Placing the Earth at the Centre of the Environment
Some thoughts on Pope Francis' Encyclical Laudato Si' (On Care for our Common Home)
V.S. Sambandan, PhD., MBA
Chairman of the evening, Mr. Menezes, Rev. Father Arul Raj, Fr. Anthony Pancras, Fr. Francis Jayapathy, my teacher, Dr. Bernard D'Sami, dear co-panellists, Rev. Dr. Felix Wilfred and Dr. Ordettah Mendoza, Rev. Fathers and Mothers, Brothers and Sisters, fellow students, ladies and gentlemen. Wish you all a good evening.
May I say how honoured I am to be invited by my alma mater, Loyola College, Chennai, to be with you this evening, as we celebrate and share our modest thoughts on the Encyclical, Laudato Si, by His Holiness Pope Francis. Having gained immensely from the Catholic educational tradition of service above all, first at Don Bosco Matriculation Higher Secondary School, with the motto, Virtus in Arduis (Strength through Hardship) and then at this glorious institution with the motto Luceat Lux Vestra (Let Your Light Shine), I must confess, at the outset, that I am here more to learn from the Reverend Fathers, my own teacher, Dr. Bernard D' Sami and also importantly from both the distinguished co-panellists and the enlightened audience.
When Dr. D' Sami was gracious enough to honour me with an invitation to be on the panel this evening, I found myself wanting to accept the invitation. However, it was as an offer I could not decline – not out of fear, but out of respect and gratitude for, what I consider the best educational institution, most certainly in this part of the world, I endeavour to share with you my thoughts on the Encyclical on three broad streams.
First, the why now, second, the what, and thirdly for whom. With this approach, I hope to engage with you over the next fifteen minutes or so on the significance behind this important call from the head of the Catholic Church, and more importantly a head of state with considerable moral authority. Dare I say that I am ill-equipped to deal with matters of religion. Yet with that caveat may I attempt to place before this distinguished gathering one major intervention by Pope Francis. This relates to both a refutation of the Lynn White Thesis, referred to by Rev. Dr. Felix Wilfred, and a reiteration of what the Church sees as the correct position of man in the hierarchy of nature.
Anthropocentricism and Judea Christianity
To place this crucial, larger level intervention in perspective, may I take a few minutes of your time to outline the White Thesis and its relevance to the ongoing debate on the environment.
The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Nature (2005) describes Lynn Townsend White, as the "first American historian seriously to examine the role of technological invention in the Middle Ages. His thesis, which was to dominate the debate "for twenty years" following the publication of his The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" (1967), was that the roots of the ecological crisis "were largely religious" specifically Christianity, as according to White, modern technology and modern science were "distinctively Occidental" albeit with elements absorbed from all over the world. Moreover, "the victory of Christianity over paganism", White said, "was the greatest psychic revolution in the history of our culture" and that "it has become fashionable today to say that, for better or worse, we live in the 'post-Christian age." White also emphasises the point that although "certainly the forms of our thinking and language have largely ceased to be Christian" but to his eye, "the substance often remains amazingly akin to that of the past," and is "rooted in, and is indefensible apart from Judeo-Christian theology." Moreover, he pointed out, in 1967, that "we continue to live, as we have lived for 1,700 years, very largely in a context of Christian axioms."
Based on this he poses the question: "What did Christianity tell people about their relations with the environment?" and provides the following answer:
"While many of the world's mythologies provide stories of creation, Greco-Roman mythology was singularly incoherent in this respect. Like Aristotle, the intellectuals of the ancient West denied that the visible world had a beginning. Indeed, the idea of a beginning was impossible in the framework of their cyclical notion of time. In sharp contrast, Christianity inherited from Judaism not only a concept of time as nonrepetitive and linear but also a striking story of creation. By gradual stages a loving and all- powerful God had created light and darkness, the heavenly bodies, the earth and all its plants, animals, birds, and fishes. Finally, God had created Adam and, as an afterthought, Eve to keep man from being lonely. Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes. And, although man's body is made of clay, he is not simply part of nature: he is made in God's image.
Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen. As early as the 2nd century both Tertullian and Saint Irenaeus of Lyons were insisting that when God shaped Adam he was foreshadowing the image of the incarnate Christ, the Second Adam. Man shares, in great measure, God's transcendence of nature. Christianity, in absolute contrast to ancient paganism and Asia's religions (except, perhaps, Zorastrianism), not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God's will that man exploit nature for his proper ends." (White, 1974)
What, then did this mean in the current context? This, clearly makes the case for revisiting the debate between anthropocentricism and ecocentricism in addressing environmental issues. The two sides to the debate are self-explanatory to elaborate before this distinguished audience. Therefore, I go straight to the point that Pope Francis places himself squarely and firmly on the side of the ecocentricists in this debate. And, why do I say so:
Firstly, Pope Francis makes it explicit that in his encyclical he will "consider some principles drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition which can render our commitment to the environment more coherent." [Paragraph 15]. As has come to be his approach in addressing issues that have an impact on thinking, Pope Francis makes the firm, though known, but prone to be forgotten assertion: He
starts Paragraph 67 by making a simple, yet powerful, reminder: "We are not God." These four words, in my view, sums up the Church's view on the White Thesis. It contains so much in so few words. Pope Francis then elaborates in the same and subsequent paragraphs, some points which I quote below:
67. We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge that Judaeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man "dominion" over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays 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. The biblical texts are to be read in their context, with an appropriate hermeneutic, recognizing that they tell us to "till and keep" the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15). "Tilling" refers to cultivating, ploughing or working, while "keeping" means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations. "The earth is the Lord's" (Ps 24:1); to him belongs "the earth with all that is within it" (Dt 10:14). Thus God rejects every claim to absolute ownership: "The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me" (Lev 25:23). (Francis, 2015)
Talking about the need for an eco-centric approach to addressing the environment, Pope Francis makes the following assertion in the next paragraph:
68. 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, for "he commanded and they were created; and he established them for ever and ever; he fixed their bounds and he set a law which cannot pass away" (Ps 148:5b-6). The laws found in the Bible dwell on relationships, not only among individuals but also with other living beings. "You shall not see your brother's donkey or his ox fallen down by the way and withhold your help… If you chance to come upon a bird's nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting upon the young or upon the eggs; you shall not take the mother with the young" (Dt 22:4, 6). Along these same lines, rest on the seventh day is meant not only for human beings, but also so "that your ox and your donkey may have rest" (Ex 23:12). Clearly, the Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures. (Ibid)
Thus, clearly, Pope Francis firmly and unequivocally rejects the anthropocentric approach to solving issues facing the environment and man's interaction with natural resources.
69. Together with our 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",[41] and indeed, "the Lord rejoices in all his works" (Ps 104:31). By virtue of our unique dignity and our gift of intelligence, we are called to respect creation and its inherent laws, for "the Lord by wisdom founded the earth" (Prov 3:19). In our time, the Church does not simply state that other creatures are completely subordinated to the good of human beings, as if they have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish. The German bishops have taught that, where other creatures are concerned, "we can speak of the priority of being over that of being useful".[42] 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".[43] (Ibid)
Before I conclude these quick, and dare I say, thoughts from a layman on placing the Pope's Encyclical in the broadest framework - that of a rejection of anthropocentricism - may I take a few minutes to go back to White's Thesis and his conclusion on the way forward. Proposing "An Alternative Christian View" in The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis, White says "[M]ore science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one." He does refer to Zen Buddhism and its conception of "man-nature relationship as very nearly the mirror image of the Christian view", but discounts its efficacy in the West it as it was conditioned deeply by Asian history.
Whom does he turn to? And, herein is the similarity between White and the Encyclical which seeks to reject his anthropocentric infusion into Judaeo-Christianity: St. Francis of Assisi. Pointing out that the views of St. Francis of Assisi went against what was contemporary thought, but was in sync with both Christianity and nature, White asserted:
"Possibly we should ponder the greatest radical in Christian history since Christ, Saint Francis of Assisi. The prime miracle of Saint Francis is the fact that he did not end at the stake, as many of his left-wing followers did. He was so clearly heretical that a General of the Franciscan Order, Saint Bonavlentura, a great and perceptive Christian, tried to suppress the early accounts of Franciscanism." (Op. Cit.)
That the solution to the paradox posed by interpretation of Judea-Christianity, in the view of White, lay firmly and squarely in the way lived by St. Francis of Assisi is evident from the following.
"However, the present increasing disruption of the global environment is the product of a dynamic technology and science which were originating in the Western medieval world against which Saint Francis was rebelling in so original a way. Their growth cannot be understood historically apart from distinctive attitudes toward nature which are deeply grounded in Christian dogma. The fact that most people do not think of these attitudes as Christian is irrelevant. No new set of basic values has been accepted in our society to displace those of Christianity. Hence we shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man.
