Laudato Si Paragraphs 60-64: Broadening the dialog

                                                     

                  
                                             

Today I will reflect on a transition stage of this document: The last 2 paragraphs of chapter 1, and the first three of chapter 2.  It's a wonderful transition from the wordly importance of dialog  to the important spiritual role religion can play in such dialog.

We end chapter one on a positive note. We have just spent many paragraphs looking at the unpleasant reality of  the crisis we face. Being an ambassador of hope, the Pope now works on reminding us that our response to this crisis should highlight the full glory of our human capacity to work together through dialog. Francis tackles this subject rather creatively by presenting us with two different extreme positions: One that celebrates (but is also unrealistic about) human activity and creativity, and one that condemns it. He introduces the first with yet another controversial phrase: The myth of progress. (60) Before you get angry and excited and start yelling at the screen,let's clarify what he means by this term (hardly a term that he came up with himself. Many authors have explored it over the years!) He's not saying progress is bad, but that it has taken on such a mythical status for some people, that they are convinced that 'it' can solve any problem, even the ecological one. We just have to keep building newer, smarter machines that will fix this problem for us.  We don't have to change who we are, or how we live. Nor do we need 'ethical standards' to shape our actions. Let's just invent the right tools to fix our problems. THAT'S...the myth of progress. This unrealistic understanding of what progress (especially technological progress) can actually do. 

On the other side of things, is an ideology that is just as bad, if not worse:  Those who would  reduce all human contribution to creation to a single word: Threat.  As if all of human creativity, love and passion could be summarized only by the negative impact we've had on the rest of creation. Truth be told, both of these positions would be frustrating for anyone to deal with. The are both a little closed minded, and would probably affect us in such a negative way that we too would become a little closed minded as well if we were to dialog with them.

 In his own way, Francis explores what our response to closed mindedness should be as we deepen our experience of how a healthy dialog could help us find middle ground solutions to our ecological predicament. People of faith especially need to pay attention here, because there is indeed quite a challenge ahead for those of us who are religious, and turn to our faith for inspirations in how to connect with creation.  We do need to work with all kinds of people along the way, not just with those who are like minded. This means that along the way, we could be trying to dialog and work with people who would normally be inclined to spit upon, mock, or disregard our deeply held religious convictions and our spirituality.They may be just as concerned as we are for our planet, but they simply operate from a different lens.

But the point Francis really wants to make is that, when our common home is in disrepair,  when so many regions of our world at high risk of  threats from natural disasters and the detrimental social consequences that often come with such disasters (61), can we really afford to quibble about our differences? It would seem that we don't have the luxury to look at the world in isolation ('you stay in your community, I'll stay in mine, and never do we have to confront each other again'). On the contrary, we owe it to ourselves and to future generations to encounter, and listen attentively (and spiritually!) to  people who have different experiences of our world than we do, even the ones that go against our beliefs. Through these exchanges, not only can our own traditions/understanding be enriched, but we will be drawing closer to that crucial point when we can claim that we've found a solution to this crisis,that is relevant, authentic and meaningful to all peoples of the earth.

A large part of that process for people of faith is of course, to return to the source of our beliefs which should shape the way we dialog: Scripture.  We must remember that care care for the earth is not a 21st century message. It's a deep part of our experience of religion. And if we all lived this part of our faith, how wonderful of an impact would this community of the faithful have on the world! Francis certainly believes in the potential of this happening, which is why he moves from the importance of dialog, to a new chapter on  the importance of understanding this foundation from which the Judeo-Christian tradition can dialog, and the wisdom it brings to the table. He refers more specifically to our ability to working with science and spirituality together. This is one area the secular world, and the ecological movement is a little more weak in. Some people in this movement seem to rely entirely on the ways science could deal with all our problems ( that would mean such people are not that different from the adherents of the myth of progress!) They don't always take the time to look at spiritual solutions to it. It may not be fair to say that this is failure on the part of the ecological movement,but we at least have should reflect on Francis' premise that this problem we're 
confronted with is so large that no forms of wisdom should be left out of our efforts to address this devastating crisis that has so impacted our whole era (63)).

In the coming week on this blog, I've invited a few collaborators to speak on the wisdom of the Bible. I look forward to engaging with them on the spiritual gifts our faith can bring to this important dialog we must undertake with the world.

blessings on your weekend.

Brother Dan

Laudato Si, Paragraphs 53-59: Facing our ecological debt

                                            

                                                                                         Preach it Frank!!

We revive this project today by looking at Paragraphs 53-59 which  deal with the weakness of our responses to the ecological crisis our world faces. Many  Christians in the West  find this language uncomfortable, and are even unable to appreciate this document because of this. I understand that it's unpleasant for people to hear that we, as a society that consumes excessively, and embraces a throwaway culture, have our share of the blame around the state of the earth today, but I'm still left with one haunting question: " In our personal life, when we realize that we've done something to hurt others, do we deny that we were ever guilty of such an awful thing, or do we try to address the harm we've caused?" I can't say for certain how most people would answer this, but I feel the 'passing of the buck' is much more common than assuming responsibility for our actions. Perhaps the inability to face the blame is one of the reasons so many are angered by such language.

But  one of the reasons I believe  Francis is so vocal on this issue, is that he understands with all his heart that if we claim to be one single human family, the globalization of indifference to the suffering of others is unacceptable. (my paraphrase of the end of paragraph 52). And Yet, not only does this indifference exist, but it appears to be rampant among many of the economic and political leaders in our world. I believe, this is what inspires  Francis at the beginning of paragraph 53 to refer to the crying out of our Sister Earth for the second time in this document (as he did in Paragraph 2). The only difference is,  this time, the crying is much louder, as our Sister the Earth is joined in her cries by all those who suffer with her, the poor and marginalized whose lives have been destroyed by dramatic climate changes around our world. The shared suffering of humanity with creation (57) is one of the recurring themes in this document for Francis. It almost seems to become for him a point which he hopes will galvanize more people into living lives that are more oriented towards justice and harmony with all aspects of creation.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have much hope that we're ready for this culture rooted in care for creation and for each other (54-57): " We lack leadership capable of striking out on new paths and meeting the needs of the present...". As difficult as it may be to hear this,  I also do see a glimmer of hope there. All Francis is doing is stating 'this is what the world needs. It doesn't have it right now. Let's make sure we do everything possible to ensure other generations will see this."In a way, he is recognizing that there are more barriers than there is hope  for now,(54) but that in the end,  hope is stronger than any of our greatest barriers and limitations! This is a lesson that is hard to learn, especially with the 'superficial rhetoric, and sporadic acts of philanthropy' that fill our world, which  while pleasant on the surface, achieves so little. Even in the face of positive changes in our world, there  seems to be so little success in changing the culture's harmful habits of excessive consumption (55-56).

I must confess, this whole passage is hard to read, especially on Earth day!  And it only gets worse as Francis explores where the priorities of many of those in power really are, and how, despite the outstanding things taking place at grass root and federal level around the world, there continues to be much resistance to environmental action that may interfere with profit. (57)

And then there are places like the Ignatius center in Guelph, where I work as a spiritual director.  They call it 'A Place of Peace', but it could also be considered a place of hope as well, with all the work being done on the property around ecological restoration (through the Old Growth forest project) and organic farming. Francis would be proud of this Jesuit ministry! And we should be proud of how he carries on with so much hope despite the sobering reality of our crisis. Indeed, true to his passion for hope, he does dedicate a paragraph in this section to talk about countless other examples of positive ecological work done around the world. (58). I've come to expect that from him in this document: this ability to balance a realistic view of things along with that glimmer of hope that can’t be extinguished! His relentless sense of hope around our ecological crisis is one of the reasons why many prominent (non Catholic) leaders of the field  are paying attention to this document! And he certainly makes up for more gloomy picture previously painted with a superb hopeful statement at the end of 58: "For all our limitations, gestures of generosity, solidarity and care cannot but well up within us, since we were made for love."

