“Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love. Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created. And You shall renew the face of the earth.“
Today, on the 18th May, I came across an article on the Vatican News website that reminded me of a little project I had begun working on in March: this very article here that is dealing with the encyclical Laudato si which Pope Francis published in the spring of 2015.
“(…) Not even the pandemic has succeeded in stopping them. The volunteers of the Laudato si’ Community of Stupinigi, in the metropolitan area of Turin, have received even more motivation from the Covid emergency. They have rolled up their sleeves and carried on, despite the difficulties, with their ‘Forno solidale – Impastiamo umanità‘ (Solidarity Bakery – Let’s ‘knead’ humanity) project, baking bread in their wood-burning oven, using flours made from ancient grains and zero-kilometre produce, and distributing it free of charge to the families most affected by the crisis. The community in Stupinigi, in the shadow of the eighteenth-century Savoy residence for hunting and festivals built according to a design by Filippo Juvarra, is one of more than sixty Laudato si’ Communities founded by Bishop Domenico Pompili of Rieti, Italy, and Carlo Petrini, founder of the SlowFood Movement. They work in the spirit of Pope Francis’ 2015 encyclical as core realities of community life, committed to promoting themes of integral ecology through activities and concrete outreach for a more sustainable society. (…)“
Giada Aquilino: Laudato si’ inspired bakers offer special outreach, published on: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2021-05/stories-laudato-si-community-stupingi-social-bakers.html
In fact, this very week is “Laudato si week 2021“, as the “anniversary“ of the publication of Pope Francis‘ encyclical is just around the corner (24th May)… And so here I am, trying one last time to finish and publish this thing… It‘s about time, right?
At the lake
It is March, and the sun is trying her very best to break through after a long winter that saw weeks of ice-cold temperatures and deep snow in February. I start making little daily “pilgrimages“ to a lake located only three tram stops from my apartment to catch the first signs of spring, a breath of fresh air beyond the walls of a seemingly unending “lockdown“, and to pray under the open skies.
Nature is a realm of refuge for us, especially in times like these, as it provides a counter-space to a highly controlled, micromanaged and sanitized society, a space where healthy and human interactions can still unfold. On some of those days in March, the area around the lake almost feels like a hub for a small society of refugees, of people fleeing the realm of dehumanization.
“Is it cold?“, I ask a young man who has just put his clothes back on after taking a swim in the lake. – “Very much so“, he answers.
Despite the uncomfortable temperature of the water, or maybe because of it, and despite the frequent signs put up telling you that going beyond the railings is forbidden, or maybe because of them, I see several men and women, who have climbed over the fence, refreshing themselves by taking a swim.
The railings have been put around the shore area to protect the biotope of the lake. Yet the swimmers, both young and old, enjoy the lake without guilt, deciding to dephy the signs and fences of our bureaucracy which has deemed them necessary in order to keep the natural habitat of plants and animals intact.
It raises questions in your mind, questions like: Is their enjoyment of the lake against the administrative rules to be seen as something “selfish“ that a noble man would not do? But when, in the history of humanity, was people swimming in a lake ever considered to be something harmful to our natural environment? And by the way, there is an open air bath on one side of the lake that allows for swimming – it is just that over there you have to pay for it. So is swimming in the end only forbidden because it shall not be free of charge?
And why is it that I find the signs and fences that seem to be there for good ecological reasons ugly and slightly disturbing my experience of the beauty of the scenery, while I delight in seeing rule-breaking men enter the cold water and in noticing their happiness when they reach the shore again?
I begin to realize that I find beauty in what they do, that I find beauty in their enjoyment of nature‘s free and gracious gifts, a beauty that raises my own spirit. And I feel a desire rise up in myself to do the same, to follow their example…
Yet, two months later, on a warm, almost hot, spring day in the month of May, I understand why these fences are, on the one hand, maybe really necessary – but also why they are, on the other hand, completely useless: Masses of people have come to the lake for taking a swim and bathing in the sun. This place is no longer a secret spot for half-depressed lockdown refugees but suddenly it has turned into a makeshift amusement park for bored hedonists. Because of the many people who do not care about the swimming prohibition, one begins to indeed fear for the natural habitat of the plants and animals… And seeing heaps of rubbish left by these “barbarian hordes“ everywhere, one cannot help but sigh: No beauty is left now…
No longer do I feel any desire to “follow the example“ of all those entering the water. A strong impulse tells me to withdraw, to go looking for a new refuge, to never visit this lake again on a warm day… Suddenly, all the perils of the civilization that is the sick and dark heart of this city are here, occupying my little sweet spot…
“Integral“ and “human ecology“ versus a one-dimensional environmentalism
When I hear the words “Laudato si“ I will forever remember how one of my best friends and I were sitting in the front seats of her car and loudly singing the popular Christian hymn by that name in our attempt to calm down her young baby boy who was not especially fond of car drives. It worked somehow. And it was quite some fun.
Besides being a well-known song based on Saint Francis of Assisi‘s Canticle of Creatures that can help soothing babies, Laudato si is the title that Pope Francis chose for his encyclical dealing with issues of ecology.
Having read it, I would try to characterize his approach on the topic thus: Pope Francis tries to remind everyone that any real ecological concern is about caring – taking care of all the various dimensions and elements that make for a genuine human life within the context of a creation in which we participate and are called to protect. He proposes a model of “integral ecology“ that, while dealing with environmental problems, never loses sight of the various social and cultural threats which beleaguer us alongside of them.
Consider, for example, the following remarks taken from Chapter One: What Is Happening to Our Common Home and Chapter Four: Integral Ecology of the encyclical:
“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. (…)
Laudato si, encyclical by Pope Francis, paragraphs 49 and 60
(…) 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. At the other extreme are those who view men and women and all their interventions as no more than a threat, jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced and all forms of intervention prohibited. (…)“
“Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it. (…) It is essential to seek comprehensive solutions which consider the interactions within natural systems themselves and with social systems. We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. (…)
Laudato si, encyclical by Pope Francis, paragraphs 138-162
Together with the patrimony of nature, there is also an historic, artistic and cultural patrimony which is likewise under threat. (…) Ecology, then, also involves protecting the cultural treasures of humanity in the broadest sense. (…)
A consumerist vision of human beings, encouraged by the mechanisms of today‘s globalized economy, has a levelling effect on cultures, diminishing the immense variety which is the heritage of all humanity. (…)
The disappearance of a culture can be just as serious, or even more serious, than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal. The imposition of a dominant lifestyle linked to a single form of production can be just as harmful as the altering of ecosystems. (…)
The acceptance of our bodies as God‘s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential part of any genuine human ecology. (…)
Our difficulty in taking up this challenge seriously has much to do with an ethical and cultural decline which has accompanied the deterioration of the environment. 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. (…) Let us not only keep the poor of the future in mind, but also today‘s poor, whose life on this earth is brief and who cannot keep on waiting.“
“(…) genuine care for our own lives and our relationships with nature is inseparable from fraternity, justice and faithfulness to others.“
Laudato si, encyclical by Pope Francis, paragraph 70
Contrasting with this balanced, moderate, multifaceted, and most of all truly humanistic approach to considering current ecological challenges, there seems to be a quite militant and grim environmentalism around these days that takes itself very seriously and knows, due to its deeply secularist attitudes, neither of gratefulness nor joy nor true respect and concern for life. This environmentalism is a somewhat stern ideology and austere religion that makes for a very one-dimensional and ultimately hostile view on life.
People taken captive by this ideology tend to be quite fond of an exercise I find rather dull, and which by now everyone of us has had the chance to encounter in various newspapers and school books: the calculation of the amount of carbondioxid released into the atmosphere, enlargening your already giant “Western“ “ecological footprint“, whenever you drive around in a car, board a flight, buy a certain product, and so forth.
Any machine, any computer can give us the mathematical results of these equations. But only real human beings of flesh and blood, and with unmuzzled and fresh minds could add philosophical depth to the issue at hand, if only they took it upon themselves to really step into their role as creatures capable of deep and wide thinking and to cast off any type of delusional competition with the efficiently functioning but never once truly thinking and feeling machine.
I really don’t believe that these mathematical drills imposed on defenseless school children, accompanied by much moralizing, have the potential to bring about even one single constructive thing when it comes to any sort of effective education in respecting and protecting nature that is worthy of its name.
Instead they probably do manage rather well to instill into young boys and girls perpetual feelings of guilt and shame for having enjoyed their last summer vacation, and – by their abstractness and their “spirit“, or rather lack thereof – do their share in ruining the very basis for every true ethical education in the track of the Golden Rule, which is concrete, genuine and unfeigned sympathy and empathy – a “reverence for life“, as Albert Schweitzer called it, “a compassion to include all living things“. These are attitudes that can only originate in the very opposite of the disembodied and disinterested mind of the mathematical and utilitarian machine we are “breeding“ in our current school system.
All these numerical charts are joyless calculations instead of joyful caring for the splendor and diversity of life and nature. The environmentalism I am referring to here – as something ultimately at odds with the integral and human ecology Pope Francis has in mind – is quite prone to employ a black and ideologized pedagogics to achieve its ends of “saving planet earth“ instead of striving to pass on a wholesome education in virtues. Real environmental education would rather mean something along the lines of letting children take care of a gardening project.
“(…) this education, aimed at creating an ‘ecological citizenship‘, is at times limited to providing information, and fails to instil good habits. (…) Only by cultivating sound virtues will people be able to make a selfless ecological commitment. (…) There is a nobility in the duty to care for creation through little daily actions (…). Education in environmental responsibility can encourage ways of acting which directly and significantly affect the world around us, such as avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption, separating refuse, cooking only what can reasonably be consumed, showing care for other living beings, using public transport or car-pooling, planting trees, turning off unnecessary lights, or any number of other practices. All of these reflect a generous and worthy creativity which brings out the best in human beings.“
Laudato si, encyclical by Pope Francis, paragraph 211
Despite all the fancy column charts and pie charts which such exercises as the ones mentioned above produce for us to behold, people continue to take planes to get around the world instead of limiting themselves in a spirit of “sacrifice“ for the recovery and well-being of planet earth, as the preachers of the “saving the planet“ religion propagate.
The fact, that the actual factor of human contribution to the so-called “climate change“ phenomenon in our incredibly complex eco-system is, verifiably, still a matter of debate in the scientific community, should lead one to a certain skepticism whenever policies, justified with reference to the dangers of climate change, are packaged as “ecological concern“, while, at the same time and often enough by the agency of the very same protagonists, everything else, like a truly sustainable way of agriculture or the issue of protecting biodiversity, is pushed to the sidelines and seems to be of little interest.
But apart from that, the reason why carbondioxid numbers leave people untouched and why folks still board planes to visit friends and family abroad or to get to know a foreign country is very simple, I‘d like to suggest: It is because they are human. And human beings are not made for analyzing abstract ratios but for loving and caring, and for discovering truth, goodness, and beauty in the things of this world and beyond. They are made in the image of God, and they are made for relationships.
And that is why every purely “scientific“, or “rational“, or “utilitarian“, or “technocratic“ approach, and every ideology that is even remotely, whether consciously or unconsciously, connected with frenetic phantasies of “mind control“ and “population control“ to meet its own abstract ends, thereby denying and undermining human freedom, are ultimately making a mockery of the dignity of human life. And I am of the opinion that this must be strongly resisted by Catholics on every front.
We will see that Pope Francis, in his encyclical Laudato si, is keen on defending the Catholic “gospel of life“ against the ever advancing “culture of death“, just like Pope Saint John Paul II was.
Why Pope Francis wrote Laudato si
“‘Laudato si, mi Signore’ – ‘Praise be to you, my Lord’. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. ‘Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs.‘ (…)
Pope Francis, paragraphs 1-3 of the encyclical Laudato si
In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home.“
The encyclical was published on the Solemnity of Pentecost 2015, the 24th May. Pope Francis wished to make a contribution to the body of social teaching in the Church.
As you see, Pope Francis opens the encyclical with a reference to Saint Francis of Assisi‘s famous Canticle of Creatures. It is worth reading the complete prayer attributed to this medieval saint:
Most High, all-powerful, good Lord,
Saint Francis of Assisi: The Canticle of Creatures
Yours are the praises, the glory,
and the honour and all blessing.
To You alone, Most High, do they belong
and no human is worthy to mention Your name.
Praised be you, my Lord,
with all Your creatures,
especially Sir Brother Sun,
who is the day,
and through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful
and radiant with great splendour;
and bears a likeness of You, Most High one.
Praised be You, my Lord,
through Sister Moon and the stars,
in heaven You formed them
clear and precious and beautiful.
Praised be You, my Lord,
through Brother Wind,
and through the air, cloudy and serene,
and every kind of weather
through which you give sustance to your creatures.
Praised be You, my Lord,
through Sister water,
who is very useful and humble
and precious and chaste.
Praised be You, my Lord,
through Brother fire,
through whom You light the night,
and he is beautiful and playful
and robust and strong.
Praised be You, my Lord,
through our Sister Mother Earth,
who sustains and governs us,
and who produces various fruit
with coloured flowers and herbs.
Praised be You, my Lord,
through those who give pardon for Your love,
and bear infirmity and tribulation.
Blessed those who endure in peace,
for by You, Most High, shall they be crowned.
Praised be You, my Lord,
through our Sister Bodily Death,
from whom no one living can escape.
Woe to those who die in mortal sin.
Blessed are those whom death
will find in Your most holy will,
for the second death shall do them no harm.
Praise and bless my Lord and give Him thanks
and serve Him with great humility.
Saint Francis of Assisi lived in a thoroughly meaningful world, a coherent universe full of interrelations and communication. He lived the life of a pilgrim on his way to heaven, aware of life’s transitoriness, yet also at home on this earth. A man chanting such a prayer is like a troubadour in love with God and His creation.
Starting the encyclical off with this reference tells us that the spirituality of Saint Francis of Assisi is supposed to be the backdrop of Pope Francis‘ attempt to line out what “care for our common home“ could mean, and what a Catholic framework for understanding ecological issues could look like.
“I do not want to write this Encyclical without turning to that attractive and compelling figure, whose name I took as my guide and inspiration when I was elected Bishop of Rome. I believe that Saint Francis is the example par excellence of care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyfully and authentically. He is the patron saint of all who study and work in the area of ecology, and he is also much loved by non-Christians. He was particularly concerned for God‘s creation and for the poor and outcast. He loved, and was deeply loved for his joy, his generous self-giving, his openheartedness. He was a mystic and a pilgrim who lived in simplicity and in wonderful harmony with God, with others, with nature and with himself. (…)
Laudato si, encyclical by Pope Francis, paragraphs 10-12
Francis helps us to see that in 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. (…) His response to the world around him was so much more than intellectual appreciation or economic calculus, for to him each and every creature was a sister united to him by bonds of affection. That is why he felt called to care for all that exists. (…) If we approach nature and 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 meer veneer of asceticism, but something much more radical: a refusal to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled.
What is more, Saint Francis, faithful to Scripture, invites us to see nature as a magnificent book in which God speaks to us and grants us a glimpse of his infinite beauty and goodness. (…) Rather than a problem to be solved, the world is a joyful mystery to be contemplated with gladness and praise.“
We will look at some more excerpts taken from three of the six chapters of this encyclical, from Chapter Three: The Human Roots of the Ecological Crisis, Chapter Two: The Gospel of Creation and Chapter Six: Ecological Education and Spirituality.
I chose these passages because in my opinion they contain the core, the meat and bone of this encyclical, and provide insight into the real disease and the real cure when it comes to caring for our common home – far beyond the shallow issue of calculating people‘s “ecological footprints“.
Leaving footprints, and recognizing wolves in “green garb“
Human beings, by the way, should in general be desiring to leave a footprint in the sands of time, to leave their mark on this world, to leave behind a legacy, to hand down something tangible to the next generation, much more tangible and physical than ideas or numbers: be it a family teeming with children and grandchildren, a wholesome and gallant project or enterprise, or at least a couple of bloody passionate poems born from their very real experiences on both darker and lighter days.
We are bodies, built from dust and endowed with the breath of God, who are made to interact with this beautiful material world which God created for His glory and our welfare. We are subjects, agents, called to act as kings, priests and prophets, and at the same time called to walk as apprentices under the guidance of our supreme Teacher, as children under the protection of our heavenly Father – apprentices and children who humbly acknowledge their weakness, frailty, and the limits of their knowledge.
This delicate combination of earthbound “dust“ and of “breath“, of the creative “Spirit of life“, the Spirit of the Creator “from on high“, is our make-up and setting in this life, and in realizing our calling as faithful stewards of the ultimate King it is not always all that easy to walk the line, to quote Johnny Cash here.
But most definitely we are not supposed to live as passive onlookers trying to get out of this “ecosystem“, to remove ourselves from the equation with the least amount of touching and the least amount of getting touched, to then eventually vanish into the abyss with some variation of “I have not done much, but at least I have done nothing wrong, and have kept my ecological footprint small and tiny“ on our lips.
Mother Nature‘s quite a lady, but you are the one I need.
Johnny Cash: Flesh and Blood
Flesh and blood needs flesh and blood, and you are the one I need.
There is nothing that touches any man or woman like another human being. Except for, at times, in their painful absence, a gentle sunset, the wild ocean, or the silent presence of a precious rose, especially if they remind us of someone we love or redirect us to the infinite mercy and goodness of the One who made the heavens and the earth, who has made everything so well right up to this very moment.
Ultimately, it is God our Creator Himself who is touching us through it all, trying to reach our hearts by a thousand signs and wonders of His love. Creation is sacramental, and there is no true respect for this special quality of everything that surrounds us in any piece and version of a dogged secularism that claims to be able to “solve the world‘s problems“ but does not ever wish to pause and thank for the Creator‘s abundant and manifold gifts.
As Pope Francis has reminded us in one of the passages of his encylical quoted above, God has not created the world as a “problem“ to be solved but as a lavish outpouring of His love to be praised in return by a long lineage of childlike troubadours in love with His artwork and with Him, the Artist, eyes wide open for His ingenious miracles.
The world we live in as well as our own lives will always be something which needs to be received first. And so I am quite convinced that only those who, openly or silently, consciously or to some extent unconsciously, believe in the Creator of heaven and earth, who holds the whole world and everything in it in His hands and from whom the gift of life flows to us in abundance in every second out of sheer love, will be able to firmly resist the mad notion that human society has to somehow enter into a bunch of hyperactive efforts to maintain our planet “in existence“, to avert “extinction“ and the “end of the world“.
God‘s grace, shining down on us despite all our sins, faults, and shortcomings like the sun that rises each day, is new every morning. Yet without knowing His grace as the context for our human life, the actual practice of this life is always on the edge of deteriorating to a blend of megalomania, anxious self-centeredness, and the absurd display of a ravening folly that cannot ever come to rest, as it is restlessly seeking to produce ex nihilio the meaning it denies a priori and never attaining to what it sets out to accomplish.
It is precisely God‘s grace that humbles us, and what nature probably needs most for her recovery under our reign is our humility. Rejecting the idea that we existentially depend on God‘s grace, whether rejecting it openly or silently, consciously or unconsciously, theoretically or practically, always leads to human pride combined with frantic ventures to fashion ourselves, our world, the whole universe by employing the power of our mental, social, and technological “tools“ – without any loving ground and motivation for whatever we are trying to achieve there.
All these rather salted comments are not in the least meant to target anyone who genuinely cares a great deal about environmental and ecological issues, or anyone of good will who tries to live his life in a way mindful of the ecological ramifications of our decisions and choices. They are solely directed toward the conscious or unconscious proponents of the “culture of death“, a morbid and sour spirit, even if painted all “green“, that looks at the world with dead eyes and tries to control life assisted by dead charts.
We should be aware of the wolves who come to us in sheep‘s – or “green“ – clothing, and be aware of certain ideas and distorted perspectives that are actually hostile to the fullness of life. There is a lot of “green rhetoric“ around these days that is nothing but a mask we should dare to tear down.
