Last of four parts
(Fourth Talk delivered at the annual holy retreat of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines held at the Monastery of the Transfiguration in Malaybalay City on the theme “Synod Spirituality: Embracing Ecology in the Light of Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum” on July 2-4, 2024)
5. Updating the CBCP Ecological Framework with Laudato Si’s Integral Ecology
It can be shown that many of the CBCP pastoral letters creatively appropriate the Catholic social teaching and other magisterium documents from the Vatican as “source texts” for contextual theological reflection. In defense of this top-down methodology, Jesuit Filipino theologian Fr. Catalino Arévalo explained that this way of theologizing should not be interpreted as “a mere parroting of magisterium texts” but as “a considerably creative and forward-looking use” of the magisterium documents in the Philippine context.[1] For him, the use of magisterium texts for theological reflection is “a source of greater assurance in discernment and decision”[2] as they “have given the overall direction to the life and work of the church in those areas of its mission which might be seen as new or as responses to new challenges” in the Philippines and in Asia.[3]
Hopefully, Laudato Si’ will continue to make an impact on the direction of the subsequent CBCP pastoral letters on ecology.
5.1 The Limitations of the Ecological Stewardship Perspective
Until recently, the ecological framework of stewardship prevails in the CBCP pastoral letters. In fact, in the 17 CBCP pastoral Letters and Statements related to ecology, the terms steward and stewardship appear 22 times. This is not surprising since stewardship is also the prevailing ecological framework of the Catholic social teaching (CST) on ecology before Laudato Si’.
The CST’s theology of stewardship flows from the biblical view on human being as the image of God and his or her being entrusted by God to manage the rest of creation (Gen 2:15; Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28). The biblical notion of stewardship emphasizes that God is the master and owner of creation (Deut 10:14; Lev 25:23). To a certain extent, this is the dominant ecological framework appropriated by many CBCP pastoral letters.
A critical reading of the CBCP’s stewardship model reveals an anthropocentric view which tends to assume that meeting the needs of human beings is the raison d’être of creation. Its anthropocentrism is revealed in the centrality given to human security and interests as the main motivation for protecting and caring for the environment.
A very revealing anthropocentric motivation of CBCP’s ecological advocacy may be found in the conclusion of its pastoral letter on the water crisis: “We must remember that the riches of Creation, the wealth of our land, have been given by God so that a life of dignity can be enjoyed by all the inhabitants of our country and by future generations. Our homeland has been entrusted to our care and we are responsible for passing on a sound environment to generations yet unborn.”[4]
The threats of adverse ecological effects are real human concerns. However, it would be anthropocentric to treat them as though they are the only motivation for our environmental action. Arguably, the wellbeing of the whole ecosystem, of which human being is a part, should be the logical priority of our ecological advocacy. Thus, we should not just be worried about human beings but all other threatened creatures as they, too, “have a value of their own in God’s eyes” (LS 69, 33, 84, 140).
It is not surprising that the term steward/stewardship was mentioned only twice in Laudato Si’ (see LS 116, 236). This fact seems to imply that Pope Francis is deeply aware of the inherent limitations of the ecological framework of stewardship as pointed out by several contemporary thinkers.[5]
Among the valid critiques against the stewardship framework, the main one is that this ecological model “establishes a vertical top-down relationship, giving human beings responsible mastery over other creatures but not roles alongside them or open to their giving.”[6] In short, stewardship lacks a horizontal dimension of relating with nature to the effect of forgetting human beings’ universal kinship with all creatures.
5.2 Ecological Concerns are Not Just Part of Social Concerns
As early as 1991, the dioceses in the Philippines were mandated to set up an ecology desk in their social action centers and “make ecology a special concern of the social action apostolate down to the parochial level.”[7] To appropriate this mandate, many social action apostolates in the country have evolved into an advocacy of justice, peace and integrity of creation or JPIC. In both cases, however, the fact remains that ecological concerns are being considered part of social concerns.
Pope Francis’ creative appropriation of the notion of “Integral Ecology” in Laudato Si’ may be interpreted as a departure from the prevailing framework that puts the ecological concerns under the category of social concerns. Hence, instead of simply adding the ecological concerns (or the care for the integrity of creation) as another component of the existing social concerns, Laudato Si’ introduces a holistic perspective on ecological advocacy that includes social ecology and other variety of ecologies that simultaneously hear both the cry of the poor and the earth.
In contrast with the expanded scope of social concerns that accommodate ecological concerns, the holistic notion of Integral Ecology in Laudato Si’ brings together the environmental, human, economic, social, cultural, and everyday life ecologies (see LS 138–55), as well as ethical principles of the common good, human rights, intergenerational justice, and the intrinsic value of nature (see LS 140). In Laudato Si’, social ecology is placed under the umbrella of integral ecology. Thus, the scope of integral ecology ministry is, obviously, broader than that of the social concerns.
To give justice to the holistic scope of integral ecology in Laudato Si’, the delegates of the 17th Mindanao-Sulu Pastoral Conference (MSPC) held in Cagayan de Oro in 2022 have decided to change the name “Ecology Desk” to “Integral Ecology Ministry.” They also “realized the urgency to institutionalize the Integral Ecology Ministry (IEM) as a priority pastoral concern, not merely an appendage to Social Action.”[8] This has been the trend of many Mindanao diocese after the MSPC XVII in 2022.
5.3 Ecological Concerns are Interconnected to Social Concerns
The phrase “everything is interrelated” (LS 16, 70, 91, 92, 117, 120, 138, 142, 240) captures the vision of Laudato Si’s integral ecology. Perceiving the interconnections among all things with whom we share the world is the main interest of integral ecology. To overcome the tendency to compartmentalize things, we need “a certain kind of gaze that seeks to perceive the interconnections in creation.”[9] For instance, there is a discernible connection between poverty and ecological crisis; between the cry of the poor and the cry of the earth; between a golden ring and the destructive mining; between the pineapple on the table and the siltation of rivers; between the cemented roads and the ongoing destructive quarrying, and so on.
The foregoing examples challenge us to relate ecological concerns with social concerns, and vice versa. That is why, for Pope Francis, “ecological approach always becomes a social approach” (LS 49). In fact, it is also equally true to say that social approach must become an ecological approach considering that all forms of human oppression are essentially interrelated and have both social and ecological implications.
An ecological advocacy that remains merely as greening movement—like conservationism, preservationism, and environmentalism—is certainly not yet an integral ecology ministry. The dehumanizing poverty and all forms of social crisis are considered “ecological aggressions against the most complex being of creation, the human being,”[10] hence, they must be included in the integral ecology ministry.
Similarly, social action ministry must decidedly embrace ecological concerns since “the decline in the quality of their surroundings produces social tensions, violence, disease, malnutrition and even death.”[11] In the integral ecology perspective of Pope Francis, social and environmental concerns are both included in the integral ecology ministry. For “we are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental” (LS 139).
5.4 Ecological Advocacy Motivated by Sense of Kinship with Creation
More than perceiving the external connections, we are challenged to understand genetically the seamless interconnection among all creatures. Modern biology invites us to overcome the anthropocentric tendency to exaggerate human distinction to the effect of blurring our similarities with other living creatures. As the Irish biologist John Feehan explains, “We now know, with as much certainty as anything envisioned in human concepts and expressed in human words, that all living things have ancestors in common, are related, in the most literal genetically-based way.”[12] It has been discovered that all living things carry the same DNA components.
The emerging cosmological theory also strengthens human beings’ kinship with other creatures. It has been claimed that the common origin of all living species may be traced back to the primordial “cosmic dust” that creatively gave birth to the generations of stars whose “stardust” eventually generated the planets, including the planet Earth, whose “earth dust” mysteriously generated the human beings and other earthly creatures. Indeed, this expanding cosmic universe of ours had been in a constant journey long before we arrived in the scene of evolutionary history.
Significantly, Laudato Si’ contains several lines that aptly describe our kinship with other creatures in evolutionary language. For instance, it affirms “that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements” (LS 2). It also acknowledges that “a good part of our genetic code is shared by many living beings” (LS 138). By calling this Earth “our Sister” and “Mother” (LS 1), Pope Francis envisions the community of creation as forming “a kind of universal family” (LS 89) and a sort of “universal fraternity” (LS 228).
Moreover, scriptures also reveal our kinship with the Earth by telling us that “the Lord God formed the man [‘adam] out of the dust of the ground [‘adamah]” (Gen 2:7). Like humans, all plants and animals also emerged and were formed “out of the ground” (Gen 2:9, 19). As we have shown, the biblical phrase ‘dust of the ground’ has a cosmic significance that must be accepted with humility: “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19).
Furthermore, Pope Francis repeatedly appeals to the Franciscan worldview that all creatures—great and small—are brothers and sisters (LS 92, 138, 228). Along this line, many biologists, like Feehan, assert that “the language of St. Francis is not a metaphor: we are all brothers and sisters.”[13] In both cases, Christian faith affirms that our Creator is the Father/Mother of all; we only have one common Origin and Source—who is God.
Affirming of our kinship with creation is important since, in our family-centered Filipino culture, we tend to take care of the others especially when they are members of our family or if they are our relatives. Now that our planet is ecologically sick, let this extended sense of family motivate us to take care of this Earth as we do to our parents and siblings. As a family, we need to take care of our most vulnerable and threatened fellow creatures—our siblings.
The sense of kinship could strengthen our ecological concerns. In the words of Pope Francis: “If we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their immediate needs. By contrast, if we feel intimately united with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously” (LS 11).
Now it becomes clear why, in Laudato Si’, Pope Francis preferred to use the language of “care” (not stewardship) when he describes humans’ relationship to creation. For him, it is not enough to be ecologically concerned with our Common Home like a steward. Care, which appears 40 times in the encyclical, is a language of family. Leonardo Boff explains that “the person who has care feels involved and emotionally linked to the other.”[14] In the family, it is nice to hear that one cares for a parent and a sibling. But it is awkward to hear that one has stewardship or dominion over them.
