs, The Age of Sustainable Development (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2015), 209–210. 5. See, for example: Jamie Manson, “Laudato Si’ Should Have Lifted the Ban on Contraception,” National Catholic Reporter, 24 June 2015, https​://ww​w.ncr​onlin​ e.org​/blog​s/gra​ce-ma​rgins​/laud​ato-s​i-sho​uld-h​ave-l​ifted​-ban-​contr​acept​ion. 6. As is the case in preceding documents, Laudato Si’ puts “reproductive health” in quotes since, according to official Magisterial teaching, “health” could not involve abortion or artificial contraception. 7. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 2 April 2004), 483. 8. See, for example: Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 30 December 1987), 25, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/ j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​30121​987_s​ollic​itudo​-rei-​socia​ lis.h​tml. His criticism of the UN can be found here: Pope John Paul II, Letter of His Holiness John Paul II to the Secretary General of the International Conference on Population and Development (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 18 March 1994), 4, https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​john-​paul-​ii/en​/lett​ers/1​994/d​ocume​ nts/h​f_jp-​ii_le​t_199​40318​_cair​o-pop​ulati​on-sa​dik.h​tml. 9. Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 26 March 1967), 37, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/p​aul-v​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/ doc​ument​s/hf_​p-vi_​enc_2​60319​67_po​pulor​um.ht​ml. 10. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 25. 11. Inés San Martín, “Pope Francis: Ideological Colonization a ‘Blasphemy Against God,’” CRUX, 21 November 2017, https​://cr​uxnow​.com/​vatic​an/20​17/11​/21/ p​ope-f​ranci​s-ide​ologi​cal-c​oloni​zatio​n-bla​sphem​y-god​/. 12. BBC News, “Pope Francis: No Catholic Need to Breed Like ‘Rabbits,’” 19 January 2015, https​://ww​w.bbc​.com/​news/​world​-asia​-3089​0989.​ 13. See, for example, Jan Bentz, “It’s Not Just Paul Ehrlich: Vatican also to Host Talk by Radical Population Council,” Life Site News, 20 January 2017, https​:// ww​w.lif​esite​news.​com/n​ews/v​atica​n-wel​comes​-cont​racep​tion-​pushi​ng-po​pulat​ion-c​ ounci​l-to-​biolo​gical​-ext.​ 14. John Bongaarts, Telephone interview by author, 31 May 2018. 15. Bongaarts, Population. 16. Sachs, Age of Sustainable Development, 208–210.

An Integral Issue

293

17. Ibid., 209–210. 18. John Bongaarts, “Development: Slow Down Population Growth,” Nature, 530 (25 February 2016), 410. 19. Bongaarts, Population. 20. Ibid. Some critics argue that the UN’s population projections are too high, and that Earth will soon face a “population bust,” not a population bomb. In one recent book, entitled Empty Planet (2019), Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson, project that global population will peak at 9 billion and then decline much sooner than the forecasts predict, causing a whole different set of crises. They present their projections as refuting “wrong” UN data even though the UN has offered a “low-fertility variant” in the same range (see endnote #3). The authors rightly recognize that increasing access to both reproductive health and women’s education in LDCs is a pivotal factor in this projection, but they seem to downplay the ongoing efforts that are needed in order to avoid explosive population growth. The high-fertility (or “constant”) variant of 28.6 billion, often dismissed as doomsday alarmism, is a projection of what would happen without increasing access to contraception. It is not inevitable that restriction of reproductive control will be overcome (consider the current global trend within far-right movements to undermine reproductive rights) or that adequate education programs for girls and young women will continue to increase. There are legitimate concerns about coming social and economic challenges posed by below-replacement rates in MDCs, but books such as Empty Planet run the risk of being used as “proof” by opponents of contraception that overpopulation is a myth. Such positions take for granted that artificial contraception has already prevented catastrophically high numbers, and that many regions are still struggling with unsustainable population growth. See: John Ibbitson and Darrell Bricker, Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline (Crown: New York, NY, 2019). For a radio interview with Bricker and Ibbitson, and John Bongaarts, see: On Point, “The Road to 10 Billion: Where Is Global Population Actually Headed?” produced by Hilary McQuilkin and hosted by Meghna Chakrabarti, aired February 21, 2019, on WBUR. Available online: https​://ww​w.wbu​r.org​/onpo​int/2​019/0​2/21/​empty​ -plan​et-gl​obal-​popul​ation​-decl​ine-g​rowth​-john​-ibbi​tson-​darre​ll-br​icker​. 21. Ibid. 22. Sachs, Age of Sustainable Development, 208. See also: Blaine Harden, “Birthrates Help Keep Filipinos in Poverty,” The Washington Post Foreign Service, 21 April 2008, http:​//www​.wash​ingto​npost​.com/​wp-dy​n/con​tent/​artic​le/20​08/04​/20/A​ R2008​04200​1930.​html?​nored​irect​=on. 23. Sachs, Age of Sustainable Development, 208. See also: Robert Engelman, “An End to Population Growth: Why Family Planning is Key to a Sustainable Future,” The Solutions Journal 2, no. 3 (May 2011), 35, https​://ww​w.the​solut​ionsj​ourna​l.com​ /arti​cle/a​n-end​-to-p​opula​tion-​growt​h-why​-fami​ly-pl​annin​g-is-​key-t​o-a-s​ustai​nable ​ -futu​re/. 24. Sachs, Age of Sustainable Development, 212–214. 25. Ruth Maclean, “High Birth Rates and Poverty Undermine a Generation of African Children – Report,” The Guardian, 25 August 2016, https​://ww​w.the​guard​ ian.c​om/gl​obal-​devel​opmen​t/201​6/aug​/25/h​igh-b​irth-​rates​-pove​rty-u​nderm​ine-g​ enera​tion-​afric​an-ch​ildre​n-odi​-repo​rt.

294

Michael Taylor Ross

26. Malcolm Moore, “336 Million Abortions Under China’s One-Child Policy,” The Telegraph, 15 March 2013, https​://ww​w.tel​egrap​h.co.​uk/ne​ws/wo​rldne​ws/as​ia/ ch​ina/9​93346​8/336​-mill​ion-a​borti​ons-u​nder-​China​s-one​-chil​d-pol​icy.h​tml. 27. See Christine E. Gudorf, Body, Sex, and Pleasure: Reconstructing Christian Sexual Ethics (Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press, 1994), 29–50. 28. Bongaarts, Interview. 29. Ibid. 30. See, Conscience (editorial), “Humanae Vitae: The Story Behind the Ban on Contraception,” Conscience Magazine, 29 April 2018, http:​//con​scien​cemag​.org/​ 2018/​04/29​/huma​nae-v​itae/​. 31. Harden, “Birthrates Help Keep Filipinos in Poverty.” 32. Bongaarts, Interview. 33. Conscience, Humanae Vitae. 34. The Guttmacher Institute, “Adding it Up: Investing in Contraception and Maternal and Newborn Health, 2017,” (December 2017). https​://ww​w.gut​tmach​er.or​ g/fac​t-she​et/ad​ding-​it-up​-cont​racep​tion-​mnh-2​017#s​ee note. The debate over whether abortion numbers go up or down as access to contraception increases has been settled by recent studies showing that abortion rates only go up in contexts where modern contraceptives cannot yet fully meet the demand for reduced fertility and/or women cannot afford the contraception, thus resorting to abortion as a substitute. See: Grant Miller and Christine Valente, “Population Policy: Abortion and Modern Contraception Are Substitutes,” Demography 53, no. 4 (August 2016), 979–1009. 35. Bongaarts, Population. 36. See, for example, Russell Heimlich, “Few Catholics See Contraceptive Use as Morally Wrong,” Pew Research Center (27 February 2012), http:​//www​.pewr​esear​ ch.or​g/fac​t-tan​k/201​2/02/​27/fe​w-cat​holic​s-see​-cont​racep​tive-​use-a​s-mor​ally-​wrong​/. 37. Pope John Paul II, Letter to the Secretary General, 5. 38. Pope Paul VI, Humane Vitae: On the Regulation of Birth (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 25 July, 1968), 10, https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​paul-​vi/ en​/ency​clica​ls/do​cumen​ts/hf​_p-vi​_enc_​25071​968_h​umana​e-vit​ae.ht​ml. 39. Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 7 December 1965), 50, http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​ il/do​cumen​ts/va​t-ii_​const​_1965​1207_​gaudi​um-et​-spes​_en.h​tml. 40. See Humane Vitae, footnote 9. 41. Bongaarts, Interview. 42. Pew Research Center, “Catholics Divided Over Global Warming,” (16 June 2015), http:​//ass​ets.p​ewres​earch​.org/​wp-co​ntent​/uplo​ads/s​ites/​11/20​15/06​/Cath​olics​ -clim​ate-c​hange​-06-1​6-ful​l.pdf​. 43. See, for example, Richard Gula, Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1989), 231–249. 44. Ibid., 25–40. 45. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2423, http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​ ENG00​15/_I​NDEX.​HTM.

An Integral Issue

295

46. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation (Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 22 March 1986), 72. 47. Humanae Vitae, 14. 48. See Martin Rhonheimer, Ethics of Procreation and the Defense of Human Life: Contraception, Artificial Fertilization, and Abortion (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 118. 49. See Yao and Wyman, “Population,” 309.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BBC News. “Pope Francis: No Catholic Need to Breed Like ‘Rabbits.’” 19 January 2015. https​://ww​w.bbc​.com/​news/​world​-asia​-3089​0989.​ Bongaarts, John. “Development: Slow Down Population Growth.” Nature, 530 (25 February 2016): 409–412. ———. “Population: Current State and Future Prospects.” Pontifical Academy of Sciences Workshop on Biological Extinction, 27–28 February 2017. http:​//www​ .pas.​va/co​ntent​/acca​demia​/en/p​ublic​ation​s/scr​iptav​aria/​extin​ction​/bong​aarts​.html​. ———. Telephone Interview by Author, 31 May 2018. Catechism of the Catholic Church. http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​ENG00​15/_I​ NDEX.​HTM. Conscience. “Humanae Vitae: The Story Behind the Ban on Contraception.” Conscience Magazine, 29 April 2018. http:​//con​scien​cemag​.org/​2018/​04/29​/huma​ nae-v​itae/​. Engelman, Robert. “An End to Population Growth: Why Family Planning Is Key to a Sustainable Future.” The Solutions Journal 2, no. 3 (May 2011): 32–41. https​:// ww​w.the​solut​ionsj​ourna​l.com​/arti​cle/a​n-end​-to-p​opula​tion-​growt​h-why​-fami​ly-pl​ annin​g-is-​key-t​o-a-s​ustai​nable​-futu​re/. Gudorf, Christine E. Body, Sex, and Pleasure: Reconstructing Christian Sexual Ethics. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press, 1994. Gula, Richard. Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1989. Harden, Blaine. “Birthrates Help Keep Filipinos in Poverty.” The Washington Post Foreign Service, 21 April 2008. http:​//www​.wash​ingto​npost​.com/​wp-dy​n/con​tent/​ artic​le/20​08/04​/20/A​R2008​04200​1930.​html?​nored​irect​=on. Heimlich, Russell. “Few Catholics See Contraceptive Use as Morally Wrong.” Pew Research Center, 27 February 2012. http:​//www​.pewr​esear​ch.or​g/fac​t-tan​k/201​ 2/02/​27/fe​w-cat​holic​s-see​-cont​racep​tive-​use-a​s-mor​ally-​wrong​/. Maclean, Ruth. “High Birth Rates and Poverty Undermine a Generation of African Children –Report.” The Guardian, 25 August 2016. https​://ww​w.the​guard​ian.c​om/ gl​obal-​devel​opmen​t/201​6/aug​/25/h​igh-b​irth-​rates​-pove​rty-u​nderm​ine-g​enera​tion-​ afric​an-ch​ildre​n-odi​-repo​rt.

296

Michael Taylor Ross

Manson, Jamie. “Laudato Si’ Should Have Lifted the Ban on Contraception.” National Catholic Reporter, 24 June 2015. https​://ww​w.ncr​onlin​e.org​/blog​s/gra​ ce-ma​rgins​/laud​ato-s​i-sho​uld-h​ave-l​ifted​-ban-​contr​acept​ion. Miller, Grant and Christine Valente. “Population Policy: Abortion and Modern Contraception Are Substitutes.” Demography 53, no. 4 (August 2016): 979–1009. Moore, Malcolm. “336 Million Abortions Under China’s One-Child Policy.” The Telegraph, 15 March 2013. https​://ww​w.tel​egrap​h.co.​uk/ne​ws/wo​rldne​ws/as​ia/ch​ ina/9​93346​8/336​-mill​ion-a​borti​ons-u​nder-​China​s-one​-chil​d-pol​icy.h​tml. Pew Research Center, “Catholics Divided Over Global Warming.” 16 June 2015. http:​//ass​ets.p​ewres​earch​.org/​wp-co​ntent​/uplo​ads/s​ites/​11/20​15/06​/Cath​olics​-clim​ ate-c​hange​-06-1​6-ful​l.pdf​. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2 April 2004. http:​//www​ .vati​can.v​a/rom​an_cu​ria/p​ontif​ical_​counc​ils/j​ustpe​ace/d​ocume​nts/r​c_pc_​justp​ eace_​doc_2​00605​26_co​mpend​io-do​tt-so​c_en.​html.​ Pope Paul VI. Humane Vitae: On the Regulation of Birth. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25 July 1968. https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​paul-​vi/en​/ency​clica​ ls/do​cumen​ts/hf​_p-vi​_enc_​25071​968_h​umana​e-vit​ae.ht​ml. ———. Populorum progressio. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 26 March 1967. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/p​aul-v​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​ p-vi_​enc_2​60319​67_po​pulor​um.ht​ml. ———. Gaudium et Spes – Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 7 December 1965. http:​// www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​il/do​cumen​ts/va​t-ii_​const​ _1965​1207_​gaudi​um-et​-spes​_en.h​tml. Pope Saint John Paul II. Letter of His Holiness John Paul II to the Secretary General of the International Conference on Population and Development. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 18 March 1994. https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​ tent/​john-​paul-​ii/en​/lett​ers/1​994/d​ocume​nts/h​f_jp-​ii_le​t_199​40318​_cair​o-pop​ulati​ on-sa​dik.h​tml. ———. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 30 December 1987. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​30121​987_s​ollic​itudo​-rei-​socia​lis.h​tml. Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal and Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 22 March 1986. http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/rom​an_cu​ria/c​ongre​gatio​ns/cf​aith/​docum​ ents/​rc_co​n_cfa​ith_d​oc_19​86032​2_fre​edom-​liber​ation​_en.h​tml. Rhonheimer, Martin. Ethics of Procreation and the Defense of Human Life: Contraception, Artificial Fertilization, and Abortion. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Sachs, Jeffrey D. The Age of Sustainable Development. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2015. San Martín, Inés. “Pope Francis: Ideological Colonization a ‘Blasphemy Against God.’” CRUX, November 21, 2017. https​://cr​uxnow​.com/​vatic​an/20​17/11​/21/p​ ope-f​ranci​s-ide​ologi​cal-c​oloni​zatio​n-bla​sphem​y-god​/.

An Integral Issue

297

The Guttmacher Institute. “Adding It Up: Investing in Contraception and Maternal and Newborn Health, 2017.” 6 December 2017. https​://ww​w.gut​tmach​er.or​g/fac​ t-she​et/ad​ding-​it-up​-cont​racep​tion-​mnh-2​017#s​eenot​e. United Nations. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. New York, NY: United Nations, 2013. https​://es​a.un.​org/u​npd/w​pp/pu​blica​tions​/File​s/WPP​2012_​ HIGHL​IGHTS​.pdf.​ Yao, Guigui and Robert J. Wyman. “Population.” In Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology, edited by Willis Jenkins, Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, 304–315. London: Routledge, 2017.

Part VI

NEW LIFESTYLES EDUCATION AND SPIRITUALITY

Chapter 19

Placing Integral Ecology at the Heart of Education Transformative Learning, Laudato Si’, and Cooperation Christopher Hrynkow

The past few decades have seen the emergence of the subfield of “education for sustainability.”1 A branch of environmental education, this approach has a made space for a normative core: education with a purpose of promoting sustainability. However, owing in part to its origins in an anthropocentric and individualist Western approach to the philosophy and practice of education, it has too frequently failed to name and address the roots of the socioecological crisis. Thus, it has a limited vision to motivate transformative action aimed toward fostering a world characterized by social justice, substantive peace, and ecological flourishing that positively impacts the educational project. This tri-partite goal is a fuller normative core for which a transformative learning approach asserts educators ought to be activists. In contrast to such assertions concerning the need to actively promote social justice, substantive peace, and ecological flourishing, the education for sustainability literature has often failed to overcome the socioecological harmful anthropology of atomic individualism that is antithetical to integrated cooperation. Moreover, while education for sustainability has largely concerned itself with what takes place in formal and institutional educational settings, transformative learning is concerned not only with classroom pedagogy but also with all aspects of learning and knowing that characterize human experience within the Earth community.2 This is a wide remit for learning, that translates into a wide and sometimes overwhelming set of transformative focal points for educator-activists active in classrooms, religious, social and political communities, among other contexts. Mapping some foundations of educational praxis for socioecological flourishing centered upon deeper cooperation within this Earth community context, this chapter will bring Pope Francis’ articulation of integral ecology 301

302

Christopher Hrynkow

into a mutually enhancing conversation with transformative learning. It will thus consider the responsibilities of educator-activists, with particular reference to the method underlying the teaching of history, that flow from placing a transformative understanding of integral ecology at the heart of learning. These responsibilities will be presented as an intertwinned set of duties which move far beyond atomic individualism to integrate the social, relational, political, and spiritual dimensions of the educational project firmly placed within a reality where “everything is interconnected” (LS 138). More specifically, working from the transformative learning perspective inspired by Edmund O’Sullivan and building on ecological concepts related to cooperation as they are brought forward by Pope Francis in Laudato Si’, this chapter considers how understanding humans as cooperative beings and emphasizing the benefits of cooperation in terms of social and ecological flourishing can foster a contextually significant ecological conversion (compare LS 220). The chapter will then tie the resultant transformative learning perspective into aspects of the work of citizenship educator, Ken Osborne, and the peace educator and ecological activist, Elise Boudling, to present the possibility that what Boulding characterized as “the hidden side of history”—constituted by cultures of peace and sustainable practice—will hold part of the key for carrying the human project into the next millennium. There it will be demonstrated how telling alternative stories, remembering lesser known narratives, is essential to an ecological conversion that necessarily makes spaces for marginalized voices and beings. Recasting terms, the effect will to be to place integral ecology at the heart of learning, re-imagining “cooperative education” as helping us navigate our way into a vital future characterized by positively transformed social and ecological relationships. FAR BEYOND RESPONDING TO THE BELL: TRANSFORMATIVE EDUCATION AND LAUDATO SI’ IN CONVERSATION During my student teaching placement at a lower socioeconomic status high school in Winnipeg, one of the established teachers shared with me the philosophy driving his work. He stated plainly in the staffroom one day that his entire goal as educator was “to get students to respond to the bell, so that they could hold down a job.” This Pavlovian take on the educational project may be framed as a rarified expression of certain trends in modernist education, for instance, those toward reducing learning to bland conformity to corporate and consumerist norms centered upon quantitative outcomes that can then be situated as contributing to limited measures of success like the gross domestic product (GDP).

Placing Integral Ecology at the Heart of Education

303

Pope Francis, referring to such educational projects, is emphatic that such thinking must shift. “Many things have to change course,” Francis writes, “but it is we human beings above all who need to change. . . . A great cultural, spiritual and educational challenge stands before us, and it will demand that we set out on the long path of renewal” (LS 202). Actively seeking to take up the educational challenge to support such renewal, transformative learning builds on O’Sullivan’s collaboration with Thomas Berry,3 and other influences including the Buddhist peace educator Joanna Macy and liberationist pedagogical theorist Paolo Freire.4 This branch of transformative learning theory seeks to clarify areas in which the educational project can participate in what Macy and Johnstone name the “great turning” toward a sustainable and just future.5 In doing so, O’Sullivan’s work encourages educators to form critical but normative commitments supportive of a deeply interconnected triad comprised of social justice, substantive peace, and ecological health. From a transformative learning perspective, the task of an educator is then to be an activist and an advocate working for a greener, more peaceful and socially just world. With Mary Jo Leddy, reflecting on her experience of living in solidarity with refugees, we can then assert: “What a difference to be not only against violence but for peace.”6 This normativity is reflective of the abovementioned education for sustainability literature, however, by setting a larger remit it also invokes the wider connectivity underlying Pope Francis’ articulation of integral ecology wherein “everything is related, and we human beings are united as brothers and sisters on a wonderful pilgrimage” (LS 92). Concerning this confluence, we can note how transformative learning views our essential place as embodied human beings to be in diverse relationships with each other and the rest of the Earth community. Further, O’Sullivan’s deep commitment to fostering sociopolitical equality is firmly located within his sense of the larger cosmological context, what he labels “the Big Picture,” and is simultaneously sustained by “emancipatory hope.”7 In accord with Pope Francis’s articulation of integral ecology, such a perspective is well poised to question cultural values that are ultimately destructive of positive socioecological relationships. Building on O’Sullivan’s mode of media and social analysis, transformative learning perspectives, for instance, might problematize aspects of a throwaway culture that supports shopping as a leisure activity or wastes food while marginalized people starve (compare LS 43). Further, transformative learning practitioners might question what is happening when children’s imaginative play is branded by corporate categories.8 These breaks with more nourishing ways of being in relationship with other beings have both social and ecological consequences. From a transformative learning perspective, it is thus cogent when the pope teaches that “in those countries which should be making the greatest changes in consumer habits, young people . . . have grown up in a milieu of extreme consumerism

304

Christopher Hrynkow

and affluence which makes it difficult to develop other habits. We are faced with an educational challenge” (LS 209). That challenge is compounded when brand names and corporate logos have permeated our children’s imagination. Francis is here perceptive in asserting that “environmental education should facilitate making the leap toward the transcendent which gives ecological ethics its deepest meaning. It needs educators capable of developing an ethics of ecology, and helping people, through effective pedagogy, to grow in solidarity, responsibility and compassionate care” (LS 210). In light of such interlocking imperatives, transformative learning praxis strives to establish deep respect for diversity and indigeneity, in particular, as a result of the way indigenous cultures often provided a sustainable model of deep relationality that accord with the principles of integral ecology.9 Echoing this emphasis, Pope Francis, names something akin to a preferential option for Indigenous peoples in Laudato Si’, by stating that: “it is essential to show special care for indigenous communities and their cultural traditions. They are not merely one minority among others” (LS 146). Invoking peace and joy as mutually enchanting, Francis further “proposes an alternative understanding of the quality of life, and encourages a prophetic and contemplative lifestyle, one capable of deep enjoyment free of the obsession with consumption” (LS 202). He also couples such alternative joy to hope for a better world that must be activated in the face of pressing ecological and social challenges. “We need only take a frank look at the facts,” Francis insists, “to see that our common home is falling into serious disrepair. Hope would have us recognize that there is always a way out, that we can always redirect our steps, that we can always do something to solve our problems” (LS 61). Comparably, transformative learning draws energy from a celebration of hope and joy. Here, hope and joy are understood to exist within diverse relationships with individuals, across cultures, and with the larger natural world. As the nomenclature of O’Sullivan’s methodological approach indicates, an essential goal is the transformation (not, where other transformative options are possible, the destruction) of systems and relationships to bring them in line with creative functioning. Following Berry’s lead, this goal is cast as bringing the human establishments (e.g., education, politics, law, and religion) to a place where they foster creative, not destructive, tension. As such and as noted above, transformative educators actively promote and seek to establish the cultural conditions necessary for ecological health, social justice, and substantive peace.10 Hence, transferred to the religious project, the importance of liturgy as a mode of integrative learning whereby social and ecological imperatives come to the fore of human consciousness as highlighted in Peter McGrail’s chapter in this section of the book. In the sphere of formal education, the resultant teacher-activism is centered on a grounded hope for positive socioecological change:

Placing Integral Ecology at the Heart of Education

305

In sum, transformative learning makes us understand the world in a different way, changing the way we experience it and the way we act in our day-to-day lives. Transformative learning has an individual and a collective dimension, and includes both individual and social transformation. In the Transformative Learning Centre we are inspired by the notion of grounded hope. We believe that one of the best ways to predict the future is to actively create it, moving together towards our collective visions by developing viable alternatives that recognize the limitations and possibilities (especially the possibilities!) of each particular context.11

Such grounded hope, focused on integral possibilities, can be usefully employed in the normative educational task of fostering mutually enhancing socioecological relationships. The implications here are profound; the above referenced possibilities extend in many directions to offer support for socioecological flourishing. The reach of the multifaceted collaborative definition of transformative education has been explored by a diverse group of scholars. These scholar-practitioners often hold similar worldviews that share a metaconcern for social change and emancipation.12 Understood and read for its contribution to conversations concerning such emancipatory education, Laudauto Si’ is easily framed as providing foundations for transformative learning that can flow from placing integral ecology at the heart of education. Here, it is important to emphasize that transformative learning needs to take place not only within classrooms but also within all aspects of the human educational project from seminaries to elementary classrooms and from child rearing to political messaging. For Francis, “since everything is closely interrelated, and today’s problems call for a vision capable of taking into account every aspect of the global crisis, we now [need] . . . an integral ecology, one which clearly respects its human and social dimensions” (LS 137). FOSTERING INTEGRAL ECOLOGY THROUGH EDUCATION Earlier, this chapter reviewed only a few of the ways in which cooperation permeates human identity. In terms of the universe and Earth-centric worldview that underpins O’Sullivan’s work,13 we all emerge from a primal singularity that unifies all matter. Framed ethically, that primal singularity was pure relationship, the complete opposite of atomic individualism, an ideology that ignores the integral relationality that continues to characterize the world. Humans emerge only as a result of cooperation manifest within the incredible complexity and diversity of ecosystems. Moreover, each individual homo sapien is also the result of cooperation among cells, bacteria, and other

306

Christopher Hrynkow

essential elemental components of embodied life. In a basic sense, it is folly to think that we can survive without cooperation. Here, integral ecology and transformative education can combine along multiple paths of dialogue and action to motivate reflective learning to embrace a mutually enhancing insight about the value of cooperation (compare LS 15). This is a crucial insight because on a broad, cultural level, imaging people as atomic, independent individuals tends to serve segmented interests that benefit few and cause harm in the areas of mutual concern for transformative learning and integral ecology: social justice, substantive peace, and ecological health, reciprocal altruism being understood here as the very essence of cooperation. If educators can find spaces to emphasize the feasibility and desirability of such alternative integral ways of human being, firmly grounded in just relationships with each other and the larger Earth community, they can help us challenge and remove the underpinnings for currently unsustainable practices. For example, a growth-based economy that seeks to maximize consumption will want everyone to have a certain marketable product and never share. However, a transformative learning approach incorporating the principles of integral ecology along the lines unfolded above will encourage us to realize that sustainable desire can be based on pleasure through use in cooperative sharing (as opposed to use through ownership). It is in such a manner, for example, that social goods such as libraries, light-rail transportation systems, and laundromats become part of John Barry’s vision for addressing presently existing unsustainability.14 Here, we can understand a cogent sense in which the “embeddedness” of economics and ecology within the Earth community mark humans as cooperative beings. Grasping the consequences of this embeddedness also brings into the focus the advantage of proceeding along cooperative lines in terms of fostering a substantively sustainable, peaceful, and just society. Hence, from a transformative learning perspective as sharpened in conversation with the principles of integral ecology, teachers and their students taking up the resultant tasks can consider themselves part of a creative minority that transformative learning’s grounded hope would aspire to see constitute a cooperative majority. Playing with normative use of terms, this may be a contextually significant way to re-imagine “cooperative education,” not as inducting students into the untenable economics of the scientific-militaryindustrial world, but rather as helping us navigate our way into a vital future characterized by the principles of integral ecology as incarnated through mutually reinforcing deep sustainably, social justice, substantive peace, and ecological health. A possible objection to the constitution of a sustainable future marked by high being, wherein humans mediate mutually enhancing socioecological relationships, is the notion that we are such selfish animals that it lies beyond

Placing Integral Ecology at the Heart of Education

307

our basic mammalian capability to work cooperatively with the natural world and each other to avoid the pending biodiversity collapse. Western civilization, in particular, provides far too much supporting evidence for the conclusion that humans are selfish animals. According to Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry’s joint analysis, this represents a particularly problematic turn of events because growing Western influence in various cultures around the globe is generating an all-pervasive “addiction to commercial-industrial progress.”15 That addiction retains explanatory power in relation to some of the problems of reception of Laudato Si’ and the still inadequate levels of climate engagement among Catholics as analyzed by Nicholas Smith in this section of the book. Pope Francis adds another understanding of such problematic disconnects, which similarly impede transformative learning, by teaching that “many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms. . . . However, many of these symptoms indicate that such effects will continue to worsen if we continue with current models of production and consumption” (LS 26). In terms of human justice, this selfishness is particularly worrisome when we consider that Earth’s carrying capacity is finite and that the Western vision of commercial consumption is being propagated around the world and the “overshoot of the human economy” is already placing great stress on the continuance of diverse life in many bioregions around the world.16 Therefore, it would be highly problematic if humans have evolved to be so selfish as to be pathologically incapable of steering a course that prevents the collapse of the biologically diverse world that has nurtured and sustained us. This is one conclusion that may be implied by Richard Dawkins’ well-known rereading of Darwin. Dawkins famously concludes that evolution, especially among larger animals, has advantaged selfishness as a behavioural trait.17 This new shading of competitive advantage is not as highly individualist as it may seem on the surface because Dawkins recognizes that the more complex animals are themselves examples of cooperation among both genes18 and cells.19 He further contends that “nice guys can finish first” even if the rules of the game of life are essentially governed by selfishness.20 According to Dawkins’ reading of Darwinian theory, “nice guys” are those who behave in such ways that that they act unselfishly so that others from their species may continue. Dawkins sees such a being as destined to die a Darwinian death. He does, however, concede the possibility that cooperation via a sort of symbiotic “reciprocal altruism” may be evolutionarily advantageous even across species.21 Dawkins’s fellow biologist, Martin A. Novak, writing in partnership with Roger Highfield, goes further to suggest that humans are not only products of such cooperation but need to intentionally take up and extend their status as SuperCooperators in order to effectively manage the planet

308

Christopher Hrynkow

and ensure the survival of the species Homo sapiens.22 In this regard Novak and Highfield articulate an intersection among science, mathematics, and the teachings of the world religions that allows them to conclude: “Humans are SuperCooperators” who are able to cooperate across generations with the result that “our ability to work together has the potential to rise even further to reach a new pitch of harmony and unity.”23 To refocus on this chapter’s subject matter in light of the probabilities of reciprocal altruism being absolutely necessary at this point in planetary history and recognizing human learning as dynamic and potentially transformative, it is possible to envision individuals whose entire being is connected to a cooperative ethos that enhances sustainability by fostering mutuality enhancing socioecological relationships in accord with the principles of integral ecology. These people would take the opening conceded by Dawkins for “nice guys” and be SuperCoperators in a more integrated sense than suggested by the more managerial and utilitarian framing offered by Nowak in partnership with Highfield. In contrast, these nice folks’ orientation toward incarnating the transformative principles of integral ecology would enter into a symbiotic and solidarity-driven relationship with the entire life community. Such individuals would think, act, educate, and love in ways that support the socioecological flourishing on this planet. This does not mean that they would always be successful in achieving their particular goals. Nonetheless, these people would endeavor, in their thoughts and in their actions, to counteract the negative effects of present social and ecological crises by supporting an ethics for integral ecology. Here, in accord with Pope Francis’ critiques of narrow conceptions of progress in light of the proper “place of human beings and of human action in the world” (LS 101), living in accord with principles of integral ecology itself becomes a transformative act, as this creative minority provides alternative mimetic models that act as healing medicine in relation to all too-prominent cultural exemplars driving cultures of overconsumption and exploitation. As Pope Francis’ teaches, “an integral ecology is also made up of simple daily gestures which break with the logic of violence, exploitation and selfishness. In the end, a world of exacerbated consumption is at the same time a world which mistreats life in all its forms” (LS 230). TELLING AND TEACHING HISTORY IN SUPPORT OF INTEGRAL ECOLOGY Laudato Si’, however, despite praising small-scale initiatives in part flowing from their transformative potential within a reality of integral ecology, does not stop at the personal. It includes recommendations for transformation at the

Placing Integral Ecology at the Heart of Education

309

communal, social, and political levels on local, national, and global scales.24 A unified theme can be found in how Pope Francis seeks to offer support for approaches to life and learning that increase our “capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one’s alternative creativity” (LS, 108). Alternative approaches to history, more supportive of holistic citizenship accompanying integral ecology, is found in the work of Ken Osborne and Elise Boulding, and its relationship to cross-cultural education accords remarkably well with the treatment of culture in Pope Francis’ teaching that is supportive of deep diversity as opposed to “a consumerist vision of human beings, encouraged by the mechanisms of today’s globalized economy, [that] has a levelling effect on cultures, diminishing the immense variety which is the heritage of all humanity” (LS 144). In the area of cross-cultural education for equity that informs transformative learning approaches, there is a prevalent critique of a potential multicultural focus on the 3Fs (food, festivals, and famous men) to the exclusion of more substantive issues.25 These critiques are said to point to deficient views of culture. For instance, the social justice-oeriented educator, bell hooks,26 explains that best practice in cross-cultural studies “calls attention to race and similar issues and gives them renewed academic legitimacy.”27 The vision of the “new history” put forward by Osborne addresses all of the points touched upon by hooks in this formulation. Unfolding that statement will give insight into relevant issues of historical method in terms groudning the tranformative principles of integral ecology in a classroom context. During my first five years at university, I trained to be a history and geography teacher. It was my good fortune (although I did not fully appreciate it at the time) to have Ken Osborne as my Curriculum and Instruction teacher. His textbook on world history, employed in Grade Eight in Manitoba and Grade Seven in British Columbia, includes a surprisingly large section on method. As a junior high student, Osborne’s text was also my first introduction to the subject of history in the English language and was still in use during my first teaching job in Winnipeg. Osborne inspires the discussion that immediately follows. It is no coincidence that Osborne names peace education, which is so foundational in transformative learning and receives a large measure of support in the papal magisterium, as one of his teaching areas. The “famous men” category of the “3Fs” is something that is particularily important here for the new history. Namely, in his expansion of the content of this category in accord with the principles of tranformative integral ecology, Osborne makes the assertion that history should be about more than just overachieving males, where overachievement is defined in very narrow power categories. In this light, modernist history is written by a certain type of men and geared for an audience assumed to accept the values of those writing the

310

Christopher Hrynkow

history. History written in this vein was the story of “great men and great battles.” When women were part of the story, they were set in militaristic male-like roles (e.g., Joan of Arc) or in subservient roles (e.g., the supportive wife). The new history, in contrast, both validates and tells the story of women, of common people and the like who do indeed matter. Such social history would look at issues surrounding the daily life of the people in various positions within society. For example, a social history of Montréal would look at not just the story of Indigenous governance in Hochelaga giving way to French and then British rule, but would concern itself with what living was like for “average” people during each of those periods. There is a difficulty here because the written historical record is often not as complete for “common people,” but other disciplines like archaeology can provide extra “data,” that extends to the participation of the concomitantly ignored morethan-human members of the Earth community as per the contribution of subdisciplines like zooarcheology. No longer then do individual men or great battles prove to be the only “turning points” in history. In this way, history comes to embrace a deeper conception of diversity and citizenship, casting wider the moral net of who matters. As a result, new and diverse stories have emerged, including those represented by a growing body of environmental history that frequently integrates social and ecological considerations,28 which hitherto has been marginalized in the teaching and writing of history. In the educational context, this is significant because the diversity of stories makes space for a diversity of success for learners with varied and layered cultural identities. Referring to the general advantage of moving beyond the 3Fs, Elizabeth Coelho argues that the new approach helps students “reach their academic potential, learn the skills for living in a multicultural society and develop the global awareness that is essential for future citizens of the world.”29 It is such an emphasis on participatory citizenship that brings us, in accord with the principles of integral ecology, back the aformentioned dicussion of O’Sullivan’s emnacipatory hope. Elise Boulding, the late social scientist and peace educator, helps place such insights into sharper focus in terms of how they relate to integral ecology. Her work posits that one of the key problems with what Osbourne helps identify as “the great men and great battles” approach is that it obscures a deeper reality of history, namely, that the overwhelming content of human history has a lot more to do with regular people living together and finding ways to cooperate than it does with overexpossed events like kings winning glorious battles. In fact, emphasizing stories like the latter, in a sense, promotes a culture of violence in that it makes the resultant cycles of war and oppresion appear as normative within the human consciousness. An alternative history presented along transformative learning lines would focus on the stories of creative and everyday innovation that serve to buttress cultures of peace and

Placing Integral Ecology at the Heart of Education

311

sustainable pratices that foster the incarnation of socioecolgical flourishing. In line with the imperatives of a liberatory praxis, Osborne and Boulding demonstrate how moving beyond great men and great battles can serve the cause of integral peace, so important to transformative learning and Pope Francis’ teaching, whereby “an adequate understanding of spirituality consists in filling out what we mean by peace, which is much more than the absence of war. Inner peace is closely related to care for ecology and for the common good because, lived out authentically, it is reflected in a balanced lifestyle together with a capacity for wonder which takes us to a deeper understanding of life” (LS 225). Hence, we have the emergence of a particular strand of inspiration for a transformative approach to education supportive of the principles of integral ecology described in this chapter: the cogent insight that human history iteself is really not in any deep sense a narrative of “great” individuals acting alone but, rather, that the human and larger Earth community stories are imposible without cooperation. Lest this all sound overly utopian, it should be remembered that we can bear witness to people who are able to transcend selfishness and live in this integrated, peaceful, socially just, and sustainability-enhancing fashion today. A prime example of such integrated living is found in the community of Dominican Sisters of Blairstown, New Jersey (with whom O’Sullivan has engaged in dialogue) and other “Green Sisters” who, marked by a spirit of cooperation and communal living, commit their lives in services to those people living in poverty, Earth, and God in the spirit of “engaged monasticism.”30 In Blairstown, inspired by Thomas Berry’s thought, the Dominican sisters’ entire education-centered vocation is lived out intellectually, morally, and religiously in line with cooperative and deeply sustainable principles, which organically extend to educational outreach in support of growing integral ecology.31 In responding to the problems spawned by social and ecological crises in a manner which is authentic in relation to their own being,32 such holders of worldviews that accord with integral ecology may be viewed as part of a “creative minority.” As Canadian philosopher Bernard Lonergan notes, “every . . . historical movement, however great, profound and lasting it may be, begins with a ‘creative minority’: it is the minority that questions, thinks, understands, decides and takes the lead; the majority are taught, persuaded and led.”33 Anthropologist Margaret Mead expressed a similar sentiment, when she counseled us to “never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed it was the only thing that ever has.”34 It is this type of transformative potential that is active in a creative minority, holding an integrated epistemology supportive of integral ecology. By acting to foster diversity, by thinking about and working toward substantive sustainability, this creative minority has set out a model and challenge for the rest of us. By

312

Christopher Hrynkow

celebrating abundant life, such a creative minority, subscribing to transformative approaches to leaning and knowing coupled with the principles of integral ecology, helps steer the rest of us away from being the agents of our own ruin. In this manner, a creative minority’s educational witness can help save humanity and all the other forms of life from the consequences of cultures of exploitation and exclusion. This orientation toward building up integral cultures of encounter and dialogue35 represents a grounded hope that is active in increasing number of educators. Such substantive sustainability may one day grow to embrace a critical mass of diverse societies and bioregions around the world. The results of such growth can only buttress the prospects for cooperative living marked by the principles of integral ecology as more humans take their place in symbiotic relationship with the larger life community and with each other under conditions of peace, joy, and justice. CONCLUSION: EDUCATION AS A NEXUS FOR COOPERATION TO CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME As a result of the educational project working mainly on the levels of ideas, it has the potential to pull us in uncontextual directions that fail to integrate the basic anthropological insight underlying Pope Francis’ articulation of integral ecology, namely, that humans are persons in relationship with each other, the rest of creation, and God. As he teaches with a reference to the scriptural witness largely left to the side in most articulations of transformative learning, “disregard for the duty to cultivate and maintain a proper relationship with my neighbour, for whose care and custody I am responsible, ruins my relationship with my own self, with others, with God and with Earth. When all these relationships are neglected, when justice no longer dwells in the land, the Bible tells us that life itself is endangered” (LS 70). For Pope Francis, these relationships also generate duties exercised within that reality wherein both “everything is interrelated” (LS 120) and “it cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected” (LS 138). In contrast to both postmodernist and modernist trends in education, transformative learning embraces a normativity that upholds the importance of fostering social justice, substantive peace, and ecological health within the Earth community, also understood as irreducibly marked by a deep reality of relational connection. The aforementioned discussion has shown how this understanding can be grounded in a scientifically informed anthropology and in the teaching of history that upholds the importance of hitherto marginalized voices, stories, and beings so that cooperative education can act as a corrective. The error that cries out for correction here is segmentary knowledge and selfish action which serve to deny this reality of connectivity

Placing Integral Ecology at the Heart of Education

313

resulting in the oppression of marginalized people and Mother Earth, made poorer by human abuse (see LS 2). Essentially, the corrective suggested by this chapter is to be careful, critical, and open to revision but to take normative courage at this juncture in planetary history marked by intertwined social and ecological crises. That courage needs, in turn, to transfer into creative energy, nourishing work for social justice, substantive peace, and ecological health. It is such a critically normative approach to teaching-activism that flows from placing integral ecology at the heart of education working toward a more vital world. It is thus no accident that teachers such as Berry, O’Sullivan, Pope Francis, Macy, Boulding, and Osbourne are drawn to education as part of their contribution to providing foundations for a more peaceful, just, and ecologically healthy world. Indeed, the tangible possibility in play here is that educator-activists will engage in reflective praxis in support of positive socioecological transformation, so that, motivated by principles in accord with integral ecology, they will be able to employ their influence, intentionally exercised within a reality of connectivity, to shape a vital future wherein more than just a creative minority of humans contribute to the Earth community in a mutually enhancing manner. This positive contribution to socioecological flourishing is the ultimate transformative learning outcome that flows from a paradigmatic approach to the educational project that takes seriously Pope Francis’ teaching that “everything is connected” (LS 92).

NOTES 1. E.g., Stephen Sterling, “Learning for Resilience, or the Resilient Learner?: Towards a Necessary Reconciliation in a Paradigm of Sustainable Education,” Environmental Education Research 16: 5–6 (October–December 2010), 511–528. 2. E.g., Paul Murray, The Sustainable Self: A Personal Approach to Sustainability Education (London, UK: Earthscan, 2011). 3. As he shared with me, Edmund O’Sullivan had a collaborative relationship with Berry, even producing the draft of a book together on ecological education and experience, which served as the basis for O’Sullivan’s transformative learning projects. 4. See Joanna Macy, World as Lover, World as Self (Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1991). For Freire’s most influential treatment of this subject matter see Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Company, 1999). 5. Joanna Macy and Chris Johnstone, Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We’re in Without Going Crazy (Novato, CA: New World Library, 2012). 6. Mary Jo Leddy, The Other Face of God: When the Stranger Calls Us Home (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2011), 92. 7. Edmund O’Sullivan, “Emancipatory Hope: Transformative Learning and the Strange Attractors,” in Holistic Learning and Spirituality in Education: Breaking

314

Christopher Hrynkow

New Ground, eds. John P. Miller, Selia Karsten, Diana Denton, Deborah Orr and Isabella Colalillo Kates (Albany, NY: University of New York Press, 2005), 71. 8. This point, addressing what she called the phenomenon of “branding imagination” evident in preschool children’s play is inspired by Aisha Alexander, student in EDUA 1540 Cross-Cultural Education, summer term 2010. 9. Sharon J. Ridgeway and Peter J. Jacques, The Power of the Talking Stick: Indigenous Politics and the World Ecological Crisis (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2014). 10. Edmund O’ Sullivan, Transformative Learning: Educational Vision for the 21st Century (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1999). 11. Collaborative definition quoted in Amish Morrell and Mary Ann O’Connor, “Introduction,” in Expanding the Boundaries of Transformative Learning: Essays on Theory and Praxis, eds. Edmund O’Sullivan, Amish Morrell and Mary Ann O’Connor (New York, NY: Palgrave, 2002), xvii; cf., David W. Orr, Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment and the Human Prospect, 10th anniversary edition (Washington, DC: First Island Press, 2004), 145. 12. See Edmund O’Sullivan and Marilyn Taylor, “Glimpses of an Ecological Consciousness,” in Learning Toward an Ecological Consciousness, eds. Edmund O’Sullivan and Marilyn Taylor (New York, NY: Palgrave 2004), 13–16. 13. See Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future (New York, NY: Bell Tower, 1999). 14. John Barry, The Politics of Actually Existing Unsustainability: Human Flourishing in a Climate-Changed, Carbon-Constrained World (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012), 203. 15. Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry, The Universe Story (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1992), 254. 16. On this framing see: Mathis Wackernagel et al., “Tracking The Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy,” in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (July 2002), 9266–9271. 17. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Toronto, ON: Oxford, 1989), 47. 18. Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (Boston, MA: Mariner, 2004), 433. 19. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 258. 20. Ibid., 202. 21. Ibid., 202. 22. See Martin A. Novak with Roger Highfield, Super Cooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed (New York, NY: Free Press, 2011). 23. Novak with Roger Highfield, Super Cooperators, 283. 24. On the application of these levels to the education project see LS 212–214. 25. E.g., Elizabeth Coelho, Teaching in Multicultural Schools: An Integrated Approach (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 1998). 26. bell hooks intentionally writes her name in lower case. 27. bell hooks, Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics (Toronto, ON: Between the Lines, 1990), 124. 28. E.g., Clive Pointing, A New Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilization (New York, NY: Penguin, 2008).

Placing Integral Ecology at the Heart of Education

315

29. Coelho, Coelho, Teaching in Multicultural Schools, 196. For more on Osborne’s ideas see Ken Osborne, “Democratic Citizenship,” Teaching Today 14 (Winter 2000): 2–16. 30. Sarah McFarland Taylor, Green Sisters: A Spiritual Ecology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 124. 31. Dominican Sisters of Blairstown, New Jersey. “Genesis Farm: Exploring the Sacred Unity of Life, Humanity and Earth within a Single, Unfolding Universe.” (2018); www.genesisfarm.org, accessed June 2, 2018. 32. See Paul F. Knitter, “Deep Ecumenicity versus Incommensurability: Finding Common Ground on a Common Earth,” in Christianity & Ecology, eds. Dieter T. Hessel and Rosemary Radford Ruether (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 366. 33. Bernard Lonergan, De Scientia atque voluntate Dei. Supplementum schematicum, Original document (Copy held at Fr. Harold Drake Library, St. Paul’s College, University of Manitoba, 1950), #24. 34. Mead quoted in The Institute for Intercultural Studies, “Margaret Mead: 1901– 1978,” (2009); http:​//www​.inte​rcult​urals​tudie​s.org​/Mead​/biog​raphy​.html​. Accessed June 2, 2018. 35. Pope Francis teaches in Evangelii Gaudium that “In a culture which privileges dialogue as a form of encounter, it is time to devise a means for building consensus and agreement while seeking the goal of a just, responsive and inclusive society. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013), 239, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/d​am/fr​ances​co/pd​f/apo​st_ex​horta​tions​/ docu​ments​/papa​-fran​cesco​_esor​tazio​ne-ap​_ 20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.pdf.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barry, John. The Politics of Actually Existing Unsustainability: Human Flourishing in a Climate-Changed, Carbon-Constrained World. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012. Berry, Thomas. The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future. New York, NY: Bell Tower, 1999. Coelho, Elizabeth. Teaching in Multicultural Schools: An Integrated Approach. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 1998. Dawkins, Richard. The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. Boston, MA: Mariner, 2004. ———. The Selfish Gene. Toronto, ON: Oxford, 1989. Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Company, 1999. hooks, bell. Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Toronto, ON: Between the Lines, 1990. Knitter, Paul F. “Deep Ecumenicity versus Incommensurability: Finding Common Ground on a Common Earth.” In Christianity & Ecology, edited by Dieter T. Hessel and Rosemary Radford Ruether. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

316

Christopher Hrynkow

Leddy, Mary Jo. The Other Face of God: When the Stranger Calls Us Home. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2011. Lonergan, Bernard. De Scientia atque voluntate Dei. Supplementum schematicum. Original document. Copy held at Fr. Harold Drake Library, St. Paul’s College, University of Manitoba, 1950, #24. Macy, Joanna. World as Lover, World as Self. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1991. Macy, Joanna and Chris Johnstone. Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We’re in Without Going Crazy. Novato, CA: New World Library, 2012. Murray, Paul. The Sustainable Self: A Personal Approach to Sustainability Education. London, UK: Earthscan, 2011. Novak, Martin A. with Roger Highfield. SuperCooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed. New York, NY: Free Press, 2011. Orr, David W. Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment and the Human Prospect, 10th Anniversary Edition. Washington, DC: First Island Press, 2004. O’Sullivan, Edmund. “Emancipatory Hope: Transformative Learning and the Strange Attractors.” In Holistic Learning and Spirituality in Education: Breaking New Ground, edited by John P. Miller et al., 69–78. Albany, NY: University of New York Press, 2005. ———. Transformative Learning: Educational Vision for the 21st Century. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1999. O’Sullivan Edmund, Amish Morrell and Mary Ann O’Connor. Expanding the Boundaries of Transformative Learning: Essays on Theory and Praxis. New York, NY: Palgrave, 2002. O’Sullivan, Edmund and Marilyn Taylor, eds. Learning Toward an Ecological Consciousness. New York, NY: Palgrave 2004. Osborne, Ken. “Democratic Citizenship.” Teaching Today 14 (Winter 2000): 2–16. Pointing, Clive. A New Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilization. New York, NY: Penguin, 2008. Pope Francis. Evangelii Gaudium. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 November 2013. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/d​am/fr​ances​ co/pd​ f /apo​ s t_ex​ h orta​ t ions​ / docu​ m ents​ / papa​ - fran​ c esco​ _ esor​ t azio​ n e-ap​ _ 20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.pdf. Ridgeway, Sharon J. and Peter J. Jacques. The Power of the Talking Stick: Indigenous Politics and the World Ecological Crisis. Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2014. Sterling, Stephen. “Learning for Resilience, or the Resilient Learner?: Towards a necessary reconciliation in a Paradigm of Sustainable Education.” Environmental Education Research 16, no. 5–6 (October–December 2010): 511–528. Swimme, Brian and Thomas Berry. The Universe Story. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1992. Taylor, Sarah McFarland. Green Sisters: A Spiritual Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Wackernagel, Mathis, et al., “Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy.” In The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 9266–9271, July 2002.

