Categoria: English

The Magna Carta of holistc Ecology: cry of the Earth/ cry of the poor

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

Before engaging in commentary, is worth noting a few features of Pope Francis’ encyclical letter, Laudato sí’.

This is the first time a Pope had discussed ecology as holistic ecology (because it goes beyond the environment) in such a complete form. Great surprise: he develops the theme within a new ecological paradigm, something that no official document of the UN has yet done. He backs up his discourse with the best data from the life and Earth sciences. He reads the data properly (with sensible or cordial intelligence), because he discerns that beneath them lie human dramas and also much suffering on the part of Mother Earth. The present situation is grave, but Pope Francis always finds reasons for hope and a confidence that humans will find viable solutions. He connects with John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the Popes who preceded him, quoting them frequently. And there is something absolutely new: his text is written collegially, because it values the contributions of scores of Episcopal Conferences from around the world, from the Episcopal Conference of the United States to the those of Germany, Brazil, Patagonia-Comahue, and Paraguay. He also welcomes the contributions of other thinkers, such as the Catholics Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Romano Guardini, Dante Alighieri, his Argentinean teacher Juan Carlos Scannone, the Protestant Paul Ricoeur and the Moslem Sufi Ali Al-Khawwas. It is addressed to all of humanity, because we all inhabit the same Common Home (a term the Pope often uses), and we all endure the same threats.

Pope Francis writes not as a Teacher and Doctor of the faith, but as a zealous Pastor who cares for the Common Home and for all the beings, not just the human ones, that inhabit her.

One aspect is worth noting, in that it reveals Pope Francis’ forma mentis (the way he organizes his thinking). It derives from the pastoral and theological experience of the Latin American churches, that in light of the documents of the Latin American Bishops (CELAM) of Medellín (1968), Puebla (1979) and Aparecida (2007), undertook an option for the poor; against poverty and for liberation.

The text and tone of the encyclical are typical of Pope Francis and the accumulated ecological culture, but I notice also that many expressions and forms of speech belong to the thinking and writings principally found in Latin America. The «Common Home», «Mother Earth», the «cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor», «caring», the «interdependence among all beings», the «poor and vulnerable», the «change of paradigm», the «human being as Earth» who feels, thinks, loves and venerates, of the «holistic ecology» and others, are recurrent themes among us.

The structure of the encyclical follows the methodology used by our churches and the theological reflection linked to the practice of liberation, now assumed and consecrated by the Pope: see, judge, act and celebrate.

The Pope starts by revealing his primary inspiration: Saint Francis of Assisi, whom he calls an «example par excellence of caring and of holistic ecology, and who gave special attention to the poorest and abandoned.» (nº 10 y 66).

And then he starts with seeing: «What is happening in our home» (17-61). The Pope says: «it is enough to view reality with sincerity to see that there is great damage to our Common Home» (61). In this section he incorporates the most reliable data related to climate change (20-22), the issue of water (27-31), the erosion of biodiversity (32-42), the deterioration of the quality of human life and degradation of social life (43-47). He denounces the extreme global inequality, that affects all aspects of life (48-52), the poor being the principal victims (48).

In this part there is a phrase that refers us to a reflection done in Latin America: «But now we cannot help but recognize that a true ecological plan always becomes a social plan that must incorporate justice into debates about the environment so as to hear the cry of the Earth as well as the cry of the poor» (49). Then he adds: «the moan of sister Earth joins the wail of the abandoned of the world» (53). This is absolutely coherent, because at the beginning he said that «we are Earth» (2; cf. Gn 2,7), very much in line with the great Indigenous Argentinean singer and poet Atahualpa Yupanqui: «the human being is Earth that walks, feels, thinks and loves».

He condemns the proposal to internationalize the Amazon because it «would only serve multinational economic interests» (38). He makes a proclamation of great ethical value: «it is a very grave inequity to obtain important benefits by forcing the rest of humanity, present and future, to bear the cost, through the extremely high level of environmental degradation» (36).

With sadness he recognizes that: «never before had we mistreated and damaged our Common Home as we have done in the last two centuries» (53). In the face of this human offensive against Mother Earth that many scientists have denounced as inaugurating a new geological era –the antrophocene– he laments the weakness of the powers of this world that, mistakenly, «think that everything can continue as it is» as an excise to «maintain their self-destructive habits» (59) with «behavior that appears suicidal» (55).

Prudently, Pope Francis recognizes the diversity of opinions (nn 60-61) and that «there is not just one unique solution» (60). Even so «it is true that the world system is unsustainable from diverse points of view because we no longer think of the consequences of human action» (61) and we get lost in the construction of means directed at unlimited accumulation at the price of ecological injustice (degradation of the ecosystems) and of social injustice (impoverishment of the populations). Humanity, simply, «has betrayed divine expectations» (61).

The urgent challenge, then, consists of «protecting our Common Home» (13); And to that end we need, quoting Pope John Paul II: «a global ecological conversion» (5); «a culture of caring that pervades the whole society» (231).

Having considered the dimension of seeing, is important now to examine the dimension of judging. Judging is addressed from two viewpoints, scientific and theological.

Let’s examine the scientific. The encyclical devotes the entire third chapter to analyzing «the human roots of the ecological crisis» (101-136). Here the Pope proposes to analyze techno-science without prejudice, acknowledging that it has brought «really valuable things to improve humanity’s quality of life» (103). But this is not the problem. Rather, it became independent, subjugating the economy, politics and nature to the accumulation of material goods (cf. 109). Techno-science begins from a mistaken assumption about the «infinite availability of the planet’s resources» (106), when we know that we have already reached the physical limits of the Earth and that a great part of its goods and services are not renewable. Techno-science has become technocracy, a true dictatorship with its iron logic of domination over everything and everyone (108).

The great illusion, now prevalent, lies in believing that with technocracy all the ecological problems can be solved. This is a misleading idea because it «implies isolating things that are always connected» (111). In reality, «all is related» (117) «all is in relationship» (120), an affirmation that runs throughout the text of the encyclical as a ritornello, for it is a key concept of the new contemporary paradigm. The great limit of technocracy lies in the fact that it «fragments knowledge and loses the meaning of the whole» (110). Worse still is «not recognizing the proper value of each being and even denying the special value of the human being» (n.118).

The intrinsic value of each being, no matter how minuscule, is permanently enshrined in the encyclical (69), as in the Earthcharter. Denying that intrinsic value denies the opportunity for «each being to communicate its message and give glory to God» (33).

The main deviation produced by technocracy is anthropocentrism. It falsely supposes that things have value only to the degree that they are useful to humans, forgetting that their existence has value in and of itself (33). If it is true that everything is related, then «we human beings are together as brothers and sisters and are united with tender affection to brother Sun, sister Moon, brother River and Mother Earth» (92). How can we strive to dominate them, and view them through the narrow scope of domination?

All the «ecological virtues» (88) are lost by the desire for power, seen as the domination of the others and of nature. We are experiencing a painful «loss of the meaning of life and the will to live together» (110). He quotes several times Italo-German theologian Romano Guardini (1885-1968), one of the most read thinkers of the mid XX century, who wrote a book critical of the pretensions of modernity (105 note 83: Das Ende der Neuzeit, The End of the Modern World, 1958).

The other type of judging is theological. The encyclical devotes much space to the «Gospel of Creation» (62-100). In part justifying the contribution of the religions and of Christianity, because since the crisis is global, each one, with its religious capital, must contribute to caring for the Earth, (62). He does not concentrate on doctrine, but on the wisdom present in the different spiritual paths. Christianity prefers to talk of creation rather than nature, because «creation has to do with a project of love from God» (76). He quotes, more than once. a beautiful text from the book of Wisdom (11,24) where it clearly appears that «the creation belongs to the order of love» (77) and that God is “the Lord who loves life” (Sab 11,26).

The text is open to an evolutionary vision of the universe, without using the term. It engages in circumlocution when referring to the universe as «composed of open systems that enter into communion, one with another» (79). He uses the principal texts that link the incarnated and resurrected Christ with the world and with all of the universe, making matter and the entire Earth sacred (83). And in this context, Pope Francis quotes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955; nº 83 note 53), as the precursor of this cosmic vision.

