Drumming up the ripple effects of Laudato sí with Laudate Deum (LD) on world leaders, especially the delegates who are preparing to meet in Dubai for the 2023 UN Climate Change Conference from 30 November to 12 December, is indeed commendable.
The hermeneutical lens of “homicidal pragmatism” (LD §57) informs our peoples in Asia, the global south, and humankind that technical solutions borne of science and technology wedded to the “technocratic paradigm” (LD §§ 20-33; LS §106, §108) of the globalised, hegemonic neo-liberalist economic model (LS §§51, 56) are an ecocide. The reasons are decipherable. This model aims at nothing short of “an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm… which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery, and transformation” (LS §106) that aims “in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race” but ultimately at “power [as] its motive—a lordship overall” (LS §108).
Such anti-oikos and totalitarian use of power (LD §§24–28), void of “a sound ethics, a culture, and spirituality” (LD §24), only shores up “the ethical decadence of real power” (LD §29), with glaring failure to set limits, ethical criteria, and norms for “clear-minded self-restraints” (LD §24). Without ethical restraints, all short-term (albeit appealing) “efforts at adaptation”, not discounting “some interventions and technological advances that make it possible to absorb or capture gas emissions [that] have proved promising,” have thus far been untenable. In all counts, such solutions suffer from “the irresponsible derision that would present this issue as something purely ecological, ‘green’, romantic, frequently subject to ridicule by economic interests” (LD §58). Alas, this is traceable to a lamentable blindness to “what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system” (LD §57).
Notwithstanding the asymmetrical power differentials of geopolitical elitism and LD’s decried ineffectiveness of international institutions (LD §§34–43) occasioned by the multiple nations’ myopic prioritisation of their “national interests above the global common good” (LD §52), the emergence of the multipolar world (LD §42) is hailed and notably welcomed. This multipolar world is accelerated by a globalisation which “favours spontaneous cultural interchanges, greater mutual knowledge, and processes of integration of peoples, which end up provoking a multilateralism ‘from below’ and not simply one determined by the elites of power” (LD §38). The multiculturalism in this multipolar order “is not dependent on changing political conditions or the interests of a certain few and possesses a stable efficacy” (LD §39), but it globalises the concerns of the “postmodern culture [which] has generated a new sensitivity towards the more vulnerable and less powerful” (LD §39). This emergence of multiculturalism that arises “from below throughout the world, where activists from very different countries help and support one another, can end up pressuring the sources of power” to address concertedly the climate crisis. For this reason, Pope Francis has rightly insisted: “I reiterate that unless citizens control political power—national, regional, and municipal—it will not be possible to control damage to the environment” (LD §38). This framework, with global and effective rules to ensure “respect for the most elementary human rights, social rights, and the protection of our common home” (LD §42) has to be the rightful demand “from below”.
More intriguingly, this power shift accelerated by the assertion of developing countries, including those “radicalised” groups that exercise a healthy “pressure” for intergenerational justice and earth resilience (LD §58), has counterculturally become “a new voice” with “a greater role” (LD §51) in global fora. This power shift is already heralded by “an evident openness to recognising the fact that combustible fuels still provide 80 percent of the world’s energy and that their use continues to increase” at the 2022 COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt (LD §50) and “a step forward in consolidating a system for financing ‘loss and damage’ in countries most affected by climate disasters” (LD §51). The assertion of the global South for the right to resilience is morally legitimate, given the climate injustice of an “irresponsible lifestyle connected to the Western model” (LD §72), in which “emissions per individual in the United States are about two times greater than those of individuals living in China and about seven times greater than the average of the poorest countries” (LD §72).
More crucial in our climate-stricken oikos is the need for a new multilateral framework with “required spaces for conversation, consultation, arbitration, conflict resolution, and, in the end, a sort of increased ‘democratisation’ in the global context” (LD §43) in place of a rogue meritocracy that “can easily become a screen that further consolidates the privileges of a few with great power” (LD §32), perpetuating “the rights of the more powerful without caring for those of all” (LD §42). Only then can the envisaged multipolar-multicultural “global safeguarding” (LD §42) be actualised.
LD’s affirmation of our Judeo-Christian’s “situated anthropocentrism” further grounds humans in God who “has united us to all creatures,” for we are mindful that “the entire world is a “contact zone” (LD §66). Truly, we humans are “part of the universe [as] all of us are linked by unseen bonds and together form a kind of universal family, a sublime communion which fills us with a sacred, affectionate, and humble respect” (LD §67). Lest we become despondent, let us draw inspiration and strength from this apostolic exhortation:
- Nonetheless, every little bit helps, and avoiding an increase of a tenth of a degree in the global temperature would already suffice to alleviate some suffering for many people. Yet what is important is something less quantitative: the need to realise that there are no lasting changes without cultural changes, without a maturing of lifestyles and convictions within societies, and there are no cultural changes without personal changes.
- Efforts by households to reduce pollution and waste, and to consume with prudence, are creating a new culture. The mere fact that personal, family, and community habits are changing is contributing to greater concern about the unfulfilled responsibilities of the political sectors and indignation at the lack of interest shown by the powerful. Let us realise, then, that even though this does not immediately produce a notable effect from the quantitative standpoint, we are helping to bring about large processes of transformation rising from deep within society.
Let Laudate Deum’s final admonition be carved into our hearts: “For when human beings claim to take God’s place, they become their own worst enemies” (LD §73). Our consolation arises from Laudato sí: “Yet all is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start” (LS §205). Indeed, we need each other in order to have a good life through right relationships with God, our neighbour/poor, and Mother Earth (LS §66).
Fr Jojo M Fung SJ is a board member of Sacred Springs: Dialogue Institute of Spirituality and Sustainability. He is an associate professor of systematic theology at the Loyola School of Theology in Manila. His most recent publication is entitled, “A Sacred Sojourn with the Spirit of Wisdom in the Era of Pnuema-Saptientolocen”. His upcoming books include “Polyhedral Christianity: Creational Pneumatology for Cosmicism & Enspirited Leadership” and “One-ing With Creation: An Asian Ecological Sense.”