I have plenty of respect for farmers who produce organic food because of all the genuine dedication, care and hard work they put in. But whenever and wherever the topic of ecology is taken advantage of by powerful interest groups of a globalist and consumerist agenda that simply wish to diminish our individual and local freedom and responsibility behind our backs, to then, in the next step, profit from our lack of self-reliant and creative autonomy, we must not think of them as “philanthropists“, as friends of humanity, as fellow sheep. It is, frankly, nothing but insane and an accurate measure of the intellectual and moral low point we have already reached, that some powerful people and scientists are pondering the possibility of artificially “blocking“ the rays of the life-giving sun in order to curb and control “global warming“… Everyone can judge for themselves if this is the kind of world we wish to live in.
Our fellow sheep are those who are, in some way, shape or form, willing to acknowledge and revere the Divine Shepherd above them. Everyone else is, sadly enough, whether they are aware of it or not, laboring for the camp that runs under the banner of our common enemy who comes only “to steal, and to kill, and to destroy“ (John 10: 10).
And so we must at times find ways to escape the grasp of the artificial and disintegrating project of civilization of these strange powers that be, and even learn to ignore the messages designed to uphold the global administration of scarcity, as we boldly climb over the fences that have been put up, and take a deep dive in enjoying the abundant gift of life again.
But don‘t get me wrong here: Unless those who “rebel“ in tiny little daily ways against the blueprints and the emerging outlines of a completely “administered“ world are also striving for virtues, holiness, and the building up of a “civilization of life and love“ (Saint John Paul II), their “rebellion“ will sooner or later just turn into yet another version of the “barbarian hordes“ that stormed the lake of my and my fellow sufferers‘ refuge and turned it into… Berlin.
Having read Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato si, I think that this warning of wolves in sheep’s or “green“ clothing is part of it, alongside his hope and call for a genuine “ecological conversion“ (paragraph 217) and an “authentic humanity“ (paragraph 112).
The real disease: the “technocratic paradigm“ – excerpts from Chapter Three of Laudato si
“A certain way of understanding human life and activity has gone awry, to the serious detriment of the world around us. Should we not pause and consider this? At this stage, I propose that we focus on the dominant technocratic paradigm and the place of human beings and of human action in the world. (…)
Laudato si, encyclical by Pope Francis, paragraphs 101-129
Technoscience, when well directed, can produce important means of improving the quality of human life, from useful domestic appliances to great transportation systems, bridges, buildings and public spaces. It can also produce art and enable men and women immersed in the material world to ‘leap‘ into the world of beauty. Who can deny the beauty of an aircraft or a skyscraper? Valuable works of art and music now make use of new technologies. So, in the beauty intended by the one who uses new technical instruments and in the contemplation of such beauty, a quantum leap occurs, resulting in a fulfilment which is uniquely human.
Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world. 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. (…) In whose hands does all this power lie, or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part of humanity to have it.
There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means ‘an increase of ‘progress‘ itself‘ (…), as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such. (…) But human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint.
The basic problem goes even deeper: 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. It is as if the subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation. 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. Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. (…)
It can be said that many problems of today‘s world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society. The effects of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life. We have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build.
(…)
It has become countercultural to choose a lifestyle whose goals are even partly independent of technology, of its costs and its power to globalize and make us all the same. Technology tends to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology ‘know full well that it moves forward in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race‘, that ‘in the most radical sense of the term power is its motive – a lordship over all‘. Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one‘s alternative creativity are diminished.
The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate economic and political life. (…) Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in popular and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth. (…)
Life gradually becomes a surrender to situations conditioned by technology, itself viewed as the principal key to the meaning of existence. (…)
There needs to be (…) a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic paradigm. Otherwise, even the best ecological initiatives can find themselves caught up in the same globalized logic. To seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system. (…)
Liberation from the dominant technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community. (…) An authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis, seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door. (…)
If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this (…).
Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the way of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds. (…)
Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for ‘instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature‘.
This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity. There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology. When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinsm, then ‘our overall sense of responsibility wanes‘. (…) 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.
(…) we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. (…) A correct relationship with the created world demands that we not weaken this social dimension of openness to others, much less the transcendent dimension of our openness to the ‘Thou‘ of God. Our relationship with the environment can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than romantic individualism dressed up in ecological garb, locking us into a stifling immanence.
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? (…)
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 relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one‘s own immediate interests. (…)
We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided.
Any approach to an integral ecology, which by definition does not exclude human beings, needs to take account of the value of labour (…).
We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment. (…)
In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity and business creativity. (…) Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures in support of small producers and differentiated production. (…)
The real cure: “the gospel of creation“ and “the Lord of life“ – excerpts from Chapter Two and Chapter Six of Laudato si
“Saint John Paul II stated that the special love of the Creator for each human being ‘confers upon him or her an infinite dignity‘. Those who are committed to defending human dignity can find in the Christian faith the deepest reasons for this commitment. How wonderful is the certainty that each human life is not adrift in the midst of hopeless chaos, in a world ruled by pure chance or endlessly recurring cycles! (…)
The creation accounts in the book of Genesis contain (…) profound teachings about human existence and its historical reality. They suggest that human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with the earth itself. According to the Bible, these three vital relationships have been broklen, both outwardly and within us. This rupture is sin. (…)
(…) 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. (…)
This responsibility for God‘s earth means that human beings, endowed with intelligence, must respect the laws of nature and the delicate equilibria existing between the creatures of this world (…). Clearly, the Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures.
Together with out obligation to use the earth‘s goods responsibly, we are called to recognize that other living beings have a value of their own in God‘s eyes: ‘by their mere existence they bless him and give him glory‘, and indeed, ‘the Lord rejoices in all his works‘ (Ps 104: 31). (…) The Catechism clearly and forcefully criticizes a distorted anthropocentrism: ‘Each creature possesses its own particular goodness and perfection… Each of the various creatures, willed in its own being, reflects in its own way a ray of God‘s infinite wisdom and goodness. Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things.‘ (…)
The biblical tradition clearly shows that this renewal entails recovering and respecting the rhythms inscribed in nature by the hand of the Creator. We see this, for example, in the law of the Sabbath. On the seventh day, God rested from all his work. He commanded Israel to set aside each seventh day as a day of rest, a Sabbath, (cf. Gen 2: 2-3; Ex 16: 23; 20: 10). Similarly, every seven years, a sabbatical year was set aside for Israel, a complete rest for the land (cf. Lev 25: 1-4), when sowing was forbidden and one reaped only what was necessary to live on and to feed one‘s household (cf. Lev 25: 4-6). Finally, after seven weeks of years, which is to say forty-nine years, the Jubilee was celebrated as a year of general forgiveness and ‘liberty throughout the land for all its inhabitants‘ (cf. Lev 25: 10). (…) Those who tilled and kept the land were obliged to share its fruits, especially with the poor, with widows, orphans and foreigners in their midst (…).
(…) The best way to restore men and women to their rightful place, putting an end to their claim to absolute dominion over the earth, is to speak once more of the figure of a Father who creates and who alone owns the world. Otherwise, human beings will always try to impose their own laws and interests on reality. (…)
Creation is of the order of love. God‘s love is the fundamental moving force in all created things: ‘For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made; for you would not have made anything if you had hated it‘ (Wis 11: 24). (…)
Creating a world in need of development, God in some way sought to limit himself in such a way that many of the things we think of as evils, dangers or sources of suffering, are in reality part of the pains of childbirth which he uses to draw us into the act of cooperation with the Creator. (…)
The biblical accounts of creation invite us to see each human being as a subject who can never be reduced to the status of an object.
Yet it would also be mistaken to view other living beings as mere objects subjected to arbitrary human domination. (…)
The ultimate destiny of the universe is in the fullness of God, which has already been attained by the risen Christ, the measure of the maturity of all things. (…) The ultimate purpose of other creatures is not to be found in us. Rather, all creatures are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things. (…)The entire material universe speaks of God‘s love, his boundless affection for us. (…)
Laudato si, encylical by Pope Francis, paragraphs 65-100
God has written a precious book, ‘whose letters are the multitude of created things present in the universe‘. (…) This contemplation of creation allows us to discover in each thing a teaching which God wishes to hand on to us, since ‘for the believer, to contemplate creation is to hear a message, to listen to a paradoxical and silent voice‘. (…)
We understand better the importance and meaning of each creature if we contemplate it within the entirety of God‘s plan. As the Catechism teaches: ‘God wills the interdependence of creatures. The sun and the moon, the cedar and the little flower, the eagle and the sparrow: the spectacle of their countless diversities and inequalities tells us that no creature is self-sufficient. Creatures exist only in dependence on each other, to complete each other, in the service of each other.‘ (…)
The Spirit of life dwells in every living creature and calls us to enter into relationship with him. (…) This is not to forget that there is an infinite distance between God and the things of this world, which do not possess his fullness. (…)
A sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings. It is clearly inconsistent to combat trafficking in endangered species while remaining completely indifferent to human trafficking, unconcerned about the poor, or undertaking to destroy another human being deemed unwanted. (…)
It follows that our indifference or cruelty towards fellow creatures of this world sooner or later affects the treatment we mete out to other human beings. We have only one heart, and the same wretchedness which leads us to mistreat an animal will not be long in showing itself in our relationships with other people. (…)
Hence every ecological approach needs to incorporate a social perspective which takes into account the fundamental rights of the poor and the underprivileged. (…)
The Lord was able to invite others to be attentive to the beauty that there is in the world because he himself was in constant touch with nature, lending it an attention full of fondness and wonder. As he made his way throughout the land, he often stopped to contemplate the beauty sown by his Father, and invited his disciples to perceive a divine message in things (…).
He was far removed from philosophies which despised the body, matter and the things of the world. (…) Jesus worked with his hands, in daily contact with the matter created by God, to which he gave form by his craftsmanship. (…) In this way he sanctified human labour and endowed it with a special significance for our development. (…)
(…) 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. The very flowers of the field and the birds which his human eyes contemplated and admired are now imbued with his radiant presence.“
“Compulsive consumerism is one example of how the techno-economic paradigm affects individuals. (…) This paradigm leads people to believe that they are free as long as they have the supposed freedom to consume. (…)
Laudato si, encyclical by Pope Francis, paragraphs 203-245
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. As these attitudes become more widespread, social norms are respected only to the extent that they do not clash with personal needs. (…)
Yet all is not lost. (…) No system can completely suppress our openness to what is good, true and beautiful, or our God-given ability to respond to his grace at work deep in our hearts. I appeal to everyone throughout the world not to forget this dignity which is ours. No one has the right to take it from us. (…)
If we can overcome individualism, we will truly be able to develop a different lifestyle and bring about significant changes in society. (…)
Living our vocation to be protectors of God‘s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience. (…)
Christian spirituality proposes a growth marked by moderation and the capacity to be happy with little. (…)
Such sobriety, when lived freely and consciously, is liberating. (…) Happiness means knowing how to limit some needs which only diminish us, and being open to the many different possibilities which life can offer. (…)
We are speaking of an attitude of the heart, one which approaches life with serene attentiveness, which is capable of being fully present to someone without thinking of what comes next, which accepts each moment as a gift from God to be lived to the full. (…)
One expression of this attitude is when we stop and give thanks to God before and after meals. I ask all believers to return to this beautiful and meaningful custom. That moment of blessing, however brief, reminds us of our dependence on God for life; it strengthens our feeling of gratitude for the gifts of creation; it acknowledges those who by their labours provide us with these goods; and it reaffirms our solidarity with those in greatest need. (…)
Saint Thérèse of Lisieux invites us to practise the little way of love, not to miss out on a kind word, a smile or any small gesture which sows peace and friendship. (…)
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. (…)
It is in the Eucharist that all thas been created finds its greatest exaltation. Grace, which tends to manifest itself tangibly, found unsurpassable expression when God himself became man and gave himself as food for his creatures. (…) Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. (…) The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. (…)
Sunday, like the Jewish Sabbath, is meant to be a day which heals our relationships with God, with ourselves, with others and with the world. (…) Rest opens our eyes to the larger picture and gives us renewed sensitivity to the rights of others. And so the day of rest, centred on the Eucharist, sheds its light on the whole week, and motivates us to greater concern for nature and the poor. (…)
The human person grows more, matures more and is sanctified more to the extent that he or she enters into relationships, going out from themselves to live in communion with God, with others and with all creatures. (…)
In the heart of this world, the Lord of life, who loves us so much, is always present.“