Laudato Si - The "Climate Change" Encyclical

Title means

"Praise be to you, my Lord"

(the opening words of the Encyclical)

Click picture to download full PDF 

There is good reason to suspect that this document represents a historic re-definition of all the world's problems, not just climate change. He connects a wide swath of "religious" views, not just Catholic or even Christian, to challenge the existing technological, economic and political establishment. Throughout, he speaks with authority, but takes pains to base his authority on a very wide basis. He speaks for the Church (Bishops are extensively quoted, doctrinal tradition is brought to play). He speaks with the authority of Science. He brings in and authenticates the despair all of us feel as the natural world is destroyed right in front of us.

At the same time, he speaks with humility not often found in powerful political figures. He openly acknowledges that may will not agree with his "take" on the situation. He carefully separates arguments that will make sense to anyone but doesn't forget that he does, after all, have the authority and the responsibility to speak to millions of Catholics around the world. This is not a sermon delivered "off the top of the head". Francis clearly speaks for the Church with the full backing of the Bishops, who are frequently quoted with approval. The document bears the fingerprints of extensive research and no small amount of "political" re-drafting. You can read it as a sermon, but it's also a policy document for the immense and powerful bureaucracy that reaches directly into the lives of 1.2 billion people around the world (about 10 times the population of the US).

This is more than a political "platform"

(15) ...this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching. 

What, if anything, is the "teaching" of the political parties? What efforts do they make to "teach" it? Who would listen to them if they did?

It will be far more influential than any self-serving speech by American Presidential hopefuls. It will crush anyone who has the balls to claim that the Pope should "stay out of politics". Since when have Popes stayed out of Politics? Remember Jesus was crucified for (allegedly) being "King of the Jews".

In the course of the Encyclical, Frances re-defines the destructive philosophies vaguely referred to by lesser minds as "the oligarchy" or "capitalism" (he is explicit opposition to almost all policies of the American Republican party and "raises the bar" well over the heads of the Democrats). The nuanced and informed world view of Francis completely swallows "Socialism" as timid and out-dated.

In the course of his arguments, he also goes a long way toward updating the "Sunday School" view of God -- Santa in the Sky, an embarrassment to people like Richard Dawkins who make a living by attacking a religion that exists only in the minds of its detractors. Those who are wavering in their faith will find much food for thought in the God of Pope Francis. There will be millions of devout Christians who will see 2015 Theology for the first time.

Those of us who (like me) consider Francis' sophisticated view of God to be essentially an aesthetic interpretation of reality can still find much inspiration in Francis' view of the world. In fact, "inspiration" is really the whole point of the matter and that can be in notably short supply these days. I feel perfectly comfortable engaging in a respectful and tolerant dialogue with Francis. He has much to teach me and I doubt that I have anything at all to teach him.

In the notes below, I will make references to the Encyclical, which is conveniently arranged in numbered paragraphs. I encourage readers to spend time with the document itself before bothering with my comments on it.

(1) “Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with colored flowers and herbs”.1

He kicks off with a bit of mysticism that will appeal to almost anyone with a "spiritual" bent of mind. For those who take a more traditional "Catholic" view, he will dial it back a bit later.

(3) I wish to address every person living on this planet. In my Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I wrote to all the members of the Church with the aim of encouraging ongoing missionary renewal. In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home.

Francis addresses the entire human race, not just the "Church". In the paragraphs that follow, he roots his point of view in previous doctrines of the Church and pins the label of "sinner" on people everyone agrees are destroying the planet in the name of greed and ignorance. He never accuses people whose opinions disagree with his own. For him, "sin" is action against the welfare of living things. You don't need to be a Catholic or even be particularly religious for this message to resonate. He's talking about "facts on the ground".

(8). Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage”, we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation”.14 He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: “For human beings… to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins”.15 For “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God”.

 But for those who do accept the authority of the Church, the message is doubly clear.

