By Fides
Bernardo A. Bitanga
Saint Louis
University, Baguio City
Introduction
In this paper, I would like to
summarize the main features of the Encyclical Letter “Laudato Si” of the Holy Father Francis on Care for our Common Home. I would be making comparison between
its features to some documents written by thinkers. I would also be presenting
my own view on the topic at hand by highlighting the dialogical character of
ethics (environmental ethics) and the open, integrative and building-tendency
of the human person. In doing so, it is my hope of contributing to the growing
philosophical debate on ethics in general and environmental ethics in
particular.
A Summary of Pope Francis’ Laudato Si
What
are the main features of the Encyclical Letter?
Laudato Si
is Pope Francis’ Encyclical on the environment or on the Care for Our Common Home. Laudato
Si means “Praise be to you”.[1] This is the first line of
a canticle by St. Francis of Asissi. The whole canticle actually shows St.
Francis praising God with all of his
creation.
In
Laudato Si #3, Pope Francis states the goal of the document: “In this
Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our
common home”.[2]
The pope initiates a dialogue on the environment or the oikos (home or house). And this conversation, that the pope would
like to start, is to all. Normally, papal documents are addressed to the
bishops or the lay faithful of the Catholic Church. But Laudato Si, like the Pacem in
Terris of Pope John XXIII’s (also a saint), Pope Francis sends his message
to all people.
What
is the goal of this dialogue? The Holy Father said: “I urgently appeal, then,
for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a
conversation that includes everyone, since the environment challenge we are
undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all.”[3]
Why
there is a need to talk about the oikos or
home? At the heart of the document is Pope Francis’ reading of the present
situation of the people and the world, and his appeal for change or conversion.
In Laudato Si #217, the pope said - “The ecological crisis is also a summons to
profound interior conversion. It must be said that some committed and prayerful
Christians, with the excuse of realism and pragmatism, tend to ridicule
expressions of concern for the environment. Others are passive; they choose not
to change their habits and thus become inconsistent. So what they all need is
an ‘ecological conversion’, whereby the effects of their encounter with Jesus
Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them. Living
our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of
virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.”[4]
The
Laudato Si covers vast intellectual
territory and a multitude of themes in its 40,000 words. In an outline form,
its six chapters are arranged in the following:
CHAPTER ONE – WHAT IS
HAPPENING TO OUR COMMON HOME
CHAPTER TWO – THE
GOSPEL OF CREATION
CHAPTER THREE – THE
HUMAN ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS
CHAPTER FOUR – INTEGRAL
ECOLOGY
CHAPTER FIVE – LINES OF
APPROACH AND ACTION
CHAPTER SIX –
ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION AND SPIRITUALITY.
Some
of the most important issues or problems discussed in the encyclical are the
following: on the effects of the market on the environment[5], on
the false belief in technology[6], on
global warming[7], on science and technology as a belief system[8], on the environment and
the poor[9], on the right balance with
the respect of the environment and humanity[10], and on consumerism[11).
There
are also some other topics, issues and problems mentioned in the encyclical,
like: duty of the individual, water as fundamental right, social media’s effect
on culture, transgender issue, overpopulation, abortion, genetically modified
food, and dirty politics.
Like any other
encyclical, the pope gives hope on this kind of situation. He said - “Yet all
is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of
rising
[4] Ibid, #217.
[5] Ibid, #190.
[6] Ibid, #105.
[7) Ibid, #24-26.
[8] Ibid, #106.
[9] Ibid, #48.
[10] Ibid, #118.
[11] Ibid, #204.
above
themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start, despite their
mental and social conditioning. We are able to take an honest look at
ourselves, to acknowledge our deep dissatisfaction, and to embark on new paths to
authentic freedom. No system can completely suppress our openness to what is
good, true and beautiful, or our God-given ability to respond to his grace at
work deep in our hearts. I appeal to everyone throughout the world not to
forget this dignity which is ours. No one has the right to take it from us.”[12]
Arguments against Laudato Si by some thinkers
Capaldi
versus Pope Francis. In “A Critique of Pope Francis’s Laudato Si”, Nicolas Capaldi said – “Environmental
degradation is not the product of technology but the result of not enough
technology; poverty is not the product of market economies but the lack of a
viable market economy; social dysfunction is not the product of individual
autonomy but the failure of traditional communities to adapt to the challenges
and promises of modern individualism; political short-sightedness is not a
reflection of limited national governments but a product of political economy
hubris as well as the absence of the rule of law.”[13] In this statement, Capaldi
summarizes five (5) arguments. For the purposes of this paper, however, only
three (3) arguments of Capaldi will be accommodated to give room for another thinker.
