Muddy Boots and a Cassock: A Commentary on Laudato Si, the Encyclical Letter of Pope Francis
Animals: Tradition - Philosophy - Religion Article from All-Creatures.org

FROM

Philip G. Hill
September 2015

The fundamental contradiction in the encyclical lies in Pope Francis’s attempt to unite his appropriation of an integral ecology with his theology. The theological position in the encyclical promotes what I refer to as an anthropocentric ecology. When Pope Francis is wearing the muddy boots of an ecologist, he is vehemently against anthropocentrism. Nevertheless, when he dons his cassock, he relies upon a human-centered Christian theology to address ecological concerns, a theology which condones and promotes the factors which have, in part, led to the current ecological crisis.

Integral ecology also promotes a sense of the intrinsic value of all aspects of the environment. Ecosystems, according to Pope Francis, have “intrinsic value independent of their usefulness .” (139) Here, Francis rejects a teleology which treats other sentient creatures and the environment as means to our desired ends.

Pope Francis wears muddy boots and a cassock. At least, that was my initial impression after I read his encyclical letter, Laudato Si.[1] In light of many rather radical personal gestures made lately by Pope Francis, and the fact that he took St. Francis of Assisi as his inspiration when he was elected Bishop of Rome, I was excited to read about his position on the current ecological crisis. The encyclical contains nearly 40,000 words, and there is something in it to whet the appetite of people of every social class, race, ethnicity, religious affinity, and philosophical outlook.

Recent reviews of the encyclical acknowledge its positive contribution to the on-going debate on the environment, and recognize it as a progressive step forward for the Catholic Church. For example, Canadian social critic, Naomi Klein, regards the encyclical as “Francis’s transformative climate message.”[2] Irish Catholic priest and theologian Sean McDonagh, a member of the drafting process for the encyclical, claims “we are moving to a new theology.”[3] Latin American liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff, posits that Francis’s ecological vision is “systemic; it integrates everything into one great whole in which we move and have our being.”  It is a “new contemporary paradigm under which everything forms a great whole with all interconnected realities.” The impact of the encyclical “will be huge.”[4] Leonardo Boff’s statement is significant, especially in light of the fact that Catholic social teachings are rarely read or discussed by either the vast majority of the 1.2 billion members of the Catholic Church or the rest of the world’s population.

In this paper, I highlight some of the key findings in each of the main sections of the encyclical, and present a critique of its underlying position. I argue that there is a fundamental contradiction at the foundation of the encyclical. If the contradiction is not addressed in a critical manner, then the entire foundation of the document will collapse, and the encyclical will fall on deaf ears.
 
Overview of the Encyclical
 
Pope Francis begins the encyclical with a consideration of key components of the current ecological crisis.[5] A particular strength of the encyclical is the way Pope Francis correlates the ecological crisis with poverty in the world. For instance, people in poverty-ridden parts of the world are often exposed to higher than normal levels of atmospheric pollutants and hazardous chemicals which generate significant health problems and premature death. High acidic levels in soil, industrial fumes, insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides become part and parcel of the daily lives of many poor people. Consumer-based, throwaway cultures play a key role in the current state of affairs. In such cultures, commodities and people alike are regarded as items which can be easily discarded and replaced. The intrinsic value of the individual is relegated to the dumpster alongside the infinite number of unwanted consumer items. A throwaway culture contributes significantly to deforestation, desertification, and global warming. Inevitably, the poor pay the price. Agriculture, fishing, forestry, and other means of subsistence for the majority of the poor are threatened by the current ecological crisis. The lack of clean drinking water, loss of biodiversity, and the overall decline in the quality of life for the vast majority of people, are additional symptoms which the encyclical addresses in a thorough fashion.

