Edgework

Pope Francis is aware that for some people the simple fact of being human motivates them to care for the environment. All of us can share this perspective with such persons, but for people of the Christian faith there is an added dimension: They “…realize that their responsibility within creation, and their duty towards nature and the Creator, are an essential part of their faith” (46). While this may seem self-evident to many of us, it is regrettable that many sincere Christians continue to see creation care as a peripheral or even optional component of their life of faith.

Pope Francis affirms that the creation accounts in Genesis, “…suggest that human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour, and with the earth itself” (48). Any way we look at it, it is apparent that this three-way harmony has been broken. The biblical record indicates that this new conflictual reality is rooted in the fact that we have presumed to play God and not recognize our limitations.

This disharmony found a new intensity in the aftermath of the influence of Francis Bacon and René Descarte in the 16th and 17th centuries, as we have discussed in our previous essay. Another way of saying that is that their philosophical position vis-a-vi the natural world provided the groundwork for a “dominion theology” which ended up actually being a theology of “domination.”

Pope Francis takes great pains to counter dominion theology. He insists that the Genesis 2:15 reference to “tilling” and “keeping” cannot be turned into domination of nature without regard for its welfare. “‘Tilling’ refers to cultivating, ploughing or working, while ‘keeping’ means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations” (49).

There are frequent references, especially in the Psalms, which declare that the sun, moon, stars and all living plants and animals participate in praising the Lord. While we grant that this is metaphorical language, it does point to the intrinsic worth of all of creation. So when we deface creation and cause thousands of species to go extinct we are, in fact, diminishing the amount of praise that is given to God. In that sense it borders on being sacrilegious.

The Pope notes that Judeao-Christian thought demythologized nature; that is to say that it doesn’t see nature as divine in and of itself. It is a reality created by God and entrusted to us, thereby making us responsible to protect it and develop its potential. At the same time it recognizes that nature has its own limitations. He states: “A fragile world, entrusted by God to human care, challenges us to devise intelligent ways of directing, developing and limiting our power” (57). And so it is always wrong to objectify nature and subject it to arbitrary human domination. “The vision that ‘might is right’ has engendered immense inequality, injustice and acts of violence against the majority of humanity, since resources end up in the hands of first comer or the most powerful: the winner takes all. Completely at odds with this model are the ideals of harmony, justice, fraternity and peace as proposed by Jesus” (60).

In one of his hymns Francis of Assisi calls on God’s creation to praise God together with him: “Praised be you, my Lord, with all your creatures, especially Sir Brother Sun…through Sister Moon and  Stars…through Brother Wind…through Sister Water…through Brother Fire.” (64). Such a sense of mutuality and kinship with nature is a long way from the traditional domination model of creation that many subscribe to. But it is a perspective which we might well want to resurrect in the 21st century.

I found Pope Francis’ statement that we only have one heart intriguing. By that he is suggesting that we operate from a center that is either attuned to nature or not. So, for instance, if we are inclined to mistreat animals it will not likely be long before we also mistreat people. In other words, because all of life is interconnected whatever we do in one sphere of life will eventually have an impact on other spheres. “Peace, justice and the preservation of creation are three absolutely interconnected themes, which cannot be separated and treated individually without once again falling into reductionism” (68).

Then the Pope takes aim at our common understanding of private property, which basically is that once I own a piece of property I should be able to do with it what I want. But our understanding of private property, he says, must be tempered with the notion that “The Earth is the Lord’s.” “The Church does indeed defend the legitimate right to private property, but she also teaches no less clearly that there is always a social mortgage on all private property, in order that goods may serve the general purpose that God gave them” (69).

I was also captivated by the Pope’s understanding of what is entailed in the biblical command not to kill. If, for example, we live in such a way that the poor are robbed of necessary sustenance or that resources will not be available to future generations, it can be rightly said that we participate in “killing” them. In my opinion, that should give us second thoughts about our lifestyles.

And finally, according to the Apostle Paul, the Gospel of Creation envisions a time in the future when all things will be set right. “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Colossians 1:19-20). That is the vision that ultimately motivates people of the Christian faith.