Many others would have left it there. Many would rather not read anything else but phrases like these!  But he won't let us dwell in some state of hopeful consolation. He wants us to be challenged by the reality that false hope can become a barrier too, when it leads to complacency and cheerful recklessness. No, the purpose of hope is that it leads to courage and wisdom: Courage to act boldly, in a matter fitting to the gravity of this situation; Wisdom to face our ecological debt to the global south and to respond to that debt not with sorrow, but with hope, and creativity. Such is his invitation to us. Let us pray we have the spiritual gifts to answer it!

 Blessings on your Friday, and weekend!

Br Dan.

Happy Earth Day!! Ok, let's get back to work!!!

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” » Native American Proverb 



We're back!! It has taken me quite a few months to get organized, but I really felt 'what better time to come back to this project of praying with Laudato Si,  than Earth day! '. I find the  work Ramana and I started here rather important, because this is a document that plays a huge role in humanity's efforts  to celebrate the importance of, and at the same time recognize the fragility of our beloved earth.  The work of this blog page will not be easy, as I continue the search for more collaborators,  but for the time being,  we have enough to get us through a few months worth  of entries, which should take us through 2-3 chapters of this important document! All we can do at this point is live in hope that others will be interested enough to contribute, and that every contribution will help us deepen our sense of how we can enter into a better relationship with creation, and better respond to the ecological challenges and crises of our time from a place of faith, and love!

Happy Friday all! Celebrate Mother Earth every day, and join us as we go deeper in love with  all creation through Laudato Si!

Stay tuned for our first entry, later today, and for an entry from our first collaborator  next week!

Today, we share with you what will be the last 'Voice in the Wilderness' post for a month or two. We need to get more  collaborators, and garner more interest in this project, and we hope to spend the next month or so doing just that. In the meantime, I invite you to read today's  entry written by Nathan Gibbard​.In it,  Nathan (inspired by Pope Francis)  invites us to  reflect on to the question " can our modern technological culture achieve authentic depth in the way we relate to others and to information?'
Nathan  received his Ph.D. in Religious Studies in February 2015 from McGill University in Montreal, where he focused on issues related to religion and media.  During his studies, he was also the Director of the Newman Centre of McGill, a position he held until 2014.  He currently works as the campus minister as for the Ryerson University Catholic community in Toronto, Ontario.
                   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paragraphs 43-47 of Laudato Si’ introduce several major thoughts in broad outline, without

going into depth into any one.  It brings up the uniqueness of human beings, assuming a deeper

human anthropology as explored by John Paul II, before situating the human into a wider

human ecology of cities, green space, and technology.  A driving question found throughout the

larger document is found here as well: how do we create an environment, a total ecology, that

allows humans to really thrive, connected as they are to each other and the world around

them?  This is a crucial question, and the issue of an authentic human ecology might be –

twenty years from now – one of the defining contributions of Pope Francis papacy in terms of

the humanities and social sciences.  But this is not what I want to focus on here for this post.

Rather, I want to explore paragraph 47 in greater detail, as it is  this section – its fears, assumptions,

and possibilities – that continue to animate my own thought.

A key component of human ecology is the opportunity to create real bonds between people,

fostering an environment where dialogue and genuine care for the other can grow.  Out of this

dialogue and genuine care, we are sparked into action, recognizing in the other another self

that requires giving of ourselves in order to ensure the other’s survival and flourishing.  Part of

our human anthropology is the desire to give of ourselves, so part of any genuine human

ecology is ensuring opportunities to give and receive that self-gift.  One problem, though, as the

documents says “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.”  And part of the reason for

the appeal of technology is precisely that “they also shield us from direct contact with the pain,

the fears and the joys of others and the complexity of their personal experiences.”  In other

worlds, a virtual reality is constructed that people seem to prefer to live, rather than having to

embrace the ‘real’ world.

source:http://lilianablechman.blogspot.ca/2015/04/phones-change-peoples-personality.html

Are we able to maintain deep connections with  each other  in our isolated technological society?

This preference for a ‘virtual world’ at the expense of a real one is articulated through a fear of

a lack of depth found in modern technological systems; “when media and the digital world

become omnipresent, their influence can stop people from learning how to live wisely, to think

deeply and to love generously.”  However, what is assumed in this section is that: 1) depth

within a technological society is possible, and 2) it is wanted.

