|
5/21/2025 The Environmental Jurisprudence of Pope Francis: A Shift in the Biblical Understanding of Dominion By: Swarnava HatiRead Now Introduction Environmental law scholars have often criticized Christianity for promoting a capitalistic worldview. Scholarly debates frequently highlight the anthropocentric tendencies within Christian theology.[1] Some argue that traditional Christian doctrine places humanity above nature, reinforcing hierarchical and extractive relationships consistent with capitalist exploitation. The source of this contentious is to be found in Genesis 1:28 of the Holy Bible, which reads, “God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”[2] The word “dominion” creates presumptions, and rightly so. It is important to think about whether human beings have complete control over the environment. In an age of environmental crisis, such a word will cause havoc. Therefore, the question arises as to whether human beings should have control over natural resources without restrictions. Interpreting the Church Through Pope Francis The scriptures should not be read in silos but with the exhortations and encyclicals of the Catholic Church. Much water has passed, and the Church stands today with a radically distinct position on the environment. Ignoring ecclesiastical evolution at the expense of scriptures will give a half-eyed view of it. Pope Francis, who passed away on April 21, 2025, was considered by many as a reformer of the Church. In his encyclical, Laudato Si,[3] which translates as ‘praise be to you”, he conveyed a prophetic message to the world, irrespective of faith. Francis selected the theme “care for our common home,”[4] which can be discerned as the need to care for the environment. Much of it is inspired by St. Francis of Assisi, the Catholic saint after whom he derives his name, and a brief part of it from the contributions made by his predecessors in the domain.[5] Francis’ Concern Francis drew from Assisi when he referred to the Earth as ‘mother’ and qualified her as the ‘sustainer of human beings.’ Here, the Biblical notion of ‘dominion’ faces its first backlash. He suggested that anthropogenic activities have increased exponentially in comparison to human evolution.[6] The effective control of material advancements over human beings is a cause of worry. It perpetuates capitalism and can be well described through Marxist philosophical materialism, where the world is inherently ‘material.’ Marx wrote, “it is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks. Matter is the subject of all changes.”[7] Francis’ lament is also expressed at the lack of efforts being made to solve the environmental crisis, although he believed that people are more aware than before.[8] Climate Change: Reading Francis with Marx Francis’ concern for pollution is rooted in its impact on the poor. He has argued that while technologies used in agriculture or industries may benefit some, it is the poor who suffer the most from the environmental costs. Francis believed that technology that is supposed to improve lives often ends up worsening it. While he addressed pollution, he is unique in emphasising “throwaway culture.”[9] In doing so, Francis believed that consumerism led to pollution. Marx’s opinion on consumption as an alienating[10] tool would give more clarity to Francis’ statement. Francis believed that throwaway culture is responsible for creating inequity in the society. An element of justice was present in his arguments if looked at from the lens of social consciousness as a medium of bringing change in society. Francis’ views on climate change were equally interesting. He said, “the climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all.”[11] At the outset, Francis’ argument appeared as concerning as it seemed to align with the Global North. However, he also opined that the powered elites are unwilling to work for mitigation by using the phrase, “masking the problems.”[12] Interestingly, he returned to his earlier stance of blaming the consumption patterns and “models of production.” Essentially, Francis viewed climate change as a production-consumption dialectic. Water Crisis: Through the Lens of Inequity A significant amount of Francis’ work was concerned with the issue of the availability of drinking water. Francis talked about the habits of the “wealthier sectors of society” with regards to wasting water.[13] He also showcased the inequitable distribution of drinking water between the Global North and the South, particularly with the African experience of “water poverty.”[14] What is interesting to note is Francis’ emphasis on the privatisation of water as a violation of “universal human rights.”