Encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality: On Care for Our Common Home by Pope Francis

Encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality: On Care for Our Common Home Reviews

• 
  Aparna

  You don't have to be Catholic to appreciate this well-written moral argument for why society cannot be in a state of existence distinct from and above the natural environment.
• 
  Caterina

  Our goal is...to become painfully aware, to dare to turn what is happening to the world into our own personal suffering and thus to discover what each of us can do about it.
  
  The American press, secular and Catholic, somewhat whitewashed Francis’ famous letter (“encyclical” in church lingo) now celebrating its fifth anniversary of publication. Conceptually, the letter surprised and impressed me. It offers an integral, holistic way of thinking about ecology and human suffering. It hangs together as a spiritual and practical document, paradoxically delivering both urgency and hope. It does not dig into details. And Francis explicitly addressed it to the whole world, not just to Catholics.
  
  The letter’s true subject is the inherent worth and dignity of all life -- of “our sister, Mother Earth” (as Saint Francis of Assisi once said) and all her creatures, a network that includes her people. Inseparable, all are being destroyed together by rapacious exploitation to feed a wasteful, unsustainable consumer market, where land and life-giving water are nothing but resources to be appropriated, and all living creatures, including people, are nothing but resources to be used or inconveniences to be eliminated. Stacking injury on injury in this “throwaway culture,” toxic waste and discarded products shipped (back) to impoverished lands (to be clear: not just poor but impoverished by what has been done to them) turn the earth into "an immense pile of filth.” And of course the life-sustaining air pumped full of greenhouse gases and toxins. The prosecution of endless war and preparation for war are major culprits in this culture of extreme waste and environmental destruction.
  
  Inequity...compels us to consider an ethics of international relations. A true “ecological debt” exists, particularly between the global north and south. .. The foreign debt of poor countries has become a way of controlling them, yet this is not the case [for] environmental debt ...developing countries continue to fuel the development of richer countries at the cost of their own present and future.”
  
  Francis’ whole-earth ecology of the poor blew me away. He considers even the “human ecology” of cities and settlements, the importance of preserving, beautifying, and caring for urban communities — in contrast to the waste of ripping down old neighborhoods, displacing their people and replacing them with fancy developments for the wealthy. I can’t help but envision Francis fearlessly walking, walking, walking through those poorest neighborhoods. He also writes respectfully of indigenous communities who take better care of their own land than anyone else ever will — yet are always in danger of being shoved off. (This central theme and respect shone through the recent Amazon Synod where one major focus was on how to protect the Amazon region from exploitation, but here in the U.S. the secular press was inexplicably hyperfocused on the possibility of married priests and pretty much ignored anything else.)
  
  A sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings. It is clearly inconsistent to combat trafficking in endangered species while remaining completely indifferent to human trafficking, unconcerned about the poor or undertaking to destroy another human being deemed unwanted. This compromises the very meaning of our struggle.
  
  Following in the tradition of his namesake Saint Francis of Assisi, Francis takes the time to establish why we should care about life on earth and our fellow humans. This may seem obvious, but at a time when despair for our earth is so great that some people are advocating some sort of human self-immolation to “save the planet” I appreciated that he started at the foundation, from a religious and spiritual perspective. While Francis, addressing his letter to all people, writes that he is perfectly aware that many consider religion irrelevant, he counters that we cannot afford, at a time like this, to dismiss wisdom gleaned from any tradition, and calls for what has become his trademark: coming together “in dialog” in a stronger, more international way — just as the multinational corporations, instruments of environmental destruction, cross national borders to wield power globally. Even though this is addressed to all people, it is a spiritual and religious document, offering the pope’s strong contemporary Catholic Christian viewpoint in the tradition of St. Francis. The modern-day Francis unequivocally lays to rest some wrongheaded historical notions that abused biblical texts to justify exploiting the earth. He wants to offer Catholic Christians and others a better spiritual approach.
  
  This is only the second papal encyclical I’ve read. It's a genre unto itself, I think, covering a lot of ground in a few pages. The reading experience was maybe 3.5 stars but I’m giving it five because it introduced me to new ways of thinking that I have not encountered anywhere else.
  
  UPDATE 6/18/2020 — I just learned that a sequel is coming out: Journeying Towards Care for Our Common Home: Five Years After Laudato Si’—! So in a way I’m glad I just read this now, five years late.
  
  *
  
  There is a nobility in the duty to care for creation through little daily actions....We must not think that these efforts are not going to change the world. They benefit society, often unbeknown to us, for they call forth a goodness which, albeit unseen, inevitably tends to spread. Furthermore, such actions...can enable us to live more fully and to feel that life on earth is worthwhile. . . . . Nevertheless, self-improvement on the part of individuals will not by itself remedy the extremely complex situation facing our world today. Isolated individuals can lose their ability and freedom to escape the utilitarian mindset, and end up prey to an unethical consumerism bereft of social or ecological awareness. Social problems must be addressed by community networks and not simply by the sum of individual good deeds....The ecological conversion needed to bring about lasting change is a community conversion.
  
  *
  
  Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, a firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.
  
