Can Pope Francis help to reverse climate change? We'll see.
October 11, 2023
It was clear in 2015 that Pope Francis wanted the world to pay close attention to the disasters that climate change was causing when he issued his now famous “apostolic exhortation” on the environment, Laudato si’.
Yes, it's been read and widely admired, but, clearly, Frances thought that it hasn't done enough to alert Catholics in particular or people of faith in general to what is happening to the environment, at least in part because of human activity.
So he recently released what this Crux story calls "a new document urging dramatic action to combat climate change ahead of the U.N. COP28 summit scheduled for Nov. 30-Dec. 12 in Dubai." As that story notes, "The new document, titled Laudate Deum, or “Praise God,” amounts to a strong rejection of skepticism about global warming and the consequences of human intervention in the environment."
I've given you links to both documents and urge you to read them if you haven't yet done so. They're important for several reasons, including serving as a reminder that people of faith need to be strong advocates for treating God's creation with care and love.
In the new document, the pope says that "with the passage of time, I have realized that our responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point. In addition to this possibility, it is indubitable that the impact of climate change will increasingly prejudice the lives and families of many persons. We will feel its effects in the areas of healthcare, sources of employment, access to resources, housing, forced migrations, etc."
Is it overly dramatic to say that we "may be nearing the breaking point" when it comes to environmental degradation? Well, there are wise and careful people out there who, while acknowledging the ecological challenges we face, also remind us that we have choices we can make so that we will not reach that breaking point. In other words, environmental collapse is not inevitable, despite the fact that we are closer to it today than perhaps at any other time in human history (history that takes up a rather short period of time in the history of Earth and the history of the cosmos).
The pontiff acknowledges that there are some people who don't take climate change as seriously as he does. He writes, “I feel obliged to make these clarifications, which may appear obvious, because of certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
This analysis from The Conversation helps to put this new papal statement in perspective. Among other things, it says:
"Like 'Laudato Si,' the new document strongly reproaches wealthy nations that contribute the most to climate change, accusing them of ignoring the plight of the poor. It offers a similar rebuke of rampant individualism, lamenting that responses to global crises of climate change and the pandemic have led to 'greater individualism' and hoarding of wealth, rather than increased solidarity.
"Scarcely any facet of modern life emerges unscathed by Francis’ sometimes withering critiques. In his view, societies have failed to respond to crises that are profoundly interrelated: global inequality, pollution and even new forms of artificial intelligence that feed the illusion of humans’ unlimited power. His 2015 broadside, in fact, targeted today’s 'technocratic paradigm' with such vehemence that one critic likened these passages to the rantings of an 'Amish hippie.'”
An Amish hippie? Hmmmm.
What we've learned about Pope Francis in his 10-plus years in office is that he's not afraid to look at the world through his theological lenses and he's not afraid of critics who disagree with him -- sometimes because they look at the world not through their theological lenses but through their political or economic lenses.
Will this new report give momentum to the pro-environmental cause? Hard to say. But what is clear is that Pope Francis would have been derelict in his duties had he chosen to remain silent about how climate change is causing human damage. And he knows that.
* * *
IS THERE ANY MIDDLE EAST HOPE AT ALL?
When Hamas attacked Israel several days ago, I remembered this blog post I wrote in 2012 at the completion of a Jewish-Christian study tour of Israel that I helped to lead. In the post, I noted that the time seemed extra ripe for Israel to find a way to reach a two-state solution with the Palestinians, given that Israel had reached a point at which it could negotiate from a position of power and, relying on Jewish concepts about welcoming the stranger and offering mercy, find a resolution to the dispute that had been raging (in various degrees) since Israeli leaders announced the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
"After nearly 4,000 years of this adversarial relationship with the world," I wrote then, "Jews -- especially those living here in Israel -- are, I think, at a crossroads and are rapidly moving to a position in which they can make peace not just with the still-stateless Palestinians but also with the whole world and even with themselves and their history."
I still think I was right about that being a great time to come to the bargaining table for everyone. But once again, as has been noted by lots of observers, both sides didn't miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
And now Israel and Hamas are at war. And the costs will be astonishingly high for both sides as well as for the entire world. That's especially true in light of the fact that there is no military solution to the problems of the Middle East. Rather, there must be political, social and even religious solutions that remember the ultimate value of every human being involved in this struggle. There is, in the end, no eternal reason the people of Israel and the Palestinian (and, more broadly, the Arab) people can't live together in peace.
One clearly complicating factor in the whole Middle East today is the fact that Saudi Arabia and Israel have been slowly moving toward a better relationship with each other -- all the while ignoring the hopes and desires of the Palestinian people in such a move. This Reuters analysis explains some of that.
But, of course, like any analyses written on deadline -- as was mine in 2012 that I linked you to above -- the likelihood of misinterpretation is high, at least in the details, even if some of the broader conclusions are solid.
What we do know is that the Middle East has been a cauldron of misunderstanding, hatred, violence and sometimes brilliance since Israel's creation. At the moment, I see no end of any of that in sight.
(P.S.: This Reuters piece is the best explanation I've seen yet for how and why Hamas surprised Israel with its attack.)
* * *
P.S.: Speaking of human misery, my boyhood friend from India, Markandey Katju, a former Supreme Court justice there, has written this good analysis of why laws against caste systems won't work if nothing else changes. It's worth a read.
Comments