Laudato Si 121-126: "More than law abiding: a reflection on our call to an 'uprising of conviction' " by Robin Lutjohann

In today's entry, Robin  will help us continue exploring this 'proactive' language the pope uses in Chapter 3. This has been an exciting chapter in which  the Holy Father encourages us to challenge certain aspects of our 21st century culture, by applying the lens of faith on our world. As we'll see, this lens teaches us to love more deeply, and act upon that love with respect towards the dignity of the other. 

 Robin  (writing his second entry for this blog) is the pastor of Faith Lutheran Church in Cambridge, MA. He received his education for ordained ministry at McGill University in
Montreal, Harvard Divinity School in Cambridge, and Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, OH.
Baptized as an adult in Boston’s Charles River, he feels closely tied to the ecological and political life of this city. As a Lutheran, he understands himself as standing in a historical reform movement within the Western Catholic Church.
                                      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In sections 121-126, Pope Francis tackles two problems resulting from the excessive anthropocentrism of our age:

 (1) the practical relativism that justifies the exploitation of neighbor and Creation, and 

(2) the degradation of work that make a God-ordained vocation into an odious burden.

Rather than treating each of these in great depth (which would exceed the length of this blog post), I’ll focus on one quote that I found intriguing.

After outlining the problem of moral relativism and its effect on society, Francis states:

“We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided.” (123)

 

                Pope Francis is also calling us to go beyond slogans, no matter how clever
                     and relevant the slogan may be!!As Robin says...what we're really looking for is an uprising of conviction!

This statement on the insufficiency of laws to guarantee proper care for Creation struck me as a timely parallel to Paul’s message in the Epistle to the Galatians, which millions of Christians (Catholics and others) have been hearing as part of the lectionary readings on Sunday for the last few weeks.

In this letter, Paul is arguing against the idea that the (non-Jewish) Galatian Christians needed to abide by Jewish religious law in order to follow Jesus. He argues instead that nothing but faith (that is, trust^[1]) in Jesus and in God was necessary for salvation (that is, wholeness/healing^[2]). Laws, whether religious or civil, serve primarily to restrict harmful behavior. That makes them good and necessary for creating a safe environment for everyone. It also teaches members of society the parameters of our life together, what is “ok” to do and what isn’t. To use Paul’s metaphor: the law is a “disciplinarian” or a “guardian”:

“Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith.” (Galatians 3:23-24, NRSV)

The Greek word translated “disciplinarian” refers to the role of a slave in wealthy Roman households, who was tasked with the education (and punishment!) of children. In Paul’s mind, Law serves a similar function.

However, just like the guidance of a “disciplinarian” cannot by itself create character or maturity without the active participation of a parent, the legal frameworks of our society fail on their own to instill the kind of virtue and love that leads to real positive change.

I like the way the 16th-century reformer Martin Luther explains Paul’s argument:

“The Law enforces good behavior, at least outwardly. We obey the Law because if we don’t we will be punished. Our obedience is inspired by fear. We obey under duress and we do it resentfully. Now what kind of righteousness is this when we refrain from evil out of fear of punishment? Hence, the righteousness of the Law is at bottom nothing but love of sin and hatred of righteousness.” (Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians)

In other words: laws alone do not change people or society. They are, for the most part, damage control. But we need more than that! We need the spark of love and inspiration that comes through faith in God, our true Parent.

There are many calls for regulation and for commitments on the parts of nations to certain energy goals. These are positive steps forward, much needed if we are going to cut down our excessive energy consumption. But such laws are no more than mere damage control. They fail to get to the heart of the matter, which Francis sharply points out: “the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary.” (123)

And because of competing political interests, even the laws we do pass tend to be insufficient. The powerful lobbying of the energy industry and other business interests is effective in defanging the kind of legislation that could bring about the deep and radical change required for turning the corner on our planet’s future health. (Editor's note: case in point, citizens who live 'off the grid' and getting in trouble with the authorities for doing so)

And so we go through climate summit after climate summit, with shiny-faced bureaucrats shaking hands in conference rooms, while the Earth continues to groan beneath the cumulative effects of human excess. 

When will we realize that the law alone does not guarantee morality?

Adolf Hitler was legally elected chancellor of Germany.

The United States’ law enforcement agencies legally kill and incarcerate inordinately large numbers of primarily African American persons, 150 years after the abolition of slavery.

And according to Roman law, Jesus Christ was legally put to death on a cross.

Experience and history tell us, along with the witness of Scripture and teachers like Martin Luther and Pope Francis, that the monumental challenge of our age, the looming threat of climate change, cannot be adequately dealt with through legal restrictions alone.

There needs to be an uprising of conviction.

There needs to be movement of faith.

Because only faith, i.e. trust, can give us the confidence to risk our own comfort and wellbeing for the sake of future generations. Faith led Abraham to leave his father’s house and seek the promised land. Faith brought Israel out of captivity and through a dry desert into freedom. Faith gave Jesus Christ the love to pray for his enemies from the cross. Faith made the early Christians sing in the arena, as they were mauled by lions.

Because faith empowers us to spurn the fears and hesitations of the present, remaining steadfast in God’s commandment to love our fellow-creatures, while staying laser-focused on God’s promise for the future.

And so faith may give us the confidence that we need in this historical moment to make radical changes in the present and to model a different way of life (slower, kinder, smaller!) that could snowball into the sort of cultural change we need for our planet and our society to heal.

---

^[1] The Greek word for “faith” in the New Testmant is πίστις. This word almost always refers to trust not belief. It is not so much an agreement with certain ideas as an attitude of radical, adventures reliance on God’s promises.

^[2] The Greek word for “salvation” in the New Testament is σωτηρία and its cognates. This word has connotations of healing and wholeness. To be σωζος (“saved”), therefore, is not merely related to an afterlife state or a divine legal fiction. To be “saved” in the imagination of the New Testament is to experience the reconciliation, peace, and wholeness of God’s new creation, both now and forever.

Laudato Si, 115-120: "Where Natural law and ecology meet: Reflecting on the crisis of Anthropocentrism " by Matthew Shanahan

One of the recurring themes we've seen in this 3rd chapter is the way in which Francis challenges our Modern (or Post Modern) culture, and the way it has succeeded in convincing many in the West that we have a 'God given right' to be neglectful towards creation and towards others. Notwithstanding all the heroic deeds done by self sacrificing people everyday for the benefit of our common home and for the marginalized in our world, much of the crisis with our culture remains in our inability to truly hear the cries of those who suffer in our world. In today's entry, Matthew Shanahan helps us explore how much this in fact goes against the beauty of natural law, and how we are called to resist more modern tendencies to embrace a more self centered world view and allow ourselves to be more open, and connected with the stories of others. A beautiful lesson that we Catholics should be more aware of in light of the Orlando shootings, and of everything going wrong with our world. Our desire to save the world is sometimes misguided, and needs to be replaced by a more important desire to understand and journey with all creation! - Brother Dan

Matthew Shanahan is entering his final semester of his undergrad in Journalism and Theological Studies at Concordia University in Montreal. He also co-hosts his own sports radio show, "The Starting Rotation" on CJLO 1690AM. After his degree, Matthew plans to primarily do some travelling around the world and teach english abroad as a second language before inevitably pursuing a masters degree in Theology.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The crisis and effects of modern anthropocentrism illustrated by Pope Francis can really help the individual to begin to understand that so many facets of life (all of them in fact) are all inter-connected. Our attitudes about ourselves, other people and our common home are scarcely restricted to one particular issue. Our attitudes and beliefs shape our actions, which in turn affect ourselves, the people around us, and the natural environment, which has severe consequences, both morally and politically among other things.

Perhaps I can begin by reminding you of the definition of anthropocentrism: “regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals.” Thanks dictionary. Moving on, Pope Francis shares this initial thought in regards to humanity’s place in society now in relation to where Natural Law and Christian anthropology dictates it should be: “When human beings fail to find their true place in this world, they misunderstand themselves and end up acting against themselves” (115). This points to human beings lacking spiritual development and a moral conscience, as well as an eagerness to do good. Human beings must realize this fundamental truth in order to live in harmony with him/herself, others, and the surrounding environment. “Human beings, too are God’s gift to each other. They must therefore respect the natural and moral structure with which they have  been endowed”. (115)

Have we made our sacred story so anthropocentric that we've become
disconnected from it and the gifts with which it can endow us?

