The most recent encyclical by Pope Francis, Laudato Si’, on the other hand, was the most anticipated encyclical of recent time, attracting comment, debate and criticism even before it was officially released. Some 18 months prior, Pope Francis had indicated his intention to release an encyclical on the environment, the first major document by a Pope on this theme. There were also clear indications that climate change would be a focus of the document. Given the level of political debate on this topic, it was certain that the encyclical would be controversial.
Indeed even before its release, there was a concerted effort to undermine its anticipated message. At a conference organised in Rome by the Heartland Institute – famous for its climate change denial and for its defence of smokers’ right to make themselves sick – Catholic and prominent climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton, attacked the Pope for exceeding his authority: “You demean the office that you hold and you demean the church whom it is your sworn duty to protect and defend and advance.”
Closer to home an Australian priest, Fr James Grant, adjunct fellow of the Institute for Public Affairs, published a piece in The Australian the day before the encyclical was released stating that Catholics did not have to take the Pope’s concerns on climate change seriously. He had a follow-up piece a few weeks later entitled “It’s Unchristian to Oppose Coal Generated Power”, suggesting that the Pope’s concern for the poor would be better placed promoting the advantages of cheap coal-generated electricity.
This degree of pushback is a good indication that this is no ordinary encyclical. As predicted by both its promoters and detractors it took a stance on issues with real social, economic and political significance. First and most significantly the Pope indicated his acceptance of the “very solid scientific consensus” (LS 23) on human induced climate change. This stance lies at the heart of the controversy around the document. Of course, there is some irony in the fact that for centuries the Catholic Church had been criticised for not listening to science; now it is being criticised for attending to what the best science is saying.
However, once you accept this position, a number of things follow, consequences the Pope is willing to draw in his encyclical. For example: “We know that 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” (LS 165). He then went on to argue the need for binding international agreements to limit greenhouse gas emissions. He gave a scathing rebuke to the world community for its failure to act decisively and proportionately to our problems.
The Pope notes, “it is remarkable how weak international political responses have been” (LS 54). While he acknowledges areas of environmental success, in the area of climate change not enough is happening: “With regard to climate change, the advances have been regrettably few. Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most” (LS 169). Too often the common good is trumped by economic forces overriding political responsibility. The Pope backs up this concern with a call for strong international action on carbon emissions: “Enforceable international agreements are urgently needed” (LS 173). In arguing in this way Pope Francis was clearly seeking to influence the Paris climate negotiations conducted in November 2015.
Pope Francis is most concerned about the impact of climate change and other forms of environmental destruction on the world’s poor. Already altered weather patterns, particularly droughts, shifting rain patterns and increased weather events, are disproportionately impacting on the world’s poor. He goes on to speak of the notion of an “ecological debt” owed by first world nations to the poorest.
“Inequity affects not only individuals but entire countries; it compels us to consider an ethics of international relations. A true ‘ecological debt’ exists, particularly between the global north and south, connected to commercial imbalances with effects on the environment, and the disproportionate use of natural resources by certain countries over long periods of time” (LS 51).
To help meet this ecological debt he calls on wealthy nations “to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy and by assisting poorer countries to support policies and programs of sustainable development.” In this regard, the so called “Green Climate Fund” is not an act of beneficence on our part, but the repaying of a debt we owe to the world’s poorest nations whose resources have been plundered and who are now suffering the impact of our excesses.
Throughout the encyclical Pope Francis states and restates “everything is connected/interrelated”. The way we treat the earth is mirrored in the way we treat ourselves, especially the poor. The poor nations of the world have done the least damage to the environment, especially in relation to climate change, yet they are the ones who are suffering the most from its consequences. He asks us to hear “the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” (LS 49) lest we turn our planet into “an immense pile of filth” (LS 21).
It is clear that this encyclical was part of a concerted effort by the Pope to influence the Paris climate talks. There are some indications that he personally intervened in a situation where one nation was dragging the chain on a final agreement. How much influence his encyclical had we will never know. But it does indicate that Pope Francis is placing the environment into central focus in the Christian life: “Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience” (LS 217).
