Book Reviews
“Of making many books there is no end. . . “Ecclesiastes 12:12 NRSV
The Pope and Climate Change: A Reading of Laudato Si’
Reviewed by Derek C. Hatch
A great deal of widespread media attention preceded the release of Pope Francis’s latest encyclical, Laudato Si’ (“On the Care of Our Common Home”).1 Rarely has there been such anxiety and anticipation for the publication of a papal document. After this wait, on June 18, 2015, the pope released (2) the encyclical, which takes the form of a letter addressed to “every person living on this planet” (3).
Before considering the content of the encyclical in greater detail, it is worthwhile to place Pope Francis in context. When Jorge Maria Bergoglio, a Jesuit from Argentina, was elected as the bishop of Rome in March 2013, many were surprised, largely because Bergoglio was not listed on any list of possible papal successors to Benedict XVI. This feeling was heightened when he chose the papal name of Francis, after St. Francis of Assisi, a thirteenth-century theologian/mystic/preacher and founder of the Franciscan religious order, as well as when he described this selection as part of his hope to lead a church that was of the poor and for the poor.
While many are keen to distinguish Francis from his papal predecessors, on the subject of caring for creation, there is much continuity. For instance, in Evangelium Vitae (1993), Pope John Paul II railed against a “culture of death” consisting of abortion, capital punishment, and war, yet a culture that also included environmental degradation.3 Benedict XVI, for his part, was known as the “green pope” because of his advocacy for environmental issues, including taking steps for the Vatican to use more renewable energy.4 In his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Benedict, noting the symbiotic relationship between humans and the rest of creation, wrote that “the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.”5 Francis, then, enters the conversation with this backdrop, even acknowledging it in the introduction of the encyclical (3-6).
Even with this continuity, the present pope approaches the subject of ecology in his own manner. Much has been made of Francis’s style of using informal means of communication, such as interviews and conversations, alongside more traditional modes of papal discourse such as encyclicals and apostolic exhortations.6 This style is evident to readers of Laudato Si’ as well, where the pope often crosses the boundary between conversation and authorized declaration. Even its title of this letter, which means “Praise be to you,” is derived from a more devotional form of literature, St. Francis of Assisi’s “Canticle of the Creatures”, which appears in full in paragraph 87 [Protestant unfamiliar with St. Francis’s writings will recognize this phrase in the adapted text of “All Creatures of Our God and King,” which declares: “All creatures of our God and king, lift up your voice and with us sing, O praise ye!”].
With this Roman Catholic context established, it is worth nothing that in portions of the encyclical, Francis offers statements similar to those provided by evangelical groups that are concerned with “creation care.” The National Association of Evangelicals, for example, declared in its 2004 statement “For the Health of the Nation” that human beings are caretakers and stewards of God’s creation without “a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part.”7 Sharing this concern, Pope Francis describes the environment’s current state by observing, “The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth” (21). This is produced by a “throwaway culture” that does not consider the impact of leftover waste and the sourcing of the raw material that produced that waste. In response, Francis situates ecological concern within the common good, which means that the climate belongs “to all and [is] meant for all” (23).
Throughout the first chapter of the encyclical, the pope displays a nuanced understanding of the challenges facing the environment. Human behavior involving increased release of greenhouse gases produces and/or aggravates global warming (23). Deferring to scientific consensus regarding the state of the climatic system, Francis views climate change as “one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day” (25). He names access to safe drinking water as “a basic and universal human right” that is threatened by disease, pollution, and the effects of drought conditions (29-30). He laments the loss of natural biodiversity, where extinct species “no longer give glory to God by their very existence, nor convey their message to us” (33). Indeed, Francis is clear that environmental concern is not optional, but something that should be the focus of our attention.
Moreover, these concerns are thoroughly biblical, as chapter two of The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.the encyclical details, discussing that Scripture’s creation accounts place human beings in three interwoven relationships – with God, with others, and with the rest of creation (66). Francis writes that “When all these relationships are neglected, when justice no longer dwells in the land, the Bible tells us that life itself is endangered” (70). Thus, when an unbiblical understanding of humanity’s dominion over creation leads to an “unbridled exploitation of nature” (67), all created life is threatened. As stewards of God’s gifts, we care for creation because “the earth is the Lord’s” (Psalm 24:1).
Consistent with his earlier work in documents such as Lumen Fidei and Evangelii Gaudium, the pope places particular emphasis on the effects that environment degradation has on the poor. Oftentimes the land that has been ruined by pollution or other dangerous ecological practices is left to the poor or the poorer nations of the world. Francis writes that many people are forced to migrate from their homes due to ecological disasters such as drought and famine. Yet often because of international indifference, they are not granted status as refugees. As a result, “they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever” (25). Regarding access to drinking water, supply is limited by pollution, but this is exacerbated by privatization, making an essential ingredient for life a commodity “subject to the laws of the market” (30). Without an altered course, the pope foresees that “once certain resources have been depleted, the scene will be set for new wars, albeit under the guise of noble claims” (57).
Throughout the document, Francis critiques the idea that a “deified market” joined to the myth of progress will solve these environmental problems. Even at its best, he states, “[B] y itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development and social inclusion” (109). Moreover, an exclusive market-based approach insulates many global lifestyles and institutions that actually contribute to the damage in view, even if these actors give lip service to ecology by using “green” rhetoric. This prompts Francis to indicate his surprise at “how weak international political responses have been. The failure of global summits on the environment make it plain that our politics are subject to technology and finance” (54). Indeed, a dynamic relationship exists between the social and the ecological: “We are not faced with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental” (139). The wealthy cannot continue to live in an unsustainable manner and hope to care for the impoverished or creation.