Chapter 20

Laudato Si’ The Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy Peter McGrail

THE DISAPPEARANCE—AND RE-APPEARANCE—OF THE BEES American beehives began to fall silent during the Winter of 2004–2005. Keepers in increasing numbers were confronted by a perplexing absence: adult workers were inexplicably vanishing from otherwise intact and wellstocked hives.1 Over successive winters numbers of reported cases rose steadily, and the term “Colony Collapse Disorder” (CCD) was coined.2 The immediate impact on individual beekeepers was loss of livelihood, but the effects of CCD had a greater reach. As transportable and extremely efficient pollinators, honey bees play an essential role in the production of flowering fruits, such as apples or berries, and are regularly trucked hundreds of miles during the flowering season. The service they provide to the agricultural business is highly organized, carefully rationalized, and essential.3 The risk of their loss highlights the extent that modern society depends on a complex interaction between human and insect agencies for food. The identification of a cause—and solution—for the mass disappearances is therefore urgent, but has proved elusive. Many beekeepers suspect human agency in the form of pesticides may have weakened the bees’ immune systems,4 while academics have broadly focused on viral pathogens.5 Studies now suggest a complex interaction of factors which may include the environmental, the pathological, and the impact of insecticide use.6 As the CCD crisis was mounting, the English-speaking Catholic world prepared to meet a different challenge—to receive a new translation of the Roman Missal. The Eucharist occupies a central role in the religious life of Catholics; its celebration expresses, forms, and sustains Catholic religious sensitivity and spirituality. The potential impact, therefore, of any revision 317

318

Peter McGrail

of the book containing the prayers for use at Mass is profound. Liturgical texts are not simply words on a page; they are destined to be declaimed (or very occasionally silently uttered) within a ritual context by members of a concrete community of believers that comes together to celebrate the liturgy at a unique, unrepeatable juncture of space and time. The physical setting, the combination of words and actions in a performative whole, the intensity with which worshippers express their participation in the rite, and the congregation’s awareness of and engagement with the concerns of the world beyond the church building have the capacity to catalyze a dynamic encounter between the content of the ritual and the realities of the lives of the worshippers. Words matter—and so, the approach taken to writing and translating a text for worship can steer the intellectual and emotional impact of its liturgical performance. The revised English version (2010) radically differed in style and in underpinning principles of translation from its predecessor which came into use in 1974–1975.7 Both translations were prepared by the same international Commission established to serve the English-speaking regions, but very different working approaches were taken. Whereas the first English translation had frequently rendered the Latin original rather freely,8 the new translation offered a very close translation of the Latin.9 Consequently, significant textual details that had not featured in the earlier translation made their return, not least in “The Easter Proclamation”—one of the most dramatic chants of the liturgical year. What resurfaced there may initially appear archaically quaint or biologically puzzling, but it opens a door between the liturgy and the contemporary environmental concerns—and, yes, it relates to bees. The church sings this Proclamation once each year, at the start of the lengthy vigil service held during the night before Easter Sunday. The event and the environment are profoundly associated, the timing of Easter being aligned to the natural cycle of the seasons. The origins of the annual commemoration of Christ’s death and resurrection are confused, and their details continue to be disputed.10 However, the coincidence with Spring reflects the biblical tradition that the death and resurrection of Christ took place during the Jewish feast of Passover, which itself ritually incorporates themes of springtime fertility.11 The Easter Vigil is timed to begin after nightfall on the eve of the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox. This complex calculation, established by the Council of Nicea (325), locks the celebration of Easter to the passage of the seasons and to the interaction of the heavenly bodies that determine seasonal change so that (in the Northern hemisphere) Christ’s victory over death is celebrated as nature, too, springs explosively into life. The cosmic scale—and (thanks, not least, to the bees) the natural environment—find expression in the Easter Proclamation.

Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy

319

The substantial core of the current text can be traced at least to the start of the eighth century, though the genre—and possibly some of the text itself— are earlier still.12 The Proclamation, or Exsultet, opens with a command to the whole of the cosmic order—to the powers of heaven, to Earth, and to the church: “Exult, let them exult.” The performative nature of liturgy is particularly true of the Exsultet, which is inextricably associated with a symbolic object drawn from the natural world—a beeswax candle, typically standing around a meter in height, known as the “Paschal Candle.” This candle provides the symbolic focus of the dramatic opening rites of the Vigil during which it is ritually prepared, lit, and processed into the darkened church where a minister sings the Exsultet by its light. The Proclamation falls into three discrete sections. After the abovementioned call to the universe, the minister and congregation engage in dialogue, as at the start of the Eucharist Prayer of the Mass. Then follows the third, longest section which falls into two broad halves. In the first, the mystery of salvation is rehearsed, with a particular emphasis on the interwoven themes of night, light, and darkness. Then, the focus turns to the candle itself, presented as an offering to God. The detail that reappeared in 2010 is found in this closing section of the Exsultet and relates specifically to the candle’s production. In the earlier translation the relevant passage had read: Therefore, heavenly Father, in the joy of this night, Receive our evening sacrifice of praise, Your Church’s solemn offering. Accept this Easter candle, a flame divided but undimmed, a pillar of fire that glows to the honour of God.13

The revised translation provides a more detailed text and introduces two new agents into the discourse: On this, your night of grace, O holy Father, accept this candle, a solemn offering, the work of bees and of your servants’ hands, an evening sacrifice of praise, the gift from your most holy Church. But now we know the praises of this pillar, which glowing fire ignites for God’s honour, a fire into many flames divided yet never dimmed by sharing of its light, for it is fed by melting wax drawn out by mother bees to build a torch so precious.14

320

Peter McGrail

Worshippers today may raise an eyebrow at the biological naivety of the ancient text. The penultimate line quoted above reflects a classical belief that bees reproduced virginally, and therefore misnames the wax-producing worker bees, rather than the queen, as “mothers.”15 It would be a mistake, however, to dismiss the line as no more than a throw-back to a premodern perspective, because its underlying message still holds true. By explicitly naming the bees, the Exsultet invites worshippers to look past the candle itself, beyond the dimly lit Church and back down the line of production that leads eventually to the natural environment. Along the way, humanity is involved: the candle is not only a product of the bees, it is also “the work of your servants’ hands.”16 The ritual lighting of this candle, therefore, stands at the end-point of complex agricultural and industrial processes that begin in nature. The Easter candle thus draws the environment into the very heart of Catholic liturgy. Ironically, the bees returned to the English Liturgy at precisely the same time that their departure from the hives was hitting crisis-point.17 The bees of the Easter Vigil, therefore, manifest a discomforting reality: if there is an essential link between the liturgy and the environment, then that linkage extends also to humanity’s use and perhaps abuse of the natural world. The potential impact of this statement becomes clearer when we consider that rite and environment are interpenetrated across the entire length of the Easter Vigil. Not only is the timing of its celebration synchronized with the rhythms of the seasons and attuned to the cosmic dance of Earth, sun, and moon, but its course is punctuated with the symbolic use of water and of Earth’s produce for light, anointing, food, and drink. Worshippers, therefore, are confronted by primordial dyads of light and darkness, death and life that shape the existence of all living things. Moreover, by virtue of its status as the primary setting for the initiation of adults into the Catholic Church,18 the Vigil forges an inescapable link between the environment and the Christian identity. If the making of a Christian takes place through symbolic actions that entail being plunged into water, smeared with plant oil and admitted to a sacred banquet, then any sense that the relationship between a Christian and the natural world might be casual is clearly far from the truth. LAUDATO SI’: THE POPE, THE PATRIARCH, AND THE LITURGY The incorporation of natural elements into the symbolic language of Catholic worship is not limited to the rituals of initiation; it flows through the entire sacramental life of the church. One might have expected, therefore, that when

Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy

321

Pope Francis produced a detailed teaching document on the environment, he would have drawn out the ecological implications of the close association of nature and liturgy. His encyclical letter Laudato Si’, on Care for Our Common Home certainly acknowledges the role of nature in the sacramental life of the church: The Sacraments are a privileged way in which nature is taken up by God to become a means of mediating supernatural life. Through our worship of God, we are invited to embrace the world on a different plane. Water, oil, fire and colors are taken up in all their symbolic power and incorporated into our act of praise. The hand that blesses is an instrument of God’s love and a reflection of the closeness of Jesus Christ, who came to accompany us on the journey of life. Water poured upon the body of a child in Baptism is a sign of new life. Encountering God does not mean fleeing from this world or turning our back on nature. (LS 235)

Francis does not, however, bring the sacramental and the environmental into sustained dialogue. Also conspicuously missing from the encyclical is a systematically developed theological consideration of the relationship between environment and liturgy. In a sense, the second of these lacunae is characteristic of the document as a whole. The encyclical is written in a curiously spiral fashion: Francis declares that issues and questions “will not be dealt with once and for all, but refrained and enriched again and again,” taking them up repeatedly (LS 16). Potential liturgical triggers occur throughout the letter, but they are not considered in a focused manner until its final chapter, when various sacramental questions are explicitly discussed in a sequence of brief sections that are phrased more contemplatively than the rest of the document. Perhaps as a consequence of this contemplative tone, the sacramental section does not provide a thoroughly worked-through liturgical ecology, and it lacks the critical note that characterizes the main body of the encyclical. While the encyclical, therefore, offers strong hints that the Pope’s ecological considerations might impact the church’s understanding of the liturgy, it does not draw out in detail what that impact might be. This chapter aims to redress this omission by exploring the implicit liturgical imperatives. It will do so in two ways. First, it will draw out the encyclical’s elusive overarching liturgicotheological perspective. Second, it will elaborate the celebratory implications of that perspective with reference to some of the encyclical’s particular environmental concerns—returning to the Easter motifs discussed at the start of this chapter. Given the already noted complexity of the text, it is useful to find a little critical distance from it. Therefore, we shall consider in some detail the manner in which another leading churchman, whom Pope Francis cites admiringly at the start of the document, himself constructs a schematic

322

Peter McGrail

liturgico-ecological theology. Engagement with this dialogue partner will inform our critique of Francis’s stance and also help to identify themes in the encyclical that can form part of a unified perspective on the relationship between the liturgy and the environment. We can then return to the Easter Vigil to examine how the encyclical’s ecological concerns play out in the use of water in Baptism during that liturgy. Francis warmly acknowledges the contribution made to the ecological debate by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. LS quotes the patriarch as stating that Christians are called, “to accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbours on a global scale,” and that “the divine and the human meet in the slightest detail in the seamless garment of God’s creation, in the last speck of dust of our planet” (LS 9).19 By raising the meeting of the divine and the human, Francis introduces a liturgically pregnant motif: that the created world itself has a sacramental dimension. This, however, it is not a theme to which the encyclical directly returns. To Western ears, Bartholomew’s sacramental language is potentially problematic. While the theme of sacramentality was significantly extended by the second Vatican Council,20 for Francis to have taken up and systematically developed Bartholomew’s notion of the very world as sacrament might understandably have drawn accusations of doctrinal novelty. Yet, this is a recurring theme in Bartholomew’s thought, and it leads us into the heart of his own perspective. It is useful, therefore, to highlight two occasions on which he had turned to the notion of the sacramentality of the world. The first was in a homily delivered at Santa Barbara, California, on November 8, 1997. This brief passage is particularly useful as it helps locate Bartholomew’s approach to the sacramentality of the world in a broader tradition: Everything that lives and that breathes is sacred and beautiful in the eyes of God. The whole world is a sacrament. The entire created cosmos is a burning bush of God’s uncreated energies. And humankind stands as a priest before the altar of creation, as microcosm and mediator.21

With this passage, the difference in approach taken by the Byzantine patriarch and the Latin pope becomes most sharply evident. The liturgy only comes into focus at the end of LS, not quite as an afterthought but hardly as a foundational component in the architecture of the document’s argument. On the other hand, Bartholomew, in a most Orthodox manner, builds everything from and toward the liturgy. The church’s ecological concerns flow from her vision of humanity in Christ leading the worship of Creation. Bartholomew’s association of two concepts—the world as sacrament and humanity as priest of creation—echo the Orthodox theologian, Alexander Schmemann, who wrote:

Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy

323

The first, the basic definition of man is that he is the priest. He stands at the centre of the world and unifies it in his act of blessing God—and by filling the world with the eucharist, he transforms his life, the one he receives from the world, into life in God, into communion. The world was created as the “matter,” the material of one all-embracing eucharist, and man was created as the priest of this cosmic sacrament.22

Behind the words of both Bartholomew and Schmemann, a deeper, patristic, influence can be glimpsed, namely the thought of the seventh-century Byzantine theologian, Maximus the Confessor. Maximus’s breathtaking theological vision draws God, humanity, and the cosmos into a dynamic unity without collapsing the distinction between the divine and the human, between the material and the spiritual, and so on. Humanity, made in the image and likeness of God, is a microcosm of the cosmos—“bearing within [itself] the elements of all creation, and still more dignified by the presence within [it] of the divine image,”23 humankind “straddles the divide between the tangible world of matter and the spiritual world of the angelic powers.”24 Daringly, Maximus argues that because humanity is that part of the created order that is created in the image of God, it is through humanity that the entire cosmos relates to God.25 In that sense, humanity’s cosmic role is to mediate between the polarities of the cosmic order, ordering and unifying the created world;26 hence, Bartholomew’s reference to “microcosm” and mediation in his Santa Barbara address. Yet, fulfilment of that mediation lies beyond the scope of humanity in itself. This is partly a result of sin, but more fundamentally because the ultimate mediation—between the Created and the Uncreated—could not be carried out by a creature alone. Christ, however, fully human and fully divine, was uniquely placed to accomplish the cosmic purpose of humanity—to present the entire cosmic order to the Father.27 The liturgical implications of this have been developed by Orthodox theologian and close collaborator of Bartholomew, Metropolitan John [Zizioulas] of Pergamum, who elaborates the relationship between humanity’s priesthood, the natural world, and the sacraments: The Church is there precisely to act as the priest of creation who unites the world and refers it back to God, bringing it into communion with him. This takes place . . . particularly through the sacraments. The meaning of the sacraments is that through [them] the attitude of the fallen Adam is reversed. Man dies to his claim to be God in creation and instead recognizes God as its Lord.28

For Zizioulas, all this leads to the Eucharist: it is there that “the Church proclaims and realizes precisely this priestly function of humanity.” This eucharistic focus brings to the fore twinned christological and eschatological notes, which provide a specific content to the concept of the “priestly function of humanity.” While in Maximus’s perspective humanity is called to serve

324

Peter McGrail

as priest of creation, the exercise of that priesthood here and now is not to be understood as comprising primarily personal acts of individual human beings, but, rather, is a unified act of cosmic worship that is led by and centered on the risen and glorified Christ: The Eucharist consists in taking elements from the natural world, the bread and wine that represent the created material world, and bringing them into the hands of the human being, the hands of Christ who is the man par excellence and the priest of creation, in order to refer them to God.29

The Christocentric focus, so crucial to Maximus, is significant. In scriptural terms, Christ is the “first-born of all creation,” and the one through whom the entire created order is reconciled to God.30 It is only, therefore, insofar as humankind is drawn into communion with the risen Christ that it can fulfil its priestly function, participating in Christ’s offering of the Universe to the Father. This strikes a chord with twentieth-century Catholic liturgical theology, which placed Christ’s priesthood at the center of all liturgical action: the liturgy is “nothing more nor less than the exercise of [Christ’s] priestly function.”31 The liturgy, therefore, does not simply draw upon elements of the created world for its core symbols; through Christ, the key liturgical actor, its scope extends to the entire cosmos.32 As we shall see, Francis borrows—but does not particularly develop—this cosmic language. For Bartholomow, on the other hand, the ideas outlined above form part of an integrated theological whole. He directly acknowledged the influence of Maximus upon his thought on a second occasion that he engaged with the sacramentality of the world. This was a lecture entitled, “World as Sacrament: The Theological and Spiritual Vision of the World,” delivered in Moscow on May 26, 2010.33 The lecture weaves together the themes of cosmic liturgy, asceticism, and the notion of world as sacrament to offer a carefully developed systematic theology of the relationship between the liturgy and the ecology—precisely what Laudato Si’ lacks.34 For the patriarch, the world is a “sacred mystery,” a “gift of communion with God,” rather than a property to be possessed. This requires of humanity a fundamental attitude of thanksgiving, which finds expression in a “eucharistic spirituality”: the gift of the earth, offered to humanity by God from the moment of creation, is “a gift to be returned in gratitude and love.” This takes us to the heart of Bartholomew’s sacramental vision of creation: not only does all creation speak of God, but it is also caught up in the authentic human response. In this context, the meaning of the designation of the natural world as a “sacrament of communion,” quoted by Francis, becomes clearer: “communion” in this perspective expresses the intense unity of humanity and God in and through the environment, which flows not simply from a sense of solidarity but by the very nature of humanity. In the liturgy, therefore, not only is fragmented

Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy

325

humanity restored to unity in the communion of the Body of Christ, but the whole created order—including humanity—is also there being drawn together in movement toward the “New Heavens and the New Earth.” Any attempt to exploit the world’s resources therefore constitutes “an abandonment of the sacramental worldview.” In response to a culture of exploitation, Bartholomew echoes Maximus by calling for an “aesthetic ethos,” by which the desire to consume is restrained “for the sake of valuing all things.”35 LAUDATO SI’ AND A THEOLOGY OF LITURGICAL ECOLOGY We can now return to the text of the encyclical to draw out its own potential for constructing a liturgico-ecological theology, using Bartholomew and his circle as critical dialogue partners. This will entail drawing together some scattered ideas that at first sight may appear liturgically insignificant but which assume a liturgical dimension when brought alongside other sections of the encyclical. The first of these is the notion that creation is a gift, proposed early in the encyclical: Nature is usually seen as a system which can be studied, understood and controlled, whereas creation can only be understood as a gift from the outstretched hand of the Father of all, and as a reality illuminated by the love which calls us together into universal communion. (LS 76)

Here is a fundamental starting point for developing a systematic liturgicoecological perspective: “We are not God,” writes the Pope. “The earth was here before us and it has been given to us” (LS 67). It is only, however, at the end of the encyclical, at no. 236, that this concept of the world as a gift, “coming forth from God’s hands” is drawn into a liturgical perspective, as will be discussed later. Before that point is reached, the encyclical weaves through a number of related themes that similarly have a liturgical bearing. The twinned themes of the destiny of the cosmos and centrality of Christ emerge in the second chapter of the encyclical, “The Gospel of Creation.” In concluding the subsection entitled, “The Mystery of the Universe,” Francis writes, “The ultimate destiny of the universe is in the fulness of God, which has already been attained by the risen Christ, the measure of the maturity of all things” (LS 83). The theme is taken up again in the christological conclusion to the same chapter where he writes, “The destiny of all creation is bound up with the mystery of Christ” (LS 99). As a consequence, he continues, “the creatures of this world no longer appear to us under merely natural guise because the risen One is mysteriously holding them to himself and directing them towards fullness as their end” (LS 100). However, these

326

Peter McGrail

eschatological and Christological themes are left hanging, and the following three chapters move immediately to practicalities. It is not until the final chapter that Francis returns to them: “For Christians, all the creatures of the material universe find their true meaning in the incarnate Word, for the Son of God has incorporated in his person part of the material world, planting in it a seed of definitive transformation” (LS 235). The distribution of these passages across chapters manifests the inherent structural weakness of the spiral nature of the encyclical’s argument, as it does prevent the full development of the outlined theological themes. Nonetheless, the mention of the “mystery” of Christ in chapter 2, especially when placed in an eschatological frame, leads inescapably to the liturgy. One of the key achievements of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, henceforth SC) was its construction of a theology of the liturgy around Christ’s Paschal Mystery. The Constitution’s Introduction stated that “the liturgy, ‘through which the work of our redemption is accomplished,’ most of all in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, is the outstanding means whereby the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church” (SC 2). The entire liturgy is celebrated in an eschatological perspective, foreshadowing the eschaton: “In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle” (SC 8). It is, however, a weakness of SC that although it discusses the sacraments themselves, it does not mention the natural world from which the sacramental signs and symbols are drawn, and thereby fails to relate the cosmos to the Paschal Mystery of Christ. Sadly, that was typical of the Conciliar documents as a whole. Though there are significant openings for a cosmic theology in Lumen Gentium, 48 and Gaudium et Spes, 39, the absence of any sustained consideration of the environment from the Council’s various constitutions, decrees, and declarations is striking. Laudato Si’, therefore, marks a significant advance as Pope Francis draws the entire created order into the ambit of the Paschal Mystery. This could serve as a starting point for a fuller statement of Catholic doctrine. If the destiny of the entire cosmos is caught up with Christ’s Paschal Mystery, then it is not possible to celebrate that mystery liturgically without being mindful of the environment—not only of its destiny but also of its present condition. That will necessarily include the recognition of the natural and human consequences of environmental abuse. The encyclical most closely approaches the perspective of Bartholomew, and of eastern Christianity in general, in the discussion of the Eucharist found in its closing chapter:

Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy

327

In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love: “Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world.” The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration: in the bread of the Eucharist, “creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself.” (LS 236)

The internal quotations are drawn from Francis’s two immediate predecessors, neither of whom references the sources for his cosmic themes. Nonetheless, the projection of the created order toward divinization in the second quotation (from Pope Benedict XVI) echoes Maximus’s cosmic perspective. Creation is not only caught up in the church’s worship, but there it also finds its meaning and its fulfilment. The destiny of the cosmos is unity with God, in and through humanity; all of this is both manifested and realized in the church’s liturgy where the cosmos is first acknowledged as gift, and then is returned to the Father. A line of thought stretching back to Maximus might have taken this a step further by exploring the vital priestly role exercised by humanity in Christ. Instead, Francis passes directly to practicalities: “Thus, the Eucharist is also a source of light and motivation for our concerns for the environment, directing us to be stewards of all creation.” While a living concern for the environment is undoubtedly a consequence of the liturgicoeschatological vision that the previous sentences outline, the transition is rather abrupt and unclear. Exactly how human liturgical participation flows into environmental stewardship is left unexamined. Francis’s election to speak in terms of “responsible stewardship” further distinguishes him from the approach taken by some within Bartholomew’s circle. In arguing the stewardship approach, Francis argues passionately against “a Promethean vision of mastery over the world” (LS 116) and draws out the social implications of the misuse of creation. Bartholomew, too, makes occasional use of the concept of stewardship.36 However, at least one significant member of his circle regards the term in itself as problematic. Several years before the publication of LS, John Zizioulas had rejected the stewardship motif outright in the following terms: The human being is related to nature not functionally, as the idea of stewardship would suggest, but ontologically: by being the steward of creation the human being relates to nature by what he does, whereas by being the priest of creation he relates to nature by what he is. The implications of this distinction are very significant. In the case of stewardship our attitude to nature is determined by

328

Peter McGrail

ethics and morality: if we destroy nature we disobey and transgress a certain law, we become immoral and unethical. In the case of priesthood, in destroying nature we simply cease to be; the consequences of ecological sin are not moral but essential. Ecology is in this way a matter of our esse, not of our bene esse.37

For Zizioulas, the idea of stewardship is inadequately grounded ontologically in that it retains a distance between humanity and creation, such that care for the natural world can still be regarded purely and simply as ethical action by an autonomous humanity. Arguably, it is only when the full ontological implications of Maximus’s linking of humanity to creation are recognized— and the distance between humanity and the cosmos is dissolved—that the full ecological potential of the notion of cosmic liturgy, even as espoused by Francis, can be realized.

LAUDATO SI: THE ECOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE OF THE LITURGY The distance between Francis’s idea of stewardship and Zizioulas’s insistence on priesthood narrows when we explore some of the concrete environmental issues raised by Laudato Si’. Our particular focus is the sacramental relationship established between Christian identity, the liturgy, and the natural world by the symbolic use of natural elements in the Easter Vigil liturgy of Christian initiation. The ritual processes by which men and women become Christians cannot be reduced to interior processes of individual conversion. Initiation, instead, necessarily involves elements of creation. It is in water that men and women are baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection, they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit through a ritual in which they are anointed with perfumed oil, and it is through participation in the banquet of Eucharistic food and drink that their initiatory incorporation into Christ’s Body is completed. In that sense, therefore, creation itself participates in the coming-to-be of Christians. Therefore, Christian engagement with the natural order can never, in Zizioulas’s terms, be purely “functional.” Instead, when viewed through a sacramental lens its ontological basis becomes apparent. In Christ, humanity does not stand before creation as a detached environmental guardian. Rather, the exercise of responsible stewardship flows out of—and is ontologically founded on—humanity’s participation in Christ: men and women are initiated into communion with Christ by means of sacramental signs drawn from the natural order, and are drawn into Christ’s grateful offering of creation to the Father as participants in his priesthood.38 As Christians enter into a liturgical experience that is saturated with natural symbols and in which the entire cosmos is presented to the Father, then the challenge to exercise environmental stewardship becomes for them an imperative.

Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy

329

The dynamic at play in this becomes evident when we turn to the sacramental symbols themselves. It is relatively easy for initiatory discourses to focus on the positive dimensions of the liturgical engagement with the natural world—highlighting, for example, the refreshing, life-giving aspects of water, or the healing and renewing powers of oil. However, the most potent contribution of Laudato Si’ to an understanding of the relationship between liturgy and the environment is that it renders problematic the material symbols that lie at the heart of the church’s sacramental regime—even though Francis does not himself pursue that argument. Far from being “pure” signs of an untarnished nature, the matter used in worship—just as does the beeswax of the Paschal Candle—conveys a dual message. Yes, water, oil, bread, and wine all speak of a natural word charged with the presence of God, but they also are imprinted with the effects of human activity, which potentially includes environmental and social abuse. The symbols of the liturgy are thus implicated in an ambiguous range of meanings. Consequently, when humanity acts as in Christ as priest of the created order, the symbols that it presents to God in its liturgical celebrations bear the sometimes harsh stamp of the world from which they are drawn, even as the liturgy looks toward their final glorious destiny. The extent of the ambiguity comes to the fore in the first chapter of LS, “What is Happening to our Common Home,” especially in its discussion of water. Pope Francis here highlights the intersection of the negative impact of human action at environmental and social levels. He weaves together a number of related themes, drawing out the relationship between environmental abuse and human deprivation. Thus, he criticizes the economic commodification and privatization of water as a natural resource which, he argues, feeds into wasteful patterns of behaviour in developed countries and diminished access to water elsewhere (LS 27 and 30); control of access to water may also, he warns, conceivably become a future cause of global conflict (LS 31). The failure to maintain sustainable supplies of fresh water across the world negatively impacts, he argues, on healthcare, agriculture, and industry (LS 28), and feeds into the twinned ills of denial of access to safe drinking water and inadequate sanitary services (LS 29 and 30). As a result, he does not regard water poverty as merely a consequence of morally neutral economic or structural processes, but as a denial of fundamental human rights (LS 30). This social dimension is threaded across the first chapter, with regard to climate change (LS 25), the quality of urban life (LS 44 and 45), the depletion of fishing reserves and changes in the sea level (LS 48). For Francis, the impact of the interweaving of ecological and social is profound: “We have to realize that a truly ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” (LS 49). What Francis does not say, but what is implied by the liturgical theology sketched

330

Peter McGrail

across the encyclical, is that discussion of the liturgy, too, must also integrate questions of justice and the environment: not only are the natural symbols which articulate liturgical celebration themselves drawn from Earth, but they can also give voice to the cry of the poor. So, what are the symbolic implications of plunging a person into a baptismal bath of water during the celebration of the Easter Vigil? What ecological imperatives flow from it? Christians have long been alert to the symbolic ambiguities of water, and indeed have played upon those ambiguities in both teaching and ritual. Water is necessary for life, but it can also be the cause of death by drowning. Jesus himself picked up the darker aspects of water by using the word “baptism” as a metaphor for his own suffering and death (Mk 10:38; Lk 12:50). St Paul—in a section of the letter to the Romans read during the Easter Vigil—spoke of baptism as a ritual of death and rebirth (Rom 6:3–5). This approach was also taken up by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who said to the recently baptized: “In one and the same action you died and you were reborn; the water of salvation became both tomb and mother for you.”39 The range—and ambiguity—of meanings that can be conveyed by the symbolic use of water carry forward the core theological thrust of the initiation rites: the rising to a new life from a ritual death in the water pool expresses the configuration of the neophyte to Christ through an intense identification with the Paschal Mystery of His death and resurrection. Laudato Si’ now enriches this symbolic language. The water which is the medium of this configuration to Christ also speaks of human systems of commerce, of power, and of injustice. Its range of negative meanings is extended to the impacts of pollution, disease, and rising shorelines. In the font the new Christian is submerged not so much into a watery silence, but into a medium that is aloud with the cries of the poor, and with the groans of a creation that awaits its restoration in Christ (Rom 8:18–22). However, before the Christian community can plunge anyone into this meaning-laden symbol, a recurring motif running through both the Orthodox sources consulted and LS needs to be borne in mind. This is the insistence that humanity takes anything of Earth not by right, but as gift. The readings and psalms of the Easter Vigil offer scope for a reflective congregational acknowledgement of this divine gift. In response to the story of creation (Gen 1:1–2), the psalmist sings of an abundant gift of water at God’s hands, “You make springs gush forth in the valleys: they flow in between the hills; . . . From your dwelling you water the hills; earth drinks its fill of your gift” (Ps 103/104: 10, 13).40 The images of natural abundance which accumulate along the Vigil readings and songs culminate in the fifth reading. This opens with the invitation, “Ho, every one who thirsts, come to the waters” (Is 55:1),41 a theme that the congregation takes up in song, “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation” (Is 12:3).

Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy

331

However, the world of symbolic ambiguity that our reading of LS has opened, also calls those who receive water at God’s hands to recognize that this precious gift is itself withheld from many within the human family. This of itself generates different sequences of ideas and memories in the minds of worshippers as they gather to celebrate the Easter Vigil. For a community drawn from the poor-in-water, the torrential abundance of the Vigil images could stimulate hope but also resentment, anger, or fear. For the community in the developed world that generously fills its baptismal pool, the water has the potential to speak discomfortingly of the ease with which women and men can presume to take as a right what is offered as a gift. So, the water may point to social injustice, challenging members of the community to ask in what ways they might be implicated. It is here that Maximus’s inclusion of the concept of asceticism in his discussion of humanity’s relationship to the created order makes a discomforting entrance. Even as the community celebrates the initiation of its new members with lavish symbolic exuberance, the very material stuff it handles points beyond the liturgy to the daily use that the members of the assembly make of gift of the natural world. At the very least, the liturgy asks, “Do you really need this?”—especially if it is being denied to fellow human beings. THE LITURGICAL IMPERATIVE: SAYING “AMEN” During the liturgy, therefore, two intimately linked invitations are set before the congregation: to express in time and space the priestly role of humanity in Christ and to carry that priestly role forward into the way in which they engage with the natural world. The liturgical formula by which they express their response is the deceptively simple word, “Amen.” It recurs across the liturgy, after every presidential prayer, and many chants. In the Eucharistic liturgy, it closes the anaphora as the consecrated bread and wine are held aloft. The same congregational “Amen” is found at the blessing of the water used in baptism, of the oils used in Confirmation and Ordination, in anointing the sick and in strengthening catechumens as they progress toward membership of the church. It is said as ashes are blessed at the beginning of Lent, and palm branches are blessed toward its end. At the Easter Vigil, it is first said as the fire from which the Paschal candle will be lit is blessed. These repeated “Amens” make the liturgy—any liturgy—into a sort of litany of assent. The particular contribution of Laudato Si is to render more challenging the declaration of that assent. So, when the congregation sings its “Amen” at the conclusion of the Exsultet, to what, exactly, are they assenting? What imperatives have been set before them by the lighting of that candle and the proclamation beside it

332

Peter McGrail

of Christ’s Easter victory? What difference does it ask of them in the way they think about and engage with systems of agriculture and of the food they place on their tables? What will that “Amen” cost in terms of their relationship with all other living creatures—rendered present on that night by the “work of the bees”? NOTES 1. Sainath Suryanarayanan, “Balancing Control and Complexity in Field Studies of Neonicotinoids and Honey Bee Health,” Insects 4 (2013): 153, doi:10.3390/ insects4010153. 2. D. vanEngelsdorp, J. D. Evans, C. Saegerman, C. Mullin, E. Haubruge, et al., “Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study,” PLoS ONE 4, no. 8 (2009): e6481. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006481. 3. D. vanEngelsdorp, J. Hayes, R. M. Underwood, and J. Pettis, “A Survey of Honey Bee Colony Losses in the , Fall 2007 to Spring 2008,” PLoS ONE 3, no. 12 (2008): e4071, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004071. 4. Sainath S. Suryanarayanan and Daniel Lee Kleinman, “Be(e)coming Experts: The Controversy Over Insecticides in the Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder,” Social Studies of Science 43, no. 2 (April 2013): 215–224. 5. For example, Nor Chejanovsky, Ron Ophir, Michal Sharabi Schwager, Yossi Slabezki, Smadar Grossman, Diana Cox-Foster, “Characterization of Viral siRNA Populations in Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder,” Virology 454–455 (2014): 176–183. 6. Office of the Press Secretary, “Fact Sheet: The Economic Challenge Posed by Declining Pollinator Populations,” (The White House, 20 June 2014), http://ob​ amawh​iteho​use.a​rchiv​es.go​v/the​-pres​s-off​i ce/2​014/0​6/20/​fact-​sheet​-econ​omic-​chall​ enge-​posed​-decl​ining​-poll​inato​r-pop​ulati​ons. In response to the crisis, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on July 20, 2014, establishing a task force which produced the Pollination Partnership Action Plan, https​://ww​w.whi​tehou​ se.go​v/sit​es/wh​iteho​use.g​ov/fi​les/i​mages​/Blog​/PPAP​_2016​.pdf.​ Meanwhile, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began to phase out the use of certain pesticides and GM crops in national wildlife refuges precisely to protect pollinators; this policy was later reversed. https​://ww​w.ref​ugeas​socia​tion.​org/2​014/0​8/u-s​-fish​-and-​wildl​ife-s​ervic​ e-ban​s-gmo​s-and​-neon​icoti​noid-​insec​ticid​es/. 7. Various sections were translated between 1969 and 1974. 8. The nonliteral approach is generally known as “dynamic equivalence.” The basis on which this translation was carried out was set out by the 1969 Roman guidelines, Comme le Prevoit. English translation at http:​//www​.litu​rgyof​fice.​org.u​k/Mis​ sal/I​nform​ation​/Comm​e-le-​Prevo​it.pd​f. 9. The principles that informed the 2010 translation were established by the 2001 Roman Instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam. http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/rom​an_cu​ria/ c​ongre​gatio​ns/cc​dds/d​ocume​nts/r​c_con​_ccdd​s_doc​_2001​0507_​litur​giam-​authe​ntica​ m_en.​html.​

Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy

333

10. For a good overview of the current state of the debate on the timing of Easter see Paul F. Bradshaw and Maxwell E. Johnson, The Origin of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons in Early Christianity (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011), 39–59. 11. As with the origins of the Christian Easter, academic opinion is divided on the origins of the Jewish domestic Passover meal and its relationship to the gospel accounts. See Joel Marcus, “Passover and Last Supper Revisited,” New Testament Studies 53 (2013): 303–324. 12. See A. J. MacGregor, Fire and Light in the Western Triduum: Their Use at Tenebrae and at the Paschal Vigil (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 299–308; Thomas Forrest Kelly, The Exsultet in Southern Italy (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 31–44; Stephen S. Wilbricht, “‘The Work of Bees and of Your Servants’ Hands’ A ‘New’ Exsultet with Ancient Cosmic Imagery,” Questions Liturgiques 93 (2012): 74–99. 13. English translation of The Rites for Holy Week © 1970, International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Inc. 14. The English translation and chants of The Roman Missal © 2010, International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation. 15. Wilbricht, “A ‘New’ Exsultet,” 85–86. 16. Ibid., 93–94. 17. The coincidence was noted by at least one liturgical commentator at the time. See Rita Ferrone, “Virgil and the Vigil: The Bees are Back in the Exsultet,” Commonweal (April 10, 2009): 12–13. 18. Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults © 1985, International Commission of English in the Liturgy, Inc., no. 8. 19. The quotation in LS is taken from Bartholomew’s closing address to the first Halki Summit. See LS, footnote 18. 20. Pope Paul VI referred to the church as “the Universal sacrament of salvation” (#48) and discussed the seven sacraments in relation to the church (#11) in Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 21 November 1964), http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​il/do​cumen​ts/va​ t-ii_​const​_1964​1121_​lumen​-gent​ium_e​n.htm​l. 21. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, On Earth as in Heaven: Ecological Vision and Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, edited with an introduction by John Chryssavgis (New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2012), 152. 22. Alexander Schmemann, The World as Sacrament (London, UK: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966), 16. 23. Lars Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor, 2nd ed. (Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1995), 132–133. 24. Thomas Cattoi, “Liturgy as Cosmic Transformation,” in The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, edited by Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015), 426. 25. Andrew Louth, “Man and Cosmos in St. Maximus the Confessor,” in Towards an Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, eds. John Chryssagis and Bruce V. Foltz (New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2013), 61.

334

Peter McGrail

26. Maximus’s classic exposition of the division of being is found in his 41st Ambiguum (‘Difficulty’). For the text, see Andrew Louth, Maximus the Confessor (London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge, 1996), 155–162. 27. Cattoi, loc cit. 28. “Proprietors or Priests of Creation?” in Towards an Ecology of Transfiguration, edited by John Chryssagis and Bruce V. Foltz (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013), 168. The article was first given as the keynote address to the first plenary session of the Baltic Sea Symposium in Religion, science and the Environment in 2003 and was also published in John D. Zizioulas, The Eucharistic Communion and the World, ed. Luke Ben Tallon (London, UK: T&T Clark, 2011), 133–141. 29. Zizioulas, The Eucharistic Communion and the World. 30. See Col. 1:16–20. 31. Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 20 November 1947), #22, http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/p​ius-x​ii/en​/ency​clica​ls/do​cumen​ ts/hf​_p-xi​i_enc​_2011​1947_​media​tor-d​ei.ht​ml; Pope Paul VI, Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 4 December 1963), #7, http:​ //www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​il/do​cumen​ts/va​t-ii_​const​ _1963​1204_​sacro​sanct​um-co​ncili​um_en​.html​. 32. See Hans Urs von Balthasar, Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor, 3rd ed., trans. by Brian E. Daley, S.J. (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2003). 33. DECR Media Services, “Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople visits Department for External Church Relations and gives lecture to students of Sts Cyril and Methodius Post-Graduate School,” (Department of External Church Relations, The Russian Orthodox Church, 26 May 2010), https​://mo​spat.​ru/en​/2010​/05/2​6/new​s1922​3/. 34. DECR Media Services, “The World as Sacrament: The Theological and Spiritual Vision of Creation: His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,” (Department of External Church Relations, The Russian Orthodox Church, 26 May 2010), https​://mo​spat.​ru/en​/2010​/05/2​6/new​s1925​2/. 35. On the link between the world as sacrament and asceticism see also Bartholomew’s Keynote Address to the North Sea Symposium, Utstein Monastery, Germany, given on June 23, 2003, On Earth as in Heaven, 201. 36. See, for example, his keynote address at the Santa Barbara Symposium, California (November 8, 1997) in On Earth as in Heaven, 95–110. 37. Hohn, D. Zizoulas, “Proprietors or Priests of Creation,” 169. 38. Lumen Gentium, 10. 39. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mytagogical Catecheses, Sermon 2. English translation from Edward Yarnold, The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation: The Origins of the R.C.I.A, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark, 1994), 78. 40. Psalm texts from The Grail Psalms © 1963, The Grail, England. 41. Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Old Testament Section, Copyright 1952; New Testament Section, First Edition, Copyright 1946; Second Edition © 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

Ecological Imperative of the Liturgy

335

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bradshaw, Paul F. and Maxwell E. Johnson. The Origin of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons in Early Christianity. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011. Cattoi, Thomas. “Liturgy as Cosmic Transformation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, edited by Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil, 414–437. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015. Chejanovsky, Nor, Ron Ophir, Michal Sharabi Schwager, Yossi Slabezki, Smadar Grossman, and Diana Cox-Foster. “Characterization of Viral siRNA Populations in Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder.” Virology 454–455 (2014): 176–183. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. On Earth as in Heaven: Ecological Vision and Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Edited with an introduction by John Chryssavgis. New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2012. Ferrone, Rita. “Virgil and the Vigil: The Bees Are Back in the Exsultet.” Commonweal, 10 April 2009. Kelly, Thomas Forrest. The Exsultet in Southern Italy. New York, NY and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996. Louth, Andrew. “Man and Cosmos in St. Maximus the Confessor.” In Towards an Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, edited by John Chryssagis and Bruce V. Foltz, 59–73. New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. Marcus, Joel. “Passover and Last Supper Revisited,” New Testament Studies 53 (2013): 303–324. ———. Maximus the Confessor. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge, 1996. MacGregor, A. J. Fire and Light in the Western Triduum: Their Use at Tenebrae and at the Paschal Vigil. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992. Pope Paul VI. Lumen Gentium. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 21 November 1964. http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​il/ do​cumen​ts/va​t-ii_​const​_1964​1121_​lumen​-gent​ium_e​n.htm​l. Pope Paul VI. Sacrosanctum Concilium. Vatican City, VA: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 4 December 1963. http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​il/ do​cumen​ts/va​t-ii_​const​_1963​1204_​sacro​sanct​um-co​ncili​um_en​.html​. Pope Pius XII. Mediator Dei. Vatican City, VA: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 20­ November 1947. http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/p​ius-x​ii/en​/ency​clica​ls/do​cumen​ts/hf​ _p-xi​i_enc​_2011​1947_​media​tor-d​ei.ht​ml. Schmemann, Alexander. The World as Sacrament. London, UK: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966. Suryanarayanan, Sainath. “Balancing Control and Complexity in Field Studies of Neonicotinoids and Honey Bee Health.” Insects 4 (2013): 153–167. doi:10.3390/ insects4010153. Suryanarayanan, Sainath S. and Daniel Lee Kleinman. “Be(e)coming Experts: The Controversy Over Insecticides in the Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder.” Social Studies of Science 43, no. 2 (April 2013): 215–224.

336

Peter McGrail

Thunberg, Lars. Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor, 2nd ed. Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1995. vanEngelsdorp, D., J. D. Evans, C. Saegerman, C. Mullin, E. Haubruge, et al. “Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study.” PLoS ONE 4, no. 8 (2009): e6481. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006481. vanEngelsdorp, D., J. Hayes, R. M. Underwood, and J. Pettis. “A Survey of Honey Bee Colony Losses in the U.S., Fall 2007 to Spring 2008.” PLoS ONE 3, no. 12 (2008): e4071. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004071. von Balthasar, Hans Urs. Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor, 3rd ed. Translated by Brian E. Daley, S.J. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2003. Wilbricht, Stephen S. “‘The Work of Bees and of Your Servants’ Hands’ A ‘New’ Exsultet with Ancient Cosmic Imagery.” Questions Liturgiques 93 (2012): 74–99. Yarnold, Edward. The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation: The Origins of the R.C.I.A, 2nd ed. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark, 1994. Zizioulas, John D. “Proprietors or Priests of Creation?” In Towards an Ecology of Transfiguration, edited by John Chryssagis and Bruce V. Foltz, 163–173. New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. ———. The Eucharistic Communion and the World, edited by Luke Ben Tallon. London, UK: T&T Clark, 2011.

Chapter 21

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming Nicholas Smith

Global warming is one of the world’s most pressing problems. Unabated emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are likely to have irreversible consequences.1 Substantial reductions in these emissions are therefore required as recognized by international law.2 Alongside technological advances and coordinated international policies, the public play an important role in global emissions reductions through energy use, consumer behavior, social norms, and support for climate and energy policies. The focus of this chapter is on religious members of the public, and in particular a Catholic public, to explore the role Catholics play in global warming engagement. This chapter will also consider the role Laudato Si’ plays in how Catholics, and the public more broadly, are engaging with this issue. GLOBAL WARMING AND RELIGION As the climate crisis develops, the world’s religions and their leaders are becoming key actors to help mobilize publics, particularly in the absence of meaningful international action.3 Although there are barriers that can stifle action, given the large and diverse audiences reached, religions have the ability to appeal to a wide range of believers’ attitudes, values, and worldviews.4 Religions also have the ability to inspire and promote ethical guidance and can thereby encourage moral responsibility for addressing global warming.5 Hulme further argues that religions offer followers “thick” versus “thin” value motivations for acting for the climate (among other social issues).6 Frames of reference are used to guide appropriate response options which are ingrained in religious traditions. Such adherence to strong values is lacking 337

338

Nicholas Smith

in secular calls for action, which although based on scientific expertise, are much less rooted in deeply held moral and ethical convictions. More pragmatically, religions have considerable institutional support and economic capital at their disposal7 while also having the ability to connect people and generate social capital through collective activities such as charity outreach.8 Therefore, as a response to the challenges faced, many faiths have started to release statements on their positions on the issue in attempts to mobilize followers. However, despite the utility religions and their believers have to address the climate issue, surprisingly little social scientific research has been conducted exploring how religious individuals engage with and are responding to global warming.9 What little research that has been conducted is typically limited to Christian believers’ views. This has created a range of findings, given the turbulent relationship Christianity has with modern environmentalism. Christianity and Environmentalism As argued by Lynn White Jr., the Judeo-Christian worldview is widely regarded as playing a key role in the Western world’s damaging relationship with nature.10 As the book of Genesis (Genesis 1:26–28) declares: “Let us make humankind . . . and let them have dominion . . . . Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Interpretation of these ideas has generated fierce debate regarding to what extent “dominion” refers to domination over nature. This view reflects the belief that humanity is separate from nature, thereby bestowing upon it the God-given right to dominate creation and exploit natural resources for human gain. In contrast, a stewardship position would insist that humanity care for and develop a responsible attitude toward Earth’s natural resources. Such debate has generated a research base exploring the relationships between religion, environmental concern, and behavior.11 Many studies have identified that certain religious beliefs (e.g., “End of Times” eschatology) is associated with decreased environmental concern,12 while others find a lack of or weak relationships between belief in God and environmental concern.13 However, other studies have identified positive relationships between environmental concern and religion. Individuals who regularly attend church, for example, are more likely to engage in environmentally protective behavior.14 Belief in biblical literalism is also associated with an egocentric concern about environmental impacts on humans, but less concern about impacts on plants and animals.15

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming

339

Christianity and Global Warming Engagement Although relatively minimal research has focused on how Christians, in their various denominations, engage with global warming, of the research that has been conducted, most has focused on exploring the views of (American) evangelical Christians, given the sociopolitical influence they have in contemporary American society and the number of those in the United States who consider themselves “born-again.”16 Wardekker et al., for example, explored key moral themes in evangelical literature to understand how American evangelicals are engaging with global warming.17 In particular, the moral themes of “creation care” and “neighbor care” (emphasizing environmental stewardship and the importance of caring for one’s neighbor, respectively) are salient. Wilkinson used qualitative focus group discussions to explore how much these themes resonate with the evangelical community.18 Although finding that tenets of both moral themes appealed to evangelicals, global warming also polarized opinion in that some tended to be more skeptical and distrusting of global warming science. Smith and Leiserowitz explored evangelical attitudes and beliefs about global warming in a nationally representative survey and found that, compared with a nonevangelical public, evangelical Christians were less likely to believe that global warming is happening, has a mainly anthropogenic basis, and causes serious harm.19 However, a majority of evangelicals are concerned and support a range of global warming and energy-related policies. Moreover, multiple regression analyses identified that a combination of biospheric, altruistic, and egoistic value orientations is a powerful predictor of evangelical global warming risk assessment and policy support. Catholic Global Warming Engagement— Is Laudato Si’ having an Effect? Less research has been conducted specifically on Catholic engagement with global warming. Despite the focus of some studies on levels of global warming skepticism within the Catholic faith20 Catholics as a whole are considerably more concerned about global warming than followers of other Christian faiths. A nationally representative opinion poll of Christian believers’ views of global warming, for example, found that Catholics were considerably more likely than Protestants and Evangelicals to believe that global warming is happening, that it has an anthropogenic basis, and are worried about it.21 Moreover, Catholics in this study also displayed more proglobal warming beliefs than the national average indicating that Catholics hold more positive

340

Nicholas Smith

views on global warming than the average American. Other representative opinion polls have also showed comparable results.22 Given the high salience American Catholics show the global warming issue, it stands to reason that large proportions of Catholics would support Laudato Si’, the pope’s recent encyclical on global warming. Indeed, an emerging research area has started to examine the specific impact religious statements have had on public engagement with global warming—both for religious and nonreligious publics. In particular, a few studies have started to explore the impact of the encyclical, given the media attention it attracted at the time of its release. In one of the first analyses of the impact of Laudato Si’, Maibach et al. present results from their longitudinal study exploring how Laudato Si’ has influenced the views of general Americans and Catholics more specifically.23 A representative cohort of the American public were surveyed in spring 2015, shortly before the release of Laudato Si’, and then again in early October 2015, following the pope’s visit to the United States and wide press coverage of the message of Laudato Si’, in order to determine to what extent opinions might have changed. Respondents in both waves of data collection were asked questions about their global warming belief, risk perception, behavior, policy preferences, and their views of Pope Francis. Results revealed that Americans, and in particular American Catholics, became more engaged with and concerned about global warming. More specifically, more Americans and more Catholics over this time period became more likely to believe that global warming is happening, more worried about global warming, and more likely to believe that global warming will harm people in the United States. Moreover, the survey results also revealed that Americans, and especially Catholics, developed a more positive opinion of Pope Francis and were more likely to trust him as a source of information about global warming. Both samples were also more likely to view global warming as a moral or religious issue. Dubbing their findings “The Francis Effect,” Maibach et al. argue that the pope’s message about global warming, as expressed through Laudato Si’, contributed to a rise in public engagement on the issue and influenced the general conversation about global warming in America for Americans and especially American Catholics.24 Other studies have investigated the impact of Laudato Si’ using more experimental methods to assess its impact on an American public. Myers et al., for example, conducted a message test experiment to understand how exposure to the pope’s global warming message might strengthen the relationship between global warming attitudes and behaviors.25 Drawing on nationally representative within-subject panel data, participants completed survey measures two months before the release of Laudato Si’ and four months later to assess global warming consumer and political advocacy behaviors. Results found that for Americans who were already concerned about global warming,

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming

341

more exposure to the pope’s global warming message was associated with higher engagement in certain activism behaviors including willingness to join a campaign to convince elected officials to take action to reduce global warming and punishing companies that are opposing steps to reduce global warming by not buying their products. Thus, results from this study showed that repeatedly receiving a convincing global warming message, from a trusted communicator, increased enactment of activism behaviors. Landrum et al. investigated the impact Francis and his global warming message had on both American Catholics and non-Catholics.26 Similar to Myers et al., Landrum et al., adopted a within-subject panel design gathering nationally representative data from a sample of the American public surveyed before and after the encyclical’s release. Participants at both time points were asked questions tapping their agreement/disagreement with two arguments presented in Laudato Si’—namely to consider to what extent they believed global warming to be a serious issue and how much they thought it unduly affected the poor. To control for potential moderating and mediating influences on public opinion, participants were additionally asked to what extent they were aware of Laudato Si’, how much credibility they assigned to Pope Francis as a global warming communicator, their political ideology, and Catholic affiliation. Results revealed that political ideology influenced how credible the pope was regarded, which in turn influenced how much participants agreed or disagreed with climate messages embedded within Laudato Si’. More specifically, politically conservative individuals, who were aware of Laudato Si’, had lower perceptions of Francis’s credibility which in turn predicted decreases in beliefs about global warming severity and its impact on the poor. Catholic affiliation was also an important moderator with results revealing that Catholics perceived the pope as highly credible, regardless of their own awareness of Laudato Si’, which in turn influenced their acceptability of the encyclical’s global warming messages. A further study similar to Landrum et al. is provided by Li et al.27 Using data collected via a nationally representative opinion survey (with supplemental samples of Catholics), global warming opinions were assessed before and after the release of Laudato Si’. Awareness of Laudato Si’ along with the perceived credibility of Francis were examined as moderators as were political ideology and Catholic affiliation. Results revealed a high degree of attitude polarization toward global warming moderated by awareness of Laudato Si’, political ideology, and Catholic affiliation. More specifically, liberals who were aware of Laudato Si’ revealed more concern about global warming, whereas Laudato Si’-aware conservatives revealed lower levels of concern. Catholic global warming attitudes before and after the release of Laudato Si’ were also moderated by political ideology. Although Catholics, as a whole, attributed higher levels of credibility to Francis as a source of information on global warming compared with non-Catholics, conservative

342

Nicholas Smith

Catholics resisted Francis’s global warming message. This group, whose own views of global warming clashed with those of Francis, responded by devaluing him as a credible global warming advocate. Finally, Schuldt et al., conducted a nationally representative priming experiment and exposed members of the American public to survey items assessing their perceptions of global warming as a moral issue and how personally responsible they felt for causing and mitigating global warming.28 These questions were administered either before or after brief exposure to an image of Pope Francis and a question assessing awareness of his views on global warming. Results supported the priming effect. Exposure to Pope Francis, from the sample as a whole, increased the perception of global warming as a moral issue. Factoring in political ideology moderated the relationship further insofar as Republicans were more likely to perceive global warming as a moral issue following exposure to Pope Francis but only Democrats were more likely to feel personally responsible for causing and mitigating global warming following exposure. Prior awareness of Francis’s views on global warming were also important with those who had heard or read at least a moderate amount about these were more likely to endorse global warming as a moral issue as well as have high feelings of personal responsibility for causing and mitigating the problem. Comparable with “The Francis Effect” reported by Maibach et al., Schuldt et al. not only endorse Pope Francis as an effective communicator of global warming, but in contrast to Landrum et al., and Li et al., argue he has the potential to transcend political boundaries and thereby fundamentally remould public global warming opinion in contemporary America. In sum, studies which have evaluated the impact of both Pope Francis and his encyclical, Laudato Si’, on public opinion reveal a mixed set of results. At one level, the majority of these studies suggest that Laudato Si’ has had a positive impact on public (including Catholic) engagement with global warming. The credibility of Francis as a global warming communicator is important along with the extent to which people are already aware of Laudato Si’ coupled to their preexisting attitudes toward global warming. However, the relationship appears to be moderated by underling values, and especially political ideology, with conservative individuals less likely to endorse Francis’s and the global warming messages he advocates. PREDICTORS OF CATHOLIC GLOBAL WARMING RISK PERCEPTION AND POLICY SUPPORT In order to further understand how and why Catholics might or might not be engaging with Laudato Si’, and global warming more broadly, analysis of new public opinion survey data will be presented. Data for this analysis comes

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming

343

from a nationally representative panel survey conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. The survey utilized GfK’s Knowledge Panel, an online panel of members drawn using probability sampling methods. Prospective members are recruited using a combination of random digit dial and address-based sampling techniques that cover virtually all (noninstitutional) resident phone numbers and addresses in the United States. Those contacted who would choose to join the panel but do not have access to the Internet are loaned computers and given Internet access so they may participate. The sample therefore includes a representative cross section of American adults—irrespective of whether they have Internet access, use only a cell phone, and so forth. Data collection took place between late September and mid-October 2015, following the release of Laudato Si’, the pope’s visit to the United States, and subsequent media coverage of both Laudato Si’ and his visit. From a total sample of 1,330 Americans, the following analysis will be based on a sample of 280 who self-identified as Catholic. Measures Respondents were asked numerous questions related to their global warming engagement. For the present analysis, the following variables were analyzed. Risk Perception Respondents were asked to assess how much they thought global warming would harm them personally, people in the United States, people in developing countries, future generations, the world’s poor, and the natural environment. For analysis, a single risk perception index was constructed based on the overall mean response for each risk perception item (α = 0.96). Policy Support Respondents were asked to indicate their support for or opposition to a variety of different policies to mitigate global warming. Policies included research on renewable energy sources, the regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels, taxing fossil fuel companies, and setting strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants. For analysis, a policy support index was created based on the overall mean response for each policy item (α = 0.86). Pope Francis Respondents were asked a range of questions about their views of Pope Francis: in general whether they had a positive or negative opinion of Pope

344

Nicholas Smith

Francis, how much they trust or distrust the pope as a source of information about global warming, how much they had discussed the pope’s views on global warming at their place of worship, how much they talked with friends and/or family about the pope’s views on global warming, and how much impact the pope’s position on global warming had on their own views about global warming. These latter three items were combined into a “salience of views” scale based on the overall mean of each item (α = 0.83). Values Respondents were asked to rate whether or not they thought global warming is a moral issue, a religious issue and/or a spiritual issue. Affect and Emotion29 Respondents were asked to rate whether global warming is a good or a bad thing using a unipolar, six-point Likert scale ranging between +3 (very good) and −3 (very bad). Respondents were also asked to rate the intensity of different emotions felt when thinking about global warming. The emotions assessed were worry, helplessness, interest, and hope. Sociodemographics A range of sociodemographic information was also collected, including political ideology (liberal—conservative), education (less than high school— Bachelor’s degree or higher), gender, and race. Results Initially, a series of bivariate correlations were conducted to explore associations between the predictor variables and between the predictor and the outcome variables. Multicollinearity statistics (tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) were acceptable). Using predictor variables significantly correlated with the outcome variables, two multiple regression models were then constructed using the “enter” method to explore the individual and combined association of views of Pope Francis, values, affect and emotion, and sociodemographic variables with global warming risk perception and policy support indices.30 Risk Perception Regression Model 1 examined the influence of respondents’ views of Pope Francis. It found that trust of Pope Francis as a global warming information source combined with the salience of his views were significant predictors of global warming risk perception and explained 13 percent of the variance (F (3, 242)

345

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming Table 21.1  Multiple Regressions on Global Warming Risk Perception Pope Francis

Values

Affect + emotion

Demographics Full model

View of Pope Francis (+ve/−ve) Trust Pope Francis as source of information Salience of Pope’s GW views GW as moral issue GW as religious issue GW as spiritual issue Holistic affect Worry Helplessness Interest Hope Political ideology Education (4 cat) Gender Race

−0.03

−0.04

0.29***

0.05

0.16*

0.00

F Adjusted R Square N

12.801*** 0.13

20.565*** 0.21

245

221

0.44***

0.11*

0.08

0.03

−0.01

−0.04 0.11* 0.56*** 0.13* 0.03 0.13**

−0.39***

0.09 0.46*** 0.10 0.01 0.14* −0.12*

0.08

−0.01

0.16** 0.17**

0.14** 0.04

70.338*** 0.57

20.586*** 0.23

22.129*** 0.60

261

259

215

Note: Data for this analysis was sourced from a nationally representative panel survey conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Dependent variable: risk perception index. Entries are standardized regression coefficients. *Significant at 0.05; **Significant at 0.01; ***Significant at 0.001.

= 12.80, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.13). More specifically, Catholics who were more trusting of Pope Francis as an information source perceived global warming to be a greater risk. Those who had discussed the Francis’s views on global warming at their place of worship, who had talked with friends and/or family about his views and who believed his views of global warming resonated with their own, were also more likely to perceive global warming to be a greater risk.

346

Nicholas Smith

Model 2 examined the influence of values on global warming risk perceptions and only found that viewing global warming as a moral issue predicted global warming risk perception, explaining 21 percent of the variance (F (3,218) = 20.57, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.21). Catholics who were more likely to view global warming as a moral issue had greater perception of the risk. Model 3 examined the influence of affect and discrete emotions on global warming risk perceptions and found that holistic affect, worry, helplessness, and hope were all significant predictors of risk perception and explained 57 percent of the variance (F (5, 256) = 70.34, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.57). Those who regarded global warming as a “bad” thing were more likely to perceive it as a risk and those who reported higher levels of worry, helplessness, and hope in relation to global warming were also more likely to perceive it as a risk. Model 4 examined the influence of sociodemographics on global warming risk perceptions and found that political ideology, gender, and race were all significant predictors of risk perceptions and explained 23 percent of the variance (F (4, 255) = 20.59, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.23). More specifically, those who held liberal political views, females and nonwhite Catholics were more likely to perceive global warming as a risk. Model 5 combined all models to find the most significant predictors of global warming risk perception. Global warming as a moral issue, worry, hope, political ideology, and gender were all significant predictors and explained 60 percent of the variance (F (15, 200) = 22.13, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.60). Worry was the strongest predictor with those reporting higher levels of worry about global warming more likely to perceive it as a risk. In summary, these results demonstrate that holistic affect and a range of discrete emotions were stronger predictors of Catholic global warming risk perception than views of Pope Francis, global warming values, and various sociodemographic variables. Policy Support Regression Model 1 examined the influence of respondents’ views of Pope Francis. It found that only trust of Pope Francis as a global warming information source was a significant predictor of global warming policy support and explained 12 percent of the variance (F (3, 244) = 12.39, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.12). More specifically, Catholics who were more trusting of Pope Francis as an information source were more likely to support policies to mitigate global warming. Model 2 examined the influence of values on global warming policy support and only found that viewing global warming as a moral issue predicted policy support, explaining 17 percent of the variance (F (3, 218) = 16.41, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.17). Catholics who were more likely to view global warming as a moral issue had greater levels of support for global warming policies. Model 3 examined the influence of affect and discrete emotions on global warming policy support and found that holistic affect, worry, helplessness,

347

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming Table 21.2  Multiple Regressions on Global Warming Policy Support Pope Francis View of Pope Francis (+ve/−ve) Trust Pope Francis as source of information Salience of Pope’s GW views GW as moral issue GW as religious issue GW as spiritual issue Holistic affect Worry Helplessness Interest Hope Political ideology Race F Adjusted R Square N

Values

Affect + emotion

Demographics Full model

−0.05

−0.06

0.33***

0.14*

0.10

−0.02 0.36***

0.08

0.17

0.12

−0.03

−0.04 0.16** 0.35*** 0.18** 0.00 0.17** -0.35***

0.14* 0.25** 0.14* −0.04 0.17** −0.13*

0.09

−0.03

12.389*** 0.12

16.405*** 0.17

35.903*** 0.39

21.418*** 0.13

12.482*** 0.41

247

221

274

275

215

Note: Data for this analysis was sourced from a nationally representative panel survey conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Dependent variable: policy support index. Entries are standardized regression coefficients. *Significant at 0.05; **Significant at 0.01; ***Significant at 0.001.

and hope were all significant predictors of policy support and explained 39 percent of the variance (F (5, 269) = 35.90, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.39). Those who regarded global warming as a “bad” thing were more likely to support policies and those who reported higher levels of worry, helplessness, and hope in relation to global warming were also more likely to support policies. Model 4 examined the influence of sociodemographics on global warming policy support and found that only political ideology was a significant predictor and explained 13 percent of the variance (F (2, 273) = 21.42, p < 0.001,

348

Nicholas Smith

Adj. R2 = 0.13). More specifically, Catholics who held liberal political views were more likely to support global warming policies. Model 5 combined all models to find the most significant predictors of global warming policy support. Trust of Pope Francis as information source, holistic affect, worry, helplessness, hope, and political ideology were all significant predictors and explained 41 percent of the variance (F (13, 202) = 12.48, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.41). Worry was again the strongest predictor with those reporting higher levels of worry about global warming more likely to support policies to mitigate the threat. In summary, these results demonstrate that holistic affect and a range of discrete emotions were stronger predictors of Catholic global warming policy support than views of Pope Francis, global warming values and various sociodemographic variables. The Role of Affect, Emotion, Value, and Trust in Catholic Global Warming Engagement From both regression models, it is clear that affect and emotion play a central role in whether American Catholics perceive global warming as a risk issue and how likely they are to support policies designed to mitigate the threat. As such, these findings add further evidence to the “risk as feelings” paradigm, which proposes that people are often reliant on affect and emotion when making judgments and decisions about risk rather than the “risk as analysis” paradigm, which focuses on the use of cognitive deliberation to assess risk. Affect and emotion are processed quickly, automatically, and efficiently and enable people to make daily decisions with relatively little cognitive effort. Numerous studies have found that an “affect heuristic” is strongly associated with risk perceptions and policy support for a range of risk issues, including global warming.31 Alongside affect, it is also important to recognize the specific role discrete emotions play in global warming risk perceptions and policy preferences. As found in the current analysis, the discrete emotions of worry and hope in particular were important predictors of Catholic global risk perception and policy support. Worry, especially, appears to be key being the single strongest predictor in both Catholic regression models. Whereas fear can cause an “amygdala hijack,” reducing cognitive and analytical processing of risk information,32 worry is a less intense emotion better suited to longer term and more incremental threats—like global warming. Worry can motivate people to seek out information about numerous risk issues along with potential actions to reduce the risk.33 The positive emotion of hope also plays an important role in how American Catholics perceive global warming risk and policy preferences. This finding supports research which has previously demonstrated the benefits of such

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming

349

positive emotions in how people engage with global warming policy support.34 Feeling good and hopeful about doing the “right thing,” for example, can be an important motivator of behavior change.35 Moreover, individual and collective action is bolstered when hope is aligned with personal or collective efficacy.36 Hope is also one of three theological virtues for the Catholic faith, so it is perhaps unsurprising that American Catholics who are hopeful about global warming are more likely to support policies designed to mitigate its threat. Despite the role affect and emotion play in Catholic global warming risk perceptions and policy preferences, values and trust also emerged from the regression models as important predictors. Those who regarded global warming as a moral issue, for example, were more likely to perceive it as a risk and support policies. Morality is a central aspect embedded in the world’s religions reflected in a set of values that followers of particular faiths are expected to live by—such as doing to others as you would have them do to you and loving your neighbor as yourself. As Posas argues, it is through the importance of this “Golden Rule” or ethic of reciprocity that religion has the capacity to provide guidance for how to treat Earth and all that live upon it.37 Catholics who trusted Pope Francis as a source of information on global warming were also more likely to perceive it as a risk and support policies. This reflects a well-established finding from the literature on the importance of trust in how publics engage with risk issues.38 A key component of this is source credibility and a message is much more likely to be believed and acted upon if delivered from a trusted and credible information source.39 What constitutes a trusted and credible information source differs depending on the audience and the message, among other factors, but for the majority of Catholics, Francis is highly trusted and credible. Indeed, approval ratings for Pope Francis are high. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 84 percent of American Catholics report a “favorable” view of the pope, a number which has remained steady since he was elected.40 Moreover, his approval ratings among Catholics are considerably higher than those of his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI. However, despite this overall popularity, partisan differences have become apparent, with a doubling of Republican and Republican-leaning Catholics reporting his views being “too liberal.”41 These groups are more likely to distrust Francis as a source of information about global warming and indeed research has found that conservative Catholics typically resist his messages on the environment and devalue him as a credible global warming advocate.42 Opportunities for Catholic Global Warming Communication Despite the media attention Laudato Si’ has received since its release, the majority of American Catholics are unaware of its message. Maibach et al.,

350

Nicholas Smith

for example, reported that although the number of Catholics who were aware of the encyclical tripled between the two time points of their survey, only a quarter of Catholics reported being aware of it in the Fall of 2015 even though the pope had visited the United States and his views along with the message of Laudato Si’ had been covered broadly in American news media.43 How the issue of global warming is communicated to the public is important given the perception it still has as a relatively distant and future orientated problem.44 Scholars have built up a range of research findings investigating the efficacy of communication strategies for communicating this issue but it is important to consider what might work/not work for Catholics specifically. Given the findings presented in the current chapter focusing on the influence of affect and the emotions of worry and hope on Catholic global warming risk perceptions and policy support, communication strategies might consider tailoring efforts to correspond with these constructs. “Worry appeals” and “hope appeals,” for example, might be more likely to engender greater support for climate actions compared with “fear appeals,” which although regularly used by global warming communicators, usually backfire owing to their use of overly apocalyptic messaging.45 Future research will be required to ascertain the precise nature of such an appeal, but its overall aim must be to promote a more sustainable and constructive level of emotional engagement with global warming. Perhaps using specific language embedded within Laudato Si’ (given it contains several mentions of the word “hope”) and/or harnessing the power of visual imagery, of Francis himself, given his important role as a trusted information source. Such an appeal would also want to ensure that worst-case scenarios are not overemphasized as these, combined with the fear-mongering language that often accompanies them, can cause avoidance and even aggressive backlash among certain audiences.46 Whatever communication strategy is best suited for a Catholic audience, it must use language which resonates with key aspects of the faith. Marshall et al. provide a comprehensive overview of different narratives that can work within and between different faith groups.47 Although their study didn’t focus on Catholics specifically, analysis from their interviews with Christian faith experts and narrative workshops with members of the Christian faith (including Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals) identifies what language works and what does not work for Christians more broadly. For example, presenting global warming as a moral challenge speaks to the teachings of Christ, and for liberal Christians at least, is associated with social justice. Taking care of God’s creation also resonates with Christians who identify with narratives that speak to protecting this gift. More research is, of course, needed to test narratives on Catholics specifically, but this can draw on insights obtained from the Marshall report, among other sources, focusing on Christian global warming communication strategies.

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming

351

CONCLUSION The purpose of this chapter was to explore Catholic engagement with global warming and consider the impact Laudato Si’ is having on Catholic members of the public. Owing to the paucity of research which has specifically explored how Catholics engage with Laudato Si’, this chapter also presented some new empirical data on predictors of Catholic global warming risk perception and policy support to get further insights into how Catholics are engaging with the issue. Regarding Laudato Si’ engagement, Catholics as a whole are broadly in agreement with the pope’s climate message and there has been a noticeable “Francis Effect,” whereby public engagement with global warming has risen, due in part to the publication of Laudato Si’.48 However, upon closer inspection of the Catholic audience, conservative Catholics are less enamored with the pope and his stance on the environment, choosing to devalue his credibility and distance themselves given his views do not align with their own. The current chapter has also identified the important role of affect, emotion, values, and trust as drivers of Catholic global warming risk perceptions and policy support, but additional research is required to better understand the drivers of Catholic disengagement of global warming. If conservative Catholics, for example, have lowered perceptions of global warming risk and are opposed to climate polices, what predicts these views? The majority of research presented in this chapter is also based on American Catholic attitudes and beliefs. Given almost 40 percent of the world’s Catholics reside in Latin America and the Caribbean,49 there is a very pressing need to conduct research with these and other Catholic populations to more fully understand how members of the Catholic faith around the world are engaging with the global warming challenge. NOTES 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013). 2. United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Rio de Janeiro, BR: United Nations, 1992). 3. R. Haluza-DeLay, “Religion and climate change: varieties in viewpoints and practices,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change 5.2 (2014): 261–279. 4. R.B. Haluza-DeLay, “Churches engaging the environment: an autoethnography of obstacles and opportunities,” Human Ecology Review 15 (2008): 71–81; R. Haluza-DeLay, “Religion and climate change: varieties in viewpoints and practices,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change 5.2 (2014): 261–279. 5. Although the science community often prefer the term “climate change” to “global warming,” the latter is still widely used in public discourse. P. J. Posas, “Roles of religion and ethics in addressing climate change,” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 7 (2007): 31–49.

352

Nicholas Smith

6. M. Hulme, “Climate change and the significance of religion,” Economic & Political Weekly LII (2017): 14–17. 7. M. Palmer and V. Findlay, Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religions and the Environment (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2003). 8. G. Clarke, “Faith matters: faith-based organisations, civil society and international development,” Journal of International Development 18, no. 6 (2006): 835–848. 9. R. Haluza-DeLay, “Religion and climate change: varieties in viewpoints and practices,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change 5, no. 2 (2014): 261–279. 10. Lynne White Jr., (1967). “The historic roots of our ecologic crisis,” Science 155 (1967): 1203–1207. 11. P.A. Djupe, and P.K. Hunt, “Beyond the Lynn White thesis: congregational effects on environmental concern,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48 (2009): 670–686. 12. C.M. Hand, and K.D. Van Liere, “Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental concern,” Social Forces 63 (1984): 555–570; D.L. Eckberg, and T.J. Blocker, “Varieties of religious involvement and environmental concerns: testing the Lynn White thesis,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28 (1989): 509–517; J.L. Guth, J.C. Green, L.A. Kellstedt, and C.E. Smidt, “Faith and the environment: religious beliefs and attitudes on environmental policy,” American Journal of Political Science 39 (1995): 364–382; J.L. Peifer, S. Khalsa, and E.H. Ecklund, “Political conservatism, religion, and environmental consumption in the United States,” Environmental Politics 25.4 (2016): 661–689. 13. H.H. Boyd, “Christianity and the environment in the American public,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38 (1999): 36–44; B.C. Hayes, and M. Marangudakis, “Religion and environmental issues within Anglo-American democracies,” Review of Religious Research 42 (2000): 159–174; “Religion and attitudes towards nature in Britain,” British Journal of Sociology 52 (2001): 139–155. 14. C.L. Kanagy, and F.K. Willits, “A greening of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvania sample,” Social Science Quarterly 74 (1993): 674–683; E. Woodrum, and M.J. Wolkomir, “Religious effects on environmentalism,” Sociological Spectrum 17 (1997): 223–233. 15. P.W. Schultz, L. Zelenzny, N.J. Dalrymple, “A multinational perspective on the relation between Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and attitudes of environmental concern,” Environment and Behavior 32 (2000): 576–591. 16. Gallup, “Another look at evangelicals in America today.” Available at: http:​ //www​.gall​up.co​m/pol​l/202​42/an​other​-look​-evan​gelic​als-a​meric​a-tod​ay.as​px; Pew, “US religious landscape survey.” Available at: http:​//www​.pewf​orum.​org/r​eligi​ous-l​ andsc​ape-s​tudy/​. 17. J.A. Wardekker, A.C. Petersen, and J.P. van der Sluijs, “Ethics and public perception of climate change: exploring the Christian voices in the U.S. public debate,” Global Environmental Change 19 (2009): 512–521. 18. K.K. Wilkinson, “Climate’s salvation? Why and how American evangelicals are engaging with climate change,” Environment 52 (2010): 47–57; Between God & Green: How Evangelicals are Cultivating a Middle Ground on Climate Change (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming

353

19. N. Smith, and A. Leiserowitz, “American evangelicals and global warming,” Global Environmental Change 23 (2013): 1009–1017. 20. L., Vincentnathan, S.G. Vincentnathan, and N. Smith, “Catholics and climate change skepticism,” Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 20, no. 2 (2016): 125–49. 21. A. Leiserowitz, E. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, G. Feinberg, and S. Rosenthal, Climate Change in the American Christian Mind: March, 2015, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2015. Available at: http:​//cli​matec​ommun​icati​on.ya​ le.ed​u/wp-​conte​nt/up​loads​/2015​/04/G​lobal​-Warm​ing-C​CAM-M​arch-​2015.​pdf. 22. Pew, “Catholics Divided Over Global Warming.” Available at: http:​//www​ .pewf​orum.​org/2​015/0​6/16/​catho​lics-​divid​ed-ov​er-gl​obal-​warmi​ng/. 23. E. Maibach, A., Leiserowitz, C. Roser-Renouf, T. Myers, S. Rosenthal, and G. Feinberg, “The Francis effect: how Pope Francis changed the conversation about global warming,” George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, 2015. Available at: http:​//env​ironm​ent.y​ale.e​du/cl​imate​-comm​unica​tion-​OFF/f​ iles/​The_F​ranci​s_Eff​ect.p​df. 24. Maibach et al., “The Francis effect.” 25. T.A. Myers, C. Roser-Renouf, E. Maibach, and A. Leiserowitz, “Exposure to the Pope’s climate change message activated convinced Americans to take certain activism actions.” Global Challenges 1 (2017). Available at: https​://on​linel​ibrar​y.wil​ ey.co​m/doi​/abs/​10.10​02/gc​h2.20​16000​19. 26. A.R. Landrum, R.B. Lull, H. Akin, A. Hasell, and K.H. Jamieson, “Processing the papal encyclical through perceptual filters: Pope Francis, identity-protective cognition, and climate change concern,” Cognition 166 (2017): 1–12. 27. N. Li, J. Hilgard, D.A. Scheufele, K.M. Winneg, and K.H. Jamieson, “Crosspressuring conservative Catholics? Effects of Pope Francis’ encyclical on the U.S. public opinion on climate change,” Climatic Change 139 (2016): 367–380. 28. J.P. Schuldt, A.R. Pearson, R. Romero-Canyas, and D. Larson-Konar, “Brief exposure to Pope Francis heightens moral beliefs about climate change,” Climatic Change 141 (2017): 167–177. 29. Although there is overlap between these two terms, for the purposes of the present analysis, affect refers to a general sense of “goodness” or “badness,” whereas emotions are more discrete (e.g., fear, anger, and worry). Slovic and Peters usefully refer to affect as “a faint whisper of emotion” to help differentiate the two terms. P. Slovic, and E. Peters, “Risk perception and affect,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 15, no. 6 (2006): 322–325, at 322. 30. Correlation and regression are statistical techniques for examining relationships between quantitative variables. Two multiple linear regression models are being used in this analysis as a means to examine the relationships between two outcome variables (in this case Catholic global warming risk perception and Catholic Policy Support and a range of predictor variables including views of Pope Francis, values, affect and emotion, and sociodemographics). Multicollinearity refers to the extent to which predictor variables in a regression are correlated with one another, and if present, can cause problems in a regression model. Multicollinearity statistics are calculated to check the degree of any correlation.