[15] Multinational corporations remained his constant target. Francis relied heavily on the Marxist concept of equality. Marx’s famous remark that if the distribution of resources was made according to need and not equality, it would lead to the crossing of "the narrow horizon of bourgeois right” found a resemblance in Francis’ understanding.[16] Biodiversity: A Realist Approach Pope Francis wrote on the issue of biodiversity, arguing that, “a sober look at our world shows that the degree of human intervention, often in the service of business interests and consumerism, is actually making our earth less rich and beautiful.”[17] He argued against the idea that natural resources should be treated as objects of exploitation and was concerned about mass extinction.[18] The Biblical analogy of Genesis 1:28 came under severe scrutiny with the former Pontiff’s argument.[19] Francis’ conservationist approach also found a place where he wanted “human intervention” to mitigate the crisis.[20] Francis spoke of a “delicate balance” that should be struck between economic pursuits and biodiversity conservation.[21] Francis’ concern with having an impact assessment for biodiversity loss is also to be noted, which he said has become less important.[22] Environmental Crisis and Social Disintegration: An Unholy Wedlock While Francis seemed to be a conservationist, one must look at his intense concern for humankind. Both environmental distress and vulnerable human beings were equally significant for him. The well-grounded implications of environmental degradation on human lives found a substantive place in his discourse. The angle he took while elaborating can be found previously to some extent. He argued that “throwaway culture,”[23] “privatisation,”[24] and “current models of development”[25] remained the primary areas responsible for this unholy wedlock. Francis said that through privatisation, virgin nature has been replaced by “artificial tranquillity,”[26] albeit only for the privileged few. Addressing inequality, Francis argued that mitigation of environmental crisis is only possible through social change.[27] This makes an interesting parallel with Marx’s conception of consciousness as a “dialectical unity of human thought and practice.”[28] Ontologically, Marx would argue that humans approach the world through what they conceive on a mental plane and perceive through their senses, both being inseparable.[29] Francis said that “centres of power” are far off from the vulnerable.[30] Hence, it would be a hypocrisy to be concerned about the environment without caring for our fellow beings. He would urge humanity to hear “both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.”[31] Global South as a Victim Francis argued that an “ecological debt” existed between the developed and developing world.[32] He blamed multinational corporations that were involved in the unabated exploitation of natural resources in third-world countries.[33] It partly had to do with the imprecise legal regimes that most of these countries have in regulating the corporates.[34] He also exposed the dichotomous attitude of human beings to be concerned about the environment and practise harmful consumption practices at the same time.[35] Francis believed that technology is not enough to solve the crisis without having any “deep change,” going back to consciousness.[36] Having dealt with the major problems looming before humanity, he hoped for a positive change. He believed that certain mitigation measures were being taken, but he also opined that they were not sufficient.[37] This founds reflection in the lament of Francis by quoting Pope John Paul II, “if we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God’s expectations.”[38] Critical Analysis Francis was a non-traditional environmental thinker, in this author’s opinion. Though he hailed from a non-legal background, his contributions brought a tectonic shift in the existing environmental jurisprudence. He appeared as a Marxist scholar when he identified inequity, mode of production, multinational corporations and consumerism as fundamental problems leading to the crisis. He was also an uncompromising conservationist, albeit linking it to the problem of social distress. In other words, he would advocate for the rights of the Indigenous people and the marginalized in accessing what is their own while criticizing corporations as exploitative. Francis also brought the element of power into the discourse when he said that the downtrodden are far from the “centres of power.”[39] He advocated for the rights of the Global South when he talked about ecological debt that exists vis-à-vis the North. Systemic and historic oppression by the North had comprised a large chunk of legal and non-legal discourses. At the same time, he was aware that economic development was imminent, but he believed that unchecked development would lead to irreversible damage to humanity. What is also interesting is Francis’ emphasis on social consciousness as a precursor to solving environmental concerns. He had a unique way of reconciling dialectical differences on an argumentative plane. In other words, Francis argued that consumerism should be blamed more than popular narratives like “population growth” albeit he qualified this by saying that “imbalances in population density” should also be attended to.[40] He can be criticized for being inconsistent in some aspects, but teleologically, it is difficult to rebut his arguments. Francis’ arguments cannot be looked at in isolation but through his lived experience as a member of the Society of Jesus for around 55 years.[41] The Society of Jesus, also known as the Jesuits, is a Catholic religious order founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola.[42] Historically, they have contributed to environmental awareness through academic and philanthropic activities.[43] That being reflected through the former head of the Catholic Church left an overarching impression on the world. Conclusion Though this author faces difficulty in assigning Francis to any existing school of jurisprudence, it can be argued that Francis’ arguments were unique, sophisticated, and carefully crafted. He was both a critic and a pragmatist, a conservationist and an advocate for the third-world, and he balanced these competing tendencies through his linguistic abilities and emotive expression for humanity. This author believes that Francis’ environmental jurisprudence is distinct because he offers an element of hope to the readers. It is also unique because when Francis talked about societal change, he adopted a bottom-up approach to look at the crisis. In other words, Francis’ audience was not the nation-states but also individuals, both being equally relevant in awakening social consciousness. As responsible individuals sharing a common place of habitancy, the late Pontiff’s appeal could bring fundamental change in the way of looking at the world. It would result in individuals putting effort into making the world a better place. Endnotes [1] Ph Bourdeau, The man−nature relationship and environmental ethics, 72 J. ENVIRON. RADIOACT. 10, (2004). [2] The Holy Bible, Genesis 1:28 (Nov. 8, 2024), https://openbible.com/pdfs/cpdv.pdf. [3] Papa Francesco, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ of the Holy Father Francis on Care For Our Common Home VATICAN PRESS, 3 (2015). [4] BOURDEAU, supra note 1, at 10. [5] Emma Green, The Pope’s Moral Case for Taking On Climate Change, THE ATLANTIC (Nov. 10, 2024), https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/pope-francis-encyclical-moral-climate-change/396200/. [6] FRANCESCO, supra note 3, at 15. [7] KARL MARX, SELECTED WORKS 329 (Progress Publishers 1896). [8] FRANCESCO, supra note 3, at 16. [9] Id. at 17. [10] Scott G. McNall, You are what you eat: Some thoughts on consumption and Marxist class theory, 45 Soc. Thought. Res., (1990). [11] FRANCESCO, supra note 3, at 16. [12] Id. at at 21. [13] Id. at 22. [14] Id. at 23. [15] Id. at 14. [16] 3 KARL MARX AND FREDERICK ENGELS, SELECTED WORKS: CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME 19 (Progress Publishers 1966). [17] FRANCESCO, supra note 3, at 26. [18] Id. at 25. [19] HOLY BIBLE, supra note 2. [20] FRANCESCO, supra note 3, at 25. [21] Id. at 28. [22] Id. at 26. [23] Id. at 31. [24] Id. at 31. [25] Id. at 31. [26] Id. at 32. [27] Id. at 34. [28] PAULA ALLMAN, ON MARX: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE REVOLUTIONARY INTELLECT OF KARL MARX 32 (Brill 2007). [29] FRANCESCO, supra note 3, at 34. [30] FRANCESCO, supra note 3, at 35. [31] Id. at 35. [32] Id. at 36. [33] Id. at 37. [34] Id. at 39. [35] Id. at 40. [36] Id. at 43. [37] Id. at 42. [38] John Paul II, General Audience, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2 (2001) [39] FRANCESCO, supra note 3, at 35. [40] Id. at 36. [41] IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA, THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS AND THEIR COMPLEMENTARY NORMS: A COMPLETE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE OFFICIAL LATIN TEXTS (Institute of Jesuit Sources Saint Louis 1996). [42] IGNATIUS, supra note 42, at XV. [43] Ignacio García S.J., The Contributions of European Jesuits to Environmental Sciences, 3(4) J. JESUIT STUD. 576 (2016). Author Swarnava Hati Archives May 2025
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed