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

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

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.

The era of the great transformations

We live in the Era of the Great Transformations. There are many, but I will mention just two: the first relating to the economy and the second, to the realm of the conscience.

First, the economy: It began in 1834 when the industrial revolution was consolidated in England. It consists of moving from a market economy to a market society. The market has always existed throughout the history of humanity, but never before has there been a society consisting only of the market. In other words, the only thing that counts is the economy. Everything else must serve the economy.

The market that predominates is ruled by competition rather than cooperation. What is sought is individual or corporative economic benefit, not the common good of the entire society. The cost of attaining this benefit is usually the devastation of nature, and creation of perverse social inequalities.

It is said that the market must be free, and the state is seen as its great obstacle. The mission of the state, in reality, is to order society and the economy through laws and norms, and to coordinate the search for the common good. The Great Transformation presupposes a minimal State, practically limited to issues involving society’s infrastructure, the treasury and security. Everything else belongs to and is regulated by the market.

Everything can be relegated to the market: drinking water, seeds, food and even human organs. This commercialization has penetrated all sectors of society: health, education, sports, the world of the arts and entertainment, and even important types of religions and churches, with their TV and radio programs.

Organizing society only around the economic interests of the market has split humanity from top to bottom: an enormous gulf has been created between the few rich and the many poor. A perverse social injustice predominates.

Simultaneously, a horrible ecological injustice has been created. In the eagerness to accumulate, goods and natural resources have been exploited in a predatory manner, with no limitations and a total lack of respect. The goal is to become ever richer to be able to consume more intensely.

This voracity has surpassed the limits of the Earth herself. The goods and services of the Earth are no longer fully sufficient and renewable. The Earth’s resources are not limitless. That fact makes it difficult if not impossible for the capitalist/productive system to constantly regenerate. That is its crisis.

Given its internal logic, that Transformation, is causing biocide, ecocide and geocide. Life itself is endangered, and the Earth may not want us with her, because we are too destructive.

The second Great Transformation is occurring in the field of consciousness. As the damage to nature that affects the quality of life increases, the awareness also grows that 90% of this damage is due to the irresponsible and irrational attitude of humans, more specifically to the attitude of those economic, political, cultural and media power elites that comprise the great multilateral corporations and have assumed control over the destiny of the world.

It is urgent that we interrupt this trajectory towards the precipice. The first global study of the state of the Earth was done in 1972. It revealed that the Earth is not well. The principal cause is the type of development undertaken by society, that has surpassed the limits of nature and the Earth’s endurance. We must produce, yes, to feed humanity, but in a manner that respects the rhythms of nature and her limits, allowing her to rest and to renew herself. It was called sustainable development, as opposed to just material growth, as measured by the GNP.

In the name of this awareness and its urgency, there arose the responsibility principle (Hans Jonas), the caring principle (Boff and others), the sustainability principle (Brundland Report), the cooperation principle (Heisenberg/Wilson/ Swimme), the prevention/precaution principle (1992 Letter of Rio de Janeiro from the United Nations), the compassion principle (Schoppenhauer/Dalai Lama) and the Earth principle (Lovelock and Evo Morales), where the Earth is understood as a living super organism, always ready to produce life.

The ecological reflection has become complex. It cannot be reduced only to environmental preservation. The totality of the world system is at stake. Thus there has emerged an environmental ecology that has as its end the quality of life; a social ecology that seeks a sustainable mode of living (production, distribution, consumption and disposal of waste); a mental ecology that criticizes prejudices and visions of the world that are hostile to life, and proposes to formulate a new design for civilization, based on the principles and values for a new form of inhabiting the Common Home; and finally, an integral ecology that recognizes that the Earth is part of a universe in evolution, and that we must live in harmony with the Whole, one that is complex and purposeful. From this comes peace.

Then it becomes clear that ecology is an art, a new way of relating to nature and the Earth, more than a technique for administering scarce goods and services.

Everywhere in the world, movements, institutions, organisms, NGOs, and research centers have arisen that propose to care for the Earth, especially for all living beings.

If the awareness of caring, and of our collective responsibility for the Earth and for our civilization, triumph, surely we will still have a future.

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

What will our children and grandchildren say to us?

Every country, especially those that are experiencing financial crises, such as Brazil in 2015, has a persistent obsession: we have to grow; we must assure the growth of the GNP, namely, the sum of all the wealth produced by the country. This economic growth is fundamentally the production of material goods. It causes a high degree of social inequity (unemployment and reduction of salaries) and a perverse environmental devastation (exhaustion of the ecosystems).

In reality, we should first talk about the kind of development that entails essential non-material elements, principally such subjective and humanistic dimensions as the expansion of liberty, creativity and ways of shaping life itself. Unfortunately we are all hostages of the mirage that is growth. Long ago the balance between growth and the preservation of nature was destroyed, in favor of growth. Consumption is already 40% above the planet’s capacity to replace its goods and services. And the planet is losing her sustainability.

We know now that the Earth is a self regulating living system in which all factors interact (the theory of Gaia) to maintain her integrity. But her self regulation is failing. Hence climate change, extreme events (strong winds, tornadoes, climate deregulation) and the global warming that may surprise us with grave catastrophes.

The Earth is seeking a new equilibrium, raising temperatures between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees centigrade. That would bring on the era of the great devastations, (anthropocene) with rising ocean levels, that will affect more than half of humanity who live on her coasts. Thousands of living organisms would not have enough time to adapt or to mitigate the harmful effects and would vanish. A great part of humanity itself, up to 80% according to some, could no longer subsist on a planet whose physical-chemical base was so profoundly altered.

With certitude environmentalist Washington Novaes affirms: «now it is no longer about caring for the environment, but about not exceeding the limits that could endanger life». There are scientists who claim that we are reaching the point of no-return. It is possible to slow down the oncoming crisis, but not to stop it.

This question is disturbing. In their official speeches, heads of State, businessmen, and, what is worse, principal economists, rarely tackle the limits of the planet and the resulting problems for our civilization. We do not want our children and grandchildren to look to the past, and curse us and our generation because even knowing the dangers, we did little or nothing to avoid the tragedy.

Everyone’s mistake may have been to follow literally the strange advice of Lord Keynes for emerging from the great depression of the 1930’s:

«For at least a century we ought to pretend to ourselves and to everyone else that what is beautiful is dirty and what is dirty is beautiful, because what is dirty is useful and the beautiful is useless. Greed, profiteering, distrust must be our gods because they will guide us towards the end of the tunnel of economic need towards the clarity of the day… After all that will come the return to some of the more secure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue: that greed is a vice, that profiteering is a crime, and that the love of money is detestable» (Economic Possibilities of our Grand-Children). That is how those principally responsible for the crises of 2008, who were never punished, think.

It is urgent that we redefine our goals and seek the best means of attaining them. They no longer can be simply to produce, while destroying nature, and to consume without limit. No one has a solution to this crisis of civilization. But we suspect that it must be guided by the wisdom of nature herself: respect for her rhythms, her capacity to endure, giving centrality not to growth but to sustainability. If our modes of production respected the natural cycles, there surely would be enough for everyone, and we would preserve nature, of which we are part.

We cover the Earth’s wounds with band aids. Mitigation is not a solution. We essentially restrict ourselves to mitigating, with the illusion that we are resolving the urgent issues that are matters of life or death.

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