DIALOGUE WITH THE POPE

In the Encyclical Letter “LAUDATO SI’” on “Care for our Common Home,” Holy Father Francis invites us to enter into a dialogue early on in this 40,597-word document — “In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home.” (p. 3[1]). In fact, “dialogue” is an important concept with Pope Francis. “The path of peace begins, with dialogue. But dialogue is not easy, it is difficult. But with dialogue we build bridges of peace in relationships rather than walls that distance us.”[2]

However, as it turns out, Pope Francis is not interested in anything of the sort. The entire Encyclical is a monologue around a point of view that is, well, strange, surprising and wrong for someone in his position as Pope. That is, the Pope’s view of the Earth (our common home) is stated early on: “This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her… This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor.” (p.2)

It is only natural that Pope Francis equates the Earth with the poor; in his first interview on September 30, 2013 with Antonio Spadaro, S.J. published in America The National Catholic Review[3], it was abundantly clear that the poor was his focus. “Discernment is always done in the presence of the Lord, looking at the signs, listening to the things that happen, the feeling of the people, especially the poor.”[4] When you read that interview, you learn about a man deeply religious – and an intellectual. His favorite author is Dostoevsky. He is a Jesuit. And most revealing, he is a sinner. When asked by Father Spadaro, “Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio,” Francis says: “’I do not know what might be the most fitting description…. I am a sinner. This is the most accurate definition. It is not a figure of speech, a literary genre. I am a sinner.”[5]

That humbleness and the importance Jesuits place on discernment is compelling; after you read the interview, you can’t help but love him. And it is because of that love that LAUDATO SI’ is so disturbing to me and why I felt compelled to write this other part of the dialogue; it simply cannot be the same person who gave that interview.

For example, Pope Francis said in the interview: “In his own way, John XXIII adopted this attitude [St. Ignatius’ great principles must be embodied in the circumstances of place, time and people] with regard to the government of the church, when he repeated the motto, ‘See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.’ John XXIII saw all things, the maximum dimension, but he chose to correct a few, the minimum dimension.”[6]  Of course, the problem of turning a blind eye too much can spell trouble (i.e., the abuse of the clergy of children). But that aside, coming forward now and claiming that the Earth is in such danger simply doesn’t make any sense when there are so many other moral issues that deserve discernment. Besides, as the evidence shows, the “danger” is not proven.

LAUDATO SI’ is not a little correction, either. It is thousands of words aimed at telling us “the sky is falling.” And because he is the Pope, it ignited a wildfire throughout the world (just Google it, and see the later reference in my essay to an obscure mystic, Ali al-Khawas.) Since the Pope has so many words that are really very confusing upon study, he isn’t doing what John XXIII said, is he?

According to Pope Francis, “discernment takes time. For example, many think that changes and reforms can take place in a short time. I believe that we always need time to lay the foundations for real, effective change. And this is the time of discernment.”[7] So why, suddenly, have we run out of time[8]?

What has happened for Pope Francis to now declare: “Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world.” (P. 161)

That’s a bold statement – and completely untrue. Our future is “debris, desolation and filth?” Really? We’ve “stretched the planet’s capacity?” Our lifestyles are going to cause catastrophes that are happening right now? Wait…there have never been significant weather events in the past, wars in the past, outrages? Where did this judgment come from?

The reason I see such a profound difference in the Pope who was interviewed and the one who supposedly wrote LAUDATO SI’ is because of such exaggerations which run throughout the Encyclical. Also, his initial premise about the Earth is still in debate, making his conclusions in this Encyclical, wrong. They are certainly not in “dialogue” as they should be!

Indeed, the “dialogue” is really a one-sided presentation of his perception of one side of that argument. Besides, it is the nature of science to always be in debate, never finalized, always in examination. Rather than present both sides, he presents his interpretation and equates it to his concern for the poor. While there is nothing wrong in trying to do that, there is a lot wrong when the premise is not finalized. So when he writes, “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” (p. 23), the entire paragraph 24 deals with it, and later, “The same mindset which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty.” (p. 175), he’s advocating and putting fear out there to, well, exert some type of control over humanity? Because it’s not documented anywhere in the Encyclical, nor in the science.[9]

In my own discernment (and many others smarter than me) the jury is still out on climate being out of control, much less our fault. Does man have some type of effect on the earth? Of course. But are we responsible as the Pope says for “The earth, our home, … beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.”(p. 21)? That is highly doubtful. So what is the real reason for his emphasis on that side of the argument? Why did he write this and why this topic? In order to answer these and other questions, let me briefly summarize the other side of the argument just to create a semblance of dialogue.

And Now for the Rest of the Story

Read the Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report for yourself. It contains many confidence levels, ranging from very low, low, medium, high and very high. There were 41 “very highs,” 5 “very lows,” 383 “highs,” 260 “lows” and 174 “mediums.” In other words, it doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence about global warming. James Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News, should know. He studied atmospheric science and in his latest article in Forbes magazine, Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You[10], Taylor attacks many assertions, including one of the most quoted, the rising sea levels because of melting glaciers.

Besides, in 2013, a leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate.[11] Even if you disregard both sides of the extremist views on the issue, you have to really ask yourself: what about the time before people kept records? “Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures do not agree, however. They began only in 1979, and have shown no significant increase over the last quarter century.”[12]

This “rush to judgment” that we are all in harm’s way produces a false hysteria, and makes one wonder why do certain individuals promote that type of emotional reaction? And lack of trust in data is only one of the inherent problems of LAUDATO SI’. Another is the documentation for his assertions; the Pope’s citations to prove his points are from other clergy, not scientists. Even some of his references to the gospels are taken out of context to prove a point and create the “sky is falling” drama. This lack of footnotes with any credible reference shades the entire document with an umbrella of doubt and makes one wonder, what is the real purpose for this Encyclical?[13] Did the Pope, in fact, write it?

But, my own essay is not an interpretation to add to the other interpretations of what the Pope wrote; rather, it is a response to someone I found profound when I first encountered him in that initial interview, and to the other Pope that wrote LAUDATO SI’ (whoever he is). This essay is my particular, personal discernment about all these words because they surprised me, greatly. Indeed, if Pope Francis really believes some of the things he wrote, then perhaps both of us need more time for more discernment, because it is so far from what I have studied as a lifelong Catholic — so far that I do not recognize either him or the Catholic Church in that document.

So when Jimmy Akin, a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a member on the Catholic Answers Speakers Bureau and a weekly guest on the global radio program “Catholic Answers Live,” says we can’t just dismiss the Encyclical because it “also articulates matters of faith and morals upon which the Pope can speak, and is speaking, authoritatively,”[14] I believe that. The problem is, you can’t find them in all those words very easily, and when you read the Encyclical, it is extremely difficult to believe the Pope wrote it. How do you figure out matters that really count when they are mixed in with really bad information?

Akin goes on to explain, “Even if they [Catholics]hold different views on some of the scientific matters the pope touches on, they should seek to find as much as possible in the document that is good and useful.”[15] That’s well and good to say, and while there is probably something good in there, when I read and studied the Encyclical, I’m still really confused. Even by the Pope’s references to scripture.

For example, the Pope says of the earth “she ‘groans in travail’ (Rom 8:22).” (p. 2). But the full text of his reference from Romans[16] should really be examined in context to see how he uses the quote:

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

That’s a beautiful passage. But with respect, it has nothing to do with global warming, does it?

Overview

The Pope outlines what he will write about upfront, including:

1) drawing on the results of the best scientific research available today,
2) consider some principles drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition which can render our commitment to the environment more coherent,
3) attempt to get to the roots of the present situation, so as to consider not only its symptoms but also its deepest causes,
4) advance some broader proposals for dialogue and action which would involve each of us as individuals, and also affect international policy, and finally
5) offer some inspired guidelines for human development to be found in the treasure of Christian spiritual experience[17].

But none of this happens. For example, in point number one, no scientific research is cited in the document. Are we supposed to take his word that he drew from the best scientific research available? As already discussed, his conclusions are not true; there is evidence on both sides and only one side (and even that one isn’t presented with any science) was discussed.

Nor are there principles from our Judaeo Christian tradition as you will see that make our “commitment to the environment” more coherent. Scripture citations are shaped to the moment for convenience. So the Pope never gets to the root causes, because the result of any cause is false, so how can the causes be true?

Maybe he should have stuck to the last point and offer us some guidelines for our development. But as you will see, something is wrong there as well.

The Pope says, too, that he has repeated themes that run throughout, including:

• The intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of the planet
• The conviction that everything in the world is connected
• The critique of new paradigms and forms of power derived from technology
• The call to seek other ways of understanding the economy and progress
• The value proper to each creature
• The human meaning of ecology
• The need for forthright and honest debate
• The serious responsibility of international and local policy
• The throwaway culture and the proposal of a new lifestyle

And those themes do appear and re-appear. But when they do, the arguments put forth fall far short of convincing.[18] In other words, there’s no definitive proof as far as I can see.

For example, in Chapter One, the Pope introduces us to a new term called “rapidification.” (p. 18). Where did that word come from? What does it mean? He says that things are changing too fast for the Earth to keep up. Furthermore, “the goals of this rapid and constant change are not necessarily geared to the common good or to integral and sustainable human development.” (p. 18). This is followed by the statement: “Change is something desirable, yet it becomes a source of anxiety when it causes harm to the world and to the quality of life of much of humanity.” (p. 18).

Much of his writing is like this: provocative statements that make you think when you first read them are true, but on careful examination, turn out to be confusing and worse, misleading.

For example, who can govern “change?” What does not change? Heraclitus, the sixth century BC philosopher, taught that all things are always in flux or change. In the Pensees, Blaise Pascal the French mathematician and physicist said, “Our nature consists in movement; absolute rest is death.” In relativity theory, an electron’s velocity or position are never observable at the same time. The uncertainty principle (also called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle[19]) states the position and velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature. Are we to believe that the Earth can’t keep up with what we are doing? Really?

Who are we to suggest we can interpret the changes going on around us, because of us, in spite of us or within us?

In terms of what the Pope writes – that change is desirable yet a source of anxiety when it causes harm to the world — with respect, this is a meaningless statement; it is impossible to really tell what is causing a change, if the change is “good,” “bad” or “indifferent.” Such misleading types of statements run throughout LAUDATO SI’ and must be carefully evaluated in terms of the truth of their content. Because as mentioned, it is the Pope who is saying it, elevating his words many times because he is, after all, the Pope.

The good news is we are not in the middle ages. While we look to the Holy Father for spiritual guidance, if one is going to argue science, one had better have science as evidence.

Pope Francis says that his goal is not amassing information or to satisfy curiosity[20]. He wants us to become “painfully aware, to dare to turn what is happening to the world into our own personal suffering and thus to discover what each of us can do about it.”(p. 19) But his premise – that something bad is happening to the Earth – is wrong. Should we use our imaginations to pretend something bad is happening? I merely have to look around me to SEE the bad that is going on, with the attacks on morality, the vicious hatred being fostered in cultures. Why focus on something that hasn’t been proven yet when I can see for myself what IS happening?

To the Pope, change causes anxiety. Yet, it is desirable. The need to suffer is a common theme in Catholic teachings, not only because Christ suffered for our sins, but throughout the Bible suffering is necessary for true freedom to be achieved. “Fall down and beg forgiveness” as Dostoevsky put it. That’s about all you can do.

In fact, in part 20, Pope Francis lays the foundation for all subsequent arguments he will make, including:

• We’re all polluting the world.
• We’re causing millions of premature deaths, especially for the poor.
• The earth is a cesspool.

Can you really believe this? Such themes run throughout the document, and so will the Pope’s deep distrust of technology: “Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.” (p. 20) Unfortunately, the Pope is anti-technology, having equated it as a wall over which we cannot see the beauty of nature. In fact, because of technology (which causes rapidification), we are all doomed. How absurd.

Technology isn’t evil, just as a gun isn’t evil. It is man who is evil, and who uses technology and weapons – as man uses information itself – for evil (or good) purposes. That, I believe, is what the Pope should have focused on: evil. But, the Pope uses the word “evil” only seven times in the entire 40,597 words! He should have been dealing with evil, which is all around us. What is evil? How is it to be combated? How does it manifest itself? That’s what he should be focused on!

He blames our throwaway culture for the situation we find ourselves in. “These problems are closely linked to a throwaway culture which affects the excluded just as it quickly reduces things to rubbish.” (p. 22). Who are “the excluded?” Apparently, anyone who cannot participate in throwaway, which would be the poor. He cites an example: “most of the paper we produce is thrown away and not recycled.” (p. 22) Where is the evidence for this statement? Who put that thought in his head? It would have been wonderful to provide us with a footnote for this and other challenging statements he makes! But you will find no such evidence in this Encyclical.

Instead, the Pope footnotes other clergy, which does not instill confidence, but creates another wave of doubt. While there is nothing wrong with quoting other clergy, what makes it incorrect in this Encyclical is that if you are talking about the physical world, you had better be quoting scientists, not priests (or scientist priests). Morality, the world of spirit, is for theologians. The Pope’s attempt to connect the two falls short in my opinion, and creates a dangerous climate for taking a lot of what he says out of context.

I have found the following categories in LAUDATO SI’ around which almost all of his statements can be classified that create this serious doubt about his content:

• Lack of Science, False Attacks on the Environment
• Creating Words and Word Combinations
• Technology Stinks
• Philosophical Mumbo Jumbo

The remaining part of this essay will point out instances that fall into these sections; however, I highly encourage you to read the Encyclical for yourself (he does want a dialogue after all). There is no substitute for first-hand knowledge of a document if you are doing to discuss it. Just Google it if you don’t have it, and please accept this personal discernment in the spirit that it is offered: dialogue.

Lack of Science, False Attacks on the Environment

In “Loss of Biodiversity” the Pope says that the “earth’s resources are also being plundered because of short-sighted approaches to the economy, commerce and production.” (p. 32) He goes on to say that each year thousands of plant and animal species will disappear “which we will never know, which our children will never see, because they have been lost forever.” (p. 33). Where is the proof of his statement, or that the cause of species disappearing is because of global warming? Instead, he simply states: “The great majority become extinct for reasons related to human activity. Because of us, thousands of species will no longer give glory to God by their very existence, nor convey their message to us. We have no such right.” (p. 33)

This is an unbelievable statement. It ignores everything we learned and continue to learn about the nature of things. When I was in school early in my life, no one knew why dinosaurs disappeared. Today, many believe they were destroyed by a meteor that hit the earth and changed our climate. What did man have to do with the disappearance of those creatures?

To say that “thousands” are disappearing due to human related activity is absurd, and actually endangers his authority and position of power. By writing things like this, which incite rather than reason, it makes one wonder the real purpose of such absurd statements. And yet, because it is the Pope saying it, a disturbing implication that it is somehow truth hangs around the statement. A footnote here would do wonders, but the lack of footnoting throughout his document is probably due to the statements are hearsay, not facts. One can only guess the reason there are no footnotes is because it can’t be foot noted. That’s a scary thought.

Coral

An example of his lack of science is, “Many of the world’s coral reefs are already barren or in a state of constant decline.” (p.41) What is the source for this statement? The quote after this sentence is: “’Who turned the wonder world of the seas into underwater cemeteries bereft of colour and life?’” (p.41) and is footnoted from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, Pastoral Letter What is Happening to our Beautiful Land? (29 January 1988). That document referenced also said this: “Imagine: only 5% of our corals are in their pristine state![21] This reference is to the coral reefs in the Philippines, but where does it come from and is it true? If “only 5%” were in pristine condition in 1988, they should all be gone by now!

Part of the problem is the repetition of facts which, if incorrect, get exploded through their repetition into being fact as they travel through information highways. In other words, if you say it often enough, it seems to be truth even if it is not true. Not only that, but “facts” are relative in the case of observations. Einstein taught us that through the very act of observation, we change things[22]. In other words, as you look, you shape. Such observations (i.e., about coral, etc.) that draw conclusions including cause-effect relationships are, for the most part, often speculation. For example, this sentence was used in a 2008 report:

“Estimates assembled through the expert opinions of 372 coral reef scientists and managers from 96 countries are that the world has effectively lost 19% of the original area of coral reefs; 15% are seriously threatened with loss within the next 10–20 years; and 20% are under threat of loss in 20–40 years.”[23]

It was cited subsequently by the World Meteorological Organization, 2010 in their Climate, Carbon and Coral Reefs publication, on the Bold Visions Conservation website (http://www.bvconservation.org/coral-reef.html), and in many other places. It does an effective job of presenting that there is a seeming danger to coral reefs – but doesn’t quite connect the dots to tie it to global warming, nor really convincingly argue about there is definite destruction going on because of us.

Indeed, I encourage you to read the research for yourself and draw your own conclusions (i.e., when you read things like, “Approximately 40% of the 16% of the world’s reefs that were seriously damaged in 1998 are either recovering well or have recovered”[24] or “Analyses of coral reefs in the wider Caribbean region confirm major reef declines and they do not resemble the reefs of 30 years ago. Coral cover on many Caribbean reefs has declined by up to 80%; however there are some encouraging signs of recovery.”[25] you wonder does anyone really know anything for sure?).

Clearly, such narratives suggest that “we are in motion.” In other words, there is an ebb and flow to nature that when considered carefully, should suggest careful deliberation rather than an all out assigning of blame to mankind for what does not exist (or only exists for the purposes of crowd control). The jury is obviously still out.

More important, the end of the earth is inevitable, and its end has nothing to do with what we as humans do or don’t do. Solar flares, asteroids, and simply the aging of the Earth’s processes make it so. This is not suggesting we throw caution to the wind; it does, however, give us pause to wonder why there is a dedicated effort to scare people into thinking “the sky is falling.” Why does the Pope want us all to feel guilty?

The Reliable Narrator

There is a concept in literature called reliability of the narrator[26]. Narrative Point of View in literature – and in life — is the perspective from which the events in a story are observed and recounted (and remember that in observing, we change what we observe).

There are only two points of view possible in any narrative: you’re either in the story, talking to readers as one of the characters, or you’re outside the story talking to readers. This latter narrator is called the Totally Omniscient narrator, and only appears in literature. None of us are omniscient; we are all “in the story.” For example, in the Story of Job, it opens up with this sentence: “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.” The narrator is Omniscient. You have to believe him; if you don’t, the story will never make sense.

Therefore, as first-person narrators, once they lie or are caught in a lie, they lose reliability; we can no longer believe them. Ever.

These points of view are what makes judging narratives like LAUDATO SI’ difficult; clearly, the Pope is the first-person narrator, and clearly, he believes what he is saying. Or, is he the Omniscient narrator, speaking for God? The “reality” is that he is in the story – our story. And because he is speaking about physical realities, he is subject to the character flaws of being human. With the amount of information available around us, his citations are, well, light. This “Lack of Science” is disturbing

The Pope states, “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all.” (p. 23) The climate doesn’t belong to anyone. No one “owns” it. No one controls it. It simply is. And when he says that, “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” (p. 23), he weaves the argument that somehow we are responsible for the climate.

But, there is no consensus for that judgment. It is being discerned. Yet his document continues to make incorrect conclusions, leading to claim that we have to change our lifestyle, production and consumption to combat the “warming.” His conclusion: “Climate change is a global problem.” (p. 25)

Some of his other comments are:

“Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.” (p.25)

“However, many of these symptoms indicate that such effects will continue to worsen if we continue with current models of production and consumption. There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy.” (p. 26)

My question is simple: where do these words come from? They are not sourced. Are we to believe that just because the Pope says them they are true (not that the Pope would lie)? However, as mentioned earlier, his position as Pope gives an implied truthfulness to ANYTHING he says. If the Pope is interested in a dialogue, with whom did he converse to make these stunning conclusions? More important, where is the counter argument?

Water

In the “Issue of Water” he says: “We all know that it is not possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society, where the habit of wasting and discarding has reached unprecedented levels. The exploitation of the planet has already exceeded acceptable limits and we still have not solved the problem of poverty.” (p. 27) Exactly what does poverty have to do with global warming? Furthermore, what exactly IS “poverty?” Poverty has been and always will be a problem to be solved. Trying to connect poverty to global warming or consumption of resources is a stretch. Is the Pope suggesting that we shouldn’t be consuming until we solve the problem of the poor? Exactly how does one solve that problem?

“Some countries have areas rich in water while others endure drastic scarcity.” (p.28). This is one of those obvious statements. Is he suggesting that those who do have more should be guilty for having water? Hasn’t there always been wet and dry areas (and by the way, not always the same areas if we believe historians).

So when he writes, “One particularly serious problem is the quality of water available to the poor,” (p. 29), he observes facts about the distribution of water to such poor areas and concludes: “Access to safe drinkable water is a basic and universal human right, since it is essential to human survival and, as such, is a condition for the exercise of other human rights.” (p. 30). And, he puts this in italics to stress its importance.

Since when did such access become a basic, universal human right? We pay for water. In the past, people built around the water. There were rights for water, and sometimes, fights for it. And there always will be. Water is, as a matter of fact, our most precious resource. It always will be. But is not a “right.” Do we need it to survive? Of course, but water – like everything else – becomes part of our economic fabric. We pay for it. We buy it, sell it, consume it. Do we have a right to it? Not really. A “need” is not a “right.” His choice of words is why his Encyclical is so confusing.

For example, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are great words, but what do they mean? There is ALWAYS a cost for ideas such as this, and the Pope’s idea of water being a universal right bears a cost. Who will pay that cost? Who should pay that cost? Who will be willing to pay the price?

The Pope says later quoting the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013) that, “realities are more important than ideas.” (p. 110) But the Pop’e use of the word “reality” throughout the Encyclical is confusing, as already discuss. Ideas govern us. The Pope is promoting ideas within the Encyclical. What IS reality?

Reality

The Pope uses the word “reality” 41 times in his Encyclical. The understanding of reality from his point of view is important to understanding the Encyclical itself. Naturally, because he is a spiritual man, his concept of reality is shaped with God as the ultimate reality. Even though he suggests that “science and religion, with their distinctive approaches to understanding reality, can enter into an intense dialogue fruitful for both” (p. 62), the Pope’s interpretation of reality is clearly stated throughout the document, perhaps summed up very early:

“The poverty and austerity of Saint Francis were no mere veneer of asceticism, but something much more radical: a refusal to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled.” (p. 11)

How do you “turn” a reality into objects when objects are reality? What is the Pope suggesting? He turns to his namesake, Francis, and says that he refused to turn reality into an object, and states it was a “radical” something. However, what comprises reality except objects? Of course, we can assume he is talking about his spiritual reality; that is, “to see nature as a magnificent book in which God speaks to us and grants us a glimpse of his infinite beauty and goodness.” (p. 12). He subsequently quotes scripture:  “Through the greatness and the beauty of creatures one comes to know by analogy their maker.” (Wis 13:5).

However, the Pope often cites scripture in order to prove his point, but leaves out the context of the specific quote from scripture. And while there is nothing seriously wrong in doing that, it is important to discern the meaning of such words in their context, not out of context. Here is the Wisdom of Solomon, Chapter 13: 1-9 for your review even though he only quoted 13:5.

1 Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster;
2 But deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world.
3 With whose beauty if they being delighted took them to be gods; let them know how much better the Lord of them is: for the first author of beauty hath created them.
4 But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let them understand by them, how much mightier he is that made them.
5 For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionally the maker of them is seen.
6 But yet for this they are the less to be blamed: for they peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find him.
7 For being conversant in his works they search him diligently, and believe their sight: because the things are beautiful that are seen.
8 Howbeit neither are they to be pardoned.
9 For if they were able to know so much, that they could aim at the world; how did they not sooner find out the Lord thereof?

Now what is interesting is that this book wasn’t part of the original Bible according to some scholars. The Wisdom of Solomon was part of The Apocrypha, a collection of documents, generally produced between the second century B.C. and the first century A.D., which were not a part of the original Old Testament canon.[27] Not that this is a bad thing. But it really demands a careful reading, then, since interpretation of what is written in those pages is by “unknown” authors.

