Catholic Ecology Dissertation

8/14/2019 Catholic Ecology Dissertation

1/51

KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

FACULTY OF THEOLOGY

THE CONTRIBUTION OF POPE JOHN PAUL II TO THE

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ECOLOGICAL AWARENESS

WTHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

A Long Essay presented

in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the

Baccalaureate in

Sacred Theology.

Promoter:

Prof. Clemens Sedmak Presented by Richard Nesbitt


2/51

2008

FOREWORD

I would like to dedicate this long essay to my grandfather, Hugh Baird, who first taught me to see

the hand of the Creator in nature and to appreciate His sacred presence in all things.

I would like to express my thanks to Professor Clemens Sedmak, the promoter of this essay, for

his enthusiasm and wisdom. I would also like to thank Dr Paul McPartlan for his encouragement

and for being the first priest, besides Pope John Paul II, who I had ever heard speak with passion

about the great riches which the Church has to bring to the environmental debate.

Finally I would like to thank Sister Bernadette Hunston SCJA for her prayerful and practical

support and Canon Charles Acton for his patience and proof reading.


3/51

CONTENTS

FOREWARD i

CONTENTS ii

BIBLIOGRAPHY iii

INTRODUCTION A Silent Spring and a Silent Church? v

CHAPTER I

The Development of an Ecological Awareness in the modern Tradition of the Catholic

Social Teaching

1

LEO XIII,Rerum Novarum: On the Condition of the Working Classes (1891) 1

PIUS XI, Quadragesimo Anno: On the Reconstruction of the Social Order (1931) 2JOHN XXIII,Mater et Magistra: Christianity and Social Progress (1961) 3

PAUL VI, Populorum Progressio: On the Development of Peoples (1967) 5

PAUL VI, Octogesima Adveniens: A Call to Action on the Eightieth Anniversary of

Rerum Novarum ( 1971) 7

SUMMARY 8

CHAPTER II

The Contribution of Pope John Paul II to the Catholic Churchs response to the

Environmental Crisis

1

0

PART I PUBLISHED TEXTS AND DECLARATIONS

Redemptor Hominis (1979) 1

0

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis: On Social Concern (1987) 1

5

The Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace 1


4/51

6

Centesimus Annus: On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum (1991) 2

0

Ecumenical Declarations and the Call to Ecological Conversion 2

2

PART II - PERSONAL WITNESS 23

SUMMARY 2

7

CONCLUSION 3

2


5/51

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CARSON, R., Silent Spring, New York, 1962.

DENT, A. OSB (ed.), Ecology and Faith The Writings of Pope John Paul II,

Berkhamsted, 1997.

ECHLIN, E., Earth Spirituality Jesus at the Centre, Berkhamsted, 1999.

ECHLIN, E., The Cosmic Circle Jesus and Ecology, Blackrock, Co. Dublin,

2004.

FLANNERY, A. OP (ed.), Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents,

Volume 1, Dublin, 1975.

GRANBERG- Redeeming the Creation The Rio Earth Summit, Challenges forMICHAELSON, G., the Churches,Geneva, 1992.

HESSEL, D., and Earth Habitat Eco-Injustice and the Churchs Response,

RASMUSSEN, L., (eds), Minneapolis, 2001.

HOUGH, A., God is not Green A Re-examination of Eco-Theology,

Leominster, 1997.

JOHN PAUL II Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Hominis, London, 1979.

JOHN PAUL II Gift and Mystery, London, 1996.

JOHN PAUL II Memory and Identity, Personal Reflections, London, 2005.

JOHN PAUL II Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia,

London, 1984.

JOHN PAUL II Roman Triptych Meditations, London 2003.

McDONAGH, S., The Death of Life The Horror of Extinction,Blackrock, Co. Dublin,

2004.

McDONAGH, S., The Greening of the Church, London, 1990.

McNEILL, J., Something New Under The Sun: an environmental history

of the twentieth-century world, London, 2000.

MOLTMANN, J., God in Creation, An Ecological Doctrine of Creation, London, 1995.


6/51

NORTHCOTT, M., The Environment and Christian Ethics, Cambridge, 1996.

OBRIEN, T. and Catholic Social Thought The Documentary Heritage, New York,

SHANNON, A., 1992.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, London, 2004.

FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE

SCHAEFFER, F.A., Pollution and the Death of Man The Christian View of

Ecology, Wheaton, Illinois, 1970.

All Scripture quotations are taken from The Jerusalem Bible, London, 1966.

SHORT TEXTS AND ARTICLES

BENEDICT XVI The Human Family, A Community of Peace Message for the 2008

World Day of Peace, LOsservatore Romano, Vatican, 19 December,

pp.8 9.

JOHN PAUL II And God Saw That It Was Good Message for the 1990 World Day

of Peace, reproduced in The Pope Speaks, Vol. 35, Vatican, 1990.

pp. 200 206.

JOHN PAUL II and Common Declaration on the Environment, June 10, 2002.

PATRIARCHBARTHOLOMEW I of

CONSTANTINOPLE

MEANS, R., Why Worry about Nature?, Saturday Review, December 2, 1967

reproduced in F.A. SCHAEFFER, Pollution and the Death of Man

The Christian View of Ecology, Wheaton, Illinois, 1970, pp. 117-125.

WHITE, L. Jr, The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, reproduced in F.A.

SCHAEFFER, Pollution and the Death of Man The Christian View

of Ecology, Wheaton, Illinois, 1970, pp. 97-115.


7/51

WEBSITES

HTTP://CONSERVATION.CATHOLIC.ORG

HTTP://WWW.VATICAN


8/51

INTRODUCTION

A SILENT SPRINGANDA SILENT CHURCH?

In 1962, as the Catholic Church was preparing for the inauguration of the Second Vatican

Council, another event of radical importance took place across the ocean in the United States.

This was the year when Rachel Carson, a marine biologist and respected American science

writer, published Silent Spring a book which exposed the catastrophic effects of the use of toxic

pesticides such as DDT on the entire ecosystem, including humans.

Although a scientist herself, Carson challenged the uncritical post-war attitude which saw

human progress in terms of scientific and technological dominion over nature. She argued, by

presenting detailed case studies of the damage to the environment caused by toxic chemicals, that

man in his arrogance had forgotten that he was a part of nature and not above nature. Intoxicated

with his own sense of power, man, Carson argued, was blindly and arrogantly engaged in the

destruction of his world and ultimately himself as technology was allowed to move on a faster

trajectory than mankinds sense of moral responsibility. The central symbol in Carsons book of

this human destruction of nature is the eerie silence of a Spring with no birdsong or fish leaping

in the streams all silenced by a barrage of poisons indiscriminately released into the ecosystem

for the purpose of killing a few weeds or troublesome insects. As Carson writes in her

introduction:

The most alarming of all mans assaults upon the environment is the contamination of

air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials. The chain of evil it

initiates is for the most part irreversible...chemicals sprayed on croplands or forests or

gardens lie long in soil, entering into living organisms, passing from one to another in

a chain of poisoning and death. Or they pass mysteriously by underground streams

until they emerge and, through the alchemy of air and sunlight, combine into new

forms that kill vegetation, sicken cattle, and work unknown harm on those who drink

from once pure wells.

1

Carson was able to prove this last point the contamination of the human body by what

were meant to be programmes of pesticide control by presenting research results showing that

the milk of breast-feeding mothers in the USA was contaminated with DDT. Silent Spring

sparked a national debate on the use of chemical pesticides a debate which resulted in a ban on1 R. CARSON, Silent Spring, New York 1962 (revised ed. 2002), p. 6.


9/51

the domestic production of DDT and the creation of a grass-roots movement demanding

protection of the environment through state and federal regulations. Her writing stirred an

awakening of public environmental consciousness by highlighting the disastrous consequences of

human disregard for the interdependence of all life. The publication ofSilent Spring is now seen

as a defining moment in the launch of the modern environmental movement a cause for which

Carson was not only a prophet but also a martyr, dying from breast cancer just over a year after

publishing Silent Spring.

Yet to use such religious imagery to describe Carsons work is not to suggest that hers

was a voice which spoke from the Christian tradition. She wrote and campaigned with an

evangelists zeal but without in any way rooting her arguments in a Christian understanding of

mans God-given responsibility to act as a steward of creation. Carson based her argument on

empirical evidence of case studies detailing the damage caused by pesticide programmes over a

number of years in the USA and beyond, combined with her own eloquent love of nature. For a

Christian reader, Silent Spring is a humbling and challenging book a reminder that not only

does Christianity not have a monopoly on ideas such as communion, examination of conscience

and reverence for creation but that also it has much to learn from the prophetic voices of others.

It can at least be said that Carson is not opposed to Christianity it simply does not

feature explicitly in her landscape. The same cannot be said for another American environmental

campaigner writing in the 1960s, Lynn White Jr., a professor of history at the University of

California. In an influential and much-discussed article published in Science magazine in 1967

entitled The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis White argued that the environmental crisis is

Christianitys fault. Ironically, just as Carson is critical of the scientific community while herself

being a scientist, so White condemns Christianity while describing himself as a churchman. He

argues that although we no longer live in a Christian world, but a post-Christian one, nevertheless

we still retain a Christian mentality in our attitudes and behaviour towards the environment.

White traces the Christian burden of guilt back to the Creation stories of Genesis in which,

according to Whites interpretation, God is seen as creating nature:


10/51

...explicitly for mans benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any

purpose save to serve mans purposes. And, although mans body is made of clay, he

is not simply part of nature: he is made in Gods image.2

White describes Christianity, as a consequence of these founding attitudes, as the most

anthropocentric religion the world has seen.3 This has established at the heart of Christianity,

White argues, a dualism of man and nature in which it seems to be Gods will that man exploit

nature for his own ends. White points to the reverence for nature which is at the heart of ancient

paganism, whereby every tree, spring, stream and hill was believed to have its own sacred spirit.

Christianitys destruction of pagan animism, White argues, made it possible for Christian

cultures to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.4 White

concludes that modern science and technology, especially in the West, developed out of the

tradition of Christian natural theology and therefore their fundamentally exploitative and

ecologically-destructive attitudes are informed by this Christian contempt for nature. If this

argument is accepted, it means that, in Whites words, Christianity bears a huge burden of

guilt.5White sees little difference between those logging companies which in our own times are

destroying tropical rainforests for profit and Christian missionaries who for nearly two

millennia... have been chopping down sacred groves, which are idolatrous because they assume

spirit in nature.6

This is a damning indictment of Christianity. The only path of redemption which White is

able to offer to a Christian reader is his identification of an alternative attitude towards nature

within the Christian tradition. This tradition, White argues, finds its greatest expression in the

example of St Francis who, in contrast to the dominant Christian attitudes described above, rooted

his life in the virtue of humility, not only for the individual but for man as a species:

2 WHITE, L. JR, The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, reproduced in SCHAEFFER, F.A., Pollution and theDeath of Man The Christian Viewof Ecology, Wheaton, Illinois, 1970, p 107.

3 WHITE, L. JR, The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, reproduced in SCHAEFFER, F.A., Pollution and theDeath of Man The Christian Viewof Ecology, Wheaton, Illinois, 1970, p 107.

4Ibid. p.108.

5Ibidp.111.

6Ibid. p. 112.


11/51

Francis tried to depose man from his monarchy over creation and set up a democracy

for all Gods creatures. With him the ant is no longer a homily for the lazy, flames a

sign of the thrust of the soul toward union with God; now they are Brother Ant and

Sister Fire, praising the Creator in their own ways as Brother Man does in his. 7

White portrays Francis as a spiritual revolutionary, a rebel against the forces of

technological domination over nature which were beginning to take hold in the Western medieval

world. Yet Francis alternative Christian view of nature and mans relation to it is one which,

White argues, has been largely suppressed by the Church. This forces White to conclude:

We shall continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the Christian

axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man... Both our present

science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance

toward nature that no solution for our ecological crisis can be expected from them

alone.8

Yet White does concede that just as the causes of the crisis are religious so the remedy

must also embrace a religious dimension as the way we behave is rooted in what we believe about

ourselves and the world around us. This means that there is a need for a fundamental

transformation in human thinking. For this, White suggests a return to the spirituality of St

Francis, whom he proposes as the most worthy patron saint for ecologists.

Whites argument is undoubtedly an over-simplification and caricature of the Christian

tradition. He completely ignores, for instance, the beneficial influence of monasticism on the

agricultural development of Medieval Catholic Europe, which Sean McDonagh describes as a

social and agricultural system reflecting a spirituality of nature and land which was marked by

gratitude for creation as the gift of God, and a careful quest to nurture its natural fruitfulness.9

However, there is much in Whites provocative article which demands of the Church a soul-

searching examination of conscience as regards her contribution to the ecological crisis.

Just as Silent Spring was published on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, so Whites

article was published just after the close of the Council. If we are looking to repudiate the validity

7Ibid. p. 113.

8WHITE, L. JR, The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, reproduced in SCHAEFFER, F.A., Pollution and theDeath of Man The Christian Viewof Ecology, Wheaton, Illinois, 1970, p 114.

9 S. McDONAGH, To Care for the Earth: A Call to a New Theology, London, 1986, p.130.


12/51

of Whites thesis, surely the Council documents themselves are an appropriate representation of

the Catholic voice of that decade in which to search for what the Church herself says about the

environment. What a reading of the Council documents reveals is that rather than promoting a

theology of mans exploitation of the environment for his own ends, as White would have us

believe, the Church simply has little or nothing to say about humanitys relationship to the rest of

creation. The one explicit reference to creation is found in The Pastoral Constitution on the

Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, in which we read:

By the work of his hands and with the aid of technical means man tills the earth to bring

forth fruit and to make it a dwelling place fit for all mankind;...in so doing he is realizing

the design, which God revealed at the beginning of time, to subdue the earth and perfect

the work of creation, and at the same time he is improving his own person.10

There is no sense here of a mutually sustaining relationship between humanity and the rest

of creation or of the need to protect the environment from irresponsible human behaviour. The

world in Gaudium et Spes and in the Council documents in general means the human world a

profoundly anthropocentric attitude indeed. There is a silence within the Church at this time about

the environment. Yet it is an omission in what otherwise is a sincere attempt by the Church to

face up to the challenges of the day, as is expressed so eloquently in the famous opening words of

Gaudium et Spes:

The joy and hope, the grief and anguish of the men of our time, especially of those whoare poor or afflicted in any way, are the joy and hope, the grief and anguish of the

followers of Christ as well. Nothing that is genuinely human fails to find an echo in their

hearts.11

The Council Fathers did explicitly consider the relationship between the wholeness of the

human person and the rest of creation. The Churchs silence is not of the same nature as the

intentional contamination of the ecosystem as chronicled in Rachel Carsons Silent Spring but

one which is simply caused by a blindness a failure to see that the destruction of the natural

world by human activity will inevitably cause grief and anguish not only to the rest of creation

but to humanity itself and therefore should be of real concern to the followers of Christ.

There is one observation which needs to be made at this point. While the Church in its

understanding of the world as revealed in the Council documents is undoubtedly deeply

10 VATICAN II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 57.

11Ibid, n. 1.


13/51

anthropocentric, as White would subsequently argue, this tendency does need to be seen within

the context of a wider failing of human thinking at this time. In an article published in the

Saturday Review of December 2, 1967, Richard L. Means, an associate professor of sociology at

the University of Michigan, responded to Lynn Whites article with the following observation:

Albert Schweitzer once wrote, The greatest fault of all ethics hitherto has been that they

believed themselves to have to deal only with the relation of man to man. Modern

ethical discussion does not seem to have removed itself very far from this fallacy. 12

This is an important insight the anthropocentric focus of the Church in the 1960s was

one shared by society in general at the time, including the worlds of politics, ethics and

economics. Voices such as that of Rachel Carson were isolated prophetic appeals to society to

expand its understanding of what it means to be fully human and of the immense responsibility

which humanity bears to protect the natural world or otherwise be destroyed by its own

selfishness and arrogance.