(10).I do not want to write this Encyclical without turning to that attractive and compelling figure, whose name I took as my guide and inspiration when I was elected Bishop of Rome. I believe that Saint Francis is the example par excellence of care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyfully and authentically. He is the patron saint of all who study and work in the area of ecology, and he is also much loved by non-Christians. He was particularly concerned for God’s creation and for the poor and outcast. He loved, and was deeply loved for his joy, his generous self-giving, his openheartedness. He was a mystic and a pilgrim who lived in simplicity and in wonderful harmony with God, with others, with nature and with himself. He shows us just how inseparable the bond is between concern for nature, justice for the poor, commitment to society, and interior peace.

A very important clue about who this guy is and where he is coming from. If he were Buddhist (which he most definitely isn't) he'd be considered as a reincarnation of St. Francis in much the same way that the Dalai Lama is seen as a reincarnation of the great teachers of the past. This is a perfect example of the way Francis is uniquely sensitive to world views that may, on the surface, radically differ from his own. It seems to me that the Dalai Lama and Francis get to the same place by different routes and that both of them would agree.

(11) ... from a reflection on the primary source of all things ...

those "armchair" Taoists will recognize this reference, that make St. Francis and the Pope of the same name lay claim to the the entire body of Taoist philosophy. At the very least, you can see that Pope Francis has done his homework. Armchair "Buddhists" will also recognize Francis' respectful commentary on Buddhism, raising some subtle objections to core Buddhist ideas ...

(11) 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.

Francis challenges just about everybody and he doesn't spare wannabe prophets like Chris Hedges. For one thing, unlike Chris Hedges, the pope expects people to actually listen to him.  He knows that manic rants will not do. For another, Francis has a message of hope: an unshakable faith in the ability of humans to do the right thing. According to Hedges, the battle is lost and the world is irreversibly controlled by the evil oligarchy. What's more it's all "our" fault.

(13) The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change.... Humanity still has the ability to work together in building our common home. Here I want to recognize, encourage and thank all those striving in countless ways to guarantee the protection of the home which we share. Particular appreciation is owed to those who tirelessly seek to resolve the tragic effects of environmental degradation on the lives of the world’s poorest. Young people demand change. They wonder how anyone can claim to be building a better future without thinking of the environmental crisis and the sufferings of the excluded.

The Encyclical is a call to constructive action. Hedges calls for aimless rebellion against an enemy that is defined only in platitudes and meaningless generalities. This particular "front" is significant because Hedges preaches from a radical religious point of view. He keeps with the rhetoric of the pulpit (he is an ordained Presbyterian minister).  His "teaching" might be characterized Theology of Hopelessness. It is impressive that the Pope has recognized this particular heresy and eloquently addressed it here.

Francis challenges childish "conspiracy" theories by putting forward a sweeping view of the human condition that can lay claim to an authoritative view of the "big picture". While he doesn't shy away from blaming the blame-worthy, he also takes time to explain the constraints and assumptions that lead us all into destructive habits ...

(16) ... As examples, I will point to 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. These questions will not be dealt with once and for all, but reframed and enriched again and again.

Francis brings an original collection of concepts and observations to the table and expertly connects them together to create a coherent picture of a world in the process of suicide. Before turning to the sorry state of humanity, Francis laments the sorry state of the environment ...

• "Rapidification" (18)
• Irrational confidence in ... human abilities (19)
• Pollution and Climate Change (20,23)
• Selective impact of change on the poor (25 and many others)
• Destructive agricultural practices
• Reliance of technology to "fix" problems that technology creates
• The "throwaway culture" as contrasted to the way nature works (22)
• Positive feedback (24)
• Impact on Agriculture, especially on the poor (25)
• Current models of production and consumption (26)
• Access to clean and renewable energy, fresh water (26, 28, 29, 30 ...)
• Access to clean water a human right
• Depletion of natural resources (26)
• Threats to aquifers (29)
• Privatization of basic human resources, especially water
• The social debt of the rich countries to the poor
• Ignorance, poor education (30 ...)
• Biodiversity (31 ...)
• The flawed process of "environmental assessment"
• Destructive agricultural practices (39)
• Over-fishing
• Destruction of coral reefs

THE MAN-MADE WORLD OF CITIES

(44) Nowadays, for example, we are conscious of the disproportionate and unruly growth of many cities, which have become unhealthy to live in, not only because of pollution caused by toxic emissions but also as a result of urban chaos, poor transportation, and visual pollution and noise. 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.

THE INTERNATIONAL "NEGOTIATIONS" ON CLIMATE CHANGE

(54)It is remarkable how weak international political responses have been. The failure of global summits on the environment make it plain that our politics are subject to technology and finance. There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected. The Aparecida Document urges that “the interests of economic groups which irrationally demolish sources of life should not prevail in dealing with natural resources”.32 The alliance between the economy and technology ends up sidelining anything unrelated to its immediate interests. Consequently the most one can expect is superficial rhetoric, sporadic acts of philanthropy and perfunctory expressions of concern for the environment, whereas any genuine attempt by groups within society to introduce change is viewed as a nuisance based on romantic illusions or an obstacle to be circumvented.

COMPLACENCY

(42) Superficially, apart from a few obvious signs of pollution and deterioration, things do not look that serious, and the planet could continue as it is for some time. Such evasiveness serves as a licence to carrying on with our present lifestyles and models of production and consumption. This 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. 

DIVERGENT VIEWS

(61) On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views.  

IS THE POPE CATHOLIC?

Actually he is. He devotes Chapter Two (62-75) to address the 1.3 billion people who look to him for leadership. This section provides much-needed guidance to those within the Church who will teach and explain the Encyclical to their congregations. It is worth noting that the Pope isolates this advice from the rest of the encyclical, which is respectfully addressed to everyone without insisting that the Catholics "have it right".

THE MYSTERY OF THE UNIVERSE

Chapters Three, Four and Five wax philosophical and addresses a much wider audience: those whose "spirituality" is founded on wonder and the general conviction that the "there are more things in nature than are dreamed of in your philosophies". For those inclined to dive in to philosophical issues, it's well worth reading. Theology is an acquired taste, a cross between logic and poetry. Some of the best examples of the genre can be found here. Serious issues are addressed, such as evolution.

But it's not all poetry. There is room for startlingly articulate outrage ...

INEQUALITY

(90) But we should be particularly indignant at the enormous inequalities in our midst, whereby we continue to tolerate some considering themselves more worthy than others. We fail to see that some are mired in desperate and degrading poverty, with no way out, while others have not the faintest idea of what to do with their possessions, vainly showing off their supposed superiority and leaving behind them so much waste which, if it were the case everywhere, would destroy the planet. In practice, we continue to tolerate that some consider themselves more human than others, as if they had been born with greater rights.

This is a clear endorsement of "Liberation Theology", roundly condemned by the previous Pope (Benedict). Benedict saw the inherently anti-establishment tone of Liberation Theology as a threat to the Church itself. Benedict made a similar mistake in trying to cover up the scandal of pedophile priests. Anyone who thinks of the Catholic Church as a monolithic, dogmatic organization should compare Benedict to Francis. The Catholic Church has made far more fundamental changes its "dogma" far more than, say, the US Republican Party over the last 50 years.

In this regard, I note the approving reference to de Chardin (83), a rather "far out" theologian who was once vigorously suppressed by the Church. de Chardin developed mysticism that was (in the opinion of many in the Church at the time) heresy.

Christian doctrine is not a static "received, eternal truth". It evolves rapidly -- in many periods of history it evolves more rapidly than economic or political theory. Religious leaders do not stand apart from society, telling the rest of us what Religion "says". They are part of history, just as we (even Richard Dawkins) are part of the evolution of "religion" whether we admit it or not.

COMPASSION

The Dali Lama considers compassion to be the common root of all religion. This is what Francis has to say about that :

(91) A sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings 

This is not "derived" or "proved". It's simply stated as self-evident. This is an illustration of the tone of the entire Encyclical. Francis is demanding that you look around you and look in your own heart. This reflects his own compassionate confidence in the reader. He does not ask you to agree with him because he's the Pope. He appeals to your ability to recognize wisdom when you see it. Of course, the landscape of wisdom can only be properly perceived from where you stand at the moment.  Francis attempts to speak to everyone, respecting the best judgement of each person, fully aware that many people (not even a lot of Catholics) will see things the way they look from the Vatican.

This contrasts with many modern would-be "prophets", who assume that anyone who disagrees with them are idiots, mis-informed or corrupt.

SOCIALISM & CAPITALISM

This is a pretty compact definition of socialism. The implications of this simple idea are sweeping.

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

Some of the many details and implications are worked out, directly and explicitly challenging many of the assumptions of "capitalism", especially the "right" to mis-use resources because they "own" them.

(93) Hence every ecological approach needs to incorporate a social perspective which takes into account the fundamental rights of the poor and the underprivileged. The principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods, and thus the right of everyone to their use, is a golden rule of social conduct and “the first principle of the whole ethical and social order”. The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property. 

This is pretty radical, but ...

the Church does indeed defend the legitimate right to private property, but she also teaches no less clearly that there is always a social mortgage on all private property

The "social mortgage" idea makes perfect sense to me but I can understand why it would seem ominous to many people who regard property "rights" as a bedrock principal of democracy. The fact is, that we are all just passing through. Everything we own, whether it's a TV set or a small African nation, is just "on loan" to us.

Just in case we think the Pope is just raising issues "for discussion", he comes down hard on one very specific case:

(94) Every campesino 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.

The case illustrates the common case where ordinary people are forced off their land by rich land owners and/or international corporations. Characteristically, the Pope takes the side of the poor.

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE 10 COMMANDMENTS

(95) New Zealand bishops asked what the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” means when “twenty percent of the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive”.

SURPRISE: THE POPE IS CATHOLIC

(99) In the Christian understanding of the world, the destiny of all creation is bound up with the mystery of Christ, present from the beginning: “All things have been created though him and for him” (Col 1:16).80 The prologue of the Gospel of John (1:1-18) reveals Christ’s creative work as the Divine Word (Logos). But then, unexpectedly, the prologue goes on to say that this same Word “became flesh” (Jn 1:14). One Person of the Trinity entered into the created cosmos, throwing in his lot with it, even to the cross. From the beginning of the world, but particularly through the incarnation, the mystery of Christ is at work in a hidden manner in the natural world as a whole, without thereby impinging on its autonomy. 

Such statements make no sense whatever outside of the Christian Church and, in fact, have little influence inside the Church. The Pope knows this, but takes time to preach to his congregation. He illustrates his world view by drawing on Christian theology, but his view does not depend on Christian Theology.

In my opinion, it would have been wise to leave such "boiler plate" Theology out of the Encyclical, especially since the reading skills of vast majority of the Pope's audience will be severely challenged, even by his most straightforward observations.

IN WHOSE HANDS?

In my opinion, the Pope puts his finger directly on the root cause of many of our problems, not just climate change:

(104) 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.

The problem is that we can't control the power we have unleashed. In this blog, I make the case that any technology massed in the hands of any human organization will be beyond control There are limits to what humans can control, even when their motives are pure. The Pope seems to agree with this:

(105) Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its own limitations 

but he is more optimistic than I am that these "limitations" will ever be overcome. In fact, I disagree that the limitations are mainly "moral".

(105) 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 

(108) The idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm and employing technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable. The technological paradigm has become so dominant that it would be difficult to do without its resources and even more difficult to utilize them without being dominated by their internal logic 

The Pope is groping for a new "paradigm". Pope is close enough to Dragon Theory, that I intend to quote him liberally. However he doesn't seem to appreciate that our powerful organizations have a life of their own. The Pope seems to see the issue as "Man against Nature" where God is on the side of Nature, of course. In fact, there are other "players" on the field--machines that have no morality whatsoever.

The Pope's "paradigm" is a massive moral revolution. This is definitely worth the effort, but, as the Pope repeatedly hints, human beings have lost control of the world. It will take more than a moral awakening to get things under control.

SHOULD POLITICS BE ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMY?

Economics has tragically captured the political discourse. Politicians talk about jobs, growth and trade. No politician would put forward a policy that would shrink growth or cost jobs. This applies to the subject at hand, Climate Change. The central argument used in the political arena against decisive action on climate change is "it would hurt the economy" (My own Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is a virtual template for this point of view). The Pope is pushing a non-economic view into the political discourse. I expect that he will seem like a messenger from Mars to many.

(109) The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate economic and political life. The economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings. Finance overwhelms the real economy. The lessons of the global financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we are learning all too slowly the lessons of environmental deterioration. 

I note the swipe at "finance" overwhelming the "real economy". Politicians and the general public tend to think of money as real. Actually, currency is just a symbol of our trust in our governments. When that trust erodes, currency becomes meaningless. The subject of "trust" is squarely in the Pope's area of expertise. We should listen to him on the subject.

AN ELOQUENT DESCRIPTION OF A NEW "PARADIGM"

(111) 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. Liberation from the dominant technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community. Or when technology is directed primarily to resolving people’s concrete problems, truly helping them live with more dignity and less suffering. 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, ...

This directly contradicts the prophets of despair, who are becoming alarmingly popular as the try to convince people that the battle has been lost. Spreading hope is part of the Pope's job description. Prophets of doom like Chris Hedges specifically ridicule hope. They see everyone who disagrees with them as conspirators. The Pope speaks hopefully and compassionately to the entire human race.

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT US

(115) 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. The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised...

Such a statement could come straight out of a book on Zen, but of course the Pope takes it in a different direction. Zen would say that *all* human values are illusions projected onto reality. This is probably true but not terribly useful. The Pope wants us to put our human desires on the back burner and take an active role taking care of the world.

ALIENATION

Marx thought that Capitalism was the cause of widespread alienation in his day. Perhaps he was right. But the Pope goes deeper:

(118) 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. 

Becoming a cog in an industrial machine (assimilated) is just one way to lose the sense of being valued as a unique individual. In the world dominated by the politics of economics, the failure to be assimilated ("unemployment) can also lead to a feeling of powerlessness and exclusion - the very definition of "alienation".

ABORTION

(120) Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo ...

The anti-abortion stand of the Catholic Church is seen by many to be a perfect example of brainless dogmatism. Personally, I feel with the "pro choice" view that the rights of the mother must trump the rights of the embryo. However, I also note that the Church has a very strong case against abortion. Any argument in favour of abortion can also be used to justify infanticide. Where do we draw the line? I feel that this decision should be difficult, but it should be a difficult decision made by the mother.

HUMAN BEINGS AS OBJECTS

(123) 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. 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? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same “use and throw away” logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary.... 

Here, we see the issue of abortion as part of a wider, coherent philosophy that a human being should never be treated as an object. Human beings do not exist for the convenience of other human beings. There is reason to think of an aborted fetus as a "throwaway human". You may disagree, but it's not crazy.

I have already seen commentators on the Internet who reject the entire Encyclical because the Pope "still" advances this argument opposing abortion. I very much doubt that such people have given the matter as much thought as the Pope who is captured by his deep reverence for human life. On the other hand, I am not persuaded that the sensitivities of a man, even one as wise as the Pope, should prevail in this situation which he will never face himself. Compassion must rule.

JUSTICE BETWEEN GENERATIONS

(159) 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. 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. The Portuguese bishops have called upon us to acknowledge this obligation of justice: “The environment is part of a logic of receptivity. It is on loan to each generation, which must then hand it on to the next". An integral ecology is marked by this broader vision.

This is another "take" on the idea that the things that belong to us, and the planet as a whole, is "on loan".

[my study of this document continues -- more later ...]