tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/papal-encyclical-16619/articlesPapal encyclical – The Conversation2020-10-05T14:28:58Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1474872020-10-05T14:28:58Z2020-10-05T14:28:58ZFratelli Tutti: Pope Francis delivers new teaching aimed at healing divisions in the face of coronavirus<p>Pope Francis has delivered a message to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics and people of goodwill everywhere which aims to soothe the fear caused by the coronavirus pandemic and unite communities riven by racism, inequality and climate change.</p>
<p><em>Fratelli Tutti</em> (All Brothers) was signed on October 3 in Assisi, central Italy. It is the third encyclical since Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio took the name Francis on his election to the papacy in March 2013. He has always wanted to make it clear that his papacy is one of action – placing the needs of the poor, marginalised and disenfranchised at the centre of his ministry. </p>
<p>As a community of believers, Catholics are expected by Pope Francis to mobilise and become agents for change in the world. This action was to be based upon the canon of Catholic social teaching that had built up since the late 19th century and was, until recently, known as the church’s “<a href="http://www.catholicsocialteaching.org.uk">best kept secret</a>”. </p>
<p>Francis was going to make sure that Catholics put that teaching into action by providing a road map for change – and, in doing so, invited all people of goodwill to join him. While <a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html"><em>Laudato Si’</em></a> (Praise to You, 2015) implored the world to “care for its common home”, <em>Fratelli Tutti</em> offers teaching devoted to the concepts of fraternity and social friendship based upon the example of <a href="https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=50">St Francis of Assisi</a> who “wherever he went … sowed the seeds of peace and walked alongside the poor, the abandoned, the infirm and the outcast, the least of his brothers and sisters”. </p>
<h2>COVID encyclical</h2>
<p>It is inevitable that this encyclical will be known as the COVID-19 encyclical – and Francis himself acknowledges in paragraph 7 that this 45,000 word tome was written during the first wave of the pandemic. But he sees the questions regarding the purpose and meaning of life that many asked during the lockdowns as an opportunity to reset a pattern of catastrophic systemic failures that has created an unequal and polarised world. As he states in paragraph 33:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the pain, uncertainty and fear, and the realisation of our own limitations, brought on by the pandemic have only made it all the more urgent that we rethink our styles of life, our relationships, the organisation of our societies, and, above all, the meaning of our existence.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The pandemic has taught people and society that “no one is saved alone; we can only be saved together”. The coronavirus has presented the world with an opportunity for real systemic change – Francis suggests that to believe we can carry on as before is “denying reality”. </p>
<p>Through <em>Fratelli Tutti</em>, Francis offers a new vision of society in which human dignity and the human rights of all are respected. He believes that actions based on the common good – the concept that everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully to society – must form the bedrock of politics and that people must acknowledge and respect everyone as their equal. Further that social and economic policy must be based on long-term planning rather than short-term populist soundbites.</p>
<p>Francis addresses this invitation to all people of goodwill – not just Catholics. But he takes pains to point out such a transformation will not be easy. Rather, it will be a process without an endpoint, something to be continually worked at, an action rather than a goal. <em>Fratelli Tutti</em> is an encyclical which above all teaches that complacency is the enemy of a peaceful and just society. </p>
<h2>Dark clouds</h2>
<p>But in order to engage in action, the problem must be diagnosed so that people know where to direct their energies. There can be no doubt from the first chapter, “Dark clouds over a closed world”, that Francis understands the complexity of the crisis facing the world. </p>
<p>As well as the existential crisis that has led to the disintegration of communities and social relationships, he paints a grim picture of a world undergoing what he calls a “third world war fought piecemeal” which – along with hunger and human trafficking – presents a sustained attack on the dignity of the human person. </p>
<p>He also understands the need for nuance and contextualisation in creating a new vision for humanity. So for example, there are oblique references to Brexit, the populist politics that have led to “hyperbole, extremism and polarisation becoming political tools”. He also observes the resurgence of racism, and the disintegration of intergenerational relationships - all of which demonstrate the innate individualism, lack of empathy and aggressive nationalism which lies at the heart of the global crisis. </p>
<h2>Decisive commitment</h2>
<p>The solution to this crisis “demands a decisive commitment” from individuals and from politicians and religious leaders in particular. Politicians need to reorientate their mindset away from individualism towards a commitment to the common good and what the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has termed “<a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html">social love</a>”. This is, he notes, “a force capable of inspiring new ways of approaching the problems of today’s world, of profoundly renewing structures, social organisations and legal systems from within”. </p>
<p>Politics needs to become a vocation of service, charity and generosity rather than a means to exercise power. Religious leaders need to engage in dialogue with one another in order to “reawaken the spiritual energy that can contribute to the betterment of society”, and to prevent the distortion of religious beliefs that lead to violence. </p>
<p>Ultimately, this is an encyclical which teaches that we are dependent upon one another to thrive and reach our full potential as human beings. As Francis puts it “if only we might rediscover once and for all that we need one another, and that in this way our human family can experience a rebirth; with all its faces, all its hands and all its voices, beyond the walls we have erected.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147487/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Power does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The pope’s message also highlights Brexit, racism and inequality as ‘dark clouds over a closed world’.Maria Power, Human Dignity Project Director, Las Casas Institute for Social Justice, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1236402019-10-14T19:08:24Z2019-10-14T19:08:24ZPope Francis and the Catholic church continue to look towards science, and that can only be a good thing<p>It’s not uncommon for science and religion to be framed as two opposing forces.</p>
<p>The Catholic church has famously struggled to accommodate scientific research in its past, but recently there has been evidence of a healthier relationship developing.</p>
<p>In many ways, Pope Francis has embraced science as a way of learning about the world. Notably, his <a href="https://catholicclimatecovenant.org/encyclical">encyclical</a> has urged people to care more for the environment and climate change. </p>
<p>His message moves away from the concept of having dominion over the earth, and instead encourages stewardship of it. This stance has resonated with Catholics and other religious people world over.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"771309172033892353"}"></div></p>
<p>By aligning the papal agenda more closely with what science tells us, what impact does Pope Francis have on how people of faith engage with and appreciate science? </p>
<h2>Catholics accepting science</h2>
<p>There are a few potential motivators behind Pope Francis and the modern church’s dedication to the discussion of scientific issues. </p>
<p>First, it becomes harder all the time to refute basic scientific findings. Thus, it makes sense to accommodate new findings rather than isolate yourself from them. </p>
<p>Apart from the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html">pardoning</a> of Galileo for the heresy of believing in the heliocentric solar system, an interesting example of this comes in the form of Vatican Observatory director Guy Consolmagno saying he would happily <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/17/pope-astronomer-baptise-aliens">baptise an alien</a>. </p>
<p>Another factor is that some scientific findings and advances are so significant that they present urgent moral issues. It is here, in the ethical implications of developing science, that the church finds traction. </p>
<p>The Pontifical Academy for Life was started in 1994 to advise the church on several scientific matters, especially on questions of medical ethics.</p>
<p>Today, the academy explores solutions to ethical issues in topics such as <a href="http://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/en/news/2019/2020-doctoral-dissertation-award.html">artificial intelligence</a>, bioethics, <a href="http://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/en/projects/human-genome-editing.html">human genome editing</a>, and <a href="http://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/en/projects/robotics.html">robo-ethics</a>. </p>
<p>Furthermore, it’s possible the church has a genuine interest in promoting and contributing to science through its own research initiatives, of which the most famous is the <a href="http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/content/specolavaticana/en.html">Vatican observatory</a>.</p>
<p>The observatory was originally created because of the need to precisely moderate the religious calendar. For centuries it has <a href="https://curiosity.com/topics/the-vatican-has-an-observatory-and-its-made-important-astronomical-discoveries-curiosity/">contributed</a> significantly to modern astronomical research.</p>
<h2>Faith and facts are not always at war</h2>
<p>Catholics as a group seem quite amenable to the idea that science is compatible with the theory that God created the Universe. </p>
<p>In 2017, the <a href="https://cara.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/CARA_Fall2017_Special-Report_FaithScience-FINAL.pdf">Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate</a> found that Catholics, compared with other religious groups, were more accepting of scientific world views.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293470/original/file-20190922-135128-13kiouf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293470/original/file-20190922-135128-13kiouf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293470/original/file-20190922-135128-13kiouf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293470/original/file-20190922-135128-13kiouf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293470/original/file-20190922-135128-13kiouf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293470/original/file-20190922-135128-13kiouf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293470/original/file-20190922-135128-13kiouf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293470/original/file-20190922-135128-13kiouf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">1,927 people responded to the CARA poll, which resulted in 1010 interviews with self-identified Catholics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">CENTER FOR APPLIED RESEARCH IN THE APOSTOLATE</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As an example of this relative ease with science, the Church has allowed serious discussion around evolution since at least 1950, when Pope Pius XII <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html">said</a> evolution could coexist with Catholic doctrine (even though the following paragraph of his statement mentions the Biblical Adam as a real person). </p>
<p>This engagement with evolution was strengthened by John Paul II, who <a href="http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/magisterium/johnpaulii.html">said</a> evolution was much more than a hypothesis. He also won a lot of scientists over by formally acquitting Galileo of heresy. </p>
<p>Today, Pope Francis is quite open about his belief in evolution, albeit as a means by which God created humankind.</p>
<p>Perhaps because of this series of developments, American Catholics are ahead of their evangelical counterparts in accepting that life has evolved, rather than being created in its current form.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293471/original/file-20190922-135118-7w57nu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293471/original/file-20190922-135118-7w57nu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293471/original/file-20190922-135118-7w57nu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293471/original/file-20190922-135118-7w57nu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293471/original/file-20190922-135118-7w57nu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293471/original/file-20190922-135118-7w57nu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=874&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293471/original/file-20190922-135118-7w57nu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=874&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293471/original/file-20190922-135118-7w57nu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=874&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Pew Research Centre has conducted various surveys detailing the presence of religiosity among Americans.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pew Research Centre</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Of science, faith, or both?</h2>
<p>There’s an old adage that science is about discovering empirical facts about the world and religion is about the meanings we find in it, but this is a shallow conception of both. </p>
<p>Religious teachings are often grounded in simple and immediate acts of living, and science gives us powerful narratives that help us understand our place in the Universe.</p>
<p>Many great scientists were Catholics, including Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Gregor Mendel, and Louis Pasteur. One could argue this was the result of cultural and philosophical norms at the time. </p>
<p>Of course, many modern scientists are people of faith, but the percentage of scientists who profess no faith is much <a href="https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/">higher</a> than among the general public.</p>
<p>Even so, The Pontifical Academy for Life includes some of the world’s leading academics and scientists. While they may not be Catholics themselves, their willingness to engage with the church and advise them on critical issues is noteworthy. </p>
<p>This would not happen if the church and Pope Francis himself were not seen to value scientific expertise. </p>
<h2>Leading the way ahead</h2>
<p>The Catholic Church is not a scientific institution and it would be foolish to suggest it is. </p>
<p>Its religious purpose may be compatible with many aspects of science but, unlike science, its core tenants are not open to revision, even though these core tenants have seemed somewhat malleable over the centuries. </p>
<p>Despite this, the relationship between science and the church looks better now than ever before. The development of this relationship will have a significant impact on the public’s understanding of and engagement with science.</p>
<p>Considering the crucial role science and technology play in our prospering as a species, we can only hope future popes continue to respect and act on the best scientific advice possible. </p>
<p>I would be happy to take that imperative as an article of faith.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Correction: Previously this article said Pope Pius XI started the Pontifical Academy for Life in 1936. This was incorrect and has been amended.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123640/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton is a Fellow of the Rationalist Society of Australia.</span></em></p>Pope Francis continues to champion the importance of science in our world. Having the head of the Catholic Church support various scientific movements is a win for us all.Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking; Curriculum Director, UQ Critical Thinking Project, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/945442018-06-25T10:34:54Z2018-06-25T10:34:54ZHow Catholic women fought against Vatican’s prohibition on contraceptives<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224300/original/file-20180621-137720-o2jmwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People dressed as sperm cells at Papal Nuncio building in The Hague for the sixth birthday of the encyclical, 'Humanae Vitae.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationaalarchief/3328265536/">Nationaal Archief</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Fifty years ago a fierce debate erupted in the Catholic Church over the papal document <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html">“Humanae Vitae,”</a> which reiterated the church’s ban on artificial contraception. Six hundred scholars, including many clergy, <a href="http://www.kha.at/downloads/statementbycatholictheologians.pdf">dissented from its teaching</a>, sparking a debate that caused a crisis over authority in the worldwide church. </p>
<p>While much attention is focused on the epic battle between theologians and the institutional church, which undoubtedly was significant, as a <a href="https://directory.roanoke.edu/faculty/160">historian of Catholic women</a>, I find the responses of Catholic laywomen even more compelling. </p>
<p>As theologians dissented, bishops raged and popes dug in their heels, Catholic laywomen and their partners made their own family planning decisions, as they had for many years before and would for decades after. </p>
<h2>What is Humanae Vitae?</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224297/original/file-20180621-137746-1heyc56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224297/original/file-20180621-137746-1heyc56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=857&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224297/original/file-20180621-137746-1heyc56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=857&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224297/original/file-20180621-137746-1heyc56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=857&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224297/original/file-20180621-137746-1heyc56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1077&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224297/original/file-20180621-137746-1heyc56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1077&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224297/original/file-20180621-137746-1heyc56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1077&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pope Paul VI.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paulaudenece1977.jpg">Ambrosius007</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html">Humanae Vitae</a> was a papal encyclical released by Pope Paul VI in 1968. However, it wasn’t the first papal document to prohibit contraception use. Thirty-eight years prior to that encyclical, Pope Pius XI had released a <a href="https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html">document called “Casti Connubbi,”</a> barring Catholics from using artificial contraception. </p>
<p>There were some clear differences between the two encyclicals. The first insisted that procreation was the chief purpose of the sexual act. The second said that the “unitive” purpose – that is, the use of sex as a means of expressing love and strengthening the marital union – was equally important.</p>
<p>But Paul VI ultimately insisted that the unitive could not be separated from the procreative. According to the Catholic Church, each and every conjugal act must be open to life.</p>
<p>Even though Humanae Vitae largely affirmed an established teaching, <a href="http://press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/sex-violence-and-justice">it was still controversial</a>. This was because the debates among theologians and laypeople in the 30 years following Casti Connubi caused many to believe that the 1968 encyclical would overturn the Church’s ban on artificial contraception. </p>
<h2>Role of Catholic women</h2>
<p>What is important to note is that well before the 600 theologians expressed dissent, Catholic laywomen had already begun to reject this teaching. One major reason was what many believed to be a major flaw in the Vatican’s argument.</p>
<p>As early as the 1940s, large numbers of Catholic couples were encouraged to use the <a href="https://case.edu/affil/skuyhistcontraception/online-2012/Rhythm-method.html">rhythm method</a>, or timing sex to coincide with “the safe period” in a woman’s cycle, most commonly determined by charting a daily temperature reading. This was the accepted way to avoid conception, as they were not allowed to use a barrier method to achieve the same end.</p>
<p>Many failed to <a href="http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199734122.001.0001/acprof-9780199734122">understand or accept</a> this logic. If the church was admitting that couples could choose to limit their family size, why wouldn’t it allow them a more effective means of doing so, is what many women asked. They were also not convinced every sexual act need be open to life if the couple was open to having children.</p>
<p>So, starting in the 1940s, Catholic laywomen and men began to publicly discuss the church’s teaching on contraception. By the early 1960s, <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/fertility-doctor">when the birth control pill came into common use</a>, these questions became especially pressing. Catholic laywomen regularly wrote in the Catholic press and elsewhere expressing their views as married women and <a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100616460">fostering a conversation that called the ban into question</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100616460">They wrote eloquently</a> about their marriages, their sex lives, their struggles with endless pregnancies and, increasingly, their frustration with rhythm. The only method of family limitation allowed them failed over and over again while the necessity of denying themselves sex caused rifts in couples already stressed by the care of large families. </p>
<p>Those frustrations often included the priests who promoted rhythm. “To me and many Catholics rhythm is a manifestation of an attitude of many clergymen looking down from their pedestals, offering us glib platitudes and the letter of the law, without seeing our real problems,” wrote Carolyn Scheibelhut, an American Catholic laywoman, in a letter to the editor of the Catholic magazine Marriage, in 1964. </p>
<h2>Did the Vatican hear laywomen’s voices?</h2>
<p>Laywomen’s voices finally reached the Vatican through the <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Turning_Point.html?id=0a2RAAAAIAAJ">papal birth control commission</a> assembled by Pope John XXIII, between 1963 to 1966, to study the issue of artificial contraception.</p>
<p>Patty Crowley, co-founder of <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Disturbing_the_Peace.html?id=SnslAQAAIAAJ">the Christian Family Movement</a> and one of the few married women invited to participate, brought with her the results of a survey of Catholic couples who overwhelmingly described their struggles with the teaching, despite often heroic attempts to abide by it.</p>
<p>She later <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Turning_Point.html?id=0a2RAAAAIAAJ">remarked</a>, “It just struck me as ridiculous….How could they be talking about marriage and birth control of all things without a lot more input from the persons involved?” Crowley <a href="https://www.wjkbooks.com/Products/0664222854/in-our-own-voices.aspx">testified before the commission</a>, telling them that, besides being unreliable, rhythm was psychologically harmful, did not foster married love or unity and, moreover, was unnatural.</p>
<p>In what was surely a first in this group of primarily celibate men, Crowley explained that the majority of women most desire sexual intercourse during ovulation, precisely when they were taught to avoid sex. “Any simple psychology book tells us that people who are in a constant state of stricture in an area that should be open and free and loving are damaging themselves and consequently others,” she insisted.</p>
<p>Collette Potvin, another married woman <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Turning_Point.html?id=0a2RAAAAIAAJ">who testified</a>, recalled thinking “When you die, God is going to say, ‘Did you love?’ He isn’t going to say, ‘Did you take your temperature?’”</p>
<p>Persuaded by these testimonies and others, the commission voted to overturn the ban. Leaked to the press in 1967, this decision raised the hopes of laypeople all over the world. These expectations fed the outrage when Pope Paul VI chose to disregard the <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/encyclical-that-never-was-9780722034057/">majority report of his own commission</a> in 1968.</p>
<h2>Use of contraception today</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224302/original/file-20180621-137725-58uwac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224302/original/file-20180621-137725-58uwac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224302/original/file-20180621-137725-58uwac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224302/original/file-20180621-137725-58uwac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224302/original/file-20180621-137725-58uwac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224302/original/file-20180621-137725-58uwac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224302/original/file-20180621-137725-58uwac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Majority of Catholic women around the world use contraceptives.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dioceseofsaginaw/14368610797">Catholic Diocese of Saginaw Follow</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, do the majority of Catholic women follow the teachings of Humanae Vitae on contraceptive use?</p>
<p>Available data show they do not. Their choice to disregard this teaching <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4682130">started well before the letter was released.</a> Among American Catholic women, for example, as of 1955, 30 percent used artificial contraception. Ten years later, that number had reached 51 percent, all before the ban was reiterated in 1968. </p>
<p>By 1970 the number of Catholic women in the U.S. using birth control hit 68 percent, and today there is <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states">almost no difference</a> between the birth control practices of Catholics and non-Catholics in the United States. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2016/mar/08/contraception-and-family-planning-around-the-world-interactive">Globally, as of 2015</a>, there is little difference between Catholic and non-Catholic regions. For example, the percentage of contraceptive use in heavily Catholic Latin America and the Caribbean was 72.7 percent, – a 36.9 percent increase since 1970 – compared to 74.8 percent in North America.</p>
<p>I would argue the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae is a moment to remember the laywomen who changed Catholic history before, during and after 1968. It was laywomen’s collective decision to disregard the teaching that truly shaped Catholics’ modern attitudes toward birth control.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94544/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary J. Henold is affiliated with Roanoke Indivisible.</span></em></p>On the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, an encyclical released by Pope Paul VI calling for prohibition on contraceptive use, a scholar describes the struggles of Catholic women, as well as their activism.Mary J. Henold, John R. Turbyfill Professor of History, Roanoke CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/612172016-06-19T20:09:45Z2016-06-19T20:09:45ZCatholic church starts small but is clearly thinking big on fossil fuel divestment<p>This week’s decision by four Australian Catholic orders to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/16/catholic-orders-take-their-lead-from-the-pope-and-divest-from-fossil-fuels">divest fully from fossil fuels</a> can be interpreted as a direct response to the <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">encyclical on the environment</a>, issued by Pope Francis <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-popes-environmental-encyclical-promises-to-shake-up-the-climate-debate-43328">almost exactly a year ago</a>. </p>
<p>The amounts of money managed by these Australian groups may be modest, but the announcement is part of the launch of a much wider initiative by the <a href="http://catholicclimatemovement.global/divest-and-reinvest/">Global Catholic Climate Movement</a>, which aims to encourage Catholics to reconsider their investment options, on both an individual and organisational level. </p>
<p>The movement will be holding seminars and provides an <a href="http://catholicclimatemovement.global/divest-and-reinvest/">online divestment hub</a> to encourage Catholics to take their money out of fossil fuels and promote reinvestment in low-carbon technologies.</p>
<h2>The papal view</h2>
<p>A year ago, Pope Francis was very clear in his assessment of the fossil fuel industry. His encyclical warned of the dangers of climate change, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-19/pope-francis-warns-humanity-about-pace-of-consumption/6557822">arguing that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels – especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas – needs to be progressively replaced without delay. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>He also noted that “politics and business have been slow to react in a way commensurate with the urgency of the challenges facing our world”, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-19/pope-francis-warns-humanity-about-pace-of-consumption/6557822">and stressed</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is only a small step from this position to argue that continued investment in fossil fuels, which profit from activities that damage the natural environment, cannot be morally justified. As Bill McKibben, founder of the campaign group 350.org <a href="http://350.org.au/campaigns/go-fossil-free/">which strongly advocates divestment</a>, puts it: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>If it’s wrong to wreck the climate, then it’s wrong to profit from that wreckage. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The same sentiment was echoed in a <a href="http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/geral/noticia/2015-10/catholic-church-leaders-call-just-and-transformational-climate-agreement">2015 statement by Catholic bishops</a> from all continents in response to the encyclical. The bishops called on the world to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…put an end to the fossil fuel era … and provide affordable, reliable and safe renewable energy access for all.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Practical steps</h2>
<p>What does this Catholic divestment drive mean in practice? Contrary to popular imagination, the Catholic Church is not a monolithic command structure controlled by the Pope. It consists of hundreds of thousands of organisations, all relatively autonomous: dioceses, religious orders, lay organisations (such as the St Vincent de Paul Society), charitable and social welfare bodies, educational bodies, superannuation institutions, insurance groups and so on.</p>
<p>All have bank accounts and many have investment portfolios of one type of another. While their funds might vary from thousands to many millions of dollars, the total amount of money within the church as a whole is very substantial. </p>
<p>In my experience, Catholic bodies are also quite tribal. For example, while many other religious bodies in Australia and internationally – including Anglican, Uniting Church, Presbyterian, Quaker and Jewish groups – have divested, Catholic bodies have been slow to take the first step within their own denomination. Each has been waiting for some other Catholic organisation to take the lead. </p>
<p>That is why the recent announcement by four religious orders in Australia is so important, in symbolic terms if nothing else. They have taken the lead where others have been hesitant.</p>
<p>The focus in Australia will now shift to bodies such as Catholic dioceses, <a href="http://ccinsurance.org.au/Pages/Home.aspx">Catholic Church Insurance</a> and <a href="http://www.arrcc.org.au/divest_catholic_super">Catholic Super</a>. All of them operate under investment guidelines that are consistent with the church’s teaching on various matters. So, for example, they would not invest in firms that produce contraceptives. </p>
<p>Given the Pope’s strong position on climate change, the onus is firmly on these organisations to show how they are responding constructively to his teaching. Saying it is “too hard” is not a responsible option.</p>
<p>Any institution as long-lived and as large as the Catholic Church will have accumulated significant assets over the 2,000 years of its existence. This wealth is used to fund activities in welfare, international aid, health care, education and pastoral support around the world. In more recent times it has been used to fund the church’s liabilities in relation to the sexual abuse scandals that have engulfed it. </p>
<p>It is naïve and simplistic to argue that the church should not be wealthy. What is at issue here is where this wealth is invested. While Pope Francis has made no explicit statement on divestment, many in his church are now poised to respond to his environmental message by reassessing their investments in fossil fuels.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61217/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Ormerod is married to Thea Ormerod, president of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC) which is campaigning for divestment among religious bodies in Australia. </span></em></p>A year ago Pope Francis called for better protection for the environment. Now Catholic institutions look poised for widespread divestment from fossil fuels.Neil Ormerod, Professor of Theology, Australian Catholic UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/515722015-12-03T04:13:19Z2015-12-03T04:13:19ZLook to our religious leaders for a climate change Plan B<p>In the lead-up to the Paris climate change summit, US President Barack Obama <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/03/remarks-president-announcing-clean-power-plan">recently said</a> “We only get one planet. There’s no Plan B”. Of course he’s right – there’s no other planet we can retreat to. Obama’s statement emphasized the urgent need for international agreement in Paris to minimise human-caused climate change and its impacts.</p>
<p>Plan A is gaining international agreement, and no one wants to contemplate the next steps if it fails. Yet we’ve been here before – similar sentiments preceded the Copenhagen summit in 2009, but negotiations failed. Since then, climate change has slipped in public importance across the world. </p>
<p>Despite some promising initial announcements from politicians and entrepreneurs, even optimistic predictions of the Paris agreement indicated it will <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/paris-climate-change-conference-zero-emissions-planet">fall short</a> of what is required.</p>
<p>We actually need Plan B.</p>
<p>We need Plan B because the need for action remains even if negotiations fail or fall short. This Plan B would focus on motivating people to do what they can in their own lives, and to pressure their governments to act even in the absence of international agreements.</p>
<p>We need Plan B because even if negotiations succeed, commitments need to be enacted in each country, most likely in the face of pressure from some community sectors. With countries such as Australia committing to review their targets in the future, continued public support and pressure will be critical to enforce, maintain, and strengthen commitments made in Paris.</p>
<h2>So what is Plan B?</h2>
<p>Our [research](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2814.html “) on people’s motivations to act on climate change around the world shows that people were willing to act on climate change, both in reducing their carbon footprints and in supporting government action, to promote a more benevolent (caring and moral) society. This "co-benefit” of climate change action is common across continents, age, gender, political ideology, and even beliefs about the reality and importance of climate change.</p>
<p>This means that a promising way to enhance public support and action is to design policies that promote caring communities when helping the environment, and communicating these co-benefits which are known to be influential <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1532.html">even for people unconvinced climate change is real</a>. You might call it Plan B(enevolence).</p>
<p>Admittedly, this is a less common way to think about climate change action than focusing on the science and economics of climate change and its consequences. This provides a challenge for Plan B.</p>
<p>Who should communicate Plan B? <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3504/Politicians-trusted-less-than-estate-agents-bankers-and-journalists.aspx">Trust in politicians is low</a> in <a href="http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/rankings/">most countries around the world</a>, and climate scientists are unlikely to be seen as experts on society. </p>
<h2>Look to religious leaders</h2>
<p>But morality and caring are the bread and butter of religion. While the world focuses on the science of climate change, religion could now be a lynchpin for achieving widespread action.</p>
<p>A recent case is Pope Francis strong messages on climate change action in his recent US tour and encyclical “<a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">On care for our common home</a>”. His tone was critical – we should act not just to save the environment, but because “around these community actions, relationships develop or are recovered and a new social fabric emerges.” That is, these actions promote stronger communities.</p>
<p>The Pope’s messages produced <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/the-francis-effect/">greater concern</a> about climate change among Catholics, especially among those likely to be <a href="http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FrancisEffectReport.pdf">least convinced</a> about climate change . </p>
<p>Islamic leaders have also made a <a href="http://islamicclimatedeclaration.org/islamic-declaration-on-global-climate-change/">declaration</a> on climate change that highlights care and compassion, stating “Intelligence and conscience behoove us, as our faith commands, to treat all things with care and awe (taqwa) of their Creator, compassion (rahmah) and utmost good (ihsan).”</p>
<p>In short, while science and religion may compete in providing explanations of the universe, they can be partners in promoting social change.</p>
<h2>What about Plan B policies?</h2>
<p>It’s overly optimistic to think that national policies such as a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme can build more caring communities. But government occurs at many levels, and promoting community participation and bringing communities together is often the remit of local government.</p>
<p>Local governments can bring neighbours together in events that need not even have climate change as their core, but where addressing climate change is one of the outcomes of community activities. Local communities can work on both practical and symbolic initiatives that promote both communities and reducing carbon footprints, such as local car-pooling schemes (practical) or planning and promoting their own “<a href="https://earthhour.org.au/home/">Earth hours</a>” (symbolic) to remind the community of environmental issues like climate change </p>
<p>This is not a case of “think global, act local”, but actually “think local, act local (with consequences for a global cause)”. Such “bottom-up” activities on climate change are <a href="http://www.iclei.org/">increasingly acknowledged</a> as important and supported by national and international bodies.</p>
<p>Plan B is no substitute for Plan A, but is likely to be critical for implementing Plan A, and addressing its shortcomings (or failures). Plan B means drawing on strengths in different sections of society, particularly in using the strengths of religion and local governments to help address climate change. </p>
<p>We need Plan B because if the alternative is to rely on an international agreement in Paris to save us, we may need to commence our search for another planet sooner than we think.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51572/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Bain receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The Paris deal will likely fall short of what is needed. So what’s Plan B?Paul Bain, Lecturer in Psychology, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/468152015-09-22T03:19:02Z2015-09-22T03:19:02ZPope works to reconcile Catholic teaching, population pressures and sustainable development<p>On his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/pope-francis-is-coming-to-america-after-avoiding-it-for-78-years.html?_r=0">first visit</a> to the United States, as well as addressing a <a href="http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/christianity/pope-francis-will-likely-confront-u-s-congress-on-these-6-issues">joint session</a> of Congress, Pope Francis will <a href="http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/09/09/pope-francis-un-general-assembly-speech/">speak at</a> the United Nations General Assembly on September 25. There he will highlight concerns in his encyclical, <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html"><em>Laudato Si’</em>: On Care for Our Common Home</a>, especially the issues of poverty, equity, sustainability, social inclusion and peace.</p>
<p>Francis is convinced the threat from global warming is dire. He is trying to help mobilise public opinion, throwing the moral support of the Catholic Church behind efforts to transform the way we live and produce.</p>
<p>Francis is very strategic in his thinking and has written his encyclical with two major events in mind. The first is the UN <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/19/sustainable-development-goals-united-nations">Sustainable Development Goals</a> (SDGs), which 193 countries will endorse at the UN General Assembly. The second event is the second session of the <a href="http://www.catholicnews.org.uk/Home/Featured/Synod-of-Bishops-on-the-Family/Working-Document">Synod of Bishops</a> discussing family matters in Rome from October 4-25.</p>
<h2>Pope seeks consultation and dialogue</h2>
<p><em>Laudato Si’</em> is not the work of an isolated individual. Francis believes strongly in consultation and dialogue, and the encyclical draws from many experts and groups.</p>
<p>Francis is building on consultations with experts in the <a href="http://www.pass.va/content/scienzesociali/en.html">Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences</a>, including <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz">Joseph Stiglitz</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partha_Dasgupta">Partha Dasgupta</a> among its 20 members. The <a href="http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en.html">Pontifical Academy of Sciences</a> with about 80 eminent scientists has also contributed strongly, as has the <a href="http://www.iustitiaetpax.va/content/giustiziaepace/en.html">Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace</a> headed by Cardinal Peter Turkson, who wrote a draft of the encyclical.</p>
<p>There has been overlap between people advising the Vatican and those preparing the Sustainable Development Goals. Francis has met many of the key people refining the SDGs, including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and has been strongly influenced by the work of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen">Amartya Sen</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs">Jeffrey Sachs</a> and Stiglitz.</p>
<p>Francis invites full and open dialogue with all serious points of view. One of Sachs’ critics, Naomi Klein, has recently <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/28/pope-climate-change-naomi-klein">been involved</a> with these consultations.</p>
<h2>The Synod on the Family</h2>
<p>The encyclical did not discuss adequately the issue of population, presumably because it will be part of the agenda at the October Synod of Bishops. Francis would not want to pre-empt what the synod might say and has insisted the bishops <a href="https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/pope-frank">“speak frankly”</a> and honestly.</p>
<p>Francis earlier asked the bishops to encourage their parishes and networks to discuss issues of family life and to feed back responses into the synod process. Nothing like this had been attempted before in the Catholic Church.</p>
<p>Responses appear overwhelmingly to confirm that the great majority of couples have not accepted the teaching of Pope Paul VI against contraception in his 1968 encyclical <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html"><em>Humanae Vitae</em></a>. As US commentator Peter Steinfels <a href="https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/contraception-honesty">wrote</a> in May:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… this “non-reception” should be recognised as a theologically significant fact.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Steinfels suggests that the synod should acknowledge the loyalty of many Catholics, but also the pain <em>Humanae Vitae</em> caused many others.</p>
<p>Since the synod is only for three weeks, Steinfels urged that the church begin a process to review its teaching on sexuality, marriage and family, “placing moral responsibility in conceiving children firmly within the larger framework”, rather than in isolated decisions.</p>
<h2>Pope Francis and responsible parenthood</h2>
<p>Francis attracted media attention with his comment in January about church teaching against artificial contraception. He <a href="http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/papa-filippine-38689/">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This does not mean that the Christian must make children in series … Some think, and excuse the term, that to be good Catholics they must be like rabbits.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Francis said there are many methods to exercise responsible family planning and he thought three children seemed about right. He later had to clarify that he was not criticising people who raised larger families.</p>
<p>One commentator <a href="http://ncronline.org/news/francis-lambasts-international-aid-suggests-catholics-should-limit-children">wrote</a> that it “seems without precedent for a pope” to say that parents may have a responsibility to limit the number of their children. But popes had been saying that for more than 60 years. Their concern was about means.</p>
<p>Various media reported that Francis had strongly backed Pope Paul VI’s teaching against contraception. Yet I can find no instance of the pope using the word contraception, though he did reaffirm the church’s opposition to abortion. Instead he talked in terms of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/pope-francis-catholic-church-contraception">“openness to life”</a> in his address to families in Manila on January 16.</p>
<p>Francis urges pastoral flexibility in interpreting Humanae Vitae. In March 2014, he <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/dont-breed-like-rabbits-was-pope-francis-breaking-new-ground-on-birth-control/2015/01/20/7c7f302e-a0e7-11e4-91fc-7dff95a14458_story.html">commented</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… pastoral action takes into account that which is possible for people to do.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Acknowledging population pressures</h2>
<p>Francis is aware of population pressures in some countries. The <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/">2015 Revision of World Population Prospects</a> indicates that global population is likely to grow much more than the previously expected levelling off around 9 billion people by 2050.</p>
<p>According to the revision, the current world population of 7.3 billion is increasing at 83 million a year. Growth rates are uncertain, but on a <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/international/21619986-un-study-sparks-fears-population-explosion-alarm-misplaced-dont-panic">medium variant projection</a>, population is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100. A higher variant growth rate could result in 16.6 billion people by 2100.</p>
<p>Agricultural and climate experts are warning that it will be extremely difficult to sustain the expected population increase, even with climate change of two degrees Celsius, much less the 4°C that Ban Ki-moon fears.</p>
<p>Some writers hope that breakthroughs in food production can sustain a medium increase in population. Others are less confident. Most experts appear to adopt the precautionary principle, that it is better to restrain population increase as much as possible, though certainly not by coercion.</p>
<p>Catholic teaching <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06pp.htm">holds</a> that couples should be free to decide on the number of their children, taking into account their responsibility to themselves, their children and their community. In difficult circumstances, this <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html">may mean</a> avoiding birth “even for an indeterminate period”.</p>
<p>Asked in an <a href="http://insidethevatican.com/popeswords/pope-francis-corriere-della-sera-interview-march-05-2014">interview</a> in March 2015 if the church would reconsider the topic of birth control, Francis said it depended on how the encyclical was interpreted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The object is not to change the doctrine, but it is a matter of going into the issue in depth and to ensure that the pastoral ministry takes into account the situations of each person and what that person can do. This will also be discussed on the path to the synod.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The way that Francis has been <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-20/pope-francis-catholics-do-not-need-to-breed-like-rabbits/6028836">framing the question</a> of contraception suggests a new openness on these matters:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The key teaching of the church is responsible parenthood. And how do we get to that? By dialogue.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It remains to be seen what will emerge from the Synod of Bishops. A change could help provide the means for Catholics to exercise responsible parenthood where the common good clearly indicates the need for smaller families.</p>
<p>Both the Sustainable Development Goals and <em>Laudato Si’</em> insist that for couples to choose smaller families it is essential that children, particularly girls, have opportunities for equality, education and employment; that nutritional and health standards ensure low maternal, infant and child mortality; that social security systems protect against unemployment, sickness and old age; and that governments provide security and sustainable development. The SDGs offer a detailed program of how to do much of this.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46815/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Duncan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On his first visit to the US, Pope Francis will highlight the challenges of poverty and sustainability. A related issue, he acknowledges, is population. So what does that mean for Catholic teaching?Bruce Duncan, Director of the Yarra Institute for Religion and Social Policy, University of DivinityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/448122015-07-17T14:37:22Z2015-07-17T14:37:22ZThe pope, climate change and the cultural dimensions of the Anthropocene<p>The ink is still drying on the Pope’s Encyclical Letter “<a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">Laudato Si’</a>” or “On Care for Our Common Home,” and scholars, critics and pundits will analyze and assess it for years to come.</p>
<p>But one aspect of the letter becomes clear to anyone who reads it: it is impressively expansive, covering environmental science, economics, international politics, carbon credits, social equity, technology, consumerism, social media, theology, and much more. Getting to the root of our “ecological crisis,” Pope Francis calls for us to “promote a new way of thinking about human beings, life, society and our relationship with nature.” It’s a bold appeal to reevaluate our worldviews, values and spiritual beliefs.</p>
<p>But why now? The modern environmental movement has been with us for more than 50 years, leading to social movements, myriad legislation and lifestyle changes that reflect environmentalists’ modern focus on sustainability. Why does the pope’s encyclical on ecology resonate so much today? </p>
<p>I’d like to offer one thought on why this message is important at this point in human history. We are at a unique moment in our time on Earth as a species, one never faced before and one requiring a new system of ethics, values, beliefs, worldviews and above all, spirituality. </p>
<p>Geophysicists have given this moment a name; it is called <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/?no-ist">the Anthropocene</a>. The pope’s landmark encyclical provides a moral compass to help navigate this emerging era.</p>
<h2>Changing view of humanity</h2>
<p>The Anthropocene is a proposed new geologic epoch, one which leaves the Holocene behind and acknowledges that humans are now a primary operating element in the Earth’s ecosystems. </p>
<p>Though the concept has not yet received full, formal recognition by geophysical societies, it points out that we can no longer describe the environment without including the role that humans play in how it operates. This era is argued to have started around the industrial revolution of the early 1800s, and has become more acute since “<a href="http://mfs.uchicago.edu/public/institutes/2013/climate/prereadings/steffen_et_al--the_anthropocene.pdf">the Great Acceleration</a>” around 1950 onwards. It is marked by the reality that, according to Nobel-prize winning, atmospheric chemist <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6867/full/415023a.html">Paul Crutzen</a> who first proposed the term: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Human activity has transformed between a third and a half of the land surface of the planet; Many of the world’s major rivers have been dammed or diverted; Fertilizer plants produce more nitrogen than is fixed naturally by all terrestrial ecosystems; Humans use more than half of the world’s readily accessible freshwater runoff.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Though the pope singles out climate change in his encyclical letter, this is just one of a number of “<a href="http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/">planetary boundaries</a>” that scientists say represent “thresholds below which humanity can safely operate and beyond which the stability of planetary-scale systems cannot be relied upon.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88710/original/image-20150716-5104-1tuu41.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88710/original/image-20150716-5104-1tuu41.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88710/original/image-20150716-5104-1tuu41.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88710/original/image-20150716-5104-1tuu41.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88710/original/image-20150716-5104-1tuu41.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88710/original/image-20150716-5104-1tuu41.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88710/original/image-20150716-5104-1tuu41.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88710/original/image-20150716-5104-1tuu41.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate change is one of nine planetary boundaries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Planetary_Boundaries.png">Felix Mueller</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In terms of science, acknowledging an unprecedented shift in our geophysical reality would be a significant and unprecedented moment in history. But, the <a href="http://oae.sagepub.com/content/28/1/8.abstract">social and cultural shift</a> is even more profound. </p>
<p>Consider the central cultural question of climate change: Do you believe that we, as a species, have grown to such numbers and our technology to such power that we can alter the global climate? </p>
<p>If you answer this question in the affirmative, then a series of related cultural challenges emerge. Climate change represents a deep shift in the way we view ourselves, each other, the environment and our place within it. Addressing this problem will require the most complicated and intrusive global agreement ever negotiated. It will also require a shift in our sense of global ethics around collective responsibility and social equity.</p>
<p>The fossil fuels burned in Ann Arbor, Shanghai, or Moscow have an equal impact on the global environment we all share. The kind of cooperation necessary to solve this problem is far beyond anything that we, as a species, have ever accomplished before. International treaties to ban land mines or eliminate ozone-depleting substances pale in comparison.</p>
<h2>Climate as proxy for Anthropocene</h2>
<p>Recognition of the Anthropocene signals an urgency and complexity that the general idea of <a href="http://www.citeulike.org/group/13799/article/13602458">sustainable development</a> lacks, compelling change deep within the structures of our collective understanding of the world around us.</p>
<p>According to geographer and political philosopher <a href="http://phg.sagepub.com/content/38/3/439.full">Rory Rowan</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Anthropocene is not a problem for which there can be a solution. Rather, it names an emergent set of geo-social conditions that already fundamentally structure the horizon of human existence. It is thus not a new factor that can be accommodated within existing conceptual frameworks, including those within which policy is developed, but signals a profound shift in the human relation to the planet that questions the very foundations of these frameworks themselves. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Droughts, wildfires, food insecurity, water scarcity, and the social unrest that results are all emergent markers of the Anthropocene Era that point to a fundamental system failure created by our social structures. We now have control over the biosphere and therefore, the human systems which depend on it, in ways that are monumental.</p>
<p>A response to the Anthropocene Era calls for a new set of values and beliefs about our relationship with the environment, with each other and for many, with God. And this is what the pope’s encyclical letter is trying to articulate. </p>
<p>This will not go down easily. The accompanying tensions that such a shift will create can be vividly observed in the <a href="http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=25621">currently polarized debate over climate change</a>. The cultural and ideological elements of religion, government, ideology and worldviews that animate the climate change debate offer a glimpse into the cultural dimensions of recognition of the Anthropocene.</p>
<h2>New ethics and values required</h2>
<p>In the end, the Anthropocene challenges our ways of understanding the environment and how they change on both regional and global scales. It leads to a transformative cultural shift that is akin to the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. </p>
<p>The Enlightenment was built on a cultural shift from perceiving nature as subsuming the human endeavor, to one in which humankind embarked on the “conquest of nature” and a metaphor of the planet as an enemy to be subdued.</p>
<p>In similar ways, the Anthropocene is an acknowledgment that the scientific method essential to the Enlightenment is no longer fully adequate to understand the natural world and our impact upon it. As the pope points out: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Given the complexity of the ecological crisis and its multiple causes, we need to realize that the solutions will not emerge from just one way of interpreting and transforming reality…If we are truly concerned to develop an ecology capable of remedying the damage we have done, no branch of the sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out, and that includes religion and the language particular to it. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In responding to the "urgent challenge to protect our common home,” he asks us “to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development.”</p>
<p>Indeed, this kind of global common cause is a challenge we have not yet faced as a species. It will require a level of cooperation that we are not prepared for, and that requires a global set of ethics and values we do not yet know.</p>
<p>Many have compared Pope Francis’ letter to the 1891 Encyclical Letter “<a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html">Rerum Novarum</a>” or “Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor,” in which Pope Leo XIII addressed the condition of the working classes. In offering a way to understand the unprecedented confusion of clashing capitalist and communist notions of labor in the midst of the industrial revolution, Rerum Novarum has become a foundational document for Catholic social teaching.</p>
<p>Will Laudito Si’ offer a similarly transformative way to understand the unprecedented confusion over global scale environmental and social changes that we are creating?</p>
<p>The answer to that question is not solely a testament to the Encyclical Letter’s importance; it will be a testament to our ability to hear a message that is hard to hear, and harder still to act upon. As paleontologist and science writer <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Flamingos-Smile-Reflections-Natural/dp/0393303756">Stephen Jay Gould</a> wrote in 1985: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have become, by the power of a glorious evolutionary accident called intelligence, the stewards of life’s continuity on earth. We did not ask for this role, but we cannot abjure it. We may not be suited to it, but here we are. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Pope Francis is asking us to face this new reality with respect for the natural world around us and a humility to recognize our limitations in understanding how it works and what we are doing to it. He is asking it at a key moment in time when we are taking a new place in the natural world; what he is careful to call “creation” a term that connotes far more spiritual importance.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>To read more on the papal encyclical, see:</em></p>
<p>-<a href="https://theconversation.com/pope-encyclical-on-ecological-crisis-asks-us-to-examine-our-deepest-values-and-beliefs-43514">Pope encyclical on ‘ecological crisis’ asks us to examine our deepest values and beliefs</a></p>
<p>-<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-pope-as-messenger-making-climate-change-a-moral-issue-39972">The pope as messenger: making climate change a moral issue</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44812/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The ink is still drying on the Pope’s Encyclical Letter “Laudato Si’” or “On Care for Our Common Home,” and scholars, critics and pundits will analyze and assess it for years to come. But one aspect of…Andrew J. Hoffman, Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/440672015-07-17T10:18:47Z2015-07-17T10:18:47ZWhen it comes to the environment, minority communities care about more than injustice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88691/original/image-20150716-5080-5ykgh0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Among certain minority religious communities, there's a focus on homegrown or locally grown food. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-33409399/stock-photo-african-american-farmer-holding-seeds-in-hands-with-prepared-soil-in-background.html?src=pd-same_artist-33409396-bCJ4Ssvk8Vao_T36ioXFUg-1">'Hands' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Pope Francis’ <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">encyclical on the environment</a> has been praised for its potential to make the environmental crisis a central religious concern for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/papal-fan-club-takes-to-the-media-after-encyclical/2015/06/18/74084268-15f0-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.html">people of all faiths</a>. This should bring new, diverse voices to the environmental movement, which historically <a href="http://grist.org/article/klingle/">has attracted affluent, white participants</a>. </p>
<p>Numerous studies since the 1980s have shown that <a href="http://www.ucc.org/environmental-ministries_environmental-racism">environmental racism</a> plays a key role in environmental decision-making. <a href="http://www.ejnet.org/ej/twart.pdf">Toxic waste sites</a>, landfills and polluting industries are located disproportionately in minority communities. </p>
<p>Because examples of environmental racism are so prevalent, people assume that minorities’ experiences of the environment are defined by environmental problems. </p>
<p>Indeed, discussions about minorities and environmentalism – whether it’s in <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122131/after-deluge-building-climate-justice-wreckage-katrina">news articles</a>, among members of <a href="http://www.creationjustice.org/climate-change-and-communities-of-color.html">religious groups</a> or within <a href="http://politic365.com/2015/06/01/sierra-club-diversifying-green-movement-with-first-black-board-chair/">environmental organizations</a> – tend to focus narrowly on <a href="http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/">environmental justice</a>: the idea that minority communities deserve equal protection from environmental hazards. </p>
<p>But is this actually the sole reason that minority communities care about the environment?</p>
<p>In my research, I’ve found that in many cases, the answer is no. </p>
<h2>Whitewashed environmentalism</h2>
<p>A <a href="http://publicreligion.org/research/2014/11/believers-sympathizers-skeptics-americans-conflicted-climate-change-environmental-policy-science/#.VZLMFaYfkt8">2014 national survey</a> of over 3,000 Americans found that Hispanic Catholics were twice as likely as white Catholics to be concerned about climate change. Black Protestants were more likely to be concerned than white mainline Protestants or white evangelicals. </p>
<p>Clearly, communities of color demonstrate concern for the planet. Yet environmental groups have failed to attract them and continue to be “predominately white,” according to <a href="http://diversegreen.org/report/">one study</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/within-mainstream-environmentalist-groups-diversity-is-lacking/2013/03/24/c42664dc-9235-11e2-9cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html">Mainstream environmentalism</a> grew out of the efforts of conservationists to protect wild places from development. Since the 1960s, environmental groups have expanded their conservationist agendas to include issues such as toxic waste, pollution and environmental justice. But environmentalism has retained an <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/14/environmentalists-ditch-their-patron-saint-because-he-was-an-old-rich-white-guy/">elitist reputation</a>, as the movement focused on protecting nature to benefit the wealthy. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, vociferous <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/may/05/evangelical-christian-environmentalism-green-dragon">climate change denial</a> by evangelical leaders such as Calvin Beisner and the Cornwall Institute (see, especially, <a href="http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/">this series of DVDs</a>) contributes to popular ideas that conservative religious groups do not support environmental causes. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88700/original/image-20150716-5084-n69ggq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88700/original/image-20150716-5084-n69ggq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88700/original/image-20150716-5084-n69ggq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88700/original/image-20150716-5084-n69ggq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88700/original/image-20150716-5084-n69ggq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88700/original/image-20150716-5084-n69ggq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88700/original/image-20150716-5084-n69ggq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">While environmental racism is still a problem, minority communities care about the environment for reasons beyond what’s happening in their backyards.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kaiban/11700090946/in/photolist-iPU2pY-59nPxf-bZ7vxG-97tdfR-q52D8-agndJe-4Zq1t9-o2NMu4-5mdcsQ-dMnNk1-avva2X-avv9Gp-vijh5f-nPqxRR-cD2WYA-cD2W7U-pa24KM-qnJbyq-84Vebk-7deXhP-oxq75K-9CgbQb-qPn3X4-q7YA72-6MzxNV-7deXpz-myg8NN-7AKJNV-vBKGB5-r4H6m5-pPfdLX-eWL1YA-fC7XL-7L6XtH-avv9mT-avxMKw-avxMXQ-e81wR8-avxNPW-avxNLA-avxP1y-avxP7y-avvapD-62tyqz-dpfMbC-avv91i-avv946-pjCyvK-9ywLLn-od9Vxs">Jack Zalium/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A historic connection to homegrown food</h2>
<p>My research among participants with <a href="http://faithinplace.org/">Faith in Place</a>, an interfaith environmental organization in Chicago, showed that people develop environmental values for many reasons. </p>
<p>In keeping with Pope Francis’ argument that <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-pope-as-messenger-making-climate-change-a-moral-issue-39972">climate change is a moral issue</a> that disproportionately affects the poor, Faith in Place leaders framed the environmental crisis as a social justice issue. Religious communities should care about the environment, they insisted, because environmental degradation hurts poor people “first and the worst.” </p>
<p>But Faith in Place participants also engaged in eco-friendly behaviors for other reasons. Veronica Kyle, director of congregational outreach, recruited more than 800 African-American Protestants from Chicago’s South and West Sides to the organization. She did so by focusing on topics besides social justice. Instead, she talked about positive relationships with nature, and the economic opportunities that can come with involvement in mainstream environmentalism.</p>
<p>For example, in a <a href="http://practicingourfaith.org/pdf/Just%20Eating%20Participant%20Book.pdf">Bible study</a> she led on food and faith, Kyle encouraged African Americans to identify with environmentalism by embracing their agricultural histories. African Americans don’t celebrate the history of slavery or sharecropping, for obvious reasons. But Kyle encouraged the Bible study participants to celebrate the positive aspects of their historic relationship with the land.</p>
<p>“We used to eat local all of the time!” she declared, eliciting participants’ memories of their Southern childhoods when their families grew their own food.</p>
<p>Kyle also urged African Americans to become “environmentally literate” so they could benefit from opportunities in the emerging green economy. At Faith in Place, she developed programs to provide training and temporary employment in weatherization and organic gardening projects. Kyle hoped alumni of these programs would harness their new skills in “green” careers. </p>
<p>Kyle acknowledged the legacy and persistence of environmental racism. But she sought to move conversations beyond that singular focus, encouraging African Americans to cultivate and celebrate positive experiences in nature instead of strictly combating negative experiences.</p>
<h2>For Hispanic Catholics, nature is sacred</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, my research on Hispanic Catholics in Los Angeles also suggests their relationship with the environment goes beyond opposing environmental injustice. </p>
<p>In focus groups that my bilingual students Stefanie Fajardo and Carlos Santiago helped me conduct at a Hispanic Catholic church in May of this year, immigrants from Latin America expressed deep environmental convictions. Those beliefs grew from connections to their ancestral homelands and an understanding of nature as inseparable from God. </p>
<p>“We become conscious of nature as soon as we become familiar with God,” one participant told us. “The simple fact of being Catholic and believing in God and the Bible means we’re conscious of nature and the environment.” </p>
<p>Another participant added, “As a Catholic, I believe that God and nature are one. We need to raise consciousness about climate change and conservation.”</p>
<p>The Hispanic Catholics I met cared about the environment because they’d had positive experiences with nature. Their concerns about environmental degradation arose from values like love and respect – values they’d learned through their families, culture and religion, which were inextricably linked. </p>
<p>Both the African American and Hispanic communities I studied challenge the generalization that theologically conservative groups tend to not prioritize environmental concerns. Such generalizations seem to rely on considerations of environmental values among high-profile <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/06/19/the-historical-roots-of-white-evangelical-anti-environmentalism/">white evangelical leaders</a>. They assume mainstream, white ideas of what constitutes environmental activism. </p>
<p>Environmental organizations remain predominately white in part because they are not connecting with the actual concerns of minorities. If new communities are going to embrace environmentalism in the aftermath of the pope’s encyclical, that needs to change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44067/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda J Baugh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Yes, environmental racism is still a problem, but recent research shows that minority groups care about protecting the environment because of the positive experiences they’ve had.Amanda J Baugh, Assistant Professor of Religion and Environment, California State University, NorthridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/446382015-07-15T10:14:19Z2015-07-15T10:14:19ZThe pope as philosopher: faith, climate change and public reason<p>In his landmark <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">encyclical Laudato si’</a>, Pope Francis wrote the following words: “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.”</p>
<p>In doing so, the pope provides the tone for a papal encyclical unique in its ambition to address not just Catholics but all of humanity. </p>
<p>Aside from the importance of the pope’s focus on climate change as a moral issue – something we <a href="http://www.vice.com/read/philosophers-react-to-the-impending-anthropogenic-apocalypse">moral philosophers</a> have been pointing out for a long while – I find the encyclical notable for its example of how reason ought to be incorporated into public discourse. </p>
<h2>Public reason</h2>
<p>Maintaining a free and open society along with equitable restraints that allow for its sustained existence is not a laissez-faire proposition. It requires the guidance of reason to inform our political and legal policies as well as our economic priorities. The development of tolerant laws and political procedures are means by which we are spared the more vicious aspects of nature – not least of all human nature. This same commitment to reason is essential for responsible public discourse meant to foster social cooperation in the context of cultural and ideological differences.</p>
<p>Public reason is a vital philosophical component of modern democratic liberalism. The idea of public reason is detectable in the 18th-century philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant and was developed more fully in the 20th-century writings of philosopher John Rawls. It signals a discursive commitment to the neutral framework of reason when discussing ideologically charged topics on the public stage. </p>
<p>Public reason requires that our arguments be framed for other free and equal citizens in ways they are capable of understanding, if not agreeing with, regardless of private religious or parochial commitments. This means, for instance, that when arguing about basic issues of justice, including those arising from anthropogenic climate change, one ought to resist arguing in religious terms. One may acknowledge such commitments, to be sure, but if religious arguments are invoked, then public reason would have them be of a nature easily translatable into secular terms identifiable by all. </p>
<p>Moreover, in order to avoid the more obvious traps of partisan posturing, public reason would have reasonable citizens reference the findings of established scientific consensus, when such consensus is available (as it is on global warming and climate change), in the course of public discourse. It may be the case that some individuals disagree with any given scientific consensus, but responsible discourse demands that they at least acknowledge its existence before attempting to explain their own disagreement. Political figures owe their constituents this minimal level of discursive decency if society is to fulfill its function as a system of fair cooperation over time among free and equal citizens. </p>
<p>In one of the highest teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the pope has managed to publicly address the global community in terms that all reasonable people, not just members of the Catholic faith, can understand. Crucially, the pope relied on established science to do so.</p>
<p>The pope argues correctly, and independently of Catholic theology, that climate change gravely impacts the world’s poorest, who are least responsible for the problem. It is this reality that places a moral pressure on the developed world, most responsible for climate change, to address the problem. This moral understanding is common to both Catholic and secular conceptions of social justice. </p>
<p>The encyclical goes on to argue, again correctly, that present rates of fossil fuel-based consumption are not sustainable. Indeed, the pope, as one would expect, makes the connection between the above moral concerns, the scientific reality and the consequences for Catholic teaching in a way clearly understandable to reasonable people of all faiths and none.</p>
<h2>Reason to bridge gaps</h2>
<p>Pope Francis is not the only public person of faith capable of speaking inclusively in the diverse civic sphere. The atmospheric scientist <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katharine-hayhoe-175111">Katharine Hayhoe</a>, a member of the political science department at Texas Tech University, is an evangelical Christian and powerful public communicator on climate change. Dr Hayhoe’s ability to acknowledge the concerns of her fellow Christians, explain the established science clearly and consistently connect theological concepts to the need for action on climate change has earned her a place on Time’s list of the world’s 100 most influential people. What makes Hayhoe so appealing across diverse ideological segments of society is her ability to acknowledge differences while emphasizing the inclusive framework of science and reason.</p>
<p>It isn’t surprising that political conservatives like Rick Santorum, James Inhofe and Jeb Bush were <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/17/jeb-bush-joins-republican-backlash-pope-climate-change">unhappy</a> with the pope’s recent encyclical on the environment. We should compare the examples of public reason provided by Pope Francis and Katharine Hayhoe with the more divisive ideological framing of those political figures who hypocritically seek to dismiss the papal encyclical as a religious intrusion into politics while willfully ignoring both the consensus of science and the common good of informed public discourse in a modern democratic society.</p>
<p>We are an ideologically diverse species living on a planet of rich, increasingly threatened, ecological diversity. The survival of the former ultimately depends on the flourishing of the latter. Despite this critical fact, we, as an intelligent species, seem incapable so far of mustering the collective will to preserve the very environmental space needed for our own existence. Unless we find the means to work together across our many comprehensive religious, cultural and political divides, our tenure on this planet will be brief.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44638/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lawrence Torcello does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The papal encyclical uses moral arguments for environmental protection, yet as a philosophical statement, it’s a terrific example of “public reason.”Lawrence Torcello, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/437152015-07-03T04:33:29Z2015-07-03T04:33:29ZEndorsing the salvation of animals, Pope warns of Earth’s end<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86187/original/image-20150624-20094-f5v0nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In elevating the status of animals, the Pope looks back to Francis of Assisi's example and looks ahead to the prospect of environmental catastrophe.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/eltb/3350891698">Flickr/Enrique López-Tamayo Biosca</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Only at the end of Pope Francis’ recent encyclical, <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">Laudato Si</a>, do we find what is perhaps his most significant theological statement about the created world. For in #243, Francis endorses the idea of the salvation, not just of humanity, but of all creatures. He writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which each creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not one of the creatures of this Earth, Francis concludes in his final hymn, “is forgotten in your sight”. </p>
<p>In suggesting the ultimate restoration of all creatures, Francis is breaking with the weight of Western philosophical and theological tradition. Overall, this has been on the side of those who, emphasising the radical qualitative distinction between the human and animal realms, denied the immortality of animals. <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm">Aristotle</a>, <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm">St Thomas Aquinas</a> and <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=7_Ba1sm0jP4C&pg=PA950&lpg=PA950&dq=St+Augustine+animals+souls&source=bl&ots=Gqk1pFTYGG&sig=uWkMPOuYua0l43GAZi4swiMl0vY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZBOKVYLLGMLLmwW014C4Dw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=St%20Augustine%20animals%20souls&f=false">St Augustine</a> ruled against animals having a rational soul. </p>
<p>The Catholic tradition has viewed the human as unique in having an immortal soul created at the time of conception – or close to it. </p>
<h2>From ruling over nature to caring for it</h2>
<p>This philosophical tradition of the uniqueness of the human was reinforced by a theology that saw the superiority of the human over the animal as arising at the time of the creation, when God <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-28.htm">granted</a> to humanity dominion over every living thing on Earth. It was a dominion often read as conferring upon people a right to do to the creation whatever they liked, rather than a divinely decreed responsibility to care for it. </p>
<p>This perspective was reinforced in the 17th century by the French philosopher René Descartes’ <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SH1c">view of nature</a> as “dead”. This relegated animals to the status of nothing more than machines that were only dead matter and, unlike humans, did not consist of a mortal body and an immortal soul.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86200/original/image-20150624-783-3f39k8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86200/original/image-20150624-783-3f39k8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86200/original/image-20150624-783-3f39k8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86200/original/image-20150624-783-3f39k8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86200/original/image-20150624-783-3f39k8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86200/original/image-20150624-783-3f39k8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86200/original/image-20150624-783-3f39k8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86200/original/image-20150624-783-3f39k8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The close connection between people and pets helped transform our thinking about animals in general.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-273517481/stock-photo-puppy-and-kitten-posing-together-on-a-white-background.html?src=p3jzZrHgcSCBmP9W5kp76A-1-17">Shutterstock/Jagodka</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet it was during this same century that the developing practice of keeping <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_and_the_Natural_World:_Changing_Attitudes_in_England_1500%E2%80%931800">animals as pets</a>, particularly in England, led to new understandings of the connections of people and animals. As it was becoming progressively more difficult to think of happiness in Heaven without the possibility of reunion with one’s friends and family, so it was also becoming more problematic to conceive how happiness in Heaven could be complete in the absence of animals who had loved and had been loved so much.</p>
<p>In the 19th century, as in the 17th, faith in a just and loving God was being tested by the belief that the vast majority of humans would be consigned to an eternity of torments in Hell. But faith in the goodness of God was also being much tried by the sufferings of innocent animals in this present life. They apparently had no compensation for their current miseries in a future one. </p>
<p>The decline of belief in the natural immortality of the human soul in the 19th century also served to open up immortality to those who until then had never been conceived to have had a soul. Ironically, perhaps, Darwin’s account of evolution served to exacerbate the problem of animal immortality. For, granted that humans had evolved from animals, either we all had immortality or none of us did.</p>
<p>For those who still believed in the existence of “spirit” (and that was most), theology, science and sentimentality now combined in favour of the animals. </p>
<p>All this came together in the 19th-century parson-naturalist and popular science writer, J. G Wood. In his <a href="http://www.forgottenbooks.com/books/Man_and_Beast_Here_and_Hereafter_1000649945">Man and Beast: Here and Hereafter</a>, he set out to minimise the difference between the human and the animal by arguing that both the Bible and reason pointed to their continued existence. He claimed for animals “a future life in which they can be compensated for the sufferings that many of them have to undergo in this world”. He did so by decisively breaking with the mechanistic view of nature.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I do so chiefly because I am quite sure that most of the cruelties which are perpetrated on the animals are due to the habit of considering them as mere machines, without susceptibilities, without reason, and without the capacity for a future.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Eden restored at end of history</h2>
<p>All of which leads us back to Pope Francis. In his encyclical, he too declares that human dominion over nature confers a divinely decreed responsibility to care for the world rather than accords to people the right to do to the creation whatever they like. And he decisively breaks with any mechanistic view of nature. Each creature “reflects something of God”, he declares.</p>
<p>As a consequence, Francis writes, humans need to nurture:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… that sublime fraternity with all creation which Saint Francis of Assisi so radiantly embodied. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is going too far to suggest that Francis is endorsing the popular Western view, in existence since the middle of the 19th century, that our deceased pets are now in Heaven awaiting us or that they will eventually join us there. Rather, he should be read not as proclaiming the survival of all creatures immediately after death so much as the ultimate restoration of all creatures at the end of history. </p>
<p>This is one aspect of the Platonic tradition of the divine plenitude (abundance) in which all creatures share. It is also part of a Christian tradition that sees what follows the end of the world in terms of an Eden restored, of a return to that state of purity and innocence in the garden (Paradise) that prevailed at the beginning of the world.</p>
<p>This is a theme that reaches back through St Augustine to the beginnings of Christianity. This is a Heaven in which animals will find a home, as they did in the original Paradise – a <a href="http://biblehub.com/isaiah/65-25.htm">place</a> where “the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox”, a place where pain and sorrow are no more. </p>
<p>It is a time when this Earth will be no more. It is also a time which, as Francis makes perfectly clear in his encyclical, he expects sooner rather than later, especially if we don’t <a href="https://theconversation.com/pope-encyclical-on-ecological-crisis-asks-us-to-examine-our-deepest-values-and-beliefs-43514">get our environmental act together</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43715/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip C. Almond does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In suggesting the ultimate restoration of all creatures in his recent encyclical, Pope Francis is breaking with the weight of Western philosophical and theological tradition.Philip C. Almond, Professorial Research Fellow in the History of Religious Thought, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/436902015-06-23T16:46:10Z2015-06-23T16:46:10ZThe pope plays his trump card: teaching the power of moral actions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86151/original/image-20150623-19374-1vog13z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Avian winter</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jon Moore</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Pope Francis framed climate change as a moral problem and issued a call to conscience, he played a powerful card. That’s because a moral argument trumps – that is, negates the power of – the usual, self-serving responses to a call for action on climate, like “reducing carbon emissions will cut into my profits” or “addressing climate change requires sacrifices.”</p>
<p>The fossil-fuel economy creates injustice on a global scale, the pope wrote in his recent <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">Encyclical Laudato Si’</a>, an authoritative statement of moral principle. It irredeemably harms the blameless – the poor, the children, plants and animals, future generations. And so, it is morally wrong. What does “wrong” mean? </p>
<p>As environmental philosophers, here’s what we think: It means you should wash your hands of it. That’s it. No excuses. From now on, those who want out of the obligation to do what’s right on climate will have to give reasons, reasons more powerful than moral principle. That may not be possible. The fossil-fuel economy now joins the slave economy as moral poison.</p>
<h2>Social unrest</h2>
<p>In the encyclical, Pope Francis played an entire hand of reasons why we must turn away from the greed-driven, extractive economy based on fossil fuels. It’s a brilliant display of science- and values-based reasoning.</p>
<p>First and repeatedly, he excoriates the injustice of global warming: “We can be silent witnesses to terrible injustices if we think that we can obtain significant benefits by making the rest of humanity, present and future, pay the extremely high costs of environmental deterioration.” He appeals to our love of children: “What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us?” He calls us to honor our duty to care for creation: “The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity, and the responsibility of everyone.” He speaks of the consequences of failing to act: “Our concern cannot be limited merely to the threat of extreme weather events, but must also extend to the catastrophic consequences of social unrest.” And he bluntly calls out greed and selfishness, urging God to “enlighten those who possess power and money, that they may avoid the sin of indifference.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86003/original/image-20150622-17739-1ae43ev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86003/original/image-20150622-17739-1ae43ev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86003/original/image-20150622-17739-1ae43ev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86003/original/image-20150622-17739-1ae43ev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86003/original/image-20150622-17739-1ae43ev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86003/original/image-20150622-17739-1ae43ev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86003/original/image-20150622-17739-1ae43ev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86003/original/image-20150622-17739-1ae43ev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Linking the social dimension to environmental issues.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pope_Francis_at_Vargihna.jpg">Tânia Rêgo/Agência Brasil</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Pope Francis spreads his arms to link social and ecological wrongs, the desperate instability of the poor and the fragility of the planet. We have to “integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor.” </p>
<p>The wholeness of the planet, the interdependence of all beings, calls us to a personal wholeness as well. It is “no longer enough to speak only of the integrity of ecosystems,” Pope Francis declared. “We have to dare to speak of the integrity of human life.”</p>
<h2>Personal lessons?</h2>
<p>A life guided by a moral vision is a life of integrity, of wholeness, of consistency between what we believe to be true and just, and what we do. </p>
<p>People lead lives of integrity when their moral principles are the source of their power and the ground of their decisions. To live justly, because you believe in justice. To live simply, because you don’t believe in taking more than your fair share. To live gratefully, because you believe that life is a gift. That said, what does the Papal Encyclical mean for you and me – not just for Catholics, but for all people who aspire to lead a life they believe in?</p>
<p>From a commitment to integrity, at least two things follow, a refusal and an affirmation: First, we must refuse to allow ourselves to be made into agents of harm and destruction in the extractive economy’s war against the world. This requires acts of conscientious refusal, turning away from “the constant flood of consumer goods that can baffle the mind.” This requires finding, creating, insisting on our right to alternatives to fossil fuels and life-destroying practices.</p>
<p>Some of this is individual effort. The Pope calls these “little daily actions” and praises them. “We must not think that these efforts are not going to change the world. They benefit society, often unbeknownst to us, for they call forth a goodness which, albeit unseen, inevitably tends to spread.” But social problems must be addressed by social action, not by the sum of individual acts, and so we are called to create community networks of resistance and action. And we are called to press our leaders to fulfill their responsibilities.</p>
<p>Second, we must creatively and collectively re-imagine who we are, we human beings, and how we ought to live. In the dominant culture’s worldview of “tyrannical anthropocentrism,” we imagine ourselves to be essentially “masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on [our] immediate needs.” So it’s easy to imagine only a grey and dystopic future, peopled with walking zombies. But the pope has something far more beautiful in mind, something far more difficult to achieve. He calls it a “civilization of love.”</p>
<p>Imagine that the world has been given to us as a gift “which we have freely received and must share with others.” Then, “intergenerational solidarity is not an option, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us.” This changes everything. It allows us to begin the great work of “planning a sustainable and diversified agriculture, developing renewable and less polluting forms of energy, encouraging a more efficient use of energy, promoting a better management of marine and forest resources, and ensuring universal access to drinking water.” Let it begin.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43690/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Paul Nelson receives funding from The National Science Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathleen Dean Moore does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The pope’s encyclical on ecology addresses all individuals who want to live with integrity – and their ability to take personal actions on global problems.Kathleen Dean Moore, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Oregon State UniversityMichael Paul Nelson, Professor of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, Oregon State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/435552015-06-19T08:53:21Z2015-06-19T08:53:21ZAbbott has papal disconnect on fossil fuels, renewables<p>Tony Abbott gets some lucky breaks. Imagine if Pope Francis had issued <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">this week’s encyclical</a> – with its clarion call for the world to address climate change – last year in the run up to the G20 hosted by Australia.</p>
<p>Then, the government was trying to limit the extent to which the issue became a major focus during the Brisbane summit.</p>
<p>As things turned out, the effort was considerably stymied by <a href="https://theconversation.com/obama-protect-barrier-reef-from-climate-change-34278">Barack Obama’s speech</a> coinciding with the meeting. That was bad enough for the government – words from the Pope would have been extremely awkward.</p>
<p>The encyclical, in which Pope Francis casts the climate challenge as universal and pressing, with a moral overlay, comes as countries are releasing the post-2020 emission reduction targets they will take to the United Nations conference on climate change in Paris late this year.</p>
<p>Given his status, Pope Francis’ strong views will be a significant input to the international debate, although the document stresses “the church does not presume to settle scientific questions”.</p>
<p>The climate sceptics who try to discredit those arguing the need for robust action will have to make an assault on a formidable figure.</p>
<p>“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climate system,” the encyclical says.</p>
<p>“A number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases … released mainly as a result of human activity…</p>
<p>"If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us…</p>
<p>"There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy.”</p>
<p>Tony Abbott, a devout Catholic, is out of step with his pope on the urgency of addressing climate change, and the relative merits of fossil fuels and renewable energy.</p>
<p>Abbott talks up coal, and talks down renewables. Recently he let fly about the ugliness of wind farms. Now the government is proposing a wind farm commissioner who would pass on complaints to the relevant authorities.</p>
<p>Given Abbott’s lack of enthusiasm for anything but minimalism on climate, Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop (who is responsible for the climate issue internationally) work around him to the extent they can. Australia has yet to release its targets for Paris – that will be the government’s next test.</p>
<p>Beyond Paris, the Coalition is looking to put Labor on the defensive over climate policy for next year’s election.</p>
<p>Bill Shorten has said the ALP policy will be based on an emissions trading scheme. But we don’t know the detail nor how much of the economy would be covered or what accompanying policies there may be.</p>
<p>We can be sure Labor will try to keep the scheme modest and unthreatening and perhaps rely on other measures to go on the offensive. Even so, the opposition will be vulnerable to a Coalition fear campaign that says an ALP government would bring back a “great big tax”. And we’re seeing, in the issue of citizenship, how ferociously Abbott can whip up a scare.</p>
<p>The encyclical is potentially helpful to Labor, in the sense of contributing positively to the general context in which the debate will take place.</p>
<p>Polling suggests the public is engaging more with the climate issue. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-very-fearful-of-islamic-state-and-terrorism-lowy-poll-finds-43279">Lowy Institute’s annual poll</a>, released this week, showed the third consecutive rise in people’s concern about global warming. One in two (50%) agree that it is a “serious and pressing problem” and “we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs”. This is an increase of five points since 2014 and 14 points since 2012, although it is well under the 68% of 2006.</p>
<p>The Climate Institute’s John Connor doesn’t over-estimate the Pope’s intervention but sees it as one element in what could be a gathering “perfect storm”, the way John Howard has described the 2006 combination of events, attitudes and overseas voices that led him to switch to an activist policy for political reasons – and helped Kevin Rudd to power in 2007.</p>
<p>Apart from a re-emerging public interest, Connor says the pools of private capital are beginning to become “much more aware of the risks of carbon assets” and “a number of companies are quite concerned at the poverty of policy tools here. There is a feeling that there needs to be a restatement of the direction of climate policy in Australia as well as a smarter policy toolbox than that in direct action.”</p>
<p>The earlier perfect storm abated under the pressures of the global financial crisis and the disappointment of Copenhagen. The success or otherwise of Paris will influence how the winds are blowing at election time.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://michellegrattan.podbean.com/e/sarah-hanson-young-1434357637/">Listen to the latest Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast, with guest, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, here or on iTunes.</a></strong></p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/yuxk7-56b070" width="100%" height="100" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43555/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Tony Abbott gets some lucky breaks. Imagine if Pope Francis had issued [this week’s encyclical - with its clarion call for the world to address climate change - last year in the run up to the G20 hosted by Australia.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/435252015-06-18T23:34:00Z2015-06-18T23:34:00ZPope Francis throws down the gauntlet for Paris climate summit<p>Nobody, whether atheist or religious, can deny that the Pope’s encyclical on <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">caring for our common home</a> is a big deal.</p>
<p>Its immediate importance comes from its <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/pope-francis-expresses-support-for-upcoming-climate-change-conference/">potential to influence</a> world leaders and galvanise the developing world ahead of the <a href="http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en">Paris Climate Conference</a> this year. Moreover, the encyclical positions Francis in conflict with conservative think tanks such as the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/17/news/pope-climate-change-opposition/">Heartland Institute</a>, future contenders for the US presidency (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/politics/popes-views-press-gop-on-climate-change.html">five Catholics are expected to challenge for the Republican nomination</a>), and even <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/pell-2011_annual_gwpf_lecture_new.pdf">climate deniers</a> within the Vatican itself.</p>
<p>The stage is set for a battle royale, and Francis shows little sign of flinching. Instead, he has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/pope-calls-for-open-spirit-towards-climate-change-encyclical?CMP=share_btn_tw">asked</a> readers to “receive this document with an open spirit”. Now that the encyclical has been published, we are in a position to evaluate it on its own terms.</p>
<h2>The text</h2>
<p>An encyclical is the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/popes-encyclical-on-the-environment-key-questions-answered">second highest</a> form of papal declaration. It is a “letter” that will be sent to the 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests for further dissemination and instruction within their congregation. While the encyclical makes no pretence to “infallibility”, political scientist <a href="http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/church-authority-and-assent-clarifications-ahead-of-pope-franciss-encyclical/">Daniel DiLeo</a> notes that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Catholics will only be able to disagree with him in good conscience after serious reflection and the determination that the pope has reasoned incorrectly.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The criticism that preceded yesterday’s release suggests that this is might nevertheless be viewed as a low hurdle for climate deniers and other vested interests within the church.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf">184-page</a> encyclical is complex and defies simple summary. My intention here is to select key areas to spark discussion and further analysis.</p>
<p><strong>To every person</strong>: Francis is clear that the threat facing the environment transcends religious difference. He invokes Pope Saint John XXIII famous encyclical “Peace on Earth” to highlight that he wishes to engage “every person living on this planet” [3].</p>
<p><strong>The poor</strong>: The disproportionate effect of environmental damage on the poor is underlined in almost every section. Francis notes: “Particular appreciation is owed to those who tirelessly seek to resolve the tragic effects of environmental degradation on the lives of the world’s poorest” [13].</p>
<p><strong>Climate science</strong>: Mainstream climate science is endorsed by noting: “most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases” released mainly by human beings [23]. While this is accurate, climatologist <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/science/earth/pope-francis-aligns-himself-with-mainstream-science-on-climate.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share">Michael E. Mann</a>, argues that: “Human activity is most likely responsible not just for ‘most global warming’ but all of it, and then some, because natural factors have been acting slightly in the other direction.”</p>
<p><strong>Migration</strong>: Climate change is forcing an increasing number of poor people to flee from their homes and seek refuge. “Sadly”, the encyclical notes, “there is widespread indifference to such suffering” [25].</p>
<p><strong>Ecological debt</strong>: Francis asserts that a “true "ecological debt” exists, particularly between the global north and south" [51] and that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/popes-climate-change-encyclical-calls-on-rich-nations-to-pay-social-debt">foreign debt</a> has been used as a method of controlling poor countries [52]. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/15/lima-deal-represents-a-fundamental-change-in-global-climate-regime">Looking ahead to Paris</a>, he also affirms the principle of common but differentiated responsibility [170].</p>
<p><strong>Population</strong>: The encyclical argues that “demographic growth” is compatible with “shared development” and that to blame population growth instead of extreme consumption is avoiding the issue [50]. While Francis is correct to highlight the gluttonous rates of consumption in Western countries, questions will undoubtedly be asked about his failure to confront issues like birth control and his explicit statements on abortion [120].</p>
<p><strong>Technology</strong>: In several sections, Francis derides “blind confidence in technical solutions [14].” Technological growth has not resulted in an increase in humility or a sense of our moral responsibility. He quotes <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_End_of_the_Modern_World.html?id=kBsQAQAAMAAJ&hl=en">Romano Guardini</a> to argue that “contemporary man has not been trained to use power well” and adds “we stand naked and exposed … lacking the wherewithal to control it” [105].</p>
<p><strong>Carbon trading</strong>: In a document that is broad and general, Francis goes out of his way to criticise carbon trading noting that it does not “allow for the radical change” required and “may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption”. Unfortunately, the document is silent on the related but separate issue of <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-difference-between-a-carbon-tax-and-an-ets-1679">carbon taxation</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Energy</strong>: The encyclical argues that high polluting fossil fuels like coal and oil (to a lesser degree gas) need to be “progressively replaced without delay” [165]. Renewable energy is highlighted as the ideal replacement [172 and 179] but Francis also argues that it is morally legitimate to “choose the lesser of two evils or to find short-term solutions.” Nuclear energy is only mentioned in the context of caution or risk [104 and 184].</p>
<p><strong>Economics</strong>: Francis has been a <a href="http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/new-interview-francis-strongly-defends-criticisms-capitalism">consistent critic</a> of inequalities caused by capitalism. Consistent with this, the encyclical argues that we need to think of strategies for “containing growth” and even “retracing our steps before it is too late” [193]. This necessitates “redefining our notion of progress [194]” and refusing the blackmail of greenwashed phrases like “sustainable growth”.</p>
<h2>Paris and beyond</h2>
<p>Some Vatican officials have sought to resist reading the encyclical as a political document. Father Dario Viganò, for example, <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/60d695f2-141d-11e5-9bc5-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3dNWqWuBF">argued</a>: “Any political or sociological reading of this is culturally poor and misleading — you have to look at it in terms of humanity and the Gospel.”</p>
<p>This pure stance is difficult to maintain in light of the timing of the encyclical and the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/05/pope-francis-to-address-congress-visit-washington">Popes intention</a> to address both houses of the US congress this September. As described already, the encyclical itself is also overtly political and laments the hollowing out of government institutions by corporate finance. </p>
<p>It calls for the creation of “stronger and more efficiently organised international institutions” [175] and notes that: “Unless citizens control political power – national, regional and municipal – it will not be possible to control damage to the environment” [179].</p>
<p>Looking ahead to the Paris Climate Conference I think it is important to echo <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/beware-casting-pope-francis-as-a-caped-climate-crusader/">Andrew Revkin’s</a> reminder that “Francis remains a man, not a superman.” A similar aura of hope surrounded the newly elected president Obama ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen talks. </p>
<p>If we learned nothing else from that meeting, it was that no individual, regardless of their influence, can transcend the realities of deep-rooted dependences on fossil fuels, vested economic interests and divergent national goals.</p>
<p>As I have argued <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-popes-climate-message-will-extend-his-advocacy-for-the-poor-41167">elsewhere</a>, the papal encyclical provides the climate movement with an “unlikely ally” with whom it can prosecute its own demands for climate justice and radical social change. </p>
<p>These demands need to be brought to Paris and used as pressure points for Catholic heads of state like Tony Abbott to bring our national commitments into line with countries taking <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-singled-out-as-a-climate-change-freerider-by-international-panel-20150604-ghgbde.html">credible steps</a> to avoid dangerous climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43525/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Burdon is affiliated with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.</span></em></p>The immediate importance of the Pope Francis’ encyclical comes from its potential to influence world leaders and galvanise the developing world ahead of the Paris Climate Conference this year.Peter Burdon, Senior lecturer, Adelaide Law School, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/435062015-06-18T23:19:06Z2015-06-18T23:19:06ZIs the Pope Catholic?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85640/original/image-20150618-23223-nayziz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Fabrizio Belluschi</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I’ve always found it a bit difficult to take men who go to work wearing silk dresses, lots of jewellery, and improbably large hats terribly seriously. Plenty of people do, though, to judge by the reaction to the Pope Francis’ latest encyclical on climate change. </p>
<p>Given that the Pope can comment on issues he’s clearly no expert on, perhaps the rest of us could offer a few observations about his (lower case for the moment) role in key contemporary debates.</p>
<p>Theology is not my strong suit so perhaps I’m missing something, but isn’t the world actually supposed to be a “vale of tears” according to Christian beliefs? Isn’t it a fundamental, preordained part of the scheme of things? I thought God was supposed to be sending His son back to judge us when we inevitably stuff things up. Has there been a change of plan?</p>
<p>Whatever the merits of this rather deflating doctrine, it does seem fundamentally at odds with the idea that we might actually do anything about climate change or much else for that matter. On the contrary, if you take the Bible seriously, which we assume the Pope does, then attempting to make the world a better place is quite literally a waste of time. </p>
<p>I’m not sure if the Church takes the idea of Papal infallibility seriously anymore, but if it does, we must also assume the Pope knows what he – and He, for that matter – is talking about. The Pope, after all, is God’s chief representative on earth – or he is for many Christians, at least. </p>
<p>So can we assume from all this that we don’t necessarily and inevitably wreck the place after all? Has God changed His mind, or did He not see all this coming? Either way, it’s not a good look for a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient Being.</p>
<p>In the Pope’s defence, I don’t think we should blame him for all the confusion. He – the Pope, that is – seems like quite an unassuming and likeable sort of chap. This is no small achievement in itself given that Michelangelo decorated his workplace and he’s fawned over everywhere he goes. One might be forgiven for taking oneself rather seriously under such circumstances. </p>
<p>Rather surprisingly, and unlike most of his predecessors, he’s got a good line in self-deprecation, too. His response to questions about gays and the church was especially engaging – don’t ask me, I’m just the Pope. I paraphrase, but not a lot. Doesn’t sound too infallible, to me, and that’s a good thing.</p>
<p>But like most religions, the Catholic Church doesn’t really encourage critical thinking amongst its followers. On the contrary, the principal role of the Church seems to be to do the thinking for the flock. For advocates of climate change mitigation this could actually be good news: if the Pope says climate change is real, that might finally shut up some of the Catholic sceptics, at least, and actually encourage some real action.</p>
<p>Or it may not. Unfortunately, we can’t be certain the Pope’s words will have the desired effect. One of the great attractions of the Catholic Church is the way they deal with “sin”. No matter how bad you are, it seems, you can go along to confession and be forgiven. It’s a great selling point. While this might make Catholicism the religion of choice for the world’s financial community, perhaps, it doesn’t really look like a recipe for saving the planet. Behaviour has got to be sustainable to make a difference.</p>
<p>So while the Pope may be right to argue that “those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms”, his message is likely to be ignored or not taken seriously. It is hard to imagine that powerful vested interests in the US or Australia will suddenly change their thinking, much less their personally enriching behaviour.</p>
<p>There is much to admire in the Pope’s call for an end to “compulsive consumerism” and the integration of questions of social and environmental justice. However, such pleas might carry more weight if the Church itself – a rich and powerful organisation with a <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-rich-vatican-so-wealthy-it-can-stumble-across-millions-euros-just-tucked-away-1478219">portfolio</a> of some €6 billion in ready money, not to mention the art treasures, real estate, and so on – showed the way in wealth redistribution and ethical investment.</p>
<p>This will be yet another test for the embattled Cardinal Pell, who is currently the Vatican’s treasurer. If the Church in the form of Cardinal Pell can really bring itself to start redistributing its wealth in a serious ways then that would be an empirically verifiable modern day miracle.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43506/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I’ve always found it a bit difficult to take men who go to work wearing silk dresses, lots of jewellery, and improbably large hats terribly seriously. Plenty of people…Mark Beeson, Professor of International Politics, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/435142015-06-18T17:57:49Z2015-06-18T17:57:49ZPope encyclical on ‘ecological crisis’ asks us to examine our deepest values and beliefs<p>One of the problems in communicating about climate change is that it has been ghettoized as a strictly environmental message promoted by liberal messengers. This makes it easy for some to dismiss it. But the pope’s encyclical letter “<a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">Laudato Si’</a>,” or “Praise Be To You,” kinks the arc of this conversation in some important and long-needed ways. </p>
<p>Whether it causes the profound changes that are necessary to fully address the “unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequence for all of us” that he calls out is now up to us. Our challenge is nothing short of changing our values and beliefs.</p>
<p>In 1949, conservationist <a href="http://www.aldoleopold.org/AldoLeopold/almanac.shtml">Aldo Leopold</a> wrote that no important change in our ethical appreciation of nature could ever be accomplished “without an internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections and convictions. The proof that conservation has not yet touched these foundations of conduct lies in the fact that philosophy and religion have not yet heard of it.”</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85629/original/image-20150618-23223-11aij7n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85629/original/image-20150618-23223-11aij7n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85629/original/image-20150618-23223-11aij7n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85629/original/image-20150618-23223-11aij7n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85629/original/image-20150618-23223-11aij7n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85629/original/image-20150618-23223-11aij7n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85629/original/image-20150618-23223-11aij7n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85629/original/image-20150618-23223-11aij7n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Caring for our common home.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf">The Vatican</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Today in 2015, the pope is taking concern for the environment and climate change to the level of <a href="http://www.earthgroaning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/right-nature.pdf">our relationship with our God, our neighbor and our environment</a> of which we are a part. If this truly takes hold, it will make the issue personally salient in ways that go far deeper than other attempts to stir attention and action. If people hear the message to address climate change and protect the environment from the church, mosque, synagogue or temple, it will have far more power to motivate action than a regulatory or economic message ever will.</p>
<p>Efforts to connect climate change to concerns for <a href="https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf">national security</a>, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/29/us-green-technology-energy-investment">economic competitiveness</a> or <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/commissions/climate-change">human health</a> are critically important, yet none can carry the weight and influence that the world’s religions can in motivating attention and action. These other messages can convince people to protect nature through self-interest, financial incentives and pragmatic reasons. Religious beliefs will compel us to act for reasons that go far beyond our narrow personal interests and evoke words like sacred, divine, reverence and love.</p>
<h2>Root causes</h2>
<p>And that seems to be a core element of the pope’s message. We protect and devote ourselves to what we love. In fact, I might add that <a href="http://erb.umich.edu/erbperspective/2015/05/01/its-not-just-what-you-know-its-what-you-believe/">if we don’t do this, we are doomed</a>, both as individuals and as a species. The pope is calling that out, reminding us of the gravity of the situation and the deep connections between religious morality, social equity and environmental care.</p>
<p>This is about putting nature in its proper place within our deepest statements of faith and reexamining those statements that may have led us astray. This has been a much-debated and contested issue, one that exploded in 1967 when <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/155/3767/1203.citation">Lynn White</a> wrote that our ecological problems derive from “Christian attitudes towards man’s relation to nature,” which lead us to think of ourselves as “superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim.” He doubted that changes in those attitudes could occur unless, first, “orthodox Christian arrogance towards nature” were somehow dispelled and, secondly, we move beyond that idea that science and technology alone can solve our “ecological crisis.”</p>
<p>Pope Francis is calling us to dispel that arrogance. And where Lynn White’s essay caused an uproar of resistance, resentment and controversy, the pope’s message must, by definition, do the same. No “internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections and convictions” can occur without some discomfort and pain.</p>
<p>Indeed, if it did not, it would not be addressing the root causes of the issues to their fullest extent. Here Francis blames rampant consumerism, unrestrained faith in technology, blind pursuit of profits, political shortsightedness and the economic inequalities that force the world’s poor to bear the brunt of an imbalanced system.</p>
<p>This last point is at the center of his message. We live in a world where the richest 20% of the world’s population (namely us) consume <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/featured_articles/980928monday.html">86% of all goods and services</a>, while the poorest 20% consume just 1.3%. Even more startling is the fact that the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 48 least developed countries. </p>
<p>At the same time, it is these poor people that will bear the brunt of the environmental impacts of climate change. It is not a giant leap to connect these injustices with a call to act on climate change to fulfill and enact our religious beliefs.</p>
<h2>Man’s domination of nature</h2>
<p>Pope Francis calls for a reexamination of the meaning of “stewardship” within the book of Genesis and what it means to have dominion over nature. In the letter, he writes that our interpretation of dominion “is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church.” </p>
<p>Instead, he writes that the Bible teaches human beings to “till and keep” the garden of the world, where “‘tilling’ refers to cultivating, plowing or working, while ‘keeping’ means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving.” This is a profound and unsettling challenge, one that will not go down easily. The fact that an encyclical letter could actually be leaked to the media and cause a media sensation speaks to the importance of its challenging message.</p>
<p>But in many ways, Pope Francis’ message may be the right message at the right time, though not necessarily a new one, even for a pope. In 1991, Pope John Paul II offered a similarly provocative counterpoint to the too widely accepted view of man’s domination of nature in his encyclical letter “<a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html">Centesimus Annus</a>” or “Hundredth Year”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Man thinks he can make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to his will, as though it did not have its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose, which man can indeed develop but must not betray.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But unlike his predecessor, Pope Francis has elevated concern for the environment in an encyclical letter all its own. This is unprecedented and reflects the unprecedented challenge before us. Aldo Leopold would be pleased.</p>
<p>Francis challenges us to turn our minds, hearts and actions toward nature and respect the value God created in it. Given our relatively newfound ability to alter the environment in globally catastrophic ways through climate change, we must protect nature for a reason greater and higher than our own personal self-interest – namely, that God wants and expects us to do so. That has the power to motivate a transformation of our world in ways that are urgently needed.</p>
<p>Adding a bright conclusion to this dark realization, Pope Francis writes that “Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start.” Let’s hope, for all our sake, that he is right.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew J. Hoffman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The pope’s encyclical Laudato Si’ tells us to protect nature and act on climate change for more than reasons of self interest.Andrew J. Hoffman, Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise and Director of the Erb Institute, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/433662015-06-18T10:05:21Z2015-06-18T10:05:21ZIt’s the ecology, stupid: pope’s encyclical shakes up US politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85288/original/image-20150616-5829-dksoq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Shining a light on religion and politics.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mustafaaydinol/7776708086/in/photolist-cRcEnU-8U3uZE-8Kidub-i5ffQN-MoGrD-6rU3ao-9Fjj73-5uRTSz-cw7dkd-6qyaXQ-5qz1N-5Sproi-9ETMov-6iLCLQ-4qJc-fuxapS-8Hi72-nSYZQ-7ez3bw-8BaQQw-qv5vbo-6gUcWP-8Hi8k-eWtYSU-29d4xu-2VUyZL-pjngWo-9ELx4a-a8KPdY-6utrd-jnbymX-6iGMSY-87qkSK-7m9HML-ar1orc-a85iVY-6chXoP-9Fgze4-84sw98-aqVkT3-8drquA-9EWmQq-8a1H1Y-pDxhqH-CVN6c-5StL5o-6XNfet-o8YFYe-9FUuNk-9dmqeD">mustafaaydinol/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Pope Francis’ encyclical on creation and the care for the environment, with its title coming from a famous prayer of Francis of Assisi, Laudato Si’, continues the tradition of a Catholic Church that does not shy away from social and political issues. </p>
<p>The encyclical is a very political document, and it is published at an important moment: at the beginning of the 2016 presidential campaign (with a lot of Catholic candidates in the GOP) and three months before the papal trip to the United States – probably the most difficult of the pontificate because of what I have called “<a href="https://theconversation.com/pope-franciss-american-problem-34693">Pope Francis’ American problem</a>.” </p>
<p>Francis’ encyclical will play a significant role in most Catholic schools next year, during a crucial presidential campaign, and it will color Francis’ visits to the East Coast – and addresses the US Congress – at the end of September.</p>
<p>In the encyclical, drafted by a committee overseen by Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Turkson, Pope Francis does not mince words and he does not appease those American Catholics of neo-conservative persuasion who in the last few months have waged an unprecedented preemptive war against the encyclical. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85295/original/image-20150616-5807-159gipa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85295/original/image-20150616-5807-159gipa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85295/original/image-20150616-5807-159gipa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85295/original/image-20150616-5807-159gipa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85295/original/image-20150616-5807-159gipa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85295/original/image-20150616-5807-159gipa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85295/original/image-20150616-5807-159gipa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85295/original/image-20150616-5807-159gipa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">No longer politics as usual.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/european_parliament/15849917576/in/photolist-q9AYhY-qbPW5E-qbLTkh-pUjerL-9cKGeG-nVPe2k-oqyJWW-23BN25-9euPQM-qbQSPn-oqyzxr-jBVjNL-qwVvjJ-dPgcT7-qbMek7-oH49iF-qbEkgZ-oGMs8M-rvDqzT-qx49uZ-oqyK9E-oqyoKL-qbL4xy-qbThF6-oF2jKE-oqyKkm-oqz3YM-oH2kGJ-oF2jPs-gQpHjn-asRbqP-jBTgur-f3YB4C-peU4TQ-e3aC75-eVC4R4-pf4tvF-asMZSq-rNEqWo-pdRuvw-qNNcD7-hYHDNW-iTKcm2-i3u3Th-reSXSK-s6Smnz-qXzvxr-rvxA33-2wUxRW-61ivfM">european_parliament/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As expected, the pope accepts the scientific consensus about manmade change in climate patterns, and appears cautious about issues like genetically modified organisms (GMOs). </p>
<p>Science is a partner of faith in this call of the pope to save the Earth before it is too late. This argument is a compelling one for a culture, such as the American one, in which science and religion have a long and complicated relationship. But it is not the most interesting part of the encyclical from a political perspective. </p>
<p>What is distinctive about this letter is that Francis raises issues that are going to have a hard time being heard in the prosperous Northern Hemisphere, and in particular by those who have made of the promise of prosperity their secular gospel.</p>
<h2>Ideology of unlimited resources</h2>
<p>First of all, Francis criticizes what he calls the “technocratic paradigm,” which he says has impaired our ability to see reality – that is, the real economy affecting real people instead of financial economy of the global markets of bond, equity, derivative securities. This technocratic perspective has largely eviscerated the ability of politics to take care of the common good, including the poor and of the environment, he says.</p>
<p>This is not a vague statement. Francis mentions explicitly the financial crisis of 2007-2008 as a lost opportunity: we could have learned something from that crisis and changed something, but we did not. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85296/original/image-20150616-5812-1rhvsv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85296/original/image-20150616-5812-1rhvsv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85296/original/image-20150616-5812-1rhvsv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85296/original/image-20150616-5812-1rhvsv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85296/original/image-20150616-5812-1rhvsv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85296/original/image-20150616-5812-1rhvsv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85296/original/image-20150616-5812-1rhvsv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85296/original/image-20150616-5812-1rhvsv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Not a fan of economic power centers that protect their interests over needs of the poor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/petrick/2291498814/in/photolist-4uuwLf-dMWW2A-46LqaZ-xnWvU-dMWYad-xnXzX-4MxKA2-b6wi76-bVkQqj-bZbxVW-4NnXAE-4NiKTF-hos8LL-aih44W-aieg6e-4NnXF3-aiehUt-aih7nu-aih7Py-aieepk-tzo7rL-bWFjZW-hvxEy-qLQdTR-9m9vVN-GNVou-5qj3P5-8XeeYn-8MneV3-jR1PuL-7ZcYLb-6jDEDS-97ak28-7xD2aB-5L8Vta-5L8Vyv-5L8Vga-5LdaDj-5L8V44-5Ldar7-bWPzc3-8shXMg-pxQaD6-6YVnwB-7xaNG9-7x1un8-dacyjr-dacxy7-dactAm-dacutx">petrick/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the encyclical, he argues that the technocratic paradigm is something that obfuscates our information system as well, and therefore our ability to make decisions. Here, the pope talks openly about the interests of global economic centers that misdirect or silence voices of those who go against their immediate interests. This comes at the expense of the poor and of the environment, and in general of a healthy “human ecology.”</p>
<h2>Market worship</h2>
<p>This encyclical is much more about political power than science. </p>
<p>Francis appeals to a new system of international relations based on global economic justice and global environmental justice. The encyclical puts on the stand the ideology of unlimited prosperity, based on the ideology of unlimited resources – and they are judged severely and called “a lie.” </p>
<p>The “American dream” is not mentioned explicitly, but it is the elephant (and not only the GOP’s elephant) in the room. Here, Europe is in the same situation as the US in light of the Americanization of the old continent’s lifestyle over the last 70 years. </p>
<p>The encyclical criticizes a “divinized market” – a market that is worshiped as the only creator and judge. The market alone is not the panacea to social ills, the pope argues: it actually causes social ills when it is the only prevailing rule. </p>
<p>As with his previous – and critical – document Evangelii Gaudium (November 24 2013), Pope Francis raises his voice in defense of the poor and casts a light on inequalities, talking about debt, for example, as a form of political control in our global financial system.</p>
<p>But Francis is also going to raise some eyebrows on the political left in the US. </p>
<p>On the hot-button “life issues,” Francis repeats that no ecological argument is possible if embryos are not considered nature to be protected. Abortion, he writes, is incompatible with an ecological conscience. </p>
<p>As to gender issues, Francis says that human ecology entails respecting the gender God gave us without manipulating it, and that means acknowledging and respecting sexual differences. Sexual differences between genders do exist, the pope says, and human ecology means respecting these differences between men and women.</p>
<h2>Politics as a tool</h2>
<p>Finally, this encyclical is deeply political because it explicitly advocates that people turn to the political process when it comes to important decisions about the future of the planet.</p>
<p>Francis sees politics as a necessary defense against the unlimited appetites of economic interests. Christian faith is about a “liberation” that comes from Jesus Christ and not from a political message. It is the political process that is essential to protect the poor and the environment. </p>
<p>Francis’ church is a politically non-neutral church, just as technology is not neutral. Technological tools are not neutral, and they do not help bridge inequalities, but, Francis says, they do serve powerful economic interests. Francis’ church stands with the poor.</p>
<p>At the end of the letter, with regard to how to change things, the pope is exhorting people to challenge corrupt and inefficient governments. States and governments are crucial to limit the power over the powerless. </p>
<p>In the final section of the encyclical, Francis repeats the ideal of global governance – an old Catholic dream born of medieval Europe, but recently updated by John XXIII and Benedict XVI in a new fashion. This is part of Catholic globalism. But Catholicism is also local, and American Catholicism will be a particularly interesting test for this encyclical.</p>
<p>In the presidential election of 1928, Al Smith, the Catholic candidate for the Democratic Party, was crushed by his opponent because of his Catholicism. Today, we do not know what kind of use the Republican Catholic candidates for president will make of the encyclical during the presidential campaign. </p>
<p>We can be sure of one thing, however, after the publication of Francis’ Laudato Si’: none of them will ask, as the ill-fated Al Smith did in 1928, “<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/25154585?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">What the hell is an encyclical</a>?”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43366/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Massimo Faggioli does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The pope’s encyclical challenges the belief in markets to solve social ills – a difficult message for Catholic Republican presidential candidates to accept.Massimo Faggioli, Associate Professor of Theology; Director, Institute for Catholicism and Citizenship, University of St. ThomasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/428742015-06-17T15:40:52Z2015-06-17T15:40:52ZThe moral – and political – force of Pope Francis on climate<p>When popes make pronouncements on religious matters, one billion Catholics listen. When popes talk about social issues, there is the potential to bring a larger audience into international debate. When a current pope, like Francis, however, attempts to bring together both religious and social issues into a moral discussion about public policy, there is bound to be controversy.</p>
<p>This is the uncomfortable place in which Pope Francis finds himself after tackling climate change. His encyclical “Laudato Si’” (<a href="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1502331.htm">Praised Be</a>) on ecology has no religious binding force on anyone, but it has the potential to raise geopolitical awareness of the developing crisis and to put forward solutions to stem what some believe is the coming, inevitable destruction of the Earth. In this, he’s building on his predecessors’ actions on environment. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84942/original/image-20150614-1481-dh368j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84942/original/image-20150614-1481-dh368j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84942/original/image-20150614-1481-dh368j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84942/original/image-20150614-1481-dh368j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84942/original/image-20150614-1481-dh368j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84942/original/image-20150614-1481-dh368j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84942/original/image-20150614-1481-dh368j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84942/original/image-20150614-1481-dh368j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Building on the legacy of former popes and his namesake, Saint Francis of Assisi.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/113018453@N05/14056932543/in/photostream/">Jeffrey Bruno/Aleteia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When environmental issues began to move beyond acute local problems to a growing international crisis, Pope John Paul II began to preach about the need to protect the Earth. </p>
<p>Already in 1979 (one year into his papacy), he began to mention such issues philosophically and broadly in his <a href="http://catholicexchange.com/john-paul-ii-and-the-environment">writings</a>. But it was at the World Day of Peace in 1990 that he singled out the depletion of the ozone layer as more than a scientific finding. Indeed, he called “the ecological crisis…<em>a moral</em> issue.” (emphasis in the original) He saw the emerging crisis as a just reason to invoke the moral consciences of local, state and international bodies to accept their part in creating environmental damage and to reverse it.</p>
<p>Pope Benedict XVI, known as the “<a href="http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3087/the_green_pope_and_a_human_ecology.aspx">Green Pope</a>” went even further. Benedict approached environmental concerns from a moral perspective as well, but broadened his distress to include the “degradation” of the Earth by demanding “responsible stewardship.”</p>
<p>He decried inadequate public policies and the unbridled pursuit of money, which he believed threatened creation. On a number of occasions, Benedict, who was pope from 2005 to 2013, preached that the environment must be protected in the present by wealthy states acting in solidarity with poorer areas of the world. Doing this, he said, would save those who will inhabit the Earth in the future.</p>
<p>Throughout his papacy, Benedict called on individuals to care for creation. He urged society to repair its relationship with nature and to provide food for all. He preached that peace is predicated on the protection of the environment: the need for governments to develop joint and sustainable strategies for energy and its redistribution. </p>
<p>Benedict supported research for solar energy, the management of forests, more equal access to natural resources and a focus on how to deal with climate change. </p>
<p>To do less, <a href="http://www.catholicclimatecovenant.org/Default.aspx?PageID=16481827&A=SearchResult&SearchID=758063&ObjectID=16481827&ObjectType=1">Benedict claimed</a>, was to harm human coexistence, to betray human dignity and to violate the rights of citizens to live in a safe environment.</p>
<h2>Transcending debates</h2>
<p>Francis has built on the legacy of his namesake, Saint Francis of Assisi, who preached about the responsibility of people to care for God’s creation. He is also following the teaching of former popes who have viewed the environmental crisis through a moral lens.</p>
<p>This pope, however, has gone beyond raising awareness, making speeches and emphasizing the coming climate change crisis. </p>
<p>By issuing an encyclical that deals strictly with the environment, Francis has used his religious position to call on everyone to be the protectors of God’s gifts. And, as a geopolitical actor who rules the sovereign state of the Vatican, he has added a new, urgent reason to stave off the degradation of the Earth for political reasons as well.</p>
<p>He has framed environmental issues in a new way – by looking at their economic consequences in a social justice context.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84940/original/image-20150614-1486-10f3qkv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84940/original/image-20150614-1486-10f3qkv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84940/original/image-20150614-1486-10f3qkv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=763&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84940/original/image-20150614-1486-10f3qkv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=763&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84940/original/image-20150614-1486-10f3qkv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=763&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84940/original/image-20150614-1486-10f3qkv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=959&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84940/original/image-20150614-1486-10f3qkv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=959&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84940/original/image-20150614-1486-10f3qkv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=959&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Known as the Green Pope, Benedict argued for protecting creation on moral grounds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/paullew/8496427813/in/photolist-9ePpZF-9eSGKw-9ePzkV-9ePzxp-9ePzjD-9eSGT1-9ePzmR-9ePztR-9eSGLh-9eSGJw-9eSGRY-9ePzpa-9eSGHL-9ePzoB-9ePzhV-9eSGDY-9eSGQG-9eSGNW-9ePzzr-9eSGNh-9eSGG5-9eSGBb-9eSGQ3-9eSGM9-9eSGSC-9eSGK7-9ePzvF-9ePznt-dWNpYH-iKXf5T-c44baL-gEyLn-e2XZ78-56QBtD">paullew/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The pope’s environmental interests transcend the international controversy between scientists, economists and politicians over claims that climate change will bring about quality-of-life problems for those who have no options to cope with its potential effects. </p>
<p>Francis has preached that “the human family has received a common gift from God — it is nature. And he has <a href="http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-homily-for-inaugural-mass-of-petrine-ministry">said</a> that the protection of creation serves as a "horizon of hope” against greed, arrogance, domination, manipulation and the exploitation of the Earth as well as the rights of people, their dignity and human rights.</p>
<p>In making this point, Pope Francis equates the protection of nature with the protection of human rights and claims that governments and societies secure both by safeguarding the gift of creation for all, especially the most vulnerable.</p>
<p>It should come as no surprise, then, that he would take a social justice approach to climate change. </p>
<p>Pope Francis spent most of his time in ministry in Argentina working among liberation theologians who believed that the Church should play an active, or even a violent, political role in removing and replacing the “structures of sin” that harm society.</p>
<p>Although he has rejected the methods of liberation theologians to make social change, the current pope has been influenced by the movement’s concern for the elimination of poverty as a basis for <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/12/the-popes-true-agenda?gclid=CILatpzkjMYCFcURHwodISkAOw">social justice</a> and human rights.</p>
<h2>Social justice</h2>
<p>Even before release of the encyclical letter, controversy has already begun to appear.</p>
<p>In the United States, Rick Santorum, the Catholic former senator from Pennsylvania, said that the pope should “<a href="http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/06/01/rick-santorum-on-pope-francis-letter-on-climate-change-leave-the-science-to-the-scientist/">leave science to the scientists</a>” and not get involved in the climate change debate. Prolife supporters were concerned that the pope would give fodder to those who might advocate for population control.</p>
<p>And yet, the pope’s encyclical appears to transcend such fears and instead serves as an attempt to reconcile science and religion through the moral imperative to pursue social justice for all people. </p>
<p>His views are not political, or ideological, but will inevitably be interpreted by liberal and conservative public officials alike who wish to legitimize their specific approaches to public policy. Francis’ encyclical, instead, is meant to be a moral exhortation to save the earth for rich and poor; young and old, and everyone who inhabits this planet.</p>
<p>Taken in this context, then, “Laudato Sii” can serve as a starting point and a way to move the climate control debate beyond national borders and private interests into international discourse for the common good. </p>
<p>Francis will also use his moral leadership position to augment his writings by preaching, travels and media relations, just as his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI did in the past. This new pope, however, will use social media too! He has embraced cyber resources and can be expected to reach a worldwide audience on environmental problems by publicizing his views on both Facebook and Twitter.</p>
<p>Francis expects government and society to accept the responsibility to protect the Earth for those who cannot do it by themselves. He believes that such public policies are a step toward peaceful coexistence and the common good. </p>
<p>Just this past week, the leaders of seven large industrialized democracies (G-7) seemed to move in that direction as well. They issued a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/08/g-7-leaders-declaration">joint political statement</a> calling for a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a critical point of discussion that will also be taken up at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris in the fall of 2015.</p>
<p>It is most likely, therefore, that the pope’s encyclical will serve to give the G-7 agreement moral credibility and heightened publicity now and, in the not-too-distant future, serve as the basis for a moral conversation about the role of climate change, its impact on the poor, and the need for social justice in the global environmental debate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42874/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jo-Renee Formicola does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>By equating human rights to the protection of nature, the pope’s encyclical opens up an international debate with broad political implications.Jo-Renee Formicola, Professor of Political Science, Seton Hall UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/433152015-06-16T18:40:37Z2015-06-16T18:40:37ZThe pope’s encyclical on climate change – will evangelicals care?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85128/original/image-20150615-5807-1ugry95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Reaching the faithful – and many others. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/88601135@N08/9733773478/in/photolist-fQ98JE-eC2tAA-5f5Qn2-nopRd8-nor4wd-gyyzrZ-hYJpLc-pUfjW1-pf6twZ-pUigq9-fNWauU-fNW9Eh-no7697-gyhSZg-gyhNU2-fNDxqk-fNDBjM-oKxhJh-nmmziG-nmm9eJ-e388i1-7AjVAE-nqbQa8-nopWZi-fNDy7g-fNWddQ-fNDEXV-fNWctY-fNDC38-fNWdYh-fNDyPt-no7ab4-fNDGqF-fNDFJK-fNDGZv-fNWhoU-oLD4ip-jBVjFm-oKwiao-ov54Rr-iMiTFF-oKwinC-ov4rBq-oMydkg-ov55wK-oMydmZ-ormLni-oHzetr-oFjTik-ooQx3A/">Jeffrey Bruno/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Pope Francis is releasing an unprecedented encyclical this Thursday. For those in the know, it’s a big deal. In Catholic terms, a papal encyclical is a formal letter that is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical#Papal_use_of_encyclicals">intended to end theological debate</a> on a given question. An encyclical itself is not so unusual. What’s unprecedented is the topic of this one: climate change.</p>
<p>Over the past year, as the buzz in climate circles built around the encyclical, one of the most frequent and hopeful questions I’ve been asked is: what will this mean to US evangelicals? Will this finally turn the climate issue around?</p>
<p>The first time I was asked, I honestly didn’t know what to say.</p>
<p>Pope Francis is certainly more popular than his predecessor. Evangelicals’ approval of the pope has risen to <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2015/03/05/in-u-s-popes-popularity-continues-to-grow/">60%</a> over the last year or so, but it’s still among the lowest of any group surveyed.</p>
<p>Evangelicals also take bottom place on the science of climate change. Depending on which poll we use, somewhere between <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/16/religious-groups-views-on-global-warming/">35%</a> and <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/american-evangelicals-and-global-warming">45%</a> of evangelicals would say that human activities are affecting the Earth’s climate. The rest would say we are not.</p>
<p>It’s safe to assume that most who agree with the science also approve of the pope. So that leaves around 15% to 25% of US evangelicals – out of the 60% who approve of the pope – who don’t already agree with the science, but might be open to listening to what Pope Francis will say on climate change.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85130/original/image-20150615-5807-1djkeuh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85130/original/image-20150615-5807-1djkeuh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85130/original/image-20150615-5807-1djkeuh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85130/original/image-20150615-5807-1djkeuh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85130/original/image-20150615-5807-1djkeuh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85130/original/image-20150615-5807-1djkeuh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85130/original/image-20150615-5807-1djkeuh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85130/original/image-20150615-5807-1djkeuh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Evangelicals at the bottom.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/16/religious-groups-views-on-global-warming/">Pew Research Center Religion and Public Life</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Just because someone approves of the pope, though, doesn’t mean they’ll buy what he says on such a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/11/07/climate_change_in_the_2014_midterms_republicans_may_be_rethinking_positions.html">politically polarized</a> issue as climate. Republican politicians, led by Catholic <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/rick-santorum-pope-climat_n_7498768.html">Rick Santorum</a>, have already begun to back away from the pope’s upcoming statement. Even US bishops are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/pope-francis-may-find-wariness-among-us-bishops-on-climate-change.html?_r=0">uneasy</a>, perhaps picturing the hate mail that’s about to flood their in-boxes – the same <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/2136380/climate-scientists-hate-mail-merchants-of-doubt/">hate mail</a> any of us climate scientists get when we tell people climate change is real and important, too.</p>
<p>Based on this, my gut instinct was to say: “Sorry, no. This has nothing to do with evangelicals.”</p>
<p>Over the last year, though, I’ve changed my mind. And here’s why.</p>
<h2>Simple theology</h2>
<p>This past April, I was asked to participate in an <a href="http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/hayhoe/">unusual event</a> — unusual for a scientist, that is. I was asked to share my thoughts on religion and the roots of climate denial at Boston College, a Jesuit school. A Catholic theologian would then respond.</p>
<p>At that time, the acrimonious dispute over fossil fuel divestment was in full swing at Boston College as well as across the river at Harvard, so I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. I was told the theologian would not attack the science, but beyond that, I was going in blind.</p>
<p>This would hardly be the toughest audience I’d spoken to – a roomful of petroleum geologists in Texas oil country takes that prize – and my motto is, “Try everything once.” So I accepted, and turned up to talk about global warming on, of course, a blustery sleeting night in April next to the huge mountains of melting snow from the record winter they’d had in Boston this year.</p>
<p>And I was shocked.</p>
<p>Yes, theologian Stephen Pope and I used different quotes, different Bible verses and very different appeals to authority. That was no surprise. The surprise was that, despite these differences, our messages were exactly the same. Eerily so, to the point where many probably thought we had coordinated – but we hadn’t. Not at all.</p>
<p>Why were we saying the same thing?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85131/original/image-20150615-5838-l6ysnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85131/original/image-20150615-5838-l6ysnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85131/original/image-20150615-5838-l6ysnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85131/original/image-20150615-5838-l6ysnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85131/original/image-20150615-5838-l6ysnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85131/original/image-20150615-5838-l6ysnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=941&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85131/original/image-20150615-5838-l6ysnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=941&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85131/original/image-20150615-5838-l6ysnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=941&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Different route, same conclusion: debating religion and the roots of climate denialism with Boston College Boisi Center associate director Erik Owens, author Katharine Hayhoe and Boston College theology professor Stephen Pope.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.bc.edu/centers/boisi/publicevents/s15/climate-change-panel/photos.html">Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s because the theology on which we need to agree to care about climate change is so simple. Evangelical or Catholic, Episcopal or Apostolic, we all believe God created the world, even if we’re still arguing over the process by which that was accomplished. God gave us humans responsibility for every living thing. Not just plants and animals, but people, too. We believe we’re to love our neighbor as ourselves, and not stop there: ultimately we’re called to love others as Christ loved us.</p>
<p>Why would people who believe these things care about climate change? We care about climate change because it affects <a href="http://www.wwf.org.mx/?86060/1/">Kenyan farmers</a> to whom rain means the difference between feast and famine; it affects <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/06/19/warming-climate-to-hit-bangladesh-hard-with-sea-level-rise-more-floods-and-cyclones-world-bank-report-says">millions of coastal Bangladeshi</a> who live and farm alongside rising seas; and it affects us right here at home – our <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/health.html">health</a>, our <a href="http://riskybusiness.org/">economy</a>, even our <a href="https://www.cna.org/reports/accelerating-risks">security</a>.</p>
<h2>Consistent with faith</h2>
<p>The encyclical is <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/06/what-will-pope-s-climate-encyclical-expected-18-june-say">expected</a> to remind us of this; how the poor, the disenfranchised, those already living on the edge and those who contributed least to this problem are also those at greatest risk to be harmed by it. That’s not a scientific issue; that’s a moral issue. And it’s a moral issue already echoed by other documents spanning the range of Christianity, including the <a href="http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/feb/evangelical/calltoaction.pdf">2006 Evangelical Climate Initiative</a>, a 2011 National Association of Evangelicals <a href="http://nae.net/loving-the-least-of-these/">report</a>, and the 2013 <a href="http://sojo.net/sites/default/files/Evangelical%20Scientists%20Initiative%20Letter.pdf">letter from 200 evangelical scientists</a> to Congress. All state in clear and unmistakable terms that caring about climate change is caring for “the least of these.”</p>
<p>Caring about climate change is not foreign to our values as human beings on this planet, regardless of which faith we do or don’t espouse. It’s not inconsistent with being a Christian or a Catholic or even — despite what the polls say about our opinions — an evangelical. Rather, it’s entirely consistent with who we are and what we believe. That’s what the pope is saying, that’s what the science <a href="http://whatweknow.aaas.org/">says</a>, and that’s what the Bible tells us too.</p>
<p>So, will the pope’s encyclical affect evangelicals?</p>
<p>For those who place their politics and ideology before their faith, it will not change many minds. As I discuss <a href="http://www.prairiefirenewspaper.com/2015/06/climate-politics-and-religion">here</a>, the roots of climate denial lie in our ideology rather than our faith.</p>
<p>But for any who take the Bible seriously, it must change minds. The encyclical is not proposing any new doctrine; it is not preaching any new message. It is simply reminding us that at the foundation of Christianity is one simple word: LOVE. And that word cannot fail to resonate in the hearts of all who believe, regardless of their denomination.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43315/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katharine Hayhoe is a scientific advisor for the Evangelical Environmental Network, Citizen's Climate Lobby, and the Energy Enterprise Institute.</span></em></p>For people who take the Bible seriously – not only Catholics – the pope’s encyclical on climate change and the environment will change minds.Katharine Hayhoe, Associate Professor and Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/433282015-06-16T05:11:20Z2015-06-16T05:11:20ZThe Pope’s environmental encyclical promises to shake up the climate debate<p>The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/an-italian-draft-of-pope-francis-environmental-paper-leaks--setting-off-scurry-to-google-translate/2015/06/15/89af0012-1379-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html">long-awaited papal encyclical</a> on the environment could have a significant influence on conservative politics around the world. </p>
<p>The prominence of Catholics in conservative parties is part of a growing trend within Australia and the United States of Catholics shifting to the political right as they move out of the working class and into the middle and upper classes. </p>
<p>For instance in Australia, around <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-celebrates-a-religious-easter-eight-of-19-cabinet-members-are-catholic-20140419-36xn4.html">half of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s cabinet</a> are Catholic, including Abbott, agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce, and communications minister Malcolm Turnbull. </p>
<p>Never before in the history of Catholicism has a papal document attracted as much attention, even before it has been released. The document, entitled Lautado Sii (Praised be), is to be released this Thursday, with a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/an-italian-draft-of-pope-francis-environmental-paper-leaks--setting-off-scurry-to-google-translate/2015/06/15/89af0012-1379-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html">leaked draft</a> already having appeared in the press. </p>
<p>The reason for this interest is the strong indication that Pope Francis will be taking a definite stand on what for some remains a controversial issue, the question of human-induced climate change. On present indications, and consistent with previous papal comments, the document will place climate change within the larger framework of a global economic system that promotes overconsumption. Meanwhile, the poor not only lack the basics needed for life, but will carry the main burden of the effects of climate change. </p>
<p>This controversy is likely to be keenly felt in Australia, with the Abbott government at best lukewarm on the issue of climate change, and at worst <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/11/windfarms-may-have-potential-health-impacts-tony-abbott-says">actively hostile</a> to taking meaningful steps to combat it. </p>
<h2>The church and the environment</h2>
<p>Papal documents such as this are not new. For more than 100 years, various popes have been issuing teachings on matters, not strictly theological, but to do with major social and political issues. </p>
<p>The tradition began with the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum, issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, written to address “the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class.” This document set the agenda for Catholic engagement with and participation in the emerging labour unions of the day. </p>
<p>Since then these documents have addressed issues such as global poverty, trade injustice, nuclear disarmament, the evils of communism and liberal capitalism and so on. Collectively <a href="http://www.socialjustice.catholic.org.au/social-teaching">these teachings</a> constitute a key element of Catholic social teaching. </p>
<p>With the growing awareness and urgency of the need to address environmental issues, it should come as no surprise that the current pope, Pope Francis, will be issuing the first encyclical dedicated to the environment. </p>
<p>Francis’ predecessors, <a href="http://www.catholicclimatecovenant.org/catholic_teachings/pope_benedict_XVI_st_john_paul_II">John Paul II and Benedict XVI</a> both issued statements of varying significance on environmental issues. John Paul II spoke of “the catastrophe toward which [our world is] moving.” More specifically Benedict XVI <a href="http://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/climatechangesummit/holysee.pdf">spoke</a> at the United Nations of “the urgent issue of climate change”. </p>
<p>In issuing an encyclical on the environment, Francis is bringing the full weight of his authority behind the environmental concerns and climate change in particular.</p>
<p>Critics will point out, of course, that the pope has no authority in scientific matters, which is true. But like any prudent person he is relying on the best scientific advice available to him. </p>
<p>The Pontifical Academy of Science, which includes non-believers such as Stephen Hawking, has issued <a href="http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/lectio.html">various statements</a> and documents on climate change, in its capacity to provide authoritative advice on scientific and technological matters to the pope. </p>
<p>The pope has also been listening to the voices of <a href="http://www.caritas.org/">Caritas Internationalis</a>, the Church’s leading overseas aid agency, telling him that decades of development work with the world’s poorest is being undone by the effects of climate change. Those least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price in terms of its effects. </p>
<h2>Will it change the climate debate?</h2>
<p>Internationally the prospect of a papal encyclical on climate change is being greeted with hopeful expectation by the environmental movement, and with equal trepidation by right wing climate sceptics funded by the fossil fuel industry. </p>
<p>The Heartland Foundation, a US think tank famous for its denial of links between smoking and lung cancer, held a seminar in Rome on April 27, at which various speakers attacked any suggestion that the Pope would use the encyclical to support claims of human induced climate change. </p>
<p>British climate denier Christopher Monckton <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/28/vatican-climate-change-summit-to-highlight-moral-duty-for-action">verbally attacked</a> the Pope, claiming, “You demean the office that you hold and you demean the church whom it is your sworn duty to protect and defend and advance.” We can expect the quantity and harshness of these complaints to increase markedly with the release of the encyclical. </p>
<p>But at another seminar held the following day in Rome, organised by the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences, Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/28/vatican-climate-change-summit-to-highlight-moral-duty-for-action">praised</a> the moral leadership being demonstrated by Pope Francis, hoping that this leadership will prove influential, if not decisive, in the upcoming Paris climate talks in November this year.</p>
<p>Despite the many scandals facing the Church, Pope Francis has enormous popular appeal and he will be handing the environmental movement a big stick with which to hit the present government’s climate credentials on the head. </p>
<p>As Pope he carries a unique moral authority and people are listening to him in an unprecedented manner. </p>
<p>While some Australian Catholics may be taken aback by the strength of his position, given the <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/28/climate-scientists-slam-george-pells-utter-rubbish-claims/">climate denialism</a> of Cardinal George Pell, his call will be heard and people will take notice. Whether it will be as influential as hoped by Ban Ki-Moon is yet to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43328/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Ormerod does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The long-awaited papal encyclical on the environment could have a significant influence on conservative politics around the world.Neil Ormerod, Professor of Theology, Australian Catholic UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/428712015-06-16T01:21:31Z2015-06-16T01:21:31ZWith encyclical, Pope Francis elevates environmental justice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84944/original/image-20150614-1481-xcajc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Showing his stripes: visiting a favela in Brazil in 2013.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pope_Francis_at_Vargihna.jpg">Tânia Rêgo/Agência Brasil</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose Francis as his papal name, he signaled to the world a dual commitment to sustainability and the global poor. His namesake, Saint Francis of Assisi, was a man of poverty and peace who loved nature and animals, and is said to have <a href="http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Francis/stories.asp">preached his sermons to birds</a>. </p>
<p>Ostentatious only in displays of humility, Francis implores Catholic priests and nuns to choose “humble” automobiles and consider foregoing the latest smartphone. Tempted to buy the fancy model? Francis suggests you “<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/06/pope-cars-idUSL5N0FC0IR20130706">think about how many children are dying of hunger in the world</a>.” His day-to-day vehicle is a modest Ford Focus, his wristwatch a plastic Swatch. </p>
<p>The pope’s attention to climate change, a likely focal point of his long-awaited encyclical on the environment due to appear June 18, highlights the plight of the poor and the moral dimensions of environmental issues. It also comes as a welcome counterbalance to the fixation on global-scale human influence on the environment that, for better and for worse, has come to define the Anthropocene – the name attached to the age of human dominance over the planet. </p>
<p>Can we, perhaps guided by the moral authority of the pope, align the global ethos of the Anthropocene with claims of justice for the poor? </p>
<h2>Justice for the poor</h2>
<p>The pope’s priorities – social justice and care for the Earth – are what we might expect from a Jesuit pope who opts for a Franciscan name. </p>
<p>His discerning intellect and missionary zeal – both products of the intensive, almost military style of spiritual formation characteristic of the <a href="http://www.jesuits.org/worldwide">Society of Jesus</a> – are tempered by lighthearted simplicity and impatience with rigidity of doctrine or custom. </p>
<p>Francis has quickly become one of the more quotable popes. In interviews, he often exudes modesty and good humor. (He doesn’t “mind” being pope, he <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pope-francis-says-he-doesnt-mind-being-pope-but-wishes-he-could-go-out-for-a-pizza-unrecognised-10106093.html">says</a>, but wishes he could duck out for a pizza without being recognized.) </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84945/original/image-20150614-1478-1q1ruyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84945/original/image-20150614-1478-1q1ruyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84945/original/image-20150614-1478-1q1ruyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84945/original/image-20150614-1478-1q1ruyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84945/original/image-20150614-1478-1q1ruyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84945/original/image-20150614-1478-1q1ruyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=627&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84945/original/image-20150614-1478-1q1ruyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=627&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84945/original/image-20150614-1478-1q1ruyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=627&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Francis was known for taking the subway in Argentina before becoming pope and has encouraged clergy to live modestly.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicofoxfiles/8555197385/in/photostream/">nicofoxfiles/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With his usual unassuming style, Francis has also shaken things up by disclaiming any <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/who-am-i-to-judge">right to judge</a> the sinfulness of homosexuality, while pronouncing acts of deforestation a grave modern sin. </p>
<p>The media has at times distorted these disarming pronouncements: Francis has since <a href="http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/01/16/pope-francis-criticizes-gay-marriage-backs-contraception-ban/">affirmed</a> the Catholic catechism’s teachings on marriage and homosexuality, though he believes the Church is too preoccupied with matters of sex and reproduction. And, sorry to say, it is not quite true that he proclaimed a <a href="http://www.religionnews.com/2014/12/12/sorry-fido-pope-francis-not-say-pets-going-heaven/">heaven for dogs</a>. But on the subject of environmental sins, he appears, for the most part, serious and unwavering.</p>
<p>Climate change is the anticipated focus of Francis’ long-awaited papal encyclical on ecology because it merges his vocal concern for the poor and marginalized with condemnation of environmental exploitation. The world’s poor, who contribute the least to climate change, are disproportionately impacted by worsening droughts, rising seas, mega storms and famine, and they are least able to evade its destructive reach. </p>
<p>Jesuits have a long tradition of outreach to global refugees and other forcibly displaced people. Now a new, desperate class of migrants is emerging: <a href="http://www.rappler.com/specials/pope-francis-ph/79824-pope-francis-climate-change-encyclical">climate refugees</a>, people who are forced to leave their homes because of the effects of climate change. </p>
<h2>Global disparity and climate concern</h2>
<p>Francis is not the first pope to take up defense of the environment. </p>
<p>Benedict XVI was hailed as the “Green Pope” for sustainability initiatives which included a carbon-neutral Vatican City gleaming with solar panels. John Paul II urged responsible stewardship for creation. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84943/original/image-20150614-1456-a78vae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84943/original/image-20150614-1456-a78vae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84943/original/image-20150614-1456-a78vae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84943/original/image-20150614-1456-a78vae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84943/original/image-20150614-1456-a78vae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84943/original/image-20150614-1456-a78vae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84943/original/image-20150614-1456-a78vae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/84943/original/image-20150614-1456-a78vae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pope Francis visits the Typhoon Yolanda victims in one of the areas in the Philippines earlier this year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pope_Francis_Palo_1.jpg#/media/File:Pope_Francis_Palo_1.jpg">Benhur Arcayan - Malacanang Photo Bureau</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But no previous pope has issued an entire encyclical – an official papal letter – on environmental concerns, nor has any pope so closely represented the interests of the Global South as the Argentine Bergoglio does. </p>
<p>When Typhoon Haiyan struck the Philippines in 2013, killing over 6,000 people and leaving four million homeless, Francis used the language of the Anthropocene, lamenting that humans have “<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/man-has-gone-too-far-pope-francis-says-we-are-primarily-responsible-for-climate-change-20150115-12rcwm.html">in a sense taken over nature</a>” with devastating effects. And yet, his reluctance to judge notwithstanding, Francis remains aware that different countries are <a href="http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/countries-contributions-to-climate-change">not equally culpable</a> for climate change. </p>
<p>Francis’ encyclical is timely for many reasons. A recent survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and the American Academy of Religion examined Americans’ concerns about climate change and the impact of religious beliefs. It <a href="https://www.aarweb.org/annual-meeting/prriaar-national-survey-on-religion-values-and-climate-change">found</a> that only 23% of white Americans are very concerned about climate change, while 46% of Hispanic Americans express the same concern. White Catholics are also less likely than Hispanic Catholics to say that climate change is caused by humans, and far more Hispanic Catholics than whites report that their church leaders address climate change. </p>
<p>Francis, more than any previous pope, may be able to align church teaching on the environment with the actual experiences of poorer Catholics around the world. If so, environmental justice could become the centerpiece, and lasting legacy, of his papacy. </p>
<h2>Thinking as a species?</h2>
<p>An irony of the Anthropocene is that claims for environmental justice may actually be muted by contemporary discussions of climate change. </p>
<p>The Anthropocene is the name for a new epoch where humans are dominating and disrupting grand cycles of biology, chemistry and geology. Humans are acting as a geophysical force on the planet, transforming it in dramatic ways previously seen only in tectonic shifts or dinosaur-decimating asteroids. </p>
<p>The Anthropocene requires a shift in thinking, a dramatic scaling up of our imaginations. To appreciate our planetary impact, it is necessary to think in terms of <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/09/28/351692717/embracing-deep-time-thinking">deep geological time</a> and re-conceive of ourselves as a species, a collective agency or force that is initiating change in the earth system itself. </p>
<p>A species-level perspective on humans is fruitful for envisioning global thinking and unified responses to global environmental problems. </p>
<p>The Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins Program takes this approach to what it means to be human in the Age of the Human: the “<a href="http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/evolutionary-perspectives-anthropocene">narrative of our collective humanity</a>” and our status as single species united by common evolutionary origin can inspire a sense of “communal purpose” in responding to the environmental challenges of the Anthropocene. </p>
<p>But this species-eye view of humanity as a geological agent can work against the cause of climate justice. A dramatically scaled-up vision of human agency as a geological force may suggest an undifferentiated, homogenized humanity. These lenses can make it more difficult to discern very real differences between the global rich and poor, disparities made worse by climate disruption that disproportionately harms those least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Hopes are high that the pope’s encyclical creates momentum and will for the enactment of a United Nations climate change accord in <a href="http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/fr">Paris</a> this December. </p>
<p>The accord, if successful, would commit every nation to tougher restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of limiting increases in global temperatures. </p>
<p>Francis’ attunement to the differential claims of the poor and the disproportionate impacts of climate disruption may help ensure that the response to climate change, whatever form it takes, is not only global but truly just.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42871/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa H. Sideris does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The pope’s encyclical turns climate change into a moral discussion by focusing on the disproportionate impact of climate change on poor countries and regions.Lisa H. Sideris, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Director IU Consortium for the Study of Religion, Ethics, and Society, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/411672015-05-04T05:06:39Z2015-05-04T05:06:39ZThe Pope’s climate message will extend his advocacy for the poor<p>Last week, Pope Francis hosted a historic meeting of scientists, religious figures and policymakers to discuss the science of global warming and the danger it poses to the world’s poorest people. At meeting’s conclusion, participants signed a <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/historic-vatican-meeting-urges-action-on-climate-change-1.17431">statement</a> which says that climate change is “a scientific reality” and that humanity has “a moral and religious imperative” to mitigate it. </p>
<p>The meeting comes as Francis’s forthcoming <a href="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/encyclical.htm">encyclical</a> (letter) to bishops on climate change, set to be released next month, is translated into hundreds of languages ahead of the United Nations <a href="http://www.cop21paris.org/">climate conference</a> in December. </p>
<p>The Pope’s strong feelings on climate change, and environmental issues in general, are already well known. For example, he has said that Earth is “<a href="http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-urbi-et-orbi-message">frequently exploited by human greed and rapacity</a>” and that humans have “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/15/world/asia/ap-as-rel-pope-asia-climate-.html?_r=1">slapped nature in the face</a>”.</p>
<p>The encyclical will be sent to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, and Francis will promote it further in September when he becomes <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/05/pope-francis-to-address-congress-visit-washington">the first Pope</a> to address both houses of the US Congress. </p>
<p>In light of the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-21443313">1.2 billion people</a> who identify as Catholic, the Pope’s message on climate could reach a far greater and more diverse audience than even the world’s largest environmental organisations.</p>
<h2>What will the encyclical say?</h2>
<p>Consistent with the <a href="http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/extraseries/sustainable.html">Pontifical Academy of Science</a>, the encyclical is set to endorse the scientific consensus on climate change. It will also link climate change to capitalism (see <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html">section 52 onwards here</a>) and describe climate action as a “<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/12/28/moral-grounds-pope-push-action-climate-change-2015">grave ethical and moral responsibility</a>”.</p>
<p>The encyclical will also mark a theological shift in how Catholics understand their relationship with the environment. Traditionally, the church’s teaching has been marked by a human-centeredness that caused the historian Lynn White Jr to <a href="https://www.uvm.edu/%7Egflomenh/ENV-NGO-PA395/articles/Lynn-White.pdf">describe Christianity</a> as “the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen”.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/03/03/4190521.htm">pointed out by Clive Hamilton</a>, Francis will probably take the encyclicals of <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html">John Paul II</a> and <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html">Benedict XVI</a> as his starting point. Benedict XVI, for example, sought to align church doctrine with environmental protection by arguing that the laws of nature represent the “grammar” that “sets forth ends and criteria for its wise use”. He also articulated a stewardship ethic by claiming that we have a responsibility to protect the environment as “God’s gift” and to “save mankind from the danger of self-destruction”.</p>
<p>Francis has <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/peace/documents/papa-francesco_20131208_messaggio-xlvii-giornata-mondiale-pace-2014.html">explicitly endorsed</a> Benedict XVI’s view on stewardship and the idea that nature has a “grammar” that we can use to judge human interventions. Furthermore, Francis has argued that we are failing to meet this standard: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>[S]o often we are driven by greed and by the arrogance of dominion, possession, manipulation and exploitation; we do not preserve nature; nor do we respect it or consider it a gracious gift which we must care for and set at the service of our brothers and sisters, including future generations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Irish theologian <a href="https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/%E2%80%98-fragile-world%E2%80%99-church-teaching-ecology-and-pope-francis">Donal Dorr has noted</a> that Francis may even go further than his predecessors and interpret the concept of “<a href="http://www.thetablet.co.uk/world-news/5/1451/pope-at-work-on-ecology-encyclical">human ecology</a>” in a way that places humans within the broader natural world, rather than apart from it. Francis has already <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html">drawn close links</a> between human exploitation and environmental exploitation, noting: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>[L]ike Saint Francis of Assisi, all of us, as Christians, are called to watch over and protect the fragile world in which we live, and all its peoples.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Finally, Francis will use the encyclical as a <a href="http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/1385/0/pope-francis-to-publish-encyclical-on-climate-change-and-the-environment-next-year">political tool</a> to highlight the vulnerability of the world’s poor to the impacts of climate change. Many of Francis’s pronouncements have been distinguished by a marked concern for the poor, and it is no coincidence that some of his <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/man-has-gone-too-far-pope-francis-says-we-are-primarily-responsible-for-climate-change-20150115-12rcwm.html">most direct remarks</a> on the contents of the encyclical were delivered while visiting survivors of Typhoon Hagupit (Ruby) in the Philippines.</p>
<p>The encyclical’s June release date suggests that Francis hopes to put maximum pressure on countries to make strong carbon-reduction and green financing commitments before the Paris climate talks in December. It will be an obvious pressure point for Catholic leaders like Tony Abbott who have so far <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-200-million-climate-pledge-falls-short-of-its-true-debt-35318">failed to exercise moral leadership</a> on climate change. </p>
<h2>Unlikely alliances</h2>
<p>The leader of the Catholic Church is certainly an unlikely ally for many secular environmentalists. </p>
<p>In presenting the progressive features of Francis’s politics, we should also note that he is a theological conservative who opposes <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/pope-francis-assisted-suicide_n_6172982.html">abortion</a>, <a href="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1500200.htm">same-sex marriage</a> (although he has supported same-sex <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/feb/19/who-is-pope-francis/">civil unions</a>) and the <a href="http://time.com/3729904/francis-women/">ordination of women</a>.
It remains to be seen whether the Vatican will also follow the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-01/church-of-england-divests-investments-to-curb-climate-change/6437174">Church of England’s lead</a> and <a href="http://act.350.org/sign/divest_vatican/">divest</a> its immense wealth from fossil fuels.</p>
<p>And yet, one of the interesting developments in environmental politics has been the resourcefulness of movements in forming single-issue alliances with traditional foes. Prominent examples include the <a href="http://www.lockthegate.org.au/">Lock the Gate</a> movement in Australia and the <a href="http://rejectandprotect.org/thousands-march-with-cowboy-and-indian-alliance-at-reject-and-protect-to-protest-keystone-xl-pipeline/">Cowboy and Indian Alliance</a> in the United States. Similarly broad coalitions need to be formed in the buildup to the Paris conference. </p>
<p>Arguably the most important barrier to an ethical climate agreement is the power of immensely rich <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/8914511/US-blocking-climate-change-fund-ahead-of-Durban-conference.html">states</a>, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/24/heartland-institute-koch-pope-francis-lobbying-climate-change-global-warming">organisations</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network">citizens</a>, set against the interests of the world’s many deprived poor. </p>
<p>If the Pope were not a strong voice for the poor, his <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/mullarkey/2015/01/francis-political-illusion">opponents</a> would not be <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/apr/30/whos-afraid-pope-francis/">attacking him</a> with such ferocity. Their fear is testimony to Francis’s ability to galvanise large portions of the developing world with messages shared by the global justice and environmental movements. </p>
<p>If Francis is able to help these groups amplify the voice of the poor and vulnerable, then the rich may well have cause to tremble.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41167/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Burdon is affiliated with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.</span></em></p>Pope Francis is set to release an encyclical on climate change next month, which he hopes will influence this year’s Paris climate talks as well as continuing his work on behalf of the world’s poorest.Peter Burdon, Senior lecturer, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/399722015-04-10T09:48:14Z2015-04-10T09:48:14ZThe pope as messenger: making climate change a moral issue<p>This summer, Pope Francis plans to release an encyclical letter in which he will address environmental issues, and very likely climate change. </p>
<p>His statement will have a profound impact on the public debate. For one, it will elevate the spiritual, moral and religious dimensions of the issue. Calling on people to <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pope-franciss-new-climate-change-encyclical-sneak-preview-2015-04-09">protect the global climate</a> because it is sacred, both for its own God-given value and for the life and dignity of all humankind, not just the affluent few, will create far more personal commitment than a government call for action on economic grounds or an activist’s call on environmental grounds.</p>
<p>Making a case on theological grounds builds on long-standing arguments in the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm">Catholic catechism</a> that environmental degradation is a violation of the seventh commandment (Thou shalt not steal) as it involves theft from future generations and the poor. Against such a moral backdrop, the very call to “make the business case to protect the global climate” – a common tactic to argue for action on climate change – seems rather absurd. The pope’s statement will shift the tenor of the public and political conversation in needed ways.</p>
<h2>Transcending political tribes</h2>
<p>But perhaps even more important than the content of the message is the messenger: the pope. </p>
<p>The public debate over climate change today has been caught up in the so-called “culture wars.” The debate is less about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas models than it is about opposing <a href="https://theconversation.com/social-sciences-are-best-hope-for-ending-debates-over-climate-change-39671">values and worldviews</a>. In the United States, those opposing cultural worldviews map onto our <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/02/climate-change-rabe-borick">partisan political system</a> – the majority of liberal Democrats believe in climate change, the majority of conservative Republicans do not. People of either party give greater weight to evidence and arguments that support pre-existing beliefs and expend disproportionate energy trying to refute views or arguments that are contrary to those beliefs. </p>
<p>Further, <a href="http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=25621">research</a> shows that we have begun to identify members of our political tribes based on their position on climate change. We openly consider evidence when it is accepted or ideally presented by sources that represent our cultural community, and we dismiss information that is advocated by sources that represent groups whose values we reject. </p>
<h2>Beyond Catholics</h2>
<p>The pope, by contrast, can reach segments that the three primary messengers on climate change – environmentalists, Democratic politicians and scientists – cannot.</p>
<p>First, the pope can reach the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics with an unmatched power to convince and motivate. Religion, unlike any other institutional force in society, has the power to directly influence our values and beliefs. </p>
<p>Government regulations can influence behavior, but often without changing underlying values and motivations. But by connecting climate change to spiritual and religious values, and introducing notions of sin, people will have new and more powerful motivations to act. The pope can make the issue as personal as Sunday School. Once the pope’s message is out, Catholics will hear that message reinforced in homilies in their home parish. </p>
<p>And it would appear that Catholics are a receptive audience. According to a <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/american-catholics-worry-about-global-warming-and-support-u.s.-action/">survey</a> by the Yale Project on Climate Communication, a solid majority of Catholics (70%) think that global warming is happening and 48% think it is caused by humans, compared with only 57% and 35% of non-Catholic Christians respectively.</p>
<p>But the pope’s reach extends far beyond his Catholic followers. A <a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/12/11/pope-francis-image-positive-in-much-of-world/">survey</a> by the Pew Research Center found that the pope is extremely popular with both Catholics and non-Catholics. Americans are particularly fond of Pope Francis, with more than three-quarters (78%) giving him positive marks. In Europe, Catholics and non-Catholics view the pope with very similar acclaim. </p>
<p>His message will undoubtedly reach beyond the Catholics of the world, and has the potential to draw attention to the ongoing efforts of leaders in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Religions-Responding-Climate-Change/dp/0415640342/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1428586963&sr=8-4&keywords=andrew+szasz">other denominations</a>, including Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of the Orthodox Church, nicknamed the “<a href="https://www.patriarchate.org/the-green-patriarch">Green Patriarch</a>”). With the pope taking a stand on climate change, it could compel other religious leaders to make more public calls for action. </p>
<p>If the message of climate change is delivered more from the church, synagogue, mosque or temple, people will internalize it as a moral issue that compels them to act regardless of the “business case.” A change in the tenor of the public debate in America will set the stage for leaders of all faiths to step forward.</p>
<h2>Political influence</h2>
<p>This all leads to potential change within our political system. The 114th Congress has 138 <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2015/01/05/faith-on-the-hill/">Catholic Congressman</a> (70 of whom are Republican) and 26 Catholic Senators (11 of whom are Republicans). Those 81 Republicans have followed the party lead in rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change, not because of the scientific evidence, but rather by yielding to party politics. </p>
<p>But this may be <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/01/23/hope-for-republicans-on-climate-change/">changing</a>. This past January, 50 Senators, including 15 Republicans, voted on an amendment that affirmed that humans contribute to global warming. Other Republicans have begun to chip away at what former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman called, the party’s “anti-science” position that flies in the face of the assessments of over <a href="http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php">200 scientific agencies</a> around the world, including the <a href="http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf">scientific agencies of every one of the G8 countries</a>. </p>
<p>The pope’s message could give political cover for emerging Republicans to upend the notion that you can’t be a conservative and believe in climate change. They could undertake this conversion as a personal reexamination of their beliefs or as an answer to a reenergized base. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html?_r=1">recent poll</a> found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaigned on fighting climate change (including 48% of Republicans) and less likely to vote for candidates who denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming.</p>
<p>A newly non-partisan dialogue in Congress can lead to action on multiple fronts. It could hinder repeated threats by the GOP, and most recently by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, to defund the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It might also influence the Supreme Court as it considers the case against the EPA (six of nine Justices are Roman Catholic). It may shift the US position on climate change in advance of the upcoming <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing">United Nations Framework Convention on climate change in Paris</a>. Finally, it may help shift the views of presidential candidates, such as Marco Rubio, and elevate climate change on the list of election issues for both parties. </p>
<p>According to a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/178133/economy-government-top-election-issues-parties.aspx">Gallup poll</a>, 61% of Democrats view climate change as important, compared with only 19% of Republicans, ranking it dead last on the list of GOP priorities.</p>
<p>In the end, the best possible outcome of the pope’s message for Americans is a breakdown of the partisan divide over climate change and a reestablishment of societal trust in our scientific institutions. On the one side, Democrats may learn a powerful lesson about the need to go beyond the scientific arguments on the issue and begin to connect it to people’s underlying values, which could help motivate action across the political spectrum. </p>
<p>And Republicans may reexamine their party position on, not only climate change, but environmental issues in general. To that point, this past March Republican <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-24/lindsey-graham-blames-republicans-and-al-gore-for-climate-change-inaction">Senator Lindsey Graham</a> from South Carolina blamed his party (and Al Gore) for the stalemate over climate change and concluded: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>You know, when it comes to climate change being real, people of my party are all over the board… I think the Republican Party has to do some soul searching. Before we can be bipartisan, we’ve got to figure out where we are as a party… What is the environmental platform of the Republican Party? I don’t know, either. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Let’s hope that the pope, in concert with other religious leaders around the world, can help them figure that out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39972/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The upcoming encyclical from Pope Francis can transform the climate change culture wars in America.Andrew J. Hoffman, Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise and Director of the Erb Institute, University of MichiganJenna White, MBA/MS candidate , University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.