A consequence of the fact that God-Trinity is a relationship of divine Persons is that all things in relationships are resonant of the divine Trinity (240).

Quoting Bartholomew I of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, he «recognizes that sins against creation are sins against God» (7). Hence the urgency of a collective ecological conversion to restore the lost harmony.

The encyclical concludes this part with certitude: «the analysis showed the need for a change of course… we must get out of the spiral of self-destruction into which we are now sinking» (163). It is not about reform, but, quoting the Earthcharter, about searching for «a new beginning» (207). The interdependency of everything leads us to think «of a single world with a common project» (164).

Since there are multiple aspects to reality, all intimately related, Pope Francis proposes a holistic ecology that goes beyond the environmental ecology to which we are accustomed, (137). Holistic ecology covers all fields, the environment, economy, social, cultural, and daily life (147-148). The encyclical never forgets the poor whose living links of belonging and solidarity with one another are a testament to their form of human and social ecology, (149).

The third methodological step is to act. In this part, the encyclical touches the great themes of international, national and local politics (164-181). He emphasizes the interdependence of the social and educational with the ecological, and with sadness, confirms the difficulties caused by the predominance of technology, impeding the changes that could restrain the voracity of accumulation and consumption, and inaugurate a new paradigm, (141). He retakes the theme that the economy and politics must serve the common good, and create the conditions for a possible human plenitude (189-198). Again he insists on a dialogue between science and religion, as suggested by the great biologist Edward O. Wilson (cf. the book, Creation: how to save life in the Earth, 2008). All religions «must seek to care for nature and to defend the poor» (201).

Also in the aspect of acting he challenges education to create an «ecological citizenry» (211) and a new life style, based on caring, compassion, shared sobriety, an alliance between humanity and the environment, because they are inextricably linked, the joint responsibility for all that exists and lives, and for our common destiny (203-208).

Finally, the moment to celebrate. The celebration is realized in a context of «ecological conversion» (216) that implies an «ecological spirituality» (216). This spirituality derives not so much from theological doctrines as from the motivation elicited by faith to care for the Common Home and «to nourish a passion for caring for the world» (216). This experience precedes a mysticism that mobilizes people to live an ecological equilibrium, «the interior with itself, the solidarian with the others, the natural with all the living beings and the spiritual with God» (210). That «less is more» and that we can be happy with little then appears to be the truth.

In the context of celebration, «the world is something more than a problem to be resolved, it is a delightful mystery we contemplate with joyful praise» (12).

The tender and fraternal spirit of Saint Francis of Assisi runs through the entire text of the encyclical Laudato sí’. The present situation does not call for an announcement of tragedy, but a challenge, that we may care for our Common Home and for others. There is in the text a lightness, poetry and joy in the Spirit and the indestructible hope that if the threat is great, greater still is the opportunity to solve our ecological problems.

He ends poetically “Beyond the sun” with these words: «Let’s walk singing. May our struggles and concern for this planet not deprive us of the joy of hope» (244).

I would like to end with the final words of the Earthcharter that Pope Francis also quotes (207): «May our times be remembered for awaking a new reverence for life, for the firm resolution to reach sustainability, for accelerating the struggle for justice and peace, and for the joyful celebration of life».
Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU..

That which is right vs. the political right

Leonardo Boff3 Comentários

 

I think that in trying to overcome the present crisis (if that is possible) two factors must be seriously considered. Otherwise we risk losing everything that we hope for: these are, the collapse of the capitalist order and the limits of the Earth that cannot be exceeded. Naturally this relies on hypotheses, but I believe they are well founded.

The first fact: the capitalist system has begun to collapse, which means it has reached its end in two ways: its end in the sense that it has achieved its fundamental purpose: to accumulate private wealth up to extreme limits. As Thomas Piketty wrote in Capital in the XXI Century: «the few who are on top tend to appropriate a great portion of the national wealth». Today that tendency is not only national, but global.

The data varies from year to year, but in short, they are: that an ever smaller group has and controls the better part of the world’s wealth. According to data from the well respected Zurich Federal Polytechnic School, ETH, there are now 737 actors that control nearly 80% of the world’s financial cash flow. Soon there will be even fewer of these actors.

