Unification of Morality, Theology, and Science in Laudato Si
Papal encyclicals, like Laudato Si, are part of the social teaching of the Catholic Church. They are possibly the single most authoritative statement a Pope can make by himself, that is when he is not speaking ex cathedra (for the Church).
Laudato Si is the first Papal encyclical to focus primarily on climate change. It deserves attention for what it is and isn’t, and for its sheer beauty. It is a reasoned position of how we should come together to care for the earth. However, it isn’t a document that limits its commentary to environmental concerns. As with my book reviews, I would like to give a short summary and offer a critical review.
140 word Summary:
We are in need of a new dialogue centered on protecting Earth, our common home. Becoming painfully aware of the changing world and discovering possibilities for action are the challenges facing humanity. If present trends continue this century may witness extraordinary climate change. Deterioration of the natural environment, for example greater scarcity of water, disproportionately affects the poor. Unless our full uniqueness is acknowledged, humans cannot be expected to feel responsibility. Care for the world must be flexible and dynamic and must include justice for the less fortunate and future generations. Deterioration of the environment diminishes human quality of life. Self-centeredness, encouraged by markets, promotes extreme consumerism, increasing this deterioration. We need to drastically change the current techno-economic paradigm if we are to care for each other and the environment. We need to promote and unify all the great values.
Extended Critique and Analysis:
The phrase ‘Laudato Si’ is taken from St. Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Sun, a poem where God is praised for various aspects of his creation. While Laudato Si’s most central theme is care for the earth, he often veers into social teachings on concern for the poor, abortion, and gender theory. From a secular point of view this might be confusing. But if we can understand this ‘veering’ as part of a unified cosmology/metaphysic it can at least make sense to those of us who are not Catholic.
First, there is a beauty in the document that should be appreciated and savored:
“This sister (Mother Earth) now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life.” (Laudato Si, Intro, Paragraph 2)
Pope Francis’ argument is almost poetry. It is a lamentation of human caused damage, yet it is still optimistic that we can come together as a common family to find a solution to care for all Creation. This care must extend to humanity, including the poor.
Concern for the poor is given at least equal time in Laudato Si as climate change. By my count, ‘poor’ (not including the superlatives ‘poorer’ and ‘poorest’) and ‘inequality’ were used 53 times; while the words ‘climate’ and ‘ecology’ were used 48 times. Pope Francis argues that we can’t extend care to all of Creation and not extend it to the less fortunate and defenseless of our own species, including the unborn:
“Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?” (Laudato Si, Ch. 3, Paragraph 120)
This concern extends to the integrity of our bodies, including adherence to our biological sex:
“Also, valuing 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.” (Laudato Si, Ch. 4, Paragraph 155).
Thus, Pope Francis is concerned with human ecology in a very particularly Catholic way, unifying the great values of theology, morality, and science.
Bottom Line:
Pope Francis is not the only religious figure to demonstrate a propensity to unify theology, morality, and science. On February 4, 2014 Bill Nye, the science guy, and Ken Ham, spokesperson for the Creation Museum, debated the topic “Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins.” As I argue elsewhere Ham views morality, theology, and science as deeply interconnected. He also references gender identity in a debate about science. However, his ecological system is different.
Ham’s ecological view is one in which God created a more or less fixed Creation and climate variations are the result of the earth settling down after Noah’s flood. Thus, climate change is a return to normalcy and stasis inherent in the original Creation. The Pope, unlike Ham, accepts the physical evolution of everything, including humanity, only rejecting the idea that the human mind/soul evolved. The difference then is one system is static or at least tending towards stasis; the other is capable of change partially based on our collective actions. The similarity between the two is their profound unity.
There is a unified cosmology/metaphysic in both. These cosmologies inform morality, politics, economic theory, and (though to lesser extent for the Pope) science. This is what a strong cosmology/metaphysical system does. It allows disparate human activities to be connected into a single framework. If we do not understand that others have different cosmologies/metaphysics, we will not be able to truly understand each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment