Abstract
This article presents Pope Francis’s ecological theology, especially as presented in his Laudato Si’ and Querida Amazonia, and places it in dialogue with the ecological thought in Buddhism and Daoism. It begins by placing Pope Francis’s teaching in the environmental context of Asia. It then compares it with the statements on ecology by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, especially regarding what Francis terms “the globalization of the technocratic paradigm” and the “excessive anthropocentrism.” The article then relates these two critiques to the Buddhist concept of interdependent origination, especially as presented by the Vietnamese Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh, and the Daoist concepts of de, dao, wuwei, and ziran. It ends by showing where Pope Francis’s ecological theology could be expanded by addressing the population issue, the theology of the “Cosmic Christ,” and an evolution-based theology of creation. The substance of this article was presented during the twenty-second Louis Luzbetak Lecture on Mission and Culture at Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, on October 18, 2021 (watch the video at https://learn.ctu.edu/2021-luzbetak-lecture). The author is grateful to its organizers for the opportunity to discuss Laudato Si’.
Environmental or ecological degradation, as part of a cluster of economic and social problems, was listed among the six most serious threats to global security and peace in the twenty-first century by the United Nations High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in 2005. 1 While ecological degradation through the depletion of natural resources, the destruction of ecosystems, habitat, and wildlife, and the pollution of air and water has long been studied as a scientific problem, only recently has it been investigated from cultural, anthropological, and religious perspectives. Furthermore, it has been recognized that ecological destruction, though a direct result of the globalization of what is called “the technocratic paradigm,” has deep roots in modern anthropocentrism. Consequently, the solutions to ecological degradation must not be limited to science, technology, politics, and economics, essential though these disciplines are, but must also be based on social, cultural, and religious convictions and values. Only in this way can an “integral ecology,” to borrow a phrase from Pope Francis, emerge and provide an adequate solution to the ecological problem.
Given the religious nature of the ecological crisis, it comes as no surprise that religious leaders have drawn from their own resources to contribute to its solution. Among these, pride of place should be given to Pope Francis, whose first papal encyclical is Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home (LS), devoted exclusively to the issue of ecology. 2 In a sense, LS encapsulates the twin foci of Francis’s pontificate, which are implied in his choice of “Francis” as his name. Three days after his election to the papacy on March 13, 2013, he explained the reason for his choice: “Francis was a man of poverty, who loved and protected creation.” Protection of the environment and love for the poor are the two basic themes of the encyclical, and they are strictly intertwined since, as the pope insists, it is the poor who suffer the most from ecological destruction: “The deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet” (no. 21). The encyclical is an urgent clarion call to the whole world to heed the cry of the poor and the cry of the devastated Mother/Sister Earth that, in Francis’s arresting description, “is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth” (no. 21).
In addition to LS, Pope Francis’s post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (henceforth QA) must also be taken into consideration, which he issued after the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon (Rome, October 6–27, 2019). 3 Even though the Amazonian Synod and QA deal specifically with the Amazon region, 4 the issues under discussion, especially ecology, affect many other, especially poor, parts of the globe so that Pope Francis addresses his Apostolic Exhortation not only to the Amazonians but also to “the People of God and to All Persons of Good Will.”
The intent of this Luzbetak Lecture is not to summarize and evaluate Pope Francis’s two writings, which is unnecessary, as there is already a good number of studies, both popular and scholarly, that offer a summary and critical analysis of them. 5 Rather my task is to read LS and QA with Asian eyes, from the Asian perspective, and this I will do by raising three questions. First, which ideas of LS and QA would hold the greatest interest and thus are most relevant for Asians? Second, are there any aspects of their teaching that would be enriched by uniting the teachings of the Asian Catholic Church with the insights of the philosophical and religious traditions of Asia? And third, what are the most urgent remaining ecological issues that still need to be addressed?
Reading Laudato Si’ and Querida Amazonia in Asia
In a broad sense, Pope Francis’s two writings are of concern to the people of Asia since he addresses them not only to Catholics and other Christians but also to the whole of humanity since “the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all” and because “all of us can cooperate as instruments of God for the care of creation, each according to his or her own culture, experience, involvements, and talents” (LS, no. 15). But there is a special sense in which the people of Asia will find LS and QA to be of particular relevance for them in light of both Pope Francis’s teachings on environmental protection and the ecological situation of their continent.
It is interesting to note that in Asia there is no leading politician or prominent business leader who would deny the reality of climate change and ecological destruction. All it takes for them to dispel any thought of climate change as a scientific and political hoax is to step outside their offices into the street in any Asian metropolis where they would be choked by smoke-filled air, assaulted by acrid smells, overwhelmed by wilting heat, and contaminated by disease-bearing water. In addition to this daily and constant threat to physical health caused by environmental degradation, many Asian countries, such as India, Nepal, Bangladesh, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia, many of which have coastal cities, are regularly ravaged by natural disasters. In particular floods, typhoons, hurricanes, torrential and prolonged rains, storms, heatwaves, fires, and drought have occurred with increasing frequency and have wrought greater havoc than ever before. Among the many effects of these weather-related disasters is forced migration; it is well-documented that people in poorer countries are at least four times more likely to be uprooted from their lands and displaced by extreme weather than people in rich countries. In calling for environmental protection Francis strikes a sympathetic chord with the Asian people, given the fact that Asia is no doubt the continent most vulnerable to ecological degradation. They will find the pope’s teaching on ecology in LS very helpful—in particular, the scientific information he provides on global warming (chapter 1), his discussion of the “human roots of the ecological crisis” (chapter 3), his message about “integral ecology” (chapter 4), and his call for “ecological conversion” and “ecological education and spirituality” (chapter 6).
By presenting a scientifically accurate yet highly accessible explanation of how climate change results from human activities, LS makes a great contribution—not normally expected of a religious document—to the diffusion of the much-needed understanding of the causal connection between, on the one hand, the release of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, and others) into the atmosphere, the depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, the melting of the polar ice, and the rise in sea levels, and on the other hand, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuel (coal, petroleum, and gas), deforestation, the dumping of industrial and nuclear waste and chemical products, and the increasing use of fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and agrotoxins. Unless this causal connection between global warming and human activities is clearly understood and acknowledged, communal efforts “to resolve the tragic effects of environmental degradation on the lives of the world’s poorest” (LS, no. 13) in “a new and universal solidarity” (LS, no. 14) would be impossible. Catholics, especially those who do not possess the requisite scientific knowledge—in fact, a majority of Asian Catholics—are not able to verify for themselves the fact of global warming, especially against the denial of it by powerful interest groups. For them, the affirmation by the pope, the highest teaching authority of the church, that “our common home is falling into serious disrepair” (LS, no. 61) serves as a rich and helpful source of information and an incentive for concerted action to promote an “integral ecology” (LS, no. 137, italics original).
Thanks to Pope Francis’s clarion call “to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” (LS, no. 49, italics original), we are now encouraged to pay attention to the catastrophic impact of global warming and climate change on the Asian poor in three areas, namely, habitable land, access to healthy water, and biodiversity. LS and QA, though not specifically written for Asia, are highly relevant to it. As LS argues, not only has the “environmental, economic, and social ecology” been degraded (nos. 139–142) but also the “cultural ecology” (nos. 143–146) and the “ecology of daily life” (nos. 147–155) have been seriously harmed. These three ecologies constitute what LS and QA term “integral ecology” that must be preserved through a worldwide and concerted effort (LS, chapter 4).
To achieve an integral ecology, Pope Francis says that it is not sufficient to fine-tune technical questions or political, juridical, and social decisions. A new educational system and the development of new habits in individuals and groups are required. Sadly, the pope notes, consumerism and the culture of waste, typical of large cities, are already deeply rooted in the Amazon region, and we must add, in Asia as well. He says: “A sound and sustainable ecology, one capable of bringing about change, will not develop unless people are changed, unless they are encouraged to opt for another style of life, one less greedy and more serene, more respectful and less anxious, more fraternal” (QA, no. 58).