The greatest spiritual revolutionary in Western history, Saint Francis, proposed what he thought was an alternative Christian view of nature and man's relation to it; he tried to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man's limitless rule of creation. He failed. Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from them alone. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny. The profoundly religious, but heretical, sense of the primitive Franciscans for the spiritual autonomy of all parts of nature may point a direction. I propose Francis as a patron saint for ecologists." (Op. Cit.)
Needless to say, Pope Francis draws so much from St. Francis of Assisi that I would but be carrying coal to Newcastle if I were to repeat them in this learned forum. I will, therefore, conclude this section by saying that Pope Francis's formulation of the Encyclical signals not only a bold and assertive move away from the anthropocentric interpretation of the Judea Christian approach to the environment, but is also in line with the approach that the proponent of this Thesis, Lynn White, envisaged.
I say this, specifically, because there is so much in common between the academe, for which Jesuits in general and Loyola College in particular, have contributed immensely. There is also the need, in critical times, to accentuate similarities and narrow down differences – be it between peoples, ideologies, between the religions, and between the religious and the non-religious.
Reinforcing Economic Concepts
Pope Francis' Encyclical is also important from the perspective of few, but important and debatable economic concepts that have gained ground, especially since the advent of Communism and its capitalist counter, Welfare Economics.
From the perspective of microeconomics, Pope Francis's rejection of profit maximisation is found in paragraph 195:
"195. The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. As long as production is increased, little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the environment; as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or the increased pollution. In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved. Yet only when "the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations",[138] can those actions be considered ethical. An instrumental way of reasoning, which provides a purely static analysis of realities in the service of present needs, is at work whether resources are allocated by the market or by state central planning."
In mainstream Environmental Economics, this finds reflection in concepts such as Future Costs and Benefits, in centralised planning in terms of resource allocation, and in mixed or capitalist economies in terms of quotas and emission control mechanisms. An important document, which sounds out possible solutions to such concerns in the Stern Review on Climate Change (2006), which concludes on a note of optimism saying:
"The policy tools exist to create the incentives required to change investment patterns and move the global economy onto a low-carbon path. This must go hand-in-hand with increased action to adapt to the impacts of the climate change that can no longer be avoided. Above all, reducing the risks of climate change requires collective action. It requires co-operation between countries, through international frameworks that support the achievement of shared goals. It requires a partnership between the public and private sector, working with civil society and with individuals. It is still possible to avoid the worst impacts of climate change; but it requires strong and urgent collective action. Delay would be costly and dangerous." (Stern, 2006)
Pope Francis also lends his moral backing grounded in to another concept of Economics – the importance of small-scale production and the importance of local livelihoods. Criticising the approach of large scale economies of scale, Pope Francis's assertion on the dangers of blindly following large activities in the name of economies of scale, is not only timely, but is also an important pointer to policy makers and the political leaderships that have the responsibility to the future. In paragraph 129 he says:
129. In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity and business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part of the world's peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. Their attempts to move to other, more diversified, means of production prove fruitless because of the difficulty of linkage with regional and global markets, or because the infrastructure for sales and transport is geared to larger businesses. Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures in support of small producers and differentiated production. To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while real conditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good.
The third point on economics that I will touch upon refers to international inequity and the weak political responses by the international leadership. Paragraphs 51-57 squarely address this issue:
51. Inequity affects not only individuals but entire countries; it compels us to consider an ethics of international relations. A true "ecological debt" exists, particularly between the global north and south, connected to commercial imbalances with effects on the environment, and the disproportionate use of natural resources by certain countries over long periods of time. The export of raw materials to satisfy markets in the industrialized north has caused harm locally, as for example in mercury pollution in gold mining or sulphur dioxide pollution in copper mining. There is a pressing need to calculate the use of environmental space throughout the world for depositing gas residues which have been accumulating for two centuries and have created a situation which currently affects all the countries of the world. The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries has repercussions on the poorest areas of the world, especially Africa, where a rise in temperature, together with drought, has proved devastating for farming. There is also the damage caused by the export of solid waste and toxic liquids to developing countries, and by the pollution produced by companies which operate in less developed countries in ways they could never do at home, in the countries in which they raise their capital: "We note that often the businesses which operate this way are multinationals. They do here what they would never do in developed countries or the so-called first world. Generally, after ceasing their activity and withdrawing, they leave behind great human and environmental liabilities such as unemployment, abandoned towns, the depletion of natural reserves, deforestation, the impoverishment of agriculture and local stock breeding, open pits, riven hills, polluted rivers and a handful of social works which are no longer sustainable".[30]
52. The foreign debt of poor countries has become a way of controlling them, yet this is not the case where ecological debt is concerned. In different ways, developing countries, where the most important reserves of the biosphere are found, continue to fuel the development of richer countries at the cost of their own present and future. The land of the southern poor is rich and mostly unpolluted, yet access to ownership of goods and resources for meeting vital needs is inhibited by a system of commercial relations and ownership which is structurally perverse. The developed countries ought to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy and by assisting poorer countries to support policies and programmes of sustainable development. The poorest areas and countries are less capable of adopting new models for reducing environmental impact because they lack the wherewithal to develop the necessary processes and to cover their costs. We must continue to be aware that, regarding climate change, there are differentiated responsibilities. As the United States bishops have said, greater attention must be given to "the needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests".[31] We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalization of indifference.
VI. WEAK RESPONSES
53. These situations have caused sister earth, along with all the abandoned of our world, to cry out, pleading that we take another course. Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last two hundred years. Yet we are called to be instruments of God our Father, so that our planet might be what he desired when he created it and correspond with his plan for peace, beauty and fullness. The problem is that we still lack the culture needed to confront this crisis. We lack leadership capable of striking out on new paths and meeting the needs of the present with concern for all and without prejudice towards coming generations. The establishment of a legal framework which can set clear boundaries and ensure the protection of ecosystems has become indispensable; otherwise, the new power structures based on the techno-economic paradigm may overwhelm not only our politics but also freedom and justice.
54. It is remarkable 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. There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected. The Aparecida Document urges that "the interests of economic groups which irrationally demolish sources of life should not prevail in dealing with natural resources".[32] The alliance between the economy and technology ends up sidelining anything unrelated to its immediate interests. Consequently the most one can expect is superficial rhetoric, sporadic acts of philanthropy and perfunctory expressions of concern for the environment, whereas any genuine attempt by groups within society to introduce change is viewed as a nuisance based on romantic illusions or an obstacle to be circumvented.
55. Some countries are gradually making significant progress, developing more effective controls and working to combat corruption. People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning. The markets, which immediately benefit from sales, stimulate ever greater demand. An outsider looking at our world would be amazed at such behaviour, which at times appears self-destructive.
56. In the meantime, economic powers continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain, which fail to take the context into account, let alone the effects on human dignity and the natural environment. Here we see how environmental deterioration and human and ethical degradation are closely linked. Many people will deny doing anything wrong because distractions constantly dull our consciousness of just how limited and finite our world really is. As a result, "whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenceless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule".[33]
57. It is foreseeable that, once certain resources have been depleted, the scene will be set for new wars, albeit under the guise of noble claims. War always does grave harm to the environment and to the cultural riches of peoples, risks which are magnified when one considers nuclear arms and biological weapons. "Despite the international agreements which prohibit chemical, bacteriological and biological warfare, the fact is that laboratory research continues to develop new offensive weapons capable of altering the balance of nature".[34] Politics must pay greater attention to foreseeing new conflicts and addressing the causes which can lead to them. But powerful financial interests prove most resistant to this effort, and political planning tends to lack breadth of vision. What would induce anyone, at this stage, to hold on to power only to be remembered for their inability to take action when it was urgent and necessary to do so?
These three points are but fleeting observations made on a timely document that has compelling importance in the months, and years ahead. However, one question remains.
For whom is this Encyclical?
The answer, in classic Papal simplicity, is everyone. "Now, faced as we are with global environmental deterioration, I wish to address every person living on this planet. " [Paragraph 3] Behind this simple observation lies a web of politics, both said and unsaid. The said part is easier to figure out: the peoples of the world, across religions – and the non-religious including Agnostics and Atheists, global leaders, and those who are environmentalists, or, more importantly, the climate sceptics.
If one were to look a bit into the immediate future and place Pope Francis' Encyclical in that context, it is evident that shaping an outcome favourable to the environment at the UN Climate Change Conference, scheduled to be held in Paris between November 20 and December 11, 2015, appears quite high on the Pope's international agenda. In addition, at a rather domestic level in the world's sole superpower, the Pope is scheduled to visit the U.S. between September 22, and September 27. With a fair share of climate sceptics in the U.S., one can hold the fond hope that the moral and ethical authority of His Holiness will help swing popular support in favour or planet Earth and thereby positively influence international policy.
I thank you for your patience.
Chief Administrative Officer, The Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy, Chennai.
[email protected]
