Laudato si' Laudato si' (Medieval Central Italian for “Praise be to Church does not presume to settle scientific you”) is the second encyclical of Pope Francis. The questions or to replace politics. But I am con- encyclical has the subtitle “On Care For Our Common cerned to encourage an honest and open debate Home”.[1] In it, the Pope critiques consumerism and so that particular interests or ideologies will not irresponsible development, laments environmental degra- prejudice the common good.[7] dation and global warming, and calls all people of the [2] world to take “swift and unified global action”. He adds that “Although the post-industrial period may The encyclical, dated 24 May 2015, was officially pub- well be remembered as one of the most irresponsible lished at noon on 18 June 2015 accompanied by a news in history, nonetheless there is reason to hope that hu- conference.[2] The Vatican released the document in Ital- manity at the dawn of the twenty-first century will be ian, German, English, Spanish, French, Polish, Por- remembered for having generously shouldered its grave tuguese and Arabic.[3] responsibilities.”[1] Francis does state that concern for the natural world is no longer "'optional' but is an integral part The encyclical is the second published by Francis, af- of the Church teaching on social justice.”[8] ter Lumen fidei (“Light of Faith”), which was released in 2013. Since Lumen fidei was largely the work of Fran- Francis reportedly has said that the encyclical was not re- cis’s predecessor Benedict XVI, Laudato si' is gener- ally an environmental document at all.[9] The warming of ally viewed as the first encyclical that is entirely Francis’s the planet is a symptom of a greater problem: the devel- work.[4][5] oped world’s indifference to the destruction of the planet as they pursue short-term economic gains.[9] This has re- sulted in a "throwaway culture" in which unwanted items 1 Content and unwanted people, such as the unborn, the elderly, and the poor, are discarded as waste.[9][10] This subtext makes the document “more profoundly subversive” than it ap- pears on the surface.[9] The real problem, according to Francis, lies in the fact that humans no longer see God as the Creator.[10] Thus, we see “other living beings as mere objects subjected to arbitrary human domination” and do not realize that “the ultimate purpose of other creatures is not found in us.”[10] Francis says that instead of viewing humanity as having “dominion” over the earth, we must see that everything is interconnected and that all of creation is a “kind of universal family”.[8] Nature cannot be seen as something [8] John Zizioulas, Eastern Orthodox metropolitan of Pergamon, apart from humanity, or merely the place where we live. presents the encyclical Laudato si' at the Press conference in He says that our social and environmental crises are thus Rome one complex crisis that must be solved holistically.[8] The title of the social encyclical is an Umbrian phrase[4] from Saint Francis of Assisi's 13th-century "Canticle of 1.1 Environmentalism the Sun" (also called the Canticle of the Creatures), a poem and prayer in which God is praised for the creation Francis “pulls no punches” when lamenting pollution, cli- of the different creatures and aspects of the Earth.[6] mate change, a lack of clean water, loss of biodiversity, and an overall decline in human life and a breakdown The tone of his phrasing has been described as “cautious of society.[8] “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our and undogmatic, and he specifically calls for discussion common home as we have in the last two hundred years”, and dialogue.”[7] For example, he states he states.[1] There are certain environmental issues He “describe[s] a relentless exploitation and destruction where it is not easy to achieve a broad con- of the environment, for which he blamed apathy, the sensus. Here I would state once more that the reckless pursuit of profits, excessive faith in technology 1 2 1 CONTENT and political shortsightedness”.[2] Laudato si' “unambigu- blind to the beauty of creation”.[10] The critiques of the ously accepts the scientific consensus that changes in the scientific and technocratic present contained in the en- climate are largely man-made”[11] and states that “climate cyclical make this “perhaps the most anti-modern encycli- change is a global problem with grave implications: envi- cal since the Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX’s haughty 1864 ronmental, social, economic, political and for the distri- dismissal of the conceits of the modern era”.[10] He adds bution of goods. It represents one of the principal chal- that the encyclical’s tone lacks elements commonly found lenges facing humanity in our day” and warns of “un- in the works of John Paul II and Benedict XVI that, in precedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious con- the tradition of Gaudium et Spes, would have affirmed sequence for all of us” if prompt climate change mitiga- the modern world while correcting its errors.[10] tion efforts are not undertaken.[1][2] The encyclical highlights the role of fossil fuels in caus- 1.4 Technology ing climate change. “We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels – especially coal, Modern technology, the “dominant technological but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas – needs to be pro- paradigm”, is seen as a key contributor to the environ- gressively replaced without delay”, Francis says. “Until mental crisis and human suffering. “The technological greater progress is made in developing widely accessible paradigm has become so dominant that it would be sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the difficult to do without its resources and even more [1] less harmful alternative or to find short-term solutions.” difficult to utilize them without being dominated by their The encyclical’s comments on climate change are consis- internal logic. It has become countercultural to choose [12] tent with the scientific consensus on climate change. a lifestyle whose goals are even partly independent of technology… Technology tends to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded 1.2 Poverty with technology ‘know full well that it moves forward in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being The encyclical states that developed nations are morally of the human race’".[1] obligated to assist developing nations in combating the Technology is not value neutral and technological devel- climate-change crisis.[2] Poor nations, the pontiff says, are opments are directed by the profit motive, according to ill-prepared to adapt to the effects of climate change and Pope Francis. This is a form of institutionalized greed, will bear the brunt of its effects.[11] Linking the issues of generally with little regard for environmental and social poverty, which has been a major issue in his papacy, and consequences. “The economy accepts every advance in the environment, he insists that the world must “hear both technology with a view to profit, without concern for its the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor”.[11] potentially negative impact on human beings”.[1] The en- He does not believe, according to R. R. Reno, that “for all cyclical warns against “blind confidence in technical so- our flaws, Western societies are more democratic, more lutions,” particularly in view of the fact that “the special- egalitarian, and more inclusive than any in history.”[10] ization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to Citing the New Zealand Bishops Conference Statement on see the large picture,” which “can actually become a form Environmental Issues, Francis asks “what the command- of ignorance.”[1] As a result, many technological solutions ment 'Thou shall not kill' means when 'twenty percent of are nothing more than short-term techno-fixes attempting the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that to remove symptoms rather than addressing the underly- robs the poor nations and future generations of what they ing environmental, social, economic, and even moral and need to survive.'"[1] spiritual problems: “Technology, which, linked to busi- ness interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysteri- 1.3 Science and modernism ous network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.”[1] “Science and religion, with their distinctive approaches to Given these significant short-comings of technology, understanding reality, can enter into an intense dialogue [1] “scientific and technological progress cannot be equated fruitful for both”, according to the pontiff. Religions, with progress of humanity and history,” and we are de- including Christianity, can make “rich contributions ... luded by the myth of progress to believe that “ecological towards an integral ecology and the full development of [1] problems will solve themselves simply with the applica- humanity”. However, “the scientific and experimental tion of new technology and without need for ethical con- method” itself can be part of the problem when it decou- [1] [10] sideration or deep change.” A profound redefinition of ples creation from the Creator. progress and “liberation from the dominant technocratic R.R. Reno, editor of ″First Things″ critiques the encycli- paradigm” are needed, i.e., “we have the freedom needed cal, writing Laudato si' makes “many fierce denunciations to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the service of the current global order”. This