The
first argument is against the pope’s limited concept of environment or ecology.
Capaldi states that – “In his endeavor to sacralize the earth, the Pope
presumes that the only relevant frame of reference is planet Earth. We do not
just live on planet Earth; planet Earth is a part of a larger solar system
which in turn is part of a larger, perhaps infinite, universe. To assume that
what we think we know now is true of the entire universe is the fallacy of
composition (i.e., what is true of the part is true of the whole).”[14] Today’ ecology is of
bigger issue and larger questions, like: “Are we destined to occupy only the
earth? Are there habitable planets elsewhere in the universe? What happens to
humanity when the sun, our star, begins to cool and finally burns out? Are we
limited just to the resources on earth or can resources from elsewhere be
obtained?”[15]
The second argument
is against the pope’s lack of confidence to science, market and technology.
Capaldi said – “The Pope has also dismissed the idea that future technology can
rectify these issues. He eschews “blind confidence in technical
[12] Ibid, #205.
[13] Nicholas Capaldi, “A Critique of Pope Francis’s Laudato si” in Seattle University Law Review Vol. 40
(Seattle: Seattle University, 2017), 1261.
[14] Ibid, 1271.
[15] Ibid.
solutions,”
as well as “irrational confidence in progress and human abilities” or “the myth
of progress.” He asserts, without qualification or support, the claim that “it
is not possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed
countries.” He is opposed to “buying the organs of the poor for resale” but
does not explain how we can obtain enough of those organs to save lives without
a market or without advances in medical technology.”[16] Furthermore, on the
advancement of science and technology, Capaldi asked – “why assume that the
only purpose of the Technological Project is to improve the material condition
of humanity? Starting with Locke, and as highlighted by Hegel, the
Technological Project can be viewed as a spiritual quest, one in which the
transformation of the world becomes an expression of human freedom and
creativity, not domination.”[17]
The
third argument is against the pope’s inaccurate reading of poverty, and against
the pope’s preference of Rousseau’s Equality Narrative (with Aristotle and
Thomas Aquinas) over Locke’s Liberty Narrative. Capaldi asked - How are we to
understand ‘poverty’?[18] According to him latest
studies on world poverty show that: (1) poverty exists precisely in those
countries which fail to incorporate the Lockean narrative of the Technological
Project, market economies, limited government, the rule of law, and the culture
of personal autonomy, (2) the non-Catholic countries of China and India, which
used to be the poster children of poverty, have become prosperous to the extent
that they have adopted the Technological Project and market economies, and (3)
the more countries adopt additional features of the Lockean narrative, the more
they become increasingly politically free, increasingly responsible, and less
corrupt.[19]
MacDonald
versus Pope Francis. Eric MacDonald, in his
article A Short Critique of Laudato Si
in 2015, he argued that Pope Francis was not saying everything, choosing not to
engage on resolving overpopulation by way of reproductive health law although
there are clear scientific grounds in favour of the said law, and this is the
cause of some inconsistencies in his encyclical. In Laudato Si #50, for
instance, the pope said - “Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and
thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction
in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international
pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of
‘reproductive health’…. To blame
population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of
some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”[20]
[16] Ibid, 1272.
[17] Ibid, 1275.
[18] Ibid, 1277.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Laudato Si, #50.
A
good example is the relationship of population to global warming. Researches
and studies tell that - With the increase of population, global warming gas
emissions have also increased. They have not increased in direct proportion to
population growth, for developed nations are the largest users of carbon based
fuels, as well as the largest consumers of methane producing livestock. It is
estimated that one portion of methane produces 100 times more global warming
effect than one equal portion of CO2, so the relatively small amount of methane
(compared with CO2 emissions, even though, unlike CO2, methane does dissipate
into the atmosphere and is eventually lost in space) has very serious global
warming potential, and as the permafrost melts in the North, significantly
large amounts of methane are released into the atmosphere, with the possibility
of disastrous consequences for the life world, which is already under threat
from increasing encroachment of human settlement and land use on the habitat of
huge numbers of animal and plant species, and the rate of extinction has
increased significantly.”[21] Hence, there is no doubt,
increase in population translates into increased global warming and its follow
on effects.
An
increased population, therefore, cannot be ignored. It is a problem, and it is
a reasonable assumption that at present growth rates, the number of people will
soon exceed the carrying capacity of the earth. It is time to think of a sustained
development (that is development that provides for stable or growing economies
and sound ecological management, and equitable income for all).[22]
A reflection on Laudato Si
In this section, I wish to present
my personal views on the topic at hand. Despite some heavy arguments from a
lawyer-ecologist and from a scientist-environmentalist, the pope’s encyclical is
not totally destroyed. There can still be some valid points to be re-told.
Argument Number 1. The encyclical
speaks not only to all people, but to the very nature of the human person. The
ecological consciousness that Pope Francis wants to be possessed by people is
very possible. It is because the human person’s existence is openness to others
and the world.
With human existence as openness,
one can easily embrace ecological consciousness, be ecologically concern, make
some things necessary for human development, and readily and openly accept the
challenge for ecological conversion. In other words, it is but natural for the
person to be ecological. This is how it is explained
[21] Eric MacDonald, “A Short Critique of Laudato Si” posted on July 24,
2015 by Veronica Abbass.
[22] Ibid.
What
is existence?
Existence
refers to what is specific to the human person as human person. The human
person is characterized by existence by which he or she is distinguished from
all other beings that inhabit the universe. What is its unique character? Such
is to be understood in its literal sense – that the term comes from ex (out) and stare (to stand). The human person is therefore a being who stands
out of himself (or herself). He or she is a being with an ecstatic nature, for
he or she goes out of himself or herself by relating with the objects in the
world.[23]
According
to John Zwaenepoel, the human person is not simply a thing among other things,
nor a pure interiority turned inward upon itself, shut up in its own immanent
representations.[24] The human person realizes himself or herself
as an interiority with consciousness and freedom only by going outside himself
or herself. He or she sees as his or her responsibility to get near to things
by way of a contact with the world and with other people. The human person’s
consciousness or thinking is essentially and from the very beginning an openness
towards what is other than itself. Hence, in his or her reflection upon his or
her very being or very existence, he sees the need to be in harmony with others
and to be in harmony with the world.
In
like manner, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre and Heidegger may also have something to say
along this line of thinking. First, Merleau-Ponty said the human person is open
as a “subject bound to the world”.[25] The human person is never conceived in
isolation or separation from the world and the world is also never conceived
without the human person. Hence, for
Merleau-Ponty, the human person is always of service to the world and vice
versa.[26]
Second,
Sartre, in his magnum opus, also said this is a ‘summoning of being’. [27] The human person is made
open to be aware of being called. The human person is being called to be with
the world and others. It is in being with the world and others that he or she
experiences his or her best.
[23] Martin Heidegger, “The way Back into the Grounds of Metaphysics,”
Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, Walter Kaufmann, editor (New York: Meridian
Books, 1956), 214.
[24] John P. Zwaenepoel, Phenemenological Psychology (Makati: San Carlos
Major Seminary, 1963), 51. This book was not intended to be for sale. It was in
fact labelled as ‘for private use only’.
[25] Adrian van Kaam,
Existential Foundations of Psychology (Garden City: Doubleday & Company,
Inc., 1966), 15.
[26] Gary Brent Madison, The Phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, (Athens:
Ohio University Press, 1981), 34-37.
[27] Thody, Philip (1964) Jean-Paul Sartre. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Third,
and for Heidegger, the human person as being-in-the-world (most especially that
part - being-in[28])
expresses a relationship of being actively concerned with the objects in the
world, like: having to do with something, producing something, attending to
something or looking after it, and etc.
The human person cares about others and about the world. He or she
strives to be in a harmonious relationship with others and the world.
Argument
Number 2. The human person as open to others and the world is moving for
integration. He or she integrates himself and herself not just to others and
the world, but particularly to the different dimensions of existence: social,
psychological, cultural, biological, and metaphysical. This integration is
likened to ecological balance and management. It is therefore by nature that
the human person calls for harmony, unity, balance, goodness and beauty.
The
human person, by nature, is integral. He or she seeks, in his or her quest for
authenticity, for integration. According to John Zwaenepoel in his
Phenomenological Psychology in 1963, the human person integrates himself or
herself into the biological world and the social world, without being absorbed
by such.[29] He or she also integrates himself or herself
into the metaphysical.
In
order to realize himself/herself, the human person has to open up to two
realities, namely: (1) to the whole of reality and (2) to the Absolute, who is
the foundation of all reality. According to Zwaenepoel, this opening up is
likened to a ‘vocation’.[30] Zwaenepoel used ‘vocation’
to describe this phenomenon, a term of Gabriel Marcel. The term ‘vocation’ is
Marcel’s expression of the metaphysical experience. In other words, without denying, the human
person is but ‘naturally’ exposed to reality (the world, the society, the
environment, all that
is in it and all activities attached to it) and the Absolute (God, faith, and
religion).[31]
By
embracing these, he or she makes himself or herself available and ‘of service’
to the Absolute, makes himself or herself authentic, and the realities (the
world, the society, environment, etc.) shine.