But here, end also means end, as in collapse and final outcome. The agony may be prolonged, because it uses thousands of stratagems to perpetuate itself, but the crisis is inevitably terminal. Capitalism has reached its apex, and cannot go any further; worse yet, capitalism has nothing more to offer, except perhaps more of the same, namely, that which provoked the current crisis: its limitless voracity.

As it happens, capitalism has surpassed the physical limitations of the Earth; the depletion of the natural goods is such that nature no longer has the required conditions for self reproduction. When pursuing its internal logic capitalism can become biocide, ecocide and in the end, geocide. Since it can no longer reproduce itself, capitalism turns on itself, accumulating with ever more fury, via financial speculation: money making money. Their motto continues the same, the perverse, “greed is good”. So what if humanity, nature and the future of the next generations are damaged.

If we want to overcome the crisis in Brazil by following that logic, we are choosing the path to the abyss. Soon we all will experience in our own flesh the meaning of Sören Kirkegaard’s metaphor: the clown asked the spectators to help him put out the fire consuming the curtains behind the theater. Everyone laughed and applauded because they thought it was part of the show. No one listened to the clown until the fire had burned down the whole theater and all who were inside, and even the surrounding area.

The second estimate, almost always absent from conventional economic analysts, is the gravely ill state of planet Earth. The acceleration of productivity is rapidly destroying the physical-chemical bases that sustain life, besides causing a terrifying erosion of the biodiversity (nearly one hundred thousand species, according to E. Wilson, disappear every year), and the unstoppable global warming, whose greenhouse gases have reached the highest levels in 800,000 years. With 2 degrees centigrade rise in the temperature we can still manage the biosphere. However, if we do nothing, starting now, as the Northamerican Society of Scientists affirmed in 2002, even in this century we could experience “abrupt warming”. This could reach 4-6 degrees centigrade more. At that temperature, the scientific community warns, many known forms of life could not subsists and a great part of humanity would be gravely affected, with millions of victims.

How to get out of this impasse? Perhaps no one has the ability to offer a really viable alternative, since there is a dimension that goes beyond Brazil, because is global. But it behooves us, the intellectuals, to reflect, to warn and to urge concrete measures. It is our ethical imperative.

My crystal ball suggests three paths:

The first, facing the gravity of the crisis, would be to create a minimum consensus, supra-partisan, that may include progressive members of the parliament, labor unions, enterprises, intellectuals, NGOs, churches and street people around a minimum Brazil project founded on principles and values assumed by all (surely a political, tributary reform and a strong investment in agro-ecology will be demanded). I estimate that the leadership of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva would still be strong enough to head this proposal. The Government of President Itamar Franco, that followed the crisis of President Fernando Collor de Mello, could serve as an inspiring reference point.

The second would be to build a broad and vigorous front of progressive parties, labor unions and other groups and progressive intellectuals to confront the strong advances of the political right with its neoliberal politics associated with the world-project under the leadership of the main countries. The right has no consistent social concern, because is interested only in growth, via the GNP, that favors the owner classes and the banks, leaving the poor where the poor always have been, on the periphery.

Once again I estimate that the most adequate figure to bring together this progressive front would be former President Lula. But its direction would be pluralist and not personalized. The convergence in diversity would not annul the singularity of the political parties and of the groups that have their own identities and histories. But facing a general danger, they must see the particular in function of the universal.

The third path would be that the Labor Party, PT, engaged in a rigorous self-criticism (it has not done that until now), to re-work itself internally, strengthening the bonds of its power with the social movements, as rapidly as possible politicizing the bases and offering a new agenda complementary of the first, whose basic themes would be the infrastructure of health, education, transportation, urbanization of the favelas, political, tributary and agrarian reforms, among other pieces.

But I see that the wearing down of the PT, caused by a handful of traitors and thieves who have shamed more than a million members and demoralized the country in its own eyes and those of the world, makes this path fragile, perhaps even ineffective.

Through these means we should be able to overcome the perplexity, the feelings of impotence, and build some hope that there still are solutions. In any event, what really matters in overcoming any crisis are these three things, the true Trinity of a healthy economy that goes beyond a large or small GNP: employment, salaries and the social promotion of the bases. That is what will guarantee the survival of the majority and create a bearable order.

In any case, we must confront the political right that proposes preposterous and undemocratic solutions, with that which is truly right. We must not accept that democratic rights be destroyed, because history has shown that the political right does not have a serious commitment to democracy; the political right is not afraid to break the rules in order to protect its interests.

As far as we are concerned, we cannot desist in the search for what is best for our country, above and beyond any differences and disagreements that may exist. The common good must prevail over any individual good.
Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU..

The Magna Carta of integral ecology: cry of the Earth-cry of the poor

Leonardo Boff6 Comentários

Before making any comment it is worth highlighting some peculiarities of the Laudato si encyclical of Pope Francis.

It is the first time a pope addresses the issue of ecology in the sense of an integral ecology (as it goes beyond the environment) in such a complete way. Big surprise: he elaborates the subject on the new ecological paradigm, which no official document of the UN has done so far. He bases his speech with the safest data of life sciences and Earth. He reads the data affectionately (with a sensitive or cordial intelligence), as he discerns that behind them hides human tragedy and suffering and also for Mother Earth. The current situation is serious, but Pope Francis always finds reasons for hope and trust that human beings can find viable solutions. He links to the Popes who preceded him, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, quoting them frequently. And something absolutely new: the text is part of collegiality, as it values ​​the contributions of dozens of bishops’ conferences around the world, from the US to Germany, that of Brazil, Patagonia-Comahue, and Paraguay. He gathers the contributions of other thinkers, such as Catholics Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Romano Guardini, Dante Alighieri, the Argentinian maestro Juan Carlos Scannone, Protestant Paul Ricoeur and the Sufi Muslim Ali Al-Khawwas. The recipients are all of us human beings, we are all inhabitants of the same common house (commonly used term by the Pope) and suffer the same threats.

Pope Francis does not write as a Master or Doctor of faith, but as a zealous pastor who cares for the common home of all beings, not just humans, that inhabit it.

One element deserves to be highlighted, as it reveals the “forma mentis” (the way he organizes hi thinking) of Pope Francis. This is a contribution of the pastoral and theological experience of Latin American churches in the light of the documents of Latin American Bishops (CELAM) in Medellin (1968), Puebla (1979) and Aparecida (2007), that were an option for the poor against poverty and in favor of liberation.

The wording and tone of the encyclical are typical of Pope Francis, and the ecological culture that he has accumulated, but I also realize that many expressions and ways of speaking refer to what is being thought and written mainly in Latin America. The themes of the “common home”, of “Mother Earth”, the “cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor”, the “care” of the “interdependence of all beings”, of the “poor and vulnerable “, the” paradigm shift, “the” human being as Earth “that feels, thinks, loves and reveres, the” integral ecology “among others, are recurrent among us.

The structure of the encyclical obeys to the methodological ritual used by our churches and theological reflection linked to the practice of liberation, now taken over and consecrated by the Pope: see, judge, act and celebrate.

First, he begins revealing his main source of inspiration: St. Francis of Assisi, whom he calls “the quintessential example of comprehensive care and ecology, who showed special concern for the poor and the abandoned” (n.10, n.66).

Then he moves on to see “What is happening in our home” (nn.17-61). The Pope says, “just by looking at the reality with sincerity we can see that there is a deterioration of our common home” (n.61). This part incorporates the most consistent data on climate change (nn.20-22), the issue of water (n.27-31), erosion of biodiversity (nn.32-42), the deterioration of the quality of human life and the degradation of social life (nn.43-47), he denounces the high rate of planetary inequality, which affects all areas of life (nn.48-52), with the poor as its main victims (n. 48).

In this part there is a phrase which refers to the reflection made in Latin America: “Today we cannot ignore that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach and should integrate justice in discussions on the environment to hear both the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor “(n.49). Then he adds: “the cries of the Earth join the cries of the abandoned of this world” (n.53). This is quite consistent since the beginning he has said that “we are Earth” (No. 2; cf. Gen 2.7.), Very in line with the great singer and poet Argentine indigenous Atahualpa Yupanqui: “humans beings are the Earth walking, feeling, thinking and loving.”

He condemns the proposed internationalization of the Amazon that “only serves the interests of multinationals” (n.38). There is a great statement of ethical force, “it is severely grave to obtain significant benefits making the rest of humanity, present and future, pay for the high costs of environmental degradation” (n.36).

He acknowledges with sadness: “We had never mistreated and offended our common home as much as in the last two centuries” (n.53). Faced with this human offensive against Mother Earth that many scientists have denounced as the beginning of a new geological era -the antropocene- he regrets the weakness of the powers of this world, that deceived, “believed that everything can continue as it is, as an alibi to “maintain its self-destructive habits” (n.59) with “a behavior that seems suicidal” (n.55).

Prudently, he recognizes the diversity of opinions (nn.60-61) and that “there is no single way to solve the problem” (n.60). However, “it is true that the global system is unsustainable from many points of view because we have stopped thinking about the purpose of human action” (n.61) and we get lost in the construction of means for unlimited accumulation at the expense of ecological injustice (degradation of ecosystems) and social injustice (impoverishment of populations). Mankind simply disappointed the divine hope “(n.61).

The urgent challenge, then, is “to protect our common home” (n.13); and for that we need, quoting Pope John Paul II, “a global ecological conversion” (n.5); “A culture of caring that permeates all of society” (n.231).
Once the seeing dimension is realized, the dimension of judgment prevails. This judging is done in two aspects, the scientific and the theological.

Let´s see the scientific. The encyclical devoted the entire third chapter to the analysis “of the human root of the ecological crisis” (nn.101-136). Here the Pope proposes to analyze techno-science, without prejudice, recognizing what it has brought such as “precious things to improve the quality of human life” (n. 103). But this is not the problem, but the independence, submitted to the economy, politics and nature in view of the accumulation of material goods (cf.n.109). Technoscience nourishes on a mistaken assumption that there is an “infinite availability of goods in the world” (n.106), when we know that we have surpassed the physical limits of the Earth and that much of the goods and services are not renewable. Technoscience has turned into technocracy, which has become a real dictatorship with a firm logic of domination over everything and everyone (n.108).

The great illusion, dominant today, lies in believing that technoscience can solve all environmental problems. This is a misleading idea because it “involves isolating the things that are always connected” (n.111). In fact, “everything is connected” (n.117) “everything is related” (n.120), a claim that appears throughout the encyclical text of the as a refrain, as it is a new contemporary paradigm key concept. The great limitation of technocracy is the fact of ‘knowledge fragmentation and losing the sense of wholeness “(n.110). The worst thing is “not to recognize the intrinsic value of every being and even denying a peculiar value to the human being” (n.118).

The intrinsic value of each being, even if it is minuscule, it is permanently highlighted in the encyclical (N.69), as does the Earth Charter. By denying the intrinsic value we are preventing “each being to communicate its message and to give glory to God” (n.33).

The largest deviation of technocracy is anthropocentrism. This means an illusion that things have value only insofar as they are ordered to human use, forgetting that its existence is valuable by itself (n.33). If it is true that everything is related, then “we humans are united as brothers and sisters and join with tender affection to Brother Sun, Sister Moon, Brother river and Mother Earth” (n.92). How can we expect to dominate them and view them within the narrow perspective of domination by humans?

All these “ecological virtues” (n.88) are lost by the will of power and domination of others to nature. We live a distressing “loss of meaning of life and the desire to live together” (n.110). He sometimes quotes the Italian-German Romano Guardini (1885-1968) theologist, one of the most read in the middle of the last century, who wrote a critical book against the claims of the modernity (n.105 note 83: Das Ende der Neuzeit, The decline of the Modern Age, 1958).

The other side of judgment is the theological. The encyclical reserves an important space for the “Gospel of Creation” (nos. 62-100). It begins justifying the contribution of religions and Christianity, as it is global crisis, each instance must, with its religious capital contribute to the care of the Earth (n.62). He does not insists in doctrines but on this wisdom in the various spiritual paths. Christianity prefers to speak of creation rather than nature, because “creation is related to a project of love of God” (n.76). Quote, more than once, a beautiful text of the Book of Wisdom (21.24) where it is clear that “the creation of the order of love” (n.77) and God emerges as “the Lord lover of life “(Wis 11:26).

