By Archbishop Thomas Wenski - The Archdiocese of Miami
Archbishop Thomas Wenski delivered this talk May 19, 2016, at the Lumen Christi Symposium hosted by the University of Chicago.
Caring for our Common Home:
Economics, Environment & Catholic Social Thought
Chicago, Illinois
May 19, 2016
Laudato Si’: Toward an Integral Ecology
Remarks of Archbishop Thomas Wenski, Archbishop of Miami
A. Introduction.
Back in August I was quoted in the New York Times on Laudato Si. I don't remember what I said but someone from the Steve Colbert show called my director of Communications in the Archdiocese of Miami and wanted me to come on the show. My communications director said "yes" without asking me. So, in September, when Pope Francis was celebrating Mass in Madison Square Garden, I was recording the Steve Colbert show and talking about the King tides that flood South Beach six times a year - a result of climate change and sea level rise. I thank the board and staff of the Lumen Christi institute for inviting me here this evening. And my friends said I couldn't top the Colbert show.
The Pope uses the word “dialogue” frequently. It’s not a trite word for him, though. He wants us to engage one another, to be led to an encounter of the heart where significant concepts can be discussed and real change can occur.
I think he would be proud of the dialogue we are having today, and the spirit the Lumen Christi Institute brings to these forums on economics and Catholic social thought.
In our highly-politicized reality, space for these conversations is harder to come by. I am grateful for the work of the Institute which is in keeping with the best hopes of the Church and the vision of your founders.
The Pope’s encyclical on care for our common home has been called a document which is “about everything.” I must say that I agree with that assessment. For those interested in exploring the intersection of economics and Church teaching, Pope Francis gives us a full course meal, one that we cannot possibly consume entirely in just a couple of hours.
So, I will attempt to achieve just three things. First, I’ll provide you with a sense of the moorings of Laudato si’, exploring how it is tethered to our faith and prior Papal teaching.
Next, I’ll take up the concept of “integral ecology,” what I call the key for the encyclical, so that we may understand the magnitude of the project before us.
Finally, we will try to understand the kind of renewal Pope Francis has in mind, with an emphasis on some of the economic questions of interest to this audience.
B. Ever Old, Ever NewThere’s a lot of energy and good feeling about Laudato si’ out there. Hundreds of people are showing up to events throughout the country to discuss it nearly a year later.
The Church has had much to say on environmental stewardship for some time. Our roots, as described in the Book of Genesis, make clear our abiding obligation to care for the things of the earth.
Just after He had created Adam we read that: “The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.” (Gen 2:15)
Humanity was charged with this cultivation for all time. As our ability to impact our surroundings has increased, we should not be surprised to see the Church highlight how failures to meet our stewardship obligations endanger life today and threaten future generations.
In addition to these biblical roots, Pope Francis builds upon the teaching of his predecessors. Since the Catholic Church spoke into the dawn of the Industrial Revolution withRerum Novarum, Popes have written social encyclicals in order to bring Church teaching into the concrete realities of their given age.
Back then, Pope Leo witnessed human beings increasingly used and abused as mere inputs into a machine of progress and urged employers to more humane treatment of workers, outlined the dignity of labor, and made clear that our economic efforts must be at the service of people and not the other way around.
Many parallel notes are struck in Laudato si’, and, like Rerum Novarum, an analysis of immediate concerns is mixed with enduring principle.
Pope Francis also seeks continuity with his immediate predecessors. In fact, Saint John Paul II’s 1990 World day of Peace Message could be described as the blueprint for Laudato si’.
St. John Paul’s short message addresses the biblical account of our stewardship obligations, the interdependence of our relationships, various ecological crises, the need for international cooperation and solidarity with the poor, as well as a call for dramatic change in lifestyles.
Pope Benedict XVI’s World Day of Peace Message in 2010 builds on this foundation and emphasizes sustainable development and renewed global and intergenerational solidarity.
Those who remain troubled by Pope Francis’ excursion into environmental waters must remember that other Popes waded in many years before.
C. An Integral EcologyGiven that Laudato si’ has such breadth, Pope Francis gives us a key to help us organize the material with the term “integral ecology.” In paragraph 119, the Holy Father paints a vivid picture of this concept:
If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships… Our relationship with the environment can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than romantic individualism dressed up in ecological garb…
An integral ecology recognizes that our lack of concern about the degradation of the environment is ultimately a symptom of our sickness of soul. Our relationships with God and our neighbors are broken from sin, and this reality is seeping in increasingly deadly ways into everything we do and touch. We can’t fix one relationship in isolation; we must repair the damage to all if we are to make real progress.
D. Relationships Laid WasteThe Pope details the damage from this rupture which is evident everywhere. In our relationship with the earth, the Holy Father zeroes in on the impacts of pollution, lack of clean water, toxic waste, and climate change, the latter of which he calls “one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day” (25).
Pope Francis writes as a moral and spiritual guide, not as a scientist or a politician. He acknowledges that “[o]n many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts…. But we need only take a frank look at the facts to see that our common home is falling into serious disrepair” (61).
Pope Francis explains that people of good will ought not ignore the significant level of scientific evidence on climate change. I am reminded of our 2001 bishops’ statement, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Prudence, Dialogue and the Common Good, in which we said:
Significant levels of scientific consensus—even in a situation with less than full certainty, where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies, indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the present course of action could jeopardize humankind's well-being, prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action.
What we bishops said – and what the Pope is saying – is that even though the "science of climate change" might have its detractors, prudence dictates that we cannot just wait for those who might yet drag their feet in the face of the evidence.
An analogy can be made to smoking, where undoubtedly some still reject what doctors say about the health risks. But given what we know (and what the doctors tell us) our course is clear.
Evidence of contamination in our relationships with others doesn’t end there. Our throwaway culture has extended to human beings as well. We throw away life in the womb, we neglect the disabled and show little respect for the lives and contributions of the elderly.
In our current age, human beings themselves have become commodities of desire. Human trafficking has become a massive global industry, a juggernaut of filth and slavery, fueled by a pollution of the heart that is not easily remediated.
Our ecological challenges weigh heavily on those who can least carry the burden – the poor. Those who suffer in poverty have a special claim on our attention. We should consider how our decisions impact them and look for ways to deepen solidarity.
Where aid to developing countries displaces the unique cultural qualities of peoples, the loss can be significant. Francis writes: “The disappearance of a culture can be just as serious, or even more serious, than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal” (145).
With all of these challenges in the area of human ecology, the Pope explains that “it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself” (117).
In our relationship with God, Pope Francis warns of the dangers of both anthropocentrism and biocentrism, which each, in their own way, attempt to turn the creative design of God on its head.
Thus, he cautions against the myth of unlimited technological progress on one extreme— a belief that humankind is capable of eventually answering every question and facing every challenge through its own power alone.
At the same time, he protects against “those who view men and women and all their interventions as no more than a threat,” who hold that “the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced and all forms of intervention prohibited.”
E. An Integral SolutionWhile all of this sounds bleak, I’d argue that Laudato si’ is meant to be hope-filled. In fact, Pope Francis provides us with an authentic roadmap for renewal of all things. This renewal must permeate our interactions and transactions with one another.
Of course, we celebrate the 125th anniversary of Rerum Novarum this year, and we still find much use for Pope Leo’s insights. In the opening paragraphs of that document, he provided a dire assessment:
That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvelous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; … as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy. The momentous gravity of the state of things now obtaining fills every mind with painful apprehension…
Our lives have improved in many ways since 1891. Yet, along with a good deal of positive change, fresh wounds to human dignity have arisen in the technology and information ages that have followed. These developments have proven toxic because they combine with a steep moral decline and growing self-focus.
Many maintain an unyielding belief in the inevitable march of technology and science as authentic progress, but that trajectory is a myth. Empty of moral constraint, we see evidence every day that the question “ought we?” is now being replaced with the question, “how soon can we?”, and with devastating results. We are more addicted to acquiring, and are less interested in discerning what is sufficient to live out our vocations.
“[H]umanity has changed profoundly, and the accumulation of constant novelties exalts a superficiality which pulls us in one direction. It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth in life” (113).
The result, in Francis’ view, is a self-absorbed culture which can no longer detect its own insatiable appetites:
The emptier a person’s heart is, the more he or she needs things to buy, own and consume. It becomes almost impossible to accept the limits imposed by reality. In this horizon, a genuine sense of the common good also disappears. As these attitudes become more widespread, social norms are respected only to the extent that they do not clash with personal needs (204).
We want relationships with others to be convenient for us too, to fit our desires no matter the human cost. Often we seek connection on our own terms, and approach even the most profound things in a transactional way.
Quoting Benedict XVI, Pope Francis notes that “‘the external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast.’ For this reason, the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion” (217).
It is no easy thing to bring people to a deeper interior life, however. One is reminded of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, wherein he describes souls living in an underground existence, shackled in darkness so that they can see only what is in front of their faces.
If taken by force from their mode of living, Socrates shows us that there is pain and rage, and eyes unable to see in the bright light of truth. When they finally have eyes to see, these individuals will surely experience a harsh backlash from those remaining in darkness, those who still take comfort in its familiarity.
So it is, in a world that needs to recapture a sense of true purpose. Our heads are down, our vision limited. Even the most well-intentioned people have difficulty breaking free of distraction and materialism. Pope Francis calls the question:
We urgently need a humanism capable of bringing together the different fields of knowledge, including economics, in the service of a more integral and integrating vision. Today, the analysis of environmental problems cannot be separated from the analysis of human, family, work-related and urban contexts, nor from how individuals relate to themselves, which leads in turn to how they relate to others and to the environment. (141).
We hunger for a conversion of heart, and, collectively, we need it every bit as much as we did in 1891. In this paradoxical time of isolating globalism, the Pope asks us to 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” (222).
Pope Francis is calling us to be counter-cultural. He asks the various disciplines to enter into an examination of conscience. We must determine where advances once intended to serve us have become our masters in our own lives and in our communal life.
“If everything is related,” the Pope explains, “then the health of a society’s institutions has consequences for the environment and the quality of human life” (142).
This is true from the level of the family up to international bodies. Today, moral pollutants have poisoned our vital sources of strength and support, and this is why the Church wades into these waters –because she is an expert in humanity.
How often do we examine the question of what is sufficient, and not get swept up with all those things that are simply within our reach? Shouldn’t we ask what is required of others in order for our desires to be satisfied?
We must admit to ourselves that the erosion of both soul and soil has spread to our economic structures and transactions. Our systems will necessarily become polluted when our hearts and minds have already become so.
F. A Plan to RebuildTo begin our journey toward restoration, we must start with our relationship with God. As Christians, our faith provides us with the ability to connect with the Creator in intimate ways, including in prayer and through the channels of grace:
The Sacraments are a privileged way in which nature is taken up by God to become a means of mediating supernatural life. Through our worship of God, we are invited to embrace the world on a different plane. Water, oil, fire and colors are taken up in all their symbolic power and incorporated in our act of praise. (235)
The Pope points us to the “culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation... In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life” (236).
Of course, nature is a critical place of encounter with God. It ought to inspire wonder and a sense of gratitude for the majesty and power of the Creator. Having thus placed ourselves in right relationship with God, we can work to fix our other vital relationships.
G. A Call for EncounterIn place of isolation and use of one another, the Pope proposes a culture of encounter and solidarity. Human beings possess a dignity “above other creatures,” and opening ourselves to encounter and knowledge of others will aid us as we seek ways to strengthen our social bonds and protect creation.
If we combat throwaway attitudes toward people in our daily interactions, Pope Francis is convinced that our new outlook will impel us to act with others on every level, at times sacrificing short-term benefit for long-term solidarity and gain.
He underscores the importance of global consensus toward sustainable energy production, and he urges the world community to work together toward meaningful international agreements.
The Pope encourages developed nations to assist poorer countries toward cleaner energy solutions. Where corporations seek to harness natural resources in developing countries, they must ensure that the land and people are not left in worsening and dangerous circumstances.
At the same time, Pope Francis doesn’t dismiss the power of the individual even as he lifts up concerted action. A person who is mindful of his consumption, who recycles, uses public transportation, turns off unnecessary lights and the like is making a real impact.
Pope Francis isn’t subscribing to a worldly environmentalism, though, and he has confidence that we can be a powerful leaven. He warns against “international pressure” which makes “reproductive health” a condition for economic aid, and rejects the claim that population growth is at the root of current environmental crises (50).
H. ConclusionAnd so we can see that the task before us is enormous. We begin to understand why Laudato si’ is described as an encyclical about everything. In order to succeed, every segment of society must engage the question. This is why dialogues like this one are so important.
Again, I want to thank the Lumen Christi Institute for the honor of being with you today. I look forward to the contributions of the panel and for a good discussion following.
Thank you.