As a result, Francis notes that multivalent solutions will be required for these interconnected problems: “Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature” (139). Indeed, seeing economic oppression and environmental degradation as two sides of the same coin, Francis echoes the work of liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, stating, “Today, however, we have to realize that a true 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” (49).8 Consequently, the common good cannot be equated with technological progress or the increase of abstract economic metrics. As Francis states, “In the present condition of global society, where injustices abound and growing numbers of people are deprived of basic human rights and considered expendable, the principle of the common good immediately becomes, logically and inevitably, a summons to solidarity and a preferential option for the poorest of our brothers and sisters” (158). This common good is incarnated as “a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society” (91).
Further, a great deal of contemporary concern about the environment centers on potential solutions, with many proposals that offer apparent promise. About one of those, carbon credits, Pope Francis is skeptical, seeing this option as “a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require” (171). Other more technological options similarly imply that climate change are largely caused by inefficiencies and not by a global lifestyle of consumerism. While Francis is clear that advanced technology holds promise for lessening the damage to the environment, he is also clear that “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” (20). That is, the climatic crisis is not a problem that only requires a technocratic solution. To only look for this would retain belief in the myth of progress and replicate the objectification of nature. Instead, technology’s benefits must be tempered by better vision: “By learning to see and appreciate beauty, we learn to reject selfinterested pragmatism. If someone has not learned to stop and admire something beautiful, we should not be surprised if he or she treats everything
Today, however, we have to realize that a true 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.as an object to be used and abused without scruple” (215).
Thus, while technology can alleviate our ecological problems, its influence is mixed. The pope notes that opposition to addressing climate change can take many forms and “can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions” (14). By contrast, Francis states, “Many things have to change course, but it is we human beings above all who need to change” (202). In other words, the main thrust of his letter is that humanity’s relationship with the created order is broken (though not beyond repair). Moreover, that relationship is not divorced from humanity’s intrinsic links to God and to others. Hence, throughout the encyclical, Francis repeats the refrain: “Everything is connected” (16, 70, 91, 92, 117, 120, 137, 138, 142, 240). What the ecological crisis demands, then, is not only a technological plan, but a renewed spirituality.
At first glance, spirituality may seem to have little to do with climate change, but Francis recognizes what William Cavanaugh has also noted – the “throwaway culture” of consumerism is not simply a lifestyle based in external choices, but a spiritual discipline that strikes at the heart of one’s existence – one that is dangerous because “Obsession with a consumerist lifestyle, above all when few people are capable of maintaining it, can only lead to violence and mutual destruction” (204).9 The centerpiece of this transformed spirituality is the pope’s namesake, St. Francis of Assisi. Renowned for his love of all of God’s creatures, the patron saint of ecology offers a model of human existence for “care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyfully and authentically” (10). As others have observed, this spirituality calls for a conversion to a radical form of asceticism.10 This life of self-denial is based on St. Francis’s exemplary path of simple living, yet a central truth resides beneath the surface: “a refusal to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled” (12).
Consequently, in St. Francis, the pope finds a renewed spirituality and a renewed understanding of humanity’s place within God’s creation – not one of utility and benefit, but one of mutual aid and intimate care. It is a spirituality that sees the world in a different manner and lives in gratitude for God’s good gifts of creation. As Francis states, “The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely. Hence, there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face. The ideal is not only to pass from the exterior to the interior to discover the action of God in the soul, but also to discover God in all things” (233).
While non-Catholics may pay little attention to papal documents, Laudato Si’, grounded in the life, thought, and spirituality of St. Francis of Assisi, arises from the depth of the Christian tradition and calls all Christians and all human beings into a deep relationship with one another, with creation, and ultimately with God. Christians should take seriously the environmental challenges that threaten all of creaturely existence, and this encyclical offers resources for scientific, theological, and ethical discussion. However, while these challenges are significant, Pope Francis is certain that “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” (61).
To pursue this hope requires what the pope calls “ecological citizenship,” which is formed in many places, including school, in family life, and in church (211, 213). When that spirituality is genuinely appreciated and embraced, then we will recognize and live out the reality of Francis’s statement: “Everything is related, and we human beings are united as brothers and sisters on a wonderful pilgrimage, woven together by the love God has for each of his creatures and which also unites us in fond affection with brother sun, sister moon, brother river and mother earth” (92).
Derek C. Hatch, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Christian Studies, Howard Payne University
1 All citations of the encyclical will be parenthetical and will refer to paragraphs within the document. The encyclical itself is available at w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/ papa-francesco_20150524_enciclicalaudato-si.html.
2
3 John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, §42.
4 Through the installation of roof-top photovoltaic cells and planting a 37-acre forest, among other efforts, Vatican City under Benedict XVI became the first carbon neutral state.
5 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, §51.
6 William L. Portier, “Street Pope: Francis & the Pastoral Rhetoric of Invitation” dotCommonweal (October 7, 2013), available at www.commonwealmagazine.org/street-pope.
7 National Association of Evangelicals, “For the Health of the Nation,”
11. Available at nae.net/ for-the-health-of-the-nation.
8 Cf. Leonardo Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor.
9 William Cavanaugh, Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 48-53.
10 Jana Bennett points to Francis’s additional ascetic exemplars – Charles Foucauld (125), St. John of the Cross (234), and St. Therese of Lisieux (230). See Bennett, “The Everyday Ascetic: Thoughts on Laudato Si’, catholicmoraltheology.com/the-everyday-asceticthoughts-on-laudato-si/.