Yet, it is a common theme to see “God” in nature. Emerson perhaps expressed it better than most in Nature:

Within these plantations [trees] of God, a decorum and sanctity reign, a perennial festival is dressed, and the guest sees not how he should tire of them in a thousand years. In the woods, we return to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can befall me in life, — no disgrace, no calamity, (leaving me my eyes,) which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground, — my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, — all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God.[28]

If you read the entire Chapter in Wisdom, you’ll see that it really an essay about man and how he shapes things. In fact, the Pope’s anti-anything-made-by-man message from the Encyclical is in the next chapter of Wisdom of Solomon (“But that which is made with hands is cursed, as well it, as he that made it: he, because he made it; and it, because, being corruptible, it was called god. For the ungodly and his ungodliness are both alike hateful unto God.” – Wisdom of Solomon 14:8-9). Not a pretty picture for makers of things, is it? But, the Wisdom narrator is talking about false gods – using objects as “god” instead of “God” as “God.” That’s something they used to do in those days (and perhaps now?) – fashion things and worship them. That made God jealous. Indeed, the old testament God was a jealous one. But, it is the same God who according to the scripture, created the Heaven and the Earth. In other words, two realities: spiritual, and physical.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”[29]

According to the scripture, God created physical reality, and put objects like man and beasts and the earth itself within that reality. And as much as the Pope admires Francis for refusing “to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled,” Francis himself was part of the physical reality because God created Francis, and that’s exactly what Francis did: by ignoring reality (objects), he became, like Emerson, a “transparent eyeball.” Good for him.

God Himself gave all of us that ability, as well as the ability to use objects, use reality, because we are part of reality. Some, like Francis, decided to deny reality (refuse). Yet, how can you deny what you yourself are part of?

In the real world, objects are for use. We use each other, we use ourselves, we use things and, we are used. And of course, there is always the danger that we may worship a “thing” as a god, or not use something properly. And that is called sin, isn’t it? However, sin has to also exist in order for forgiveness to emerge. Take away the danger of sin and you remove the possibility of forgiveness and everything connected with the religion of the Pope falls part.

So what is the Pope really saying about reality? Why does he write all these words on physical reality, the earth? If through the physical “proportionally the maker of them is seen,” his concern is that by abusing the earth (what is seen) we are cutting ourselves off from seeing God? Or, is it impossible to see God in something man created? Or, isn’t God in garbage? I’m not being smart about it, but God is, in fact, everywhere.

The Pope says, “The creation accounts in the book of Genesis contain, in their own symbolic and narrative language, profound teachings about human existence and its historical reality. They suggest that human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with the earth itself.” (p. 66)

I would really like to know or have read a footnote about this pointing specifically to the Biblical text that has these suggestions in it. The Pope is saying “life” involves three relationships: with God, neighbors, and the earth. With respect, life is much more than three relationships. What happen to marriage? What happened to the relationship with your self? With your family?

He goes on: “According to the Bible, these three vital relationships have been broken, both outwardly and within us. This rupture is sin. The harmony between the Creator, humanity and creation as a whole was disrupted by our presuming to take the place of God and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations.” (p.66)

Again, on reading this initially, you are tempted to say, “That makes sense.” But go back re-read it, and then read Genesis. Something is amiss.

First, relationships were destroyed because of sin according to the Pope. The word “sin” is used only a few times in the entire Encyclical. Here are the other two:

• “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God (p. 6) Address in Santa Barbara, California (8 November 1997); cf. John Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven: Ecological Vision and Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Bronx, New York, 2012.” (p. 8)
• “Saint Bonaventure held that, through universal reconciliation with every creature, Saint Francis in some way returned to the state of original innocence. [40] This is a far cry from our situation today, where sin is manifest in all its destructive power in wars, the various forms of violence and abuse, the abandonment of the most vulnerable, and attacks on nature.” (p. 66)

I haven’t seen the commandment on crimes against the natural world being a sin. The first statement he made above, the Pope quotes from a speech, and the second a play off of Saint Bonaventure’s interpretation of St. Francis. Read carefully, and answer this question: what about the sins of man against man? How does that fit what he is talking about? Is he equating wasting water to killing someone?

What’s more, in Genesis, don’t forget that God gives us dominion over the earth.[30]

But did we presume to take the place of God in that story? Did we refuse to acknowledge our creature limitations? Before eating from the Tree, did we have any limitations? We were given dominion over everything. Another word for dominion is power. God gave us that power. Where is the limitation in that gift except for the command to not eat from one tree? Perhaps one can consider that command a limitation; however, it was a command. Any command will limit, and with any command there are only two choices: obey or disobey. When you obey, is that always good? When you disobey, is that always bad? That’s really the knowledge we gained by eating from the tree, isn’t it? The knowledge of good and evil?

Of course, when we did eat, that’s when things fell apart. But the fact is, it was disobedience that caused that rupture – not our limitations. We ate from the tree because we sought wisdom. The Tree’s significance could be anything; the point of the story is that we disobeyed God.

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof.” (Genesis 3:6). She gave it to Adam, he ate and the rest is history. And what knowledge did we gain for this disobedience? That we were naked. Loss of innocence. Of everything. Of the relative nature of good and evil. Striving for wisdom can hurt you.

That quest for wisdom in itself isn’t a bad thing, or a sin; what was bad is that we disobeyed God. Disobedience runs through scripture as one of the main themes. But, so does forgiveness. How is all this related to the Pope’s conception of reality?

The Pope quotes the Bolivian Bishops’ Conference by writing, “’Both everyday experience and scientific research show that the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.’” (p. 48) Bolivian Bishops’ Conference, Pastoral Letter on the Environment and Human Development in Bolivia El universo, don de Dios para la vida (23 March 2012), 17. However, what exactly is an attack on the environment? And what does this statement really mean?

“Clearly, the Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism[31] unconcerned for other creatures.” (p. 68) When mankind started, we believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and so we were too. Ancient man would look at the night sky, and as it moved, believed that everything revolved around us. Then, science emerged; specifically, Nicolaus Copernicus was the Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who discovered that the Sun — not the Earth – was at the center of the universe. We weren’t that important after all.

Interestingly, the Church condemned this belief at first. In fact, Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei wrote books that later became banned by the Church as heresy.

Then along comes Freud who shows that we don’t even know why we do what we do. The Ego, Id and Superego (while perhaps now out of favor) was a way of explaining (or trying to explain) that we are always in conflict within ourselves: our id is pushing us to do things that the superego is trying to control and somehow, the ego emerges, or you. But you don’t really know why you do what you do.

Today, people say chemistry is involved – that you have lost every sense of decision because at any given moment, you are the sum total of the chemicals within you.

So from the center of the universe, we’ve lost our way to be, well, simply the result of the particular chemicals in our body at the moment. It has been a long time since we have viewed ourselves as the center, or as the Pope says, with “a tyrannical anthropocentrism.” So what is the Pope really saying here?

Perhaps he is talking about “me” generation, or the stress of the “me” instead of the “you.” He goes on to write, “We are called to respect creation and its inherent laws, for “the Lord by wisdom founded the earth.” (Prov 3:19). In our time, the Church does not simply state that other creatures are completely subordinated to the good of human beings, as if they have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish…Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things”.(p. 69)

This is another case where on the surface, it sounds so good; however, upon examination, what is the Pope really saying? For example, he quotes Proverbs. It is important when looking at scripture to really put what he pulls from scripture into context, which is:

13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.
14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.
15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.
16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour.
17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.
18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.
19 The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.
20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

The chapter is actually sort of like Polonius’ advice to his son, Laertes (Hamlet I, iii, 55-81). The writer of Proverbs is telling us if we find wisdom and understanding, we’ll be happy. The writer personifies wisdom and understanding with the pronoun “she,” going as far as saying “she is a tree of life to them.” Then the Pope’s quote – “The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth” – is basically saying God created the earth. But if you will recall, the “tree of life” was forbidden to man in the Garden. In fact, we can argue that seeking wisdom and understanding is what got us in trouble in the first place. The question is, what has this to do with global warming? Respectfully, nothing.

Reading and interpretation of the Bible is not the scope of this essay, but how the Pope uses scripture to promote his point of view about the Earth is. In this case, what exactly is he saying?

He goes on and says, ““Each creature possesses its own particular goodness and perfection… Each of the various creatures, willed in its own being, reflects in its own way a ray of God’s infinite wisdom and goodness.’” (p. 69) That we have to “respect the goodness of every creature, to avoid disordered use of things.” However, all creatures are not good. Even within a species, you will find some that are good, and some that are not good. So what is the Pope saying? That leads us to the next analysis: how the Pope uses language.

Creating Words and Word Combinations

One of the really disturbing parts of his writing is the Pope’s use of adjectives. There are so many examples of this, that I will only touch on a few (this is why I encourage you to read the entire Encyclical yourself).

Consider paragraph 47 to start, where his use of words and their possible misinterpretation becomes almost unprecedented. When you read this part for the first time, it is almost without question to naturally say, “Of course! This all makes sense!” However, as virtually in all the other cases, a careful examination of what is being said proves that it is full of (sorry to say) propaganda.

Propaganda, which defined is information especially of a biased or misleading nature, is used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. The word itself has negative connotations; that is, people use it to “dismiss” what they are hearing or reading. You might be viewing this essay as propaganda. But the fact is, all information is biased in one way or another, isn’t it? What’s more, it’s probably boarding on heresy to accuse the Pope of being a propagandist, but that’s really what we all are. In truth, he is, as much as any of us, entitled to his belief system. Our job, as individuals, is to get at the truth – to find out what is (discern), and what is not propaganda. This has been our central problem since we started on the planet: who do you believe?

Plato talks about this in his analogy of the cave. Michael Vlach explained it nicely: “According to Plato, the world outside the cave represents the world of forms while the shadows on the wall represent objects in the physical world. The escape of the prisoner represents philosophical enlightenment and the realization that forms are the true reality. Most people are like the prisoners in the cave. They think the shadows are reality. Philosophers, though, are like the man who escapes the cave and sees the real world. They have true knowledge.”[32]

This is difficult, seeing “reality,” which is why it will be important for all of us to examine what the Pope means by “reality” as well. In truth, it is the individual who determines what is true or false in the information being fed and consumed; like Plato’s shadows on the wall, we have to “discern” what is from what is not. It’s a difficult and really an unending task.

Let’s look at what the Pope wrote in paragraph 47 to see what I mean:

“True wisdom, as the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons, is not acquired by a mere accumulation of data which eventually leads to overload and confusion, a sort of mental pollution. Real relationships with others, with all the challenges they entail, now tend to be replaced by a type of internet communication which enables us to choose or eliminate relationships at whim, thus giving rise to a new type of contrived emotion which has more to do with devices and displays than with other people and with nature. Today’s media do enable us to communicate and to share our knowledge and affections. Yet at times they also shield us from direct contact with the pain, the fears and the joys of others and the complexity of their personal experiences.” (p. 47)

What is this really saying? Because as the Vicar of Christ, when the Pope writes what he writes, as a Catholic, we have to accept it as true information. But is this true? Or, it is propaganda?

As an individual in discernment, which the Pope advocates, we have to place this information in context of other information in order to determine whether or not it is true or false. Søren Kierkegaard said that “knowledge is comparison,” and he was right. You really can’t know what a thing is unless you put something next to it. Ezra Pound said something like this in the ABC of Reading: “The proper METHOD for studying poetry and good letters is the method of contemporary biologists, that is careful first-hand examination of the matter, and continual COMPARISON of one ‘slide’ or specimen with another.”[33]

The same should be true with everything we read (including this essay). That’s how you know the truth, eventually, and why it is so difficult to come at the truth.

Examining the first sentence in paragraph 47, the Pope has used an adjective (True) to modify the noun, wisdom. When your mind first digests those two words, you gloss over it. However, think about them: can wisdom be true or false? If it is false wisdom, it is not wisdom, but stupidity. Therefore, modifying the noun is really misleading and becomes, as a result, suspect in the analysis of what he is really saying. The sentence works better without the adjective, so we have to ask: why did he use it? However, it is the last half of the sentence that is disturbing because it implies that accumulating data leads to “mental pollution.” But what is one supposed to accumulate? Introspection (what he advocates) is going into one’s self using every means possible. That is, self-examination, talking to people and “generous encounter” with people (there’s the adjective again) are clouded by data. Really?

What does this mean? Is the Pope trying to suggest to disregard data and just have a dialogue? Is that really how wisdom is achieved? T.S. Eliot said it nicely:

The world turns and the world changes,
But one thing does not change.
In all of my years, one thing does not change,
However you disguise it, this thing does not change:
The perpetual struggle of Good and Evil.[34]

The object of science is, in fact, to accumulate data. The more data, but more accurate the conclusion. To ignore data is to ignore not only an entire world, but to risk making really bad conclusions, which seemingly, the Pope has done by ignoring the complete other side of the global warming argument. Besides, our senses are accumulating data continually, and we all know how reliable our senses are! Perceptions are unreliable, and the very reason discernment is necessary. A big part of discernment possible today is, in fact, data. Does the Pope suggest we should limit these inputs?

The sad fact is yes. He seriously wants us to dial down. And that’s a sad, bad idea.

“Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur.”[35] (p. 114)

What the heck does that mean? If he is not suggesting returning to the Stone Age, what is he suggesting? He says, “slow down and look at reality in a different way.” What does THAT mean? He wants to recover the “values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur.” Where did that come from? Whose delusions?

In one of his homilies, Pope Francis said, “One who judges ‘always gets it wrong’. He’s wrong, Pope Francis explained, “because he takes the place of God, who is the only judge: taking that place is taking the wrong place!” Believing you have the authority to judge everything: people, life, everything”. And “with the capacity to judge” you also assume you have “the capacity to condemn.”[36]

Doesn’t that go for the Pope himself in a statement like this? Is he not acting like the judge?

The second sentence in paragraph 47 is just as interesting – and just as confusing as it relates to “slowing down.” He says that “real relationships” (again, note the adjective) are being replaced by “internet communications.” This “enables us to choose or eliminate relationships at whim, thus giving rise to a new type of contrived emotion which has more to do with devices and displays than with other people and with nature.” (p. 47)

The implication here again is speed kills. His judgment that emotions can be “contrived” because of this type of “internet communication” is interesting – and wrong. Who can describe the pain or joy “internet communications” can bring? And, who is he to judge a “real” relationship from an “unreal” one?

Does he mean by “internet communications” e-mail? Texting? Does he mean an internet communication is a “false relationship?” Is he really suggesting that a “like” on Facebook is a relationship — really?

He is suggesting we relate more to devices and displays than people (something we all feel lately I’m sure). But, what does it really mean? Note also the adjective “contrived” in front of “emotion.” Who is anyone to say any emotion a person feels is “contrived?” Is a Facebook “like” any more or less deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously than a “wink?” When I “like” a comment on LinkedIn, is that not real? And if we do measure our value by the number of likes on Facebook, who caused us to value that type of metric?

So at first glance when you read that paragraph 47, you’re tempted to say, “Right on.” Yet when you re-read it and study it, you have to say, “What?” Who is the Pope to judge that two people texting do not have a relationship…or that they are relating more to their devices than each other? Is the cross a device? The entire discussion of devices borders on absurd, by a man who may not, in fact, use devices!

In World War II, a “Dear John” letter (and not limited to that war either) was the way information broke many a relationship. Yet, “Mail Call” was one of the most important moments for troops. All technology has created today is the opportunity for more “letters” and instant communications. So what is the objection the Pope is offering to these types of communications? And, who is he or anyone to judge that the emotion resulting from such interactions is contrived?

Joseph Conrad, one of our great writers, once said, “A man is much more like the sea, whose movement are too complicated to explain, and whose depths may bring up God only knows what at any moment.”[37] The complexity of the individual is enormous, and cannot be easily understood. Technology is simply an instrument used in a relationship; like letters, communication creates the fabric around which relationships are created – or destroyed.

Ubiquitous, Technology and Power

Another example of his word use and word choice is how he uses the term “ubiquitous.” He writes: “human activity becomes ubiquitous, with all the risks which this entails. Often a vicious circle results, as human intervention to resolve a problem further aggravates the situation itself.” (p.34)

The word “ubiquitous” is always one of the “beware-when-you-hear-it” words because people use it but don’t know what it means. It refers to something that is found everywhere, at the same time. If you google the word, you’ll come up with absurd things people say are ubiquitous, like television. Even “air” which might seem ubiquitous, isn’t. It doesn’t exist in the ocean, so it is not found everywhere at the same time. In its true definition, however, I know only one thing found everywhere at the same time: God (if you believe in Him). Space might be another one, but space is one of those things where you need things to define it (i.e., you can’t really think about space without objects).

Therefore, human activity being everywhere at the same time seems true enough when you hear it, but upon closer examination, is nonsense. It’s one of those “Yea, so…” statements in the document, and when the Pope ties it to “with all the risks which this entails” it becomes confusing. What is the Pope saying, really? That human activity is everywhere, at the same time with all the risks which human activity entails. So? Is he saying that the activity itself is the same? That people are acting all the time? Doing things?

Also, by adding “human intervention to resolve a problem further aggravates the situation itself,” well, sometimes that happens, doesn’t it? You try to solve a problem and you make it worse. Or you make it better.

“The social dimensions of global change include the effects of technological innovations on employment, social exclusion, an inequitable distribution and consumption of energy and other services, social breakdown, increased violence and a rise in new forms of social aggression, drug trafficking, growing drug use by young people, and the loss of identity.” (p. 46)

This is a mouthful. So now technology is the reason for the mess we are in. This is the same old song sung by people throughout the ages: technology versus nature. More important, examine the statement carefully. What is “global change?” Technological innovations affect employment. Of course they do. They also have an effect on social exclusion — and inclusion! These are word combinations, again, that confuse rather than clarify. Specifically, look at “an inequitable distribution and consumption of energy and other services.” What, exactly, is the point? What is “equitable?” Who decides it? Technological innovations cause increased violence? And give rise to a new forms of social aggression? What are those “forms?” Is he talking about bullying? In this single paragraph, the Pope has rolled up almost all of the ills of society and wrapped them in a nice tidy package that says too much technology is the fault here. Really?

He uses the word “technology” 36 times in the document. And while he admits, “Technology has remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings.” (p. 102), the Pope really looks at technology as taking away from our ability to make the “right” decisions.

“Technology tends to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology ‘know full well that it moves forward in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race’, that ‘in the most radical sense of the term power is its motive – a lordship over all.'”87 As a result, “‘man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature’.88 Our capacity for making decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one’s alternative creativity are diminished.” (p. 108)

I know no such thing about technology. He cites Romano Guardini in his footnotes for this paragraph, Das Ende der Neuzeit, 63-64 (The End of the Modern World, 56). In fact, the Pope likes Guardini’s thought, especially when he says that power is the motive for technological development. “Power” is an interesting word, and understanding it is important in understanding the Encyclical.

“There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means “an increase of ‘progress’ itself’, an advance in ‘security, usefulness, welfare and vigour; …an assimilation of new values into the stream of culture’, as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such. The fact is that ‘contemporary man has not been trained to use power well’, because our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience. Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its own limitations. It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the challenges now before us. ‘The risk is growing day by day that man will not use his power as he should’; in effect, ‘power is never considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent in freedom’ since its ‘only norms are taken from alleged necessity, from either utility or security’. But human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint.” (p. 105)

He again cites Romano Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, 9th ed., Würzburg, 1965, 87 (English: The End of the Modern World, Wilmington, 1998, 82) throughout this passage as well, stringing together quotes from Guardini. So who is this guy Guardini? I never heard of him until I read the Encyclical. But clearly, he has influence on Pope Francis (in my research, I found that Pope Francis, who as “a student in Munich during the 1980s, Jorge Mario Bergoglio considered writing his dissertation on Guardini himself; more recently, as Pope Francis, he invoked the legacy of Guardini in some of his earliest public addresses of his pontificate.”)[38])

According to Christopher Shannon, “Romano Guardini was one of the first to offer to the modern world a vision of the Church nurturing the flourishing of free personality within community.”[39] Guardini is a thinker, a scholar. But, he is only one of many, and sorry to say, he is from the clergy that Pope Francis draws from (not that clergy thinker and scholars are not good sources). Perhaps a question should be why didn’t he go beyond clergy for ideas? Shannon sums it up nicely: “At a time when so many intellectuals were abandoning Christianity for Eastern religions, Guardini saw the need to acknowledge the truth and goodness in Buddhism while insisting on the absolute uniqueness of Christianity. Jesus Christ is not a wise man who points us to the truth; He is the Truth. Christianity is not based primarily on a set of dogmas, but on the person of Jesus Christ.”[40] But hasn’t that always been the case? John 14:6 says, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” He has always been the Truth.

So the Pope likes Guardini’s thinking, but what does he like about it? If we examine how he strings together quotes from Guardini in that paragraph, one of the things that becomes clear is that neither of them feels we know how to use power. Frank Morriss’ essay on Guardini quotes Guardini: “’The new danger arises from a factor intrinsic to the work of man, even to the work of his spirit. The new danger arises from the factor of power . . . Man today holds power over things, but we can assert confidently that he does not yet have power over his own power.’”[41]

But in any age, wasn’t that the case? Simply look back into history and examine the reality of that statement: mankind has always abused power. The historian and moralist, John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902), wrote in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”[42]

Can the same be said of any Pope? Of any of our leaders? It’s a curious thought, isn’t it? That positions of power will corrupt. No kidding.

But it is not only the use of the word “power” that is interesting; the Pope’s use of the word “reality” used in conjunction with power is equally intriguing — and strange. When he writes, “as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such,” what does he mean? Does reality come from technology? Doesn’t technology and economic power help shape reality, as much as birds and animals and the earth itself? What IS reality?

Upon examination, not only his word choice, but his documentation and his points of view are often flawed, tainted by bad information he has received in judging “reality” (“power” was used 76 times).

For example, he says, “Accordingly, our human ability to transform reality must proceed in line with God’s original gift of all that is.” (p. 5) What does this mean? Reality can be transformed by man? Does the Pope admit we have the power to transform reality? What is reality? The dictionary tells us reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Reality is NOT idealism, or an idea. You either are, or you are not. Philosophers have debated “reality” for as long as mankind has been around; some people think we’re all part of someone’s dream. But to suggest we can transform reality is, well, a little confusing.

What does he mean by “transform reality?” You don’t turn reality into anything; it either is, or isn’t. Food can be real, or imagined. You can eat both, but only one – the real one – will sustain you. He says further: “Authentic human development has a moral character. It presumes full respect for the human person, but it must also be concerned for the world around us and “take into account the nature of each being and of its mutual connection in an ordered system”.8 That’s not always true. Human development will only have a moral character if morality has been taught. Any part of our development has to be taught, reinforced, practiced. “Accordingly, our human ability to transform reality must proceed in line with God’s original gift of all that is.9” (p.5)

This paragraph adds to the confusion. There are two footnotes in this paragraph: One from John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), and the other from his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991). The Pope’s use of adjectives is apparent here, too, with a word like “authentic” in front of “human development.” So, human development that is not authentic (fake) doesn’t have a moral character? What is character? Where does this “truth” come from? And, who judges whether or not it is “authentic” or “real?”

Respectfully, morality is shaped within us – or not. His use of the word “presumes” is interesting because we all know what happens when we “assume” something, don’t we? His conclusion – our ability to transform reality – has to come from and proceed in line with God’s original gift of all that is. This is beyond comprehension. How does anyone transform reality?

Later, he says: “Given the complexity of the ecological crisis and its multiple causes, we need to realize that the solutions will not emerge from just one way of interpreting and transforming reality.” (p. 63)

What is he saying? Technology is a servant of man. Just because man can’t control his morality, whose fault is that?

Flawed Logic

They say that in navigation, if you go wrong by one degree, pretty soon you’ll be way off course. In logic – in searching for truth, the real meaning of reality and so on – the same idea is true: get one thing wrong, and your world can fall apart eventually. That is why we have to be careful in discernment – to keep testing and testing our beliefs against new facts. The Pope did not do this, and his essential “fact” — that we are screwing with the environment — is wrong, making everything else around it suspect.