Although the encyclical is addressed to “every person living on this planet” [3], the theological analysis of the ecological crisis is based solely on the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is worth noting that Pope Francis does not include in his reflection the profound insights on ecology offered by Eastern religions, insights which I feel would have much to contribute to the encyclical. Nevertheless, the Judeo-Christian theological reflection offered by Pope Francis is creative and insightful. He makes reference to the creation stories in the Book of Genesis and the role of stewardship. Pope Francis includes in his discourse the insights of Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Conference of the Bishops of Brazil, and numerous Church encyclicals. Although the theological discourse is only 24 pages long; nevertheless, I regard it as the essential component of the entire encyclical, and embodies a fundamental contradiction which I will address later.

The theological discourse is followed by a scathing analysis of the impact on the environment by what Pope Francis calls a “technocratic paradigm” that “makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery, and transformation.” (106) A technocratic paradigm infiltrates all facets of economic and political life. Increased market production, over-consumption, and profit are the mantras used in an attempt to solve issues related to poverty and the ecological crisis. As a result, argues Pope Francis, the “intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised.”(115) Solidarity and community are replaced by “excessive anthropocentrism.” (116)  Rather than regarding everything as interconnected, anthropocentrism views reality as a collection of independent atoms, and, as a result, the primary purpose of existence is mastery over other creatures and the environment.

The fourth chapter in the encyclical is arguably the richest and most influential part of the document. It will be addressed in a critical fashion later, but it is worth noting at the outset that the key elements of what Pope Francis calls “integral ecology” have been posited by scientists, philosophers, and social critics since the mid-twentieth century. Fundamentally, an integral ecology recognizes the important role played by all facets of sentient and non-sentient life in the environment. An integral ecology promotes peace, justice, and solidarity, and contributes significantly to the principle of the Common Good.

The latter part of the encyclical is practical in nature. It addresses concrete forms of action to promote an ecological sensibility. Pope Francis encourages dialogue between all groups involved in ecological issues, including international agencies, national governments, community groups, and other decision-makers. He argues strongly for a transparent political process, and one which envelops a holistic approach to ecological issues.

In the closing section of the encyclical, Pope Francis considers “convictions, attitudes, and forms of life” (202) which enhance a new lifestyle, one which challenges a consumer-driven, technocratic worldview. As Pope Francis warns, “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 … a general sense of the common good disappears.” (204) A change in lifestyle which promotes the Common Good can challenge prevalent social, political, and economic institutions. Fundamentally, Pope Francis is calling for what he calls an “ecological conversion.” The word ‘conversion’ envelops an ontological shift, a change in the way one relates to and travels along the path of life. An ecological conversion, according to Pope Francis, embraces a sense of gratitude for God’s creation, peace, love and a true sense of celebration. It calls for an awareness of the intricate relationship between all beings. In one of Francis’s closing prayers in the encyclical, he incorporates a true sense of the meaning of conversion. He refers to the presence of God in all creatures, and asks God to “Fill us with peace that we may live as brothers and sisters, harming no one … that we may protect the world and not prey on it.”

A Fundamental Contradiction

The image of Pope Francis wearing the dirty boots of an ecologist and the cassock of a pope is, in some respects, quite accurate, because the encyclical contains both a strong ecological analysis of the current crisis and profound theological insights. The encyclical meanders between the ecological and theological in a graceful manner. Pope Francis is completely comfortable wearing both the dirty boots and the cassock.

A fundamental contradiction is evident in the encyclical, because Pope Francis attempts to unify two opposing and contradictory points of view. The ecological view, or what Pope Francis calls “integral ecology,” avoids an anthropocentric worldview, and promotes themes such as unity in diversity, interrelatedness, justice, compassion, and reverence for all sentient beings. The Judeo-Christian position in the encyclical regards humans as unique, and promotes an anthropocentric worldview which, one may argue, contributes significantly to the current ecological crisis.