  
  ***
• 
  Chris

  Public theology, in this work of Pope Francis, is overtly collaborative. His footnotes are as likely to refer not only to Catholic tradition (especially Francis and Bonaventure) and to previous popes' writings, but to the public statements of regional and national bishops' conferences. I've heard it shrewdly suggested that Francis is giving himself political cover by letting his brother bishops make many of his more controversial points for him, but the effect is less the scholar or politician covering his bases than the leader determined to speak on behalf of his whole constituency.
  
  Official church documents, throughout the Christian ecumene, tend to make unexceptionable doctrinal claims in bland language. Francis' writing in Laudato Si' mostly lacks the flair of Naomi Klein in
  This Changes Everything or Tink Tinker in
  American Indian Liberation writing on related themes. Nevertheless, his positions on the urgency of climate change and the priority of indigenous land rights arguably meet the stiff political tests those two would pose. Indeed, Klein has apparently met with Francis at the Vatican—a moment I would never have expected in her late-90s heyday, or even now.
  
  The toughest test for Francis, to my eye, comes from those strains of eco-feminism that claim catholic Christianity is too patriarchal in practice and/or metaphysics ever to develop a planetary consciousness or treat the earth with justice and care. (I have in mind here
  Catherine Keller, who is perhaps not a perfect example, but others could be multiplied.) But Francis, too, poses a challenge to that mode of theology in the comprehensiveness of his ecological program. I would love to see a more overt dialogue between those points of view, if only so I can teach it, and sooner rather than later.
• 
  Sarah Myers

  "Authentic human development has a moral character. It presumes full respect for the human person, but it must also be concerned for the world around us."
  
  
  http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/fran...
• 
  K.R. Gastreich

  Despite media claims to the contrary, Laudato si’ is not really about global climate change. Pope Francis does mention climate change along with many other maladies affecting our planet, but his true message runs deeper than a single environmental challenge or the politics that plague it.
  
  Pope Francis's encyclical addresses the moral dimensions of human activity in the context of a living Earth. He urges us to remember our compassion for each other and for the planet on which we depend. He invites us to a dialogue across multiple boundaries: political, economic, religious, environmental, social, and technological, among others.
  
  Throughout the encyclical, the Pope demonstrates how our moral obligation to the preservation of life is firmly grounded in the faith and theological traditions of the Church. For those familiar with Catholic tradition, there is nothing new here. Pope Francis simply brings together a rich body of teaching, and invites us to reflect and act upon the consequences of our fundamental responsibilities as stewards of Creation.
  
  There may be some points of argument that certain readers would take issue with, but anyone who holds the basic tenets of Christianity and Catholicism dear cannot turn his or her back on the central message so eloquently delivered in Laudato si’. I believe this may be the most important religious document of this century. It deserves everyone’s attention.
  
  Laudato si’ can be read on line or downloaded for free from the Vatican web site.The encyclical is very well written; the language accessible to the layperson. It inspires us in a way that only the best sermons can, by calling everyone to a higher standard for living as a community of compassion on this beautiful and unique planet we come home.
• 
  David Schwan

  An interesting book. Most of the attention on this book right now is about climate change and the Pope declaring it is real, caused by humans and needs to be dealt with. The discussion about climate change is only a small part of this book. Treating the earth with dignity and treating the poor with dignity are really the main themes. Selfish greed is bad. while not calling out particular companies I can't help but think that both Monsanto with its stranglehold over seeds and Nestle with it's water business are two companies in the Pope's cross-hairs.
  
  Even architecture is talked about with one memorable passage:
  
  "If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony."
• 
  Thom Willis

  Funny how stirred up so many people got over this encyclical. The Pope is teaching an ecology in radical departure from standard western Liberal orthodoxy. It is a theological ecology; it is a social ecology. It is not anthropocentric, it is not “Green” ideology. The weird thing is that it is not anything truly new, that is to say, anything in departure from Catholic tradition.
  
  I wonder how much of an effect it will have. I doubt liberals who love paying lipservice to "green" ideology will step up to the challenge to actually live more responsibly. And I doubt conservatives who pay lipservice to religious authority and God's supremacy will step up either.
  
  Time will tell.
  
  I do agree with one reviewer who criticized the work as being "literally mundane" The Holy Father takes time to give practical advice on how to save energy and so forth, addressing small issues previously unsuited to the Encyclical format and more appropriately treated by the local Episcopal conferences he frequently cites.
  
  I don't know what I think about the causes or extent of global climate change. But neither the encyclical nor Papal authority hinge upon the claims it makes about the subject.
• 
  Catherine

  Lots to think (and smile) about.
• 
  Marc

  On the eve of the climate summit of Paris it seemed interesting to me to read this church document. Pope Francis clearly read the basics: he outlines the latest, scientific status of global warming and launches a whole series of warnings and guidelines: man must see the Earth as a garden that has been granted to him, and of which he should take care in respect for nature, the other creatures and the next generations.
  
  Based on the many citations he uses of his predecessors, I can see that the Catholic Church has already taken a turn a while ago, away from the formerly predominant vision of man as the appointed ruler over nature. Francis adds a distinctive accent to this ecological turn: he embeds it in a much wider context. Respect for nature according to him is in the first place a social contract; he constantly stresses that the injustice against nature is just as bad as social injustice, and that both are linked and intertwined.
  
  The Argentine pope goes all the way: he quotes many statements by local church groups (mostly Latin American) and retrieves elements, such as the struggle of small farmers against multinationals, which were put away by previous popes as accursed liberation theology. Of course, it is meritorious to stress that link between the social and the ecological, but the propositions of Francis are pushed so far that they become tedious. So, this certainly is an interesting and important document, but I'm not sure it's going to be one of the landmark encyclicals. (rating 2.5 stars)
• 
  Bob

  Summary: Pope Francis' encyclical on the environment, advocating an "integral ecology" that links care for the creation with care for the poor, the quality of life in our cities, and a way of life emphasizing spiritual rather than material priorities.
  
  Encyclicals are circular letters from the Pope to the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church addressing important matters of church teaching. The title of the encyclical is taken from the first two words of the encyclical in Latin. This encyclical, "on care for our common home" begins with the words Laudato si' or "Praise to you" and are the first words of a song of Saint Francis. The remarkable thing about this particular encyclical is that it has been addressed not only to the Catholic faithful, but "to the whole human family."
  
  The encyclical begins with a review of prior church teaching on the environment and particularly that of Saint Francis of Assisi, from whom the Pope draws his inspiration for what he terms "integral ecology." For Saint Francis, the love of God and his creation transcended the separate categories in which we often place science and faith, care for the environment and care for the poor, the pursuit of stewardship of the earth and social justice. One commentator has noted that the most significant word in the encyclical may be the word and because Pope Francis associates things we often separate.
  
  Six chapters follow this introduction. Chapter 1 explores "what is happening to our common home?" and considers pollution and climate change, water supplies, biodiversity, and the decline of the quality of human life and the breakdown of society, and global inequalities. Chapter 2 is titled "the gospel of creation" and explores a Catholic theology of creation. emphasizing that our dominion of creation was not domination but tilling and caring for it. It movingly states:
  
  "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." (paragraph 92)
  
  Chapter 3 turns from God's intent to the "human roots of our ecological crisis". The encyclical sources this in an inordinate reliance on technology--technocracy, in the globalization of the technocratic paradigm, and an excessive anthropocentrism that paradoxically compromises human dignity as we exploit not only the environment but other human beings as well. This chapter ranges widely considering everything from genetically modified food (and the usurping of smaller landholders by big agribusiness) to the dignity of human work and the need for gainful employment. Chapter 4 then turns to the remedy of these woes in "integral ecology" that concerns environmental, economic, social, cultural and everyday ecology, the common good and justice between generations.
  
  Chapter 5 considers "lines of approach" and has to do with various public spheres in which environmental advocacy and action must occur. I was struck how often the word "should" was used here in ideas for international, national, and local policy. Perhaps the most trenchant remarks in this section are in the Pope's call for transparency in dialogue and decision-making and in his call for a rapprochement between religion and science around environmental concerns.
  
  The final chapter concerns "ecological education and spirituality" and turns to the impact a Catholic eco-theology might have at the parish level. In a section on "Joy and Peace" the Francis writes:
  
  "To be serenely present to each reality, however small it may be, opens us to much greater horizons of understanding and personal fulfilment. Christian spirituality proposes a growth marked by moderation and the capacity to be happy with little. It is a return to that simplicity which allows us to stop and appreciate the small things, to be grateful for the opportunities which life affords us, to be spiritually detached from what we possess, and not to succumb to sadness for what we lack." (paragraph 222).
  
  He also calls for a kind of ecological conversion and considers the relation of the Trinity, and of Mary to the creation. He concludes the encyclical with two prayers, the first "a prayer for our earth" and the second a "Christian prayer in union with creation."
  
  I found much to commend here. Here is an ecology that is pro-human life from the uterus to the grave, and at the same time fully recognizes that dignity of all creatures. Francis recognizes that it is often those who have contributed least to our ecological problems who suffer the most and sees the issue of justice and not simply ecological concerns in this suffering. He also recognizes that most profoundly, we need a conversion from the materialism and consumerism that is neither ecologically sustainable nor spiritually satisfying. With his namesake, he eloquently argues for how our lives are inextricably bound up with the life of the whole creation.
  
  He speaks prophetically to those in political and economic power. And I found myself wondering here whether in fact it will be the weak of this world, the powerless, who will, under the grace of God, confound the mighty and whether change, if it comes, will not come from the politicians or big business interests but from a grassroots movement. My own hope is that such a movement might be nurtured by Christian communities whose faithful presence and witness in these matters captures the imagination of others, as did the church in eastern Europe during the fall of Communism.
  
  Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote, "The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children." I'm troubled that we have not lived in such a way to leave a healthy, verdant world to our children. The kind of world their children find may well hinge on whether both the church and the wider human community heed this passionate plea for our common home.
• 
  David Withun

  -
• 
  Mesoscope

  This first encyclical by Pope Francis, named Laudato Si' after the first words of the "Canticle of the Creatures" of Saint Francis, is best known as a major statement on behalf of the Catholic Church that summarizes and affirms the primary consensus of climatologists and warns against the incipient danger of global warming. Stripped of all other content, it would stand on its own merits as a clear and comprehensive summary of the issue that accords in nearly all of its particulars with scientific bodies such as the IPCC. This is no doubt largely due to the contribution of Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a (Protestant) physicist and founder of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who served as the Pope's primary science advisor.
  
  As this encyclical is addressed to "every living person on the planet," I feel qualified to respond to its various arguments from my distinctly non-Catholic perspective. Before doing so, I would like to note that this work has been enthusiastically greeted by a large number of politically progressive secular humanists who affirm its scientific and economic critiques. But I would caution that the work has to be understood in its totality before a final judgment or endorsement can be made, and I would note that few reviewers on the left seem to have made that effort.
  
  After warning of the dangers of climate change and various other threats to the biosphere, the Pope makes a social and economic argument that climate change is symptomatic of a more fundamental problem: a worldview which regards the everything as devoid of intrinsic value or worth. Another manifestation of this solipsistic nihilism is the enormous and growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, and the way that the poorer peoples and countries of the world are treated by the global north. In a pointed example, the Pope condemns wealthy nations for not just despoiling poorer lands in their pursuit of natural resources, but for literally sending mountains of trash to those faraway lands for other people to deal with.
  
  A key reason this situation persists, he argues, is because major decision-makers are so far removed in their daily lives from the harsh realities of life as it is experienced on a daily basis by billions of people around the world:
  
  

  
  It needs to be said that, generally speaking, there is little in the way of clear awareness of problems which especially affect the excluded. Yet they are the majority of the planet’s population, billions of people. These days, they are mentioned in international political and economic discussions, but one often has the impression that their problems are brought up as an afterthought, a question which gets added almost out of duty or in a tangential way, if not treated merely as collateral damage. Indeed, when all is said and done, they frequently remain at the bottom of the pile. This is due partly to the fact that many professionals, opinion makers, communications media and centres of power, being located in affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact with their problems. They live and reason from the comfortable position of a high level of development and a quality of life well beyond the reach of the majority of the world’s population.
  

  
  
  This situation is rendered tolerable through willful ignorance and denial, but it is propagated and incentivized by a rapacious global capitalism and its insatiable desire for the production of novel consumer goods. By his view, a numbed elite seeks ever-greater novelty in throwaway toys and gladly pays the necessary price in environmental carnage and human misery. They are hedonistically addicted to limitless growth, and in many cases even cynically maintain that such a "standard of living" must be extended to all people in the world, even though, as the Pope caustically points out, such a goal is necessarily a fantasy, beacuse there would literally not even be enough room for all the garbage that would result from billions more consumers.
  
  His argument often resembles Marxist critiques of global capital, and indeed, Laudato Si' is sometimes uncannily similar to criticisms of instrumental reason by the Frankfurt School, such as when Pope Francis writes “The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development according to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object.”
  
  The basic structure of his analysis, then, is to derive the root causes of the despoliation of the biosphere and the disregard for the poor, which Pope Francis traces to economic patterns of inequality and a selfish and relentless focus on growth. These, in turn, are rooted in a cluster of related spiritual, psychological, and philosophical problems, which he variously identifies as anthropocentrism, technocentrism, and consumerism, while describing the historical horizon in which these attitudes predominate as postmodern. He argues that the church must address all of these issues as interrelated, dealing with the symptoms along with the causes, and ultimately targeting a spiritual renewal to counteract what he sees as a nihilistic form of instrumental reason that takes all of its objects, living and unliving, as devoid of any intrinsic dignity or value, so that they merely serve the purposes of the ego's appetites.
  
  This last move is key and reaches down to the bedrock of the Pope's argument - we treat others in a terrible way because we do not see them as valuable or cherish them, and we do not cherish them because we do not grasp that they, like us, come from God. In the Pope's view, the only thing that can ultimately root out the spiritual problems that lead to the wanton destruction he decries is the recognition of universal, timeless truths. The alternative is a form of solipsistic nihilism that he calls "practical relativism," which, as he says in his earlier Evangelii Gaudium, "consists in acting as if God did not exist, making decisions as if the poor did not exist, setting goals as if others did not exist, working as if people who have not received the Gospel did not exist." This is the root problem perpetuating climate destruction and human poverty:
  
  

  
  When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one��s own immediate interests. There is a logic in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.
  
  The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same “use and throw away” logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided.
  

  
  
  It is important to note the degree to which the terminology and concepts he uses here overlap with standard secular humanist values. He uses terms like "postmodern," "relativism," "individualism," and "technocratic." Abortion is given as an example of what he calls practical relativism and I call solipsistic nihilism, and while he doesn't quite say that a disbelief in God is logically consistent with child abuse, he comes much closer than I would like.
  
  At first, I was baffled as to why Pope Francis would include statements like this:
  
  

  
  [V]aluing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”.
  

  
  
  On the surface, accepting a naive, binary understanding of biologically-determined gender identity would seem to have little to do with global warming. The point of connection is that in the Pope's view, those who advocate for a more nuanced model of gender identity, or who advocate for contraception or the right to abortion, are proceeding from the same matrix of error as the people who cut down the rain forests to make toilet paper.
  
  It is important for progressives to recognize that the ultimate target of this encyclical is not climate change per se, but what Pope Francis sees as the underlying problem: the theological and moral rootlessness of modernity.
  
  That is not to say that there isn't a great deal of value in this work, or that we should fail to celebrate the step Pope Francis has taken in putting it on the record that the official position of the world's largest organized religion is to accept the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists on global warming and other threats associated with the Anthropocene.
  
  Personally, I think it is a shame that Pope Francis is willing to listen to climatologists on global warming, but cannot hear what biologists, historians, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists have to say about gender identity. I found the Pope's quiet but steady arguments against population control naive, and I genuinely find it hard to believe that in this century on this planet of Earth there are still people who argue that contraception is morally wrong - especially people who claim to be speaking on behalf of the global south.
  
  Ultimately, the central argument is a little too close to that most tired of all canards: the view that without religious belief, people will eat each other alive, because if it's all relative, why not? It is exhausting just to drag my eyes across those arguments. Values can be important to people even if they're not rooted in eternal principles, just like money can have value even when it doesn't literally stand for gold.
  
  In conclusion, this is a historically important work that has many virtues, not least of which being its ecumenical reach - the Pope quotes not only from Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, but from a Sufi poet as well. But it's also embedded in a larger moral and theological context that I found at times to be naive and retrograde.
• 
  Giulia

  "Quanti subiranno le conseguenze che noi tentiamo di dissimulare, ricorderanno questa mancanza di coscienza e di responsabilità".
  
  Papa Francesco, che non cessa mai di stupire, riesce con questa Enciclica a rivolgersi con forza non solo ai credenti, ma a tutti "gli uomini di buona volontà" che condividono questa nostra "casa comune". L'autore fornisce infatti un'analisi attenta, precisa e illuminata della situazione attuale, delle sue cause - quelle profonde - e delle possibili vie per le quali incamminarsi per cambiare direzione, o almeno minimizzare gli effetti.
  
  Degna di nota è la chiarezza con cui il Papa indica l'origine dell'indifferenza per la sofferenza altrui, con la quale lega sapientemente ecologia, economia, antropologia ed etica. Ineguagliabile è poi l'umiltà con cui trova la forza di dire la verità, senza aggrapparsi a facili menzogne o ancor più facili omissioni. Già, pare proprio che, piuttosto che compiacere, preferisca dire le cose come stanno, e non sorprende infatti come questo libro abbia infastidito molti.
  La bibliografia è tanto ampia quanto la visione d'insieme che viene proposta.
  
  Un libro che consiglierei a tutti, perché smuove dai propri egoismi e ricorda la responsabilità che ognuno di noi ha. Credo sia anche un libro da rileggere di tanto in tanto - o almeno questo è quello che cercherò di fare io, per non dimenticare di fare scelte che non siano egoiste, ma lungimiranti.
  
  Per concludere, dopo aver letto l'opera di un uomo solo, vien da chiedersi come stiano passando il tempo i cosiddetti "addetti ai lavori".
• 
  E.

  I've read a few papal encyclicals through the years, but none were as inspiring to me as this one. Francis is an easy and engaging writer. Benedict to craft intricate theological statements. And John Paul paradoxically combined the writing talents of a poet and playwright with the sometimes obscure philosophical speculations of a phenomenologist. Francis' writing is both clearer and more engaging to a wider readership.
  
  And what he writes is challenging and inspiring. In many ways, there is nothing new here. The Roman Catholic Church has long criticized Western capitalism for its greed, consumption, and exploitation and/or neglect of the poor. But what Francis has accomplished is a beautiful, cheerful, and hopeful connection of the deep problems of our current society--ecology, economy, and quality of life. He has sought common ground with other faith groups and nonbelievers while also articulating specifically how a catholic, Trinitarian theology promotes engagement with the poor and radical changes in our lifestyles in order to live as better stewards of the earth.
  
  I intend to look back through the letter (I've been reading it here and there over the last month during free time at work) in order to organize my thoughts more. I very likely will preach on topics from the encyclical this autumn.
• 
  James

  Encyclical; On Climate Change & Inequality: On Care for Our Common Home by Pope Francis
  
  His Holiness gives priority to "our interconnectedness and mutual responsibility toward one another, as well as toward our common Earthly home" (viii). "He is asking us to reject the creed of market fundamentalism and to recognize that the system has levers. Individual, institutions, and governments are all making choices, as we have the capacity to make different ones" (xxiv).
  
  In this Encyclical is the heritage of St. Francis of Assisi (1181 - 1226) who abandoned a life of luxury for a life devoted to Christianity. He is the patron saint for ecologists.
  
  "A sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack kindness, compassion, and concern for our fellow human beings" (56). For an "integral ecology," we have the capacity to make different choices for employment, science, and technology, cities, families, education, ethics, laws, and regulations.
  
  He concludes with this prayer, "All-powerful God you are present in the whole universe and in the smallest creatures.
  . . . Bring healing in our lives, that we may protect the world and not prey on it, that we may sow beauty, not pollution and destruction.
  Touch the hearts of those who look only for gain at the expense of the poor and the earth" (149). Amen
• 
  rafael

  Very refreshing how critical the pope is of (neoliberal) capitalism. He doesn't even mince words, repeatedly decrying the privatization of public spaces and resources and the social decay engendered by privileging the market.
  
