Brother Dan tackles today's entry, the first of  two entries that will focus on how Pope Francis sees climate change  as something that can, and will continue to  affect the earth's biodiversity.

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

It's not just our story...it never was.

In the last entry for this blog, Rev Jean Daniel Williams used strong language that echoed the Pope’s own indignation towards depleting resources in our world. This was partly captured with his rhetorical question ‘How dare we speak of our saviour being a spring of everlasting life if we do not share the springs of water equitably and protect their cleanliness for others’. Such language can be uncomfortable to many in our world who prefer ‘not to be bothered, or inconvenienced by our ecological crisis’. Unfortunately, at the late hour that we find ourselves, it becomes imperative that we actively think about more concrete steps that we can collectively take, and such language can (gently)  help us transcend or get over whatever reticence we may have towards taking concrete steps. Even the pope, who fills this  encyclical with a tone of hope, isn’t afraid to take on necessary strong language to awaken the slumbering consciousness of many Catholics and people of good will (i.e. people that aren’t religious, but still strive to achieve much good in our world).

Today’s section is a good example of this, as Francis reflects on how  our resources are depleted by our own ‘short sighted economic practices’ (LS 32), but also explores a greater concern for how biodiversity  of our planet is affected by our neglect. Moving away from the  urgent tone a little, he uses a more pragmatic one in Paragraph 32, reminding us “Different species contain genes which could be key resources in years ahead for meeting human needs and regulating environmental problems.”  

Already, there seems to be an intense dynamic at work in Francis’ train of thought between two paragraphs (32-33): He realizes that  most people respond to pragmatism ( ‘The earth is dying…but what’s in it for me if we have to start making sacrifices to protect  it’ may not be an as uncommon sentiment as we may think) so he automatically goes to this sensible idea that reminds us of the practical use that every species may have for us in the future. 'We ought to care for creation because creation cares for us' could be a good way to rephrase that idea. In 33 however, he shifts gears, saying “It is not enough… to think of different species merely as potential “resources” to be exploited, while overlooking the fact that they have value in themselves”. What’s worse is that we turn a blind eye to how interconnected we truly are with creation when we remain are indifferent to  fact that “rapid environmental changes (like the ones we’re currently seeing) typically cause mass extinctions.” Needless to say, Francis won’t stop at talking about our interconnectivity with creation. He launches into a powerful tirade about how we do share the responsibility for the loss, the extinction of many creatures and plants every year, as creatures and species of plants disappear before our eyes, and we continue to engage in the practices that brought their end in the first place. Many conservatives would argue it’s our prerogative as stewards of the earth to use the resources as we chose, to profit from this earth that is our home, (and as this satirical piece suggests,many  will do so at the expense of ignoring all scientific facts about the earth’s slow but definite transformation for the worse). But Francis proclaims rather boldly: We have no such right. 

 His statement emboldens in paragraph 34: While it is important for humans to express their concern for and fight against  the disappearance of birds and certain mammals (which many already do), this concern is insufficient.There are also various microorganisms and algae threatened by the change in climate the climate. Their disappearance may not pull the strings of our heart as much as the endangerment of  baby seals and other cute animals. Nevertheless, our obligations towards them are the same in that we are encouraged to care for biodiversity by developing 
far-sightedness (LS 36). The cost of not caring " is much greater than the economic benefits to be obtained through our current practices" (Ibid) Isn't this common sense by now? Common sense may be too strong of a word to describe how our world has responded to this challenge that activists have been inviting us to for decades, but there is still a sense of hope in how countries and groups in our world have responded (37). But the real hope is that these small gestures will be enough to rectify the greater injustices of apathy towards all creation that many human generations have perpetrated.