{"id":3498999,"date":"2023-11-08T16:19:00","date_gmt":"2023-11-08T16:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/?p=3498999"},"modified":"2023-11-08T16:19:00","modified_gmt":"2023-11-08T16:19:00","slug":"a-new-papal-statement-hits-and-misses-the-mark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/stories\/2023-11-08\/a-new-papal-statement-hits-and-misses-the-mark\/","title":{"rendered":"A New Papal Statement Hits\u2014and Misses\u2014the Mark"},"content":{"rendered":"

Religious groups have long been players in movements to create a better world, from the\u00a0anti-apartheid<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0civil rights<\/a>\u00a0movements to initiatives on\u00a0arms reduction<\/a>,\u00a0debt forgiveness<\/a>, and\u00a0divestment<\/a>\u00a0from fossil fuels. It makes sense that\u00a0they are involved<\/a>\u00a0in the sustainability movement as well. Sustainability, including the effort to create a steady state economy, requires a shift in one\u2019s worldview and values, two natural domains of humanity\u2019s diverse metaphysical systems.<\/p>\n

\"an<\/p>\n

The Vatican Gardens (Wikimedia<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n

So I was all ears when Pope Francis released a new document last week on the climate crisis. Titled\u00a0Laudate Deum<\/em><\/a>, it was a follow-up to his 2015 landmark encyclical,\u00a0Laudato Si\u2019<\/em><\/a>. Like the 2015 document, which was released ahead of\u00a0COP 21<\/a>\u00a0in Paris,\u00a0Laudate Deum<\/em>\u00a0was timed to address an international climate conference (this time,\u00a0COP 28<\/a>\u00a0in Dubai in November). More than\u00a0Laudato Si\u2019<\/em>\u00a0did eight years ago,\u00a0Laudate Deum<\/em>\u00a0carries a strong sense of urgency and does not mince words. It is especially critical of the world\u2019s powerful elites, even singling out the USA by name for direct criticism.<\/p>\n

As a steady stater, I was pleased with\u00a0Laudate Deum<\/em>\u00a0on some levels\u2014while wishing for more in other areas. Let\u2019s start with its strong points.<\/p>\n

Wielding the Megaphone<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Francis makes good use of his megaphone, addressing critical issues despite their seeming distance from the traditional terrain of papal pronouncements. Terms like greenhouse gases, degrees Celsius, parts per million, and net emissions pepper the first section of the document, occupying space more commonly claimed by theological and philosophical concerns. At one point, Francis invokes an emissions calendar of sorts, lamenting that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations had\u00a0accelerated<\/a>\u00a0from 400 parts per million (ppm) when he wrote\u00a0Laudato Si\u2019<\/em>\u00a0to 423 ppm just eight years later. Francis is willing to venture widely because today\u2019s Earth-centered crises are clearly wrapped in moral, existential, and even spiritual packaging.<\/p>\n

He speaks plainly, noting that since the Paris conference in 2015, \u201cOur responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live\u00a0is collapsing<\/a>\u00a0and may be nearing the breaking point.\u201c His critique is equal parts consoling and damning. On one hand, he speaks up for the interests of the voiceless and powerless. \u201cHow can we forget that Africa, home to more than half of the world\u2019s poorest people, is\u00a0responsible for a minimal portion<\/a>\u00a0of historic emissions?\u201d<\/p>\n

At the same time, he fingers the guilty parties. \u201cRegrettably, the climate crisis is not exactly a matter that interests the great economic powers, whose concern is with the greatest profit possible at minimal cost and in the shortest amount of time.\u201d Per capita emissions in the USA, he says, are about\u00a0twice<\/a>\u00a0the level of China and seven times greater than the average of the poorest countries. He labels the lifestyles connected with the West \u201cirresponsible\u201d\u2014and you get the sense he is holding back.<\/p>\n

The Question of Growth<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In a section titled \u201cA Growing Technocratic Paradigm,\u201d Francis offers a multi-dimensional critique of growth, criticizing not only its ecological damage but the distorted understanding it gives of the Earth and its resources, the unequal levels of power it engenders, and ultimately, the injustice it promotes.<\/p>\n

He starts by giving a spiritual underpinning to the problem of economic growth. Quoting from his\u00a0Laudato Si\u2019<\/em>\u00a0text of eight years earlier, he\u00a0writes<\/a>\u00a0that the \u201ctechnocratic paradigm\u2026has gone awry\u201d because it is based on the assumption that \u201creality, goodness, and truth\u201d emerge from technological and economic power. From that point, he laments, it becomes \u201ceasy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"image<\/p>\n

Nearing the ultimate consequence of growth (Unsplash<\/a>, Matt Palmer)<\/em><\/p>\n

Developments in recent years confirm that this view is in fact widely held, he says. \u201cArtificial intelligence<\/a>\u00a0and the latest technological innovations start with the notion of a human being with no limits, whose abilities and possibilities can be infinitely expanded thanks to technology. In this way, the technocratic paradigm monstrously feeds upon itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

The result is an instrumental view of resources driven by an ideology that seeks to radically increase human power and convert the nonhuman dimensions of life to mere resources. \u201cEverything that exists ceases to be a gift for which we should be thankful\u2026and instead becomes a slave, prey to any whim of the human mind and its capacities.\u201d<\/p>\n

This single-minded pursuit of resources is hardly benign, Francis asserts. \u201cIt is chilling,\u201d he writes, to realize that technology has given elites \u201can impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world\u2026In 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Longing for More<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Inspired though I was by Francis\u2019 critique of growth and defense of marginalized people, I wanted more from the document, perhaps unfairly, given its limited purpose in addressing the climate crisis. But I was reminded how much I valued the broad issue landscape covered in\u00a0Laudato Si\u2019<\/em>\u00a0eight years earlier.\u00a0Laudate Deum<\/em>\u00a0rightly calls for action on climate, but at this stage of our history the call needs to be broader. Climate is a symptom of a much larger problem of system design that has produced a host of interrelated problems, from biodiversity loss and ocean acidification to soil erosion and water scarcity.<\/p>\n

These and many other symptoms of unsustainability result from economies built around an imperative of growth, incessant pressure to overconsume, and the mine-to-landfill flow of resources, to name a few notable flaws. These are themes Francis has proven skilled at critiquing. I would hope that his future writing would revisit and deepen his understanding of the need for wholesale system change.<\/p>\n

A systems focus should be comfortable territory for Francis and his Vatican colleagues. Institutional statements on economic development from the Catholic Church are known for their broad sweep of interconnected issues, with \u201cintegral\u201d a regularly featured term. When the galloping growth of the 1960s raised hope for the prospects of developing nations, Pope Paul called for an \u201cintegral human development<\/a>\u201d that was concerned not just with per capita income, but also the social, cultural, and spiritual dimensions of wellbeing.<\/p>\n

Later documents continued the theme, including Francis\u2019 use of the term \u201cintegral ecology<\/a>\u201d in\u00a0Laudato Si\u2019<\/em>, which sought to ensure that ecological concerns are addressed in concert with social, cultural, and other concerns. \u00a0His appeal to hear \u201cthe cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor\u201d is a good example of this synthesis. From my reading, the \u201cintegral\u201d approach adopted in such documents is a close cousin of systems thinking.<\/p>\n

\"Five<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s talk about carrying capacity. (Wikimedia<\/a>, SebastianSaid28)<\/em><\/p>\n

At the same time, a large piece of yet-to-be-integrated thinking in\u00a0Laudate Deum<\/em>\u00a0and other Catholic documents dealing with development is a comprehensive discussion of population. Catholic documents can be relied on\u2014and should be credited for\u2014speaking up in defense of marginalized peoples and ensuring that population discussions do not become lightly veiled opportunities to bash poor communities of color in the Global South. Catholic leaders make this point regularly. They also rightly point to excessive consumption in wealthy nations as a major cause of environmental destruction. But these arguments do not cover the entire range of population questions. Carrying capacity matters, too.<\/p>\n

At a minimum it would help for Church figures to acknowledge the raw truth that population impacts the environment. Read the\u00a0Laudate Deum<\/em>\u00a0section critiquing growth (\u201cThe Growing Technological Paradigm\u201d) and substitute \u201cpopulation\u201d for \u201ceconomy.\u201d Francis\u2019 argument would be equally compelling because the logic is equally strong: The economy can\u2019t grow forever on a finite planet, and neither can population. An integral approach to development ought to include this irrefutable truth. There\u2019s plenty of room to discuss what policies should emerge from this truth, but the fact that the size of the human family impacts the environment, as laid out in the\u00a0I=PAT<\/a>\u00a0equation, should be a point of common agreement.<\/p>\n

Stepping It Up<\/strong><\/h3>\n

One reason I have hope for religious involvement in sustainability issues is that faith and indigenous groups can speak credibly on the key issue of exercising restraint and drawing boundaries around human activities. The idea of establishing limits is strongly resisted in our all-out, pedal-to-the-metal capitalist growth society.\u00a0 In principle, religions have a great deal to offer, given their rich collection of scriptural teachings, moral injunctions, and inspirational histories dealing with boundaries and restraint.<\/p>\n

\"Two<\/p>\n

The world\u2019s faiths can help plant sustainable economies. (Unsplash<\/a>: eyoel_kahssay_photographer)<\/em><\/p>\n

To be clear, religious people (I am one) are not necessarily more likely to live any more simply or within ecological limits than other people, especially in the USA. But the same moral imagination that lent a strong hand to the civil rights and disarmament movements can be brought to bear in reshaping economies. Organizations like GreenFaith<\/a>, the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL<\/a>),\u00a0Green Muslims<\/a>,\u00a0Catholic Climate Covenant<\/a>, and the\u00a0Laudato Si\u2019 Movement<\/a>\u00a0are already leaders on the environmental front and could easily take the lead in reshaping economies as well, as a natural extension of their work.<\/p>\n

Pope Francis is inspiring in his willingness to confront hard truths. At the same time, he could go further in diagnosing the full range of causes of the global sustainability challenge. He, and the world\u2019s religions overall, have their work cut out for them in persuading their followers\u2014who account for\u00a084 percent<\/a>\u00a0of the global population\u2014to get on board with the urgent work ahead.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pope Francis is inspiring in his willingness to confront hard truths. At the same time, he could go further in diagnosing the full range of causes of the global sustainability challenge.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":128238,"featured_media":3499000,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[79717,213528,79718],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3498999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-economy","category-economy-featured","category-environment"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3498999","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/128238"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3498999"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3498999\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3499000"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3498999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3498999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3498999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}