354

Nicholas Smith

31. N. Smith, and A. Leiserowitz, “The rise of global warming scepticism: exploring affective image associations in the United States over time,” Risk Analysis 32 (2012): 1021–1032; A. Leiserowitz, “Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values,” Climatic Change 77, no. 1–2 (2006): 45–72; M. Siegrist, C. Keller, and M.E. Cousin, “Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic,” Risk Analysis 26, no. 4 (2006): 1021–1029; M.L. Finucane, A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S.M. Johnson, “The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13, no. 1 (2000): 1–17. 32. D. Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (London, UK: Bloomsbury, 1996). 33. E.B. Beckjord, L.J. Finney Rutten, N.K. Arora. R.P. Moser, and B.W. Hesse, “Information processing and negative affect: evidence from the 2003 health information national trends survey,” Health Psychology 27, no. 2 (2008): 249–257; L.D. Cameron, and J. Reeve, “Risk perceptions, worry, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility,” Psychology and Health 21, no. 2 (2006): 211–230. 34. N. Smith, and A. Leiserowitz, “The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition,” Risk Analysis 34, no. 5 (2014): 937–948. 35. S. Roeser, “Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: A role for emotions,” Risk Analysis 32, no. 6 (2012): 1033–1040; E.M., Markowitz, and A.F. Shariff, “Climate change and moral judgement,” Nature Climate Change 2, no. 4 (2012): 243–247. 36. P.R. Magaletta, and J.M. Oliver, “The hope construct, will, and ways: their relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-being,” Journal of Clinical Psychology 55, no. 5 (1999): 539–551. 37. P. J. Posas, “Roles of religion and ethics in addressing climate change,” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 7 (2007): 31–49. 38. M. Siegrist, H. Gutscher, and T.C. Earle, “Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence,” Journal of Risk Research 8, no. 2 (2005): 145–156. 39. C.I. Hovland and W. Weiss, “The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness,” Public Opinion Quarterly 15 (1951): 635–650; J.W. McGuire, “The nature of attitudes and attitude change,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., ed., G. Lindzey, and E. Aronson (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969). 40. Pew, Pope Francis Still Highly Regarded in U.S., But Signs of Disenchantment Emerge. Available at: http:​//www​.pewf​orum.​org/2​018/0​3/06/​pope-​franc​is-st​ ill-h​ighly​-rega​rded-​in-u-​s-but​-sign​s-of-​disen​chant​ment-​emerg​e/. 41. Pew, “Pope Francis still highly regarded in U.S.” 42. N. Li, J. Hilgard, D.A. Scheufele, K.M. Winneg, and K.H. Jamieson, “Crosspressuring conservative Catholics? Effects of Pope Francis’ encyclical on the U.S. public opinion on climate change,” Climatic Change 139 (2016): 367–380. 43. Maibach et al., “The Francis effect.” 44. A. Leiserowitz, and N. Smith, “Affective imagery, risk perceptions, and climate change communication,” in Oxford Encyclopaedia of Climate Science, ed. E. von Storch (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 2017. DOI:1​0.109​3/acr​efore​ /9780​19022​8620.​013.3​07.

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming

355

45. M. Feinberg, and R. Willer, “Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs,” Psychological Science 22.1 (2011): 34–38; S.J. O’Neill, and S. Nicholson-Cole, “‘Fear won’t do it’: promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations,” Science Communication 30, no. 3 (2009): 355–379. 46. P.S. Hart, and E. Nisbet, “Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies,” Communication Research 39, no. 6 (2012): 701–723; E.W. Maibach, A. Leiserowitz, C. Roser-Renouf, and C.K. Mertz, “Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: an audience segmentation analysis and tool development,” PLoS One 6, no. 3 (2011): e17571. 47. G. Marshall, A. Corner, O. Roberts, and J. Clarke, “Faith & climate change – a guide to talking with the five major faiths,” Climate Outreach, 2016. 48. Maibach et al., “The Francis effect.” 49. Pew, “Global Christianity: a report on the size and distribution of the world’s Christian population.” Available at: http:​//ass​ets.p​ewres​earch​.org/​wp-co​ntent​/uplo​ ads/s​ites/​11/20​11/12​/Chri​stian​ity-f​ullre​port-​web.p​df.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Beckjord, E.B., L.J. Finney Rutten, N.K. Arora, R.P. Moser, and B.W. Hesse.“Information processing and negative affect: evidence from the 2003 health information national trends survey.” Health Psychology 27, no. 2 (2008): 249–257. Boyd, H.H. Christianity and the environment in the American public. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38 (1999): 36–44. Cameron, L.D. and J. Reeve. “Risk perceptions, worry, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility.” Psychology and Health 21, no. 2 (2006): 211–230. Clarke, G. “Faith matters: faith-based organisations, civil society and international development.” Journal of International Development 18, no. 6 (2006): 835–848. Djupe, P.A. and P.K. Hunt. “Beyond the Lynn White thesis: congregational effects on environmental concern.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48 (2009): 670–686. Eckberg, D.L. and T.J. Blocker. “Varieties of religious involvement and environmental concerns: testing the Lynn White thesis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28 (1989): 509–517. Feinberg, M. and R. Willer. “Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs.” Psychological Science 22, no 1 (2011): 34–38. Finucane, M.L, A. Alhakami, P Slovic, and S.M. Johnson. “The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13, no. 1 (2000): 1–17. Gallup. “Another look at evangelicals in America today.” 2005. http:​//www​.gall​up.co​ m/pol​l/202​42/an​other​-look​-evan​gelic​als-a​meric​a-tod​ay.as​px.

356

Nicholas Smith

Goleman, D. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. London, UK: Bloomsbury, 1996. Guth, J.L., J.C. Green, L.A. Kellstedt, and C.E. Smidt. “Faith and the environment: religious beliefs and attitudes on environmental policy.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (1995): 364–382. Haluza-DeLay, R. “Churches engaging the environment: an autoethnography of obstacles and opportunities.” Human Ecology Review 15 (2008): 71–81. ———. “Religion and climate change: varieties in viewpoints and practices.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change 5, no. 2 (2014): 261–279. Hand, C.M. and K.D. Van Liere. “Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental concern.” Social Forces 63 (1984): 555–570. Hart, P.S. and E. Nisbet. “Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies.” Communication Research 39, no. 6 (2012): 701–723. Hayes, B.C. and M. Marangudakis. “Religion and attitudes towards nature in Britain.” British Journal of Sociology 52 (2001): 139–155. ———. “Religion and environmental issues within Anglo-American democracies.” Review of Religious Research 42 (2000):159–174. Hovland, C.I. and W. Weiss. “The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly 15 (1951): 635–650. Hulme, M. “Climate change and the significance of religion.” Economic & Political Weekly, LII (2017): 14–17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Kanagy, C.L. and F.K. Willits. “A greening of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvania sample.” Social Science Quarterly 74 (1993): 674–683. Landrum, A.R, R.B. Lull, H. Akin, A. Hasell, and K.H. Jamieson. “Processing the papal encyclical through perceptual filters: Pope Francis, identity-protective cognition, and climate change concern.” Cognition 166 (2017): 1–12. Leiserowitz A. “Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values.” Climatic Change 77, no. 1–2 (2006): 45–72. Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, G. Feinberg, and S. Rosenthal. Climate Change in the American Christian Mind: March, 2015. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University, 2015. Leiserowitz, A. and N. Smith. “Affective imagery, risk perceptions, and climate change communication.” In Oxford Encyclopaedia of Climate Science, ed. E. von Storch Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2017. Li, N., J. Hilgard, D.A. Scheufele, K.M. Winneg, and K. H. Jamieson. “Crosspressuring conservative Catholics? Effects of Pope Francis’ encyclical on the U.S. public opinion on climate change.” Climatic Change 139 (2016): 367–380. Magaletta, P.R. and J.M. Oliver. “The hope construct, will, and ways: their relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-being.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 55, no. 5 (1999): 539–551. Maibach E., A. Leiserowitz, C. Roser-Renouf, T. Myers, S. Rosenthal, and G. Feinberg. The Francis effect: how Pope Francis changed the conversation about global

Understanding Catholic Engagement on Global Warming

357

warming. George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. 2015. Maibach E.W., A. Leiserowitz, C. Roser-Renouf, and C.K. Mertz. “Identifying likeminded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: An audience segmentation analysis and tool development.” PLoS One, 6, no. 3 (2001): e17571. Markowitz, E.M. and A.F. Shariff. “Climate change and moral judgement.” Nature Climate Change 2, no. 4 (2012): 243–247. Marshall, G., A. Corner, O. Roberts, and J. Clarke. Faith & Climate Change – A Guide to Talking with the Five Major Faiths. Oxford, UK: Climate Outreach, 2016. McGuire, W.J. “The nature of attitudes and attitude change.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds. 136–314. Readking, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Myers, T.A., C. Roser-Renouf, E. Maibach, and A. Leiserowitz. “Exposure to the Pope’s climate change message activated convinced Americans to take certain activism actions.” Global Challenges 1 (2017): 1600019. O’Neill, S.J. and S. Nicholson-Cole. “‘Fear won’t do it’: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations.” Science Communication 30, no. 3 (2009): 355–379. Palmer, M. and V. Findlay. Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religions and the Environment. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2003. Peifer, J.L., S. Khalsa, and E. H. Ecklund. Political conservatism, religion, and environmental consumption in the United States. Environmental Politics 25, no. 4 (2016): 661–689. Pew. Catholics Divided Over Global Warming. 2015. http:​//www​.pewf​orum.​org/2​ 015/0​6/16/​catho​lics-​divid​ed-ov​er-gl​obal-​warmi​ng/. ———. Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population. 2011. http:​//ass​ets.p​ewres​earch​.org/​wpcon​tent/​uploa​ds/si​ tes/1​1/201​1/12/​Chris​tiani​ty-fu​llrep​ort-w​eb.pd​f. ———. Pope Francis Still Highly Regarded in U.S., But Signs of Disenchantment Emerge. 2018. http:​//www​.pewf​orum.​org/2​018/0​3/06/​pope-​franc​is-st​ill-h​ighly​ -rega​rded-​in-u-​s-but​-sign​s-of-​disen​chant​ment-​emerg​e/. ———. US Religious Landscape Survey. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2008. http:​//www​.pewf​orum.​org/r​eligi​ous-l​andsc​ape-s​tudy/​. Posas, P. J. “Roles of religion and ethics in addressing climate change.” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 7 (2007): 31–49. Roeser, S. “Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: a role for emotions.” Risk Analysis 32, no. 6 (2012): 1033–1040. Schuldt, J.P., A.R. Pearson, R. Romero-Canyas, and D. Larson-Konar. “Brief exposure to Pope Francis heightens moral beliefs about climate change.” Climatic Change 141 (2017): 167–177. Schultz, P.W., L. Zelenzny, and N.J. Dalrymple. “A multinational perspective on the relation between Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and attitudes of environmental concern.” Environment and Behavior 32 (2000): 576–591. Siegrist, M., C. Keller, and M.E. Cousin. “Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic.” Risk Analysis 26, no. 4 (2006): 1021–1029.

358

Nicholas Smith

Siegrist, M., H. Gutscher, and T.C. Earle. “Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence.” Journal of Risk Research 8 no, 2 (2005): 145–156, Slovic, P. and E. Peters. “Risk perception and affect.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 15, no. 6 (2006): 322–235. Smith, N. and A. Leiserowitz. “American evangelicals and global warming.” Global Environmental Change 23 (2013): 1009–1017. ———. “The rise of global warming scepticism: exploring affective image associations in the United States over time.” Risk Analysis 32 (2012): 1021–1032. ———. “The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition.” Risk Analysis 34, no. 5 (2014): 937–948. United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Rio de Janeiro, BR: United Nations, 1992. Vincentnathan, L., S.G. Vincentnathan, and N. Smith. “Catholics and climate change skepticism.” Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 20, no. 2 (2016): 125–149. Wardekker, J.A., A.C. Petersen, and J.P. van der Sluijs. “Ethics and public perception of climate change: exploring the Christian voices in the US public debate. Global Environmental Change 19 (2009): 512–521. White, L. “The historic roots of our ecologic crisis.” Science 155 (1967): 1203–1207. Wilkinson, K.K. Between God & Green: How Evangelicals are Cultivating a Middle Ground on Climate Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012. ———. “Climate’s salvation? Why and how American evangelicals are engaging with climate change.” Environment 52 (2010): 47–57. Woodrum, E. and M.J. Wolkomir. “Religious effects on environmentalism.” Sociological Spectrum 17 (1997): 223–233.

Conclusion Ecocide as Deicide: Eschatological Lamentation and the Possibility of Hope Matthew Eaton

This chapter is not an exercise in pessimism. There are reasons for hope and the possibility of rejoicing in the future. Yet, hope for future joy does not simply mean that in the end, all will be well or that healing—even eschatological healing—erases ecological trauma. I suggest rather that the pain of ecological violence reverberates eschatologically, even if/when struggles for justice succeed. Thus, while we are not hopeless in the face of ecological devastation and may rejoice in future ecological justice, we cannot hope to forget the unforgettable, lamentable violence done to this world. Lamentation necessarily accompanies joy because pain is partly constitutive of being and failing to acknowledge violence betrays the dignity owed those—human or otherwise—who suffer. Below, I wrestle with Laudato Sí on the ideas of hope and healing, and suggest that despite the encyclical’s confidence in a hopeful future, the pain of ecological trauma will be lamented eschatologically. I accomplish this by exploring Laudato Sí in the context of broader conversations in ecotheology, and the possibility of an ecocide that overflows into deicide—that is, the irreparable feeling of loss and lament within the divine as a result of capitalist and colonial anthropogenic violence and its particular logic of domination. Such lamentation will be, however, conditioned by the degree to which historical violence is inflicted on Earth and its inhabitants. The character and degree of the eschatological dirge is yet to be determined, and we must ultimately remain agnostic about the future. We may begin to heal and mitigate future lamentation, but the possibility if not probability remains that the annihilation of created beauty, life, and goodness will continue for some time. As such, we must fight for ecological justice and eschew violence, rejoicing if/when peace manifests, but must embrace the tragedies of being and eschatologically lament anthropogenic colonial and capitalist violence.1 359

360

Conclusion

LAUDATO SI’ AND THE FATE OF EARTH Laudato Si’ is somewhat nuanced concerning the fate of Earth and anthropogenic violence. The encyclical acknowledges the lack of certainty that humans will actually repent of ecological violence.2 Francis recognizes the slim, but unlikely, possibility of change among the dominant, techno-capitalist power structures of the world, and thus remains open to the idea that care for our common home may decline further considering how much power our current economic and political systems exercise. Nations that purportedly care for Earth and have legislated in this direction, he insists, are largely silent when laws meant to protect ecosystems and individual life are ignored.3 Furthermore, these nations typically operate on economic philosophies that deify the market and support ideologies of unlimited growth, thus embracing harmful spiritualties wherein progress and capital become salvific.4 These techno-capitalist, throwaway cultures are most responsible for ecological violence, and are unlikely, if not unable to stop the irreversible anthropogenic harms being done to the planet and its inhabitants. There is no guarantee that we will abandon and replace such institutions, frameworks, and spiritualties before they bring ecological communities to their breaking points and utterly annihilate Earth’s creativity.5 But we need only take a frank look at the facts to see that our common home is falling into serious disrepair. Hope would have us recognize that there is always a way out, that we can always redirect our steps, that we can always do something to solve our problems. Still, we can see signs that things are now reaching a breaking point, due to the rapid pace of change and degradation; these are evident in large-scale natural disasters as well as social and even financial crises, for the world’s problems cannot be analyzed or explained in isolation. There are regions now at high risk and, aside from all doomsday predictions, the present world system is certainly unsustainable from a number of points of view, for we have stopped thinking about the goals of human activity. “If we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God’s expectations” (LS 61).

Francis thus appears open to the possibility of the long-term, even permanent failure of the human as a contributing member of creation. Laudato Si’ is not blindly optimistic that things will get better for Earth apart from eschatological divine intervention.6 Yet, Laudato Si’ remains hopeful as techno-capitalism is not omnipotent. Speaking of the transition away from fossil fuels, Francis writes optimistically about current and future generations. “Although the post-industrial period may well be remembered as one of the most irresponsible in history, nonetheless there is reason to hope that humanity at the dawn of the

Conclusion

361

twenty-first century will be remembered for having generously shouldered its grave responsibilities” (LS 106). The reasons for such hope include the prominence of ecological concern in national political agendas; world summits aimed at pushing nations toward sustainable practices; particular instances of the Earth’s healing (e.g., the slow healing of Earth’s ozone layer); a growing sense that industrialized nations bear the burden of responsibility for ecological violence—even if many in power refuse to admit this; and the (admittedly unsuccessful) attempts to create authoritative and enforceable international agreements on industrial regulation.7 Ironically, however, many of these hopes quickly deteriorate in the encyclical, upon the recognition that most of them face serious roadblocks in application. There are signs of encouragement for the future, but Francis is continually cautious and critical, recognizing that blind optimism is unwise. He urges the strength of will to create enforceable, efficient, and respectful international regulatory agreements that embrace the common good and put the needs of ecosystems and individual creatures ahead of a small portion of the human population. The real source of hope in Laudato Si’ rests in the hands of God, beyond politics and human freedom. Francis frequently speaks optimistically, in spite of his otherwise critical and sober tone, about the hope of eschatological healing. Here there is faith that “the God who created the universe out of nothing can also intervene in this world and overcome every form of evil” (LS 74). This eschatological intervention heals the brokenness of the world and overcomes the sin of anthropogenic violence—that is, “refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations” (LS 66). After discussing the relational brokenness between God, humanity, and the rest of creation described in Genesis, a final reconciliation of the rupture is explored in dialogue with Saint Francis and Saint Bonaventure. “It is significant,” Francis insists, “that the harmony which Saint Francis of Assisi experienced with all creatures was seen as a healing of that rupture. Saint Bonaventure held that, through universal reconciliation with every creature, Saint Francis in some way returned to the state of original innocence” (LS 66). A return to such a state is possible according to Francis, and is indicative of the eschatological state of redemption. This healing transfigures the world, and interestingly shifts the encyclical’s spatial focus from simply our common home here on Earth to “our common home in heaven” (LS 243). “Even now we are journeying towards the sabbath of eternity, the new Jerusalem, towards our common home in heaven. Jesus says: ‘I make all things new’ (Rev 21:5). Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which each creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all” (LS 243). This heavenly common home is immediately contrasted with our current charge to care for our earthly common home (LS 234). There is a connection between the two,

362

Conclusion

but the home of our ultimate hope is transfigured and renewed dramatically by God, who wipes away the brokenness of the first world. Ultimate hope appears only beyond our Earth. There is a dramatically different tone in such passages. We have moved from a sober analysis of the possibility of ecocide, to the absolute confidence that despite anthropogenic violence, all will be healed. It is difficult to not see this final hope as a Deus ex machina or Eucatastrophe, where in the end, all of the struggle to make things right are rendered impotent, if not meaningless, as an omnipotent transcendent force intervenes and provides a happy ending where brokenness is overcome and peace reigns. Until then, “we come together to take charge of this home which has been entrusted to us, knowing that all the good which exists here will be taken up into the heavenly feast” (LS 244). Yet, it is hard to reconcile this view with the more pessimistic perspective toward the fate of the planet when the focus rests on human freedom and the behavior of techno-capitalist power structures. Is anthropogenic violence healed absolutely in the eschaton so that only “the good which exists here will be taken up into the heavenly feast,” or has something been left out from this hopeful assertion? It would seem that there is less on the line, and less urgency required to act, if the violence we commit now is simply wiped away without its consequences reverberating eschatologically. Anthropogenic violence and ecological trauma is, I argue below, irreparable. This is not to deny the possibility of degrees of justice and healing, but it suggests that the pain and trauma of violence does not simply go away if/when justice is achieved, whether by human will or divine fiat. Violence reverberates eschatologically, demanding lamentation alongside of joy, in contrast to most classic eschatologies. This idea is hinted at in Laudato Si’, though seemingly ignored when eschatology becomes the focus. Francis is deeply concerned with species extinction because of human violence. Anthropogenic extinction, he argues, annihilates the expression, manifestation, and revelation of the divine. Quoting the Canadian bishops, Francis affirms that “from panoramic vistas to the tiniest living form, nature is a constant source of wonder and awe. It is also a continuing revelation of the divine” (LS 85). As such, extinction not only eradicates the intrinsic value of creaturely life, but it also eradicates the expression of God. The death of creatures as a result of human violence is, in a sense, the death of God, and thus, as I argue below, there is reason to connect the ideas of ecocide and deicide. Furthermore, ecocide transfigured into deicide is apparently eschatologically meaningful. Francis laments, It is not enough, however, to think of different species merely as potential “resources” to be exploited, while overlooking the fact that they have value in themselves. Each year sees the disappearance of thousands of plant and animal species which we will never know, which our children will never see, because

Conclusion

363

they have been lost forever. The great majority become extinct for reasons related to human activity. Because of us, thousands of species will no longer give glory to God by their very existence, nor convey their message to us. We have no such right. (LS 33)

ECOCIDE AS DEICIDE How exactly might violence be carried into the eschaton? While Laudato Si’ does not provide a detailed roadmap, it offers hints that we might explore in more depth. Eucharist theology, grounded in the doctrine of Incarnation grounds the idea that God and the world are radically entangled, and that what is suffered materially is taken up into divine being. “The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. He comes not from above, but from within, he comes that we might find him in this world of ours” (LS 236). The incarnation of Christ indicates an overlap between divinity and materiality that is not restricted to the body of Jesus. Beyond Jesus, and even the Eucharist, which “joins heaven and earth; . . . embraces and penetrates all creation . . . directing us to be stewards of all creation,” divinity incarnates the depths of materiality (LS 236). “From the beginning of the world, but particularly through the incarnation, the mystery of Christ is at work in a hidden manner in the natural world as a whole, without thereby impinging on its autonomy” (LS 99). Christ’s divine materiality posits that fleshy concerns and experiences are divinized and taken up in divine being. Central to this is the divine experience of pain, which partly constitutes its experience and identity. The cross, obviously, is the foundational event that shapes divine being within the Christian tradition. In the cross, we see Jesus’s death as a result of his refusal to accept the sovereign power and violence of the Roman empire. He rebels against the brutality and violence used to solidify the power of an elite group over and against the interests of the common good of diverse human communities. The cross, then, is not a divine embrace of the natural fate of fragile bodies; it is a death resulting from a divine refusal to acquiesce to the sovereignty of the powerful against the interests of the poor and vulnerable. Jesus, as a vulnerable human, becomes an advocate for the oppressed, and the pattern of his life and death—what we can call cruciformity—suggests that taken up into the being of God is the experiences of injustice, physical violence, and the consequent ethical concern for liberation when bodily dignity is violated.8 Cruciformity indicates a divine posture toward violence carried eschatologically in the being of God. Yet, as Francis makes clear, the incarnation of Jesus has implications beyond human concerns. Presumably then, we can extend the divine experience of injustice and unjustified violence to suggest that the cruciform God is

364

Conclusion

an advocate for not only human liberation, but for the liberation of creation as such. More than this, however, the cruciform being of God directly suffers the same pains and trauma experienced in the more-than human world. The ubiquitous entanglement of divinity “in a hidden manner in the natural world as a whole” indicates that God experiences the suffering and the indignities of all materiality. We should then speak of a deeper, ecological cruciformity present well beyond the human world.9 The experience of loss in divine being would thus be inextricably linked to material loss seen in the ecological crisis today. To return once more to species extinction, we see in this tragedy a poignant example of eschatological trauma and loss. After affirming the intrinsic value of Earth’s creatures, Francis laments: “Each year sees the disappearance of thousands of plant and animal species which we will never know, which our children will never see, because they have been lost forever. . . . Because of us, thousands of species will no longer give glory to God by their very existence, nor convey their message to us” (LS 33). Anthropogenic violence forever silences the songs of species, voices which are simultaneously creaturely and divine, insofar as each creaturely melody is a manifestation and revelation of the divine.10 Extinction is felt in the divine being forever and because it silences particular forms of divine revelation, manifestation, and self-expression, it is not a stretch to suggest that something of divinity itself is annihilated as a result of violence. I suggest then that we consider ecocide as a form of deicide. By ecocide, I do not mean that Earth will be obliterated by anthropogenic violence. Earth will be carried into a future regardless of the worst human violence, and might eventually erase all traces of such. Rather, I speak of the temporary interruption of Earth’s creative tension, which admittedly creates through violence as well as cooperation, but always according to the creativity of a wider embodied community. Ecocide thus refers to the domination of collective planetary creativity, on its own terms, as a result of the dominant sovereignty of one species over others. Or, to use a political metaphor, it is the temporary interruption of ecological democracy in exchange for a form of anthropocentric fascism. Likewise, deicide would not mean that God would cease to be. Deicide would be the perpetual, eschatological trauma of God, an irreparable loss in divine being. In both ecocide and deicide, Earth and God are irreparably harmed as a result of human violence. Mark Wallace articulates a similar conclusion in his ecological pneumatology, insisting “that if Spirit and earth mutually indwell one another . . . it appears that God as Spirit is vulnerable to serious loss and trauma insofar as the earth is abused and despoiled. . . . God is so internally related to the universe that the specter of ecocide raises the risk of deicide: to wreak environmental havoc on the earth is to run the risk that we will do irreparable harm to the Love and Mystery we

Conclusion

365

call God.”11 The “spirit-flesh” of creation and divinity are thus permanently and irreparably harmed by anthropogenic violence.12 The pain of such violence cannot be absolutely healed through transfiguration, eschatologically or otherwise, if any sense of subjective/experiential continuity is expected between the past, the present, and the future. Pain, as a particular phenomenon in the broader creativity of perception, is partly constitutive of being. Sarah Ahmed discusses pain, among other affects, as individually, interpersonally, and politically creative. “It is through sensual experiences such as pain that we come to have a sense of our skin as bodily surface . . . as something that keeps us apart from others, and as something that ‘mediates’ the relationship between internal or external, or inside and outside.”13 While pain is not alone in creating individual, social, and political experiences, it is impossible to consider being apart from the reverberations of pain from the past, into the present and the future as they mingle with the plurality of sensations, affects, and judgments that mold being. Pain shapes individual behavior toward the world, draws creatures closer together or pushes them away depending on the presence of solidarity, and drives political agendas that demand liberation and justice when a sovereign power causes harm. It is inconceivable to imagine any coherent framework that presumes a continuity of being between the past, the present, and the future, that absolutely eradicates the power of pain. Eschatological transfiguration would not change the ontic nature of pain or the need to lament it. Far from eradicating pain, the eschaton—that is, our preferred, hoped for future—requires it.14 Beyond pain shaping individuals and social relationships, it provides the context and demand for the justice at the heart of redemption. On the one hand, the book of Revelation envisions the anticipated justice of God—“a new heaven and a new earth”—as a period of justice wherein God wipes away every tear; death loses power; and there is no more mourning, or crying, or pain (Rev. 21:1–4). But, the lack of mourning, crying, and pain need not imply their absolute absence, but only the end of Rome’s unjust policies and political sovereignty. The book of Revelation concerns the destruction of an unjust political system, where the power of a few violate the whole communities. People can now rejoice because injustice has ended insofar as Rome’s military violence and economic exploitation has ended.15 Eschatological pain is not transfigured to the point of its absence, it is recontextualized and can now be lamented due to the transfiguration of sociopolitical relationships where sin has ended. The role of pain in justice and reconciliation, which has an inherently eschatological character insofar as it represents our preferred future, is explored in more depth by O. Ernesto Valiente. Painful, violent “memories cannot simply be forgotten,” says Valiente, “and it is only by remembering and telling their stories that victims can begin to overcome the negative influence of their

