His Holiness decries the loss of biodiversity and ecosystems, yet the Church refuses to use any of its considerable resources for conservation and reforestation. For example, a few of its valuable paintings or works of art could be used to preserve millions of trees and lives. A few more paintings could be used to start environmental literacy programs and renewable energy initiatives. The Church's hoarding in the face of a crisis that Pope Francis himself admits is dire, sends the message that art and property are valued over climate and survival. In any case, as climate chaos worsens, its priceless art will become worthless.
Significantly, the church's views of stewardship are similar to the instrumentalist views of nature held by early 20th century environmental conservationists. Both have failed to stop the strictly utilitarian and profit-driven incentives of livestock production. Moreover, the church's patriarchal objectification and placement of the ownership of nature outside the Earth justifies its continued capitalist exploitation by paradoxically removing agency from humans and the planet, which contradicts the Earth's autonomy and sacredness.
Church of Misogyny and Denialism
Among the 246 separate paragraphs and points raised in the encyclical, the Holy See discusses inequality in terms of employment, culture and many other aspects. Conspicuously absent from the entire document are references to sexual inequality and female oppression. The Vatican acts as if patriarchy is a feminist myth, and its text refers only to 'humans,' or 'men and women,' in generic terms.
The Church's denial of the specificity of human domination as primarily male violence, grants all the male perpetrators a free pass and covers up the historical significance of 5,000 years of patriarchy. Even worse, Pope Francis repeatedly linked women's reproductive choice to environmental destruction and climate change. For example, he contends, "Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion."
In another instance, Pope Francis suggests, "When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities -- to offer just a few examples -- it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected." And later, the Pontiff argues, "If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away."
By victim-blaming women's limited liberation and freedom for environmental destruction and climate change, this encyclical not only reinforces patriarchy, it shows that the Church remains regressive and deeply misogynist. Male domination of women and nature is the central problem, with deep historical roots. Climate literacy must include this essential patriarchal power dynamic in order to be effective, and this encyclical fails that test.
The Pontiff can be accused of being a Luddite in his condemnation of "technoscience and the globalization of the technocratic paradigm." He frankly admits, "We have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups." But the Church is part of this power group.
And in regards to the immense power of techoscience in the form of nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, and genetics, Pope Francis notes that there is a tendency to believe that every increase in men's power over nature means an increase of 'progress' itself and an advance in "security, usefulness, welfare and vigor." However, the Vatican is not so much opposed to an increase in men's technological power as it i to men's lack of faith and spiritual might in being able to control and use their new abilities for the greater good.
In regards to individual animals, the Pope contends, "each creature has its own purpose. None is superfluous." He even admits that every act of cruelty towards any creature is "contrary to human dignity." Yet the encyclical remains completely silent on the suffering of billions of animals exploited in factory farms, and the greenhouse gas emissions of animal-based diets, which are a leading cause of ecological destruction and climate change.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization, headquartered in Rome, has acknowledged the significance of livestock's greenhouse gas emissions and contributions to climate change, but the Vatican refused to call out the animal, dairy and egg industries. The UNDP and other agencies have shown how destructive livestock production is to forests, savannas, soil, biodiversity, water and the ocean, but the encyclical remains completely silent on this issue.
Perhaps the Vatican's denialism is due in part to investments in the livestock industry, and to its fear of a public backlash if it raises this inconvenient and unpopular truth. The Pope and the Church argue on the one hand for animal rights, and on the other, they reinforce speciesism and carnism as natural, normal and necessary.
The encyclical is wary of genetically modified crops, and states, "In various countries, we see an expansion of oligopolies for the production of cereals and other products needed for their cultivation. This dependency would be aggravated were the production of infertile seeds to be considered; the effect would be to force farmers to purchase them from larger producers." However, the Pope omits that almost all of these cereals are used to feed animals exploited by the livestock industry. His admonitions over consumerism and selfish habits do not extend to personal choice in diet, or to the consequences for individual and planetary health.
As part of raising ecological awareness of the root causes of climate change, the Pope's encyclical is far worse than a futile exercise in morality. Its hypocritical discussion of inequality, objectification of nature as property, blaming of women, and denial of unsustainable dietary habits are all regressive and obstructionist. Yet, we live in neoliberal times with hegemonic military, economic, media and cultural power. As horrible as it is, the Pope's encyclical represents one of the most progressive forms of resistance and activism on climate change. The fact that is it so deeply flawed does not give much hope for addressing the dire consequences.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