“The great sages of the past”: Toward an interreligious ecological theology
In calling for the restoration of integral ecology, Pope Francis appeals not only to the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition with its emphasis on the universe as God’s creation (LS, nos. 76–83), universal communion (LS, nos. 89–92), and the common destination of goods (LS, nos. 93–95), but also to the wisdom of Saint Francis of Assisi as expressed in his celebrated Canticle of the Creatures (LS, no. 87), whose opening line in Laudato Si’ serves as the title of the encyclical. Furthermore, introducing a theological novelty, he cites the teaching of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (LS, nos. 7–9) and twenty-one episcopal conferences, including those of the Philippines (LS, no. 41), Japan (LS, no. 85), and the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (LS, no. 116).
The Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences
It is noteworthy that the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) is probably the first official church body in the Catholic Church to be deeply concerned with ecology.
6
Already in 1988, at the Eleventh Bishops’ Institute for Interreligious Affairs in Sukabumi, Indonesia, it was stated that
the ecological question or the harmony and balance of the natural environment in relation to the relation to the life of man is a fundamental one. The destiny of humankind is inextricably bound up with the way they cultivate the earth and share its resources. Harmony and peace call for respect for the earth. She is the mother of whose dust we are made and to whose womb we shall return. The usurpation of the fruit of the earth by some and the deprivation of others of the same results in the rupture of harmony among peoples.
7
Among the Institute’s many pastoral recommendations, there is one regarding the environment:
Respect for nature and compassion for all living things are ingrained in Asian religions and cultural traditions. Today in Asia, owing to many factors, the natural environment with which man should be in harmony is being wantonly destroyed through deforestation, industrial pollution, depositing of nuclear wastes, etc. Christian life and witness should manifest greater sensitivity to nature and to all sentiments. Hence we recommend that Christians join forces and cooperate with all movements of followers of other religions and secular groups engaged in maintaining balance and harmony in our ecosystem and protecting nature and its riches from destruction.
8
Concern for the environment recurred as a constant refrain in the FABC’s Plenary Assemblies and the various documents of its offices in the ensuing years. Note that the FABC’s approach to ecology is framed in terms of “harmony” and “wholeness,” which are said to be characteristic ideals of Asian peoples: “When we look into our traditional cultures and heritages, we note that they are inspired by a vision of unity. The universe is perceived as an organic whole with a web of relations knitting together each and every part of it. Nature and the human are not viewed as antagonistic to each other, but as chords in a universal symphony.” 9 It is out of this sense of universal harmony and wholeness that concern for ecology is born and nourished. Indeed, there is a fourfold harmony to be achieved: with God, with oneself, with others, and with nature. A disturbance in any one of these four relations brings about disharmony in the other three; conversely, harmony in any one of them strengthens harmony in the other three. Thus, harmonious ecology is rooted in harmonious relations with God, with oneself, and with others. By the same token, without harmonious ecology there cannot be harmony with God, with oneself, and with others. Indeed, the idea of harmony is so central to Asian thought and life that the Theological Advisory Commission (now Office of Theological Concerns) has produced a 70-page document entitled Asian Christian Perspectives on Harmony, in which ecological degradation figures among the most destructive forces causing disharmony in Asia. 10
As important as these FABC documents are, they are not cited by LS. Instead, the encyclical quotes three other lesser-known texts. The first is a brief statement of the Colloquium on Faith and Science held in Tagaytay, the Philippines by the FABC Office of Education and Student Chaplaincies in 1993 entitled Love for Creation, An Asian Response to the Ecological Crisis. 11 The statement provides a helpful analysis of the ecological problem in its scientific, cultural, political, theological, and pastoral dimensions. The second document is the pastoral letter of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of the Philippines on ecology, whose title What Is Happening to Our Beautiful Land is echoed in the title of LS’s first chapter, “What Is Happening to Our Common Home.” The letter begins with a graphic list of the ecological damages that have been done to the forests, seas, and land of the Philippines and ends with a recommendation of activities that can and must be undertaken by individuals, churches, and the government “to respect and defend life.” The third document is a rather lengthy letter of the Catholic Bishops of Japan titled Reverence for Life: A Message for the Twenty-First Century from the Catholic Bishops of Japan (January 1, 2001). Chapter 3, titled “Life and Death,” discusses eight issues, one of which is the environment. It recalls Rachel Carson’s prophetic voice warning the world in 1962 about the “silent spring” and ends with the following beautiful words, which LS quotes (no. 85): “God cares even for the flowers of the field, dressing each with beauty and loving it. To sense each creature singing the hymn of its existence is to live joyfully in God’s love and hope.” 12
So far we have only examined the teachings of the Catholic Church in Asia on ecology. However, the “great sages of the past,” to whom LS refers (no. 47) and from whom we can acquire “true wisdom, as the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons” (no. 47) include also the spiritual masters of Asian religions. LS explicitly calls for dialogue and collaboration among religions for the defense of Earth, a call repeatedly made by the FABC: “The majority of people living on our planet profess to be believers. This should spur religions to dialogue among themselves for the sake of protecting nature, defending the poor, and building networks of respect and fraternity” (LS, no. 201).
Among the many causes of the ecological crisis, Pope Francis highlights what he calls “the globalization of the technocratic paradigm,” which “exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object” (LS, no. 106). In this case, the “external object” is the material world, which technocracy tries to dominate by means of “a technique of possession, mastery, and transformation” (LS, no. 106). At the basis of this technocratic paradigm is the conception of the material world and everything existing therein as valuable only to the extent that they can be made to serve human needs and wants and not as valuable in themselves, by their independent existence and autonomous value. This conception is called “excessive anthropocentrism” (LS, no. 1).
To counter the technocratic paradigm and excessive anthropocentrism the pope develops philosophical and theological arguments derived from Christian sources (LS, chapter 20). Starting from the Christian belief in God’s creation of nature or the universe, Francis affirms the existence of a “universal communion”: “All of us are linked by unseen bonds and together form a kind of universal family, a sublime communion which fills us with a sacred, affectionate and humble respect” (LS, no. 89). The pope goes on to emphasize that “universal communion” includes the material universe: “Everything is related, and we human beings are united as brothers and sisters on a wonderful pilgrimage, woven together by the love God has for each of his creatures and which also unites us in fond affection with brother sun, sister moon, brother river, and mother earth” (LS, no. 92).
Here I would like to extend Francis’s reflections on universal communion by invoking the Buddhist and Daoist perspectives. Admittedly, Pope Francis’s belief in a personal God and in God’s creative act is fundamentally different from the non-theistic and non-creationist stance of Buddhism and Daoism. Yet, despite this difference, these two Asian religious traditions offer insights into reality that strengthen and enlarge the pope’s position. In brief, the technocratic paradigm can be countered by the Buddhist notion of “interdependent/dependent co-arising/origination” (Sanskrit: pratītyasamutpāda) and excessive anthropocentrism by the Daoist view of universal harmony.
The Buddhist wisdom
There has recently been significant production of scholarship, both general handbooks and specialized monographs, on Buddhism and ecology as well as a proliferation of Buddhist socio-political and spiritual associations of environmental activism. 13 This interest in ecological thought and practice in Buddhism has been dubbed the “Greening of Buddhism.” In her helpful overview of the history and development of this movement, Stephanie Kaza acknowledges that “Buddhist environmental thought is both ancient and brand new.” 14
Buddhist ecological thought is ancient because it is rooted in the fundamental teachings of the earliest traditions of Buddhism, although these teachings need to be re-interpreted to meet the threat of environmental destruction. In Theravada Buddhism, for instance, there is the central notion that suffering (dukkha) is caused by the desire for and attachment to things (tanha) born out of ignorance of the impermanence of all beings (anicca). A remedy against desire and attachment and hence suffering is the practice of compassion (karuna) and loving-kindness (metta), which is extended not only to all humans but also to all animals, plants, and even natural elements. The Noble Eightfold Path itself, which is intended as a guide for the individual to achieve enlightenment and liberation from suffering (nirvana), is interpreted as ways to prevent and relieve the suffering and destruction of not just individual beings but also the entire physical environment.
In particular, the precepts included in the four paths, right view, right speech, right action, and right livelihood, have been reformulated to promote the protection of the environment. “Right view” implies not only the correct understanding of the impermanence of things and the connection between ignorance of this essential nature of things and suffering, but also a correct understanding of the causal correlation between certain human activities such as that between the use of fossil fuel and climate change. “Right speech” proscribes not only falsehood-telling but also misleading advertising to promote ecologically destructive consumerism. Under “right action,” not taking life includes not only not killing human life but also doing no harm (ahimsa) to all living beings and things. “Right livelihood” commands avoidance not only of life-killing professions but also the acquisition of unnecessary things. The remaining four paths—“right effort,” “right mindfulness,” “right concentration,” and “right resolve”—can also be interpreted in a way that is conducive to ecologically responsible living insofar as they train the individual mind to gain true insight into the nature of reality as suffering, impermanent, and interdependent.
The impermanence and interdependence of all things on one another bring us to the ecological thought present in Mahayana Buddhism. Central to this Buddhist tradition is the concept of “interdependent/dependent arising/origination” (pratītyasamutpāda), which means that all things (dharma) do not exist as independent and permanent realities or “selves,” but are constantly changing or “co-arising” (samutpāda) dependently (pratītya) on other things, which are also co-arising dependently on the things that co-arise dependently on them. The doctrine of interdependent origination is expressed in the following terse formula: “When this is, that is; This arising, that arises; When this is not, that is not; This ceasing, that ceases.” 15 As a result of interdependent origination, there is nothing that is permanent, nothing that is substantial.
This doctrine is also expressed by the concept “emptiness” (śūnyāta), or “no-self” (ānatman), which maintains that no self is independent of other selves. The Indian Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna points out that to say that a thing is “empty” is to say that it is dependently originated, marked by three characteristics, namely, transient, unsatisfactory, and without inherent existence. Another representation of this Mahayana concept of the interdependence of all beings is the Jewel Net of Indra, which stretches throughout all space and time and connects an infinite number of jewels in the universe, with each jewel being infinitely multifaceted and reflecting every other jewel in the net.
In terms of ecological thought, the Buddhist concept of interdependent origination implicitly rejects the technocratic paradigm which views the world in terms of subject-object for domination and exploitation. Interdependent origination affirms universal and mutual conditioning among all things. No being can exist without another: one person without all other persons, humanity without ecology, and ecology without humanity are all impossible.
This interdependence of all things is dramatically expressed by the Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh. In a post titled “Clouds in Each Paper” on Awakin.org on March 25, 2000, he writes:
If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow: and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. So we can say that the cloud and the paper inter-are. “Interbeing” is a word that is not in the dictionary yet, but if we combine the prefix “inter” with the verb “to be”, we have a new verb, inter-be. Without a cloud, we cannot have paper, so we can say that the cloud and the sheet of paper inter-are. If we look at this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there, the forest cannot grow. In fact, nothing can grow. Even we cannot grow without sunshine. And so, we know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. The paper and the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look we can see the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper. And we see the wheat. We know that the logger cannot exist without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread is also in this sheet of paper. And the logger’s father and mother are in it too. When we look in this way we see that without all of these things, this sheet of paper cannot exist.