Francis and his Muddy Boots

Pope Francis’s understanding of integral ecology embodies elements promoted by leading ecologists, social theorists, and philosophers. For instance, integral ecology recognizes the intrinsic value of all sentient beings, and Francis states, “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.” (33) Similarly, he posits, “Because all creatures are connected, each must be cherished with love and respect, for all of us as living creatures are dependent on one another.” (42) Interestingly, Pope Francis appears to reject the traditional biblical understanding of the role of human beings in God’s creation. He states, “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.” (67). The Bible, for Pope Francis, “has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures.” (68) On the theme of interrelatedness of all creatures, and with a particularly strong Franciscan overtone,  Pope Francis declares,

We can hardly consider ourselves to be fully loving if we disregard any aspect of reality … 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)

Integral ecology also promotes a sense of the intrinsic value of all aspects of the environment. Ecosystems, according to Pope Francis, have “intrinsic value independent of their usefulness .” (139) Here, Francis rejects a teleology which treats other sentient creatures and the environment as means to our desired ends.

Francis and his Cassock

The fundamental contradiction in the encyclical lies in Pope Francis’s attempt to unite his appropriation of an integral ecology with his theology. The theological position in the encyclical promotes what I refer to as an anthropocentric ecology. When Pope Francis is wearing the muddy boots of an ecologist, he is vehemently against anthropocentrism. Nevertheless, when he dons his cassock, he relies upon a human-centered Christian theology to address ecological concerns, a theology which condones and promotes the factors which have, in part, led to the current ecological crisis.

In the first section of the encyclical, Pope Francis states clearly that he plans to use “principles drawn from the Judeo-Christian tradition which can render our commitment to the environment more coherent.” (5) Interestingly, this is where the problem lies. The Judeo-Christian tradition has embraced a clear dichotomy between humans and the rest of nature. For instance, the belief that humans alone have a soul creates an unnecessary barrier between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ and leads inevitably to a mentality of domination and exploitation. It is believed humans are at the pinnacle of creation, and all other creatures and the environment are treated as objects to be manipulated, owned, sold, worn, or consumed. The earth, according to Pope Francis, “has been given to us.” (67) In other words, the world is ours. We are no longer an integral component of the interrelatedness of all creatures, but are the sole proprietors of the earth. Pope Francis refers to Thomist theology to support his position. He wants to identify the uniqueness of humans, and their special position in God’s creation, so he uses the old argument about how humans alone have the capacity to reason, an argument which has been falsified over the past century by Darwinian thinkers, primatologists, and philosophers. Francis states,

Human beings, even if we postulate a process of evolution, also possess a uniqueness which cannot be explained by the evolution of other open systems … Our capacity to reason, to develop arguments, to be inventive, to interpret reality, and to create art, along with other not yet discovered capacities, are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology. (81)

It may be argued forcefully that a position which promotes a clear dichotomy between humans and the rest of the environment, and draws a distinct line between ‘rational’ humans and irrational/non-rational creatures,  disregards the richness of an integral ecology, and embraces what Pope Francis referred to earlier as “tyrannical anthropocentrism.” As history has taught us, once a line has been drawn, it is very difficult to erase it. Even though Pope Francis warns us against what he calls a “misguided anthropocentrism,” because, he argues, it inevitably leads to biocentrism; nevertheless, by rejecting a misguided anthropocentrism, he acknowledges and promotes a ‘guided anthropocentrism.’ An anthropocentric worldview, misguided or guided, remains a human-centered approach to the ecological crisis, and will lead, inevitably, to the destruction of the planet.

The ecological position adopted in the document embraces many of the key ideas found in contemporary discourse. The theological position expounded in the encyclical is based on scripture and Catholic social teachings. Pope Francis with the muddy boots has something valuable to contribute to the on-going debate about the environment, and Pope Francis with the cassock has something equally valuable to offer Catholics. The problem arises when he tries to travel the landscape wearing muddy boots and a cassock. History will determine whether or not the boots and cassock clash.

References:

[1] Pope Francis, Laudato Si: Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis (Pauline Books and Media, Boston, 2015)

[2] Naomi Klein, The New Yorker, July 10, 2015.

[3] Quoted in Naomi Klein, Ibid.

[4] Leonardo Boff, Iglesia Descalza, June 23, 2015.

[5] I use the term ‘ecology’ to mean a systematic, interdisciplinary study of the interactions among organisms and their environment.


Return to Animals: Tradition - Philosophy - Religion