Why leftists should welcome the Pope’s new encyclical

The most anticipated encyclical of Pope Francis, Laudatos Si (Praise be to You) dated May 24, 2015, was officially published at noon on June 18, 2015. Consistent with his Franciscan vision, the Pope chose Saint Francis’ first line in the Canticle of the Sun (c. 1224). 

Floated as early as 2013, it is supposed to be released before the UN summit on climate change in Paris on December 2015. This is the first encyclical to tackle the issue of environment, ecology, and climate change. Ghanian Cardinal Peter Turkson, the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and his team wrote the first draft of the encyclical.

Even before its release, the encyclical already stirred a lot of controversies and reactions. Four days before the encyclical’s release, the Italian magazine L’Espresso posted a leaked draft of the document online. 

Weeks before the encyclical was released, the conservative Catholic politicians and carbon capitalists waited no time dismissing it. Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush, became an instant Internet sensation when he unabashedly declared, “I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinal or my pope.” He joined the Republicans and deniers of climate change at Heartland Institute. 

Other Republicans including the Oklahoma senator James Inhofe, openly told reporters that Francis was out of line — “The pope ought to stay with his job.” 

Conservative radio host Michael Savage declared on the June 16 edition of his show: “The pope is a danger to the world.” He continued by calling the Pope a “great deceiver,” “stealth Marxist,” and “eco-wolf in pope’s clothing,” and comparing him to the false prophet in the book of Revelation “directing mankind to worship the Antichrist.”

On the June 16 edition of Fox News’ The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld brought up the pope’s “Marxist background” and said:  “All he needs is dreadlocks and a dog with a bandana and he could be on Occupy Wall Street.”

And the deniers and haters continue to thrive on social media. 

But praises and support are also not left behind. Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, the leader of the Germany’s Lutheran Church, lauded the pope’s message as “reaching across the different theological traditions.” 

Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle urged Filipino Catholics to study the encyclical.

Many prominent scientists are also on the Pope’s side. “The Pope more or less gets it right on the science,” said Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Leftists and the pope

But how should Leftists react to the encyclical? 

I will point out several issues and themes that can be the basis for rapprochement between the encyclical and the struggle of the left for a just and sustainable future.

First, the encyclical condemns the logic of capitalism that reduces everything into a commodity and exchangeable goods. 

• Pope Francis, like the young Marx of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscript of 1844, uses St Francis’ asceticism against this logic: “a refusal to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled” (No. 11). 
• The Pope refuses to isolate ecological concerns from economic equality. For instance, he relates species extinction to profit-driven activities: “Caring for ecosystems demands far-sightedness, since no one looking for quick and easy profit is truly interested in their preservation.” 
• He sees in capitalism the tendency “to view other living beings as mere objects subjected to arbitrary human domination. When nature is viewed solely as a source of profit and gain, this has serious consequences for society” (No. 82). 
• He lambasts the monoculture in developing countries that sacrifices staple foods for cash crops: “The replacement of virgin forest with plantations of trees, usually monocultures, is rarely adequately analysed” (p. 39). 

Second, like a true dialectician (who always sees things in their totality and their contradictory relations), the Pope asserts that climate change is always linked and interconnected with other important issues: “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods.” 

Access to clean water, for instance, contrary to corporatized NGO beliefs, “is partly an educational and cultural issue, since there is little awareness of the seriousness of such behaviour within a context of great inequality” (No. 30).

Third, the struggle for ecology is the struggle for justice. The Pope writes: “we have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” (No. 49).

Consistent with his earlier radical encyclical, Joy of the Gospel, Pope Francis refuses to disconnect the problem of climate change with global inequality. He employs the term “ecological debt” to criticize how developed countries siphon the resources from developing countries while leaving the former ecologically depleted (No. 51).

He provides a sociological analysis of the cause of this indifference and denial: “Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change” (No. 26).  

Fourth, the correction of the anthropocentrism. Rejecting the interpretation of Genesis, which is supposed to give human beings “dominion” over nature, the Pope argues that “[t]his implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature” (No. 67). 

Further, “This responsibility for God’s earth means that human beings, endowed with intelligence, must respect the laws of nature and the delicate equilibria existing between the creatures of this world” (No. 68). 

In fact, the Pope even goes further by acknowledging the value of each specie: “we are called to recognize that other living beings have a value of their own in God’s eyes” (No. 69). 

Human responsibility

The encyclical stirs away from biocentrism and ecocentrism by emphasizing human responsibility. 

The encyclical decries those who want species equality but refuse to denounce economic inequality: “We fail to see that some are mired in desperate and degrading poverty, with no way out, while others have not the faintest idea of what to do with their possessions, vainly showing off their supposed superiority and leaving behind them so much waste which, if it were the case everywhere, would destroy the planet. In practice, we continue to tolerate that some consider themselves more human than others, as if they had been born with greater rights” (No. 90). 

This is based on the principle that private property is never absolute. The common good takes precedence over ownership. Consequently, this leads to the recognition of the limits of the market: “the market cannot guarantee integral human development and social inclusion” (No, 109). 

Finally, the encyclical is not a version of post-modern, new age denunciation of science. Neither is it a Luddite celebration of technophobia. 

“Technoscience,” the Pope argues, “when well directed, can produce important means of improving the quality of human life, from useful domestic appliances to great transportation systems, bridges, buildings and public spaces” (No. 103). 

Reminiscent of Herbert Marcuse’s critique of technological domination in One-Dimensional Man (1964), the Pope criticizes technology: “It can be said that many problems of today’s world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society” (No. 107). 

Rejecting this “technocratic paradigm” (No. 109) does not entail return to Stone Age. Rather it involves a “cultural revolution” (No, 114). It means shifting away from “modernist anthropocentrism” that reduces everything to exchange value.

Yet it also means, “There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology.” The Pope refuses to jettison anthropocentrism. By putting human beings at the center of moral world, humankind is cast into a great steward with great responsibility (No. 118). And this responsibility requires developing a spirituality that nurtures global solidarity, respect and dialogue with the rich cultural traditions of the world. 

This is the remedy against the “self-centred culture of instant gratification” (No. 162) and the “culture of consumerism, which prioritizes short-term gain and private interest” (No. 184). 

In short, the new encyclical is calling for a revolution. A Marxist revolution? Of course Pope Francis himself admitted that he is not a Marxist. But he also qualified his statement, “But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.” 

Leftists should feel not offended by the encyclical, unlike the conservatives and capitalist high-priests who are now cursing the Pope. 

Definitely, the new encyclical will stir a lot of further controversies and debates. Whether hated or praised, the encyclical will be a landmark document in the anti-capitalist literature that the Left cannot afford to ignore. – Rappler.com

Gerry Lanuza is a sociology professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman.