Much More Than Green Ecology
By Cristina Inogés Sanz
The International Theological Commission (ITC) has just published a
document entitled Caring for Our Common Home. A Responsible and
Fraternal Response to the Triune God.
Before going any further, it is worth clarifying that the ITC is not a group of
theologians and, now also, women theologians, who live in libraries and archives
thinking deeply about subjects that lie outside the world. On the contrary, they are
theologians who live in different countries and cultures, engaged in different
professions and in a wide variety of contexts. This guarantees a diversity of
approaches to addressing issues in very different ways.
Pope Francis had a way of acting that could be summed up in
three steps: Grounding himself in reality, challenging convention, and, finally, drafting
the law. When he published Laudato Si’ and Laudato Deum, there were people who,
very quickly, passed tremendously harsh judgments on the “wokeism” that Francis was
following regarding ecology. Well, the ITC, which publishes nothing without the
pope’s authorization, has now presented the document before us. In somewhat
colloquial language, we might say that Leo XIV is weaving with the threads
left by Francis, and what has been woven is solidly crafted. Because it is the
theological foundation of Laudato Si’.
Because neither with Francis nor with Leo XIV have we ever spoken of
“green ecology,” but rather of authentic Social Doctrine of the Church. We are no longer
talking about the ecological issue, but ecology has become a
theological issue, and that is no small matter. The fact that the title already
refers to the Triune God is a clue to the importance of relationship, of
relationships in life. Not only among human beings, but with
the entire environment in which our lives unfold and with the care
we show toward what has been entrusted to us, in a gesture of the utmost trust on
God’s part, so that we may care for it and administer it. Ultimately, the
way we treat creation is a reflection of what our relationship with
God is like. But not only that, because it is also a reflection of how we treat
the least favored human beings.
The fact that human beings are above the rest of the animals in that
pyramid in which we hierarchize everything does not mean that humanity, the
human being, has the right to dispose of nature and its resources. The text
is clear and direct and refers to the crisis we are experiencing as short-sighted and suicidal.
Our vision begins today and ends today. It is as if there were no tomorrow and,
even less, any more distant future.
As we delve into the text, we see that freedom is not about
maximizing profits without considering what and whom we leave in our wake, but rather the
capacity we have to relate to those who live on the same planet,
in the Common Home, even though we may never know their names,
ambitions, or hopes. Although humanity undoubtedly belongs to creation and depends
on it, it is not merely one species among others. There is an essential difference because
only humanity was created in the image and likeness of God and receives a particular
moral responsibility toward the world. And it is precisely in that care
that we show what we understand that moral responsibility to be, and how we
understand it. Having been created in the image and likeness of God
does not authorize us to dispose of the world arbitrarily. On the contrary, we
are required—and we should require it of ourselves—to care for what has been entrusted to us.
The denial of human uniqueness can lead to considering the
death of large numbers of people as something good for the well-being of the
other creatures. Such a conclusion is declared impossible to accept for the
Christian faith. The warning is also religious in nature. According to the Commission,
absolutizing nature at the expense of humanity could pave the way for
a new form of pantheism tinged with neopaganism. The Church, therefore,
rejects both humanity turned into a predator and nature
turned into an absolute.
This change as well, this understanding from now on of ecology as a
theological locus, entails a profound conversion. Because it is not merely a matter of
putting plastics in the yellow recycling bin, but of not exploiting as though
the Northern Hemisphere were the owner and master of the entire planet. Deliberately destroying
what has been entrusted to humanity amounts to
misinterpreting the divine design and, at the same time, harms creation and
our neighbor, particularly the poor and future generations. The ecological
conversion demanded by the document is therefore, above all, a conversion of
humanity. It presupposes a change in behavior and economic models,
but also a spiritual transformation: mastery of desires,
simplicity, asceticism, and even a rediscovery of fasting. The Commission therefore believes
that the current situation particularly requires wealthy societies to
voluntarily reduce their consumption and exploitation of resources.
The shift from ecology to a theological issue adds another turn of the screw, if
that is even possible, to the terrible reality of war that destroys lives and
living environments, and to the reality of expecting the disasters caused by
the wealthiest countries to also be paid for by the poorest countries, which,
on many occasions, have been exploited and deprived of their natural resources.
Therefore, human beings are neither absolute masters nor intruders
in nature. They are its stewards and servants. The Commission recalls the
thought of John Paul II, because other popes had already spoken about ecology:
“Human beings must act in nature not as irresponsible exploiters,
but as wise and responsible stewards.” The document
addresses human life. Human life has a sacred value, it states, before concluding
that human beings possess an unconditional and inalienable right to
life, which States must protect and promote, creating the conditions
for it. The defense of the environment, therefore, can never
be built against the human person. It is precisely their particular dignity
that provides the foundation for their responsibility toward other creatures.
But no one should think that we are dealing with a document only for
Christians; rather, any believer of any religion can feel called to live with that
awareness of the need to care for the Common Home. And this relationship to which
the title also refers when it speaks of a responsible and fraternal response
places us before the reality of the relationships we maintain in life with all
human beings, regardless of their race, culture, gender, economic situation, or
religion. The great religions also contribute to caring for the Common Home.
If this document had to be presented in a single word, that word
would be balance, because it does not sacralize either human
power or nature. Humanity remains at the summit of Creation by virtue of the
special dignity God has bestowed upon it, but this primacy is translated into a
mission of service. Therefore, a Christian ecology does not demand that
humanity disappear before nature, but rather that it rediscover the place
that belongs to it before God.
From ecology to placing ecology as a theological locus. Social Doctrine
of the Church. Nothing more. And nothing less.