The text opens for an evolutionary view of the universe without using the word, but doing a circumlocution referring to the universe “consisting of open systems that come into communion with each other” (n.79). It uses the main texts that link Christ incarnated and risen with the world and with the whole universe, making all matters of the Earth sacred (n.83). In this context he quotes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955, n.83 note 53) as a precursor of this cosmic vision.
The fact that Trinity-God is divine and it related with people means that all things are related resonances of the divine Trinity (n.240).

Quoting the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of the Orthodox Church “recognizes that sins against creation are sins against God” (n.7). Hence the urgency of a collective ecological conversion to repair the lost harmony.

The encyclical concludes well with this part “The analysis showed the need for a change of course … we must escape the spiral of self-destruction in which we are sinking” (n.163). It is not a reform, but, citing the Earth Charter, but to seek “a new beginning” (n.207). The interdependence of all with all leads us to believe “in one world with a common project” (n.164).

Since reality has many aspects, all closely related, Pope Francis proposes an “integral ecology” that goes beyond the environmental ecology to which we are accustomed (n.137). It covers all areas, the environmental, economic, social, cultural and everyday life (n.147-148). Never forget the poor who also testify human and social ecology living ties of belonging and solidarity with each other (n.149).

The third methodological step is to act. In this part, the Encyclical observes the major issues of the international, national and local politics (nn.164-181). It stresses the interdependence of the social and educational aspect with ecological and sadly states the difficulties that bring the prevalence of technocracy, creating difficulty for the changes that restrain the greed of accumulation and consumption, that can be opened again (n.141) . He mentions again the theme of economics and politics that should serve the common good and create conditions for a possible human fulfillment (n.189-198). He re-emphasizes on the dialogue between science and religion, as it is being suggested by the great biologist Edward O.Wilson (cf. the book Creation: how to save life on Earth, 2008). All religions “should seek the care of nature and the defense of the poor” (n.201).

Still in the aspect of acting, he challenges education in the sense of creating “ecological citizenship” (n.211) and a new lifestyle, seated on caring, compassion, shared sobriety, the alliance between humanity and the environment, since both are umbilically linked, and the co-responsibility for everything that exists and lives and our common destiny (nn.203-208).

Finally, the time to celebrate. The celebration takes place in a context of “ecological conversion” (n.216), it involves an “ecological spirituality” (n.216). This stems not so much from theological doctrines but the motivations that faith arises to take care of the common house and “nurture a passion for caring for the world” (216). Such a mystical experience is what mobilizes people to live the ecological balance, “to those who are solidary inside themselves, with others, with nature and with all living and spiritual beings and God” (n.210). That appears to be the truth that “less is more” and that we can be happy with little.

In the sense of celebrating “the world is more than something to be solved, it is a joyous mystery to be contemplated in joy and with love” (n.12).

The tender and fraternal spirit of St. Francis of Assisi is present through the entire text of the encyclical Laudato. The current situation does not mean an announced tragedy, but a challenge for us to care for the common house and for each other. The text highlights poetry and joy in the Spirit and indestructible hope that if the threat is big, greater is the opportunity for solving our environmental problems.

The text poetically ends with the words “Beyond the Sun”, saying: “let’s walk singing. That our struggles and our concerns about this planet do not take away our joy of hope “(n.244).
I would like to end with the final words of the Earth Charter which the Pope quotes himself (n.207): ” Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.¨

 This text is a chapter of a book in italien Curare la Madre Terra, EMI, Bologna 2015

Leonardo Boff is theologist and ecologist

There must be a way out of the present crisis

Leonardo Boff2 Comentários

The political and economic crisis we are now experiencing provides an opportunity for truly profound changes, such as political, tributary and agrarian reform. To have the correct focus, is important to first consider some facts.

In the first place, we must see the crisis as part of the great crisis of humanity as a whole, rather than from within, and external to the present course of history. To think of the Brazilian crisis without considering the world crisis is not to think about the Brazilian crisis. We are part of a greater whole. In our case, we cannot escape the attention of the large countries and great corporations, as the Group of 7 considers where the principal assets for the ecological basis of the economy of the future are concentrated: the abundance of drinking water, the great humid jungles, immense biodiversity and 6 billion hectares of farmland. The Imperial strategy does not care that a continental nation in the South Atlantic, such as Brazil, is not aligned with the global interests and to the contrary, seeks an independent path for its own development.

Second, there is a historical background to the current Brazilian crisis that we must never forget. As our main historians confirm, there has never been a form of government that gave adequate attention to the great majorities, the descendants of slaves, indigenous peoples and impoverished populations. They were considered peons, and true nobodies. The State, appropriated from the beginning of our history by the propertied class, was not willing to meet their demands.

Third, we must recognize that, as a result of a painful and bloody history of struggles and of overcoming obstacles of every form, another social base arose as a political power, that now controls the State and all its structures. From an elitist and neoliberal State, it became a republican and social State that, amidst great difficulties and concessions to the dominant national and international forces, managed to give centrality to those who always had been on the margins. The fact that the Government of the Labor Party, PT, has raised 36 million Brazilians out of misery, and has given them access to the fundamental goods of life, is of undeniable historical magnitude. What do the humble of the Earth want? Guaranteed access to the basic goods that let them live. That end is served by the Bolsa Familia, My House My Life, Light for Everyone, and other social and cultural policies, without which the poor would never be able to be lawyers, physicians, engineers, teachers, etc.

Call these measures what you will, but they have been good for the immense majority of the Brazilian people. Is not the right of the State to guarantee the life of its citizens its first ethical mission? Why, for centuries, did not previous governments undertake these initiatives? Was a labor president necessary to accomplish all that? The Labor Party, PT, and its allies performed that historical feat, and not without strong opposition from those who have looked down on «those considered economic zeros», as was shown by Darcy Ribeiro, Capistrano de Abreu, Jose Honorio Rodrigues, Raymundo Faorom and lately, by Luiz Gonzaga de Souza Lima. And still now they continue to look down on them.

Some strata of the privileged upper classes are ashamed of and despise them. Besides the understandable indignation and rage provoked by the scandals of corruption taking place within the government, made hegemonic by the PT, yes, there still is class hatred in this country. These old elites with their means of communication, marked by their reactionary and right wing ideology, supported by the old oligarchy, different from the modern more open and nationalist one, that supports in part the projects of the PT, never accepted a government of popular making. They do their best to make impossible the PT government, and to that end, they use distortions, slander, and lies, with no sense of decency.

Two strategies were designed by the right wing that managed to coalesce, to regain the central power it lost by the ballot, but that have not yet taken shape.

The first is to maintain in society a situation of permanent political crisis to impede the ability of President Dilma to govern. To that end, they organize demonstrations in the streets, making something like a picnic, with casseroles, with full pots, because they never knew what an empty pot means, or, with a gross lack of education, to systematically boo the President at her public appearances.

The second consists of a process of picking at the PT government, slandering it as incompetent and inefficient, and demolishing the leadership of former President Lula with defamations, distortions and outright lies that, when they are unmasked, are not denied. They hope that way to undermine her 2018 candidacy and re-election.

That type of procedure only shows that we still have a very low intensity democracy. The recent acts, provocative and full of a spirit of revenge by the presidents of the two houses, both of the PMDB, confirm what UNB’s sociologist Pedro Demo, wrote in his Introduction to sociology, (Introducción a la sociología, 2002): «Our democracy is the national representation of refined hypocrisy, full of “pretty” laws, but always, at bottom, made by the dominant elite to serve them from beginning to end. The politicians are people who are characterized by making lots of money, working little, making deals, employing their relatives and henchmen, getting rich at the expense of state funds and going into business starting from the top… If we were to equate democracy with social justice, our democracy would be its own negation» (p. 330-333).

We will neither surmount this crisis nor overcome the revanchists and those with a coup d’etat mentality without political, tributary and agrarian reform. Otherwise, our democracy will be powerless and blind.

Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.