immanence

Now that Laudato Si, the Papal Encyclical “On Care for Our Common Home,” is available for all to read, the punditocracy can debate it to their hearts’ content. As the most far-reaching statement by the single largest (relatively united) religious denomination on the planet, it is likely to have an immense impact on global conversations around what is probably the single most important issue facing humanity — climate change and its accompanying human and ecological effects.

My initial thought upon reading it is that Pope Francis is signalling a redirection within the Catholic Church (as he has been doing all along, but not so explicitly around environmental concerns) and, at the same time, contributing importantly (if implicitly) toward the building of a broad-based alliance around the goals of the climate justice movement.

To these two goals, he has marshalled the full weight of Catholic tradition — historical sources (singling out St. Francis of Assisi in particular), pontifical citations (including each of his three predecessors), liturgical and sacramental resources, and biblical hermeneutics, including a clear rejection of the theology of human “dominion over the earth” and an embrace of a Franciscan theology of love and care for the Earth. The latter goes beyond mere “stewardship” — which has marked the general temper of Christian eco-theology since Lynn White’s famous argument of 1967 — toward something deeper and more integrally ecological. (I’ll comment on the conspicuous presence of this term “integral ecology” in a moment.)

He is clearly reaching out here to allies in the Christian world — notably Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who has heretofore led the Christian response to the ecological crisis — and in the broader public milieu, including the scientific and environmentalist communities.

The reference to scientific ecology is treated here as both common-sensical and authoritative. The list of ecological ills he mentions is thorough enough, ranging from anthropogenic climate change (the main theme) to water scarcity and loss of biodiversity. But these are linked clearly in the document to social and economic matters — including, most forcefully, global inequality and vested economic interests — and to the moral values that underpin our arrangements with all living things, values which the document urges ought to reflect a “universal communion,” a “sublime communion which fills us with a sacred, affectionate and humble respect” for all created things (i.e., for all things, period) (par. 89).

“Integral ecology”

This term marks a clear statement of a reformulated Catholic ecological ethic. It appears italicized in the chapter that bears its name (chapter 4 of 6) and comes surrounded by kindred terms including “environmental, economic and social ecology,” “cultural ecology,” “ecology of daily life,” “ecological education and spirituality,” and “ecological conversion” — all of which bear their own sub-headings in the document — alongside “human ecology,” “social ecology,” “an ethics of ecology,” “the common good,” “the ecological movement” (or “movements”), “ecological debt,” the “intrinsic value” of nature, and many related terms.

The wealth of reference to these many “ecologies” is conspicuous and, in a Catholic context, fairly unprecedented. (It almost feels to me as if Francis, or his advisors, have been reading Felix Guattari, Gregory Bateson, or some of the other theorists of multiple ecologies.)

Statements like the following echo ideas that environmental scholars and theorists, particularly those on the green left (i.e., social ecologists, liberation ecologists, ecofeminists, eco-marxists, et al.), have been articulating for decades, but which have so far largely eluded the world’s religious or political elites:

“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. Recognizing the reasons why a given area is polluted requires a study of the workings of society, its economy, its behaviour patterns, and the ways it grasps reality. Given the scale of change, it is no longer possible to find a specific, discrete answer for each part of the problem. 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. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature. (par. 139, emphasis added)

Going further, the document presents a lengthy critique of reigning models of economic development:

“Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price, foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms 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. The financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an opportunity to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of regulating speculative financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not include rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world.” (par. 189)

“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. Is it realistic to hope that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental damage which they will leave behind for future generations? 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.” (par. 190)

“the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.” (par. 193)

There is much more one can say about the document, and certainly little details some will quibble with (references to the family, for instance, without recognition of the broad diversity of family and kinship structures that have characterized human cultural life).

Biocentric deep ecologists will lament the lack of attention to population growth, aside from the argument that “To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution…” (par. 50). But they can be grateful that the document features no criticism of the “errors” (as previous popes have called them) of pantheism, paganism, or any other non-Christian bogeymen. After defending a Franciscan “universal communion” of all things, the document notes, “This is not to put all living beings on the same level nor to deprive human beings of their unique worth and the tremendous responsibility it entails. Nor does it imply a divinization of the earth which would prevent us from working on it and protecting it in its fragility” (par. 90). The qualifications here are carefully worded and evince a spirit of generosity, even if they lack the full humility that some — those who think we ought to treat the earth (and everything else) as divine — would prefer.

Minor nuances aside, the overwhelming message of the document is clear and, for that reason, will generate rapid response, particularly from the fossil-fueled army of right-wing reactionaries that have lodged themselves deep in the heart of the U. S. Republican Party, and who will be scrambling to cut their losses among Catholics and Christians susceptible to the Pope’s message. (See, for instance, here, here, and here.)

The document ends with two prayers, “A prayer for our earth” and “A Christian prayer in union with creation.” The latter ends with the following lines:

“The poor and the earth are crying out.
O Lord, seize us with your power and light,
help us to protect all life,
to prepare for a better future,
for the coming of your Kingdom
of justice, peace, love and beauty.
Praise be to you!
Amen.”

The theology of this document is Christian and Catholic. It is premised on the idea of the universe as created by a Creator who is triune (non-Catholics may struggle with that as much as many Catholics do) and who is intimately involved with the creatures he has created. (The patriarchal language of “God the Father” is retained here, without any nods to feminist or revisionist theologians who’ve complicated the picture of deity in many directions.)

But it offers a reframing as thorough as any that a pontiff has provided in decades, and its central message is one that resonates clearly and deeply with the message of the climate justice movement. This is the message that anthopogenic climate change is likely the greatest collective threat facing humanity, and that addressing it will require addressing deep political and economic injustices on local, national, and global scales.

More than that, it will require the development of an “integral ecology” that incorporates a thorough revisioning of the politics, economics, culture, education, and spirituality that have become dominant around the planet. In that, Laudato Si is a bold step forward.

Further reading:

Catholic responses generally divide between the liberal and the conservative. In the North American context, New Catholic Reporter tends to represent the former (see Michael Sean Winters’ piece here), while The National Catholic Register represents the latter (see here). Beyond the Catholic church, the range of responses will of course be much wider.

And, for the record: There’s no indication that “integral ecology” refers here to the integralism of Ken Wilber and his followers. In a Christian context, the term has been used to refer to the post-Teilhardian work of ecotheologian — or “geologian,” as he called himself — Thomas Berry and to prominent liberation theologian Leonardo Boff. It is also in the title of a forthcoming anthology edited by Sean Kelly, Adam Robbert, and Sam Mickey, called Varieties of Integral Ecology (in which I will have a chapter). To the extent that the Pontiff’s encyclical lends weight and visibility to the work of Berry, Boff, and their allies, it could be a helpful vehicle for one of the most promising strands of “religio-” or “spiritual” ecology around. There are, alas, no citations to either of them, and only one footnote reference to Teilhard de Chardin.