During the almost half a century since the work of Carson and others to awaken humanity

to its ecological failings, the true extent of the environmental catastrophe facing the planet has

become more widely understood and accepted. The accelerating and interrelated problems of

global warming and climate change, the depletion of the worlds natural resources and pollution

of the atmosphere as well as the daily destruction and extinction of whole ecosystems and

plant/animal species are now matters of urgent political, social and economic concern. Humanity

is finally having to face up to the fact that in its greed and desire to control nature, man is

increasingly at the mercy of natural forces in an environment which is rapidly spinning out of

control. This is a critical moment for humanity and all of creation. There is also a growing

understanding that the crisis is essentially a moral crisis and therefore it is through a change of

attitudes and not through scientific and technological advances that a solution will be found. This

therefore is a time for the Church to redeem herself by contributing her moral voice to the debate

and thereby assuming a prophetic role in a situation in which politicians, business leaders and

scientists seem unable to go beyond the limitations of self-interest in their responses to the

ecological crisis.

12 R. L. MEANS, Why Worry about Nature?, Saturday Review, December 2, 1967 reproduced in F.A.

SCHAEFFER, Pollution and the Death of Man The Christian View of Ecology, Wheaton, Illinois, 1970, p.117.


14/51

This paper will therefore explore how the Churchs teaching on the environment has

developed in recent years and to what extent she has indeed redeemed herself for the silence and

anthropocentricity of her past.


15/51

CHAPTER I

THE DEVELOPMENTOFAN ECOLOGICAL AWARENESS INTHEMODERN TRADITIONOF

CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING

If we are to trace the development of the Churchs response to environmental issues, then

it is within the Churchs tradition of social teaching that this development will be most clearly

seen. Modern Catholic Social Teaching (CST) originates from the late nineteenth century the

era when the full impact and consequences of the Industrial Revolution on society and

individuals began to be felt. It will be interesting to explore at what point CST began to recognise

that industrialisation had damaging consequences not only for humanity but also for the rest of

the natural world.

LEO XIII, Rerum Novarum: On the Condition of the Working Classes (1891)

Described as the Magna Carta upon which all Christian activity in the social field ought to

be based13, Leo XIIIs encyclical marked the first major step by the Magisterium in the post-

Industrial Revolution era towards putting the Church on the side of the poor and the working

class. Written at a time of political, economic and social unrest, Rerum Novarum (hereafter RN)sets out to defend the dignity and fundamental rights of the working classes, principally by

rejecting the false theories of socialism and appealing for a return to Christian morals.RNargues

that socialism degrades and enslaves the working classes and the poor, yet there is no suggestion

that the earths environment has been similarly despoiled by the rise of industrialism and modern

economic practices. Nature instead is presented as an ever-dependable and ever-renewable

resource in a treacherous and unstable world:

dominion not only over the fruits of the earth, but also over the earth itself, ought torest in man, since he sees that things necessary for the future are furnished him out of the

produce of the earth. The needs of every man are subject, as it were, to constant

recurrences, so that satisfied today, they make new demands tomorrow. Therefore nature

necessarily gives man something stable and perpetually lasting on which he can count for

13 PIUS XI Quadragesimo Anno, n. 39, in D OBRIEN and T. SHANNON (eds), Catholic Social Thought The

Documentary History, Maryknoll, N.Y., 1992, p.50.


16/51

continuous support. Nothing can give continuous support of this kind save the earth with

its great abundance. (n.12)

RNdoes at least recognise that there is a mutuality in the relationship between nature and

humanity nature can preserve and perfect life but it, in turn, depends on human cultivation

and care in order to achieve its true potential:

The earth produces in great abundance the things to preserve and, especially, to perfect

life, but of itself it could not produce them without cultivation and care. Moreover, since

man expends his mental energy and his bodily strength in procuring the goods of nature,

by this very act he appropriates that part of physical nature to himself which he has

cultivated. On it he leaves impressed, as it were, a kind of image of his own person, so

that it must be altogether just that he should possess that part as his very own. (n.15)

Strikingly, there is in the above words an early echo of the modern idea of humanitys

ecological footprint, yet in RN this imprint is seen as being entirely benevolent for human

activity is seen as perfecting nature:

The land, surely, that has been worked by the hand and the art of the tiller greatly changes

in aspect. The wilderness is made fruitful; the barren field, fertile. (n.16)

It is clear that RN simply does not recognise the damage which ever-expanding

industrialisation had begun to have on the environment. Yet this is not so much a failing of the

encyclical itself as a blindness of the times in which it was written when people were unable to

look beyond a purely anthropocentric view of the world. The focus ofRNis on the dignity of the

human person with little or no reference to the natural environment. However the encyclical does

establish an approach to issues of social justice which will later become central to the ecological

debate. This approach is to be found in RNs insistence on stressing the connection between

economic/political development and morality and on the need for a return to Christian virtues:

The Church calls men to and trains them in virtue. For when Christian morals are

completely observed, they... restrain the twin plagues of life excessive desire for wealth

and thirst for pleasure which too often make man wretched amidst the very abundance

of riches, and because finally, Christian morals make men content with a moderatelivelihood and make them supplement income by thrift (n.42)

PIUS XI, Quadragesimo Anno: On the Reconstruction of the Social Order (1931)


17/51

Written on the fortieth anniversary ofRN, Quadragesimo Anno (hereafter QA) reiterates

many of the basic principles of its predecessor as well as its condemnation of communism and

socialism. However Pius went much further than Leo had done in his criticism of capitalism, the

worst excesses of which he describes as despotic economic dictatorship (n.105). This criticism

is undoubtedly informed by the contemporary context of the Wall Street crash and ensuing

economic depression with its unprecedented levels of unemployment. In the face of this apparent

near-social breakdown, Pius went beyond the call for mere economic reform to press for social

and political change. In this he focused on the basic causes of injustice and poverty rather than

merely expressing outrage at their effect and thus called for the Church to assume a prophetic

role in society by fulfilling the role of moral guide.

Pius also expressed a more developed concern for the common good, by which private

property is not to serve personal greed but is to be held in stewardship for the benefit of all.

Crucially Pius recognised that unjust structures play a significant role in the suffering of the poor

(e.g. nn. 77-8) and so individual conversion and charity by themselves will not bring about a

Christian reconstruction of human society (n.147). The changes necessary to bring about this

reconstruction are the reform of institutions and correction of morals (n.77). Such reforms, both

individual and institutional, will ensure that:

The sordid love of wealth, which is the shame and great sin of our age, will be opposed in

actual fact by the gentle yet effective law of Christian moderation which commands mento seek first the kingdom of God and His justice, with the assurance that by virtue of

Gods kindness and unfailing promise, temporal goods also, in so far as he has need of

them, shall be given him besides. (n.136)

Thus Christianity is seen as offering an antidote to both institutional and personal greed, an

antidote which through the promotion of virtues such as moderation, thrift and prudence would

logically have obvious benefits for the environment. However, as in RN, the need to protect the

environment is not yet identified in QA as a concern of Catholic social teaching.

JOHN XXIII, Mater et Magistra: Christianity and Social Progress (1961)

Given the events which had shaken the world during the thirty years since QA,Mater et

Magistra (hereafter MM) addressed a radically altered political, social and economic landscape.


18/51

Yet despite the new challenges of the 1960s the end of colonialism and the rise of the

ideological divisions of the Cold War John XXIII speaks with an optimistic voice, confident

that the technical and scientific advances of the modern world could transform society:

In the field of science, technology and economics we have the discovery of nuclear energy,

and its application first to the purposes of war and later, increasingly, to peaceful ends; the

practically limitless possibilities of chemistry in the production of synthetic materials; the

growth of automation in industry and public services; the modernisation of agriculture; the

easing of communications, especially by radio and television; faster transportation and the

initial conquest of interplanetary space.(n.47).

