I don’t know about you, but I’m
loving what I’ve read of the new encyclical Pope Francis issued on June 18. Entitled
“Laudato Si,” (Praise Be), On the
Care of Our Common Home,” it calls for no
less than a “cultural revolution” to change the economic and political systems
that have led us to the brink of disaster from climate change: “Humanity is
called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and
consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which
produce or aggravate it.” The Pope
actually labels the world’s dominant economic system (i.e. capitalism)
“structurally perverse” for the way it produces gross inequality, the
exploitation of the poor by the rich, and an Earth that has become an “immense
pile of filth.” And most important, it calls for viewing the issue of climate
change from a moral perspective, thus
cutting through the attempt to sideline this Pope and other spiritual leaders
for butting into an issue which is ‘political.’ No, says the Pope, climate
change is a moral issue because it stems directly from the “unfair, fossil-fuel
based industrial model that harms the poor most” (Christian Science Monitor, 6/18/15.)
The document is
clearly meant to influence the UN climate negotiations due to convene in Paris
later this year. As if echoing the Nature’s Trust argument (see my blog on Nature’s Trust, 6/3/15), the Pope called
for an awakening of all people of faith from all religions to “save God’s
creation for future generations.” This is because the “dominion” over all other
creatures that climate change doubters often cite as Biblical permission for
humans to do whatever they choose to the Earth and animal life, is actually a charge
for humans to “care for” the Earth and its creatures. Engaging in activities,
as humans have for hundreds of years, that lead directly to pollution and mass
extinctions, is thus characterized as a breach of Christian teaching. The Pope
underlines this love for and duty to god’s creation by using the words of his
namesake, St Francis of Assisi: “brother sun and sister moon.” He’s also quite
specific about how this duty trumps both politics and the ‘might is right’
philosophy that guides much of our economic and political action:
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…Completely at
odds with this model are the ideals of harmony, justice, fraternity and peace
as proposed by Jesus. (quoted in CS
Monitor).
Predictably,
countless conservative and political actors have responded to the Pope’s
encyclical with alarm, dismay and contempt. Jeb Bush, himself a Catholic
through conversion, said on the basis of the leaked portion of the document, “I
think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about
things that end up getting into the political realm.” And the ever-moralistic,
often mawkish David Brooks, commenting on NPR and the PBS Newshour, credited
the Pope with a “beautiful” document on the connectedness of all life, but
criticized his politics, saying that the Pope should stick to morals rather
than getting embroiled in the political arena where he’s naïve and would have
little effect anyway. As for his economics, which has been setting off alarm
bells since he became Pope, conservatives, free-market advocates and the energy
lobby have been uniform in their condemnation of the Pope’s call to reduce
consumption and turn to renewable energy sources. “Energy is the essential
building block of the modern world,” said Thomas Pyle of the Institute of
Energy Research, a fossil-fuel ‘think’ tank. And the Wall Street Journal ran a
headline saying that “Pope Blames Markets for Environment’s Ills.” But the
Pope’s encyclical has anticipated most of these critics, including those who
have condemned his Latin American concern for the poor as socialist or Marxist.
No, insists the Pope, caring for the poor is not a sign of communism but the
basic concern of Christians and Christianity. Further, Christianity does not
simply concern itself with souls and the afterlife, but with the lives of
humans and other creatures here and now, on Earth, which he actually calls
“mother earth.” And still further, the Pope has demonstrated that he has a
rather keen sense of politics and the limits of what politicians can
accomplish:
A politics concerned with immediate results, supported
by consumerist sectors of the population, is driven to produce short-term
growth. In response to electoral interests, governments are reluctant to upset
the public with measures which could affect the level of consumption or create
risks for foreign investment. The myopia of power politics delays the inclusion
of a far-sighted environmental agenda within the overall agenda of governments.
Not bad for
a ‘naïve’ spiritual leader with his head in the clouds.
But rather
than interpret what the Pope or his predictable critics say, perhaps some
excerpts from the encyclical will better serve to convey both the radical substance
and tone of this transformative (we devoutly hope) document.
We all know that 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… 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.
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. Until greater progress is made in developing
widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the
lesser of two evils or to find short-term solutions. But the international
community has still not reached adequate agreements about the responsibility
for paying the costs of this energy transition.
Once more, we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which
would suggest that problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits
of companies or individuals….Where profits alone count, there can be no thinking
about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the
complexity of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention.
..it is essential to show special care for indigenous communities and their
cultural traditions. They are not merely one minority among others, but should
be the principal dialogue partners, especially when large projects affecting
their land are proposed. For them, land is not a commodity but rather a gift
from God and from their ancestors who rest there, a sacred space with which
they need to interact if they are to maintain their identity and values. When
they remain on their land, they themselves care for it best. Nevertheless, in
various parts of the world, pressure is being put on them to abandon their
homelands to make room for agricultural or mining projects which are undertaken
without regard for the degradation of nature and culture.
A change in lifestyle could bring healthy pressure to bear on those who
wield political, economic and social power. This is what consumer movements
accomplish by boycotting certain products. They prove successful in changing
the way businesses operate, forcing them to consider their environmental
footprint and their patterns of production. When social pressure affects their
earnings, businesses clearly have to find ways to produce differently. This
shows us the great need for a sense of social responsibility on the part of
consumers. (all excerpts courtesy of Reuters.)
Again, this would be impressive as a position
paper from a radical environmentalist. From the leader of the normally
conservative Catholic Church, which historically has been anything but eager to
confront political or economic powers whose favor it has, rather, tended to curry,
this is indeed revolutionary. Rather than take cover as one of the great sacred
cows of our world, Francis’s Church has exposed the sacred cows of political
and economic sovereignty that have heretofore enjoyed virtual immunity. And this,
in turn, speaks to the fact, less and less deniable with each day, that current
generations do indeed face one of the greatest crises in all of human history. All
one can say is thanks be to whatever influences (we know of some, like Cardinal
Peter Turkson of Ghana, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, whose office wrote the draft of the encyclical) and whatever in his
Latin American background has disposed Pope Francis to cultivate his obvious
concern for the poor and exploited of the earth, and for the earth itself. It
is long overdue.
Lawrence DiStasi
No comments:
Post a Comment