However, Francis most certainly implies that the New Evangelization must be at work here, but that  it is not by prayer alone that we can expect all human beings to come to know and understand their place in the world. Our Catholic Tradition (which is more than just  pure natural law) has given rise to our understanding and explanation of God’s creative process. Unfortunately, that explanation  has often failed, especially in the West. “An inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world.” (116) For some, rejection is inevitable, but in terms of what the Church can claim as responsible, she understands that her position is one of great beauty and has the potential to be not only accepted but loved by so many Christians, past, present and future.

“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.” (117) This powerful insight really makes the Christian think, more than anything. Have I failed to hear the cry of nature in my own life? It is more than anything, a radical call to love our nature, to accept its reality in its infinite mystery, despite the selfish urges we may have to command an immoral kind of dominion over it. At the end of contemplation, we can only hope that our consciences can properly exercise each and every decision in relation to nature’s laws.

The Pope is quite adamant about talking about the importance of the Environment in such a way that it links directly with Church teaching and Natural Law. Here he presents a not-so-subtle critique of ecologists who care for the environment in a sort of blind-eye activist way that neglects every other important component of humanity’s place in the world. “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.” (118)

Before we can shift mindsets from, what some would consider, our current self-centered ones, we must begin to feel that connection with nature, and that sensitivity towards our environment and human life. This will naturally lead to a more realistic outlook of our world based on the laws that God gave us. “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”. (120) This entire encyclical is not only helping Christians to appreciate and respect our environment, but warns of the dangers that can lead to a future in which our self-centredness ruins our inter-connectedness with other people and our environment, more than it already does now. (editor's note: a sobering thought!)

Laudato Si 111-114 "Fight the system!: Rethinking how we look at progress " By Brother Dan

Following in the steps of Liam's entry which took a bold look at our challenges around developing a more holistic and healthy use of technology especially in our Western culture, I continue our exploration of this part of Chapter 3. There's actually a rather important movement in this section that we should recap: I've previously mentioned the transition from Chapter 2 to Chapter 3, from a celebration of our spiritual heritage that helps us commune with creation, to a more sobering look at the human causes of the ecological crisis we face. As was mentioned in previous entries, this message strikes an unpleasant chord among many religious conservatives around the world that would rather ignore this uncomfortable reflection of the damage we as humans have inflicted on our common home. But what Francis is doing should would be uncomfortable to most people, as he explains that this 'technocratic paradigm' that drives much of our economic and technological growth in our world is in fact, profoundly human. Again, as we've already seen, while the Pope is keen on critiquing the system, he also is quick to recognize how easy it is for all to be guilty of the same sins it's guilty of. Especially, how 'Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence.' (105)

That profoundly human movement is at the root of our ecological crisis, and is exacerbated by the fact that many in this world try to attend to their personal needs (for profit, for wealth, for security etc...) through power. Francis illustrates that at the core of its reality, power is really a desire, or motive for a lordship over all (108)(my own emphasis. Let's not forget that such a definition of power is a part of our collective Christian narrative and history. Many Christians would still justify such a definition of power by turning to the 'stewardship model' of creation as explored in Genesis 1. It's not something the Pope, or many other activists would endorse, but it is still present.) This is emphasized even further through that technocratic paradigm that "exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object " (106) and influences how we seek technological and economic progress. I think it's even more relevant and insightful how Liam introduced Lonergan in the last entry, because Lonergan does more than invite us to remove bias from our way of proceeding. He teaches us above all how to use prayer, reason and logic for our (and really, the world's ) personal growth, and not as it were, for our own personal benefit.

The contrast in movements here is quite clear: On the one hand, we have a paradigm that encourages people to trust our basest desires to gain control over others; on the other hand, via Lonergan, and Pope Francis, we see an invitation towards using our human abilities for creativity and reason for the greater good. In paragraph 111, Francis explains that he's not just encouraging us to agree to disagree with this paradigm. "There needs to be a distinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking, policies, an educational program, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic paradigm". It sounds like the Pope is inciting rebellion, and in some ways, he is, but not a violent overthrow of the system. It's more of a subtle change that would invite us to rethink how we live in our world.

As we have seen, one of the Pope's messages is that progress isn't
healthy when it takes over our lives. So the real revolution he's calling for is a return to basics,
something he may have picked up from Thomas Merton!

Quite simply, a spiritual, ecological, and intellectual (and therefore, an authentically human) revolution could take place in the hearts of many if individuals learned to adopt a broader way of proceeding,of seeing the world. A perception that that did not rely so heavily on personal welfare; one that was intentionally rooted in concern for the welfare of all creation. This too could lead to progress. Perhaps not the kind of progress we've come to expect in the modern era, but one that is "more human, more social, more integral" (112) and can bring much more hope to us as we journey into the next important decades for our fragile planet.

As always, I read the Pope's bold words with some joy and optimism, but also some hesitation. I don't know yet how effective his ideas here will be, how much they will impact the world. Some would say they already have. Others will argue that he proposes 'lots of pretty ideas, not much action'. I also have a temptation to say this. However, in a way, it's not action Pope Francis is asking us to consider. In response to a culture that relies on attributing value on people based on what they do or accomplish, I feel Francis' words remind us the importance of acting in a way that reflects not our need to do more, but to get better at 'being': ' ... 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`(114)

Notice how he speaks of 'our own' delusions..not the systems. We are indeed all a part of this mess, and shouldn't focus on attributing blame, but instead, assume the blame for it rests on our collective shoulders, and so will the response to it. Let us pray we can take the Pope's words to heart this week, and let those words inspire us to be the change we pray for in our world!

Amen

Laudato Si 106-110 "A Tale of Two Jesuits: Pope Francis, Bernard Lonergan and the challenges of technology." By Liam Farrer

 In the previous section, Pope Francis was exploring our own struggles with the idea of power, and how it sometimes limits and takes over our existence, and worse, how it, along with technology has distorted our concept of what community, and care for others could be.  In paragraph 106-111, he continues his exploration  of the human experiment with technology and the gifts, but also the unhealthy paradigms that define its impact on our world. To help us with this reflection, our First guest blogger of the Late Spring, early Summer season, and a fellow Theobud of mine from Regis College in Toronto, Liam. Enjoy reading this great theological mind!  -Br. Dan

     Liam Farrer has just finished the first year of PhD 

coursework at Regis College and is currently studying 

languages for the same program. His areas of interest are 

medieval theology and modern Catholic theology. Most days 

he likes it. Liam is a native Calgarian, cradle Catholic and fan 

of Carmelite spirituality (and of the Musical 'Hamilton'. I had to add that one in! -Br. Dan-) . In his limited spare time he 

enjoys watching and playing baseball, reading Arthurian 

legends, watching movies, and reading comics. He also likes 

writing bios about himself.

                           *****************************

This past year I had the opportunity to take a year long doctoral seminar on a book called Insight by a Canadian Jesuit named Bernard Lonergan. For those of you who’ve never heard of Lonergan or Insight I can summarize it thusly: It is a big book that attempts to answer the question what am I doing when I am knowing and why is doing it knowing. There are two persistent myths about Insight, firstly that it’s purely a work of philosophy (on this point many Lonergan scholars disagree with me), and secondly that it’s not all that practical. The second point bothers me immensely and I am constantly trying to debunk it. My latest attempt at such was the term paper I wrote at the end of the aforementioned seminar which dealt with Lonergan’s notion of the concept of bias and how I felt that was present in the reaction by various Catholic groups to Amoris Laetitia. It was a gruelling task given that I began writing that paper the same day Amoris Laetitia was released and Francis gave a plane interview soon after I had completed my first draft, but I was happy to do it, and quite pleased with the results. Still when I had finished, I was looking forward to writing something on Pope Francis that didn’t have to do with bias. Then Br. Dan sent me the section I was supposed to be working on. God has a good sense of humour.

The bullet point version of one of Lonergan's ideas.  This is not irrelevant to our age as we grapple with abuse of power and improper use of technology,  but it's certainly hard to live!

             The response to Chapter Three of Laudato Si last summer was a perfect example of what Lonergan calls individual bias. Many people (although not enough to create a group per say) dug their heels’ in and said “Oh no Pope Francis’ now you’ve gone to far, you can tell me how to live my church life but you don’t know anything about science, I don’t need to follow this section.” (FYI: Jed Bush and Peter Cardinal Turkson has a morning long twitter war about it.) Bias had reared its ugly head again. So I decided to do something dangerous and assume that I could solve this problem logically. I asked myself what’s so controversial with suggesting that we go back to “being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves (III.II.106).” Why shouldn’t we “receive what 

nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand” (Ibid).

Then I realized something. I don’t think the root of the opposition that people have that lead to this bias has anything to do with Francis’ supposed stance on climate change, or the fact that he is a Pope and not a scientist. I think it’s that deep down people know he’s right, but what he’s proposing they do is hard, so instead of attacking his ideas, the attack the person, and, irony of ironies, I think technology might be the cause for this.

  Pope Francis mentions that in the development of technology

the “subject (us) makes every effort to establish the scientific and

experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of

possession, mastery and transformation” (ibid.) This has been done, the Pope notes, very quickly and very efficiently, so much so that

“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 to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one’s alternative creativity are diminished” (III.II.108). (editor's note: a poetic quote that is in fact

from the mind of Romano Guardini (1885-1968), a priest who is labelled by some as the Father of the New Evangelization)

Now I know what you’re thinking, I’m being melodramatic, after

all technology is extremely helpful. However, consider this scenario: 

My best friend is an graduate student in soil mechanics. He recently

 went on an expedition to Greece. He informed me that at one stop instead of taking in the beautiful Greek architecture many of the students  in their early twenties spent the entire time wandering around looking for a phone signal so they could get on Facebook. Now maybe you can argue that these kids wanted to post pictures of the aforesaid beautiful Greek architecture, but I would argue just why couldn’t it wait until they returned to the hotel that night. The counter argument I immediately perceive that  they don’t need to wait, we have the technology to allow it to happen instantly

 nowadays seems to prove the Pope’s point. Technology, under the guise of aiding us can in fact restrict our freedom. I for one am unfortunately, as of this moment suddenly intimately aware of how much time spent watching YouTube videos or Facebook messaging people while I walk to school could be spent watching the beauty of God’s creation in action, or praying for people. This however would require me to admit that I am allowing something created to dominate me, instead of trying to enter into

deeper communion with my creator, and that is hard. So it’s tempting to simply ignore this, to focus on the areas where one can make an argument, which I disagree with by the way, that the Pope may be overstepping, instead of dwelling on the fact that he’s may be right, that maybe my “life [is] gradually becom[ing] a surrender to situations conditioned by technology.” The baby can get thrown out with the bathwater, I can respectfully disagree without having to compromise my faith beliefs because faith and science aren’t compatible anyways, right (he said very sarcastically) and I can go on living my life as is.

  

Alternatively, I could take the hard way. I could attempt to engage

in what Lonergan calls the reversal of bias, by admitting that technology has become less of a tool and more of a trouble in my life. I could delete some apps, forgo the use of my headphones while walking, and horror of horrors turn my phone on silent when I’m with actual people. This realistically speaking will be hard, but I think I’m going to try. So here’s what I’m going to do. The Church, as I am sure you know, urges us to make extra sacrifices on Friday’s in honour of Our Lord’s Passion. So this June, the month of the Sacred Heart, I’m going to make reparation to the Sacred Heart by spending Friday’s using my phone as a phone. No emails, no apps, no internet, no unnecessary texts (if you have to ask if a text is necessary it probably isn’t), no music, just the phone itself and my

IBreviary, because I am a poor graduate student and am not going to buy a breviary just to use for three days. Your welcome to join me, or not, totally up to you. Thanks for reading and God bless you as you continue to work through Laudato si with this blog.

Laudato Si 101-105: 'The joys and shadows of technology and progress' by Brother Dan

( Ironically, in this entry that touches on our relationship to technology, I've struggled enormously this evening in getting a uniform Font, to no avail. Apologies in advance for the weirdness of it) 

I'm glad to contribute one last entry before our Summer roster of collaborators pitch in! This time, I'll explore the beginning of chapter 3, which marks a point of transition in this document.  Francis spent much of the last chapter exploring the spiritual roots of our desire for communion with all creation. Through it, he reminded us that creation is not just created 'things', but  creatures close to the divine, as the 'risen one is mysteriously holding them to himself and directing them towards fullness as their end". (100) In chapter 3, we switch gears, and enter a reflection on our sense of 'sinfulness' by exploring the human roots of our ecological crisis. Those of you familiar with the dynamics of the Spiritual Exercises will pick up on the fact that the transition from chapter 2 to 3 is a strong Week one movement: You focus on the graces and strengths of your life so that you can be free enough (and therefore more ready) to face your own personal sin history and all the pain attached to it in the rest of the first week.Likewise, if chapter 2 made us feel pretty good about the numerous connections in our Religion to caring for creation, and to perceiving God at work in the mystery (and intense beauty) of all that lives, Chapter 3 will no doubt challenge that good mood by helping us reflect on the collective role humanity has played in bringing about this ecological mess in the first place.

 Our Pope doesn't even try to build a nice literary bridge between the two movements/chapters. He goes from the end of Chapter 2's beautiful, mystical meditation on how creation is filled with the presence of Jesus, to a very pragmatic statement: " We can't describe the symptoms of the crisis we're facing without looking at the true cause of the illness: Human activity." ( My paraphrase of 101) While he would not be one to restrain himself from lumping all humanity as responsible for having neglected our Common Home, he mostly focuses his comment on the technocrats, those who use technology to exercise more control of the society they live in.

His emphasis on  technocrats is not an attempt to criticize technology. Quite the contrary, he spends an entire paragraph  lauding those advancements  as an expression of the profound creativity with which we have been gifted by the divine. Instead, it's a criticism of those who misuse the advancements we've made in this area for the sake of their own quest for (political or financial)  power and control. In fact the balance in this section between the celebration of creativity and the condemnation of those who strive for, and often end up abusing 'power.' is quite striking. Most striking to me was the way he almost celebrated the way humanity has tampered with nature. While most environmentalists will bemoan  this tampering, Francis recognizes that  it's been a part of our human story since the beginning, every time we were confronted by our own limitations, and answered these limitations with our ingenuity and creativity. He makes it clear that through science and technology, we've been able to reach new heights, and new standards of living (102) that are (in theory) destined for all. This line of thinking is what led him to utter a statement I thought I'd never hear this Pope say: "who can deny the beauty.... of a skyscraper' (103). Earlier on in this document, he's quite vocal in his protest  against cities, and urban cultures in general  that invest millions in building these structures, and creating pretty green spaces, but ignore -and invests nothing in- the hardship of the marginalized that dwell on its streets. However, no matter how much Francis is trying to see beauty in the Urban jungle, we know all too well where it is that he truly encounters God in  his life...

And perhaps it's in the name of the marginalized that in paragraphs 104-105, he changes the tone of his language as he introduces his 'on the other hand' segment (perhaps he sounds a little like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof in such moments, but that's part of his charm!!). As proud as we have to be of the technological changes that our world has witnessed even in the last 15 years, we can't turn a blind eye to the amount of power this technological revolution has placed in the hands of 'the Few'. He even goes further, not just speaking about their power, but also how they 'impressively dominate' over the whole of humanity and the entire world'. His use of the word impressive is intriguing, but only perhaps we'd expect him to use 'oppressive' domination instead...but perhaps the whole point is that, we already know that dominating others will be oppressive. He's asking us to observe the folly that governs our country and Western society, a folly that allows us to notice how much the few dominate, and to be 'ok with that'. He's asking us to take a step back, and observe how progress and power have become intertwined, and to wonder if there are more effective ways of exercising power that does not exclude those not part of progress.

In other words, it's not the fact that they have power that he's troubled by, but the fact they abuse and misuse it so egregiously, with such a disregard for those voiceless of our world. I know most leftist in the media would want to use such a sentiment and take it to mean that Pope Francis is attacking Wall Street again, which he may be (which he never seems shy to do!) but not this time. Yes the Technocrats are at fault, but the whole of human history is riddled not just with amazing story of our ability to overcome our limitations, but also with stories of greed, power and corruption that are still a huge part of our narrative.

His general verdict is that we have a long way to go before we humans use power in a more effective and life giving way that embraces the well being and care of all people and all creation. And that's me putting it nicely. He uses much more bleak language like " It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the challenges now before us. “ But again, I feel uses such language effectively, because he's able to pinpoint the problem clearly: We have all this progress, and no cultural,spiritual foundation for it. Getting all the power, and assuming none of the responsibilities towards others in the world leaves our leaders in a precarious vacuum from which there seems little hope of social, or ethical evolution. This beacon of hope that is our Pope is almost unrecognizable in this paragraph, but all he's doing is reminding us of the work that lies ahead. Nowhere does he say this work is going to be too much for us. If we've overcome other limitations, there is no reason why we couldn't overcome the ones we face today. We just have to be more intentional in our care for creation. If we care to see it, Hope still abounds!!

Have a blessed rest of the week!

Br. Dan

Laudato Si 96-100: 'Contemplating his gaze on the world', by Brother Dan

 Today's entry focuses on this final section of Chapter two, which quite honestly borders on the mystical. I kind of prayed with it in a dream like state this morning, but I feel that these paragraphs lent themselves very fruitfully to a more contemplative frame of mind.

It begins with this idea that through scripture, we can reflect on the way Jesus would have gazed at the world. To help us reflect on this, Pope Francis turns to scripture rather beautifully, quoting Gospel passages 10 times( and other New testament sources 3 times)in this section. This may seem like overkill and it certainly would not be the first time a papal document was accused of being a little excessive with the use of bible quotations that are sometimes taken out of context just for the sake of 'quoting the source'.

However, I feel the verses are there not only to help us reflect upon Jesus' loving gaze, but also deepen our understanding of his world view. Francis reminds how important it was for Jesus that those following him recognize that paternal relationship God has with all God's creatures. (96) One of the passages he uses to illustrate this is from Luke 12:6 which invites us look at creation in order to understand how God has indeed carefully provided for the survival of all creatures, each one which is deeply valued and cherished by God.

Inspired by the gaze of Jesus, we're asked to go a little deeper in our understanding of God at work in creation, to focus less on the pragmatic 'look at how God cares for us', and enter the more contemplative state of fondness and wonder where we 'marvel at how much love and beauty is expressed in each individual species'. In fact, Francis believes this is of great importance in Jesus' teaching, as it was an invitation to 'be attentive to all the beauty of God expressed so eloquently in nature (97).

                The beauty of the divine expressed in sacred new life every day at Ignatius Jesuit Center, Guelph
 (photo: Susan Sprague)

We don't often think of Jesus being 'in harmony' with creation, but think back to all the various food, grain, harvest, farmer, shepherd, and other imagery in his teachings that point to this clear relationship between us and creation. Look at those moments when Jesus was so connected to creation, he seemed to control it: “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” (Mt 8:27). 
Think back to how Jesus was fully engaged in his experience of humanity, that unlike John the Baptist, he would not live the ascetic life denying himself all human pleasures in the world ( Mt 11:19) but would fully share with his friends, disciples, and all of us many profound joys of the human experience... an idea phrased so eloquently in the prologue of John's Gospel that captures the essence of our belief that the destiny of all creation is bound up with the mystery of Christ, creatively present from the beginning as the as the Divine Word (Logos), but also fully incarnate in the human story (the word became flesh) . (99) (Jn 1:14). But there is one other piece of this mystery that Francis names so concisely: the mystery of Christ is at work in a hidden manner in the natural world as a whole, without thereby impinging on its autonomy. (99)

This is humbling to me, because it reminds me that God created beauty, and shared it with us but doesn't allow it to affect how we live our freedom and autonomy;Christ partook in that beauty and continues to express himself through it (a simplistic expression of the controversial theology of the Cosmic Christ that even some Jesuits find theologically lacking, but that I find is so instrumental to helping us enter deeper in union with the idea of the trinity at work in creation!) but we are free to ignore Christ's expression in the cosmos; And the Holy Spirit nudges us to engage with the mystery, to contemplate the way Christ would have gazed upon the world, and upon us as individuals and leading us towards a renewal of love and hope in our world, a renewal we're very free to walk away from if we so chose. Like I said. Humbling...especially when we think back to all the moments when we did walk away from it in our collective history.

Thankfully, With the trinity's help, we can indeed understand more and more how the entire New Testament reveals to us facets of that mystery, that interaction between the divine and the world, everyday. And the more we get caught up in this interaction, in this story, the more we can start thinking about being directed toward 'the fullness (of our humanity) as our end' as our purpose as daughters and sons of God, and sisters and brothers of Christ, and of all creation. A tall order to live up to, but not so daunting when we're reminded again and again that God's gaze is upon us, and his strength always available to us!

Laudato si 93-95: The Art of Sharing.

The Vatican sharing it's space to project a Laudato Si inspired light show  last year!
Would you believe, many found this sacrilegious!!

                                        


 After having been blessed by  an overabundance of collaborators on our blog for the past few weeks, I will take over the next 3 entries before a new roster of Summer bloggers comes your way! I'm actually quite privileged to be engaging in this shorter entry, which connects very directly with an idea Francis will explore in Chapter 4:  The need to focus on an ecology that " incorporates a social perspective which takes into account the fundamental rights of the poor and the underprivileged" (93). This is to me, one of the core ideas of  the Catholic Church's social teaching that reminds us  that there is not one single issue or cause can really deserves our entire attention. As we were reminded in the last entry, everything is interconnected. Therefore, the way we address various issues needs to be connected as well.  In other words, in caring for the earth, we should care for all creatures and people who dwell on earth, not just focus on caring for nature; In calling ourselves pro life, we should protest any issue that is an affront to life, not just abortion; Neither our concept of injustice, nor our understanding of who is marginalized can ever be limited, as we continue to deepen our care for all of creation.

Francis uses the words of St John Paul II  to remind us that there's another dimension to this idea:"God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone".(93) So while many of Francis' critics have accused him of being a  socialist because of the way he has emphasized this idea that  we should go out of our way to care for others, it seems that within 'natural law', within God's original designs for humanity, the sense of sharing, and equality was quite strong. The hording, unbalance, and injustice created by generations of our power hungry and self serving ancestors for whom sharing wealth with others was contrary to whatever 'ideology' that governed their inner being, continues to haunt us today in many shape and form. 

It is so prevalent in our western society that many people of good will easily get discouraged that this brokenness within our world will ever be healed, that these bad habits we've been developing for millenniums will only deepen. This particular generation is certainly seeing the worse in humanity 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.” (94) Francis doesn't just throw these quotes in to shock us...he is reminding us that our care for creation and for each other has become crucial, because our neglect of it has caused tremendous damage that many fear may be irreparable.


 Meanwhile, there is a certain sacred rhythm in creation, where goods are quite easily  shared, given, and taken equally by all creatures that on earth do dwell (hopefully, this is the first and last time I make reference to a CBW hymn on this site!!). St Francis certainly referred to how much we were a part of this in his prayers to our Brothers, Sisters in creation, reminding us, as the Psalms and other scriptures did, that we continue to depend on the wealth produced by creation.  As Pope Francis stated in the beginning of Laudato Si, Nothing in this world is indifferent to us (2). So he uses all these shocking quotes to remind us why it is exactly that  we can't be indifferent to this world. Let us reflect how we can carry that message in our prayers and in our lives this week, and try to see how it is that we can be a little less indifferent to creation and to those around us.