Argument Number 3.
The human person as open and integral is a world-builder. Embracing the world
and making it part of life is not enough, it is changing it, improving it, preserving
it, caring for it, and more.
[28] Dreyfus, H. L., 1990, Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on
Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[29] Zwaenepoel, 22.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
Albert
Dondeyne, in his work in 1963, spoke about the human person and the human world
relationship. He said “I am influenced by the world in which I dwell and I
influence this world ; I dwell, inhabit, sojourn and others in the world; I
cultivate, transform, humanize, and personalize the world by my simple human
presence.”[32]
These
words of Dondeyne point to the possibility of the metaphysical to be viewed as
ecological. The human person relates to the world, and the world relating to
the human person. There is interaction and harmony between the two.
In
a more or less similar thought, Gabriel Marcel considers the primitive relation
between the self and the world to be one of exchange, involvement, and
participation.[33] This is either by taking part in and of being
a part of that in which one takes part. Furthermore, Marcel spoke of a world as
‘my’ world, a world in which I feel ‘at home’.[34]
Marcel
underlines the value of participation, involvement, and exchange. All these ideas
make one feel at home. Because of the rejuvenating power of always being ‘at
home’, one comes home,
one participates in clean-ups, one leads movements to eradicate all elements
that would destroy ‘home’.
Heidegger
spoke of being as someone who realizes itself in the world, associates the
world with its project and sees the world in the light of these projects.[35] The human person is a world-builder. He or
she arranges the world around him or her. With these thoughts, it is possible
to speak of the farmer, the world of the teachers, the world of drivers, and
others. These different worlds are so
many different ways of arranging the world in general.
Argument
Number 4. Pope Francis wants to have a dialogue to
all people of the world. This is the
kind of ethics the pope is proposing. His reading of the whole ecological
situation may be very limited and his suggestions in resolving the ecological
crisis may not be satisfying or holistic, but the supreme pontiff is not
closed. He is open for dialogue.
What
is the connotation of this ethics of dialogue? There is a common effort for the common home. People would come
together for one purpose. There can be a unified effort in addressing the
crisis. Solutions are open for corrections, revisions, development and
improvement. There is cooperation, unity and solidarity.
[32] Albert Dondeyne, Contemporary European Thought and Christian Faith
(Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1963), 15.
[33] Kaam, 23.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
It tells also that this kind
of ethics is a process. It is an open methodology.
It may take time as people would find better ways to address the issue. It
attempts to consider all sides. It will be difficult but this time there is a
direction to what people will be doing.
Some concrete steps towards ecological consciousness and
conversion
This dialogue is inclusive and
action-oriented or a solution-oriented activity. And the actions that people
can start doing in the first place is - becoming more aware of everyone’s
connectedness. The care for one another and creation includes the understanding
that “everything is connected,”[36] and that the economy,
politics, community involvement, and technology all affect the future of the
planet and humankind.
How
can we become more aware of our connectedness?
There
should be changes to lifestyle and consumption habits. These can make a big
difference. For example, get a re-usable water bottle, take shorter showers,
walk, ride on a bike or take public transportation instead of driving, recycle,
compost food waste, and buy energy efficient appliances.
One
should make changes institutionally. It could be at your parish, school, or
workplace. For example, start recycling and composting, use washable dinnerware
in cafeterias, share electronically instead of printing, do an energy audit,
and install solar panels.
One
should support local efforts to solve environmental problems. Community groups
around the country are working to make city, county, and state-wide changes
that can make a big difference. One should find out what is going on locally
and get involved.
Finally,
a difficult move yet it is possible, one should contact your members of
Congress (or representatives) to share Pope Francis’ message and urge action or
enact laws to address climate change.
[36] Laudato Si, #91.
References
Adrian van Kaam, Existential Foundations of Psychology (Garden City: Doubleday &
Company, Inc., 1966).
Albert Dondeyne, Contemporary European Thought and Christian Faith (Pittsburgh:
Duquesne University Press, 1963).
Dreyfus, H. L., 1990, Being-in-the-World: A
Commentary on Heidegger's Being and
Time,
Division I, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Gary
Brent Madison, The Phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, (Athens: Ohio University
Press, 1981), 34-37.
John P. Zwaenepoel, Phenemenological Psychology
(Makati: San Carlos Major
Seminary, 1963.
Laudato Si
Martin Heidegger, “The way Back into the
Grounds of Metaphysics,” Existentialism from
Dostoevsky
to Sartre, Walter Kaufmann, editor (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), 214.
Thody, Philip (1964) Jean-Paul Sartre. London:
Hamish Hamilton..
Thank you, Fides!
ReplyDelete