The dangers of this unquestioning trust in scientific and technological advances of a

power never previously known to humanity would be exposed by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring

just a year later. Certainly today there would be a much more ambivalent attitude to the above

developments - indeed many, such as faster transportation and the modernisation of agriculture,

would be identified as being among the main contributors to the environmental crisis. Yet John

XXIII speaks with the uncritical, optimistic voice of his times, which saw science and technology

as a means to achieving human self-fulfilment, partly through domination over the forces of

nature.

There is, however, a recognition that all is not well, such as in the increasing disparity

between the economic wealth of different countries and regions in the world. In response to this

growing imbalance, John reaffirms and develops the principle of subsidiarity, first formulated in

CST by Pius XI in QA, whereby the importance of, whenever possible, making all decisions

locally is promoted in opposition to political and economic centralisation.

A new development in MM, perhaps because of Johns own rural roots, is a concern for

the needs of agriculture and rural populations rather than a focus purely on industrial workers.

MM begins to address the peculiar difficulties of farmers (n. 133), which naturally includes

humanitys relationship to nature:

Those who live on the land can hardly fail to appreciate the nobility of the work they arecalled upon to do. They are living in close harmony with Nature the majestic temple of

Creation. Their work has to do with the life of plants and animals, a life that is

inexhaustible in its expression, inflexible in its laws, rich in allusions to God the Creator

and Provider. They produce food for the support of human life, and the raw materials of

industry in ever richer supply. (n.144).


19/51

There is in these words absolutely no sense of the limited resources of nature and

therefore the damage of over-exploiting these resources. This fundamental attitude is repeated

with reference to the potential problem of human over-population. AlthoughMMdoes recognise

that dramatic growth in human population over the coming decades is a real possibility, it is

dismissive of those who see in this growth a significant threat to human prosperity:

The resources which God in His goodness has implanted in Nature are well-nigh

inexhaustible, and He has at the same time given man the intelligence to discover ways and

means of exploiting these resources for his own advantage and his own livelihood. Hence,

the real solution is to be found in a renewed scientific and technical effort on mans

part to deepen and extend his dominion over Nature. The progress of science and

technology that has already been achieved opens up almost limitless horizons in this field.

(n. 189)

How nave and misguided these words sound now in their attitude towards Nature, whichis once again portrayed as inexhaustible in its capacity to regenerate and provide for the needs of

humanity. This is still a profoundly anthropocentric view in which humanitys relationship to the

earth is portrayed in terms of dominion and control rather than stewardship and care:

Modern man has greatly deepened and extended his knowledge of natures laws, and has

harnessed the forces of nature, making them subservient to his ends. The magnitude of his

achievements deserves ungrudging admiration; nor is he yet at the end of his resources.

(n. 242)

PAUL VI, Populorum Progressio: On the Development of Peoples (1967)

Populorum Progressio (hereafter PP) marks a significant development in Catholic social

teaching by recognising that social injustice is a world-wide issue, in which the Church is called

first and foremost to respond to the suffering of the poor, who are defined as those peoples

who are striving to escape from hunger, misery, endemic diseases and ignorance (n.1).

Paul writes with an urgency informed by his own journeys to areas of the world deeplyaffected by poverty and injustice - Latin America, Africa and India. In particular he highlights

the scandal of glaring inequalities not merely in the enjoyment of possessions but even more

in the exercise of power. (n.9). This emphasis not only on disparities of wealth but also of power

is central to PP, which recognises that it is power which enables the rich to become richer by


20/51

forcing the weak to make trading agreements and conform to economic systems which are

inherently unjust. Paul goes much deeper than any of his predecessors in analysing the causes of

poverty, recognising, for example, that one legacy of colonialism is that many of the poorest

countries have been left dependent on a single export crop. This puts their entire economy at the

mercy of decision-makers in developed nations.

Paul argues that, in the face of such extreme injustice, individual conversion and charity is

no longer enough what is also needed is a reform of unjust structures, such as international

financial and trading systems. He exposes the prevailing wrong attitudes of unchecked liberalism,

showing that the so-called free-market is anything but free and ensures, instead, that the

poorer nations remain ever poor while the rich ones become still richer. (n.57) Paul boldly

proposes a new approach to international relations and economics based on a global solidarity

which prioritises the needs of the poorest countries. In this he saw the possibility for the full

human development of each person and all peoples:

It is a question of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion or

nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other

men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control; a world where freedom

is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with

the rich man. (n.47)

At the heart of Pauls insight is his widening of the understanding of poverty beyond mere

material impoverishment to include such ideas as powerlessness, lack of access to education and

cultural opportunities, and the denial of religious freedom. This in turn necessarily transforms our

understanding of authentic development beyond mere economic growth to embrace the whole

human person. This is a highly significant moment in the development of Catholic social teaching

a moment when the magisterium raises its eyes and looks into the eyes of all humanity and is

no longer limited by ties of geographical location, social position or religion (e.g. see n.39 for the

need for co-operation with non-Catholic organisations).

However, it needs to be recognised that the encyclical still does not include in its

understanding of the whole human person the need for a clean and protected environment. There

is, for example, no explicit reference in PP to the negative effects of bad development on the

environment. The encyclical still presents an essentially anthropocentric way of looking at the

troubles of the world, although there is at least a recognition that technology and science can be


21/51

both causes and cures of unjust development. It should also be noted that when creation is

referred to, there is a significant change in language away from a vocabulary of human

domination over nature towards a greater stress on mutuality and stewardship:

Humanity, created in the image of God, must co-operate with his/her Creator in the

perfecting of creation and communicate to the earth the spiritual imprint he/she has

received. God, who has endowed humanity with intelligence, imagination and sensitivity,

has also given him/her the means of completing His work in a certain way: whether they

be an artist or craftsman, engaged in management, industry or agriculture, each person is a

creator. (n.27)

PAUL VI, Octogesima Adveniens: A Call to Action on the Eightieth Anniversary of Rerum

Novarum ( 1971)

Written to mark the eightieth anniversary ofRN, Octogesima Adveniens (hereafter OA)

seeks to take up again and to extend the teaching of our predecessors in response to the new

needs of a changing world. (n. 1) One of the new needs identified in OA is urbanisation,

recognising that the traditional rural way of life is weakening, leading to mass migration to urban

areas where neither employment nor housing awaits them. (n.8). In his analysis Paul VI

presents an ambivalent attitude towards this trend of increasing industrialisation:

The inordinate growth of these centres accompanies industrial expansion, without being

identified with it. Based on technological research and the transformation of nature,

industrialisation constantly goes forward, giving proof of incessant creativity. (n. 9)

The choice of vocabulary here: transformation, creativity certainly excludes any

explicit suggestion that such industrialisation could in fact be harmful to the environment, even

though urbanisation is identified as a new social problem. The underlying attitude to mans

relationship to nature is perhaps expressed in a comment which does not deal directly with the

environment:

Man is experiencing a new loneliness; it is not in the face of a hostile nature which it has

taken him centuries to subdue, but in an anonymous crowd which surrounds him and in

which he feels himself a stranger. (n. 10)

Thus nature is seen as being hostile, a force which needs to be subdued by man. There

is no suggestion of mutual dependence here.


22/51

On the other hand, OA does recognise, in contrast to the attitude of John XXIII in MM,

that science and technology do not necessarily hold all the solutions to humanitys problems and

are not to be accepted uncritically: Having subdued nature by using his reason, man now finds

that he himself is, as it were, imprisoned within his own rationality; he in turn becomes the object

of science. (n.38). Furthermore, in the face of the dominant individualism of the age, Paul VI

lays great stress on the need for greater human solidarity, including a preferential option for the

poor who should always be the Churchs primary concern.

Most significantly, in the context of this essay, OA does represent a defining moment in

the Churchs teaching on the environment. For in the encyclicals presentation of new social

problems there is a sub-section entitled The Environment, which for the first time in the

writings of the magisterium in the tradition of Catholic social teaching recognises the threat of

human activity to the environment:

Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks

destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation. Not only is the

material environment becoming a permanent menace pollution and refuse, new illness

and absolute destructive capacity but the human framework is no longer under mans

control, thus creating an environment for tomorrow which may well be intolerable. This is

a wide-ranging social problem which concerns the entire human family. (n. 21)

These words signal the end of the belief that creation is an inexhaustibly renewable

resource at the service of human development. This is indeed a significant moment and yet, at the

same time, it needs to be recognised that this is still an essentially anthropocentric way of seeing

the problem. Man is portrayed as the destroyer but also as the victim of nature, rather than

recognising the impact of human destruction on other species and environments. Yet the problem

of the environment has finally been recognised and named as an issue which demands serious

reflection and a response from Christians who must turn to these new perceptions in order to

take on responsibility, together with the rest of men, for a destiny which from now on is shared

by all. (n.21)

SUMMARY

What is striking from this brief survey of Catholic social teaching from RNto OA is that

on a great variety of issues the Church has been able to speak with a distinct, prophetic and


23/51

counter-cultural voice by counteracting the prevailing, largely self-serving political ideologies

and economic systems of successive generations. It has done this by calling humanity to radical

reform in the following seven key areas:

1) The fundamental promotion of human dignity and welfare as the starting

point for all political, economic and social endeavour.

2) The promotion of Christian virtues of moderation and charity and thus the

rejection of greed and selfishness.

3) The promotion of models of co-operation, solidarity and a concern for the

common good rather than confrontational relationships such as class struggles

and racism.

4) The promotion of a preferential option for the poor rather than a self-serving

concern for the needs of the rich and the powerful.

5) The promotion of the principle and practice of subsidiarity in opposition to

the prevailing trends towards centralisation and globalisation.

6) The campaign to see authentic development not in purely economic terms but

as concerning the whole human person and all people.

7) The promotion of human obligations and not only human rights.

However it is also clear that, in the first eighty years of modern Catholic social teaching,

this counter-cultural stance did not include a defence of creation in the face of human destruction

of the environment. As shown above, the perception expressed in RN that nature is something

stable and perpetually lasting, an ever-renewable resource which is to perfected by human

activity, remained unchallenged until the 1960s. The Church speaks with the prevailing language

of the times by describing humanitys relationship to the environment in terms of domination

whereby nature is seen as a hostile force which needs to be subdued. There is certainly no

recognition of the possibly irreparable damage done to the environment since the rise of

industrialisation and of the effects of this destruction on humanity and creation as a whole.

However, these perceptions begin to change with the widening of the horizons of Catholic

social teaching in PP with the embrace of a truly global perspective, although even here the key

concepts of authentic development and the common good still do not include the understanding


24/51

of the fundamental human need for a clean environment. It is only with OA, at the beginning of

the 1970s, that the threat of human activity to the environment is explicitly named, even though

humanitys relationship to nature is still at times expressed in terms of domination and

subjugation. It is still an essentially anthropocentric way of seeing the problem with no

recognition of the effects of human activity on other species and yet, at last, there is an

understanding that the problems of the environment should be of concern to the followers of

Christ, who bear a responsibility for the care of the earth. This recognition has not as yet

developed into a systematic theology of the environment or proposals for practical action these

are challenges which would await Paul VIs successor. And thus it is to John Paul IIs response to

these environmental challenges which this paper will now turn.

CHAPTER II

THE CONTRIBUTIONOF POPE JOHN PAUL II TOTHE CATHOLIC CHURCHSRESPONSETO

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS

The election of John Paul II in October 1978 came at a critical time for the development

of an ecological awareness within CST. As environmental concerns began to claim a more central

position in political, social and economic debate from the 1960s onwards, Christians showed

themselves to be largely latecomers, rather than pioneers, in these matters. The World Council of

Churches, for example, only began to talk of Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation at its

Vancouver conference in 1983.

The Catholic Church in 1978, as shown in chapter one, had certainly not progressed very

far in its own response to the growing ecological crisis. John Paul inherited a tradition which was

struggling to develop from its largely anthropocentric focus and certainly struggling to find its

own authentic and distinctive voice within the ecological debate. The aim of this chapter is to

show that John Paul II, in the twenty eight years of his pontificate, did indeed make a significant


25/51

and transforming contribution to the Churchs developing tradition of ecological awareness. This

was a contribution which John Paul II expressed in both word and action.

PART I PUBLISHED TEXTS AND DECLARATIONS

Redemptor Hominis (1979)

John Paul II published his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis (hereafter RH), on the

fourth of March, 1979, the first Sunday of Lent, within six months of being elected pope. He

begins his encyclical by declaring, with reference to his choice of papal name, his deep affection

for his immediate predecessor, John Paul I, as well as my love for the unique inheritance left

to the Church by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI and my personal readiness to develop that

inheritance with Gods help. (n.2) This inheritance he explicitly identifies as the work of the

Second Vatican Council, convened and opened by John XXIII and later successfully concluded

and perseveringly put into effect by Paul VI (n.3).

John Paul highlights in RH the main themes of this inheritance which loom most

urgently in this post-Conciliar period a period which he describes as this new advent of the

Church as she prepares for the approaching Jubilee of the year 2000. He identifies these

principal themes as: 1) the need to understand ever more clearly the identity and mission of theChurch (including responding to the Councils call for the need for greater collegiality within the

Church); 2) the need for a new evangelisation; 3) the need to be faithful and persistent in

responding to the Councils call for ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; 4) the renewal of fidelity

to the sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance. In addition to these concerns, John Paul also

writes with considerable urgency about the social, political and economic problems of the day,

reaffirming the foundational principles of CST such as the need for effective solidarity between

people and nations (n.16), the need for true human freedom and peace (n.16), the importance ofpursuing authentic development (n.15) and the common good (n.17). In all of the above John

Paul calls upon the Church to be rooted in the mystery of Christ the Redeemer, who fully

reveals man to himself14.

14 VATICAN II, Gaudium et Spes, n.22.


26/51

However, it is striking that inRHJohn Paul weaves into his analysis of the above themes

a recurring concern for the problems of the environment. Thus, he observes that:

exploitation of the earth not only for industrial but also for military purposes and the

uncontrolled development of technology often bring with them a threat to mans natural

environment, alienate him in his relations with nature and remove him from nature. Manoften seems to see no other meaning in his natural environment than what serves for

immediate use and consumption. Yet it was the Creators will that man should

communicate with nature as an intelligent and noble master and guardian, and not as

a heedless exploiter and destroyer.15

Within the tradition of CST this is a new way of talking about the environment,

recognising the damage caused by mans alienation from the rest of nature. Moreover, John Paul

goes beyond merely identifying the problem to analysing its causes. He looks beyond the failings

of the political and economic systems currently dominant in the world, and beyond theirresponsible use of technology and exploitative modern industrial and agricultural practices and

gazes into the human soul itself. Firstly he notes the deep disquiet which affects the human soul

at the end of the second millennium:

Man lives increasingly in fear. He is afraid that what he producescan radically turn

against himself; he is afraid that it can become the means and instrument for an

unimaginable self-destruction... Why is it that the power given to man from the beginning

by which he was to subdue the earth turns against himself, producing an understandable

state of disquiet, of conscious or unconscious fear and of menace? 16

This fear, he argues, comes from the failure to underpin technological developments with

the necessary moral and ethical development. Man, who was created to be Gods co-creator in the

world, is increasingly becoming slave to his own invention. True human progress, John Paul

argues, would make man more mature spiritually, more aware of the dignity of his humanity,

more responsible, more open to others, especially the neediest and the weakest (n.15). Surveying

the grave moral disorder which he sees in the contemporary world, John Paul concludes that

humanity, despite its apparent technological progress, is in fact regressing spiritually and morally.This interior sickness is manifested, for example, in an unhealthy materialism which values

having over being, in increasing selfishness and in the domination of personal interests over

15 JOHN PAUL II,Redemptor Hominis, London, 1979, n.15.

16 JOHN PAUL II,Redemptor Hominis,n.15


27/51

the common good. John Paul notes that: A civilisation purely materialistic in outline condemns

man to slavery... (n. 16)

Gazing into the human soul, John Paul ultimately identifies humanitys deepest malaise as

the loss of respect for the dignity and value of human life. It is this blindness to the worth of

every individual and all peoples which he blames for the horrors of the twentieth century:

the welfare of man or, let us say, of the person in the community must, as a

fundamental factor in the common good, constitute the essential criterion for all

programmes, systems and regimes. If the opposite happens, human life is, even in times

of peace, condemned to various sufferings and there is a development of various forms of

domination, totalitarianism, neo-colonialism and imperialism, which are a threat also to

the harmonious living together of nations. (n.17)

Amongst the forms of domination which are a consequence of this contempt for human

life is the destruction of the natural environment which is likewise seen as something to be used

or abused according to selfish individual or group needs. Once the sanctity of human life is

violated, John Paul argues, all forms of life are at risk.

John Paul is writing here in response to the Councils fundamental question, What is

man? 17 - the answer to which determines our understanding of the dignity and worth of the

human person. Conscious of the shadow which atheism has cast over the human soul, John Paul

writes with obvious reference to the concern of the Council fathers expressed in Gaudium et Spes

over the harmful effects of atheism which casts man down from the noble state to which he is

born. 18 The Council fathers asserted that [human] dignity is grounded and brought to

perfection in God.19 a belief which John Paul clearly perceives needs to be reasserted with

great urgency at the end of the twentieth century. The Council fathers had also recognised the

essential restlessness of the human soul - every man remains a question to himself20 - and had

declared in response that: In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the

mystery of man truly becomes clear. (GS, 22) This is the essential teaching which John Paul

desires to hold up as the foundation stone for his pontificate for, as he states in the opening words

ofRH: The Redeemer of man, Jesus Christ, is the centre of the universe and of history. (n.1)

17 VATICAN II, Gaudium et Spes, n.12.

18 Ibid, n.21.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.


28/51

In response to this degradation of humanity, John Paul seeks in RH to re-assert human

dignity and for this he once more draws inspiration from the teaching of the Second Vatican

Council and in particular those chapters ofLumen Gentium which concern mans kingship, that

is to say his call to share in the kingly function of Christ himself 21. With clear reference to the

creation narratives of Genesis, John Paul states:

The essential meaning of this kingship and dominion of man over the visible world,

which the Creator himself gave man for his task, consists in the priority of ethics over

technology, in the primacy of the person over things, and in the superiority of spirit over

matter. (RH, n. 16)

This kingship of each individual, established by God at the creation of the world, has

been confirmed by Jesus Christ, who, through his Incarnation, united himself with every human

and called them to share in his kingly ministry. The fundamental challenge for humanity at the endof the second millennium, John Paul argues, is to be found in rediscovering in oneself and

others the special dignity of our vocation that can be described as kingship. (n.21)

Through rediscovering its essential dignity, humanity will necessarily reawaken in itself a

sense of moral responsibility and solidarity. Likewise, John Paul argues that through once again

taking up his God-given role as king within creation (but crucially a king who serves rather than

dominates), man will once more come into right relationship with the environment and the rest of

creation. This is the crucial contribution of John Paul II to the ecological debate not only toidentify environmental destruction and name it as an issue to which Christians have a moral

responsibility to respond but to go deeper still and to connect the environmental problem with its

fundamental cause humanitys increasing disregard for the sanctity of human life and, as a

consequence, for the sanctity of all forms of life in creation. John Paul argues that it is only

through restoring respect for human life, created in the image and likeness of God and incarnated

in the person of Jesus Christ, that humanity will be able to reverse its destruction of the natural

environment and reclaim its God-given role as steward of creation.Finally, John Paul turns to the essential role of the Church in bringing about this spiritual

and moral reawakening in our increasingly disordered world. If, through the Incarnation, Jesus

Christ has united himself with every person, then, John Paul argues:

21 c.f. VATICAN COUNCIL II:Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,Lumen Gentium, nn.10 and 36.


29/51

The Church therefore sees its fundamental task in enabling that union to be brought about

and renewed continually. The Church wishes to serve this single end: that each person

may be able to find Christ, in order that Christ may walk with each person the path of life,

with the power of the truth about man and the world that is contained in the mystery of

the Incarnation and the Redemption and with the power of the love that is radiated by that

truth. (RH, n.13)

The Church must be ever more deeply aware of this identity and mission. Through her

faithfulness to her mission, the Church can help the world to rediscover the dignity of the whole

human person, a vital element of which, John Paul makes clear in RH, is living in right

relationship with the natural environment as a noble and intelligent master and guardian, and

not as a heedless exploiter and destroyer. In this return to mans God-given role to act a

responsible steward of creation, humanity must learn to once again imitate Christ, the Redeemer

of man and the Redeemer of the world.

I have written at some length about RHbecause it is the foundational document, not only

of John Pauls pontificate, but also of his contribution towards the environmental debate. For here

he sets out his fundamental approach to the issue which will inform his subsequent teaching on

what the Christian response should be to the environmental crisis. Firstly he acknowledges the

problem and teaches that this is one which all Christians have a moral responsibility to address.

Secondly, he analyses the deepest causes of the problem, showing that the destruction of the

environment is not an isolated issue but one which is a direct consequence of the loss of respect

for human dignity and for the value of human life. This failure to recognise the kingly dignity

conferred on humanity by God in turn prevents humanity from fulfilling its God-given role as

servant king to all creation. Through re-establishing this essential link between care for human

life and care for creation, John Paul restores to the Churchs teaching the wholeness of Gods

vision for humanity within creation.

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis: On Social Concern (1987)

John Paul continued this development in his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis

(hereafter SRS). Written in part to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of PP, John Paul

reaffirms the need for an authentic development of man and society which would respect and


30/51

promote all the dimensions of the human person...22 He places this need within the specific

context of the current evils of that time the Cold War, the international arms trade and the ever-

increasing threat of nuclear war. Arguing that development cannot be understood in purely

economic, technological or political terms but that it must embrace a moral dimension, John Paul

insists that:

Nor can the moral character of development exclude respect for the beings which

constitute the natural world, which the ancient Greeks alluding precisely to the order

which distinguishes it called the cosmos. Such realities also demand respect...

(n.34)

This explicit concern for all creatures is a significant new emphasis in CST, one which

John Paul argues is based on three principal considerations. Firstly, because the cosmos is a an

ordered system, it is impossible to exploit for economic purposes various elements of this order plants, animals without there being destructive consequences for the whole cosmos (this, of

course, is the exact point which Rachel Carson had made twenty five years earlier in Silent

Spring). Secondly, John Paul rejects the insistence of previous encyclicals such as RNandMMthat

the resources of the natural world are inexhaustible using them as if they were ever renewable,

he argues, seriously endangers their availability not only for the present generation but above all

for generations to come.23 Thirdly, he highlights the disastrous consequences of irresponsible

development on the quality of human life as the direct or indirect result of industrialisation is,ever more frequently, the pollution of the environment, with serious consequences for the health of

the population.24

In the light of these three factors, John Paul calls for a radical conversion of the human

heart in its relationship with the rest of creation. No longer can humanity treat the natural world

with a disdainful absolute power, using and disposing of resources and created beings for its own

short-sighted benefit. Instead humanity must rediscover a sense of respect and responsibility for

the cosmos of which it is a part an attitude which John Paul finds at the very origins of creation:The limitation imposed from the beginning by the creator himself and expressed

symbolically by the prohibition not to eat of the fruit of the tree (cf. Gen 2:16-17)

shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only

22 JOHN PAUL II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n.1 in D OBRIEN and T. SHANNON (eds), Catholic Social Thought

The Documentary History, Maryknoll, N.Y., 1992, p.395.

23Ibid, n.34.

24 JOHN PAUL II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, N.34.


31/51

to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity.

(n.34)

This is an interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives which is radically different from

what Lynn White Jr. in The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis had argued to be the Churchs

traditional reading of these texts.

Finally, John Paul concludes the encyclical by calling on individuals to play their part in a

peaceful campaign to secure development in peace, in order to safeguard nature itself and the

world about us.25 The case for an ecological conversion has at last been clearly and urgently

expressed. Sean McDonagh criticises John Paul for not consistently including this call for

ecological conversion in all of his encyclicals at this time. He cites, for example, John Pauls

failure to include mans alienation from the natural world among those features of our shattered

world for which humanity needs to do penance in his Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et

Paenitentia (1984).26This is a valid criticism, but even McDonagh cannot deny the importance and

ground-breaking contribution of John Pauls 1990 Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace.

The Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace

Yet in 1990 John Paul went further still by, for the first time in the history of the Papacy,

dedicating an entire papal document to the subject of the environment. His message for the 1990

World Day of Peace, entitledAnd God Saw That It Was Good, linked humanitys abuse of nature

to the growing threat to world peace. Conflicts over the ownership of natural resources to be

plundered for short-term gain as well as the widespread decline in the quality of life caused by

environmental degradation create, John Paul argues, a sense of precariousness and insecurity...

[which]... is a seedbed for collective selfishness, disregard for others and dishonesty. 27

On a positive note he recognises a significant awakening in public awareness concerning

the widespread destruction of the environment and the resultant understanding that we cannot

25Ibid, n.47.

26 See S. McDONAGH, The Greening of the Church, New York, 1990, p.180.

27 JOHN PAUL II,And God Saw That It Was Good, Message of Pope John Paul II for the 1990 World Day of

Peace,

Introduction.


32/51

continue to use the goods of the earth as we have in the past.28 Arguing the need for this growing

ecological awareness to be based on a morally coherent worldview, John Paul sets out the basis for

a Christian ecological understanding. This he roots first and foremost in scripture, tracing this

understanding, as he had done in SRS, right back to the creation narratives of Genesis in which

God delights in creation and entrusts it to man. Adam and Eve were called to be co-workers with

God in His unfolding plan of creation, exercising their dominion over the earth with wisdom and

love.29 Yet humanitys decision deliberately to go against the Creators plan resulted not only in

mans alienation from himself, in death and fratricide, but also in earths rebellion against him30

Human sinfulness, the Pope argues, is thus the primary reason for the destruction of the intended

harmony between humanity and the rest of creation. It was this disharmony which Christ came to

reconcile through his death and resurrection so that creation, like humanity, could thus be freed

from the bondage of sin and decay. As the author of the letter to the Ephesians argues, this is

Christs plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, all things in heaven and earth.

(Eph. 1:10) John Paul concludes:

These biblical considerations help us to understand better the relationship between

human activity and the whole of creation. When man turns his back on the Creators

plan, he provokes a disorder which has inevitable repercussions on the rest of the

created order. If man is not at peace with God, then earth itself cannot be at peace.

Therefore the land mourns and all who dwell in it languish, and also the beasts of the

field and the birds of the air and even the fish of the sea are taken away (Hosea 4:3)31

In the documents second section, John Paul develops this argument to stress that the

ecological crisis is therefore at its deepest level a moral problem. As examples of this, he

highlights the indiscriminate application of scientific and technological advances which, rather

than contributing responsibly to the care of the environment, have been used for selfish short-term

gains with harmful long-term effects. The destruction caused by the dumping of industrial waste,

the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation and the use of herbicides, coolants and

propellants are all powerful examples showing that we cannot interfere in one area of the

ecosystem without paying due attention to the consequences of such interference in other areas and

28Ibid.

29Ibid, part I.

30 Ibid.

31Ibid.


33/51

to the well-being of future generations.32 The resulting atmospheric and climate changes affect the

entire human community and therefore, John Paul urges that all elements of the human family

individuals, states and international bodies need to recognise their shared responsibility to protect

the environment. John Paul describes this as the urgent need for a new solidarity33in the face of

the ecological crisis, especially between developing and industrialised nations.

Analysing the roots of this moral problem, John Paul argues that both the exploitation of

human labour and the exploitation of the environment are the results of a fundamental lack of

respect for life itself a disrespect which can only have disastrous results for humanity and indeed

for all of creation. Economic development, including the areas of biological and genetic research,

needs to be underpinned by fundamental ethical principles:

Respect for life, and above all for the dignity of the human person, is the ultimate

guiding norm for any sound economic, industrial or scientific progress...Theseprinciples are essential to the building of a peaceful society: no peaceful society can

afford to neglect either respect for life or the fact that there is an integrity to creation. 34

John Paul sees the environmental crisis as a wake-up call for humanity showing that

individual and collective greed and selfishness can only have disastrous consequences for all.

There is therefore a need for international cooperation and solidarity rather than self-serving

nationalism and selfish economic interests. John Paul also argues that: The right to a safe

environment is ever more insistently presented today as a right that must be included in an updatedcharter of human rights.35 This is a significant contribution to our growing understanding of what

it means to be fully human this includes not only the right to education and work, to freedom of

expression and religion, but also the fundamental right to a clean and secure environment.

John Paul stresses the need to recognise how intimately connected the environmental crisis

is to other evils of our times, particularly poverty and war. It is the rural poor who are already

being most directly affected by the destruction of habitats and soil degradation, thereby caught in a

vicious circle of needing to clear ever larger areas of new land just in order to survive. Likewise,


Peace,

part II.

33Ibid, part IV.

34Ibid, part II.

35Ibid, part III.


34/51

some of the most indebted developing countries are destroying their natural ecological heritage and

resources in order to boost export incomes to pay off debts. As John Paul concludes:

In the face of such situations it would be wrong to assign responsibility to the poor alone

for the negative environmental consequences of their actions. Rather, the poor, to whom

the earth is entrusted no less than to others, must be enabled to find a way out of theirpoverty. This will require a courageous reform of structures as well as a new way of

relating among peoples and states.36

In the same way, war leads to incalculable environmental damage, particularly as many

modern forms of chemical, bacteriological and biological weapons are specifically designed to

maximise the destruction caused to an enemys land and ecological system both in the immediate

present and for future generations. Just as human life and social structures/infrastructures can be

destroyed by war so whole ecological systems from the water table through to soil and crops can

be ruined by conflict. There is also a recognition that the shortage of natural resources including

essentials like water will become a cause of war.

As part of a renewed human solidarity, John Paul also calls for societies and individuals to

take a serious look at their lifestyles, especially those dominated by consumerism and the need for

instant gratification. There is an urgent need to recognise the consequences of such essentially self-

centred lifestyles and a conversion of heart to rediscover a more ethical, environmentally

responsible lifestyle:

Simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a

part of everyday life, lest all suffer the negative consequences of the careless habits of

a few.37

John Paul therefore calls for an education in ecological responsibility: responsibility for

oneself, for others and for the earth.38 The starting point for such an education should be the

family the first educator but should extend through governmental and non-governmental

organisations, through Church and religious bodies, indeed through all sectors of society. This

would lead to a conversion of attitudes and behaviour. Such a conversion will be strengthened by agrowing appreciation of the beauty and restorative power of nature. We protect and care for that


Peace,

part IV.

37Ibid.

38Ibid.


35/51

which has value for us and so there needs to be an ever stronger awareness of the goodness and

beauty of creation as a reflection of Gods glory. In conclusion John Paul writes:

When the ecological crisis is set within the broader context of the search for peace

within society, we can understand better the importance of giving attention to what the

earth and its atmosphere are telling us: namely, that there is an order in the universewhich must be respected, and that the human person, endowed with the capability of

choosing freely, has a grave responsibility to preserve this order for the well-being of

future generations.39

In a significant final observation, John Paul reminds all Catholics that this moral obligation

to care for all of creation is a central and integral part of their Christian faith. Respect for life and

the dignity of the human person such fundamental and well-established tenets of Catholic belief

and practice must, John Paul concludes, also extend to respect for the rest of creation. This is an

urgent appeal to the Catholic faithful to expand their understanding of what it means to be a

Catholic to include a personal and collective responsibility to care for and protect the environment.

Such an appeal makes And God Saw That It Was Gooda truly historic document and significant

advance in the Catholic Churchs teaching and practice related to the environment.

Centesimus Annus: On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum (1991)

This advance was consolidated in John Pauls encyclical Centesimus Annus (hereafter CA),

published in 1991 to mark the hundredth anniversary ofRerum Novarum. In CA John Paul sets out

to look back at the achievements ofRNand of the hundred years of CST which it inspired, to

look around at the new things which now face the world at the end of the twentieth century,

and finally to look forward to the possible challenges of the third millennium. Amongst the new

things of the final decade of the twentieth century, John Paul highlights what he calls the

ecological question. This he links directly with the rise of humanitys ever more self-centred

materialism and short-sighted consumerism whereby: ...in his desire to have and to enjoy rather

than to be and to grow, man consumes the resources of the earth and his own life in an excessive


Peace,

part V.


36/51

and disordered way.40Humanity, John Paul argues, has forgotten that it has a responsibility to

care for and develop the earth rather than use it arbitrarily for its own purposes:

Instead of carrying out his role as a co-operator with God in the work of creation, man

sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of

nature, which is more tyrannized than governed by him. (n.37)

John Paul challenges humanity to look beyond the satisfying of its present needs and

appetites to recognise its duties and obligations toward future generations. Central to this new way

of living must be a recovery of a sense of wonder at the beauty of the natural world a beauty

which enables one to see in visible things the message of the invisible God who created them.

(n.37) As before, John Paul seeks to look deeper into the causes of the seemingly irrational

destruction of the natural environment. In doing this, he emphasizes that although the protection of

endangered species and habitats is an urgent challenge for our times, it must not be forgotten that

this will only be achieved if humanity also works to prevent the destruction of what John Paul calls

the human environment. He clarifies this by explaining that the effort must be made to:

...safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic human ecology. Not only has God

given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original good purpose for

which it was given, but man too is Gods gift to man. He must therefore respect the

natural world and moral structure with which he has been endowed. (n.38)

As an example of this danger to the human environment, John Paul cites the serious

problems of modern urbanisation. Here it should be noted that the end of the twentieth century saw

for the first time in the history of humanity a greater number of people living in urban rather than

rural areas. This unprecedented human migration away from a more agricultural lifestyle is

dramatically seen in the rise of twenty megacities, mostly in the developing world, with

populations of over ten million, such as Mexico City, Mumbai, Shanghai and Karachi41. This

explosion of urbanisation has often resulted in poor urban planning whereby large sections of the

poorest city-dwellers are forced to live in shanty-towns with little or no infrastructure,

education/health facilities or employment opportunities. In such conditions the transcendent dignity

of the human person as the visible image of the living God is diminished and individuals are unable

to fulfil their potential. John Paul argues passionately that this denial of human dignity is at the root

40 JOHN PAUL II, Centesimus Annus, 1991, n.37 in D OBRIEN and T. SHANNON (eds), Catholic Social

Thought The Documentary History, Maryknoll, N.Y., 1992, p 467.

41 cf. J. McNEILL, Something New Under the Sun An Environmental History of the Twentieth Century, London,

2000, pp76-83.


37/51

of modern totalitarianism, which by denying man his transcendent dignity then denies him those

rights freedom of expression, religion and education which no individual, group or State should

ever deny another.

It is important to note how John Paul repeatedly stresses this argument that defence of the

natural environment must be rooted in defence of the human person. Someone who is economically

and politically marginalised, living in a shanty-town with no education or health facilities and no

prospect of employment, cannot be expected to prioritise protection of the environment above the

daily battle for personal survival. John Paul stresses here the importance of the family, the

foundational structure of the human environment in which man receives his first formative

ideas about truth and goodness, and learns what it means to love and to be loved, and thus what it

means to be a person. (CA, n.39) Only by once again building up social cohesion and solidarity,

rooted in healthy family and married life, can humanity have the ability to act in true freedom and

responsibility in its relationship with the rest of the natural world. We can see in this the emergence

of a specific and original contribution by the Church to the wider ecological debate the

recognition that by fulfilling her mission to be a sign and safeguard of the transcendence of the

human person42 the Church is in turn promoting those human conditions and attitudes necessary to

safeguard the rest of the natural environment.

Ecumenical Declarations and the Call to Ecological Conversion

The beginning of the Third Millennium saw a significant development in John Pauls

ecological message. He increasingly targeted this message towards youth and ecumenical/inter-

faith dialogue. It was at a gathering of young people in Assisi that he declared that humanity had

reached such a critical moment in its relationship with the rest of creation that there was an urgent

need now for an ecological conversion:

It is necessary, my dear young friends, to stimulate and sustain the ecological

conversion which over the last decades has made humanity more sensitive when

facing the catastrophe toward which it is moving. Man is no longer minister of the

Creator. However, as an autonomous despot, he is understanding that he must finally

stop before the abyss.43

42 VATICAN II, Gaudium et Spes, 76; cf. JOHN PAUL II,Redemptor Hominis, n.13.


38/51

In terms of ecumenical dialogue, John Paul acknowledged that the Roman Catholic

Church had much to learn as regards ecological issues from other Christian traditions, particularly

the Orthodox tradition. This led him in June 2002 to sign a joint declaration on the environment

with Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople for the good of all human beings and for the care

of creation44 Recognising that humanity was betraying its God-given mandate to be stewards of

creation, the two leaders once again appealed for an ecological conversion in the human heart:

What is required is an act of repentance on our part and a renewed attempt to view

ourselves, one another, and the world around us within the perspective of the design for

creation. The problem is not simply economic and technological; it is moral and

spiritual. A solution at the economic and technological level can be found only if we

undergo, in the most radical way, an inner change of heart, which can lead to a change

in lifestyle and of sustainable patterns of consumption and production. A genuine

conversion in Christ will enable us to change the way we act and think. 45

The two leaders root their call for ecological justice in the two commandments of Christ to

love God and to love our neighbour as ourselves. Love of God must include respect and care for

his creation just as love of neighbour requires responsible ecological stewardship, which prohibits

the selfish destruction of the environment without regard for those in need today and for the needs

of future generations. Recognising that the ecological crisis is also a spiritual and moral crisis, the

two leaders conclude:

In this perspective, Christians and all other believers have a specific role to play inproclaiming moral values and in educating people in ecological awareness, which is

none other than responsibility towards self, towards others, towards creation.46

PART II - PERSONAL WITNESS

Jesus himself gives us the best example that fundamentals of faith are most powerfully

communicated through a combination of word and action. His physical signs and gestures the

washing of the disciples feet at the Last Supper, his carrying of the cross resonate within us at a

43 JOHN PAUL II,Address to Young People in Assisi, August 26, 2001 at

http://conservation.catholic.org/st_francis_of_assissi.htm(access 14/03/08).

44 JOHN PAUL II and PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW I OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Common Declaration on the

Environment, June 10, 2002 athttp://conservation.catholic.org/declaration.htm(access 28/03/08).

45Ibid.

46Ibid.
http://conservation.catholic.org/st_francis_of_assissi.htmhttp://conservation.catholic.org/st_francis_of_assissi.htmhttp://conservation.catholic.org/declaration.htmhttp://conservation.catholic.org/declaration.htmhttp://conservation.catholic.org/declaration.htmhttp://conservation.catholic.org/st_francis_of_assissi.htm


39/51

deeper level which transcends language, time and culture. John Paul II understood that in a world

where images can be beamed across the globe by satellite in a matter of seconds, the message of

his teaching needed to be communicated as much through the visual sign as through the

spoken/written word. The wealth and poignancy of so many images from the twenty eight years of

John Pauls pontificate are surely one of the principal reasons why he was able to forge such an

affinity with peoples of different faiths and cultures. The image of him sitting at prayer in prison

beside his would-be assassin Ali Agca, his placing of a written prayer in a crevice of the Wailing

Wall during his Jubilee Year pilgrimage to Jerusalem, his opening of the Jubilee doors in St

Peters flanked by leaders of other Christian churches are just some of the images which spoke to

humanity of his profound faith lived out in bold and prophetic actions.

Likewise, in the context of John Pauls teaching on the environment, one of

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	robert543
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times