|
[EN - ES -
FR -
IT -
PT]
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
Caring for our Common Home:
A responsible and fraternal response to the Triune God
Presentation by the Secretary-General
Faced with the urgency of the ecological crisis, the
International Theological
Commission offers a reflection intended to help elucidate ‘the theological
foundation for the care of our common home beyond the extremely grave situation
in which we find ourselves’, inasmuch as this is ‘inscribed in God’s plan for
creation’ (no. 6). This is the aim of the latest document published by the ITC.
The
first of the three chapters focuses on the message that emerges from the
heart of the Christian faith: the Trinitarian face of God revealed in Christ.
Indeed, contemplation of this reveals the importance ‘in the formation of a Christian culture, of discovering in the whole of creation
the Trinitarian imprint’, highlighting the ‘relational character of creation as a fundamental guiding
principle of integral ecology’ (no. 33). This is a truth rooted in revelation
and illustrated by the great spiritual and theological tradition. This precious
legacy is today articulated in terms of its strategic relevance by the Church’s
social teaching, as recalled by Pope Leo XIV in the Encyclical Letter
Magnifica humanitas: If the living God is ‘love in relationship’,
every human person is constitutively ‘created for relationship’, having been
conceived and willed by God ‘to enter into communion with him, with others and
with creation’ (MH nos. 48 and 50).
The
second chapter is devoted to a reinterpretation, in this light, of the
relationships constitutive of the human being; it re-examines the Book of
Genesis to discern its meaning and significance in the light of the event of
Jesus Christ. This leads to the proposal of an integral anthropology that
transcends the dichotomy between predatory anthropocentrism and radical
biocentrism or ecocentrism. The Christian vision highlights how the
distinctiveness of the human being is expressed in the dignity and mission
received from God, which commit the person to ‘care for creation, whose
planetary well-being contributes to their own personal and communal fulfilment’
(no. 102).
The
third chapter outlines the foundations of an ecological spirituality before
setting out some fundamental ethical principles that can inspire and guide the
care of our common home.
Of particular note is the proposal to ‘understand sin against the environment in
a similar way to how the notions of social sin and structures of sin have become
established’ (no. 95). The dialogical style in which the theme is presented is
also to be commended: it takes into account certain contributions from the
Christian East and the Orthodox Churches; the resources offered by different
religions; the findings of scientific knowledge; and the insights put forward by
philosophical thought.
Piero Coda
Secretary General of the ITC
Contents
Preliminary Note
Preface: A Threefold Transformation
Chapter I. Our Common Home: The Work of the Triune God
1 Creation: the Work of the Triune God
2 The Trinitarian imprint in creation
2.1
The possibility of perceiving the imprint of the Trinity in creation
2.1.1 The teaching of some Doctors of the Church
2.1.2 Implications from a relational perspective
2.2 Sacramentality
2.3 Eschatological purpose
2.4 Trinitarian ontology and interrelational communion
2.5
Ecological implications of the Trinitarian imprint on creation
3 In dialogue with certain scientific and philosophical views of the cosmos
3.1 The scientific view of the cosmos
3.1.1 A brief overview
3.1.2 An open dialogue with science
3.2 In dialogue with other worldviews
3.2.1 Some philosophical proposals
3.2.2 The Christian theological perspective in dialogue
Chapter II. The Human Being in our Common Home
1 God’s original plan for human beings
1.1
A theological reading of Genesis 1: in the image and likeness of God
1.1.1 Image and likeness
1.1.2 Blessing
1.2
A theological reading of Genesis 2: primordial sociality
1.3 The task inherent in the original plan
1.4
A teaching from an ecological perspective: the sabbatical principle
2 Why are we inflicting such grave harm on our common home? The sin against
creation
2.1 The breach of the original mandate
2.2 Highly alarming data on ecological deterioration
2.3 A bold diagnosis: sin against creation and the Creator
3 The Christian proposal
3.1 Two unacceptable extremes: predatory anthropocentrism, and biocentrism and
ecocentrism
3.2 The human being: steward and servant of creation
4 Summary: The place and mission of human beings in our common home
Chapter III. Care for our Common Home
1 From our relationship with God: the logic of the Jubilee
2 From our relationship with ourselves: outlines of an ecological
spirituality
3 From our relationship with creation: ethical principles for the care of our
common home
3.1 Reverence
3.2 Responsible care
3.3 Listening to the cry of the Earth and of the poor
3.4 Respect for life
3.5 Asceticism and fasting
3.6 Differentiated commitment at local level
4 From our relationship with our neighbour: ethical principles for nurturing
our relationships with others
4.1 The sanctity of human life
4.2 The universal destination of goods
4.3 Fraternity and neighbourliness
4.4 Mercy and compassion
4.5 Preferential option for the poor
4.6 A Retrospective View
5 The contribution of religions to the care of our common home
Conclusion and Prospects:
the significance of our common home in God’s plan
Preliminary note
The International Theological Commission is not merely a group of theologians
who meet simply to draft a text, but a forum for free exchange and dialogue,
enriched by the perspectives of a diverse range of people from different
ecclesial and socio-cultural backgrounds.
During its tenth quinquennium, the Commission explored the theme of creation in
the light of the revelation of the Triune God in Christ, with reference to the
commitment to the care and safeguarding of our common home. The work was carried
out by a special sub-commission, chaired by Prof. Alenka Arko and comprised of
the following members: Fr Gabino Uríbarri Bilbao, S.J., Fr Peter Dubovský, S.J.,
Rev. Edouard Adé, Rev. John Junyang Park, Fr Thomas Kollamparampil, C.M.I., Rev.
Nicholaus Segeja M’Hela, Rev. Yury Avvakumov, Fr Jorge J. Ferrer, S.J. († 2024),
Rev. Marek Jagodzínski († 2025).
In-depth discussions on the topic took place both during the sub-commission’s
meetings and during the Commission’s plenary sessions, held between 2022 and
2025, under the coordination of the Secretary-General, Monsignor Piero Coda. The
resulting text, entitled Caring for our Common Home: A Responsible and
Fraternal Response to the Triune God, was approved in its final form by a
majority of the Commission’s members in a vote during the online meeting held on
23 July 2026. The document was subsequently submitted for approval to its
President, His Eminence Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, who brought it to the attention of Pope
Leo XIV on 28 July 2026. The President authorised its publication on 21 August
2026.
Preface: A Threefold Transformation
‘With a thousand graces pouring forth
he hastened through these groves,
and, looking upon them,
by his mere presence
he left them clothed in beauty.’[1]
1. [A primordial experience of faith]. Although the Christian perception
of nature, based on faith, takes many forms, in this famous stanza from his
Spiritual Canticle, the mystic and poet Saint John of the Cross, a Doctor of
the Church, evokes a fundamental, primordial religious experience, one also
shared by other great believers.[2]
He depicts a way of looking at nature and relating to it that is an intrinsic
dimension of the heritage of his Christian faith. He perceives nature as imbued
with the presence of God, which overflows in it with ‘a thousand graces’.[3]
He also captures its beauty, with which God has adorned his creation like a
magnificent artist, who, without great effort, creates a work of supreme beauty,
leaving upon it the imprint of his creative genius. It is a creative work which
the mystic, in his explanatory commentary on the poem, associates with the Son.[4]
The experience of faith, immortalised by poetic genius, conveys a marvellous
sense of serenity, peace and harmony with nature, of which praise for the
Creator and the perception of the Christological imprint on creation and its
destiny to share in the glory of the Triune God are an intrinsic part.
2. [A threefold transformation within culture]. Since St John of the
Cross set his experience of faith to verse in the sixteenth century, three
major, though not simultaneous, cultural transformations have significantly
altered our perception of nature and thus our relationship with it. First, the
spontaneity with which nature was regarded as God’s creation has changed.
Secondly, the conception of the human being’s place in the cosmos has changed
through the assumption that human beings or their technological products occupy
the central axis of the world, displacing both God and the cosmos from their
rightful places. Thirdly, as the final manifestation of this ‘anthropocentric
and predatory’ view of our relationship with nature, we have fallen into a
global ecological and social crisis of unprecedented proportions, which Pope
Francis, together with his predecessors[5]
and other religious leaders, has strongly denounced for its short-sighted and
self-destructive nature.[6]
Alongside many advances that have significantly improved our living conditions,
the qualitative leap in our relationship with the natural world brought about by
modern technology has in fact been accompanied by a previously unknown global
impact on the environment, which has been criticised in a pioneering way from
within the scientific community itself.
3. [Interconnection]. From our conception of what the cosmos is and,
within it, the natural world closest to us, our planet (cosmology), we can
deduce the appropriate way to relate to it (ecology). And this entails an
understanding of the human being’s place in the cosmos (anthropology). The
observation that ‘daily existence is always cosmic’ (QA 41) does not apply
solely to the Amazon. We human beings (anthropology) exist and shape our
identity through our interaction with the environment in which we live
(ecology), which is in turn determined by our conception of the value of the
cosmos we inhabit (cosmology). Thus, when viewed clearly: ‘everything is
connected’.[7]
4. [Key factor: the self-understanding of the human being]. If we ask
ourselves what the key factor is within this network of connections, the root
factor that has caused the eco-social crisis, we can easily conclude that it
lies in our conception of the human being’s place in the cosmos. ‘There can be
no ecology without an adequate anthropology.’ (LS 118) The way in which human
beings understand themselves determines how they relate to others, to nature and
to God. The fulcrum around which our discussion revolves is the close link
between self-understanding and our relationships with others, with nature and
with God. These are the essential relationships that constitute and define us
(cf. MH 50, 73). This understanding precedes any explicit ethical or political
decision, guiding our desire and the measure of its satisfaction.
5. [Approach]. Ecology is the result of how one resolves the equation of
the interaction between cosmology and anthropology. Therefore, an ecological
approach that seeks to get to the root of the issues cannot avoid addressing
both these dimensions. In this document, we shall focus on a central, albeit
partial, aspect of each of these areas.
In the first chapter, we focus, from a theological perspective, on a Trinitarian
vision of the creation of the cosmos, highlighting the resulting Trinitarian
imprint on creation and its implications.[8]
This is the central element of the proposal we put forward, which aims to shed
light on the meaning and value of creation and the human person within the
framework of our common home, a gift of the Trinity to be safeguarded and
perfected. Although the Church professes that all things, visible and invisible,
were created by God, this document focuses on our common home, and in particular
on our planet, as part of the physical universe. Taking the theological theme of
creation as our starting point, we then engage in dialogue with certain
scientific perspectives. In the second chapter, we consider the foundation and
scope of the human being’s role in the common home (cf. LD 67). As well as
presenting the Christian position, we are open to dialogue with ecological
reports and with the positions of certain ecological philosophies. In the
third chapter, we propose a series of guidelines and guiding principles for the
care of our common home and for ecological conversion.[9]
Since this is a task that concerns us all, we draw upon theological principles,
ethical principles and the wisdom of the great religious traditions.
The perspective we offer does not venture into the realm of technical, complex
and necessarily interdisciplinary solutions.[10]
What we wish to set out, modestly but with conviction, is a vision that inspires
culture and, above all, spirituality – recognised as an indispensable dimension
for addressing the eco-social crisis we are experiencing on a global scale.[11] Although the Encyclical
Laudato si' contains a wealth of theological and spiritual content, we wish to
contribute to its reception by exploring in greater depth certain theological
issues that are given less prominence in the Encyclical on account of the
urgency of the ecological issue.
6. [Key emphases]. Our approach is also characterised by three key
emphases. First, starting from the urgent need for radical change driven by a
genuine ecological conversion,[12] in view of the serious deterioration of the environment which, in itself,
sustains the lives of human beings and many other species on our planet and
which is now bringing us dangerously close to a breaking point and a point of no
return,[13]
we are committed to setting out the theological foundation for the care of our
common home beyond the extremely grave situation in which we find ourselves. The
care and safeguarding of our common home are, in fact, inscribed in God’s plan
for creation. Secondly, whilst recognising the ecological and social dimensions
of the crisis facing humanity today, we emphasise its theological dimension.
Thirdly, we conduct our reflection in dialogue with other perspectives,[14]
following the direction set out by Pope Francis on this topic in the fifth
chapter of Laudato si' (cf. LS 164–201). Beginning from the starting point of Western Latin theology
and the contributions of the spirituality and theology of the Eastern Catholic
Churches, we draw in particular on the theology of the Orthodox Churches, as
well as on analyses stemming from various worldviews. In this way, we aim to
contribute to the promotion of an integral ecology – as called for by
Laudato si', particularly in Chapter IV, and by
Magnifica humanitas
[15] –
and to ecological conversion.
Chapter I. Our Common Home: the Work of the Triune God
1 Creation: the work of the Triune God
7. [Introduction]. This is not the place to present a comprehensive and
detailed account of the theology of creation. We take as our starting point
those fundamental aspects which are proper to Catholic theology on this subject,
drawing on Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. Our focus is on one
point: the Trinitarian character of creation. From this, in fact, several
significant and fruitful perspectives emerge: the task of caring for our common
home comes to us from the God who is one and three; engaging in this task,
neglecting it, or even disregarding it represents one of the defining dimensions
of our relationship with God; the Trinitarian imprint on creation enables us to
have a profound grasp, indeed, at its deepest root, of how everything is
interconnected: a truth emphasised in Pope Francis’s ecological Encyclical (cf.