366

Conclusion

painful past and rebuild their lives.”16 Without remembering and lamenting violence, there is little chance of achieving justice in any society, to say nothing of those ravaged by state sponsored violence. Such justice is contingent upon having the opportunity to process harms inflicted and discovering new ways of flourishing that ensure that violence is not repeated, replacing relationships of conflict with communities of solidarity. “In forgiving,” Robert Schreiter writes, “we do not forget, for how could we forget something that has so irrevocably changed our lives without diminishing ourselves and undervaluing the loss we have incurred? To forgive is not to forget, as the old saw goes, but to remember in a different way.”17 To reconsider ecology at this point, in light of the preceding analysis, we can assert with confidence that ecological pain as a result of anthropogenic violence will reverberate eschatologically. Ecological cruciformity, present in the ecocide that irreparably harms creation and taken up into the divine being as deicide, will be eschatologically lamented. It is not out of the question, then, to end this section with an ecological reading of Matthew 25, where a love for creatures as well as anthropogenic violence committed against Earth are inseparable from human actions toward God: “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to Earth or any creature of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me.” ESCHATOLOGICAL LAMENTATION AND THE POSSIBILITY OF HOPE The eschaton, the preferred future we hope for, is a vision of justice and liberation, despite the vision being haunted by the specter of ecocide and deicide. If/when the eschaton arrives, it will make sense only in reference to past injustices suffered, and these irreparable harms must be lamented if the world is to experience any amount of healing. The question remains, to what degree will we rejoice, and to what extent will we weep? We know that there is irretrievable loss in material as well as divine being, but to what degree will it be carried eschatologically? The eschatological future is not yet utterly determined. As such, we must eschew despair and seek just and revolutionary politics to pave the way for our preferred future and limit the harm that will reverberate through time, historical and eschatological.18 In her chapter in this volume, Anne Marie Dalton explores the idea of ecological citizenship found in Laudato Si’, which can serve as a blueprint for mitigating ecocide, deicide, and eschatological lamentation as we move forward in time. Dalton deconstructs notions of democratic citizenship and argues for a revolution in our understanding of democracy rooted in nonreciprocal responsibility and entangling the public and private spheres with an

Conclusion

367

emphasis on a politics of virtue grounded in ecological education. Crucial in her analysis, without taking away the importance of an ecologically grounded education, is the need to eschew rights-based political frameworks that insists on preferential treatment for those who can actively participate in democracy. Such a framework silences important voices who cannot intentionally participate in democracy according to an able-bodied human normativity. Dalton insists that future generations yet to come as well as those not considered “persons”—that is, those apparently lacking human-like “agency” and “intentionality”—must be given a political voice, even if this voice is passive and makes its demand in ways beyond logocentric intentionality.19 Thus, ecological citizens will radically reconsider both responsibility and subjectivity in their revolutionary politics by reimagining personhood, expression, and ethics. While she does not lay out what precisely this would entail, I would advocate a nonlogocentric approach to ethics, wherein embodied vulnerability and resistance to its own demise expresses beyond the constraints of language, rationality, and intentionality.20 This could take the form of anything from the cry of an abused cat to the rumbling of Earth as a result of fracking. What is required to make such ecological citizens, beyond a philosophical shift away from Western ideals of ethics and personhood, will be largely dependent on political context. In the United States, for example, a major issue in resisting the possibility of ecological citizenship is a lack of direct democratic control of the state by individuals and communities without the privilege of massive wealth. “Unless citizens control political power,” Francis writes, “it will not be possible to control damage to the environment” (LS 179). Without strict campaign finance laws that limit the power of capital, as well as policies that fight the suppression of voters who would oppose economic fascism, democracy in the United States will retain its unambiguously oligarchic character that serves corporate interest over the common good, continuing to silence future generations and nonhuman interests. We cannot, however, think that politics provides hope for utopia. Following the political philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas, I suggest that ecological citizenship must accept the inherent limitation of implementing ethics into politics, and settle in to the need for what Levinas calls, “perpetual revolution.”21 “Justice is necessary,” but for Levinas this means “comparison, coexistence, contemporaneousness, assembling, order, and thematization,” actions that always unfold at the expense of a betrayal of alterity and may ignore some needs for the sake of others.22 “There are, if you like, the tears that a civil servant cannot see,” to say nothing of those they refuse to see.23 As such, the state must be constantly called into question in the spirit of anarchy—that is, a refusal to recognize the unquestionable sovereignty of any hierarchical system or narrative for viewing the world. Ideally, this will be a welcomed part of any liberal state, that “always asks itself whether its own justice really is justice”24

368

Conclusion

Levinas’s anarchy is not flatly against the state, which is usually preferable to what we might typically think of as anarchy as an absolute rejection of any ruling order.25 Levinas’s concern is the perpetual calling into question of the shortcomings of the law—any law—by ethics. There is a need for both an an-archic and kenotic character to all politics—a political order willing to be called into question and to empty itself of its authority when a better, preferable future calls from beyond the horizon. To Dalton’s description of ecological citizenship, then, I would add the embrace of “permanent revolution” as a necessary characteristic of citizenry in democratic, liberal states that may perform justice to a degree but never with absolute goodness. Our permanent revolution should call into question policy that ignores the planetary common good for the sake of select powerful groups, or legislation bound to an anthropocentrism that allows one species to facilitate an ecocide opening to deicide, irreparably and unnecessarily harming Earth’s systems and creatures. Such systems are bound up in a plurality of hierarchical frameworks that combine to devastate the planet and its inhabitants, human or otherwise. To follow Ada María Isasí-Díaz, we must face that reality that “our struggle in living into our proyecto histórico is a systemic one, particularly dealing with the hierarchical, elitist, and authoritarian structures that make it impossible for our preferred future to become a reality.”26 These “hierarchical, elitist, and authoritarian structures” are broadly speaking “humanist” and “colonial” in orientation—that is, normalizing the human species as more valuable than other species and thus having the right to possess the morethan-human world and bend them to a more sovereign will—but, we cannot pretend that this vision of humanity is not intimately linked with Euro and androcentric perspectives that normalize white male bodies and their views toward the more-than-human world. In resisting anthropocentrism, we resist the logic and practice of white supremacy and sexism as much as attitudes which take dignity away from creation. Anthropocentrism, as such, normalizes a certain manifestation of a certain species as the model by which to judge the world. Thus, ultimately, the permanent revolution of any public ecological theology must be informed by a postcolonial ethic that eschews the hierarchy that leads to ecocide, as well as many other interrelated forms of violence. Herein lies our hope for an eschatological future: the possibility of justice, but without guarantee of absolute healing from trauma. If hope is fulfilled in the future we look forward to, it comes only after the continuing twin tragedies of ecocide and deicide, which cannot be forgotten and must be lamented even if we rejoice. Pain, as such, cannot be separated from our hope, as if lamentation and joy were mutually exclusive, unrelated affects and the eschatological body lacked the ability to experience a plurality of feelings. “If bodies have the ability to experience several things at once,” writes Mayra

Conclusion

369

Rivera, “they can also hold together pain and joy, failure and hope—and creatively transform those experiences.”27 We can rejoice in the meaningfulness of the world and whatever justice is achieved, without forgetting to weep at the traumas that reverberate throughout time. NOTES 1. I would not deny the reality of anthropocentrism and anthropogenic violence beyond colonial politics and capitalist economics, but given the context of contemporary climate change and violence toward more-than-human animals, we cannot avoid the particular nature such violence takes today. As such, without ontologizing or reducing anthropocentrism to the colonial and capitalist, we must nevertheless focus any revolutionary efforts in the present at these insidious realities. 2. “Humans” requires some qualification as does any reference to anthropocentrism or anthropogenic violence. Francis places the bulk of the responsibility on structures of power (LS 142)—which, in our world can only mean neocolonial “civilization[s] of capital.” Ignacio Ellacuría, “Latin American Quincentenary: Discovery or Cover-Up?,” in Ignacio Ellacuria: Essays on History, Liberation, and Salvation, ed. Michael Lee (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2013), 34. Thus, while I use anthropocentrism and anthropogenic violence without qualification at times, I always have in mind these neocolonial civilizations of capital who integrate their species prejudice with structurally parallel logics manifest in racism, sexism, and the deification of capital and profit over justice. We cannot, then, speak of contemporary anthropocentrism apart from a plurality of integrated structural frameworks characteristic of colonial and capitalist societies and the logic of domination that drive these societies and perpetrate a variety of entangled injustices. 3. Concerning political resolutions to ecological violence, Francis rhetorically asks: “Can we hope, then, that in such cases, legislation and regulations dealing with the environment will really prove effective?” (LS 142). His answer is a clear, “No!” See also LS 190, 198. 4. See, for example, LS 106–114. 5. By annihilate, I do not mean that Earth will cease to create. I simply mean that its creativity will become so driven by a single species that creativity is no longer a dynamic, relational emergence, where all members have a part in the song of creation. 6. This is also evident in LS 32–42, concerning the loss of biodiversity, which I discuss below. 7. LS 166–175. 8. This reading of cruciformity draws on scholars such as John Dominic Crossan and Richard Horsley. See for example, John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco, CA: Harper SanFrancisco, 1991); Richard Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987). 9. This is a different understanding of ecological cruciformity than Holmes Rolston’s natural cruciformity. See his “Does Nature Need to be Redeemed?,” Zygon

370

Conclusion

29, no. 2 (1994): 205–229. Cruciformity ought not apply to the creative violence of cosmogenesis and evolution, though such violence deserves further exploration. I believe it fits into this framework of lament, but is not cruciform, anthropogenic violence. 10. See especially LS 85. 11. Mark Wallace, “The Green Face of God: Christianity in an Age of Ecocide,” Cross Currents 50, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 320. 12. On “Spirit-Flesh,” see Mayra Rivera Rivera, “Thinking Bodies: The Spirit of a Latina Incarnational Imagination,” in Decolonizing Epistemologies: Latina/o Theology and Philosophy, eds. Ada María Isasí-Díaz and Eduardo Mendieta (New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2012), 220–225. 13. Sarah Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2004), 24. 14. Ada María Isasí-Díaz, speaks of “our preferred future” in “Kin-dom of God,” in In Our Own Voices: Latino/a Renditions of Theology, ed. Benjamín Valentín (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010), 178. 15. For more, see Barbara Rossing, “River of Life in God’s New Jerusalem: An Ecological Vision for Earth’s Future,” Mission Studies 16.1 (1999): 136–156. 16. O. Ernesto Valiente, Liberation Through Reconciliation: Jon Sobrino’s Christological Spirituality (New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2016), 35. 17. Robert Schreiter, “Establishing a Shared Identity: The Role of the Healing of Memories and of Narrative,” in Peace and Reconciliation: In Search of Shared Identity, eds. Sebastian Kim, Pauline Kollontai, and Greg Hoyland (London, UK: Routledge, 2016), 10. For the way toward a healing that laments the past, he outlines the necessity of acknowledging loss, making connections, and taking new action. While a hopeful future will not remain hostage to the pain of the past, and a new way of relating to it will be envisioned, it is not forgotten or healed absolutely. Schreiter, “Establishing a Shared Identity,” 12–19. 18. This is not to say that we ignore the immediate needs of the more-than-human world when it is in our power to act responsibly. However, the source of injustice and indignity in the contemporary period is likely tied to neocolonial civilizations of capital. As such, responsibility becomes nearly synonymous with politics. 19. This way of perceiving more-than-humans as persons is common in many indigenous frameworks, is recognized by contemporary anthropologists, and is becoming recognized in some philosophies of science. See, for example, Graham Harvey, Animism: Respecting the Living World (London, UK: Hurst & Company, 2017); Tim Ingold, The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill (London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011); Bruno Latour, Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004). 20. In such an ethical and political philosophy, legislation would consider the expression of bodily vulnerability, whether or not it fit the form of the logocentric western subject. See Matthew Eaton, “On the Eyes of a Cat and the Curve of His Claw: Companion Animals as First Theology,” in Encountering Earth: Thinking Theologically with a More-Than-Human World, eds. Trevor Bechtel, Matthew Eaton, and Timothy Harvie (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018), 48–61.

Conclusion

371

21. Emmanuel Levinas, “Ideology and Idealism,” in Of God Who Comes to Mind, trans. Bettina Bergo (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), 9. 22. Emmanuel Levinas, Otherwise than Being (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 2016), 157. 23. Emmanuel Levinas, “Transcendence and Height,” in Basic Philosophical Writings, eds. Adrian T. Peperzak, Simon Critchley, and Robert Bernasconi (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996), 23. 24. Raoul Manley, French Philosophers in Conversation: Levinas, Schneider, Serres, Irigaray, Le Doeuff, Derrida (London, UK: Routledge, 1991), 19. 25. There are, of course, exceptions: “The state is usually better than anarchy—but not always. In some instances—fascism or totalitarianism, for example—the political order of the state may have to be challenged in the name of our ethical responsibility to the other.” Emmanuel Levinas and Richard Kearney, “Dialogue with Emmanuel Levinas,” in Face to Face with Levinas, ed. Richard Cohen (New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 1986), 30. 26. Isasí-Díaz, “Kin-dom of God,” 179. 27. Rivera, “Thinking Bodies,” 218.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahmed, Sarah. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2004. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco, CA: Harper SanFrancisco, 1991. Eaton, Matthew. “On the Eyes of a Cat and the Curve of His Claw: Companion Animals as First Theology.” In Encountering Earth: Thinking Theologically with a More-Than-Human World, edited by Trevor Bechtel, Matthew Eaton, and Timothy Harvie, 48–61. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018. Ellacuría, Ignacio. “Latin American Quincentenary: Discovery or Cover-Up?” In Ignacio Ellacuria: Essays on History, Liberation, and Salvation, edited by Michael Lee, 27–38. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2013. Harvey, Graham. Animism: Respecting the Living World. London, UK: Hurst & Company, 2017. Horsley, Richard. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987. Ingold, Tim. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. Isasí-Díaz, Ada María. “Kin-dom of God.” In In Our Own Voices: Latino/a Renditions of Theology, edited by Benjamín Valentín, 171–190. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010. Latour, Bruno. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Levinas, Emmanuel. “Ideology and Idealism.” In Of God Who Comes to Mind, translated by Bettina Bergo, 3–14. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998.

372

Conclusion

———. Otherwise than Being. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 2016. ———. “Transcendence and Height.” In Basic Philosophical Writings, edited by Adrian T. Peperzak, Simon Critchley, and Robert Bernasconi, 11–32. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996. Levinas, Emmanuel and Richard Kearney. “Dialogue with Emmanuel Levinas.” In Face to Face with Levinas, edited by Richard Cohen, 13–34. New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 1986. Manley, Raoul. French Philosophers in Conversation: Levinas, Schneider, Serres, Irigaray, Le Doeuff, Derrida. London, UK: Routledge, 1991. Rivera, Mayra “Thinking Bodies: The Spirit of a Latina Incarnational Imagination.” In Decolonizing Epistemologies: Latina/o Theology and Philosophy, edited by Ada María Isasi-Díaz and Eduardo Mendieta, 207–225. New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2012. Rolston, Holmes. “Does Nature Need to be Redeemed?” Zygon 29, no. 2 (1994): 205–229. Rossing, Barbara. “River of Life in God’s New Jerusalem: An Ecological Vision for Earth’s Future.” Mission Studies 16, no. 1 (1999): 136–156. Schreiter, Robert. “Establishing a Shared Identity: The Role of the Healing of Memories and of Narrative.” In Peace and Reconciliation: In Search of Shared Identity, edited by Sebastian Kim, Pauline Kollontai, and Greg Hoyland, 7–20. London, UK: Routledge, 2016. Valiente, O. Ernesto. Liberation Through Reconciliation: Jon Sobrino’s Christological Spirituality. New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2016. Wallace, Mark. “The Green Face of God: Christianity in an Age of Ecocide.” Cross Currents 50, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 310–331.

Index

Ackermann, Denise, and Tahira Joyner, 135 agriculture, 5, 93–97, 101; agroecology, science of, 92, 98–100; deforestation, 94–95; and Francis of Assisi, 91–92 Albert the Great, 162 algorithms/transparency, 6, 227–28, 230 Altieri, Miguel, 98–100 “anarchy,” 367–68 animals, xiii, 6, 34, 43, 46, 50n5, 53n49, 91, 93, 113; animal ethics, growth of, 159–60; and biomedical research, 168, 171; and factory farming, 168; moral status in Christian tradition, 160–65; and Pope Francis, 165–69 Anthony, Carl, 255 anthropocentrism, xiv, 5, 18–20, 35, 161, 165, 259, 261, 301, 368; “anthropocentric cosmology,” 143; “hard” and “soft,” 167, 170; “misguided anthropocentrism,” 79, 81, 215 anthropology: ecotheological anthropology, 144; theological anthropology, 16, 19–20, 144–45 “anti-growth preservationists” vs. “environmental justice advocates,” 7, 251–52, 253–58, 262–63 apartheid, 268

Aquinas, Thomas, 18, 80, 180, 185, 242, 243–44, 289; and animals, 162–63; “vincible ignorance,” 80 Aristotle, 162, 180, 185, 242, 243–44 artificial intelligence/AI, 224, 225, 228 baptism, 321, 322, 330, 331 Basil the Great, 49, 162 beauty, 6, 101, 196–97, 201, 203, 205–6, 217, 220n37 bees, 317–18, 319–20, 329, 332; beeswax candle/Paschal Candle, 319, 320, 329, 331; Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), 317 Benedict XVI, Pope, xv–xvi, 46, 47, 69, 84, 145, 160, 198, 218n14, 327, 349; and animals, 163–64; and “human ecology,” 145–46 Berkman, John, 50n5, 159–60, 162–63 Berry, Thomas, 117, 146, 149, 244–45, 303, 304, 311, 313n3; and Brian Swimme, 307 Big Bang, 143, 197, 200 birth control/contraception, 7, 283, 290–91; birth control/contraception distinction, 289; natural family planning, 284, 289; and women in poverty, 286–87; and women’s education, 286–87

373

374

Index

Boff, Leonardo, 5, 34, 112, 117–18 Bonaventure, 5, 111, 113–15, 151. 190, 199, 361; “On the Reduction of Arts to Theology,” 118–19 Bongaarts, John, 284–85, 288–89 Boudling, Elise, 302, 309–11 Brahe, Tycho, 185 Broccoli, Anthony, 32 Bush, Jeb, 29 Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, xv, 362 capitalism, 4, 5, 58–59, 64–68, 71, 117, 360 carbon pricing, 47 Cardinal Bellarmine, 180, 181, 182 Cardinal Dolan, 68 Caritas in Veritate, xv–xvi, 146 Carson, Rachel, 34, 93, 96, 97 Case, Karen, 257 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 160, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 290 Catholic social teaching/catholic social thought, xi, xiii, 2, 4, 6, 13–18, 20, 34, 36, 42, 50n5, 57, 85, 151, 221, 231, 258, 261, 273; and “intergenerational justice,” 273 Cavanaugh, William, 46 Centesimus annus, xiv Chesterton, G.K. 192 Chirongoma, Sophia, 136 climate change, 209, 262; belief/denial, 8, 29–30, 133; Catholics, 8, 340–44; emotion, 348–49; energy, 274; fear/ hope, 349–50; growth/GDP, 44; industrial agriculture, 94; and the poor, 259, 261; and urban planning, 257–58 climate science in LS, 30–32, 273–74 Clough, David, 160, 162 Coetzee, J.M. 159–60 colonialism, 1, 9n2, 35, 359, 368, 369n1, n2 common good, 16–18, 22, 32, 34, 62–63, 71, 85–68, 245, 258–59, 273

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, xv, 18, 282 Conn, Walter E. 129 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 326 consumerism/consumption, 46, 49, 237, 245, 251, 259, 262, 274, 282, 303–4, 307, 308, 309 cooperation, 302, 305–7; “cooperative education,” 306, 312; “SuperCooperators,” 307–8 Copernicus, 179–80, 185 cosmic pessimism, 198, 203, 204 cosmic purpose/teleology, 6, 195–97, 200–201 cosmology, 6, 112, 143–44, 151n2, 180, 201; cosmogenesis, 143, 149–51; and evolutionary cosmology, 144–47; “functional cosmology,” 147. See also cosmic purpose/teleology creation, xx, 18, 20, 114–15, 149–50, 166, 221, 325–28 creationism/belief in, 151n3 Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor (book). See Boff Crysdale, Cynthia, 130–32 cultural revolution/revolution of tenderness, 2–7, 30, 58–59, 64, 72 Cyril of Jerusalem, 330 Dalton, Ann Marie, 366–68 Daly, Herman, 44 Dawkins, Richard, 199, 307–8 Deane-Drummond, Celia, 50n5, 159–60 de Chardin, Pierre Teilhard, 117–18, 203–4 deicide, 8, 359, 362–64, 368 De La Torre, Miguel, 261 democracy, 238, 276, 367 demographic transition, 285 demographic trap, 286 Dennett, Daniel, 198, 201 Descartes, René/Cartesian worldview, 202–3 Dialogue on Two World Systems, 180, 183

Index

Doak, Mary, 42 Dobson, Andrew, 238–40 Doran, Chris, 43, 51n19 Doran, Robert, 5, 6, 127, 129–30, 210, 214–16, 217, 218n6; and “psychic conversion,” 129–30, 134 Eberstadt, Mary, 160 ecocide, 8, 290, 359, 362–64, 368 ecofeminism, 5, 127, 132, 134–37 ecological citizenship, xx, 7, 237– 43, 246, 247n5, 262, 366–68; environmental vs. ecological citizenship, 238–39 ecological conversion, xx, 3, 4, 18–20, 21, 111, 118, 127–28, 132–33, 134–37, 145, 209, 217, 218n2, 240, 241, 275, 302 ecological education, 7; “transformative learning,” 7, 301–6, 309–13 ecological/social debt,” 147, 259 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, 217, 322–25, 326 Ehrlich, Paul, 204 Ellacuría, Ignacio, 2 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 253 The End of the Modern World. See Guardini, Romano eschatology, 2, 8, 326, 338, 359–66 Eucharist, 112, 317, 319, 323–24, 326–82, 331, 363 Euclid, 185 evangelical Christians, belief in climate change, 339 Evangelii Gaudium, 2, 45, 59, 60, 63, 65, 80; trickle-down economics, myth of, 66–67 evolution, 144–46, 148, 150, 197, 243, 245, 307 The Exsultet/Easter Vigil, 7, 318–20, 322, 328, 330–31 extinction, xiv, 3, 31, 144, 149, 150, 362, 364 Finn, Ed, 230 Foer, Franklin, 224

375

Foer, Jonathan Safran, 159 Francis, Pope: animal ethics, contribution to, 160, 167, 171; beauty, 210, 217; biocentrism, aversion to, 150; Boff’s influence, 112, 117–18; capitalism, marxism and socialism, 35, 43, 47, 66–70, 73n18; cosmological, evolutionary model, 148; and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, 322–24, 327; “Francis Effect,” 340, 342, 351; global inequality, view of, 18, 34–35, 283; Guardini’s influence, 112, 209, 210–11; as interdisciplinary, 36, 241; pastoral style and mission, 58–63, 70–72; and the poor, 42, 45, 49, 57, 81; as public and political theologian, 63–65; relational and aesthetic worldview, 197–98, 203, 204; science, public commentary on, 179, 188–89. See also Laudato Si’ Francis of Assisi, xi, 5, 35, 91–92, 101–2, 111, 112–13, 151, 164, 170, 361 Freire, Paolo, 303 Galileo, 6, 179–86, 190; heresy, 182–83 Gaudete et Exsultate, 137 Gaudium et spes, xii, 10, 46, 60, 72n7, 163, 289 GDP growth, 42, 44, 302 Gebera, Ivone, 134 Geller, Margaret, 198 gender, 7, 16, 130, 134–35, 243, 252, 263, 283. See also gender; Laudato Si’ Genesis creation stories, 16, 20, 35, 135, 144, 145, 281, 330, 338, 361; and animals, 161, 170–71 gentrification, 256 Gliessman, Stephen, 93 God, xiv, xx, 2, 16, 361, 167, 170, 187–90, 198, 204–5, 229, 312; and beauty, 196, 206, 217; covenant, xix;