  I consider this encyclical a landmark work on degrowth--which triggers not only right-wingers, but many a naïve liberal. Glad to know and be reassured that even though the Catholic Church is still largely conservative and patriarchal, its leadership is very much open to the fruits borne out of the tradition of liberation theology. This isn't surprising, as Bergoglio *is* South American, and calls for degrowth are usually made on behalf of the Global South. In this work, the pleas of Bolivia, Patagonia, Southern Africa, the Philippines, etc. make up a great deal of the pope's footnotes.
• 
  dely

  Ora che l'ho letto posso tranquillamente dire che non è soltanto per cattolici o credenti. È per tutti, per chiunque abbia a cuore l'ambiente.
• 
  Alexis

  Laudato Si's Chapter 2 "The Gospel of Creation" is really a short treatise considering the basis of sacred scripture and God-inspired words from the Bible to help us better understand our role in our world.
  
  One of the things I love about Pope Francis is his immediate and forthright approach that there is no reason why "religion" cannot be a part of this conversation about preserving the environment, and not just on the basis of taking care of our fellow man, though that is there as well. There is no doubt that faith and reason go together, in fact he lays out quite clearly that wisdom and knowledge should be called upon to address our plight. In fact, through my own studies, I don't know that the Bible isn't the first work of environmental activism in existence.
  
  He tells us that "science and religion, with their distinctive approaches to understanding reality, can enter into an intense dialogue fruitful for both." (P62)
  
  Pope Francis, by addressing this encyclical to the entire world, calls us all to step forward and do something to change the dangerous direction we are heading and he points out that scripture "can offer Christians ample motivation to care for nature and for the most vulnerable of their brothers and sisters... Christians in their turn realize that their responsibility within creation, and their duty towards nature and the creator, is the central part of their faith."(P64). We are reminded that creation is a good, we are intentionally here and that the earth is a creation that is to bring good for everyone... "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good."(Genesis 1:31)
  
  Pope Francis calls on our creation as God's clear intent. "Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." (P65)
  
  Just as the Prophets of old have warned, if we rupture our relationship with God, in this case by turning our back on his creation, we have broken faith with him, one of the first and key covenants. When we do this through violence, abuse, neglect, disregard, not caring for, etc. we commit a sin against God, against our neighbor and against ourselves. We can lay the blame in many sophisticated ways, but no matter where we try to cast the blame, it is laid back at the doorsteps of humanity. (Paraphrased from P66) "The work of the church is not only to remind everyone of the duty to care for nature, but at the same time she must above all protect mankind from self-destruction." (P79)
  
  
  Semantics can make all the difference. In the story of creation, God calls us to till and keep the earth and He gives us dominion over the earth. With it we are to provide for ourselves, but also the poor, the foreigner, orphan, the widow and the forgotten. But these meanings are not always as easy as we would like them to be... Paragraph 67 speaks to this point clearly and in language that is understandable and acceptable. I think one of the hardest obstacles we must overcome is in getting others to read, comprehend and apply these wise words of Pope Francis:
  
  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).
  
  
  Reflecting on scripture in this way can bring us to new heights of understanding our role and our gift of leadership on this earth. Abraham's contemplation of the stars and heavens, Job's awe and wonder at the creatures of the earth and David's Psalms all recognize the majesty of God's creation and in many ways help us to address the questions and curiosities as to how humanity fits in.
  
  If we acknowledge the value and the fragility of nature and, at the same time, our God-given abilities, we can finally leave behind the modern myth of unlimited material progress. A fragile world, entrusted by God to human care, challenges us to devise intelligent ways of directing, developing and limiting our power. (P78)
  
  I loved that this chapter also delivered several points and acknowledgements from bishops around the world:
  
  The bishops of Brazil pointed out that nature as a whole not only manifest God but is also a locus of his presence. The Spirit of life dwells in every living creature and calls us to enter into relationship with him. Discovering this presence leads us to cultivate ecological virtues.
  The bishops of Paraguay stated that every [man] you know has a natural right to possess a reasonable allotment of land where he can establish is home, work for subsistence of his family and a secure life.
  The New Zealand bishops asked what the commandment "thou shall not kill" means when "20% of the worlds population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive".
  The Canadian bishops rightly pointed out that no creature is excluded from the manifestation of God quote from panoramic vistas to the tiniest living form, nature is a constant source of wonder and awe. It is also a continuing revelation of the divine.
  The bishops of Japan, for their part, made a thought-provoking observation: "to see each creature singing the hymn of its existence is to live joyfully in the in God's love and hope".
  
  Francis addresses the concept of human dominion over the earth in further and most exceptional ways, he reinforces the concept that each individual has unique and valuable capacities. That the individual person "can never be reduced to the status of an object." (P81)
  
  Yet it would also be mistaken to view other living beings as mere objects subjected to arbitrary human domination. When nature is viewed solely as a source of profit and gain, this has serious consequences for society. (P82)
  
  This teaching or recognition is not a new idea brought by Francis. Another one of the wonderful qualities the Holy Father provides. He brings long lost teachings from scripture to light, highlights teachings from the early Church Fathers, great theologians like Thomas Aquinas and even draws in the Catechism of the Catholic Church's basic teachings, like this one: "Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things which would be in contempt of the Creator and would bring disastrous consequences for human beings and their environment." (CCC339)
  
  I also appreciated the points made in Francis response to the overzealous environmentalists that would put all before humanity. That is the beauty of a true faith, you do not get to pigeon-hole it in one political camp or another. We are all called to care for our common home, but not at the expense of any creature, and certainly not at the expense of our brothers and sisters, particularly those in the greatest need or suffering the greatest poverty, hunger, neglect, etc. Respect for God's creation should begin at home, with one another, and the beauty in that kind of caring for the lives of others we care for the world, all its beings and environs. The domino effect would improve our world politics, our ethical behavior, we would build relationships and appreciate diversity, and in the long run, the natural environment of the world would be improved as well.
  
  The Holy Father reminds us that a "spirituality which forgets God as all-powerful and Creator is not acceptable. That is how we end up worshipping earthly powers, or ourselves usurping the place of God, even to the point of claiming an unlimited right to trample his creation underfoot. The best way to restore men and women to their rightful place, putting an end to their claim to absolute dominion over the earth, is to speak once more of the figure of a Father who creates and who alone owns the world. Otherwise, human beings will always try to impose their own laws and interests on reality." (P75)
  
  Over and over, Francis finds new ways to draw his reader to the same core conclusions, that everything is connected and how we behave in all areas of our life affects everything else. Deep connectedness to all of God's creation cannot be substituted with shallow commentary, superficial donations and ineffective rhetoric.
  
  A sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings. It is clearly inconsistent to combat trafficking in endangered species while remaining completely indifferent to human trafficking, unconcerned about the poor, or undertaking to destroy another human being deemed unwanted. Everything is connected. Concern for the environment thus needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society. (P91)
  
  
  Moreover, when our hearts are authentically open to universal communion, this sense of fraternity excludes nothing and no one. It follows that our indifference or cruelty towards fellow creatures of this world sooner or later affects the treatment we mete out to other human beings. We have only one heart, and the same wretchedness which leads us to mistreat an animal will not be long in showing itself in our relationships with other people. Every act of cruelty towards any creature is contrary to human dignity. (P92)
  
  We can hardly consider ourselves to be fully loving if we disregard any aspect of reality...
  
  Because everything is interconnected.
  
  
  
• 
  Philemon Schott

  Am Anfang hätte ich dem Bucg vllt 2 Sterne gegeben. Da war viel arg konservativer Shit drin und ich hab mich gefragt, warum je irgendjemand den Typ als progressiv einordnen könnte.
  In der Mitte hat es dann Fahrt aufgenommen, Franzi wurde konkret und hat hier und da zitierwürde Sätze gedroppt.
  Am Ende hat er mich dann komplett gehabt. Habe einen ganz persönlichen spirituellen Zugang zu den Worten bekommen und die Gebete am Ende habe ich fast schon mitgebetet.
  Insg. also ne gönnerische 3,5.
• 
  Ryan Turnbull

  This book changed my life when it first came out. It invites all people of good will to experience an ecological conversion toward care for our common home. Re-reading it this week was just as life-giving as the first time.
• 
  Juliette

  (Note on the text: all encyclicals are available on the Vatican website for free. I downloaded the PDF and transferred it to my kindle.)
  
  This letter is addressed to all people, regardless of their political persuasions and spiritual beliefs, but it's sad that most of the people who will read this encyclical are already members of the Catholic, "liberal" choir.
  
  The crux of Francis' argument is the care for the other creatures of the world, especially (but not solely) people. His argument is based on the command in the Book of Genesis that man and woman are to be the stewards of creation. Creation is the sea and the sky, Sister Water and Mother Earth. Creation is also our fellow human beings.
  It's hard to refute the idea that is ethically reprehensible that people live in poverty, digging in dangerous, toxic mines for the minerals that comprise the iPhones that people in the First World buy and discard. (That may be my own example. I can't really remember: it's an idea that's been tormenting me.) Care for our fellow people and the earth need to overcome our worship of the "deified market." (I love that phrase from paragraph 56.)
  He says that we all need to take personal responsibility for the norms that we accept. Should we wait for politicians to act, or can we change our lives in small ways that will better serve our world?
  
  When the encyclical was first released, some Catholic communities were talking about how Laudato Sii has caused people to make small changes. I was skeptical. It's just a short book; it's not going to change anything.
  Then I started to pay more attention to the little things around me. When I saw birds outside, pecking sadly at the pavement, I left out some air-popped popcorn and leftover bread for them, and soon I had a flock on my walkway. Instead of having every light blazing in the house (already a peeve of mine), I make a point of switching off every light when I leave the room, even if my hands are full. I'm slowly raising the temperature at which the A/C switches on (the others in the house haven't noticed yet). I try to use every scrap of food that I buy and cook instead of throwing away leftovers.
  They are such common sense, small acts, but I make it a point to pay attention and ensure that I follow them.
  I'm still working on the emotional aspects of his encyclical.
  But, hey, it's a short book, and I just finished it. I live in hope.
  
  
  Some lines that I particularly enjoyed:
  
  We are not meant to be inundated by cement, asphalt, glass, and metal, and deprived of physical contact with nature. (paragraph 44)
  
  Real relationships with others, with all the challenges they entail, now tend to be replaced by a type of internet communication which enables us to choose or eliminate relationships at whim, thus giving rise to a new type of contrived emotion which has more to do with devices and displays than with other people and with nature. (paragraph 47)
  
  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. (paragraph 52)
  
  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. (paragraph 66)
  
  The emptier a person's heart is, the more he or she needs things to buy, own, and consume. (paragraph 204)
• 
  J.T. Therrien

  I understand that the Church (and especially Pope Francis, taking his name from St. Francis) has to make a formal statement about the Church's social doctrine and this is the optimum time to say something about the pastoral care of our planet and its varied cultures and denizens, but I question the efficacy of disseminating this message in an encyclical.
  
  First of all, Laudato Si' could use an edit. It is at least twice as long as it needs to be. I found it repetitive and tedious.
  
  Also, the Pope's message is intended for everyone, yes, but he mostly addresses the issues of two social groups: the disenfranchised poor and the consumer/capitalist-oriented rich; the haves and the have-nots; first-world and third-world peoples. The main problem is that these two groups have different lived experiences and so speak different languages. For example: what do people in North America know about digging through mountains of garbage to find the day's food? What do third world people know about shopping at Wal-Mart and being faced with the "choice" of thirty different chewing gums?
  
  I fear that each group will only be able to relate to their own situation and, as the Pope warns, the poor (who have no political clout) will continue to suffer for the rich's selfish consumerism.
  
  The text had barely been released and critics (American media) were already criticizing the encyclical's communist-leaning themes. So much for the worldwide collaborative effort to eliminate the problem at the geo-political level.
  
  The Church does not need yet another document outlining its social doctrine, or bemoaning the destructiveness of miss-used technology. The track record speaks for itself, especially in Gaudium et Spes - the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World.
  
  Sadly, as far as the issue of the Earth's care is concerned, no dire words of warning issued from the Vatican (a moral voice that even many misinformed Catholics are ignoring more and more these days) will create the necessary economic or social revolution.
  
  Consumers will simply not delay instant gratification for a 'possible' environmental change to be enjoyed by a 'possible' future generation.
  
  Pope Francis, and all idealists, welcome to the future: it is now.
  
• 
  Rachel

  Deep. Not what I was expecting. Excellent explanation of the correlation between current ecological problems and poverty. I need to re-read this!
• 
  Pedro

  Pienso que como ha sido con Rerum Novarum esto es uno de los documentos en que la Iglesia pone su posicion acerca de como abordar un problema del mundo moderno con una visión cristã.
  

  No se puede sostener que las ciencias empíricas explican completamente la vida, el entramado de todas las criaturas y el conjunto de la realidad. Eso sería sobrepasar indebidamente sus confines metodológicos limitados. Si se reflexiona con ese marco cerrado, desaparecen la sensibilidad estética, la poesía, y aun la capacidad de la razón para percibir el sentido y la finalidad de las cosas[141]. Quiero recordar que «los textos religiosos clásicos pueden ofrecer un significado para todas las épocas, tienen una fuerza motivadora que abre siempre nuevos horizontes […] ¿Es razonable y culto relegarlos a la oscuridad, sólo por haber surgido en el contexto de una creencia religiosa?»[142]. En realidad, es ingenuo pensar que los principios éticos puedan presentarse de un modo puramente abstracto, desligados de todo contexto, y el hecho de que aparezcan con un lenguaje religioso no les quita valor alguno en el debate público. Los principios éticos que la razón es capaz de percibir pueden reaparecer siempre bajo distintos ropajes y expresados con lenguajes diversos, incluso religiosos.

  
  
  Si puedes leerla en Castellano lo recomiendo pues es el original.
• 
  MG

  This was my first Encyclical and I found it a strange genre. This read as a professor's masterful summary of a Christian view of our current ecological crisis, with mature and interesting insights from the department heads from theology, spirituality, sociology, economics, and science. The result is a committee-written position paper for no discernible audience. Quoting other popes and other church luminaries, the author at times seems to be instructing Catholics but at other times, world leaders in government and business. And all of it in the form of earnest plans, injunctions, advice, and counsel of what we must do. But who is listening? If they wanted this to influence the wider world, why spend so much time lauding other Catholics or scolding the larger world? If it is for Christians or Catholics, where are the concrete reflections on how to put any of this into practice? The whole piece assumes that the world looks to the church for guidance and moral authority and is not at all persuasive if that is not granted. Compare this approach to that of the Dalai Lama's, who never assumes just Buddhists are reading his books.
• 
  Leonardo

  Excelente. Ya voy a escribir alguna reseña, por ahora: clublaudatosii.blogspot.com.ar
• 
  David Mosley

  Last read:
  10-27 June 2015
• 
  Donald

  Most of this letter is a sort of green progressive common sense infused with Christian teaching. To do so it needed to cover all the bases in a straightforward diplomatic way. And it does this well. There's something greater than the parts here, though. I was struck by the idea of pollution as a sort of poverty in itself matched with human poverty as the reduction of people to pollution. And the danger of a technocratic solution to environmental degradation and poverty that treats the poor as something to be swept up and hidden rather than integrated into a real process of development. This connects in turn to the idea that consumerism and the piling up of wealth are impoverished lifestyles of their own kind, isolating people from the poor and based on unsustainable happiness. This is why the Pope writes that "the earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth."