In this article, I consciously refrain from considering the parts of Pope Francis’s new Encyclical Letter, Laudato Si’ (hereafter LS) that have been the most contentiously received, namely: his views of a free market system, the nature and extent of the ecological crisis, the science of climate change, Francis’s alleged anti-modernism, and apocalyptic view of history, and so forth. I am concerned that the reception of this encyclical threatens to miss the forest for the trees, as it were. Hence, my approach to the encyclical is to consider the theological mind that informs its framework. Helpfully, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (hereafter CCSD) organizes the Church’s social teaching, which has a theological-moral nature, in light of a set of distinctions that will, arguably, illuminate the architectonic framework of this encyclical. This set consists of: (1) the foundational level of motivations; (2) the directive level of norms for life in society; and (3) the deliberative level of consciences, called to mediate objective and general norms in concrete and particular situations (CCSD, §73). I now will provide a brief exposition of Francis’s encyclical in light of each of these levels in order to get at his theological mind.
Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Fulfillment
Foundational Level
“The Church’s social doctrine finds its essential foundation in biblical revelation and in the tradition of the Church” (CCSD, §74). This assertion in CCSD is foundational to Francis’s theological mind and, hence, to his framework for understanding the normative level of reasons that express a theological anthropology and ontology of creation. His starting-point is the biblical revelation, particularly, Genesis 1-2. God created the world in all its rich diversity of beings. There is fundamental distinction drawn by Francis between the Creator and the creature. This distinction entails “demythologized nature.” That is, “{w}hile continuing to admire its grandeur and immensity, it no longer saw nature as divine” (LS §78; §90). God created Man, male and female he created him in the Image of God (Gen 1:26). Indeed, being in God’s image is the ground of human dignity. God’s act of creation grounds man in “three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbor, and with the earth itself” (LS §65). Man is at the crown of creation, its summit. In that sense, man transcends nature not only in the sense that “all living beings {are not} on the same level.” Francis rejects the view that sees parity between all living beings because that would “deprive human beings of their unique worth and the tremendous responsibility it entails” (LS §90).
Man also transcends nature in that he is not the product of a physical or biological evolutionary process. Francis rejects this evolutionary view not only because he affirms that man is the special creation of a personal God—not the chance product of matter in motion—who in freedom chose to create man. “‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were made’ (Ps 33:6). This tells us that the world came about as the result of a decision, not from chaos or chance, and this exalts it all the more. The creating word expresses a free choice. The universe did not emerge as the result of arbitrary omnipotence, a show of force, or a desire for self-assertion. Creation is of the order of love. God’s love is the fundamental moving force in all created things” (LS §76). Furthermore, man transcends the natural creation in that humanity cannot be explained, says the pope, “even if we postulate a process of evolution.” Man “possesses a uniqueness which cannot be fully explained by the evolution of other open systems.” He explains:
Each of us has his or her own personal identity and is capable of entering into dialogue with others and with God himself. Our capacity to reason, to develop arguments, to be inventive, to interpret reality, and to create art, along with other not yet discovered capacities, are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology. The sheer novelty involved in the emergence of a personal being within a material universe presupposes a direct action of God, and a particular call to life and to relationship on the part of a “Thou” who addresses himself another “thou.” The biblical accounts of creation invite us to see each human being as a subject who can never be reduced to the status of an object (LS §81).
Moreover, Francis’s theology of creation affirms not only a general revelation, or creation revelation, of God in and through the works of creation (Rom 1: 19-20) but also a revelation of that creation itself (LS §85), namely: man’s transcendence; the interconnection of all things (LS §76, §86); the rightful, law-governed autonomy of all things (LS §71, §80); the enduring structures of creation (LS §117), with each being having its own inherent form (§84), indeed, the world’s form has a “logos-structure” (LS §99; §155); and God’s divine presence in the unfolding of creation, “which ensures the subsistence and growth of each being, {and} continues the work of creation” (LS §80).
Significantly, Francis doesn’t regard the act of creation as merely theistic; rather than a generic theism at the root of that act, he argues that it is a Trinitarian act that brings everything into existence. He writes:
The Father is the ultimate source of everything, the loving and self-communicating foundation of all that exists. The Son, his reflection, through whom all things were created, united himself to this earth when he was formed in the womb of Mary. The Spirit, infinite bond of love, is intimately present at the very heart of the universe, inspiring and bringing new pathways. The world was created by the three Persons acting as a single divine principle, but each one of them performed this common work in accordance with his own personal property. Consequently, “when we contemplate with wonder the universe in all its grandeur and beauty, we must praise the whole Trinity”—(quote from John Paul II) (LS §238).
Furthermore, the act of creation is Christocentric—not only from the order of creation, but also from the order of redemption. He quotes Col. 1:16: “All things have been created through him and for him.” He explains: “The prologue of the Gospel of John (1:1-18) reveals Christ’s creative work as the Divine Word (Logos). But then, unexpectedly, the prologue goes on to say that this same Word ‘became flesh’ (Jn 1:14).” Summarily stated, “One Person of the Trinity entered into the created cosmos, throwing in his lot with it, even to the cross. From the beginning of the world, but particularly through the Incarnation, the mystery of Christ is at work in a hidden manner in the natural world as a whole, without thereby impinging on its autonomy” (LS §99).
Against the background of this fundamental level, in particular the relationships, firstly, with God, and consequently, then, with fellow human beings, followed by a relationship with the earth, Pope Francis speaks of sin. “According to the Bible, these three vital relationships have been broken, both outwardly and within us. This rupture is {due to} sin.” He explains:
The harmony between the Creator, humanity, and creation as a whole, was disrupted by our presuming to take the place of God, and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations. This, in turn, distorted our mandate to “have dominion” over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), to “till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). As a result, the originally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature became conflictual (cf. Gen 3:17-19) {LS §66}.
Marriage and family are, for example, grounded in the order of creation, seriously disrupted by the fall into sin, integrally redeemed by salvation in Christ, and attaining the fullness of redemption in Christ when creation reaches its final goal. Within this comprehensive scope is the Thomistic insight that grace restores nature rather than abolishes or leaves it untouched. Now, since the God who created the world is at one and the same time the God who redeems it, says Francis, “these two divine ways of acting are intimately and inseparably connected” (LS §73). But also, for as much as grace’s restoration is not a mere recovery of the deepest foundations of created reality, in some sense those foundations are raised to a “higher level” in the eschatological consummation of God’s plan of salvation for the whole creation. “At the end, we will find ourselves face to face with the infinite beauty of God (cf. 1 Cor 13:13), and be able to read with admiration and happiness the mystery of the universe which, with us, will share in unending plenitude. Even now, we are journeying towards the Sabbath of eternity, the new Jerusalem, towards our common home in heaven. Jesus says: ‘I make all things new’ (Rev 21:5). Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which each creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place” (LS §243). We descend now to the directive level of normative principles that govern the place of human beings, and of human action in the world.
Directive Level
How should human beings interact with the world, and with each other? Let us recall that sin has had an impact on human nature. It is now savagely wounded by original sin. That sin has affected man’s intellect and will, but also his stance toward nature. Sin has distorted the theistic, no better, Trinitarian anthropocentric focus of man’s transcendence over nature by rendering that focus a “tyrannical anthropocentrism” (LS §68), an “excessive {or} misguided anthropocentrism” (§116, §119), justifying an “absolute domination over other creatures” (LS §67; §82). This misguided anthropocentrism has intellectual roots, and in Chapter 3 of LS Pope Francis endeavors to uncover those roots in what he calls “the dominant technocratic paradigm” (LS §101). Significantly, Francis is not criticizing technology as such, or what he also calls “technoscience.” “Technology has remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings. How can we not feel gratitude and appreciation for this progress, especially in the fields of medicine, engineering, and communications? How could we not acknowledge the work of many scientists and engineers who have provided alternatives to make development sustainable?” (LS §102). What he is critical of is the triadic relationship between technoscience, power, and progress in what he calls “the dominant technocratic paradigm” (LS §101). “There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means ‘an increase of “progress” itself’, an advance in ‘security, usefulness, welfare and vigor; an assimilation of new values into the stream of culture,’ as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological … power as such. The fact is that ‘contemporary man has not been trained to use power well,’ because our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values, and conscience” (LS §105). In sum, the pope argues, “we lack a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits, and teaching clear-minded self-restraint” (§105).
Furthermore, Francis wants to dig deeper to get at the philosophical presuppositions of the technocratic paradigm: “an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm” (LS §106), reflecting an “excessive anthropocentrism” characteristic of modernity (LS §116). “This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery, and transformation. It is as if the subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation” (LS §106). The careful reader of Francis will note that he is not criticizing the “scientific and experimental method.” He is critical of the reductionism in that paradigm: the human person is reduced to a controller of reality, exercising not just stewardship over nature, but domination; knowledge is reduced to the method of science, one-dimensional in that sense; and reality is “formless, completely open to manipulation.”
These presuppositions are of a metaphysical, anthropological, and epistemological nature. Metaphysical because this paradigm is anti-realist, denying the logos-structure to reality, its enduring forms, disregarding “the message contained in the structures of nature itself” (LS §117). It is not merely denying the enduring structure of nature, but also of the “‘ecology of man’ based on the fact that ‘man, too, has a nature that he must respect and, thus, he cannot manipulate at will’ {Pope Benedict XVI}” (LS §155). Epistemological because the primary stance of man to reality “has become confrontational” and, hence, “exploitative of the natural order” (LS §106). This, too, is the case with respect to our gendered bodies. Francis states: “Thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. Learning to accept our body, to care for it, and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology.” Anthropological because man is understood, not as a responsible steward of reality, but rather as a dominator over reality, which is a stance that fails to respect not only the “logos-structure” of reality, its intrinsic dignity, but also man’s own nature, including his bodied person, “valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity … if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different.” Francis adds: “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 it no longer knows how to confront it’” (LS §155).
Moreover, the presuppositions of this technocratic paradigm sees “the ultimate purpose of other creatures … to be found in us {human beings}” (LS §83). Rather than seeing the integrity of all creation in its unity and diversity, with each creature having its own purpose, man “sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings” (LS §117). What is more, the technoscience paradigm is typically embedded in a naturalistic worldview: there is no God, man is just a part of nature, and everything about man can be explained in terms of nature. In addition, naturalism is usually aligned with materialism in which man is seen as the chance product of matter in motion. On this worldview, there is “no special value in human beings” (LS §118). In conclusion, Francis argues that “there can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology. When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then ‘our overall sense of responsibility wanes’.” Francis explains that the rejection of “A misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to ‘biocentrism,’ for that would entail adding yet another imbalance, failing to solve present problems, and adding new ones. Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom, and responsibility are recognized and valued” (LS §118). In this connection, we can see the necessity for an “integral ecology” (LS §137).
An integral ecology is a comprehensive vision of man grounded in the threefold relationships that are constitutive of his humanity, namely: first, man’s relationship with the Trinity, and, consequently, his relation with his fellow humans; as well as, his relationship to the whole of creation, which includes not only nature (the earth), but the full spectrum of culture—that is, marriage, family, schools, art, literature, and architecture, the economy, human relationships, human work, housing, urban planning and others. Ecology, in this sense, is about integral human development and, hence, man’s care for himself which includes his care for all these aspects of his humanity that will promote such authentic development. Francis elaborates: “Human ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good, a central and unifying principle of social ethics. … Underlying the principle of the common good is respect for the human person as such, endowed with basic and inalienable rights ordered to his or her integral development” (LS §156; §157). Indeed, he adds, “Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature, and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment” (LS §155).
In the concluding section, I turn to “the deliberative level of consciences, called to mediate objective and general norms in concrete and particular situations” (CCSD §73). Let me caution the reader that this third level is a further specification of a directive for action, but not a directive for policy, specific policy proposals. It isn’t that he doesn’t have any in the encyclical; he does, but these are presented cautiously and tentatively—as proposals for debate and discussion in Chapter 5. Early on in the encyclical, he says, “{T}here is no one path to a solution. This makes a variety of proposals possible, all capable of entering into dialogue with a view to developing comprehensive solutions. On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views” (LS §§60-61). And later in the encyclical, he repeats this point about directives for policy: “There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here, I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions, or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good” (LS §188).
What objective and general norms, then, does Francis apply? I will answer this question briefly in the next section.
Deliberative Level
On the directive level, Francis has argued for the interconnection of all created beings without putting them all on the same level. Human beings have a unique worth that reflects a transcendent dignity, and a corresponding responsibility as stewards of creation. Thus, we are called to respect all living beings. This follows from the application of those directives. Francis does not say that non-human beings have rights. No, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a value of their own, or that they “are completely subordinated to the good of human beings, as if they have no worth in themselves, and can be treated as we wish” (LS §69). Still, we must appreciate this point without denying the pre-eminence of the human person (LS §90).
From this directive Francis concludes that some ecologists show an inconsistency, not to say, gross contradiction by emphasizing the responsibility of caring for endangered species, while at the same time “remaining completely indifferent to human trafficking, unconcerned about the poor, or undertaking to destroy another human being deemed unwanted” (LS §91). To make this last point abundantly clear, Francis says, “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” (LS §120)?
In this connection, Francis also criticizes the inconsistency of the ecological movement regarding its failure to apply the very same principles to human life that it applies to defending the integrity of the environment. It rightly demands that “certain limits be imposed on scientific research.” And yet, the pope adds, “there is a tendency to justify transgressing all boundaries when experimentation is carried out on living human embryos. We forget that the inalienable worth of a human being transcends his or her degree of development.” Thus, Francis continues, “when technology disregards the great ethical principles, it ends up considering any practice whatsoever as licit. … {A} technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power” (LS §136). The pope then rejects embryonic stem cell research. This does not mean that bio-medical technology cannot be used for the service of others, and hence for the common good. “We need constantly to rethink the goals, effects, overall context, and ethical limits of this human activity, which is a form of power involving considerable risks” (LS §131).
Given the multi-dimensional character of an integral ecology, Pope Francis argues that we need to promote the “noble vocation” of business. This vocation is “directed to producing wealth, and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good” (LS §129). We also need to promote “an historic, artistic, and cultural patrimony … of humanity in the broadest sense,” but also of local cultures (LS §143). He applies directives to others areas of an integral ecology, such as family life, life in the city, urban planning, our responsibility to future generations, and many others.
Further discussion of Pope Francis’s encyclical, Laudato Si’, should begin by considering these three levels of foundations, directives, and deliberations, even before it descends into the details of policy directives that are, in any case, presented for debate and discussion. Doing so will focus on the theological mind of Pope Francis.
About Eduardo Echeverria
What a pity this had to be presented in such a convoluted fashion
Great article. Thank you.
It seems to me that the very fact of needing to refrain from considering significant parts of Pope Francis’s new encyclical such as his views of a free market system, the nature and extent of the ecological crisis, and the science of climate change, is indicative of the messaging problem with today’s Catholic Church – clarity, simplicity, and especially personalization i.e. making the message relevant on an individual moral level.
Yes the encyclical is directed at the Bishops but shouldn’t it be written in language that most people can immediately grasp? At least the main points? I suspect if you lined up five people and asked them each to identify the main message of this encyclical most would have a difficult time because there really is no real main message that jumps out. Most would probably mention climate change but is this really the main message? Even the title of the encyclical is unclear. Why?
Also shouldn’t the encyclical have something morally strategic to say? Something personal and spiritual? Isn’t the real purpose of the Catholic Church, as set forth by Jesus Christ Himself, to evangelize and convert the world in order to save souls from going to hell? This encyclical certainly touched on some important moral areas such as abortion and greed but it was brief, low key, and trivial in comparison to the overall encyclical content. Why? This highlights another big problem with today’s Church. It has its moral priorities mixed up.
For example, given all of today’s major religious and moral problems within the Catholic Church and worldwide it is difficult to understand why Pope Francis would pick climate change as a priority and key theme for his very first solo encyclical, and why he apparently decided to do this within weeks of him becoming Pope. It must have been on his mind well before he became Pope but what does good stewardship of planet earth and improving the social and economic lot the poor and needy have to do with spirituality, holiness, and saving souls?
Also why would the Pope join forces with climate change lobby groups (UN, government, corporate, and academia) knowing that these groups look down on and despise the Church and its moral teachings, are proponents of forced population control (using contraceptives and abortion as methods), favor forced wealth re-distribution, and are openly hostile and closed minded to all debate and towards anyone who disagrees with their climate change thesis? Groups that are all reaping immense amounts of wealth, power, and prestige from this issue and where there is already evidence of corruption, collusion, and falsification of the data.
This makes no sense at all except in the context of the Pope’s ideological endorsement of the “theology of poverty” and his false assumption that regulating climate change will benefit the poor and lift up poor countries. It won’t. While noble goals, solving the world’s poverty problems are primarily secular goals that affect only material wants. This one dimensional emphasis on the plight of the poor wrongly elevates their material needs into moral imperatives without any regard to their spiritual needs. This is a moral distortion of the Church’s prime directive to evangelize, convert, and save souls. Raising wages and living conditions or improving the earth’s ecology will not eliminate sin and the results of sin. The net result of this moral distortion is a shift in the strategic focus of the Church’s work from the heavenly to the secular. Under this “theology of poverty” scenario individual salvation becomes one’s standard of living, holiness becomes wage level, and life everlasting becomes here and now material comforts.
Thank you. Your comment is so well said. I find some of what the Pope says disturbing. I wish the Pope was Not in the same camp with these secular world government people.
As always, astute and insightful, my friend.
While I can think of more pressing subjects for an encyclical, such as one that would consider the recrudescent threat of militant Islam against Christians, I can also see a need for a theological consideration of the issues you isolate in this reflection. Others, like Francis A. Schaeffer, have considered the issues of ecology and environment within the context of a theology of man’s place in nature as well. The Pope’s document clearly contains a lot of deeply-considered resources for plumbing even more deeply the issues raised by someone like Schaeffer.
It’s too bad that you couldn’t have written the encyclical for him. Why? Because the message of the encyclical is nearly lost by the medium in which it is conveyed. While there are, as you’ve said elsewhere, beautiful passages in it, the work as a whole is nearly derailed by the issues you choose not to address in your present reflection. Why the message is cluttered by these other issues (that I would call distracting) I am not sure. Perhaps it was the fact that a number of different hands played a role in drafting the document.
Regardless, these “distracting” issues make it look like the Vatican is either helping to lay the groundwork for a world government in which it hopes to play a role, or being used as a propaganda tool for the eco-fascists intent on doing so. The theology is flawless, but I fear that’s not the message communicated by the medium (pace Marshall MacLuhan).