Concluding Remarks
Let me end this reflection by imagining the formation of a mighty river out of the countless interconnections of tributaries that look like veins of the human body. By contemplating on the synodality of mighty rivers, Pope Francis creatively teaches that “we come together like so many streams, brooks and rivulets, merging finally in a mighty river to irrigate the life of our marvelous planet and our human family for generations to come.” Similarly, “our synodal Church must be a source of life for our common home and all its inhabitants. In the same way that a river gives life to all kinds of animal and plant life, a synodal Church must give life by sowing justice and peace in every place it reaches.”
I personally see that our personal Christian journey to God is like the pilgrimage of a creek, searching for other creeks to merge with, so that we have a companion in the journey together to the great ocean—who is God. Journeying alone is dangerous because, like a solitary river, we can be easily absorbed by dry land along the way and, hence, will not reach its final destiny—the sea. Alone, a Christian will not survive. Synodality is the being of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Guide Questions for Reflection and Group Sharing
1. In the face of today’s climate crisis, how do you want to be helped by other dioceses in your region in responding to your present ecological struggles? In the spirit of synodality, how can you help other dioceses in your region that are also struggling to respond to the pressing ecological concerns and challenges?
2. Review your existing programs and ongoing projects in your diocese. How many of them are responsive to the urgent ecological concerns? Is your diocese or are the dioceses in your region still anthropocentric in responding to the urgent social and ecological challenges? What are the indicators that your diocese is still (or no longer) anthropocentric?
3. What do you think of the following as concrete collective action that we, as church, can institutionally commit to express our care for the poor and care for our common home:
(a) divestment of our financial resources from banks that invest them in ecologically destructive extractive projects;
(b) non-acceptance policy on donations from destructive, extractive, and anti-life donors;
(c) petition our Holy Father to raise the observance of Day of Prayer for Creation into a Feast of Creation following the principle: lex orandi, lex credenda, lex vivendi?
(Fr. Reynaldo D. Raluto has been serving as parish priest of Jesus Nazareno Parish in Libona, Bukidnon since 2021 and has been leading the Integral Ecology Ministry of the Diocese of Malaybalay since 2022. From 2011 to 2021, he served as Academic Dean of St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Cagayan de Oro where he also teaches fundamental/systematic theology and Catholic social teaching. Among his ecological advocacies are planting/growing Philippine native trees, mountain climbing, biking, and active participation in the cultural and ecological activities of the Indigenous People Apostolate of the Diocese.)
[1] Catalino Arévalo, “Filipino Theology,” in Karl Müller, Theo Sundermeir, Stephen Bevans, et al., eds. Dictionary of Mission: Theology, History, Perspectives (New York: Orbis Books, 1997), 161-167, on pp. 163-164.
[2] Catalino Arévalo, “After Vatican II: Theological Reflection in the Church in the Philippines 1965-1987,” Landas 2 (1988): 11-24, 16.
[3] Arévalo, “Filipino Theology,” 163-164.
[4] See the “Conclusion” in CBCP, “Water is Life.”
[5] See Seán McDonagh, Passion for the Earth: The Christian Vocation to Promote Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1995), 130-133; James Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back—and How We can Still Save Humanity (London: Allen Lane [Penguin], 2006), 133-137; Clare Palmer, “Stewardship: A Case Study in Environmental Ethics,” in R. J. Berry, ed., Environmental Stewardship: Critical Perspectives—Past and Present (London/New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2006), 63-75, 72.
[6] Elizabeth Johnson, Ask the Beast: Darwin and the God of Love (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014), 266.
[7] PCP-II, Acts and Decrees of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines, p. 243; part IV, title VI, section 4, article 31.
[8] 17th MSPC Delegates, MSPC 17 Official Statement (Cagayan de Oro, November 2022).
[9] Vincent J. Miller, “Integral ecology: Francis’s spiritual and moral vision of interconnectedness,” in Vincent J. Miller, ed., The Theological and Ecological Vision of Laudato Si’: Everything is Connected (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 11–28, p. 15.
[10] Leonardo Boff, “Social Ecology: Poverty and Misery,” in David Hallman, ed., Ecotheology: Voices from South and North (New York: Orbis Books, 1994): 235-247, on p. 237.
[11] Leonardo Boff and Virgil Elizondo, “Ecology and Poverty: Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor,” Concilium, (1995/5), ix-xii, x; see Leonardo Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, translated by Phillip Berryman (New York: Orbis Books, 1995/1997), 107.
[12] John Feehan, The Singing Heart of the World: Creation, Evolution and Faith (Dublin: The Columba Press, 2010), 55.
[13] Feehan, The Singing Heart of the World, 55, 57.
[14] Leonardo Boff, Essential Care: An Ethics of Human Nature, translated by Alexandre Guilherme (London: SPCK, 2007), 59.