LS 16, 91, 117, 138, 240; cf. QA 41–42). For his part, Pope Leo XIV emphasises
that ‘creation bears the imprint of an original goodness that our human outlook
must preserve, cultivate and bring to fulfilment.’[16]
8. [Creation: the work of the Triune God]. Since the divine economy of
salvation is Trinitarian, it unfolds in a Trinitarian manner. God’s first act
ad extra is Trinitarian: creation.[17]
The work of creation is common and united among the whole Trinity: ‘The Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one
principle.’[18]
This does not prevent there being a differentiated action of the divine Persons
within this single work: ‘the first Principle of beings is one, who creates
through the Son and perfects in the Spirit’.[19]
But the result of their action, the being, goodness and beauty of creatures,
reflects the convergent and loving action of the one God.[20]
From the very beginning, the Fathers of the Church have interpreted the plural
form in Gen 1:26 – ‘Let us make human beings’ – as spoken by the Father
to the Son[21]
or to the Son and the Holy Spirit,[22]
that is, as a decision made by the Three who are the one God.[23]
The Second Council of Constantinople (553) brings together and summarises this
doctrine, expanding on the perspective of 1 Corinthians 8:6: ‘For there
is but one God, from (ek) whom all things are; one Lord Jesus Christ,
through (día) whom all things are; and one Holy Spirit, in (en)
whom all things are.’ (DH 421)
9. [The Father]. Although there are significant variations amongst the
Church Fathers, one of the oldest metaphors is that of the two hands with which
the Father brings about the creation of the world.[24]
But there are other expressions too, such as that proposed by Saint Gregory of
Nazianzus who, speaking of the Creator, writes: ‘His name is God, even though He
consists of three Persons: one is the cause, another the maker, another the
perfecter. I am referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’.[25]
10. [The Son]. The Son, who is the Word of God, plays a decisive role in
the work of creation.[26] The Church Fathers interpret the ‘beginning’ referred to in Gen 1:1 (ἐν
ἀρχῇ) as the Logos of John 1:1 (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος).[27]
Therefore, it is through the Word-Son that all things come into being.[28]
Furthermore, if God creates through the word He speaks, as the Book of Genesis
teaches - ‘God said’ (cf. Gen 1:3; cf. Ps 33:6) - the Fathers
interpret this word as the Logos (cf. Jn 1:1–3), whom they identify with
the creative Wisdom spoken of in the Old Testament (cf. Prov 8:22–31).[29]
Since the Son is the Logos of God the Father – that is, intellect, wisdom and
word – He knows the divine plan in its entirety and brings it to fulfilment in
creation.[30]
For this reason, the whole of creation bears within itself the imprints of the
Logos, the lógoi, which imprint upon the very nature of creation a
dynamism towards its fulfilment, which will be accomplished by grace.[31]
11. [Creation and Incarnation]. The Creator Word became flesh: σάρξ (cf.
Jn 1:14; Rom 8:3): this is what faith in Christ Jesus attests. For
a theology of creation, it is not insignificant that the New Testament chose
neither the generic ‘ánthropos’ (human being; cf. Phil 2:7) nor the term
‘soma’ (body). Sárx, in fact, denotes the most material dimension of the
human being, the one shared most with creation and the most vulnerable. In this
way, the theology of the Incarnation establishes a profound connection with
creation and expresses the constitutive link between creation, the Incarnation
and salvation: for salvation can be understood – in the words of Saint Irenaeus
of Lyons – as salus carnis, salvation of the flesh and through the flesh.
Thus, Christian salvation, far removed from any form of Gnosticism, does not
forget creation. The Incarnation takes on a cosmic dimension, for the Word, in
his humanity, takes on creation and shares in it. From this it follows that the
final recapitulation cannot take place in the absence of creation.
12. [Threefold creation through the Son in the divine economy]. In a
re-reading of the divine plan from the perspective of creation, the Son is
presented first of all as the creative Logos through whom all things were made
in the beginning (creatio originalis). Given that creation is an ongoing
act, the Son is not excluded from participation in this ongoing creation (creatio
continua). The eschatological fulfilment, too, as the new creation (creatio
nova; cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Rev 21:5), will bear
his mark. He is at work in every phase of the divine economy. Throughout the
entire history of salvation, God continues to act through the Word, before,
during and after the Incarnation. He does this first of all by establishing the
people of Israel and the Church; by illuminating history with his Resurrection
in the fullness of time; and finally, at the end of time, in the fulfilment of
God’s plan, when God will be all in all (cf. 1 Cor 15:28). He is, in
fact, the fullness of the creation (cf. Col 1:15–20), which cannot be
understood except in relation to the total mystery of Christ (cf. LS 99). Since
all creatures were formed by the Word, it is fitting that re-creation should
take place through the Incarnate Word, the one Mediator, Christ Jesus (cf. 1
Tim 2:5), and find its fulfilment in him.
13. [The filial imprint in creation]. The fact that everything was
created in Christ, through him and for him, means that everything that exists
bears, in a certain sense, a filial imprint. This explains why the human
creature finds fullness and fulfilment only in gratuitous love, and the rest of
creation does so through its connection with the children of God (cf. Rom
8:18–21). Saint Paul affirms that human perfection consists in attaining the
‘full maturity of Christ’ (Eph 4:13). We can say that, in Christ, the
Trinitarian imprint in creation is revealed as a filial imprint: ‘In the
Incarnation, through the only-begotten Son who was born of a Virgin by the power
of the Holy Spirit, the Triune God establishes the possibility of an intimate
personal communion with human beings’
[32] and with the whole of creation (cf. LS 89–92).
14. [Christ in the divine economy]. The divine economy of salvation is
founded on creation and culminates in eschatology; Christ is ‘the Alpha and the
Omega, the Beginning and the End’ (Rev 21:6). This does not take place
automatically or in a linear fashion. The beginning is linked to the end, but
passes through the dramatic economy of the Incarnation and the Cross, for the
economy of salvation entails the overcoming of sin. Indeed, the whole of
creation has been wounded by human sin (cf. Gen 3:17–19) and is subject
to a bondage from which it also longs to be set free (Rom 8:20–21). For
this reason, the entire Gospel of salvation, including for our common home, has
its central point in the cross of the Incarnate Word, as the place and event at
the centre of the cosmos and of history. Having taken on ‘the likeness of sinful
flesh’ (Rom 8:3), at the moment of his passion and death, Jesus Christ
took upon himself, in his flesh, all the unjust consequences of sin. Thus, in
the humanity of the Son of God, the perfect mediation of salvation for the whole
of creation was fulfilled, in view of his glorification (cf. Jn 17:5). If
‘Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more’ (Rom 6:9), then the cross
planted on Golgotha is the new ‘tree of life’, which is planted not in the
Garden of Eden, but in the heavenly Jerusalem: ‘Down the middle street of the
city, on either side of the river, stands a tree of life bearing twelve kinds of
fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of this tree are for the
healing of the nations’ (Rev 22:2). With the Incarnation of the Son of
God, this future will not be confined to the eschatological citizenship of human
beings, but will have a cosmic dimension and scope.
15. [The Holy Spirit]. Love is the proper name of the Holy Spirit,[33]
just as ‘Word’ is that of the Son. The Spirit is not only love within the life
of the Triune God ad intra, but also love in God’s action ad extra.
The work of the Spirit in creation has been interpreted with a great variety
of emphases by the Fathers of the Church.[34]
Some attribute to the Spirit an active role in creation from the very beginning
– beginning with the mention of the Spirit ‘hovering over the waters’ in Gen
1:2[35] –
as the one who transforms the initial chaos into an ordered cosmos. Others
regard him – by way of a simple appropriation[36]
– as the goodness through which God takes pleasure in the perfections of the
creatures he loves.[37] Others see him as the one who perfects[38]
and beautifies[39]
the joint work of creation, guiding the created world – together with humankind
– towards eschatological fulfilment.[40]
The liturgy captures this sentiment: ‘by the power and working of the Holy
Spirit, you give life to all things and make them holy’.[41]
In particular, for the Church Fathers, the Spirit intervenes in the
transformation of human beings, created in the image of God, so that they may
attain likeness to him.[42]
For this reason, the Spirit is rightly recognised as the divine person most
intimate to human beings (cf. Rom 5:5). The Spirit also perfects creation
at every moment in history, making it like to Christ (cf. 2 Cor 3:18)
through a progressive growth, mediated by human action in Christ; in this way
creation moves towards its eschatological fulfilment. The
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed summarises these various aspects of the Holy
Spirit’s creative and salvific action in the designation it attributes to him:
‘giver of life’ (DH 150; cf. Rom 8:2). The liturgical hymn Veni,
creator Spiritus
[43]
beautifully expresses this consciousness of faith, which has matured within
the Tradition of the Church.
2 The Trinitarian imprint in creation
16. Since God acts in a Trinitarian manner, it is not only licit but also
consistent and rich in insight to maintain that throughout all creation there is
an imprint that is not only divine but also Trinitarian. Let us explore this
interpretative framework of Trinitarian ontology through four fundamental
features which, throughout the development of theological tradition, have been
the subject of explicit examination, albeit with varying degrees of continuity
and emphasis.
2.1 The possibility of perceiving the imprint of the Trinity in creation
17. [The question]. In
Laudato si',
Pope Francis emphasised that St Bonaventure ‘teaches us that each creature
bears in itself a specifically Trinitarian structure’[44]
(LS 239). For him, in fact, not only human beings but the whole of creation
constitutes a book in which a Trinitarian structure ‘could be readily
contemplated if only the human gaze were not so partial, dark, and fragile’.[45]
Human beings neither invent nor imagine the Trinitarian imprint on creatures.
This reflection of the Trinity is truly present in them, regardless of whether
we are able to recognise it. This goes beyond the classical procedure of
appropriation. To explore this assertion further, we shall focus in particular
on four leading figures of the Western theological and mystical tradition, four
Doctors of the Church,[46]
who develop this vision with their own distinctive perspectives and emphases. It
would be equally appropriate to offer a similar overview, to complement and
enrich the one merely sketched out here, if one were to draw instead on authors
of equal stature from the theological and mystical tradition of the Christian
East.
2.1.1 The teaching of some Doctors of the Church
18. [St Augustine of Hippo]. St Augustine was undoubtedly one of the
authors who explored in depth the theme of the Trinitarian traces (vestigia
Trinitatis) imprinted on creation, exerting a great influence on the
subsequent Western spiritual and theological tradition.[47]
He writes: ‘It is therefore necessary that, by knowing the Creator
through his works [cf. Rom 1:20], we should be led to the Trinity, of
which creation, in a certain and fitting proportion, bears the trace’.[48]
All creatures do indeed bear the divine imprint within themselves, but only of
human beings can it be said that they were created in the image of God. Whilst
Saint Irenaeus of Lyons[49]
and Tertullian,[50]
for example, had also included the flesh in their understanding of the human
being as the image of God, for Augustine, although the human being is composed
of a material body and a rational soul,[51]
the divine image is properly found in the soul or, rather, in its highest part:
the mens.[52]
The mind is what makes human beings superior to non-rational living beings[53]
and enables them to know God.[54]
Augustine describes the acts of the soul in two ways: as memoria,
intelligentia, voluntas[55]
(remembering, understanding, willing) and in terms of mens, notitia, amor[56]
(mind, knowledge, love). Remembering, understanding and willing are three
activities of the soul in which, through a bold analogy, one can discern an
image both of the unity of the divine substance and of the distinction between
the three Persons in God. Augustine emphasises that there is a close
interrelation between mind, knowledge and love, for the mind, in fact, loves
what it knows. This enables him, on the one hand, to express the distinction
between each of the activities of the soul, for neither the mind nor knowledge
nor love intermingle or become confused with one another. On the other hand,
however, he can recognise their mutual immanence, since in each one the same
soul is present and active.[57]
Within this framework, Augustine finds traces of the human soul’s likeness to
the Triune God, in the interweaving of unity, distinction and mutual
interpenetration.
19. [Saint Hildegard of Bingen]. In the work of Saint Hildegard of
Bingen, we admire a creative and original interpretation of Augustinian thought,
expressed in prophetic and visionary language that reflects her profound
mystical experience. For Hildegard, God reveals himself through the cosmos and
the human being, two extremely complex realities connected as macrocosm and
microcosm. Creation presents itself as a ‘second Scripture’: it is a place where
the divine is made manifest and where we share in its mystery.[58]
For this reason, creation is imbued with a sacramental and symbolic value that
is a manifestation of divine vitality itself. Hildegard also contemplates a
marked continuity between creation and salvation, both divine works that
manifest the action of the Triune God. In this sense, she speaks of viriditas
(literally ‘greenness’) as the vital energy that comes from the Triune God
and permeates all creation, manifesting itself as vigour, vitality, freshness
and the capacity for growth and healing. It is the expression of God’s creative
power in nature, in the body and in the soul, which must be nurtured for
spiritual and physical health. In some texts, she refers, practically in the
same sense, to a dynamic vestigium, which is perceived in the
fruitfulness of nature, in human health and in the history of salvation.[59]
20. The human being, as summa creaturarum (the sum of creatures)[60],
represents for Hildegard the hermeneutical key to creation: by participating in
the symbolic structure of nature and possessing the capacity to interpret and
prolong divine action, the human being makes the sacramentality of the cosmos
intelligible. For this reason, as well as being an opus Dei (work of God)
alongside all creatures, the human being is also called an operarius
divinitatis (worker of divinity), called to ‘reveal the Most Holy Trinity in
all things’.[61]
This is possible because human beings are created in the image of the Triune
God. This image is imprinted not only on the soul, but on the whole of the human
being: the body, the soul and the rational mind. These three realities are
deeply connected, just as the Persons of the Trinity, whilst distinct, are
mysteriously the one God. Hildegard recognises the image of God in a particular
way in the five senses, thanks to which the human being becomes sapiens,
sciens, intelligens (wise, knowledgeable, understanding), capable of knowing
creation and, through creation, God by means of faith. Wisdom, knowledge
and understanding are not isolated faculties, but are mutually interrelated, and
here a Trinitarian analogy can be recognised.[62]
Human beings, created in the image of God, can discover a certain
‘sacramentality’ in the cosmos, whilst creation provides human beings with a
language through which to interpret and manifest the divine life.[63]
21. [St Bonaventure of Bagnoregio]. St Bonaventure, as already noted,
offers a particularly significant conception of the Trinitarian imprint in
creation. He draws inspiration, on the one hand, from Augustine and, on the
other, from the spirituality of St Francis of Assisi, which is radically
Christ-centred and which, precisely for this reason, opens itself up in Christ
to embrace all creatures as brothers and sisters, as attested by the Canticle
of Brother Sun. For Bonaventure, the whole of created reality bears the
imprint of the Trinity, for the ‘joy of communion’ (communicabilitas),
which lies at the heart of the Life of the Triune God, is the free and
gratuitous source of all that exists and of every grace.[64]
22. The whole of creation is like a ‘book’ (liber creaturae) in which one
can read the attributes of the Creator, the one and triune God. Bonaventure
clearly distinguishes between two levels: all creatures reflect the Creator as
‘shadows’ (umbra) or ‘traces’ (vestigia);[65]
but the spiritual and personal creature – which is not only bound to God by its
very existence, but is called to recognise and love him – is the image of God (imago).
23. Creatures are called ‘shadows’ in respect of those properties which, in some
way, point to God from the perspective of the causality that He exercises in
general over them, without this yet precisely determining their own nature. They
are called ‘imprints’ in reference to the properties that point to God
specifically as their efficient, exemplary and final cause,[66]
so that every creature is ‘one’, ‘true’ and ‘good’. Human creatures are properly
called ‘image’ in respect of their properties which refer to God not only from
the perspective of causality, in which they coincide with the rest of creation,
but by virtue of which God can become the conscious object of a lived
relationship with them. This is due to consciousness, knowledge and will, in
which the Trinity, in some way – as taught by Saint Augustine – reflects its
image in the rational creature.
