In my view, most media commentary on the encyclical has completely missed the point. The point is St. Francis. Not just that the Pope chose this papal name, nor that Laudato Se are the first words of the canticle blessing the creatures, nor that Francis is designated patron saint of ecology (John Paul II) -- the whole encyclical is about respecting biodiversity.
It’s instructive to contrast changed attitudes towards wolves in the town of Gabbo in the year 1220 with the wolf slaughter going on right now in Canada, US and astonishingly, trust-fund Norway. Of course the wolf is just a case study as the larger metaphor is our whole botched relationship with nature, including climate.
There’s been quite a bit of commentary to the effect the Pope is not expected to be an expert on climate, economics or sustainability so therefore he’s not speaking ex cathedra (infallibly) so it’s okay, especially for cafeteria Catholics, to prudentially dispute or ignore inconvenient truths in the encyclical.
However when the Pope interprets Genesis 1:26 ( ‘dominion’) or says species extinction is immoral as in Laud Se 3:33, that falls squarely within infallability. Thus a newbie Catholic like Bush might choose to be grossly disrespectful whereas a blue-collar Catholic like Boehner, 9th of 12 children, invites the Pope to address Congress.
I’m not remotely Catholic (being a foundling raised by walruses near Qaanaak) but from this analysis can now tell deniers "the Pope has spoken on climate change, His Holiness is infallible, that’s all I need to know, and by the way, you’re going to hell."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi#Nature_and_the_environmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_of_Gubbiohttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/nov/20/norway-predators-wolveshttp://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/st-francis-and-the-wolf-of-gubbio/4657/Here are some extracts from the encyclical on biodiversity:
Laud Se 1:24. Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle … leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity… and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.
Laud Se 3:32. The earth’s resources are also being plundered because of short-sighted approaches to the economy, commerce and production. The loss of forests and woodlands entails the loss of species which may constitute extremely important resources in the future, not only for food but also for curing disease and other uses.
Laud Se 3:33. 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. Each year sees the disappearance of thousands of plant and animal species which we will never know, which our children will never see, because they have been lost for ever. The great majority become extinct for reasons related to human activity. Because of us, thousands of species will no longer give glory to God by their very existence, nor convey their message to us. We have no such right.
Laud Se 3:34. It may well disturb us to learn of the extinction of mammals or birds, since they are more visible. But the good functioning of ecosystems also requires fungi, algae, worms, insects, reptiles and an innumerable variety of microorganisms. Some less numerous species, although generally unseen, nonetheless play a critical role in maintaining the equilibrium of a particular place…. a sober look at our world shows that the degree of human intervention, often in the service of business interests and consumerism, is actually making our earth less rich and beautiful, ever more limited and grey, even as technological advances and consumer goods continue to abound limitlessly. We seem to think that we can substitute an irreplaceable and irretrievable beauty with something which we have created ourselves.
Laud Se 2:34. It may well disturb us to learn of the extinction of mammals or birds, since they are more visible. But the good functioning of ecosystems also requires fungi, algae, worms, insects, reptiles and an innumerable variety of microorganisms. Some less numerous species, although generally unseen, nonetheless play a critical role in maintaining the equilibrium of a particular place. Human beings must intervene when a geosystem reaches a critical state.
Laud Se 2:35. In assessing the environmental impact of any project, concern is usually shown for its effects on soil, water and air, yet few careful studies are made of its impact on biodiversity, as if the loss of species or animals and plant groups were of little importance. Highways, new plantations, the fencing-off of certain areas, the damming of water sources, and similar developments, crowd out natural habitats and, at times, break them up in such a way that animal populations can no longer migrate or roam freely. As a result, some species face extinction.
Laud Se 2:38. Let us mention, for example, those richly biodiverse lungs of our planet which are the Amazon and the Congo basins, or the great aquifers and glaciers. We know how important these are for the entire earth and for the future of humanity. The ecosystems of tropical forests possess an enormously complex biodiversity which is almost impossible to appreciate fully, yet when these forests are burned down or levelled for purposes of cultivation, within the space of a few years countless species are lost and the areas frequently become arid wastelands.… Yet this can seriously compromise a biodiversity which the new species being introduced does not accommodate. Similarly, wetlands converted into cultivated land lose the enormous biodiversity which they formerly hosted.
Laud Se 3:115. Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since “the technological mind sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere ‘given’, as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape... The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised. When human beings fail to find their true place in this world, they misunderstand themselves and end up acting against themselves...
Laud Se 3:116. Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the way of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds… An inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world. Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our “dominion” over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible stewardship.
Laud Se 4:167. The 1992 Earth Summit proclaimed that “human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development”... it enshrined international cooperation to care for the ecosystem of the entire earth, the obligation of those who cause pollution to assume its costs, and the duty to assess the environmental impact of given projects and works. It set the goal of limiting greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, in an effort to reverse the trend of global warming. It also drew up an agenda with an action plan and a convention on biodiversity….
Laud Se 5:169. As far as the protection of biodiversity and issues related to desertification are concerned, progress has been far less significant. With regard to climate change, the advances have been regrettably few. Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most... We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays.
Laud Se 5:190. Here too, it should always be kept in mind that “environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces”. 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. 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. Moreover, biodiversity is considered at most a deposit of economic resources available for exploitation, with no serious thought for the real value of things, their significance for persons and cultures, or the concerns and needs of the poor.
Laud Se 3:195. 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” can those actions be considered ethical.