16
Because of interdependent origination humanity and ecology “inter-are.” “Interbeing” is the only mode of existence possible, not only among humans themselves but also between humanity and ecology. The animals and the material world are not just “objects” for us humans as “subjects” to manipulate, dominate, and exploit. Their value and worth are not measured by their usefulness to humans; rather they possess their autonomous value in themselves because they and we co-arise interdependently. Without them, we cannot exist, and vice versa, without us they cannot exist. They and we “inter-are.”
The FABC Theological Advisory Commission in its document Asian Christian Perspectives on Harmony already cited above, explains how in the Mahayana tradition the historical Buddha becomes identified with the goal he reached, namely, nirvāna, the Ultimate “No-Self,” or Absolute “Emptiness,” by destroying the twelve causes that produce suffering. It goes on to say: “The human task is to follow the example of the historical Buddha and to reach this ultimate state of emptiness, which is stillness, quietness and limitless rest, but the dynamic stillness which reaches out in compassion to all living beings still in the throes of suffering.” 17
Despite profound resonances between Buddhist basic teachings, both in Theravada and Mahayana traditions, on the one hand, and contemporary ecological thought on the other, it would be wrong to think that Buddhism is a religion of “nature, one that immediately and inevitably leads to environmental protection activities.” 18 (It is equally wrong to imagine that Christianity, with its theology of creation and incarnation, naturally leads to the kind of ecological concerns evinced by Pope Francis.) There is always a gap between theory and practice, or more concretely, between what believers say and what they do. But this is no argument against the teachings of Buddhism per se; rather it calls for a concerted effort by believers of different traditions to draw from their own religious sources on ecological responsibility, to enrich their own insights with those of other religions, and to help each other live up to their beliefs. 19
The Daoist wisdom
As mentioned earlier, the FABC regards harmony and wholeness as characteristic ideals of the Asian way of life. Daoism is both a philosophical school (daojia) and a religious practice (daogiao) that is distinguished from Confucianism (rujiao) and Buddhism (fojiao). The classics upon which Daoism is founded are the Dao de jing, also known as the Laozi, and the Zhuangxi. The defining concept of the Daoist religion is the Dao itself. Literally meaning the “way” or the “path,” the Dao refers to the proper course of human conduct, especially as taught by the ancient sages. It soon came to be understood as the metaphysical basis of the natural order itself, primordial yet eternally present. In its primordial state Dao is described as “nothingness,” null and void. But the Dao also manifests itself and becomes present in the sensible world through qi (literally, breath, steam, vapor, or energy). Qi, both energy and matter, is the basic building block of all things in the universe, responsible for movement and energy, and is the vital substance of life. Daoist rituals and religious practices aim at preserving this qi by combating the forces of aging, illness, and death. The goal, at once temporal and spatial, is to bring the various parts of the body back into unified harmony and thus achieve immortality.
As with Buddhism, there are certain fundamental insights into humans and the natural world and basic ethical concepts in Daoism that can provide a consistent theoretical framework for ecological ethics. Notable among these are the twin sets of ideas de (virtue) and dao (way), wuwei (nonaction), and ziran (nature). Taken together, these two sets of concepts create an aesthetic order in which no one thing is assessed as better than another, everything (de) possessing its distinctive significance within the context of the whole (dao). As Karen L. Lai succinctly puts it: “The realization of each individual is meaningful only in the context of its relatedness and responsivity to others within the whole (dao). The affirmation of the value of individual beings within the environmental context feeds into a complex holism that emphasizes both the integrity and interdependence of individuals.” 20
A corollary of this ontological aesthetics is a decisive rejection of anthropocentrism. Daoist environmentalism opposes any dualism that holds humans as discontinuous with, independent of, superior to, and even opposed to the environment. Instead, Daoism promotes both integrity or individuality (de) and holism or harmony (dao) in defining the individual. It sees the self as self-in-relation and self-in-context. In this combined integrity and holism, the whole is not simply the sum of its parts, nor is the whole more than its parts. Rather, individuals cannot be what they are unless they are in harmony with the whole, and the whole cannot be what it is unless it is made up of the parts. 21
Again, it is not necessary to delve into all the intricate philosophical and cosmological speculations and alchemy of Daoism here. Suffice it to note for our present purposes that central to Daoism as a religious practice is the ethics of “noncontrivance” (wu wei). According to Zhuangxi, the Dao acts spontaneously in individuals, society, and nature. Similarly, humans must respect and submit to natural changes. In this way, they and the world can become one. By contrast, contrivance should be avoided because it is counter-productive and contrary to the spontaneity (tzu-jan) of the Dao. The ethic of noncontrivance means that humans must not act against nature; rather, human action, like the Dao’s, must be nonpurposive, nondeliberative, yet continuously transforming, as natural as water flowing downward and fire rising upward.
Clearly, such an ethic of noncontrivance and spontaneity runs counter to the kind of anthropocentrism that makes humans the center or the summit of creation and technological domination of nature the goal of knowledge. Even though Daoist thought and practice are not based on the belief in God the Creator, they provide a powerful stimulus to “hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected” (LS, no. 117).
Ecological theology in dreams and poems
To complete the dialogue between Pope Francis’s teaching on ecology and Asian cultures, I now turn to Querida Amazonia. Francis says that his Apostolic Exhortation does not replace the Final Document of the synod nor duplicate it. He does not intend to offer new teaching on ecology beyond his encyclical LS and the synod’s Final Document as such, but to provide “a brief framework” (QA, no. 1) for the application of the Final Document to life in the Amazon region. What is new is the humble tone with which the pope presents his reflections. Francis candidly acknowledges that many of the participants in the synod “know better than myself or the Roman Curia the problems and issues of the Amazon region” (QA, no. 3), a confession that rarely if ever comes from the papal magisterium.
Moreover, what is surprisingly new is the way Francis writes, a style that is distinctly Asian. Asian religious teachers rarely use discursive arguments to convey their teaching. Rather they make use of stories, aphorisms, proverbs, parables, koans, and dreams to awaken their disciples to enlightenment and wisdom. Similarly, Pope Francis states: “I humbly propose in this brief Exhortation to speak of four dreams that the Amazon region inspires in me” (QA, no. 6). The dream is Francis’s favorite meme not to express an infallible dogma but to convey ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another with the hope that they will be imitated and spread further by his listeners and readers. He first uses it in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [The Joy of the Gospel], when he dreams of “a missionary option” for the church (no. 27).
In QA, no. 7, Francis speaks of his four dreams, corresponding to the four issues concerning the Amazon region: the fight for the rights of the poor, the original peoples, and the last and the least among the Amazonians (the “social dream”); the preservation of the cultural riches of the Amazonians (the “cultural dream”); the preservation of the natural beauty of the Amazonia region and the superabundant life teeming in its rivers and forests (the “ecological dream”); and the formation of Christian communities capable of achieving the first three tasks (the “ecclesial dream”).
Of immediate interest here is Pope Francis’s third dream. First of all, the pope insists, in true Buddhist fashion, as has been shown above, that “everything is connected,” quoting his LS (QA, no. 41). This means that “natural” ecology, “human” ecology, and “social” ecology are intimately intertwined. Secondly, to achieve this trinity of ecologies, the pope recommends what he terms the “prophecy of contemplation,” by which we learn “to contemplate the Amazon region and not simply analyze it, and thus appreciate this precious mystery that transcends us. We can love it, not simply use it, with the result that love can awaken a deep and sincere interest. Even more, we can feel intimately a part of it and not only defend it” (QA, no. 55, italics in original).
Another feature of Francis’s ecological theology that speaks powerfully to Asians is his abundant use of poetry: “Poetry helps give voice to a painful sensation shared by many of us today. The inescapable truth is that, as things stand, this way of treating the Amazon territory spells the end of so much life, for so much beauty, even though people would like to keep thinking that nothing is happening” (QA, no. 47). 22 In Asia, a mark of high education and wisdom is the ability to compose poems and not philosophic treatises; artistic works such as paintings of natural scenes are often accompanied by poems written in artistic calligraphy on the painting itself which is regarded as a work of art in its own right.
Going forward and further
In his evaluation of LS, Donal Dorr says that the encyclical “is an exceptionally important document, which will surely rank with the Vatican II Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes).” 23 That is not a hyperbole, in light of both content and methodology. In terms of methodology, the encyclical starts with a clear, accessible, and accurate presentation of the scientific data on the ecological crisis, without which theological elaborations would be no more than abstract speculation. As mentioned above, LS offers a very helpful introduction to the ecological crisis and provides those people with inadequate scientific education the means to articulate the causal connections between human activities—individual and corporate—and global warming. Furthermore, the fact that Pope Francis quotes the teachings of episcopal conferences is a welcome departure from the earlier view that they do not constitute a proper teaching authority of the hierarchical magisterium.
In terms of content, again, according to Dorr, “Francis’s account of an integral ecology represents a major breakthrough in Catholic social teaching.” 24 Dorr goes on to list eleven areas where such a breakthrough occurs: a rich Bible-based theology of ecology; a comprehensive account of the major environmental issues; the affirmation of human activities as causing the ecological crisis; the strong linkage between “the cry of the earth” and “ the cry of the poor”; the danger of the “technocratic paradigm”; the proposal of an alternative economy; the “ecological debt” of the rich countries; recognition of the contributions of local cooperatives and indigenous communities; encouragement to adopt ecology-friendly practices; emphasis on the need for enforcement measures at the national and international levels; and the need to pressure politicians to take radical enforcement measures. 25
On the debit side, Dorr notes three areas where LS could be improved: the population issue, the theology of the “Cosmic Christ,” and an evolution-based theology of creation in the form of the “New Story.” 26 Concerning the Asian context, the first issue obtains pride of place, and I will briefly develop the first area, leaving aside the second and the third. LS mentions the “reduction in the birth rate” and “certain policies of ‘reproductive health’” (no. 50) and views them as ways in which rich countries try to avoid facing the impact of their consumerist lifestyle on the environment by blaming it on the birth rate in the Majority World. The encyclical goes on to quote the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace: “While it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development” (no. 50).
In light of the demographic explosion in Asian countries such as India, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam, and especially in the poorest countries of Asia, such a treatment of the impact of the demographic explosion on the environment is a little short of being cavalier. Perhaps LS is still hampered by the teaching of Humane Vitae, but the ecological crisis in 2018 is quite different from that in 1968 and should have provided an occasion for a serious re-examination of Pope Paul VI’s admittedly non-infallible teaching on birth control. At any rate, what Pope Francis said on January 19, 2014, on his way back to Rome from the Philippines to the effect that one need not reproduce like rabbits to be a good Catholic is a good place to start an open and honest discussion of “responsible parenthood.”
With the publication of Laudato Si’, no one can accuse the leadership of the Catholic Church of turning a blind eye to an issue on which the survival not only of the human family but of the planet Earth itself depends. Pope Francis has sounded a clarion call for an “ecological conversion,” a call addressed to the whole of humanity, but also one that Asia will need to heed and respond to actively and promptly because, being a continent of the poorest of the poor, it has to respond to the cry of the Earth to make a decent human life possible for its own people. The pope’s message is not a lone voice. It has been anticipated in many ways by Asian bishops, not to mention many Asian theologians. Furthermore, Pope Francis’s message about an integral ecology can be enriched by incorporating the wisdom of the “great sages” of Asia, in particular as embodied in Buddhism and Daoism. Thus, an Asian interreligious ecological theology can be formulated to encourage and accompany concerted efforts to save and “care for our common home.” 27
Footnotes
Notes
Author biography