24. From this point onwards, we can explore in greater depth the meaning and
scope of the distinction between human beings and all other creatures with
regard to the knowledge of God.[67]
As a ‘shadow’, creation leads to the knowledge of God’s common properties as
such (communia ut communia), that is, as properties proper to the essence
of God. The ‘imprint’, on the other hand, leads to the common attributes insofar
as they are attributed to the divine Persons (communia ut appropriata),
attributes which are associated in a particular way with one of the divine
Persons, although these attributes are nonetheless, by their very nature, proper
to all three Persons: power, wisdom and goodness.[68]
Finally, the ‘image’ leads to the recognition of the qualities that are proper (propria)
to each Person: fatherhood, sonship, and being spirated.[69]
The relationships between the divine Persons are reflected, in the human
creature, in the relationship between memory, intellect and will.[70]
In this context, the particular characterisation of the Son should be noted.
As the Word, He is the exemplary cause of the world, inasmuch as ‘this
archetypal idea or conception of the world is not only appropriated to the Son,
but is also proper (proprium) to Him’.[71]
25. Being the ‘image’ of God does not mean displaying a static likeness, but
response to a calling: to enter into a personal relationship with the Triune God
(in this sense, the human creature is capax Dei). The three activities of
the soul highlighted by Saint Augustine – memory (self-awareness), intellect and
will – attain their perfection when their object is God (summum verum and
summum bonum) and all creatures and all human persons, including oneself,
are seen in the light of God.
26. Continuing his reflection, Bonaventure observes, from the perspective of
salvation history, that human beings could have perceived an even clearer
reflection of the Trinity in creatures, had they not sinned. Indeed, original
sin introduced a profound disorder: by this turning away from the Creator out of
unfounded mistrust, ‘the ladder (scala) that was to lead creatures to the
knowledge of the Creator was broken’. In this new situation, creatures no longer
‘speak’ to human beings; they are no longer clear ‘signs’ (signa), but
have become enigmatic, because human beings have become ‘deaf’ to their message.[72]
Even self-knowledge has become alien to human beings.[73]
Whilst, on the one hand, it is evident that the signa are no longer a
‘clear mirror’ as they were in the beginning, in the Garden of Eden, on the
other hand, it must be recognised that human beings’ ‘blindness’ does not stem
simply from an inability, but is also linked to a deliberate resistance.[74]
27. The Doctor of the Church describes the consequences of this situation in no
uncertain terms: ignorance of what is existentially most important, a resulting
inner restlessness, the oscillation between boundless self-confidence and
despair, the elevation of finite goods to absolute status, with the prevalence
of envy and the desire to eliminate rivals. In a word: a vicious circle of
desire and frustration. But the ‘book of creation’ becomes comprehensible once
more through the ‘book of Sacred Scripture’[75]
and the ‘broken ladder’ is restored by Jesus Christ. God’s revelation in
history, which culminates precisely in Christ – incarnate, crucified and risen –
opens our eyes to the profound dimension of creation and its purpose: God has
planned even greater blessings for the human person.
28. Certainly, the testimony of Scripture does not in itself produce faith;
rather, the inner light of grace (lumen supernaturale) is necessary to
assist the natural capacity for knowledge proper to the human being (lumen
naturale) in recognising, in the revelation in Christ of the one and triune
God who is love, the One whom natural knowledge (notitia innata, confusa)
has intuited as the Holy, the Sublime and the Good.[76]
Bonaventure calls this conjunction of natural knowledge and the light of grace
the ‘book of life’ (liber vitae). When the believer once again recognises
creatures as signs and gifts, as intelligible and good, then
‘knowledge of creatures leads to knowledge of the Creator’, accompanied by
wonder, gratitude and joy:[77]
‘‘God created everything for his own sake’ (Prov 16:4). As the supreme
majesty, he created everything that it might proclaim his praise. As the supreme
light, he created everything that it might reveal him; as the supreme goodness,
he created everything in order to communicate it. The praise of creatures would
not be perfect if there were no one to honour it; revelation would not be
complete if there were no one to understand it; and the communication of goods
would not be complete if there were no one capable of appreciating them. […]
Only the rational creature can give honour, know the truth, and acquire goods
for its own use.’[78]
Restored by supernatural light – by Revelation and by grace – the human mind can
regain the lost capacity to recognise the Trinity in creatures.
29. [St Thomas Aquinas]. The Angelic Doctor situates his discussion of
creation within the framework of Trinitarian theology.[79]
First, he states that everything that is not God, insofar as it is not His
being,[80]
‘participates in the divine being, which is its cause’.[81]
Secondly, he emphasises that ‘creation befits God according to his being, and
this is his essence, which is common to the three Persons’[82]
and that, therefore, the creative act is common to the three divine Persons.
Thirdly, however, he specifies that ‘the divine Persons, as regards the creation
of things, have a causality according to the manner of their procession’.[83]
More specifically, ‘God the Father brought creatures into being through his
Word, who is the Son, and through his Love, who is the Holy Spirit. In this way,
the processions of the Persons are the type of the creation of creatures,
inasmuch as they include the essential attributes of knowledge and will’.[84]
So much so that the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are
the ratio and cause of creation.[85]
In the creative action of the Triune God, there is thus a free and gratuitous
extension ad extra of the intra-Trinitarian life ad intra. For
this reason, Thomas can affirm that ‘knowledge of the divine Persons was
necessary for us for two reasons: first, to understand creation correctly
[…] and secondly and chiefly, to understand the salvation of the human race
correctly’.[86]
30. On this solid foundation, Aquinas establishes a skilfully articulated
interweaving among the attributes traditionally ascribed to the divine Persons –
power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Spirit – and the
relationships proper to each Person with creation. According to Thomas, the mode
of acting depends on the mode of being of each of the divine Persons.[87]
There is a point at which St Thomas goes beyond the mere procedure of
appropriations: when he refers to the ‘through him’ applied to the Son. Since
the Son is the Word through whom the Father acts, it falls to the Son to be the
mediate cause of the creatures that were created through Him: ‘This “through
Him” is not always just appropriated, but is instead proper to the Son (proprium
Filii), as is found stated in John 1:3: “All things were made
through Him”, not as an instrument, but because He Himself is the principle
from a principle.’[88]
It is, in fact, proper to the Son to be the ‘begotten Creator’.[89] Similarly, the Holy Spirit is Love[90]
and the Gift[91]
through which the Father and the Son love creatures. Creation is placed, freely
and gratuitously, at the heart of the intimate fabric of the loving
relationships between the three divine Persons, in which it is called, in its
own way, to participate.[92]
The internalisation of the life of the Triune God within creatures culminates in
the divine economy through the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word and the
gift of the Holy Spirit. The Trinitarian exitus is fulfilled in
the reditus, which is also Trinitarian, in which creation is called to
participate.
31. [Summary]. The four Doctors of the Church whose teachings we have
cited do not intend to offer a scientific description of the cosmos. They view
it from the perspective of faith, certain that, if the Creator is one and
triune, creation in some way manifests this origin and goal. Augustine focuses
his attention on the human person, seeking in it the reflection of the Trinity.
Hildegard and Bonaventure operate within a framework that we would today
describe as symbolic, and they propose an understanding of it in sacramental
terms (cf. below, nos. 34–35). Thomas, adopting a more unadorned and disciplined
tone in the Summa Theologiae, firmly grounds the Trinitarian imprint
present in creation in the intra-divine processions, attributing a fundamental
place to the procession of the Word: hence the filial imprint of which we have
spoken (cf. no. 13). All four distinguish between creatures in general, in which
they find ‘shadows’ and ‘traces’ of the Trinity, and the human person, who is,
in the proper sense, created in the image of God in Christ and in whom the
Trinitarian likeness is manifested and displayed in a specific and explicit way.
Despite sin, this gaze of faith, which heals and strengthens the light of
reason, is capable of discerning and seeking out the presence and meaning of the
Trinitarian imprint in creation, especially in the rational creature.
2.1.2 Implications from a relational perspective
32. We bring all these elements together, bearing in mind the discretion that is
necessary in regard to analogy,[93]
but recognising, in particular, a rich Trinitarian symbolism in the complex web
of relationships that exists throughout creation, and which culminates
specifically in us, creatures capable of love. The Lord Jesus, ‘when he prayed
to the Father that all may be one, just as we are one (Jn
17:21–22), opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain
likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God’s
children in truth and charity’ (GS 24). Moreover, Thomas himself, commenting on
this prayer of Jesus, emphasises: ‘our unity (as human beings) is perfect only
insofar as it shares in the divine unity. Now, in God there is a twofold unity:
namely, that of nature, as stated in John 10:30: ‘I and the Father are
one’; and the unity of love in the Father and the Son, which is a unity of the
Spirit. And both are present in us, certainly not by way of equivalence, but by
a certain likeness’.[94]
Following, therefore, the line of thought outlined by these authoritative
witnesses of the theological tradition, and taking into account the insights
theology has developed over the subsequent centuries, we can justifiably speak
not only of the relationship between all creation and every single creature with
the Triune Creator, but also of an interrelatedness that is imprinted amongst
creatures and gives dynamism to their existence: this too characterises the
symphony of creation arranged by the one and triune God, within whose bosom this
interrelatedness lives in the love of the divine Persons, from whom the life of
creation originates and to whom it is destined by grace.
33. Contemplating the traces of God in creation reveals that the world is a web
of relationships, as Pope Francis emphasised:
‘From this comes the particular feature, in the formation of a Christian culture,
of discovering in the whole of creation the Trinitarian imprint that makes the
cosmos in which we live a “network of relations” in which “it is proper to every
living being to tend towards other things”. This in turn fosters “a spirituality
of that global solidarity which flows from the mystery of the Trinity”.’[95]
Pope Francis regards the relational character of creation as a fundamental
guiding principle of integral ecology (cf. LS 16, 70; LD 19). This statement
draws on the fruits of the renewal of Trinitarian theology, which has explored
with thoroughness the relational paradigm present in the great witnesses of the
Tradition.
2.2 Sacramentality
34. [Sacramentality and the action of Christ]. Christian Tradition has
interpreted Christ’s action at the beginning of creation by the fact that God
creates through his Word: ‘God said’ (cf. Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24,
26; Jn 1:1, 10). The lógoi present in creation point to the
creative Logos and reflect him (cf. no. 10). The universe is therefore a cosmos
ordered by the Logos who ‘became flesh’ (Jn 1:14), that is, who became a
creature without ceasing to be the Creator.[96]
Consequently, material reality, the lives of animals and human beings, history
and relationships, all things that exist, are not only interconnected but
ordered in such a way as to find their full meaning in the mystery of the
Incarnate Word. The Incarnation of Christ reveals and brings to fulfilment the
sacramental character of all creation, directing it towards its definitive
fulfilment. The Trinitarian imprint, present throughout creation, has its full
potential realized when its reflection of the Trinity is revealed, culminating
in the glorification of God, stirred up and animated by the sanctifying Spirit,
becoming part of the dynamism that Christ’s humanity has impressed upon the
universe. The crucified Lord not only draws all humanity to himself from on high
(cf. Jn 12:32), but he has risen and ascended to the right hand of the
Father. From his heavenly throne, he also draws all creation towards its
fulfilment (cf. Eph 1:10): the new heavens and the new earth (cf. Rev
21:1 ff.).
35. [Sacramentality and ecology]. With sacramentality, we highlight the
fact that the whole of creation, by its very reality and subsistence, points to
the Triune Creator, from whom it originates and towards whom it is directed. We
take the term ‘sacrament’ in its broadest sense, as a sign of a sacred and
hidden reality (the corresponding Greek term is mystērion). By using the
term analogically, as did, for example, Augustine, amongst others, and as the
Magisterium also does when speaking of the sacraments of the Old Law,[97] we
can say that the world is a vast sacramental system (cf. LS 235). In this way,
when viewed in its truth, the whole of creation possesses a symbolic power that
points to a meaning engraved in the very depths of its being: its Creator.[98]
Indeed: ‘God, who through the Word creates all things and keeps them in existence, gives
humanity an enduring witness to Himself in created realities.’ (DV 3). This dimension unfolds with particular intensity in the Church’s
sacraments. They bear witness that creation is not merely a sign of God’s
presence in a general way, but a sign of salvation in Christ. This is a most
sublime exaltation of the creature: whilst remaining a creature, it becomes an
effective sign of God’s love. This enables us to understand ‘creation as
Eucharist’,[99]
because: ‘it is in the Eucharist that all that has been created finds its greatest
exaltation.’ (LS 236). In the Eucharistic liturgy, by bringing the whole cosmos to
express God’s glory, creation fulfils its true purpose in a prophetic way.[100]
Eucharistic Prayer III expresses this by saying that ‘all creation rightly gives
you praise’.[101]
It is an invitation to relate to creation as the sacrament of the Creator’s
goodness, which speaks to us of God and reflects his glory (cf. Wis
13:1–5; Rom 1:19– 20). Thus we pray with Psalm 18:2: ‘The heavens
proclaim the glory of God, the firmament shows forth the work of his hands’.
2.3 Eschatological purpose
36. [Christ’s action and eschatological purpose]. It is important to keep
united the three aspects of Christ’s creative action: original, ongoing and new
(cf. no. 12). As we have already said, this action is not a linear process (cf.
no. 14). Our understanding is that, through Christ, the whole of creation has
been destined from the very beginning for a specific goal: eschatological
fulfilment. God the Father created everything in Christ in order to bring about
eschatological fulfilment in him and through him. Consequently, the destiny of
creation is fulfilment in God and a recapitulating final perfection, through the
power of the Spirit, in Christ who died and rose again. This positive vision of
both the origin and the end of creation stands in stark contrast to any form of
Gnosticism.[102]
Indeed, this final perfection encompasses not only the glorious humanity of the
Lord, who revealed the marks of his passion by appearing to Thomas (cf. Jn
20:27), but also the created cosmos, ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ (cf. Rev
21, referring to Gen 1:1). This signifies the participation of all
creation in the life of the Trinity. As regards human beings, it reveals the
ultimate end of their being made sons and daughters in the Son, and of their
being welcomed into the bosom of the Father, guaranteed by the resurrection of
Christ Jesus, by his ascension into Heaven, and by the gift ‘without measure’
(cf. Jn 3:34) of his life-giving Spirit (cf. Rom 8:11).
2.4 Trinitarian ontology and interrelational communion
37. [Trinitarian ontology is relational.] Having been created in the
image and likeness of Christ to share in the life of the Trinity, our fulfilment
lies in being conformed to Christ through the Holy Spirit within the heart of
the Trinity. Following the analogy drawn with the Trinitarian relationships, the
way in which we are to live out the three essential relationships that
constitute us as human beings is revealed to us and shared with us in Christ
through the Holy Spirit; it is in living out these relationships that we can
understand ourselves and be fulfilled. In the Trinity, everything is governed by
gift and love. The Father begets the Son, bestowing upon him his divine essence.