For fear of ending up writing an academic article on this topic instead of a blog post, I will try to

present the broad outlines of what I am suggesting.  Hopefully presenting the broad outlines

will initiate discussion and perhaps encourage a ‘deeper’ exploration of some of the thoughts

involved.

As mentioned above, there are two questions that para. 47 assumes an answer for that does

not necessarily warrant that assumption.  The questions are: 1) is depth within our current

technological system possible? 2) If it is possible, assuming depth is good, how do we do it?

These questions are not as easy to answer as they might appear, as they are wrapped up in the

nature of technology, media, and perception.  One reason they are more complex is because

the internet, and the increasing interconnectedness among technological devices it has

fostered, is not merely a system of information, but also shapes how we process and

understand that information.  As Marshall McLuhan, a Catholic, pointed out “the medium is the

message.”  Part of what he meant by that is that the medium itself structures our perception of

what is contained within the medium.  Sight, in this way, helped to foster rationality and a view

of the shared nature of truth in that we could debate as to the nature of what we saw, and then

verify the truth after positing competing hypotheses.

According to McLuhan, up until the current electronic age, the sense of sight dominated media

(painting and reading, for example) and thus dominated the structures of our perception (his idea is

much more complex than this, but hopefully this serves as a brief overview).  However, with the

electronic age, McLuhan argued that the instantaneousness of communication would mean

that sight would lose its priority, and that instead the senses would return to a balance: it

would be as if we were in a global village, where sight, sound and the other senses would all be

used together in communication.  Walter Ong, a Jesuit, used McLuhan’s thought to explore the

idea of a ‘secondary orality’ that is reliant upon print and the written word, but which is a more

deliberate auditory sound.

One approach that has received, to date, much less attention simply because it seems to have

little precedent, is what happens to our perception if instead of sight or hearing, the dominate

sense becomes touch?  What happens, or might happen, if society is based on touch?  (The

insights of the visually impaired would be very useful in this context, even as such insights in

published form are virtually non-existent)

If we look at the words and metaphors we use in describing our contact with technological

devices, this view that touch is becoming a dominant way of perceiving the world is not that

far-fetched.  We ‘click’ on an icon, ‘scroll’ through pictures, all through either a ‘touch’ screen

or tactile mouse that is an extension of our hand.  Even if touch is not becoming the dominant

sense, it is still having a fundamental impact on our perception of the world and reality.  The

question then becomes, how does this impact our relationship to truth and to our

surroundings.

There have been many fascinating studies that examined the impact of technology on the brain

itself.  One of the findings of the study was that the brains of younger people who are

technological savvy are structurally different than people who are older, without as much

contact with information technologies.  Now, it is important not to go too far, as connections

within the brain do seem to show a heavy degree of malleability, especially until the later

twenties, but the results are interesting.  What if, through the use of technology, our

perception of truth and understanding is itself changing?  If our modern tech is heavily

influenced by touch, what impact might that have on perceptions of truth and understanding?  I

might read an article on Wikipedia, but the very fact that I am reading it on a computer

structures how I receive that information.

A tactile technological society would be one where the surface, rather than depth, held sway.

The surface, in fact, is all there is.  Touch is skin deep.  We float and skim over the surface of the

skin, careful not to go too deep, because it will wound us.  Depth is avoided as it punctures the

skin, slices into flesh, causing pain, disfigurement, and even trauma if the wound is deep

enough.  Depth is to be avoided, as it causes injury – it causes offence.  It separates the tactile

membrane of the skin, and because the surface is all there is, the idea that there is a deeper

unity the keeps us together through the depth of the body is forgotten.  Pain, offence, must be

avoided at all costs.  Thought of in this way political correctness is accorded an active value,

while at the same time making treatment of deeper societal ailments far more difficult.

Truth as tactile also corresponds remarkably well with a relativistic view of the world.  If there is

no depth, then there is no way of claiming a deeper truth, and if one claims a deeper truth then

that also threatens violence and injury in puncturing through the tactile membrane of society.

The truth of tactile tech is one that skims along the surface, comparing and connecting point A

with point B, but certainly not in a position to say that point A or B are ‘closer’ to the core of the

matter, for closer immediately necessitates depth.  It is to imagine and live in a 2D world, to live

life on a screen, which no matter how complex are the images, only provide the illusion of

depth and not the real thing.  As a teacher, trying to explain the logical failure of relativism, I

sometimes wonder if part of the problem is less the arguments provided, than that a student’s

perception is too dominated by technological systems that give the illusion that the surface is

all there is; arguing matters of truth is less about providing good arguments, than in shifting the

barriers of understanding.

This is the fear that certain streams in our technological society limits true human ecology.

True human ecology must provide for at least a three dimensional view of reality, while a focus

on the surface of things – on touch – prevents us from digging deeper, obscures depth at all,

leaving us in 2-dimensional confusion and agitation.  We were meant to see things in 3D.  But is

that all there is?  Is modern technology doomed to diminish us, making us less aware of our

surroundings and to others?  Does it necessarily rupture, in a negative way, human ecology?

I don’t think so, but then the problem becomes how do we create depth within technological

systems?  My response is, admittedly, partly based on the firm belief that if St. Paul was alive

today he would be on Facebook.  The great master communicator and apostle would find ways

to use our instruments of communication precisely in that way: as instruments of

communication, recognizing the inherent complexities tied to each.  One way of creating depth,

as well as a yearning for it, can be seen in the appeal and deep resonance Steven Colbert and

John Stewart had with their audiences.  Both of them created a public persona that one knew

was a persona, but in knowing it was a persona, they invited the viewer to try and peel back the

layers to discover the deep truth they were articulating.  In so doing, they provided a third

point, situating topics and subjects within the complexities and pain of a 3-Dimensional world.

Are there other ways to create depth through modern technology?  How do we create and use

information systems and media in ways that push one back in to real community, with all its

pain and messiness, but ultimately fulfilling as it satisfies the deepest desires of human

anthropology.   It falls upon us, then, to figure out what St. Paul would intuit: how do we create

depth within our world of technology – for baring Armageddon that is not going away – as well

as a desire for it?

We continue to reflect on Pope Francis' take on bio diversity (par. 38-42).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One of the most difficult, yet exciting thing about Francis is that he won't back away from challenging the faithful and people of good will. He's never afraid to invite all of us to take an honest look at our lives: the way we pray, the way we live, our strengths, but also our weaknesses as dwellers and co created creatures on this planet ( a very Ignatian trait of his!).   We saw this in paragraph 36 of Laudato Si, when he reminded us how silent we can be before the injustices of our world, injustices that are rooted in our propensity to put our benefits ahead of the well being of not only our neighbors, but also future generations, and really... all of creation. Addressing those injustices is the best response we can offer to his invitation to care for our common home.

Of course, sometimes, simply caring is not enough. And this is the core of most ecological messages from any specialist or scientist nowadays,a message this pope embraces:We need to join the ongoing efforts around the world to protect the fragile biodiversity of our planet(LS 37)especially in places that safeguard forms of life like 'those richly biodiverse lungs of our planet which are the Amazon and the Congo basins".(LS 38) While these may be sound like far, remote places to many in the West, the ecological importance of the ecosystems in the Congo Basin and the Amazon can not be underestimated...and neither can the destruction currently going on there.

As we've discussed before on this blog, Pope Francis, true to his Ignatian charism,doesn't stay on the gloom and doom of the situation. He openly praises the "commitment of international agencies and civil society organizations which draw public attention to these issues and offer critical cooperation" to governments struggling to deal with the demand from international corporations who are interested in big dollar signs, and not the survival of the ecosystem.

And their work (especially that of Organizations like Avaaz and Greenpeace) is indeed a source of hope in this world because they focus on explaining to us events going on half way around the world that should inspire us to take actions. These are usually events that may seem innocuous and irrelevant to us, or events that we may feel powerless to act upon. And yet through their work, we can speak out against corporations and governments that (for example) replace 'the virgin forest with plantation trees...(which) compromise a biodiversity" (LS 39)

However,even such important organizations as these face an uphill battle when it comes to actually impacting change, partly because many are reluctant to embrace change that will alter their lifestyle, but also because many of the organisms affected by our nefarious actions and indifference are in fact often overlooked (40)(it's hard to put up a fight for something that we can't really see or touch, a fact pro life activists face daily) But organisms like "phytoplankton -- which form the base of ocean food chains -- have declined 40 percent since 1950." 

Francis takes the trouble to remind us that the devastation is indeed not limited to forests, but spreads to seas, and to coral reefs which "shelter approximately a million species."( 41)The sad reality of the state of coral reefs today was captured in a poignant question by the Catholic Bishops of the Philippines in a pastoral letter in 1988:“Who turned the wonderworld of the seas into underwater cemeteries bereft of colour and life?” Francis returns to this point about how everything is connected: Since all of creation is connected together through life, then through death, destruction and pollution, it will remain connected. The reason why we see images like the one below in our world today, is because of "pollution which reaches the sea as the result of deforestation, agricultural monocultures, industrial waste and destructive fishing methods.

source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Coral/

So...now that we have the bleak picture, what's our responsibility in all this mess? Yes, of course, caring for our common home, but also, being more in communion with it, so that we can understand any significant modifications of the environment (42) caused by the actions, or inactions of our corporate and political leaders. While this problem may seem overwhelming and we may feel powerless before such an invitation, Francis makes it less daunting for us: "Each area is responsible for the care of this family. This 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." (42) To put it differently: Imagine if in every community across the world, there would be a few Catholics, people of faith, and people of good will that would get together and take the Pope's words to heart...that they would begin start to actively care about the biodiversity found in their own neighborhoods and communities. Can you just begin to imagine the impact this would have? I'm not even talking about creating a new generation of tree hugging hippies. I'm talking about creating a generation of Catholics and others that will celebrate their faith by becoming more attentive to, and caring towards the world they live in. We should of course remain concerned and educated about the devastation going on around the world. But in terms of practical steps to take...perhaps we really should begin with taking care of creation that is around us. A sensible invitation, one I hope to take to heart a little more in the week and months to come!!

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.

In paragraph 27-31, Pope Francis begins to explore the issue of disappearing natural resources, especially clean water, He explores the consequences of lack of clean water in developing countries(deaths, spread of diseases, impacts on the agriculture, higher infant mortality etc,..)and the impact the mining industry and the market economy (among other things) may have on whatever access to clean water these countries may have.

Today's entry comes to use from  Reverend Jean-Daniel Williams, an Anglican and United Christian Chaplain at McGill University in Montreal, a PhD student of practical theology at the Université de Montréal, and the father of two lovely daughters who he hopes will grow up in a world of plentiful and shared clean water.

**********

Yet 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. Our world has a grave social debt towards the poor who lack access to drinking water, because they are denied the right to a life consistent with their inalienable dignity.

Pope Francis, Laudato Si' 30

But whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.

John 4:14

There are two simple, paradoxical facts about water. Water is ordinary, and water is holy.

Water is ordinary. For so many of us it exists in such bounty, with such ease of access, that we seldom consider that for so many others it is scarce. But even for those for whom water is scarce and access difficult, water is a daily fact of life. It is indeed the universal—across geography, across time, across species, across even biological kingdoms—fact of life. As earthlings, we simply cannot conceive of life as we know it without this ordinary substance, this perfect molecular alignment of two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen atom. Perhaps life can exist without it, but it would be so different from our understanding of how life works, would we even recognize it? This week's discovery of water flowing on Mars is monumental in our search for the possibility of life beyond our planet. The ordinariness of water is a bit misleading, though. It can be tempting to think drinkable, fresh water is all around us because it always is near us. But that is because we can't live, for long, in the places where it is not. Our perception of water's abundance is skewed by our selection bias or sampling error of only looking around where we live, places we or our ancestors had settled in part because precisely because they had sufficient fresh water.

Water is also holy. It is holy water into which we dip our fingers and cross ourselves as we enter church. It is holy water by which we are baptised. Holy water which seals us together as a Christian family with one Lord, one faith, one Baptism (Ephesians 4:5). And what is holy water and water makes it holy? In some Christian traditions, a priest blesses water to make it holy. In my own United Church of Canada parish, we bless the waters of baptism as congregation, passing the vials of water through the pews, asking each person to hold it, perhaps say a prayer, and pass it along, so that when a new Christian is baptised into our family it is with water made holy through our collective faith. And while perhaps "lower-church" Protestants may not use the term "holy water" or expressly bless it, the holiness of the waters of baptism remains. It is molecularly ordinary H20, the same with which we wash our bodies, that becomes holy in its role in the sacrament of baptism so that it washes away even our sins.

Water is ordinary. Water is holy. This paradox is incarnational; it is sacramental. As Christians we claim an absolutely human first-century Galilean is absolutely God. And we approach that incarnated God through tangible acts. Sacraments, in the words of the Book of Common Prayer, are "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace," a bridge by which those things which seem so ordinary—perhaps water, perhaps bread or wine—represent and become profoundly holy. 

Of course, satisfying our bodily needs is spiritually insufficient. And so it was beside a well of ordinary water that Jesus taught, "Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life" (John 4:14). But Jesus' metaphor is works precisely because the daily necessity of water is so clear. In his encyclical Laudato Si', Pope Francis writes, "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" (30).  

While I believe in the omnipotent power of God to do whatever God wills apart from human action, I find it deeply revealing that Jesus instituted sacraments that require the tangible presence of clean water, or nourishment of bread and wine. 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. How dare we offer the holy meal of Christ's body and blood if we do not share the bounty of the earth equitably and grow it sustainably. 

The Holy Father wrote:

Fresh drinking water is an issue of primary importance, since it is indispensable for human life and for supporting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems… Water poverty especially affects Africa where large sectors of the population have no access to safe drinking water or experience droughts which impede agricultural production… One particularly serious problem is the quality of water available to the poor. Every day, unsafe water results in many deaths and the spread of water-related diseases, including those caused by microorganisms and chemical substances. Dysentery and cholera, linked to inadequate hygiene and water supplies, are a significant cause of suffering and of infant mortality. Underground water sources in many places are threatened by the pollution produced in certain mining, farming and industrial activities, especially in countries lacking adequate regulation or controls. It is not only a question of industrial waste. Detergents and chemical products, commonly used in many places of the world, continue to pour into our rivers, lakes and seas (Laudato Si' 28-29).

This not "merely" a political issue, or a capitalist issue. (And what does "merely political" even mean, as politics is the mechanism by which we in democracies make, or abdicate, moral stands?) Any attempt to pretend our care of creation's resources or compassion sharing of these resources with our siblings in the family of God is disconnected from our faith, as if Jesus' being our well-spring released us from sharing the very real springs of water our Heavenly Creator has given us, is a perversion and a sacrilege.  

Prophetically—not in the popular sense of foreseeing the future, but in the Biblical tradition of attentiveness to and challenging of the world's realities—the Holy Father notes, "In some places there is a growing tendency, despite its scarcity, to privatise this resource, turning it into a commodity subject to the laws of the market. Yet 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," and warns, "Our world has a grave social debt towards the poor who lack access to drinking water, because they are denied the right to a life consistent with their inalienable dignity" (30).

Multinational corporate giant Nestlé has been widely criticised for sucking aquifers dry and selling water, filtered and bottled in tonnes of fossil-fuel-based plastics, it obtained for nearly free at astronomical profits. It is hardly alone. Most industrial wastes of water are more hidden from the public than the bottled water market. And corporations do not engage in such destructive greed for their own maniacal evil satisfaction, as tempting as it is to picture CEOs as cartoonish villains. They behave as part of a free-market system that commoditises things because in our politics we, collectively, by our actions or more frequently our inactions, allow them to, and because we as paying consumers ultimately enable them to. 

As the Holy Father says, "the problem of water is partly an educational and cultural issue" (30). I prefer not to think about it. I like turning out a faucet and drinking clean water. I like that taking a shower in my first-world, urban apartment requires no thought, no reflection on my consumption, my privilege, or my politics. But as Christians, as those who place our hope of eternal life in the hands of the God who is living water, it our call to echo the Holy Father's call in our words and actions, to ensure all—those near and far, those rich and poor—have access to the waters our Creator has given us. Clean water is becoming less ordinary; perhaps that will help us remember how holy it is.