376

Index

as creator, 92, 102, 111, 113–15, 128, 133, 149, 161, 164, 259, 322– 27, 361; as cruciform, 363–64; and human hyperagency, 84; idolatry, 50n11; love, 245–46; patriarchal understanding, 135, 261–62; theosis, 148 Google/Page&Brin, 6, 221–31 Gingrich, Owen, 180 Graney, Christopher, 184 “Great Chain of Being,” 199 “Green Sisters,” 311 Gregory of Nazianzen, 162 The Growth Report (World Bank), 44 Guardini, Romano, 5, 6, 112, 115–16, 199, 122 n40, 209, 210–12, 213, 214, 215, 216, 218n7, 10 & 13, 219n15 Gudorf, Christine, 287 Gutierrez, Gustavo, 32 habits/habitus, 237–38, 241–46 Harvey, David, 32, 41 Hauerwas, Stanely, 160 Havel, Václav, 196 Hawley, Amos H., 145 heaven, 361–62, 363 Heffernan, Virginia, 222 Heilbron, J.L., 185 heliocentric/geocentric, 181–82, 186 hierarchical dualism, 134–35 Highfield, Roger, 307–8 holy spirit, 129, 328, 364 hope and joy, 8, 35–36, 246, 275, 303, 305, 312, 359 Humanae Vitae, 281, 283, 288, 290–91 “human ecology,” xii–xvi, 13, 14, 16, 145–46 Humani Generis, 144 hyperagency, 5, 77–79; and resource consumption, 82 “ideological colonization,” 283, 288 idolatry, 42–44, 46, 49, 50–51n11 Ignatius, 188, 190

indigenous peoples/cultures, 81, 88n7, 213, 215, 216, 217, 304, 310, 370n19 individualism, 19, 62–63, 81, 131, 216, 243, 262, 274, 301, 302, 305 Inhofe, James, 29 integral development, xii, xix, 61, 62, 63, 101, 137, 267, 268, 273, 275, 276 “integral ecology,” xvii, 34–36, 59–61, 146, 258, 291, 303, 305, 308; and animals, 165–66 internet, 6, 221–23, 231 intersectional analysis, 7, 252, 261, 263 Isasí-Díaz, Ada Maria, 368 Jacobstein, Neil, 224 Jesus Christ, 2, 3, 116, 128, 133, 161, 198, 203, 229, 318, 323–26, 328, 330, 361; Incarnation, 111, 112–13, 198, 203, 204, 205, 246, 311, 363 John XXIII, Pope, xii, 14–18, 22, 69; similarity to Francis, 58 John of the Cross, 190 John Paul II, Pope, 22, 69, 84, 127, 144, 145, 160, 163, 164, 188, 221, 259, 282–83, 287, 288; contribution to ecological thought, xiii–xiv Johnson, Elizabeth, 135, 160 Jonas, Hans, 202 Journal of Moral Theology, 159 jubilee, 83 Kant, Immanuel, 195 Kepler, Johannes, 186 Kidder, Paulette, 130–31 King, Carolyn, 243 Krauss, Lawrence, 198, 199, 201 Kurzweil, Ray, 224–25 lamentation, 359, 362, 366 Laudato Si’: abortion, 82, 283, 287, 288, 294n34; agriculture, negative effects of, 92–95; and Catholic social thought, 13–18; climate change belief, impact, 339–42; dialogue, xx, 4, 22, 58, 59, 61, 64, 101, 111, 118,

Index

146, 241, 282–83, 291, 306, 312; and “differentiated responsibilities,” 83; and “dominion” in Genesis, 83, 166, 167, 291; education, 7, 302–6; good and bad aspects of science and technology, 30–33, 210–11, 221, 273; integration of ecological and social, 34–35, 251–52, 258, 260; population issues, 282–83; promulgation of, 29, 270; sacraments and nature, 321, 327; and science, 4, 189–92; transparency, 7, 268, 272, 275; women’s issues, 7, 134, 261. See also integral ecology Leddy, Mary Jo, 303 Leo XIII, Pope, 13; and Motu Proprio, 187 Leopold, Aldo, 33–34 Letter to the Grand Duchess (Galileo), 180 Levinas, Emmanuel, 367–68 liberation theology, 3, 32, 58, 112, 117–18 Limbaugh, Rush, 66 liturgy, 7–8, 304, 317, 321, 322, 324, 326, 331 Lonergan, Bernard, 5, 127, 136, 214, 216, 219n24, 244, 245, 248n30, 311; on conversion, 128–29; ecological conversion, 133–34; strengths and weaknesses of, 130–32 Lumen Gentium, 60 Macy, Joanna, 303 Mann, Michael, 32 Marshall, Robert, 253 Mary, 166–67 maternal death, 288 matter, 199, 201–3, 323 Matthew, 25, 366 Maximus the Confessor, 323–25, 327–28, 330 McKibben, Bill, 217–18 Mead, Margaret, 311 Medici family, 180–81

377

Metz, Johann Baptist, 229 Middle Ages/medieval, 163, 211–12 Missoni, John, 151 Morales, Helda, 96, 97 Muir, John, 253 neoliberal economics, 41–42, 45, 47, 50n7, 53n49, 228, 269 Newton, Isaac, 186 Nigeria, 287, 288 NIMBYism, 254, 261 Noah, 260 Noble, Safyia Umoja, 228 Northcott, Michael, 47 Novak, Martin, A., 307–8 Novak, Michael, 45 nuclear energy, 267–69, 271, 273, 274; and carbon footprint, 278n22. See also South Africa Octogesima Adveniens, xii Oreskes, Naomi, 34 Ormerod, Neil and Cristina Vanin, 127, 132–34 Osborne, Ken, 302, 309–11 O’Sullivan, Edmund, 7, 302–5 pain, 167, 359, 362, 365–69 Park, Robert Ezra, 145 Pascal, Blaise and Pierre de Fermat, 117, 185 patriarchy, 132, 134–35, 137, 261–62 Paul, 330 Paul VI, Pope, xii, xiii, 69, 211, 283, 333n20 PETA, 163 The Philippines, 284, 287–88 Pius XI, Pope, 188 Pius XII, Pope, 144, 188 Pontifical Academy of Sciences/ Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, 31, 188, 284; Workshop on Biological Extinction, 284 the poor: Catholic teaching, 69; ignorance and “encounter,” 80; in

378

Index

liberation theology/Boff, 117; and Pope Francis’ pontificate, 57 population/population growth, xviii, xix, 7, 81, 251, 285–86, 291; “more developed countries (MDCs)” & “less developed countries (LDCs)”, 285–86, 288, 289 Populorum Progressio, xii Porter, Jean, 162 positivism/positivist thinking, xii–xiii Powers, Richard, 237 “preferential option for the poor,” 15–16, 42, 48, 69, 304 pro-life: and animal ethics, 160 Psalm 8, 188–89 Psalm 103 &104, 330 race, 7, 251–52, 256–58, 262–63, 309; and environmental racism, 254–55 Redemptor Hominis, xiii regulation (government), 41, 45, 275, 343, 361, 369n3 renewable energy, 86, 267, 268, 270– 71, 273–75 Rerum Novarum, xi, 14 responsible parenthood, 7, 284, 288–89, 291 Revelation, Book of, 53n44, 365 Ricci, Ostilio, 180 Rivera, Mayra, 368–69 Roman Missal, 317 Rosenbert, Alex, 42 Sachs, Jeffrey, 31, 284, 285, 286 sacramentality, 111, 118, 199, 321–25, 329 Sagan, Carl, 204 Santorum, Rick, 29 Sarpi, Paolo, 181, 185 Schervish, Paul, 78 Schmemann, Alexander, 322–23 Schmidt, Eric, 226 Schreiter, Robert, 366, 370n17 science/religion, 6, 30, 36, 179, 180, 182, 187–91, 198–99

scientism/scientific materialism, 44, 199, 202–4 Scott, James C., 96 Scotus, John Duns, 151 Second Vatican Council, xii, 14–15, 22, 60, 69, 71, 160–61, 163, 169, 290, 322, 326 sexuality/sexual ethics, 281, 282, 286, 288, 289–91 Shiva, Vandana, 135–36 The Siderius Nuncius/The Sidereal Messenger, 180 Sierra Club, 253 sin, 1–4, 8, 8n2, 205, 290, 328, 361, 365; structural and social sin, 21, 59, 168; original sin, 161, 189 Singer, Peter, 159, 162 singularity” and “Singularity University.” See Kurzweil “smart growth,” 7, 251–61; and class, 252, 253, 256, 257, 260, 261 solidarity, principle of, xviii, 19–22, 46, 48, 88, 240; as ecological virtue, 85–86; Francis’ meaning, 67; and intergenerational solidarity, 86 Sollicitudo rei socialis, xiii Soule, Judith and John K. Piper and The Land Institute, 99–100 South Africa: African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), 270; Davies, Geoff/The “Green Bishop”, 270; Davies, Kate, 270; energy policy, 267–68, 273, 276; Gabuza, Abel, 271; Makgoba, Thabo, 271; McDaid, Liz and Makoma Lekalakala, 271; Napier, Wilfrid, 271; “nuclear court case,” 271–72; “nuclear deal,” 267; Putin, Vladimir, 269; Ramaphosa, Cyril, 270; Russia/Rosatom, 269, 272; “State capture inquiry,” 269; Zuma, Jacob, 269 Specola Vaticana, 180, 186; The Heavens Proclaim book, 187

Index

Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, 188, 190 stewardship, 12, 20, 164, 327, 338–39, 363 structural/systemic change, 5, 21, 67, 252, 254, 255, 257, 260, 262, 263, 275 subsidiarity, 17–18, 62, 261, 268, 273, 276 sustainability, xviii, xix, 99, 151, 213, 245, 251, 252, 254, 256, 258, 267, 271, 274, 301, 306 Sustainable Development Goals and Millennium Development Goals, 288 “technocratic paradigm,” 6, 79, 98, 209–11, 221, 222, 225–27, 229–30, 231 “technological redlining,” 228 technology, 79, 190, 191; and Guardini, 116 telescope, 181, 184 temperance: and ecological virtue/ sobriety, 86–87 Tertullian, 162 theosis, 148 Thistlethwaite, Susan, 262 Thomasset, Alan, 20–21 Thoreau, Henry David, 253 “throwaway culture,” 5, 42, 48, 64–65, 87, 95, 98, 251, 303; and industrial system, 93–94 trinity, 16, 111–15, 117–18 Trump, Donald, 29 United Nations: Conference on Sustainable Development (2012),

379

xvii, 4; population projections, 281, 283, 284–85, 288 universal destination of all goods, 258 Urban VIII, Pope, 182 Vandermeer, John H., 97–98 vernal equinox, 318 virtues, 20, 237; ecological virtues, 84–85; and virtue ethics, 86 Voegelin, Eric, 210, 214, 215, 216, 219n2 Wallace, Mark, 364 water, xv, 15, 17, 31, 43, 82, 92–95, 133–34, 286, 320–32, 328–31 Weinberg, Steven, 198 Whitehead, Alfred North, 204–5 White Jr., Lynn, 217, 218n14, 338 white privilege, 252, 254, 261 white supremacy, 254, 257, 368 Wiedermann, Christian, 162 Winter, Gibson, 6, 209, 212; and “root metaphors” 212–14 Wirzba, Norman: and theoria, ethos and askesis, 97 Wright, Erik Olin, 48 Yale Program on Climate Change Communication & George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication Survey, 343–48 Zizioulas, John, 323, 327–28 Zoning laws (U.S.), 252, 257

About the Editors

Matthew Eaton is an assistant professor in the Department of Theology at King’s College, Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania, where he teaches moral theology. He holds a PhD from the University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, with a specialization in ecotheology from the Elliot Allen Institute for Theology and Ecology. He has published several articles on ecotheology and animal ethics in dialogue with continental philosophers such as Emmanuel Levinas and Maurice Merleau-Ponty as well as an edited volume entitled Encountering Earth: Thinking Theologically with a More-Than-Human World. His interests are largely tied to ethics and nonhumans, the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas, and the possibility of reimagining Catholicism in ways that are friendlier to more-than-human animals. Dennis Patrick O’Hara is an associate professor of Ecotheology and Ethics on the Faculty of Theology at the University of St. Michael’s College, and the Director of the Elliott Allen Institute for Theology and Ecology. He is also an associate member of the graduate faculty at the School for the Environment at the University of Toronto where he has co-taught courses on the environment and health. For ten years, he was a core faculty member of the certificate program in Corporate Social Responsibility at the University of St. Michael’s College. Dr. O’Hara regularly delivers popular and academic lectures in Canada, the United States, and Korea on healthcare, ethics, ecological spirituality, and ecological theology. Michael Taylor Ross is a PhD candidate at the University of St. Michael’s College in the University of Toronto/Toronto School of Theology. As a member of the Elliot Allen Institute of Theology and Ecology, his research focuses on the implication of Thomas Berry’s thought for sexual ethics. He 381

382

About the Editors

obtained a MA in Theology from St. Michael’s and a combined honours BA in History and Religious Studies from Kings University College at Western University in London, Ontario. He has taught ethics courses at St. Michael’s and at Kings University College. He recently contributed a chapter entitled “Sacred Love: The (Eco)Theology of Sting” to Music, Theology and Justice (Lexington, 2017) and is serving as a senior editor for Yale University’s new FERNS journal.

About the Contributors

Charles Camosy is Associate Professor of Theological and Social Ethics at Fordham University, where he has taught since finishing his PhD in Theology at Notre Dame in 2008. Among other places, his published articles have appeared in the American Journal of Bioethics, the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, the Journal of the Catholic Health Association, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News and America magazine. He is the author of four books: Too Expensive to Treat? (Eerdmans) was a 2011 award-winner with the Catholic Media Association; Peter Singer and Christian Ethics (Cambridge) was named a 2012 “Best Book” with ABC Religion and Ethics; For Love of Animals (Franciscan) was featured in the “Beliefs” section of the New York Times. His most recent book, Beyond the Abortion Wars (Eerdmans), was also a 2015 award-winner with the Catholic Media Association. Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ is the director of the Vatican Observatory and President of the Vatican Observatory Foundation. A native of Detroit, Michigan, he earned undergraduate and masters’ degrees from MIT, and a PhD in Planetary Science from the University of Arizona; he was a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard and MIT, served in the U.S. Peace Corps (Kenya), and taught university physics at Lafayette College before entering the Jesuits in 1989. At the Vatican Observatory since 1993, his research explores connections between meteorites, asteroids, and the evolution of small solar system bodies. Along with more than 200 scientific publications, he is the author of a number of popular books including Turn Left at Orion (with Dan Davis), and Would You Baptize an Extraterrestial? (with Paul Mueller). He also has hosted science programs for BBC Radio 4, been interviewed in numerous documentary films, appeared on The Colbert 383

384

About the Contributors

Report, and for more than a dozen years he has written a monthly science column for the British Catholic magazine, The Tablet. Dr. Consolmagno’s work has taken him to every continent on Earth; in 1996, he spent six weeks collecting meteorites with a NASA team on the blue ice regions of East Antarctica. He has served on the governing boards of the Meteoritical Society; the American Astronomical Society Division for Planetary Sciences (of which he was chair in 2006–2007); and the International Astronomical Union (IAU). He currently serves as the chair of the Mars Task Group on the IAU’s Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature. In 2000, the small bodies nomenclature committee of the IAU named an asteroid, 4597 Consolmagno, in recognition of his work. In 2014, he received the Carl Sagan Medal from the American Astronomical Society Division for Planetary Sciences for excellence in public communication in planetary sciences. Anne Marie Dalton is Professor Emerita, Department of Religious Studies, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax. She holds a BSc, BEd from Memorial University, a MA from Fordham University and a PhD from The Catholic University of America. She taught and researched primarily in the areas of Religion and Ecology, Religion and Science. Her publications include two books: A Theology for the Earth: Thomas Berry and Bernard Lonergan and Ecotheology and The Practice of Hope (coauthored with Henry Simmons) as well as numerous book chapters and articles. She served as President of the Canadian Theological Society, board member of Ecology and Religion Group at the American Academy of Religion, and currently serves on the board of the Ecology Action Centre, Halifax. Matthew Eaton is an assistant professor in the Department of Theology at King’s College, Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania where he teaches moral theology. He holds a PhD from the University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, with a specialization in ecotheology from the Elliot Allen Institute for Theology and Ecology. He has published several articles on ecotheology and animal ethics in dialogue with continental philosophers such as Emmanuel Levinas and Maurice Merleau-Ponty as well as an edited volume entitled Encountering Earth: Thinking Theologically with a More-Than-Human World. His interests are largely tied to ethics and nonhumans, the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas, and the possibility of reimagining Catholicism in ways that are friendlier to more-than-human animals. Timothy Harvie is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Ethics and Program Coordinator for Social Justice and Catholic Studies at St. Mary’s University in Calgary, Canada. He is the author of Jürgen Moltmann’s Ethics of Hope: Eschatological Possibilities For Moral Action (Ashgate)

About the Contributors

385

and coeditor of Encountering Earth: Thinking Theologically With a MoreThan-Human World (Cascade). He has also authored several articles, book chapters, and academic papers. John F. Haught holds a PhD from Catholic University and is Distinguished Research Professor at Georgetown University, where he was formerly Professor and Chair of the Department of Theology. His area of specialization is systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues pertaining to science, cosmology, evolution, ecology, and religion. He is the author of twenty books including The New Cosmic Story: Inside Our Awakening Universe (Yale Univ. Press, 2017). In 2005, he testified for the plaintiffs in the Harrisburg, PA “Intelligent Design trial” (Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Board of Education). He was the recipient of the National Center for Science Education’s “Friend of Darwin Award” in 2008. For his work in science and religion, he received an honorary doctorate from Louvain University, Belgium (2009). Brianne Jacobs earned her doctorate in Systematic Theology in 2017 from Fordham University. She taught at Fordham University for three years before joining the faculty as a postdoctoral fellow in 2017. Her work focuses on embodiment utilizing the tradition of Roman Catholic dialectical and political theology in conversation with critical theory and continental philosophy. Dr. Jacobs has published on ecclesiology in the context of secularity, and she is currently editing her monograph, Interruptive Body: Political Subjectivity and Ecclesiology for publication. Christopher Hrynkow holds a PhD in Peace and Conflict Studies from St. Paul’s College, University of Manitoba) as well as a ThD in Christian Ethics from St. Michael’s College in the University of Toronto/Toronto School of Theology. He is an Associate Professor of Religion and Culture at St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan. There, he teaches courses in Religious Studies, Catholic Studies, and Critical Perspectives on Social Justice and the Common Good. From January 2019 to July 2019, he is serving as Patrick and Barbara Keenan Visiting Chair in Religious Education at the University of St. Michael’s College in the University of Toronto. Gerard Mannion was the Joseph and Winifred Amaturo Chair in Catholic Studies in the Department of Theology at Georgetown University and a senior research fellow at the Berkley Center, where his work focused on the role of the church in the world, on social ethics, and on ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Mannion published widely in the fields of ecclesiology, ethics, and public theology, as well as in other fields of systematic theology and philosophy. He was the founding chair of the Ecclesiological

386

About the Contributors

Investigations International Research Network. His numerous books included Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism: Evangelii Gaudium and the Papal Agenda (2017), Where We Dwell in Common: Pathways for Dialogue in the 21st Century (ed., 2015), The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church (2008, ed. with Lewis Mudge), Catholic Social Justice: Theological and Practical Explorations (2007, coedited with Philomena Cullen and Bernard Hoose), Ecclesiology and Postmodernity: Questions for the Church in Our Times (2007), and Schopenhauer, Religion and Modernity (2003). He was also editor of the Bloomsbury Publishing series “Ecclesiological Investigations” and series editor, with Oxford University’s Mark Chapman, of Palgrave Macmillan’s “Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue” series. Gerard Mannion died unexpectedly on September 21, 2019. Peter McGrail is a presbyter of Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocese, and is Head of the Department of Theology, Philosophy and Religious Studies at Liverpool Hope University (UK). He holds a licentiate in Sacred Liturgy from the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of S. Anselmo (Rome), and a PhD from the University of Birmingham (UK). He has published in the field of liturgy, with a particular focus on sacramental initiation. Dawn M. Nothwehr, O.S.F. holds a PhD in Religious Studies from Marquette University and is The Erica and Harry John Family Endowed Chair in Catholic Theological Ethics at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. She teaches courses in environmental ethics, racial justice, and fundamental moral theology. Nothwehr’s monographs include Ecological Footprints: An Essential Franciscan Guide for Faith and Sustainable Living (2012), A Franciscan View of the Human Person: Some Central Elements (2005) and Struggles for Environmental Justice and Health in Chicago: An African American Perspective (2004). She has published numerous book chapters on Laudato Si’ and other ecojustice related subjects. In 2016, she released a DVD lecture series entitled God’s Creation: A Course on Theology and the Environment. Dennis Patrick O’Hara is an Associate Professor of ecotheology and ethics the Faculty of Theology at the University of St. Michael’s College, and the director of the Elliott Allen Institute for Theology and Ecology. He is also an associate member of the graduate faculty at the School for the Environment at the University of Toronto where he has co-taught courses on the environment and health. For 10 years, he was a core faculty member of the certificate program in Corporate Social Responsibility at the University of St. Michael’s College. Dr. O’Hara regularly delivers popular and academic lectures in Canada, the United States, and Korea on healthcare, ethics, ecological spirituality, and ecological theology.

About the Contributors

387

Neil Ormerod works in the research office of the Sydney College of Divinity, an ecumenical consortium of church-based theological institutions. He is widely published in leading international journals, including Theological Studies, Irish Theological Quarterly, and Louvain Studies. He has also written fourteen books, the latest being Faith and Reason: The Possibility of a Christian Philosophy (Fortress, 2017). He has published on the theology of the Trinity, Christology, historical ecclesiology, natural theology and ecological theology, drawing inspiration from the works of Bernard Lonergan and Robert Doran. He is married to climate change activist, Thea Ormerod. Susan Rakoczy, IHM is professor of systematic theology and spirituality at St Joseph’s Theological Institute and the School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics of the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. She has written widely in the areas of spirituality and social justice, feminist theology and ecofeminism and is the author of Great Mystics and Social Justice: Walking on the Two Feet of Love (Paulist Press, 2006) and In Her Name: Women Doing Theology (Cluster Publications, 2004). Michael Taylor Ross is a PhD candidate at the University of St. Michael’s College in the University of Toronto/Toronto School of Theology. As a member of the Elliot Allen Institute of Theology and Ecology, his research focuses on the implication of Thomas Berry’s thought for sexual ethics. He obtained a Master of Arts in Theology from St. Michael’s and a Combined Honours BA in History and Religious Studies from Kings University College at Western University in London, Ontario. He has taught ethics courses at St. Michael’s and at Kings University College. He recently contributed a chapter entitled “Sacred Love: The (Eco)Theology of Sting” to Music, Theology and Justice (Lexington, 2017) and is serving as a senior editor for Yale University’s new FERNS journal. Stephen Scharper is associate professor at the School of the Environment and the Department for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto. He is also cross-appointed in the department of anthropology at the University of Toronto Mississauga campus, and is associate faculty with the Toronto School of Theology. A senior fellow of Massey College and a fellow of Trinity College, Dr. Scharper holds a Masters in Theology from the University of Toronto and a PhD in Religious Studies from McGill University, where his thesis supervisor was Professor Gregory Baum. Dr. Scharper’s research and teaching are in the areas of environmental ethics, worldviews and ecology, liberation theology, as well as nature and the city. Embodying the values of “public scholarship” and a deep commitment to engaging with environmental issues, Dr. Scharper is also an award-winning

388

About the Contributors

journalist. He has also contributed over 500 reviews and articles to various academic and popular journals. Nicholas Smith is a social-environmental psychologist with research interests in the perception and communication of risk issues. He is currently a lecturer in social psychology at the University of Westminster. Prior to this, he was a postdoctoral research associate for the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication working on a variety of projects exploring American public awareness and understanding of climate change. He obtained his MSc in research methods and PhD in social psychology from University College London and his BA in environmental management from the University of Leeds. Laura Stivers is Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Education and Professor of Social Ethics at Dominican University of California. Laura received her PhD from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, her MDiv from Pacific School of Religion, and her BA from Saint Olaf College. She is the author of Disrupting Homelessness: Alternative Christian Approaches (Fortress, 2011); coauthor of Earth Ethics: A Case Method Approach (Orbis, 2015), Christian Ethics: A Case Method Approach (Orbis, 2012); and coeditor of Justice in a Global Economy: Strategies for Home, Community, and World (Westminster John Knox, 2006). Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson, Cardinal-Priest of San Liborio, was born in 1948 in Western Ghana to a Methodist mother and Roman Catholic father. He studied in Ghana, the United States, and Rome, and speaks Fante, English, French, Italian, German, and Hebrew, and reads Latin and Greek. Cardinal Turkson is the first prefect of the Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development, having served as President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace between 2009 and 2017. He is also a member of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Council for the Cultural Heritage of the Church, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses, and the Congregation for Catholic Education. With others, Cardinal Turkson wrote the first draft of Pope Francis’s second encyclical, Laudato Si’. Christopher P. Vogt holds a PhD in Theological Ethics from Boston College. He is an Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at St. John’s University in New York City. His recent articles include Mercy, Solidarity, and Hope: Essential Personal and Political Virtues in Troubled

About the Contributors

389

Times (Journal of Catholic Social Thought, 2017), and Virtue Ethics: Personal Formation and Social Transformation (Theological Studies, 2016). He also contributed a book chapter entitled “The Inevitability of Scandal: A Moral and Biblical Analysis of Firing Gay Teachers and Ministers to Avoid Scandal” to The Bible and Catholic Theological Ethics (Orbis, 2017). Kate Ward is an assistant professor of theological ethics at Marquette University. Her research focuses on economic ethics, virtue ethics, and ethical method. She has published articles on wealth, virtue, and economic inequality in journals including Theological Studies, Journal of Religious Ethics, Heythrop Journal, and Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics. She is completing a monograph exploring the impact of wealth, poverty, and inequality on the pursuit of virtue. She holds a PhD in theological ethics from Boston College, an MDiv from Catholic Theological Union and a BA from Harvard College. Andrew Warmback is the rector of St Paul’s Church, located in the Durban inner city. For over twenty years Andrew has worked at encouraging the church to respond to environmental issues within the Anglican Diocese of Natal as well as further afield. He has worked for the Diakonia Council of Churches, focusing on issues of economic and environmental justice. Having majored in Economics, Business Administration and Legal Studies in his primary degree, his theological studies include a Bachelor of Divinity from Rhodes University, and a doctorate from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, with a thesis entitled Constructing an Oikotheology: The Environment, Poverty and the Church in South Africa. His monograph, The Church and Ecological Justice, was published in 2017 by Cluster Publication in their Reading the Signs of the Times series. Matthew Philipp Whelan is a St. Andrews postdoctoral fellow in Theology & Science, hosted by Baylor University. Matthew’s first book, Blood in the Fields: Óscar Romero, Catholic Social Teaching, and Land Reform (Catholic University of America Press, forthcoming), looks at the connection between Romero, martyrdom and land reform. His current book project is a theological engagement with agroecology, the so-called science of sustainable agriculture, and its relationship to natural law. Matthew holds degrees from the University of Virginia (BA), Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (MSc), and Duke University (MTS, PhD). His articles have appeared in Modern Theology, Journal for the Society of Christian Ethics (forthcoming), Journal of Moral Theology, Nova et Vetera, Crosscurrents, Biodiversity and Conservation and Agriculture Forestry, and Fisheries. At present, he resides in Waco, Texas, with his wife Natalie and their three daughters, Chora, Edith, and Simone.