According to the Pope, “It needs to be said that, generally speaking, there is little in the way of clear awareness of problems which especially affect the excluded.” (p. 49) What does this mean? It is in section 49 where he attempts to tie the earth to the poor.

There is always someone “excluded.” There always will be. In fact, exclusion as a concept has to have inclusion. So, if you are included, you are not excluded, and vice versa. Is the Pope suggesting that we have to all be included? That will be not only improbable, it is impossible. As much as he would want everyone to be Catholic, that will not happen. Therefore, exclusion as a concept exists and always will exist. There will always be haves and have nots. You can not have one without the other. So, what is the Pope talking about?

For example, in the same section he tries to tie the poor into “ collateral damage.” (p. 49) Where did this term come from? He further states: “It [a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach] must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.” (p. 49) Now what does this really mean?

Integrating questions of justice in debates on the environment means what? Like many who claim “this is our last chance,” the Pope forgets the resilience of not only humans, but the earth itself. By connecting earth = poor, he gets a chance to preach his message of helping the poor (i.e., as you help the earth, you help the poor).

But this is somewhat absurd. We are all “poor” sinners. We all can do more. But we are not all saints where we can leave everything, because if we leave everything, how do we help anyone, including ourselves? It is easy to preach from a room, as Pope. And when he visits, he is carefully guarded so he, too, lives in the virtual world of “media.” When the Pope argues “Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate.” (p. 50), he is missing the exact point: it IS a population issue, isn’t it?

But in the Pope’s philosophy, population isn’t the issue.

“It must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development. To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.” (p.50)

This is really a complex thought, and it is worthwhile to examine it carefully. It will reveal just how wrong his views are.

Who can explain, “demographic growth” as compatible with integral and shared development? What do these words really mean, suggest, and signify? He says that blaming population growth is really refusing to face the issues – which are extreme and selective consumerism. We attempt to legitimize the “present model of distribution” which is according to the Pope, the minority believing it has the right to consume in a way that can never be universalized. That’s really what seems to be on his mind: distribution inequality. He further states that the planet can’t contain the waste products of such consumption. Just what the heck is he saying? Should we even attempt a translation?

It’s this kind of writing that exposes his flawed logic. We are all consumers in one way or another. Some consume more than others. What has that got to do with anything?

For example, in the very next paragraph, he says, “A third of all food produced is discarded.” (p. 50) What is the source of this statement? Unfortunately, like so many of his statements, they come out of nowhere, leaving the impression that they are “fact” when they are fiction. And if not fiction, his position as “Pope” does not automatically make it fact — does it?

Another example: “’Generally, after ceasing their activity and withdrawing, they [businesses] leave behind great human and environmental liabilities such as unemployment, abandoned towns, the depletion of natural reserves, deforestation, the impoverishment of agriculture and local stock breeding, open pits, riven hills, polluted rivers and a handful of social works which are no longer sustainable.’” (p. 51) Bishops of the Patagonia-Comahue Region (Argentina), Christmas Message (December 2009), 2.

His footnote is again clergy-centric, and if you believe such a statement, we’re all doomed and left with “a system of commercial relations and ownership which is structurally perverse.” (p. 52)

Sad. Because such statements lead him to also conclude: “’Whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.’” (p. 56) Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 56: AAS 105 (2013), 1043.

Since when is the environment fragile? Since when is it defenseless? This adjective “deified” in front of market means what? He is suggesting that the market is the only rule. The rule for what?

“Dignity comes from noble work, from honest work, from daily work, and not from the easy road which in the end strips you of everything”. The Pope said this in his homily at the mass at Santa Marta on November. 9, 2013. The world is built on economics. Things have a cost. Without economics, which means work, dignity is lost. And that, in essence, is his problem: he is not a capitalist. He fails to understand things have a cost, a price, and the environment is woven in an economic fabric that unfortunately, is not based on spiritual reality. As much as I love my neighbor, I have to love my family and myself more, or I will never be in a position to help them, nor will they be in a position to help me. On the airplane, they tell you to pu the mask on yourself first before you help others. There is a good reason for that.

Neighbors

The Pope believes we have a duty to “cultivate and maintain” a relationship with our neighbors. And that when we don’t do that, I ruin my relationship with my self, others, God and the earth. “Disregard for the duty to cultivate and maintain a proper relationship with my neighbour, for whose care and custody I am responsible, ruins my relationship with my own self, with others, with God and with the earth.”(p. 70)

As the airplane analogy suggests, maintaining and cultivating a relationship with your self is more important than others. Some people view this as selfishness, but it isn’t. It is self discovery (i.e., Know thyself). Once you do that, you can turn your attention to your neighbors. Or God. Or both.

But the question of having a relationship is interesting and part of the running discussion in the Encyclical. Relating to people has to do with whether or not you have a free will.

Are We Free?

“Nature is nothing other than a certain kind of art, namely God’s art, impressed upon things, whereby those things are moved to a determinate end. It is as if a shipbuilder were able to give timbers.” (P. 80)

Then if determinism is the thing, we’re doing what we should be doing? This is part of what is disturbing about the Pope’s writing. Determinism as a concept is the belief that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to our will; this includes relationships, with yourself, with neighbors and with God. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. In any case, a careful study is required because the problem of determinism is the problem of free will.

You can study Aristotle and both Western and Eastern philosophy to sort it out. One thing about technology, is that somewhere, someplace, someone has probably complied information that would be useful and help reduce some of the time of reading the originals (though you should always try to read originals). You can find such a summary of determinism at http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/. It may be more than you want, less than you want, but if we are to judge the Pope’s words, we have to broaden our base of knowledge to cut through the jargon which exists in pretty much everything, not just his Encyclical. Because the Pope thinks we are schizophrenic.

“This situation[43] has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind[44] from humanity. There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology. When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then “our overall sense of responsibility wanes”.96” (p. 118)

A human is, in fact, one being among others. I can’t say what he means by product of chance. However, humans are governed by physical determinism: we have to eat to survive. We have to sleep. Which is why Determinism has to be part of our consideration when we read the Encyclical. Are we free, or is everything determined for us?

One of the great things about Aristotle was his concept of “the golden mean.” This idea came in his work called Nicomachean Ethics, and outlines that the “mean” was basically a balancing act between two extremes. You don’t want to be too far this way or that, but right in the middle. Consider:

Each person judges well what he knows, and is a good judge of this. So, in any subject, the person educated in it is a good judge of that subject, and the person educated in all subjects is a good judge without qualification. This is why a young person is not fitted to hear lectures on political science, since our discussions begin from and concern the actions of life, and of these he has no experience. Again, because of his tendency to follow his feelings, his studies will be useless and to no purpose, since the end of the study is not knowledge but action. It makes no difference whether he is young in years or juvenile in character, since the deficiency is not related to age, but occurs because of his living and engaging in each of his pursuits according to his feelings. For knowledge is a waste of time for people like this, just as it is for those without self-retraint. But knowledge of the matters that concern political science will prove very beneficial to those who follow reason both in shaping their desires and in acting.[45]

Now “political science” for Aristotle “employs the other sciences, and also “lays down laws about what we should do and refrain from, its end will include the ends of the others, and will therefore be the human good.”[46] Political science has taken one a totally different meaning during our time. But the key to what Aristotle meant by that is that reason – not feelings – should be what we pursue.

In light of this, what is “reasonable” about the paragraph 118? What does it mean?  How does a renewal with nature not happen without a renewal with humanity? We ARE humanity? We ARE part of nature. What is the Pope trying to suggest? And what does “constant schizophrenia” mean?

The truth is, we have free will – and there is a certain amount of determinism going on as well. If I kick a ball, it will move. Things are determined, sometimes, by factors we can’t see or sense; the Pope knows this, because that is part of his belief in God, who knows all things before they happen. It is part of the mystery of Catholic religion.

That said, do we have a brain disorder that interprets reality abnormally (schizophrenia)? He goes on to say that, “Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility are recognized and valued.” (p. 118) What is he talking about? This is a complete contradiction (don’t forget we got kicked out of the Garden for trying to know the difference between good and evil, to gain that wisdom).

What becomes clear is that the Pope is using the idea of climate change to discuss “the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity.”(p. 119) He states: “If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. Christian thought sees human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures; it thus inculcates[47] esteem for each person and respect for others.” (p. 119)

In other words, “Our relationship with the environment can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God.” (p. 119) But of course it can. I can assure you my relationship with my wife is NOT the same as my relationship with Nature. Nor is it the same as my relationship with God. And so on. Relationships are NOT the same. Relationships are, in fact, isolated, because some are physical, and others are spiritual. Some are both physical and spiritual. To suggest that the environment is endowed with thought, as a human, is ridiculous.

In the next paragraph, he sticks in this argument: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.”[48] (p. 120). And therein lies some of the problems with the Encyclical: it jumps around a lot, and therefore, is incoherent. There isn’t a “main theme” per se. Besides, whether we are in an ecological crisis remains unproven, whereas who can doubt the moral crisis swirling around us?

Part of his confusion about relationships can be traced to his total incomprehension about economics. For whatever reason, the Pope doesn’t understand the concept of money. In his deep desire to help the poor, he forgets that it is economics that will do that and nothing else. Despite his repeated references to St. Francis, a careful study of that Saint would reveal that he would hardly have been able to accomplish what he did without the backing of some very rich people.

Private Property

“Every campesino[49] has a natural right to possess a reasonable allotment of land where he can establish his home, work for subsistence of his family and a secure life. This right must be guaranteed so that its exercise is not illusory but real. That means that apart from the ownership of property, rural people must have access to means of technical education, credit, insurance, and markets”.77 (p. 94)

This is the definitive statement that reveals the Pope’s lack of comprehension of reality. No one has a “natural” right for land. You work for it. You purchase it. You sell it. Such statements throw all of his entire arguments under deep suspicion.

For example, where is the motivation in order to make anything if I know that the “makers” will take care of me? If I have this right to land, what makes the Pope think I would work the land? William Bradford did the experiment[50]. Communism never works. And that is why when the Pope writes, “If we make something our own, it is only to administer it for the good of all,” he is completely wrong. History is full of examples of people who have made entire populations “their own,” and done great damage subsequently.

The Pope quotes scripture, “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.” (Mt 6:26). (p. 96) We are not birds. It’s a good thought, but birds, like land, are bought and sold.

“Jesus lived in full harmony with creation, and others were amazed: ‘What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?’” (Mt 8:27). (p. 98) He wasn’t a man. He was the Son of God. That’s a huge difference, isn’t it?

The Pope as Malcontent

Since his election, the Pope has been described as a rebel. He certainly isn’t typical of the people who take that position. And the Encyclical is really a malcontent’s lament. He is deeply dis-satisfied the way we treat each other. He wants to help the poor, but can’t. He wants to do things, but is limited. He writes:

“Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us. Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit.” (p. 106)

There is that word “reality” again. Let’s examine this paragraph carefully.

1. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us.

What does this mean? We lay our hands on “things” – what things? The Pope implies that when I do this, I am attempting to “extract” everything possible from the thing. You see how confusing this can be? I lay my hands on a fork to eat with, am I attempting to extract everything possible from that fork? But of course I am! And when I do this, I frequently ignore or forget the reality in front of me. Exactly what does that mean? Is not the fork reality? And the food that the fork is aiming at?

2. Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational.

I don’t know about you, but my fork has never extended a friendly hand to me. This is an absurd statement. Do you really relate to material objects? Of course, a photo of a loved one can mean a lot. Our phones are become “relationship” things (but the phones respond to us, don’t they?  You might argue when it rings, I respond to it, but is that unfriendly? Confrontational? Perhaps when it wakes me up from a sound sleep!). Has the world stopped helping each other? Does he watch the news?

3. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology.

The pronoun “this” refers to the entire previous sentence. Therefore, you have to interpret the sentence as: because human and material objects are not friendly, but confrontational, accepting the idea of “unlimited growth” is easier. But, what is unlimited growth? Tim Worstall, a Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, is also a global expert on metal scandium, one of the rare earths. In his essay “Ininite growth on a finite planet? Easy-peasy[51],” he notes: “…infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet. It’s something of a mantra for environmentalists and is used as absolute proof that we’re just going to have to do without that pesky economic growth thing. The problem here is that the conclusion isn’t justified by the premise: it’s driven by ignorance of what economic growth actually is.”

No one I know with reason believes in infinite growth. So why does the Pope imply that we believe such an absurd statement?

He says later,“Yet we can once more broaden our vision. We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral.” (p. 112)

What does that mean? His use of adjectives (i.e., a type of progress that is healthier, more human, etc.) means exactly what? William Blake said it pretty clearly: “You never know what’s enough until you know what’s more than enough”.[52] Finding out the truth is like that: pursuing the idea, the concept until you reach the ultimate “why.” The Pope, unfortunately, stops short.

“There is also the fact that people no longer seem to believe in a happy future; they no longer have blind trust in a better tomorrow based on the present state of the world and our technical abilities. There is a growing awareness that scientific and technological progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity and history, a growing sense that the way to a better future lies elsewhere.” (p. 113)

Did people ever have “blind trust” in a better tomorrow? Or, did they work for it? Hasn’t every generation complained? How about people no longer seem to believe in a future, happy or otherwise? He says that science and technology cannot be equated with progress. Really? Is he ignoring completely the industrial revolution, the renaissance before it? While we can argue that humanity hasn’t changed that much (i.e., people are people, greedy, good, bad, etc.), this “growing sense that a way to a better future lies elsewhere” comes from what? His own discernment?

He points out, “If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony.” (113) He thinks that globalized technology results in “drab” apartments…that “new products” exist with “tedious monotony.” His word choice “tedious monotony” is redundant. Tedious means “too long, slow, or dull: tiresome or monotonous.” Is it his judgment that new products are monotonous? Has he seen the works of Gensler, HOK, Perkins + Will?

So, when he concludes “It follows that the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance, unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality,” (p. 138) he further confuses the reader. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing” said Alexander Pope long before him, and it always will be. And that’s what the Encyclical seems to be: a little bit of one-sided knowledge. Part of the digital sorting out we are undergoing is what happens whenever there is a renaissance. You can’t control knowledge as it fragments and spreads; in fact, it has to fragment in order to re-align itself into a cohesive thought. Integrating these pieces in a “broader vision of reality” is what learning is all about, but with respect, the Pope should have chopped up some of his own beliefs a little more (note, there are NO counter arguments presented in the document to his point of view, which is surprising for a scholar of his scope).

Conclusions

So what IS the point of all he is saying? We’ve had centuries to develop our human responsibility. Isn’t that failure (if it is a failure) a failure of the Church? What is the point of saying we haven’t been trained to use power well. Power as a concept has existed throughout history. Did the Church use its power well?

I would imagine that similar arguments were made when Martin Luther started talking and challenging the “power” of the Church. Doesn’t freedom fade when you hand it over to another blind force — Jesus? You can’t control Jesus. You give yourself up to Him. You sacrifice your freedom.

“The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely. Hence, there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face.” (p.233)

His reference to this is some guy named Ali al-Khawas.[53] Why would the Pope use someone like this to prove this point? Who ever heard of this 9th century Muslim Sufi poet and mystic? If you Google him, you will find references that the Pope used him. If you go to Wikipedia, you will find notices that are requesting the entry needs attention, and that the “call out” for this attention was spawned by the Pope’s Encyclical. In other words, he was largely unknown until the Pope pointed to him.

This shows how information flows these days – from an obscure mystic, to someone now everyone has to find out about because the Pope cited him instead of Shakespeare. No one is saying that all cultures don’t have writers, poets, mystics deserving attention. But, why did the Pope select this particular one – one that apparently is so far out, no one really knows him? What point is he trying to make?

The footnote of where we found him is Anthologie du soufisme. According to http://www.albin-michel.fr/, it is the texts that make up this anthology of Sufism grouped around key themes of Islamic thought: man to God, the divine call, the Sufi Way, the spiritual life, but especially the uniqueness of All-Mercy and unity of being. Among others translated from Arabic, Persian, Malay-Javanese or Serbo-Croatian, the texts cover the greatest mystics of Islam. ”A unique collection presented by Eva de Vitray-Meyerovitch, undisputed specialist of Sufism.” So what’s the point?

As a graduate student, I read a lot. I took special care to make sure I read a lot for my English-major focus. I read “classics” because as one of my Christian Brothers told me, “You should read to see how other people lead their lives, and then learn how to lead yours.” Also, “life is short, so why waste time? Read the classics.”

And what is a classic? Well, something that as Ezra Pound says, “Language charged with meaning.” It stands the test of time. And while it is true if you “specialize” you might miss something outside of your concentration, what I learned is that there are common themes throughout literature, in any culture.

I’m going to guess the Pope found Ali al-Khawas and put him into his Encyclical to “reach out” to another culture. Or, he found him particularly instructive. And of course, there is nothing wrong with that. However, it adds nothing to his argument that Emerson or others didn’t add. If communication is your goal, shouldn’t you bring in common themes and references that all of us can relate to?

Besides, with respect, there are many great poets in many different cultures who have expressed Ali al-Khawas’ thought: “The initiate will capture what is being said when the wind blows, the trees sway, water flows, flies buzz, doors creak, birds sing, or in the sound of strings or flutes, the sighs of the sick, the groans of the afflicted.”

In his homilies at daily mass, the Pope often had powerful lessons, with ideas and thoughts that stimulate you to think. For example, “One must not speak an idle word — one which does not benefit either me or another, and is not directed to that intention.” One can only have hoped he took his own advice with all these 40,597 words. In that same homily, he said, “Don’t look at appearances, go by the truth. The plate is the plate, but what is important is what’s on the plate: the meal.”[54]

The Encyclical left me hungry. It was extremely disturbing because it was so one sided, and so out of character from the person who did that initial interview when he was elected Pope. In the morning meditation in the Chapel of Domus Sanctae Marthae, December 16, 2013, Pope Francis said, “the prophet is a man of three times: the promise of the past, the contemplation of the present, the courage to point out the path toward the future”.

He pointed out in another that, “The phenomenon of uniform thought has caused misfortune throughout human history. Over the course of the last century we all saw how the dictatorship of uniform thought ended up killing many, many people.” He said the attitude of those who were responsible for such atrocities were of the mind: “it is impossible to think otherwise, one has to think like this! Uniform thought has been made into an idol. Today one has to think in a certain way, and if you don’t think in this way you aren’t modern, you aren’t open. When some governments ask for financial help, we hear the response: ‘if you want this help you have to think this way and you have to enact this law and that, and that other’”[55]

Too bad he didn’t take his own advice and have a true dialogue.

APPENDIX 1. Philosophical Mumbo Jumbo

In this Appendix, I’ve collected statements from the Pope’s Encyclical that I’ve classified as Mumbo Jumbo because I think the statements cause or are intended to cause confusion or bewilderment. Sometimes I’ll add a comment; other times, I ask the reader to simply absorb the statement and then ask: What’s the point? More often than not, you’ll end up scratching your head.

 “Here too, it should always be kept in mind that “environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces”.134 Once more, we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals. Is it realistic to hope that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental damage which they will leave behind for future generations? Where profits alone count, there can be no thinking about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention.” [56](p. 190)

“In any event, if in some cases sustainable development were to involve new forms of growth, in other cases, given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing our steps before it is too late. We know how unsustainable is the behaviour of those who constantly consume and destroy, while others are not yet able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity. That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth. Benedict XVI has said that “technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency”[57](p. 193)

“The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy.” (p. 195)

‘“What happens with politics? Let us keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity[58]” (p. 196)

“Economics without politics cannot be justified.” (p. 196)

“If in a given region the state does not carry out its responsibilities, some business groups can come forward in the guise of benefactors, wield real power, and consider themselves exempt from certain rules, to the point of tolerating different forms of organized crime, human trafficking, the drug trade and violence, all of which become very difficult to eradicate.” (p. 197)

“If a mistaken understanding of our own principles has at times led us to justify mistreating nature, to exercise tyranny over creation, to engage in war, injustice and acts of violence, we believers should acknowledge that by so doing we were not faithful to the treasures of wisdom which we have been called to protect and preserve.” (p. 200)

“Finally, the common good calls for social peace, the stability and security provided by a certain order which cannot be achieved without particular concern for distributive justice; whenever this is violated, violence always ensues. Society as a whole, and the state in particular, are obliged to defend and promote the common good.”[59] (p. 157)

“In the present condition of global society, where injustices abound and growing numbers of people are deprived of basic human rights and considered expendable, the principle of the common good immediately becomes, logically and inevitably, a summons to solidarity and a preferential option for the poorest of our brothers and sisters. This option entails recognizing the implications of the universal destination of the world’s goods, but, as I mentioned in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium,123 it demands before all else an appreciation of the immense dignity of the poor in the light of our deepest convictions as believers. We need only look around us to see that, today, this option is in fact an ethical imperative essential for effectively attaining the common good.” (p. 158)

“The notion of the common good also extends to future generations. The global economic crises have made painfully obvious the detrimental effects of disregarding our common destiny, which cannot exclude those who come after us. We can no longer speak of sustainable development apart from intergenerational solidarity. Once we start to think about the kind of world we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently; we realize that the world is a gift which we have freely received and must share with others.” (P. 159)

“Since the world has been given to us, we can no longer view reality in a purely utilitarian way, in which efficiency and productivity are entirely geared to our individual benefit. Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us.” (P. 159)

“When we ask ourselves what kind of world we want to leave behind, we think in the first place of its general direction, its meaning and its values. Unless we struggle with these deeper issues, I do not believe that our concern for ecology will produce significant results. But if those issues are courageously faced, we are led inexorably to ask other pointed questions: What is the purpose of our life in this world? Why are we here? What is the goal of our work and all our efforts? What need does the earth have of us? It is no longer enough, then, simply to state that we should be concerned for future generations. We need to see that what is at stake is our own dignity.” (P. 160)

“Our difficulty in taking up this challenge seriously has much to do with an ethical and cultural decline which has accompanied the deterioration of the environment. Men and women of our postmodern world run the risk of rampant individualism, and many problems of society are connected with today’s self-centred culture of instant gratification. We see this in the crisis of family and social ties and the difficulties of recognizing the other. Parents can be prone to impulsive and wasteful consumption, which then affects their children who find it increasingly difficult to acquire a home of their own and build a family. Furthermore, our inability to think seriously about future generations is linked to our inability to broaden the scope of our present interests and to give consideration to those who remain excluded from development. Let us not only keep the poor of the future in mind, but also today’s poor, whose life on this earth is brief and who cannot keep on waiting. Hence, “in addition to a fairer sense of intergenerational solidarity there is also an urgent moral need for a renewed sense of intragenerational solidarity”.125 (P. 162)

“A global consensus is essential for confronting the deeper problems, which cannot be resolved by unilateral actions on the part of individual countries.” (P. 164)

“We forget that “time is greater than space”,130 that we are always more effective when we generate processes rather than holding on to positions of power.”[60] (p. 178)

“Because the enforcement of laws is at times inadequate due to corruption, public pressure has to be exerted in order to bring about decisive political action. Society, through non-governmental organizations and intermediate groups, must put pressure on governments to develop more rigorous regulations, procedures and controls.” (p. 179)

“Economic returns can thus be forecast more realistically, taking into account potential scenarios and the eventual need for further investment to correct possible undesired effects. A consensus should always be reached between the different stakeholders, who can offer a variety of approaches, solutions and alternatives. The local population should have a special place at the table; they are concerned about their own future and that of their children, and can consider 135  goals transcending immediate economic interest. We need to stop thinking in terms of “inter­ventions” to save the environment in favour of policies developed and debated by all interested parties.” (p. 183)

“The culture of consumerism, which prioritizes short-term gain and private interest, can make it easy to rubber-stamp authorizations or to conceal information.” (p. 184)

“We know that water is a scarce and indispensable resource and a fundamental right which conditions the exercise of other human rights. This indisputable fact overrides any other assessment of environmental impact on a region.” (p. 185)

“If objective information suggests that serious and irreversible damage may result, a project should be halted or modified, even in the absence of indisputable proof.” (p. 186)

“There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.” (p. 188)

“When people become self-centred and self-enclosed, their greed increases. The emptier a person’s heart is, the more he or she needs things to buy, own and consume. It becomes almost impossible to accept the limits imposed by reality.” (p. 204)

“No system can completely suppress our openness to what is good, true and beautiful, or our God-given ability to respond to his grace at work deep in our hearts. I appeal to everyone throughout the world not to forget this dignity which is ours. No one has the right to take it from us.” (p. 205)

“Purchasing is always a moral –and not simply economic – act”.Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009)

“These attitudes [Disinterested concern for others, and the rejection of every form of self-centeredness and self-absorption ]also attune us to the moral imperative of assessing the impact of our every action and personal decision on the world around us. If we can overcome individualism, we will truly be able to develop a different lifestyle and bring about significant changes in society.” (p.208)

“Reusing something instead of immediately discarding it, when done for the right reasons, can be an act of love which expresses our own dignity.” (p.211)

“Christian spirituality proposes an alternative understanding of the quality of life, and encourages a prophetic and contemplative lifestyle, one capable of deep enjoyment free of the obsession with consumption. We need to take up an ancient lesson, found in different religious traditions and also in the Bible. It is the conviction that ‘less is more’”[61]. (p. 222)

“Our capacity to reason, to develop arguments, to be inventive, to interpret reality and to create art, along with other not yet discovered capacities, are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology.” (p. 81)

“Lack of housing is a grave problem in many parts of the world, both in rural areas and in large cities, since state budgets usually cover only a small portion of the demand. Not only the poor, but many other members of society as well, find it difficult to own a home. Having a home has much to do with a sense of personal dignity and the growth of families. This is a major issue for human ecology.” (p. 152)

“Many specialists agree on the need to give priority to public transportation.” (p. 153)

“Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment.” (p. 155)

“Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek ‘to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it’”.121 (p. 155) Catechesis (15 April 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 16 April 2015, p. 8

“A constant flood of new consumer goods can baffle the heart and prevent us from cherishing each thing and each moment. To be serenely present to each reality, however small it may be, opens us to much greater horizons of understanding and personal fulfilment. Christian spirituality proposes a growth marked by moderation and the capacity to be happy with little. It is a return to that simplicity which allows us to stop and appreciate the small things, to be grateful for the opportunities which life affords us, to be spiritually detached from what we possess, and not to succumb to sadness for what we lack. This implies avoiding the dynamic of dominion and the mere accumulation of pleasures.” (p. 222)

“They experience what it means to appreciate each person and each thing, learning familiarity with the simplest things and how to enjoy them. So they are able to shed unsatisfied needs, reducing their obsessiveness and weariness. Even living on little, they can live a lot, above all when they cultivate other pleasures and find satisfaction in fraternal encounters, in service, in developing their gifts, in music and art, in contact with nature, in prayer. Happiness means knowing how to limit some needs which only diminish us, and being open to the many different possibilities which life can offer.” (p. 223)

“We have to dare to speak of the integrity of human life, of the need to promote and unify all the great values. Once we lose our humility, and become enthralled with the possibility of limitless mastery over everything, we inevitably end up harming society and the environment.”[62] (p. 224)

“On the other hand, no one can cultivate a sober and satisfying life without being at peace with him or herself. An adequate understanding of spirituality consists in filling out what we mean by peace, which is much more than the absence of war. Inner peace is closely related to care for ecology and for the common good because, lived out authentically, it is reflected in a balanced lifestyle together with a capacity for wonder which takes us to a deeper understanding of life. Nature is filled with words of love, but how can we listen to them amid constant noise, interminable and nerve-wracking distractions, or the cult of appearances?” (p. 225)

“We are speaking of an attitude of the heart, one which approaches life with serene attentiveness, which is capable of being fully present to someone without thinking of what comes next, which accepts each moment as a gift from God to be lived to the full.” (p. 226)

“Fraternal love can only be gratuitous; it can never be a means of repaying others for what they have done or will do for us. That is why it is possible to love our enemies.” (p. 228)

“The Catholic Church is open to dialogue with philosophical thought; this has enabled her to produce various syntheses between faith and reason.” (p. 63)

“This lack of physical contact and encounter, encouraged at times by the disintegration of our cities, can lead to a numbing of conscience and to tendentious analyses which neglect parts of reality.” (p. 49)

“There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means ‘an increase of progress itself’, an advance in ‘security, usefulness, welfare and vigour; …an assimilation of new values into the stream of culture”’,[83] as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such.”(p. 105)

“Certain places need greater protection because of their immense importance for the global ecosystem, or because they represent important water reserves and thus safeguard other forms of life.”[63] (p. 37).

“Let us mention, for example, those richly biodiverse lungs of our planet which are the Amazon and the Congo basins, or the great aquifers and glaciers.” P. 38)

“Each government carries out its proper and inalienable responsibility to preserve its country’s environment and natural resources, without capitulating to spurious local or international interests.” (p. 38).

“Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used. We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the middle of the twentieth century, or the array of technology which Nazism, Communism and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of people, to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons available for modern warfare. In whose hands does all this power lie, or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part of humanity to have it.” (p. 104)

“There needs to be a distinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking, policies, an educational programme, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic paradigm. Otherwise, even the best ecological initiatives can find themselves caught up in the same globalized logic. To seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system.”[64] (p. 111)

“The work of dominating the world calls for a union of skills and a unity of achievement that can only grow from quite a different attitude” Romano Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, 72 (The End of the Modern World¸ 65-66).” (P. 221)

“We seem to think that we can substitute an irreplaceable and irretrievable beauty with something which we have created ourselves.” (p.34).

“Greater investment needs to be made in research aimed at understanding more fully the functioning of ecosystems and adequately analyzing the different variables associated with any significant modification of the environment.” (p. 42)

“Because all creatures are connected, each must be cherished with love and respect, for all of us as living creatures are dependent on one another.” (p. 42)

“This [taking care of each other]will require undertaking a careful inventory of the species which it hosts, with a view to developing programmes and strategies of protection with particular care for safeguarding species heading towards extinction.” (p. 42)

“Many cities are huge, inefficient structures, excessively wasteful of energy and water. Neighbourhoods, even those recently built, are congested, chaotic and lacking in sufficient green space. We were not meant to be inundated by cement, asphalt, glass and metal, and deprived of physical contact with nature.” (p. 44).

“We should be concerned that, alongside the exciting possibilities offered by these media, a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of isolation, can also arise.”[65](p. 47)

“We cannot adequately combat environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and social degradation.” (p. 48)

“We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalization of indifference.”[66] (p. 52)

“People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning.” (p. 55)

“An outsider looking at our world would be amazed at such behaviour, which at times appears self-destructive.” (p. 55)

“Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures in support of small producers and differentiated production. To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power.” (p. 129)

“It is important that the different parts of a city be well integrated and that those who live there have a sense of the whole, rather than being confined to one neighbourhood and failing to see the larger city as space which they share with others. Interventions which affect the urban or rural landscape should take into account how various elements combine to form a whole which is perceived by its inhabitants as a coherent and meaningful framework for their lives. Others will then no longer be seen as strangers, but as part of a “we” which all of us are working to create.” (p. 151)

“The best way to restore men and women to their rightful place, putting an end to their claim to absolute dominion over the earth, is to speak once more of the figure of a Father who creates and who alone owns the world. Otherwise, human beings will always try to impose their own laws and interests on reality.”[67] (p. 75)

“Politics must pay greater attention to foreseeing new conflicts and addressing the causes which can lead to them.” (p. 57)

“What would induce anyone, at this stage, to hold on to power only to be remembered for their inability to take action when it was urgent and necessary to do so?” (p. 57)

“As often occurs in periods of deep crisis which require bold decisions, we are tempted to think that what is happening is not entirely clear.” (p. 59)
“This [evasiveness] is the way human beings contrive to feed their self-destructive vices: trying not to see them, trying not to acknowledge them, delaying the important decisions and pretending that nothing will happen.” (p. 59)

“This [the harmony which Saint Francis of Assisi experienced] is a far cry from our situation today, where sin is manifest in all its destructive power in wars, the various forms of violence and abuse, the abandonment of the most vulnerable, and attacks on nature.” (p.66)

Everything is interconnected, and that genuine care for our own lives and our relationships with nature is inseparable from fraternity, justice and faithfulness to others.” (p. 70)

“Renewal entails recovering and respecting the rhythms inscribed in nature.” (p. 71)

“We do not only exist by God’s mighty power; we also live with him and beside him. This is why we adore him.” (p. 72)

“The God who created the universe out of nothing can also intervene in this world and overcome every form of evil. Injustice is not invincible.” (p. 74)

“A spirituality which forgets God as powerful and Creator is not acceptable. That is how we end up worshipping earthly powers, or ourselves usurping the place of God, even to the point of claiming an unlimited right to trample his creation underfoot.” (p. 75)

“A fragile world, entrusted by God to human care, challenges us to devise intelligent ways of directing, developing and limiting our power.” P. 78)

“A misguided anthropocentrism[68] leads to a misguided lifestyle. In the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I noted that the practical relativism typical of our age is “even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism”.99 When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative.” (P. 122)

“Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since “the technological mind sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere ‘given’, as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere ‘space’ into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference”.92 The intrinsic dignity of

“The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage.” (p. 123)

“In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of endangered species?” (p. 123)

“When nature is viewed solely as a source of profit and gain, this has serious consequences for society. This vision of ‘might is right’ has engendered immense inequality, injustice and acts of violence against the majority of humanity, since resources end up in the hands of the first comer or the most powerful: the winner takes all.”(p. 82)

“Whether believers or not, we are agreed today that the earth is essentially a shared inheritance, whose fruits are meant to benefit everyone.” (p. 93)

“Or indeed when the desire to create and contemplate beauty manages to overcome reductionism through a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and in those who behold it. An authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis, seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door. Will the promise last, in spite of everything, with all that is authentic rising up in stubborn resistance?”[69] (p. 112)

“Science and technology are not neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes.” (114)

“An inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world. Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our “dominion” over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible stewardship.94 “(p. 116)

“the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only ‘if it remains within reasonable limits [and] contributes to caring for or saving human lives’”[70].106 (p. 130)

“We need constantly to rethink the goals, effects, overall context and ethical limits of this human activity [advancement of science and technology][, which is a form of power involving considerable risks.” (p. 131)

“Any legitimate intervention will act on nature only in order “to favour its development in its own line, that of creation, as intended by God”.”112 (p. 131)

“We need but recall that scientific developments in GM cereals began…(p. 132)
Although no conclusive proof exists that GM cereals may be harmful to human beings, and in some regions their use has brought about economic growth which has helped to resolve problems, there remain a number of significant difficulties which should not be underestimated. In many places, following the introduction of these crops, productive land is concentrated in the hands of a few owners due to “the progressive disappearance of small producers, who, as a consequence of the loss of the exploited lands, are obliged to withdraw from direct production”.(p. 134)

“We forget that the inalienable worth of a human being transcends his or her degree of development.” (p. 136)

“A technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power.” (p. 136)

“Time and space are not independent of one another, and not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation.” (p. 138)

“It follows that the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance, unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality.” (p. 138)

“Each organism, as a creature of God, is good and admirable in itself.”(p. 140)

“Economic growth, for its part, tends to produce predictable reactions and a certain standardization with the aim of simplifying procedures and reducing costs.”(p. 141)

“We urgently need a humanism capable of bringing together the different fields of knowledge, including economics, in the service of a more integral and integrating vision. Today, the analysis of environmental problems cannot be separated from the analysis of human, family, work-related and urban contexts, nor from how individuals relate to themselves, which leads in turn to how they relate to others and to the environment. There is an interrelation between ecosystems and between the various spheres of social interaction, demonstrating yet again that “the whole is greater than the part”.[71]115 (p. 141)

“The disappearance of a culture can be just as serious, or even more serious, than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal. The imposition of a dominant lifestyle linked to a single form of production can be just as harmful as the altering of ecosystems.” (p. 145)

“Settings influence the way we think, feel and act. In our rooms, our homes, our workplaces and neighbourhoods, we use our environment as a way of expressing our identity. We make every effort to adapt to our environment, but when it is disorderly, chaotic or saturated with noise and ugliness, such overstimulation makes it difficult to find ourselves integrated and happy.” (p. 147)

FOOTNOTES

[1] I will refer to the Pope’s paragraph numbers rather than page numbers throughout this dialogue

[2] Morning meditation in the chapel of Thedomus Sanctae Marthae, January 24, 2013.

[3] http://americamagazine.org/pope-interview. The interview took place over three meetings during August 2013 in Rome conducted in person by Father Spadaro who was also the editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal.

[4] Antonio Spadaro, S.J., “A BIG HEART OPEN TO GOD,” September 30, 2013, Vol. 209, No. 8, page 3.

[5] Ibid., page 2.

[6] Ibid, page 3.

[7] Ibid., page 3.

[8] On January 7, 2014 in his homily at the mass in the Chapel of Domus Sanctae Marthae he said, “One of the attitudes of the Christian who wants to remain in the Lord: to understand what’s happening in one’s own heart.” For this reason the Pope warned us, “Do not to trust every spirit, but test the spirits.” It is necessary, the Pope said, to know “the discernment of spirits,” to discern whether something helps us “remain in the Lord or takes us away from Him.” “Our heart,” he added, “always has desires, has cravings, has thoughts.” But “are these from the Lord or do some of these things take us away from the Lord?” That’s why the Apostle John exhorts us to “test” what we think and desire.” I wish he would have thought more about this before publishing it.

[9] Completing its own “Climate Change Impacts and Risks Analysis,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently found that taking no action on climate change would produce effects over the next century ranging from additional fatalities during heat waves to a 34 percent decline in the supply of oysters. Not quite the apocalypse. http://www2.epa.gov/cira/climate-action-benefits-key-findings#summary. Also, In its most recent assessment, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change outlines major threats posed by climate change—and neither destruction of the earth nor eradication of mankind is among them. The word “survival” does come up, but in reference to salmon migration patterns. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf.

[10] “Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You,” by James Taylor, Forbes, February 9, 2015.

[11] “Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong” by Hayley Dixon, The Telegraph, September, 2013.

[12] Tom  Bethell, “The False Alert of Global Warming,” The American Spectator, May, 2005.

[13] There is equal science on both sides of this debate, and the Pope’s omission of this possibility – or shaping the opposite view to his as a rich versus poor argument – is disturbing because he is the Pope. His words mean more than other people’s because of his position as Pope. So when he says, “There are regions now at high risk and, aside from all doomsday predictions, the present world system is certainly unsustainable from a number of points of view, for we have stopped thinking about the goals of human activity.” (p. 61), people will use that to support their particular positions that agree with that side.  His Encyclical is biased, and subsequently, so are his arguments, as will be the arguments of people who cite his document.

[14] Jimmy Akin, “Pope Francis’s Environmental Encyclical: 13 Things to Know and Share” from Catholic Answers.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Quotes from the Bible are taken from the King James Version throughout my essay.

[17] All of these points are from paragraph 15 in the Encyclical.

[18] Even though Akin says that the reason the Pope did this is “Because science has practical and moral consequences,” and that therefore, there is a moral and practical need to address that fact,” sounding the “alarm bell” like this only gives sway to one side of the issue.

[19] Chad Orzel has a TED talk on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that might be worth looking at for a review of this important idea.

[20] At the Mass at Casa Santa Marta on November 14, 2013, the Pope said “The spirit of curiosity distances us from the Spirit of wisdom because all that interests us is the details, the news, the little stories of the day.” He went on to say that “the spirit of curiosity is not a good spirit. It is the spirit of dispersion, of distancing oneself from God, the spirit of talking too much. And Jesus also tells us something interesting: this spirit of curiosity, which is worldly, leads us to confusion.” But that’s not true. The spirit of curiosity was, perhaps, what led to the first sin in the Garden – to know. Curiosity is what drives us toward wisdom, not away from it. A retreat from wisdom – the slowing down like the Pope wants – doesn’t’ really do anyone any good. Rather, it saps people of energy. This is not to say you deny contemplative moments; but erasing your circuits to nothingness leads to nothingness.

[21] WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR BEAUTIFUL LAND, A Pastoral Letter on Ecology, The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. January 29, 1988.

[22] In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of “watching,” the greater the observer’s influence on what actually takes place.

[23] Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008, Edited by Clive Wilkinson, p.5

[24] Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CLIVE WILKINSON, p. 7

[25] Ibid., p.7

[26] The Rhetoric of Fiction by Wayne C. Booth put “the unreliable narrator”as part of the standard critical language we use when studying literature.

[27] Wayne Jackson, “The Apocrypha: Inspired of God?” Christian Courier Publications

[28] Ralph Waldo Emerson, NATURE, 12-13.

[29] Gensis 1:26

[30] Genesis 1:26

[31] Anthropocentrism (/ˌænθrɵpɵˈsɛntrɪzəm/; from Greek ἄνθρωπος, ánthrōpos, “human being”; and κέντρον, kéntron, “center”) is the belief that human beings are the central or most significant species on the planet (in the sense that they are considered to have a moral status or value higher than that of other animals)

 

[32] Michael Vlach, Plato’s Cave Analogy, Theological Studies.

[33] Ezra Pound, ABCs of Reading, First published in 1934, p. 17.

[34] T.S. Eliot,The Rock, a pageant play first performed at Sadler’s Wells Theatre in London on 28 May 1934.

[35] I’m reminded of a scene from The Wild One, with Marlon Brando. A motorcycle club descends on the town and causes havoc. The scene I’m talking about is where the club members are in the tavern, and the old bartender (Jimmy) is serving them drinks. He is quite old, almost a little senile. One of the club members asks him, “Anything ever happen here?” Jimmy answers:”What? Yes. The roses grow. People get married. Crazy as any place else. The bugs get on them and cause trouble, sometimes — that is, if you don’t spray good – “

At that point the club members look at each other thinking they’ve “got a live one.” The script  continues like this:

RED No bugs on you, eh, Jimmy?

JIMMY I mind my own business. Listen to the radio. Music, that is. News is no good. Excites people.

DEXTRO How about TV, Jimmy? You like TV?

JIMMY What?

PIGEON Television. You heard about that new thing, Television –

JIMMY (placidly, as he works) Oh, pictures. No, no pictures Everything these days is pictures. Pictures and a lot of noise. Nobody even knows how to talk — just grunt at each other –

The movie, which was shown in 1954, and the technology of television was beginning, is a mirror image of what the Pope is advocating, and what many people feel when technology marches on and past them. However, when he says we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, what does that really mean?

[36]  Pope Francis’ homily, Mass at Santa Marta, June 23, 2014.

[37] Joseph Conrad, “The Warrior’s Soul” in TALES OF HEARSAY.

[38] Christopher Shannon, “Romano Guardini: Father of the New Evangelization,” Crisis Magazine, February 17, 2014

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Frank Morriss, citing Guardini’s End of the Modern World in”The Un-Human Man Predicted By Guardini Is Here,” CatholicCulture.org

[42] Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg), Letter to Archbishop Mandell Creighton, (Apr. 5, 1887)

[43] “When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected.” (p. 117).

[44] Leave out of consideration, cut off or separate from something.

[45] Nicomachean Ethics, Chapter 3, p. 5

[46] Ibid., Chapter 2, p. 4

[47] inculcates means to instill (an attitude, idea, or habit) by persistent instruction. Or teach someone an attitude, idea or habit.

[48] What’s surprising is there is not an outcry from the pro-abortionists on this single sentence, which basically says you can’t be in favor of protecting nature of you believe in killing the unborn

[49] Farmer.

[50] Williamm Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation. “For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and servise did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it.”

[51] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100017248/infinite-growth-on-a-finite-planet-easy-peasy/

[52] William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Proverbs of Hell.

[53] The spiritual writer Ali al-Khawas stresses from his own experience the need not to put too much distance between the creatures of the world and the interior experience of God. As he puts it: “Prejudice should not have us criticize those who seek ecstasy in music or poetry.”

[54] Pope Francis: Beware of idolatry and hypocrisy homily on 2013-10-15.

[55] Pope Francis, Morning Meditation in the Chapel of the Domus Sandtae Marthae, April 8, 2014.

[56] Incorrect. Ask any producer of oil, for example. They know there is a limit to their production. Ask anyone who deals with production. Has the Pope produced anything in his life? Where does he get this language — “magical conception?”And therin lies his product. He is equating maximizing profits automatically causing environmental damage. Where is the proof of this? It is not a universal truth. He is wrong, again, in the next sentence. “Where profits alone count.” So if you think about profits, you don’t think about the rhythms of nature? He thinks that creating profit will necessarily cause human intervention which will, in turn upset ecosystems. Whenever these questions are raised (what questions).

[57] Now here is a unique thought: “containing growth.” Huh?? Who defines “reasonable limits” or going backwards? This is his problem. If you consume, you are unsustainable, and compared to the others who are not able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity. “The time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world.” And those parts would be….

[58] Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.

[59] Distributive justice concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in a society. A society in which incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise would be considered a society guided by the principles of distributive justice. This is idealistic, and impractical.

[60] What is he really saying here? You can’t define space or time except by objects in them. To say one is greater than the other is nonsense.

[61] Then the poor should be the happiest people on earth. This is the essential contradiction of the Encyclical: stop consuming so much. Share. Give to the poor. But if I stop consuming or earning, I become poor. Who then will give to me?

[62] I disagree. You can be humble, and still try to master everything. In fact, in seeking to master everything, you gain humility, as you realize just how impossible that goal is! And, harming the environment as you pursue this is NOT inevitable.

[63] And who will decide where those places are? Everyone’s “home” would fall into this category, would it not? Or is the implication that some life is more important than other life in his statement.

[64] And exactly where does that “distinctive way” come from? A way of thinking? It is the nature of ideas to be exposed, debated, formed, and reformed. Then these ideas are tested “in reality.” Or executed in reality. Hitler had an idea. It was rejected by mankind. Some ideas can not exist side by side. Or can they? I think the Pope went South when he left his moral sphere. He should be arguing about our souls. He should have never brought in the climate…he didn’t need to. He would have been better off sticking to his expertise as the Father of the Church. His arguments against technology, for example, should be shaped around a moral context, because technology can be used for good or evil, just as the sword when it was invented can be used for good or evil.

[65] Is every sense of isolation harmful? And, is such media the sole reason that melancholy can arise? What interpersonal relations are perfectly? It’s called “sorting it out.”

[66] This is completely incomprehensible and naive. We can never been a single family. To suggest that is ignorant, actually, and frightening in its implications. Without frontiers or barriers, where is the rule of law? Without a political barrier, which “system” prevails?

[67] But, God gave us dominion over the earth. It is not a claim; it is a gift from God. The concept of God “owning” anything is really far-fetched. As Creator, he gave us dominion. He uses the word “reality” again here. If human beings do not impose their own laws on reality, who will? This is a central reality for the Pope: he sees God as the Landlord. But according to the Bible, man was given dominion over the earth! It is not a claim; it is written in Genesis. Do human beings impose their own laws and interests on reality, or are we just expressing our dominion?

[68] Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the central or most significant species on the planet (in the sense that they are considered to have a moral status or value higher than that of other animals)

[69] This guy is a dreamer. Wasn’t that the Angel of Death in Exodus? This image of a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door associated with “authentic humanity” is really strange (and there are the two words including the adjective once again). The implication by that word “authentic” means you can have one that is not-authentic, or fake. Really? This is what makes his writing so difficult to understand, and frankly, to accept. It is surprising as well. Is he calling for revolt? Death to technology?

[70] Really? Catechism includes that???

[71] This has always bugged me — the whole is greater than the part. You can’t have a whole without parts. Therefore, each part is important. Some parts are more important than other parts, and therefore, will impact the “whole” more, or less, by their contribution to the whole. My whole body is important; however, my “me” can live without an arm. So the real question is what is meant by “greater?”