The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, receiving from both the same
divine essence. This relational ontology – the Persons are relations inasmuch as
they subsist[103]
– is, in truth, an ontology of mutual gift.
38. [An agapic relational ontology]. This dynamism of mutual self-giving
among the divine Persons, which the theological tradition has expressed through
the concept of perichoresis, is reflected in the dynamism of self-giving
that governs the economy of creation and salvation in the spirit of agape. God’s
love for creation is expressed in the self-giving of each divine Person with a
view to its fulfilment and, in the Son made human, reaches its ultimate
expression on the cross. For this reason, the Trinitarian relational ontology is
an ontology of love poured out to the very end, as manifested on the cross and
made present in the memorial of the Eucharist. Consequently, the Trinitarian
ontology that characterises the life of God and which is freely shared with
creation is a relational ontology insofar as it is agapic and Eucharistic, since
it is realised in the gift of self.
39. [Living the three relationships in self-giving]. This relational
dynamic, as a specific quality of creation, shines forth with the greatest
clarity in human beings, for they are, properly speaking, in an analogical
sense, the image of the Trinity (imago Trinitatis; cf. no. 64 below). If
the human person is the image of the Triune God, whose being is ontologically
expressed in the agapic and communal interrelatedness of the divine Persons,
there follows agapic and communal interrelatedness as the vocation inscribed in
the human being as one created by God and as redeemed and made a participant in
the ‘divine nature’ (cf. 2 Pet 1:4) in Christ through the gift of the
Holy Spirit. Nothing, therefore, could be further removed from solipsistic,
individualistic and autarchic isolation as a model for the fulfilment of the
human being. On the contrary, it is only by unfolding the agapic and communal
relationality that constitutes them and to which they are called that human
beings can attain their happiness and their true good, together with the whole
of creation of which they are a part and in which they live as the image of God.
Human beings respond to their vocation and fulfil it through the proper
unfolding of the relationships that constitute them: with God, with other human
beings, and with all other creatures. Only in this way do we truly understand
ourselves. Consequently, overcoming the threefold crisis afflicting our time –
ecological (relationship with creation), social (relationship with others) and
religious (relationship with God) – requires the fostering of relationships
governed by the dynamics of love, gift and gratuitousness in the three
fundamental spheres of our existence (cf.
Laudato si' 10): filial gratitude towards God and the personal offering of one’s life
in Christ for his glory (cf. Rom 12:1); solidarity and mercy towards
one’s neighbour (cf. Lk 10:25–37; Mt 25:31–46); care for the
garden, our common home, in which God has placed humanity (cf. Gen 2:15).
40. [Relationality in God and in creation]. In the Triune God, there is
found, in a mysterious and infinite way, a rich and harmonious dynamic between
the distinction of each divine Person and their being in relationship with the
other divine Persons, thus manifesting the mutual and perichoretic
interdependence among the divine Persons, in the sense that none is an isolated
monad, either in being or in acting, each of them being the one God in relation
with the others. In their mutual relations, the Persons of the Trinity are fully
‘open’ to one another, without breaking the unity of the common divine nature
which subsists in each of them personally. Similarly, there is no alteration of
the divine nature when God opens himself to the world in his creative act,
endowing his creatures with their own ontological subsistence and, in the case
of human beings, with freedom. At the same time, the very way in which God, one
and triune, creates indelibly marks the identity of his creatures: they are
created ‘for Someone’[104]
and attain their fullness to the extent that they enter into relationship with
the One who created them and, in and through Him, with other created beings.
41. [Interrelatedness, interdependence and ecology]. From this
fundamental truth, which is revealed to us through Revelation, we can conclude
that all creation is interconnected. On our planet, everything forms a sort of
‘community’: the air, water, plants, animals and human beings, all enveloped and
connected by the climate. The life of the planet, of which human life is a part,
is sustained only in a ‘communal’ way, owing to the balance of a wide range of
interdependent and interwoven relationships. Nothing and no one is an absolute
monad. Everything is interrelated. We all depend on one another and on the
whole. The term ‘ecosystem’ expresses, on a phenomenological level, the
fact that we form this single community of life. The Anthropocene crisis
we are witnessing today stems from the deterioration of the ecosystem in which
we live, which alters the relational balance of the single community that
sustains life on planet Earth.[105]
2.5 Ecological implications of the Trinitarian imprint on creation
42. To summarise: the world in which we human beings live, our planet, our
common home, speaks to us as Christians of the Creator who is one and three,
when we regard it properly in the light of faith. Throughout all creation there
is an imprint of the Trinity, through which God makes himself present in his
work. For this reason, our relationship with creation always implies a
relationship with the Creator. Every action taken in relation to creation
inherently possesses a religious dimension, even if this is often not explicit.
We do not relate to the one and triune God solely in the liturgy, in prayer or
in our relationship with our neighbour. We also do so when we breathe, eat or
sow seeds; or when we cut down forests, extract minerals or dump toxic waste.
For this reason, it is inconsistent with the logic of faith to downplay or
exclude ecological concerns, dismissing them as something alien to the Christian
faith itself. On the contrary: if creation is God’s work and bears his mark,
then by treating creation in one way or another, we are acting with regard to
what is an inherent aspect of our faith. Discovering the Trinitarian and
sacramental imprint in all of creation leads us to understand that the proper
way to live in this world is to perceive, safeguard and promote the
interrelatedness of all things in our common home, destined for divine glory and
the fulfilment of every person.
43. Creation, our common home, does not come from God’s hands in such a way that
its sole purpose is to provide the necessary support for human beings to realise
their full potential in governing and utilising the resources of creation
without any limits. In other words, the ultimate purpose of creation is not
limited to the utility it may have for human beings and the development of their
lives. Throughout creation there is an orientation towards fulfilment in God
through Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:24–28) and in the Holy Spirit, when, at
last, the full and glorious manifestation of the one and triune Creator will be
revealed. For this reason, human beings cannot claim the right to subjugate
creation indiscriminately to their own ends, reducing its meaning and value to
the mere instrumental utility it can provide them: this is the temptation of
absolute anthropocentrism (which we shall discuss further on, cf. nos. 99–102).
On the contrary, human beings are called to fulfil the specific role entrusted
to them by the Creator by focusing their gaze on the doxological purpose of
creation. As we pray in the liturgy: ‘You formed man in your own image and set
humanity over the whole world in all its wonder, to rule in your name over all
you have made and for ever praise you in your mighty works, through Christ our
Lord.’[106]
3 In dialogue with certain scientific and philosophical views of the cosmos
3.1 The scientific view of the cosmos
44. The understanding of creation proposed by theology in the light of faith is,
in itself, open to dialogue with the various fields of knowledge, especially
when they address the same themes, even though each does so on the basis of its
own specific epistemology. This is the case with the human and natural sciences
in their study and research into human life and the world in which we live, as
is the case, for example, in physics, biology and the social sciences. On the
other hand, the vision we hold of the cosmos of which we form part influences
the ecological approach we adopt, since it determines the meaning and scope we
attribute to human responsibility.
3.1.1 A brief overview
45. [The macroscopic universe]. With the advent of the space age,
astronomers have been able to extend their observations of the cosmos from
visible light alone, accessible to terrestrial telescopes, to the entire
electromagnetic spectrum. The information thus obtained, interpreted within the
framework of the Theory of General Relativity, has revealed the universe’s
principal characteristic, its holistic evolution. This new cosmology, known as
the theory of the Big Bang, reconstructs the history of the cosmos
starting from around 13.8 billion years ago and demonstrates, on the basis of
increasingly detailed and well-established data, that it has passed through
vastly different phases, all connected and each responsible for the emergence of
entities of increasing complexity. From an initial state that was extremely
dense and hot, populated by free elementary particles, the cosmic expansion and
the force of gravity led to the formation of the first stars, composed of
hydrogen and helium. The most massive stars, evolving rapidly, produced within
themselves all the atoms found in the periodic table of elements. In the
interstellar medium, the chemical elements thus produced combined to form
increasingly complex molecules. Less massive stars, such as our Sun, evolve very
slowly and, over billions of years, provide a constant flow of energy to the
planets surrounding them: a period long enough to allow, where conditions
permit, biological evolution.
Although there are various hypotheses regarding the initial stages of cosmic
evolution, which are still debated by scientists whilst they await a theory that
unifies quantum physics with general relativity, two characteristics of cosmic
reality are indisputable: its holistic evolution, open to the future, and the
fact that space and time are an integral part of nature, on a par with matter
and energy, and that, together with these, they share in the evolutionary
history of the cosmos. On this basis, a suitable model for an essentially
evolutionary reality is that of a relational ontology, which presents an
interesting analogy with the Trinitarian imprint of creation.[107]
Philosophers and theologians are called upon to take these fundamental
characteristics of cosmic reality into account and to draw the possible
consequences from them within their respective fields of expertise. This is a
perspective that deserves further exploration by philosophers and theologians.
46. [The microscopic universe]. Another area of scientific research has
focused its attention on the universe’s microscopic level. In 1913, Niels Bohr
proposed a model of the atom consisting of a solid, homogeneous nucleus around
which electrons orbit. This model was reinterpreted by quantum mechanics, which
attributes wave-like properties to electrons. In 1932, J. Chadwick discovered
that the nucleus of the atom cannot be regarded as a simple solid body, but is
composed of protons and neutrons. Subsequent research has revealed the existence
of further particles, such as neutrinos, alpha and beta particles, quarks,
hadrons and dark matter. These discoveries gave rise to quantum field theory and
a new classification of the particles that make up the universe. Based on data
from CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), scientists hypothesised the
existence of the Higgs boson, an elementary particle that forms the basis of the
Standard Model. New colliders can provide data that reveal new aspects of the
microscopic universe. The analysis of this data has led to the development of
various theories, such as the supersymmetry model. These discoveries have
radically redefined our understanding of matter, energy, particles and
antimatter. They question many of the assumptions on which both religious and
materialist understandings of the universe have been based.
47. [The organic universe of our planet]. Planet Earth was formed
around 4.5 billion years ago. The first organisms probably appeared in its
waters around 3.8 billion years ago. Life then evolved into more complex forms.
The double-helix structure of DNA bears witness to a formidable accumulation of
information, which explains the vast array of behaviours geared towards the
preservation of life, from the most basic cells with a nucleus right up to human
beings. In the context of evolution, around 2.5 million years ago there was a
significant increase in cranial capacity and a series of cognitive
transformations over the course of evolution, which gave rise to the cerebral
capacities characteristic of the genus Homo. This brain, capable of
storing, acquiring and generating new information, evolved into the brain of
modern Homo sapiens between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago. The human
brain can be considered the most complex living organ and structure known to us.
At each stage of this ongoing evolution, new levels of organisation emerge,
which can be interpreted as ‘qualitative leaps’ enabling the attainment of a
higher level of complexity. The evolutionary line begins with inorganic
molecules and extends to highly complex organic structures. Continuity and
discontinuity constitute the evolutionary stages that challenge us to explore in
greater depth traditional concepts of life, living organisms, human beings and
their reciprocal relationships.
3.1.2 An open dialogue with science
48. [Radical questions]. The enormous progress in scientific knowledge,
owing to the current theoretical framework and collection of data to which we
have only briefly alluded, undoubtedly means that today we can answer with
greater precision questions concerning, for example, the nature of the universe
at the physical level or the development of life on planet Earth and its
‘beginning’ at the biological level. However, this data does not answer the
fundamental questions about its ‘origin’, nor the ultimate questions of why the
world exists, its meaning and its destiny, and the uniqueness and specific role
of human beings within it. These are questions that science cannot answer, but
which philosophy and theology seek to address, each according to its own
epistemological status and method.
49. [Avoiding a twofold risk]. The relationship that must exist, in an
epistemologically relevant manner, between the natural sciences and their
findings, on the one hand, and philosophy and theology, on the other, must avoid
the twofold risk of exclusivism and concordism. In the first case, one falls
into the error of considering as valid only the epistemology of one type of
knowledge (scientific knowledge, or philosophical and theological knowledge, as
the case may be), whilst disregarding the value of other forms of knowledge.
Thus, by elevating scientific knowledge to an absolute, one may end up positing
a form of scientific materialism which, by promoting various forms of
reductionism, denies the existence of God and his creative action; whereas, by
elevating the perspective of faith to an absolute, one may fall into
fundamentalism, which claims to be based on a literal interpretation of the
Bible, without taking into account the various literary genres and scientific
criticism[108]
(cf. DV 12). Concordism, on the other hand, by failing to take account of the
epistemological diversity of different fields of knowledge, ends up
simplistically and inappropriately transposing the results obtained from one
field of knowledge into the proper domain of another.
50. [Dialogue in respect for different epistemologies]. Science,
philosophy and theology are not, in principle, destined to be in conflict with
one another, provided that each respects its own epistemological status, its own
methods and the limits of its own assertions, whilst each makes use of its own
‘language’. From this follows, first and foremost, the respect and attention
with which each discipline is called upon to regard the research carried out by
other disciplines and to take account of their findings. Furthermore, the
Christian faith maintains that there is no opposition between faith and reason[109]
and regards other disciplines that place themselves at the service of the good
of humanity as ‘fellow travellers’ (MH 23). Today – as Pope Francis emphasised – the ‘recovery of an interdisciplinary approach is certainly positive and
promising, even in its “weak” form as a simple multidisciplinary approach that
favours a better understanding from several points of view of an object of
study. It is all the more so in its “strong” form, as cross-disciplinary,
situating and stimulating all disciplines against the backdrop of the Light and
Life offered by the Wisdom streaming from God’s Revelation.’[110]
Indeed, dialogue between different fields of knowledge is now recognised as
necessary and even urgent, given that significant ethical implications relating
to ecology and respect for the universe and our planet can be drawn from them.
Moreover, science, philosophy and theology share that inner attitude of wonder
and admiration towards the universe from which they ultimately arise. Whilst the
formation of galaxies is a striking marvel, the organisation of a single-celled
organism surpasses it in complexity and inspires even greater admiration.
3.2 In dialogue with other worldviews
51. [Introduction]. Every worldview, which includes an attempt at a
comprehensive explanation of the entire universe and its meaning, comprises
beliefs and premises that cannot be scientifically proven, often of a religious
nature and with implications that are implicitly or explicitly theological. We
shall briefly examine some of these.
3.2.1 Some philosophical proposals
52. [Immanentism, pantheism and panentheism]. An immanentist
understanding of the cosmos – which undoubtedly encompasses a broad spectrum of
distinct forms – does not recognise or simply denies the existence of a creator
God distinct from the world. In some of its forms, it draws on the supposed
inability of human beings to infer, from knowledge of the cosmos, the existence
of a creative Principle such as a transcendent and personal God. According to
this logic, the cosmos, in its mere factuality, would be the only reality to
which one could and should refer, without any higher or eschatological purpose.
However, the question of meaning and ultimate purpose, both of one’s own
existence and of the universe in which one lives, is intrinsically part of the
human condition. The unjustified assertion of the untranscendentability of the
world does not, in its radical form, provide a satisfactory answer to this
question. Some contemporary forms of pantheism or cosmic spirituality tend to
attribute an ultimate or divine value to the world itself, seeking a synthesis
between ecological awareness, scientific progress and the rejection of a
personal and transcendent conception of God.
Other philosophical currents and a part of contemporary theology lean instead
towards panentheism. According to this perspective, the world exists within God,
whilst God, at the same time, transcends it.[111]
In contrast to classical theism, which often emphasises the distinction between
God and creation, and pantheism, which identifies God with the world,
panentheism conjoins divine immanence and transcendence. This perspective offers
an interpretative framework for understanding how God can be intimately present
in every aspect of reality without coercively determining it. God, in his
gratuitous mercy, makes room for a creation that is genuinely distinct from him,
whilst at the same time continuing to be the foundation that sustains it.
53. [Deism and supernaturalism]. There are two conceptions which are, in
fact, widely held, though not always consciously so, amongst both believers and
non-believers: deism and supernaturalism. On the one hand, there is a form of
deism that conceives of a creator God whose action, however, is limited to
bringing the cosmos into being, without any form of presence within it and
without any possibility of speaking of his action in relation to it in terms of
the ‘continuous creation’ affirmed by theological tradition. It is in fact
believed that this God, having given the initial creative impulse, like a
skilled watchmaker who has wound up his creation sufficiently, can ultimately
take no further interest in its affairs. This view fails to do justice to the
fact that creative action pertains to God permanently, since creation is
constituted and sustained in its being, at every moment and in every expression,
by the being and will of God himself. On the other hand, following a conception
we term ‘supernaturalism’, even some believers end up imagining the Creator as
an agent entirely external to creation, acting like a craftsman or builder in
relation to his product. This does not correspond to the biblical conception,
which affirms God’s intimate presence within creation, a presence consistent
with his role as Creator and, at the same time, transcendent in relation to
creation.
54. [The philosophical idea of creation]. From a purely philosophical
point of view, through the proper exercise of the intellect and its metaphysical
capacity, it is possible and justified to uphold and argue the thesis that the
world points to the first cause which brought it into being and sustains it in
existence. This is a constant assertion in the theological tradition – as, for
example, we have seen in St Bonaventure and St Thomas – and one which is
attested to by Sacred Scripture and reaffirmed by the Magisterium (cf. Rom
1:19–20; Wis 13:1–7; DH 3004). Moreover, the profound intelligibility to
be found in the world around us, which we can discover through the exercise of
reason and upon which we rely to utilise the resources made available to us by
nature, makes plain the ‘logic’ inherent in the cosmos. And it becomes possible
– at a further level, such as that expressed by faith – to link the
intelligibility intrinsic to nature to a higher purpose. All these aspects,
which are philosophically tenable, are consistent with a theological view of
creation.
3.2.2 The Christian theological perspective in dialogue
55. [God the Creator: a coherent explanation]. Faith in a God who is the
Creator of the universe, grounded in the Revelation that God Himself has made of
Himself and of His plan of salvation, thus stands out as a rationally sound and
coherent option, which allows respect for the findings of the various sciences
and the demands of a philosophical understanding of reality, integrating them
into a broader vision without unduly interfering in their respective fields of
research.[112]
In accordance with the fullness of revelation in Christ, faith in God the
Creator points to a God who creates freely and out of love,[113]
inasmuch as He is love in Himself, as Christian faith in the Triune God
professes. The Triune God, in fact, is capable of creating the other distinct
from Himself, of endowing it with its own ontological subsistence, and of being
intimately present within His creation without losing His transcendence. In this
way, the identity of creation and human freedom are preserved, guided from the
very beginning and accompanied so that they may reach their fulfilment, through
the action of the Word and the Holy Spirit. Consequently, our relationship with
nature (ecology) is a constitutive dimension of our relationship with God the
Creator (theology). It is necessary therefore to explore the full meaning of
ecology, namely, living responsibly as human beings in our common home alongside
all other creatures, beginning from faith (cf. infra nos. 103–109 and
Chapter 3).
56. [Creation and the physical origin of the universe]. In the light of
this Trinitarian conception of God the Creator, it is worth clarifying that
creation, in the theological sense, does not refer primarily to the physical
origin of the cosmos, but rather to the metaphysical relationship by virtue of
which everything that exists derives its being from God. To say that God creates
does not, therefore, mean placing Him at the beginning of the temporal sequence
of cosmic events as one physical cause amongst others, nor does it mean
resorting to Him to explain what cosmology has not yet clarified regarding the
early stages of the universe. Rather, it means recognising that the world, at
every moment, is ontologically dependent on Him without being absorbed into Him.
In this perspective, the theological tradition has spoken of creatio ex
nihilo to rule out the possibility that the world derives from pre-existing
matter or from a necessary emanation of God: the Creator freely calls into
existence that which would not exist of its own accord. Cosmology may
legitimately investigate the early stages of the universe and formulate various
models concerning its possible temporal beginning; faith, on the other hand,
affirms the metaphysical origin of the world, grounded in its contingency and
its dependence on the Creator. This distinction avoids identifying creation with
the Big Bang or with any other cosmological model, which would thereby tie a
truth of faith to a specific scientific theory; it also avoids separating God
from the world, as if the act of creation were a remote event. Even if one were
to hypothesise a universe without an absolute temporal beginning, the question
would remain as to why it exists and does not possess within itself the ultimate
reason for its own being. God is not one cause amongst others, but the
transcendent foundation of the being of all causes; creation possesses a real
autonomy, but this autonomy is received and continually sustained in the
relationship of creation.
57. [The human being]. In the Christian faith, the existence of the human
being is illumined in Christ with a transcendent meaning and a ‘supreme’
vocation (cf. Gaudium et spes, 22). The fact that Homo sapiens
appeared on planet Earth is, moreover, a fact that never ceases to arouse
wonder. So much so that we are led to reflect with wonder on the chain of
factors that led to such a marvellous outcome, which never ceases to raise
profound questions about the meaning and origin not only of human beings but of
the entire cosmos within the context of which human existence has been made
possible. Of course, the recognition of this formidable chain of events cannot,
in itself, be regarded either as proof of God’s existence or as an indicator
pointing to a Creator God who designed the universe for the sake of human
beings. Nevertheless, it can legitimately be interpreted, in the light of faith,
as a significant feature of the original design of a Creator God, who has marked
the course of creation, which He freely willed, in a Christological and,
therefore, anthropological sense.[114]
In this way, from the perspective of the Christian theology of creation, one can
better understand the specific responsibility of human beings to care for
creation in accordance with the design of their Creator.
58. [Consciousness and the human soul]. Of all the mysteries of the
cosmos, the greatest for us are self-awareness, freedom and the human soul. On
the one hand, evidence of a special relationship with the deceased, expressed
through the practice of burial and prayer for the dead, dates back to the dawn
of human history. Such practices may point to a perception of a transcendent
dimension in the human being. On the other hand, if it were claimed that human
self-awareness is based exclusively on physical, chemical and biological
processes of the utmost complexity, or that it is to be reduced entirely and
solely to these processes, as being totally determined by them, this would in
itself deny human freedom and, in so doing, the responsibility that flows from
it.[115]
Scientific data on self-awareness – already observable in highly evolved
primates – can, and indeed must, be situated, in light of the uniqueness
inherent to the human being, within a broader and deeper framework in which the
following are combined, without confusion and without separation: the
evolutionary development of the universe, in accordance with the laws studied by
science, and the action of God the Creator in relation to the spiritual nature
of every human being, as attested by Revelation. Without contradicting, but
rather by highlighting the discoveries made by the sciences, the understanding
of faith is committed to showing how God wished to bring about his plan of
creation in order to have the human person as his free interlocutor and partner.
59. [Christological reinterpretation]. In the Christian perspective, then
– as we have already emphasised – creation bears a Christological imprint (cf.
nos. 10–14). For this reason, the Incarnation of the Word, in which by grace is
realised the intimate unity of the created flesh of a human being with God,
reveals the call to union with God, in and through Christ by virtue of the Holy
Spirit, of every human being and all creation:
‘The Incarnation of God the Son signifies the taking up into unity with God not
only of human nature, but in this human nature, in a sense, of everything
that is "flesh": the whole of humanity, the entire visible and material
world. The Incarnation, then, also has a cosmic significance, a cosmic
dimension. The "first-born of all creation," [Col 1:15], becoming incarnate in the individual humanity of Christ, unites himself in
some way with the entire reality of humanity, which is also "flesh"[116] and in this reality with all "flesh," with the whole of creation.’[117]
Chapter II. The Human Being in our Common Home
1 God’s original plan for human beings
60. [Introduction]. To understand anthropology and to perceive clearly
the place of human beings in the cosmos, from which their specific role and
responsibility in our common home follow, it is essential to undertake a
theological reading of the first chapters of the Book of Genesis,[118]
discerning their meaning and significance in the light of the event of Jesus
Christ as attested by the New Testament.
1.1 A theological reading of Genesis 1: in the image and likeness of God
1.1.1 Image and likeness
61. [The creation of humankind]. The first account of creation culminates
in the rest of the seventh day, a day specially blessed and consecrated by God,
which was intended to commemorate and glorify the greatness of the Creator, the
meaning of creation and the vocation of the human being. Indeed, God’s creative
activity culminates on the sixth day with the creation of the human
person[119]
(hāʾādām) (cf. Gen 1:26). The biblical wording refers to both male
and female (cf. Gen 1:27), and thus to the human being as such (ánthropos).
The biblical text reads: ‘God said, “Let us make the human being in our
image (ṣelem) and in our likeness (dəmût)”’[120]
(Gen 1:26).
62. [Image]. The Mesopotamian equivalent of ‘image’ (ṣalmu) refers
to a statue as a representation of a king. This idea persists into later periods
(cf. e.g. Wis 14:15–17). Through the use of this metaphor, the human
person, as the image (ṣelem) of God, is granted the prerogative to
represent Him; that is, to relate to other human beings and to the rest of
creation in the manner of God Himself, whom they represent. Only in this way do
human persons also live out their relationship with God, respecting the being
they have received and shaping their relationships in accordance with this
original gift. It is the human being in his or her entirety, soul and body, who
has been created in the image of God.[121]
63. [Re-reading from the New Testament: ‘imago Christi’]. Christian faith
interprets the understanding of the human person as the image of God in a
Christological light. Jesus Christ, in fact, reveals himself as the human being
brought to full realisation of self. ‘Behold the human being’ – as the Gospel of
John (19:5) attests through the words of Pilate. Being perfect in his humanity
(cf. DH 301), Christ is the perfect human (cf. GS 22, 38, 41, 45). For this
reason, the Christian faith affirms that ‘only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of the human being
take on light’(GS 22). Now, Jesus Christ is the Image of the invisible God (cf. Col
1:15; cf. 2 Cor 4:4), through whom all things were created. From this it
follows – as the Fathers of the Church have already recognised – that, being
created in the image of God, we human beings are in truth created in the
image of Christ[122],
the firstborn of all creation (cf. Col 1:15), the new Adam (cf. Rom
5:14).[123]
Human beings are fulfilled to the extent that they conform to Christ, the
firstborn of many brothers and sisters (cf. Rom 8:29).
64. [A Re-reading of the Fathers: ‘imago Trinitatis’]. The Church Fathers
not only develop the Christological interpretation of the biblical motif of the
image, but also explore it in depth from a Trinitarian perspective. Their
starting point is the phrase ‘let us make’ (Gen 1:26) in the plural,
which, as we have noted (cf. no. 8), from the second century onwards they
interpreted as an expression of a dialogue taking place within the Trinity.[124]
Two corollaries follow from this. On the one hand, the three divine Persons are
involved in the creation of the human being.[125]
On the other hand, according to some Fathers, such as St Basil the Great and St
Gregory of Nyssa, this implies that the human person, being created in the image
of God, is not to be understood merely as the image of the Logos, but as the
image of the entire Trinity.[126]
This perspective is further enriched in the Syriac tradition, which considers
humanity’s relationship with the Trinity in a dynamic and existential manner.
For Saint Ephrem the Syrian, the three names of the Trinity ‘are sown’ within
human beings so that their perfection may develop in a Trinitarian manner. Thus,
when the human spirit endures agony, it is moulded by the Father; when the soul
suffers pain, it is ‘mingling’ with the Son; and when the body burns with a life
of witness, it communes with the Holy Spirit.[127]
This conception, rooted in patristic tradition, has lost none of its relevance:
‘At the heart of the Christian understanding of the human person lies the great
biblical affirmation that men and women are created in the image and likeness
(cf. Gen 1:26-27) of the Triune God. Created for relationship, every
human person is planned and willed by God to enter into communion with him, with
others and with creation.’[128]
65. [Likeness]. The Hebrew term ‘likeness’ (dəmût) refers to what
makes one thing similar to another, such as the model of an altar to be
reproduced in another place (cf. 2 Kings 16:10). It therefore denotes a
type of relationship that implies the establishment of a certain equality (cf.
Ps 58:5; Ezek 23:15). The use of this term in reference to human
beings is surprising, for God is set apart from all else by an insurmountable
distance. And yet, the likeness spoken of here places human beings in a
privileged position. God desires them as his interlocutors. To this the whole of
Scripture bears witness.
66. The Church Fathers sometimes distinguish between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’. In
this context, ‘image’ refers to the ontological identity of human beings, which
enables them to enter into relationship with God, with others and with creation;
a capacity that may be obscured, tarnished or broken, but which always remains
within human beings as an indelible imprint of what they essentially are in
themselves by virtue of creation. Likeness, on the other hand, encompasses the
existential dimension of the human journey, which was interrupted by sin with
the loss of the original communion with God. When Christians, by virtue of the
sacraments, allow the power of the Holy Spirit to act within them and cooperate
with grace[129],
they become ever more conformed to the Son, thereby also attaining likeness to
God. The grace of sonship, which began at Baptism, unfolds within them to
perfection.[130]
1.1.2 Blessing
67. [Blessing]. Once created, male and female (cf. Gen 1:27)
receives a blessing: ‘God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and
multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea
and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the
earth!”’ (Gen 1:28). The blessing is expressed in the same terms as in
Gen 1:22, which refers to the first animals created. In this way, the
account highlights a fundamental difference between inanimate beings and living
beings. All come into being through the powerful word of the Creator. However,
only living beings receive the blessing: ‘God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful
and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the birds multiply on the
earth”’ (Gen 1:22). The blessing here does not signify a special
consecration (cf. Gen 2:3) nor an act of a particular salvific nature.
The blessing, in connection with the act of creation, expresses the inherent
capacity of living beings to procreate. It denotes the transmission by God, the
source of all life, of a life-giving force through fertility as a distinctive
characteristic of living beings. It thus expresses the dynamism of creation,
making evident the Creator’s imprint on creation through this generative and
procreative force.
68. [The uniqueness of human beings]. In the case of human beings, this
creaturely blessing points to the same reality as in animals: procreation and
multiplication. However, there is a notable difference: God speaks only to human
beings as interlocutors: ‘He said to them’ (wayyōʾmer lāhem: Gen
1:28), whilst over other animate beings He utters His word (lēʾmōr;
Gen 1:22). There is therefore a threefold distinction to make. Inanimate
beings are created by the word of God (creation). Upon living beings, created by
the word of God, God utters a further word and they receive the blessing
(creation and blessing). Human beings are created by God through his word,
receive the blessing, and God addresses them once they have been created
(creation, blessing and dialogue). This places the human person in a prominent
position within creation, whilst remaining subject to God as his interlocutor,
so as to realise their goodness in the image and likeness of God himself.
1.2 A theological reading of Genesis 2: primordial sociality[131]
69. [Primordial sociality]. Without human relationships, human beings do
not truly exist. Human beings were not created for absolute solitude. This
reality is explored in depth in the account of creation in the second chapter of
Genesis. There, one can observe a sort of creative process divided into three
stages.
70. [Divine Origin]. The first stage (Gen 2:4a–7) describes the
creation of humankind: ‘Then the Lord God formed the human being (hāʾādām)
from the dust of the ground (ʾădāmāh) and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and the human being became a living being’ (Gen 2:7).
71. [Difference from other living creatures]. In the second passage (Gen
2:8–20), the Lord God places the human being in the garden (v. 8), provides him
with food (v. 9) and creates all the animals of the field and all the birds of
the air by shaping them from the earth (v. 19), just as he did with the human
being, so that they might keep him company: “‘It is not good for the human to be
alone’” (Gen 2:18). It is pointed out, however, that, amongst all living
creatures, the human being ‘found no one like himself (kəneḡdō) to help
him’. The term kəneḡdō literally means ‘like (one who stands) opposite
someone’. Thus, despite their common origin with other living creatures, human
beings find no true ‘counterpart to themselves (kəneḡdō)’ among them.
Despite the elements common to all living beings, they lack the specific quality
of otherness and sociality that is proper to human beings. Whilst forming part
of the animal kingdom, human beings possess distinctive characteristics that set
them apart. This precludes the divine call to fraternity from being completely
replaced by a relationship with domestic animals or by a sort of fusion with the
universe.
72. On the other hand, it should be noted that in Gen 2:20 God entrusted
Adam with an extraordinary task: to give names to the animals he had created.
This highlights the capacities that are unique to human beings. Both Adam and
the animals were formed (yṣr) from the earth (cf. Gen 2:7, 19) and
therefore share the same origin. But whilst it was God himself who breathed the
breath of life into Adam’s nostrils and transformed the dust from which he was
formed into a ‘living being’ (Gen 2:7: nepeš ḥayyâh), literally ‘a
living soul’, in the case of other living beings this action is attributed to
Adam. Up to this point, the Hebrew text had referred to the other living
creatures as ‘the living creatures of the field’ (ḥayyat haśśādeh), but
when they receive their names from Adam, they become ‘a living soul’ (Gen
2:19: nepeš ḥayyâh). Thus, drawing on a possibility offered by the Hebrew
syntax of this passage, it is suggested that Adam is asked to collaborate with
God to complete the final phase of the creation of the animals (cf. the name God
gives them in Gen 1:5. 8. 10): by engaging in the transition that leads
wild animals to become ‘living beings’ (living souls), so that he might
recognise them as such and welcome them into his own world. In summary,
according to Genesis 2, the animals in some way require Adam’s intervention; he
is entrusted with the task of perfecting creation through his action carried out
in harmony with the divine plan. It is clear that this does not imply placing
Adam on the same level as God the Creator, but rather recognising him as God’s
principal collaborator (cf. MH 148; 233), with a responsibility towards other
creatures that precludes indifference.
73. [Constitutive otherness]. In the third passage (Gen 2:21–25),
as this dynamic process of creation reaches its climax, the creation of the
human being is completed. A new beginning is signalled through the slumber into
which Adam falls (v. 21). Adam does not know the origin of the woman, just as he
does not know his own origin. The woman does not come from Adam’s own making,
which emphasises that she is not something or someone at his disposal. She is a
gift from God. Adam can only accept this gift for what it is if he respects the
radical otherness that constitutes the difference between man and woman, between
one person and another. This difference, however, does not overshadow the
radical similarity, which is manifested in the discovery of someone who is
finally truly ‘a match’: ‘Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of
my flesh!”’ (Gen 2:23). These are the first words Adam utters: language,
in fact, requires an interlocutor with whom to interact as a constitutive
element of otherness. By preserving the difference of otherness whilst
recognising similarity – as suggested by the alliteration in the Hebrew text:
‘Her name shall be “woman” (ʼiššâh), for she was taken out of man (ʼiš)’
(Gen 2:23) – one arrives at the most primordial form of social unity
through the exercise of freedom: ‘That is why a man will leave his father and
mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ (Gen
2:24; cf. Eph 5:31–32). In true otherness there is nothing to hide: they
were naked, yet they felt no shame (cf. Gen 2:25).
74. It thus becomes clear, at the root of and in the light of sexual difference,
that social differences, whatever they may be, of ethnicity, gender, culture,
social or economic status, do not in any way imply a hierarchical gradation:
their use to discriminate or subjugate clearly deviates from the plan of
creation, in which all human beings, without distinction, were created in the
image and likeness of God.
75. [Summary: three essential relationships]. Until the relationship of
essential otherness is established, which takes concrete form in the man-woman
couple, the process of the human being’s formation remains radically incomplete.
Hence, (a) in addition to the fundamental relationship with God as Creator (cf.
Gen 2:4a–7) (b) and the indispensable relationship with plants, which
provide food, and with animals (cf. Gen 2:8–20); (c) the interpersonal
relationship in otherness (cf. Gen 2:21–25) is also essential in defining
the human being. Only through the development of one’s being within these three
relationships, in accordance with God’s creative plan, does the human being
become what he or she is. Clearly, without the exercise of one’s own personal
self-awareness and freedom, it is not possible to set up any of these
relationships in an authentically human way. And, on the other hand, far from
constituting itself as an ‘isolated consciousness’ (EG 2, 8, 282),
self-awareness grows in freedom through the exercise of the three relationships
that constitute the human being.
1.3 The task inherent in the original plan
76. [God’s interlocutor]. In the account set out in the opening chapters
of Genesis, the human being’s dialogue with God is articulated precisely through
the description of the way in which the human being relates to creation,
according to three closely interrelated aspects: dominion over creation, the
care or stewardship of creation to enable it to flourish in accordance with the
divine plan, and, as the decisive factor, obedience to the divine command. This
mandate is expressed through the relationship that God asks human beings to have
in regard to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil present in the garden.
The metaphor of the tree undoubtedly relates to food, which is essential to
human life, marking the way in which human beings are integrated into the
natural environment.
77. [Dominion: Gen 1]. The unique and privileged position of human beings
in creation is reflected in the task they receive from God in the account of
Gen 1: ‘have dominion (rādah) over the fish of the sea, the birds of
the air, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep on
the earth’ (Gen 1:26); ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and
subdue it (kābash); have dominion (rādah) over the fish of the
sea, the birds of the air and every living creature that moves on the earth’ (Gen
1:28). Whilst for the peoples of antiquity it was a matter of survival to subdue
the violent elements of nature which, if unleashed, could easily lead even to
the extinction of the human species, an exaggerated and distorted interpretation
of this mandate has led to the belief that human beings were granted despotic
and unlimited dominion over all creation (cf. LS 67). We cannot ignore, with
shame and repentance, the impact that this misinterpretation of the profound
meaning of the biblical text has had on the exploitation and mistreatment of
creation.
78. [Stewardship in the image of God]. The task entrusted by God to human
beings must be seen as part of the understanding of the human person as the
image of God. Consequently, the normative and inspiring model for human action
towards creation is found in God himself, who exercises his power not in a
despotic, arbitrary or selfish manner, but by promoting the life of his
creatures (Cf. Ps 36:7; Ps 145:9; Gen 7:1–3; Dan
4:11; Sir 18:13; Wis 11:24) and by sustaining the whole of
creation through his care.[132]
This defining feature of God’s manner of acting is in full harmony with the law
of the Jubilee year (cf. Lev 25), which encompasses mercy towards the
land, livestock, all animals and all kinds of people: slaves, labourers,
migrants and landowners (cf. nos. 112–114). In accordance with this provision,
there resounds the great commandment of the Sabbath (Deut 5:12–15),
situated at the heart of the Decalogue,[133]
to which we shall return shortly.
79. [Stewardship: Gen 2]. The task entrusted by God in the account of
Gen 2 is, in fact, phrased differently: ‘The Lord God took the human being
and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it’ (Gen
2:15). The first verb used, translated as ‘cultivate’ (‘ābad), refers to
work.[134]
This is also mentioned in Gen 2:5, where it is stated that ‘there was no
human being to cultivate the ground’. The second verb, translated as ‘keep’ (šāmar),
refers more directly to stewardship in a twofold sense: respect and protection.
Human beings are entrusted with the task of making life flourish by way of an
action that does not replace that of the Creator, but stands in continuity with
it (cf. 1 Cor 3:9; GS 50). This task is not abolished by sin. It does,
however, entail an enormous responsibility for human beings in the exercise of
their freedom. Indeed, whilst they are placed above the rest of creation as
God’s direct interlocutors, their task is fulfilled only if they act in
accordance with God’s plan, acting as ‘stewards’. In this regard, given that
both verbal roots appear elsewhere to refer to the worship of God (cf. Ex
3:12; 4:23; 7:16; Deut 6:13; 10:12) and to the fulfilment of his
commandments (cf. Gen 17:9–10; 18:19; 26:5; Ex 12:17; Deut
4:2; 10:13), it may be inferred that the work carried out by human beings in the
garden, in creation, in our common home, is a concrete way of serving God and
worshipping him.
80. [The commandment]. Placed in the garden, with the task of making it
flourish according to the divine plan, human beings also receive a commandment:
‘The Lord God gave this command to the human being: “You may eat from any of the
trees in the garden, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you
must not eat, for on the day you eat from it, you will surely die”’ (Gen
2:16–17). Death, as a rupture in the relationship with God, is not part of God’s
design, for He breathed life into humankind (cf. Gen 2:7).[135]
What the transgression brings about, in addition to disorder in the life of
creation and a series of punishments inflicted upon humankind (cf. Gen
3:16–20), is expulsion from the Garden of Eden (cf. Gen 3:23–24).
81. [Meaning of the commandment]. The meaning of the commandment
ultimately lies in the fact that human beings are called to recognise their
place in the divine plan. The restriction indicated by the commandment expresses
the fact that human persons receive their life from God as a gift. It is not,
therefore, the original source that defines good and evil, as symbolically
expressed in what is laid down concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. Human goodness stems from curbing one’s greed and not allowing oneself to
be guided by the greedy urge to appropriate, from not setting oneself up as an
unlimited absolute that indulges every whim, but from knowing and accepting
oneself as a finite being and, in this way, correctly situated before God and
within creation. The commandment, which is in itself a gift (cf. Deut
5:2; 9:20; 10:4; Neh 9:4) for a good life to be lived in the garden,
proves to be a decisive test for human beings (cf. Gen 22:1; Ex
15:25; 16:4), which challenges the exercise of freedom, directing it towards the
good and the truth received from God.
1.4 A teaching from an ecological perspective: the sabbatical principle
82. [The sabbatical principle]. In the first account of creation we find
the root of the sabbatical principle, so widely present in the Torah, with its
ecological implications.[136]
The shabbat is a day of rest, following the example of God the Creator
(cf. Gen 2:2–3; Ex 20:8–11). It also expresses the grateful
remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt (cf. Deut 5:12–15) and of the
entry into the Promised Land (cf. Deut 3:20; 12:9). In this way, the
shabbat intertwines faith in God the Creator and Saviour, whose honour and
reverence are demanded by and expressed through the rest of animals, fields and
people, and through whom we enter into a relationship of respect, conviviality
and harmony with our common home. In this way, an alternative is offered to the
dynamic inherent in the technocratic paradigm (cf. LS 106–114; MH 92–96), which
pursues maximum efficiency and production as ends in themselves and at any cost.
Human life needs refreshment, celebration, spontaneous encounter and rest. The
Sabbath is a more contemplative day than the others. It teaches us to adopt a
selfless outlook, free from the desire to possess, dominate or attack. The
Sabbath is the day par excellence for wonder at the work of God that surrounds
us. It is the day of the fraternal meal, when family and friendship bonds are
nurtured by sharing the fruits of the week’s labour at a festive table. It is
the day on which we acknowledge God’s gifts and remember them more deeply, with
special devotion, setting aside more time for prayer and praise. It is the day
on which we reposition ourselves as grateful in our finitude before God, before
our neighbour, before creation, and before ourselves, making space for the
gratuitous.
83. [The first and eighth day]. In the Christian Tradition, the first day
of the week, the dies dominicus[137]
(Rev 1:10), is understood as a continuation of the Sabbath, embracing its
meaning and incorporating into it a new Christological and creatural dimension,
which brings the meaning inscribed in the Sabbath to its complete fulfilment.[138]
Sunday foreshadows the last day (cf. Acts 1:11; 1 Thess 4:13–17;
Rev 21:5), on which we hope to enter into God’s rest (cf. Heb
4:9–11). For the Church Fathers, Sunday is, at the same time, the first day of
the week, following the Sabbath, and the eighth day, the beginning of the new
creation.[139]
It recalls the beginning of creation in Christ (the first day) and its
fulfilment in Christ (the eighth day), the day of the Lord’s Resurrection (cf.
Mk 16:2, 9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1), the day on which the full
transparency of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling in the body of the Risen One is
revealed. In baptism[140]
and in the Sunday Eucharist, both days, the first and above all the eighth, are
present. Thus, we are truly set within and actively participate in the
culmination of history and creation: its fulfilment in Christ. All matter,
bearing the Trinitarian imprint, beginning with its very materiality,
exemplified in the grain of bread and the grapes of wine, is permeated by the
desire to attain its eschatological fulfilment (cf. Rom 8:19–22) through
transformation and recapitulation in Christ (cf. Eph 1:10), which is
already taking place in sacramental anticipation through the ecclesial liturgy
that the children of God celebrate in His honour. We can thus perceive how God’s
original plan includes care for our common home, together with respect for the
rhythms which generate a fundamental harmony in the garden: between the earth,
its plants, animals, human beings and the praise of God.
2 Why are we inflicting such grave harm on our common home? The sin against
creation
2.1 The breach of the original mandate
84. [The deception at its root]. In the opening chapters of Genesis,
Scripture illustrates in an exemplary manner how, from the very beginning of
humanity, human freedom has succumbed to deception and sought to take the place
of God (cf. Gen 38), turning away from the Creator’s original command.
Deception is articulated by the serpent’s forked tongue: ‘No, you will not die;
for God knows that on the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you
will be like God, knowing good and evil’ (Gen 3:4–5). God has revealed
his plan to human beings as rational and free beings. Yet, whenever human beings
believe the serpent, they have already distrusted God and turned away from Him.
The promise of being like God, prompted by envy, leads to disobedience, typical
of those who do not believe what God has spoken.
85. [The dynamics of temptation]. At the crucial moment in the
formulation of the temptation and in what leads the woman to yield to it, three
factors come together simultaneously, supporting and reinforcing one another,
plus a fourth that unifies the whole.
1) The promise of knowledge that would make us like God ‘in knowing good
and evil’ (Gen 3:5), usurping God’s place in judging good and evil.
2) Food that truly satisfies and is suited to human beings. Food, that
which may and may not be eaten, constitutes one of the fundamental threads of
the narrative (cf. Gen 1:29–30; 2:5, 7, 9, 16–17; 3:2–3, 5–6, 11–14,
17–19, 22). The temptation lies in failing to respect what God has established
as good food for us.
3) The attraction, which seduces desire and cupidity, holds out the false
promise of knowing good and evil in relation to food, giving the final impetus
(cf. Gen 3:6). The action based on this radical deception has the
paradoxical effect of revealing the fundamental vulnerability of human beings
(cf. Gen 3:7). Human sin has brought about a cosmic disorder (cf. Gen
3:16–17): we no longer dwell in the garden of paradise, but in a place where we
must live alongside catastrophes and the struggle for survival amongst the
various species.
4) Eve succumbs to the deceptive seduction that promises immortality
through the serpent’s forked tongue: ‘No, you will not die’ (Gen 3:4).
The gift of immortality is received from the One who alone is immortal and
eternal. For this reason, the Church Fathers already spoke of the Eucharist as
the medicine of immortality: ‘phármakon athanasías’[141],
alluding to the gift of immortality in Christ conferred by partaking of it.
86. [The rupture of essential relationships]. The transgression of God’s
original plan results in the rupture of the three essential relationships within
which human beings live out their existence: with God, with other human beings,
and with creation. This inevitably leads to deterioration at the personal,
social and cosmic levels. Creation remains wounded by human sin until the
Saviour, taking upon himself the full weight of the calamity caused by sin,
redeems it through his redemptive suffering.
2.2 Highly alarming data on ecological deterioration
87. Pope Francis (Laudato si',
Querida Amazonia,
Laudate Deum), following in the footsteps of
his predecessors,[142]
did not cease to draw upon the findings of scientific studies so as to issue, on
that basis, an urgent call for an integral ecological conversion, expressed in
various ways. Throughout history, human beings, in their interaction with the
natural world around them, have practised harmonious co-existence with nature in
different eras and regions, especially in cultures with fewer technological
capabilities and a stronger sense of kinship with the environment. Yet they have
also interacted with the environment through predatory and destructive actions,
thereby failing to respect the divine mandate to care for our common home. To
illustrate the scale of what the deterioration of our common home entails today,
we turn to some data that enjoy broad consensus within the scientific community.
This is but a small example of the consequences for our common home of the
prevalence of a technocratic paradigm, that is, the excessive and ethically
unchecked use of modern technological means (cf. MH 101).[143]
88. [Biological diversity]. Biological diversity is not an exotic or
extravagant luxury, nor is it a romantic relic of the past. ‘All food systems
depend on biodiversity.’ It is therefore ‘a key factor for the achievement of
food security and improved nutrition (SDG 2) and the provision of clean water
(SDG 6)’.[144]
The overall situation remains very alarming. ‘On our current trajectory,
biodiversity, and the services it provides, will continue to decline…’.[145]
89. [Environment]. According to the sixth United Nations report, the
overall condition of the global environment has continued to deteriorate since
the first edition [in 1997], despite environmental policy efforts across all
countries and regions.’
[146]
Here are some very worrying examples. Air pollution is caused by human activity.
[147] This has a very
negative impact on everyone’s health, particularly that of the most vulnerable:
children, the elderly and the poor. It is estimated that ‘zoonoses are estimated
to account for more 60 per cent of human infectious diseases.’[148]
These diseases, which are transmitted from animals to humans, are directly
proportional to the environmental degradation caused by human beings themselves.
The availability of fresh water is under threat. ‘Water quality has worsened
significantly since 1990’,[149]
due to various types of pollution: plastics and microplastics, fertilisers,
heavy metals, pesticides, persistent organic pollutants and others.
In conclusion, ‘Despite global efforts and calls for action, our planet has
already entered into uncharted territory, facing global environmental crises of
climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation and desertification, and
pollution and waste. These interconnected crises, which are undermining human
well-being and are primarily caused by unsustainable systems of production and
consumption, reinforce and exacerbate each another and need to be addressed
together.’[150]
90. [War]. This state of affairs, perverse in itself, reaches its climax
in wars. Not only do they brutally accelerate ecological deterioration and the
pollution of land, rivers and air, but they often even pursue this intentionally
as a weapon of aggression: the burning of villages and fields, the destruction
of crops, the laying of mines, and the firing of grenades, not to mention the
destruction of infrastructure, homes, factories and hospitals. And, above all,
there is the killing of human beings, many of whom are innocent. The prophet
Jeremiah already identified defeat in war with environmental and urban
deterioration (cf. Jer 4:5–26).
91. [The extremely serious repercussions for the poorest]. This situation
falls most heavily and causes the greatest suffering amongst the poorest, both
amongst those with fewer resources within wealthy countries and, above all, in
poorer countries (cf. LS 176) and amongst indigenous communities.
[151] They suffer from the
exploitation of the natural resources at their disposal, leading to the
deterioration of the sustainability of their respective ecosystems, as is
exemplified by the cases of the Amazon[152]
and the Congo.
[153]
Moreover, these countries are often exploited as dumping grounds for toxic
waste. Being far more vulnerable to changes in the ecosystem, they suffer most
from the effects of pollution (cf. LS 20); they are more directly affected by
ecosystem changes in agriculture, fisheries and forests (cf. LS 25), resulting
in more pronounced migration due to the ecological deterioration of environments
vital to their subsistence (cf. LS 25). The populations of these countries
consume poorer quality water (cf. LS 29) and face greater difficulties in
accessing drinking water (cf. LS 30). In short, these are the countries where
the highest number of people die prematurely (cf. LS 48). In the words of Pope
Francis: ‘Today 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.’[154] (cf. LS 49).
92. [The need for radical change]. The priestly account in the Book of
Genesis (Gen 1–9) describes how the created world, which was originally
good, has been marred by human corruption. It also sets out the commitment to a
re-creation of the damaged world, which requires a change in values. Even today,
in order to respond to the unprecedented ecological crisis we are facing,
scientific and technical solutions are certainly needed, along with improvements
in governance (cf. LS 167), more effective institutions, a global operational
consensus (cf. LS 164), substantial changes in systems of production,
consumption, transport and energy use, appropriate legislation that is properly
enforced, assessment of the impact of the strategies adopted, regional and local
adaptations, and much more besides. However, at a deeper level, a change in
cultural values is required, [155]
without which all these measures will prove ineffective. We are called upon to
set in motion a genuine ecological transformation of our way of life. No social
group and no part of the planet can consider itself immune to the devastating
effects of the deterioration currently taking place. Faced with an evil of a
collective nature and a truly global scope, the path to a solution must also be
collective and global in nature.
2.3 A bold diagnosis: sin against creation and the Creator
93. [A growing awareness of sin]. Observing human actions, interpersonal
relationships and the cry of the earth (cf. LS 2), we cannot fail to recognise
the enormous influence that results from yielding to the temptation to regard
human beings and their boundless desire for power over creation as the ultimate
source of every criterion for defining good and evil. Is this not the very bait
with which the serpent tempted humankind from the very beginning: ‘you will be
like gods’ (Gen 3:5)? It is because we succumb to this distorted logic,
rather than follow the guidelines inscribed in creation’s anthropology, that we
also cause disorder in the cosmos. Whilst there is an undeniable element of
personal responsibility in all this,
[156]
it is also necessary to recognise that the damage inflicted on the environment
goes far beyond the levels of individual, family and small-community
responsibility, involving the lifestyles of wider communities and the economic
and development choices of actors with greater influence, which endanger the
quality and very survival of human life on the planet, together with that of
other species.
94. [Background in the Magisterium]. In this regard, the urgency of
recognising, in harmony with the teaching of Revelation, the existence of a sin
relating to the care of creation has increasingly taken root in the Church’s
consciousness. [157]
Pope Francis referred to an ‘ecological sin’,
[158]
although this formulation has not become fully established within the Catholic
Church; nevertheless, it has encouraged a commitment to exploring this issue in
depth. It is worth quoting here the wording already used by John Paul II during
his apostolic visit to Poland, echoing the words of the Polish bishops: ‘We therefore need to realize that every action which ignores God’s rights over
his world, as well as the rights of human beings bestowed upon them by the
Creator, is in conflict with the commandment of love . . . We need to realize
therefore that there can be a grave sin against the natural environment, one
which weighs on our consciences, and which calls for grave responsibility
towards God the Creator’ (pastoral letter of 2 May 1989).’[159]
The Synod on the Amazon, in its final document, was even more incisive:
‘We propose to define ecological sin as an action or omission against God,
against one's neighbour, the community and the environment. It is sin against
future generations, and it is committed in acts and habits of pollution and
destruction of the harmony of the environment. These are transgressions against
the principles of interdependence, and they destroy networks of solidarity among
creatures (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 340-344) and violate the
virtue of justice.’[160]
More recently, Pope Leo has emphasised the same point:
‘That is not all. Nature itself is reduced at times to a bargaining chip, a
commodity to be bartered for economic or political gain. As a result, God’s
creation turns into a battleground for the control of vital resources. We see
this in agricultural areas and forests peppered with landmines, “scorched earth”
policies, conflicts over water sources, and the unequal distribution of raw
materials, which penalizes the poorer nations and undermines social stability
itself. These various wounds are the effect of sin. This is surely not what God
had in mind when he entrusted the earth to the men and women whom he created in
his image (cf. Gen 1:24-29).’[161]
It is worth noting that Pope Leo simultaneously links damage to nature with a
deviation from the plan entrusted to human beings by the Creator. An appropriate
formulation of what constitutes the sin in question here must express both
factors: not only environmental or ecological damage, but also, and first and
foremost, the refusal to follow God’s intended plan for creation. As the Synod
on the Amazon emphasises, it is from this that harm to other human beings, both
now and in the future, also stems. In the sin against the Creator and against
creation, which is his work, the three essential relationships through which the
human being finds expression are compromised.
95. [Analogy with social sin]. We propose understanding sin against the
environment in a manner analogous to how concepts of social sin
[162] and structures of sin
[163] have gradually taken
shape. The sin we are dealing with here clearly entails a social dimension.
Indeed, ‘also social is every sin against the common good and its exigencies’.[164]
There is no doubt that a habitable common home is a fundamental expression of
the common good.[165]
Furthermore: ‘The term social can be applied to sins of commission or omission on the part of
political, economic or trade union leaders, who though in a position to do so,
do not work diligently and wisely for the improvement and transformation of
society according to the requirements and potential of the given historic
moment’.[166] Social sin is so called because it is directed against society as God intended
it to be, that is, attentive to the common good in accordance with the just
order of social co-existence.
96. The historical moment we are living through demands urgent action from
everyone, starting with those responsible for public life, to ensure the
sustainability of the planet and the habitability of our common home. This is
not merely an ethical requirement, but also a theological one. According to Pope
Leo, environmental justice ‘can no longer be regarded as an abstract concept or a distant goal. It is an
urgent need that involves much more than simply protecting the environment. For
it is a matter of justice, social, economic and human. For believers it is also
a duty born of faith…’[167]
The social dimension of this imperative relates to the structures of an economic
system inspired by the technocratic paradigm, which fails to take account of the
common good (cf. LS 106–114). This is not an inevitable fate: technology can and
must be used in a way that respects the environment and serves the common good.
[168] There has been no
human life without technology since the days of homo faber. The current
economic system is the result of a series of human decisions. Throughout
history, various economic models have succeeded one another. It is in our hands
to establish an alternative system, one that serves the lives of all, is
governed by the principle of sustainability, and respects the biorhythms of our
common home.
97. [Sin against creation and the Creator]. We therefore opt for a
formulation that is clearly theological, favouring terms that denote concepts
specific to the faith over those specific to the sciences, such as, for example,
the term ‘ecocide’. Furthermore – as emphasised by Pope Leo XIV – we believe it
is appropriate to favour a formulation that simultaneously implies both the harm
inflicted upon nature and the failure to recognise, or even the rejection of,
the Creator’s plan, which entails entrusting human beings with the stewardship
and care of our common home. None of this, it seems to us, is sufficiently clear
in the term ‘ecological sin’, which has sometimes been used (cf. supra QA
82). We propose that this sin against our common home be understood as a sin
against creation and against the Creator, inasmuch as it violates the
meaning of creation intended by God the Creator. The term ‘creation’ in itself
has a profoundly theological meaning: it directs us to think not so much of the
mere sum of all created beings, but of each and every one of them insofar as
they are related to an origin in God who constantly sustains and contains them.
On the other hand, every sin is rooted in our relationship with God. The Creator
has entrusted us with the mandate and task of caring for, and even perfecting,
our common home. To fail to do so, whether through action or omission, is
disobedience to God. By failing to care for our common home with sufficient
wisdom, diligence and short-, medium- and long-term vision, we not only fail to
respect God’s plan and mistreat creation, but we also harm our neighbour,
particularly the poorest and future generations. Sin against creation,
therefore, concerns our relationship with God the Creator, with our neighbour,
and with creation itself, as it distorts the three relationships that constitute
us.
3 The Christian proposal
98. [Approach]. Behind the ecological crisis lie, amongst other causes,
the technocratic paradigm (cf. LS 106–114; LD 20–33) and its fallacious and
destructive anthropological foundation (cf. LS 101–136), with the fatal
predatory attitude that ensues. To tackle this crisis, social, scientific and
philosophical movements have emerged which, whilst often starting from valid
concerns, end up proposing a vision that, in some cases, is incompatible with
Christian anthropology. We thus frequently find ourselves faced with two
extremes: predatory anthropocentrism and certain environmentalist philosophies,
such as biocentrism or ecocentrism. We seek to describe these two positions in
terms of their underlying assumptions and their consequences, before going on to
develop the proposal of Christian anthropology, which interprets the human
person as the good steward and servant of creation, in accordance with Sacred
Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.
3.1 Two unacceptable extremes: predatory anthropocentrism; biocentrism and
ecocentrism
99. [Predatory anthropocentrism]. Undoubtedly, predatory
anthropocentrism, which regards humanity as the absolute master of all creation,
with ius utendi et abutendi, must be clearly rejected by Christians.
Following the immanent logic that drives it, predatory anthropocentrism brings
with it a dynamic of violence and exploitation, since it is not governed by
respect for the other (nature), nor for others (one’s neighbour), nor for the
Other (God the Creator), ultimately disfiguring the image of God imprinted on
the human being and expressed in the relationships in which they live,
imprisoning them in the desolation and anguish of a blunted conscience (cf. EG
2). Lives are plundered and sacrificed, and with them the future of many other
lives, all in the name of the indiscriminate gratification of one’s own
self-centred egoism.
100. [Biocentrism and ecocentrism]. In the justified rejection of
predatory anthropocentrism, radically alternative positions are now being
proposed, such as radical biocentrism (cf. LS 118) or ecocentrism, and amongst
these in particular, deep ecology
[169]
(cf. LS 91). These positions are characterised by the exclusion of human
beings from the centre of the universe, replacing them with ecosystems or life
in the broadest sense, without recognising the distinct value of its various
forms. Ultimately, they advocate a different system of values that does not
correspond to God’s plan for creation. From this perspective, the human being
does not enjoy a privileged status. From the perspective of ecocentrism, human
beings are interpreted simply as part of a network of vital relationships that
must be respected and preserved at all costs. Both positions, by advocating a
radical egalitarianism, end up promoting an unrealistic and impracticable
chimera. Human beings, as living beings that form part of the food chain, must
in fact inevitably intervene in nature and derive benefit from it in order to
survive. For the Christian faith, other creatures are ‘given’ to human beings
also to provide them with food, clothing and protection (cf. Gen 1–2).
The denial of the uniqueness of the human being, characteristic of these
viewpoints, leads to conclusions that are impossible for the Christian faith to
accept: regarding the death of vast numbers of persons as something beneficial
for the well-being of other creatures.
[170]
At the same time, they regard human interference in the natural world as always
harmful and deny the legitimacy of any justified and regulated use of non-human
creatures in the service of human beings. These environmental philosophies
therefore raise ethical questions with enormous implications, not to mention the
fact that, in doing so, they fail to recognise the meaning of human dignity as
the image of God.
101. [The danger of absolutizing nature]. A correct understanding of the
relationship between human beings and the environment does not absolutize
nature, regarding it as more important than the human person. If the Church’s
Magisterium expresses a well-founded rejection of views inspired by ecocentrism
and biocentrism, it is because they suppress the difference in identity and
value between the human person, God’s direct interlocutor, and other living
beings (cf. no. 68). This paves the way for a new form of pantheism tinged with
neo-paganism, which sees nature as the original and ultimate principle of life,
even for human beings.[171]
Faced with these extreme positions, the Church is firmly committed to ensuring
that environmental issues are addressed in a comprehensive and appropriate
manner, respecting the ‘grammar’ that the Creator has inscribed in his work,
conferring upon human beings the role of responsible stewards and managers of
creation, a role which they must not abuse, but from which they cannot abdicate
either.[172]
102. [Situated anthropocentrism]. Pope Francis proposed the concept of
‘situated anthropocentrism’ to describe the way in which humanity relates to the
rest of creation according to God’s plan (LD 67), something taken up by Pope Leo
XIV (MH 237). The expression emphasises that human life cannot be understood or
lived in isolation from its relationship with the natural world, of which it
forms a part. Without the manifold relationships that provide it with support
and sustenance, human life is impossible. ‘Situated anthropocentrism’ is
characterised by two aspects. First, it does not reduce human beings to just
another being within creation and the divine plan, thereby depriving them of the
dignity of being God’s direct interlocutor and intentional collaborator in his
work. It follows from this that the Christian faith affirms a specific form
of anthropocentrism. Secondly, it strips human beings of the claim
that this dignity isolates them and places them above all creation to the extent
of authorising them to make despotic and irresponsible use of it. Instead, it
situates them in their rightful place, as those who can neither
understand themselves nor survive without other creatures, their companions on
the journey. It presents them as beings entrusted with the task of caring for
creation, understood as our common home, whose planetary well-being contributes
to their own personal and communal fulfilment.
3.2 The human being: steward and servant of creation
103. [Intention]. A reading of the opening chapters of Genesis points
towards the proposal of an anthropology of care, when defining the specific
place of human beings in our common home and the appropriate way to respond to
the task entrusted to us by the Creator. There are many images in which both
these aspects have been expressed within the Christian Tradition. Thus, for
example, recourse has been made to the metaphors of the gardener or the
shepherd, to the image of the Good Samaritan, and even to the figure of Christ’s
kenosis, according to which we should be able not to take advantage of
our privileged position in creation so as to place ourselves at its service and
care for it. Within this multifaceted framework, we highlight two figures that
aptly express both the unique position assigned to human beings and the exercise
of the responsibility entrusted to them.
104. [Steward]. The concept of ‘steward’ encompasses a wide range of
meanings. Some of its connotations may be criticised,[173]
such as that which suggests a purely managerial and utilitarian use of creation,
or that which implies a commitment to mere conservation, without explicitly
including the key element that refers to the task of enabling creation to
flourish according to God’s plan.[174]
However, in the literature on environmental sustainability, the term does indeed
allude to care, combined with the necessary expertise, so that the resulting
action is effective, proportionate and appropriate in every context.[175]
Therefore, the concept of the steward can be used to formulate more precisely
our original mandate to care for creation. This concept, moreover, encompasses
the fundamental aspect of not being the owner of what one administers. This is
why stewards must carry out their work in such a way as to be accountable to the
owner. Consequently, stewardship means responsible care, in accordance with the
owner’s will and legitimate interests. St John Paul II expressed this idea as
follows: ‘It is the Creator's will that human beings should treat nature not as ruthless
exploiters but as intelligent and responsible stewards’,[176]
recognising them as ‘the products, knowers and stewards of creation’.[177]
If human beings stray from this plan or contradict it through the exercise of
their freedom, they not only harm the good of creation, but also harm
themselves, severing their bond with the Creator.
105. [Servant of creation]. The Greek Fathers, in particular Saint
Gregory of Nyssa and Saint Maximus the Confessor, affirm that humans are ‘beings
on the threshold’, situated both between the sensible and the intelligible
worlds, and between the created and the uncreated worlds. For this reason, human
beings have a specific role: to convey the life of God to the sensible and
created world, and thus, in Christ, the Word of God made flesh, to be living
instruments mediating God’s plan.
[178]
Saint Maximus the Confessor, for example, conceives of the world as a harmonious
whole of creatures, each of which bears within itself a logos that makes
it unique, good, loved and called to eschatological fulfilment. This is an
indelible dignity and, at the same time, an irrevocable vocation that God is
bringing to fulfilment at every moment for every creature.
106. Human beings are called to contemplate this harmony, which reveals God to
them and leads them to Him. Creatures have a pedagogical function: by acting
according to each one’s own logos, inscribed in them by God, they offer
human beings an example that helps them progress in the fulfilment of their
vocation. [179]
Furthermore, creatures ceaselessly raise up their cosmic praise to God (cf. LS
76–100), as Saint Francis of Assisi so beautifully attested in the Canticle of
the Creatures. This praise is transformed, in Christ through the Church, calling
on the active participation of human beings, into a true Eucharistic liturgy in
which creation, transformed by the action of grace, returns to God what it has
received from Him. It is precisely here that the call of human beings to perfect
creation by collaborating in the divine plan, which is expressed in the task God
has given them to ‘name’ living creatures, is manifested in a gratuitous and
surpassing way. [180]
Thus a dynamic of mutual service is realised between human beings and creation.
For human beings, creatures are the way by which they attain their ultimate end
– God [181]
– but at the same time they require human beings’ active involvement in order to
bring to fulfilment the glorification they offer to God.
Humanity’s vocation is not to possess or dominate creation, as happened at the
Fall, but to offer it to God.[182]
This is realised in the Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery of Christ, which
marks the beginning of the definitive salvation of the created world.[183]
If we regard human beings as servants of other creatures, giving them a voice of
praise and caring for them, we prevent their role from being interpreted as
despotic and arbitrary power, and we understand it as generous service in
accordance with God’s plan.
107. [Eucharistic enlightenment]. This role of human beings amongst other
creatures in the fulfilment of God’s plan finds its deepest inspiration in the
celebration of the Eucharist: human beings offer creation to God in Christ and,
in return, implore God’s blessing in Christ upon all things. Christ is thus the
axis around which the world comes to maturity. [184]
Only a world in communion with God, united to God in Christ, can fulfil the
purpose for which it was created and attain its fullness. This liturgical
perspective endows ecology with a profound significance in terms of cultural and
social, theological and religious transformation. It includes in itself a call
not to urge people to respect nature solely out of fear of its destruction.
Rather, it is a matter of fostering a positive and proactive attitude towards
nature. The theological and cultural dimension of ecology implies that
protecting nature is not at odds with its development. As stewards and servants
of creation, human beings take the material world into their own hands and
transform it into something greater than its natural state, perfecting it by
continuing God’s creative work. Nature, entrusted by God to our care, aspires to
participate, including through human action, in the chorus of divine praise as
the cosmos makes its way towards its transformation and fulfilment in Christ.
108. [The Eucharist as an ecological school]. From the Eucharist springs
a spirituality capable of sustaining and encouraging the ecological conversion
we so urgently need to undertake as the human family (cf. LS 236). In the
Eucharist, we recognise God’s gifts in nature. The intellect opens itself to the
transparency of God in creation. Nature reveals its intrinsic epiphanic
dimension. These are gifts we need in order to live, starting with food. But
material food acquires its full meaning when it is neither isolated nor set in
opposition to the food that nourishes the spirit. For this reason, a purely
instrumental view of creation diminishes and impoverishes our humanity. The
Eucharist is a banquet of communion, a common table to be shared. For this
reason, it builds up the community. It is not possible to celebrate the
Eucharist without caring for the poor. In the Eucharist, as a community of
brothers and sisters, we recognise the purpose of creation and of history: to
give glory to God, through the offering transfigured by his Spirit of the gifts
we have received from him, uniting ourselves to the self-giving life of the Lord
Jesus. For this reason, the Eucharist speaks to us of the transformation
necessary to overcome sin; of the responsibility that comes with the gift of
salvation, to bring the created world and humanity to their eschatological
fulfilment; it teaches us to properly value all of creation;[185]
it shows us our personal place within the cosmos as a whole. It teaches us that
we are a community and teaches us to build community. At the same time, in it we
learn to contemplate and praise God both through our work in transforming nature
and through our interpersonal relationships. In the Eucharist, our relationship
of dependence and gratitude towards God and, in Him, towards creation is built
up and expressed.
4 Summary: The place and mission of human beings in our common home
109. To summarise this chapter, we can describe the place and mission of human
beings in the common home of creation through this interweaving of different
aspects, in which the Creator’s original plan unfolds.
Human beings occupy a privileged position within the whole of creation: (1) they
were created on the sixth day, as the crowning glory of God’s work; (2) they are
the only creatures made in the image and likeness of God; (3) and, according to
Christian understanding, they are the image of Christ; (4) they are also the
image of the Trinity itself; (5) they receive a special blessing to act within
creation; (6) are God’s sole direct interlocutors; (7) have the task of actively
and decisively collaborating with God in the perfection of creation. Taken
together, these characteristics highlight the uniqueness of the human being,
which is fully revealed in Christ and expressed in a dignity and a mission
through which the whole of creation attains its fulfilment in Christ.
This dignity and this mission are attested to by Sacred Scripture in a clear and
decisive manner: (8) human beings are entrusted with the task of dominion (rādah)
over creation; (9) of subduing (kābash) the earth; (10) of cultivating (‘ābad)
the Garden of Eden; (11) of keeping it (šāmar); (12) and even to complete
and perfect the divine work (by giving names to living creatures). And all this
must be achieved in harmony with, and in accordance with, what is most
fundamental to their nature: human beings are created in the image and likeness
of God, (13) as good stewards, whose care results (14) in the exercise of
service in God’s name for the benefit of creation. This implies (15) that human
beings do not hold the supreme position, nor are they the ones who decides what
is good and what is evil (cf. Gen 3:5), thus falling into sin against the
Creator and his creation. Through this sin, human beings disrupt the dynamic
balance of their essential relationships with God, with neighbour and with
creation, thereby harming themselves. Yet despite this, looking to Christ, human
beings have been placed by God at the heart of creation to fulfil their specific
and unique role in the divine plan, carrying it out as faithful stewards and
servants, called to lead the redeemed and transformed creation back to God for
his glory and praise.
Chapter III. Care for our Common Home
110. [Approach]. An honest acknowledgement of sin against the Creator and
creation opens us up to accepting the urgent call to ecological conversion. If
this sin affects our three essential relationships, then ecological conversion,
to be truly integral, must logically concern these same dimensions.[186]
Conversion according to the Christian faith stems from an encounter with Jesus
Christ (LS 217), from whom we learn to relate to God as our one Lord (cf. Mt
4:3–4), to other human beings as our neighbours (cf. Lk 10:25–37), and to
creation as a work in which we recognise the expression of a divine language
(cf. Mt 6:26–30). From the perspective we have outlined, our relationship
with creation is characterised by the fact that it is a gift, received from God,
which has been entrusted to us so that we may care for it. Indeed, as human
beings, we have been given, as stewards and servants, the task of managing
creation in such a way as to manifest through it the glory of God, which will
culminate in an eschatological fulfilment. Our life unfolds within a dense web
of relationships with God, with other people, and with creation, where
everything is interconnected. The interrelatedness and reciprocity that surround
and envelop us evoke for the believer the Trinitarian imprint. All this sets a
tone and a direction, whilst also calling for a specific responsibility on the
part of Christians in their care for our common home. This is an integral part
of their response to the vocation they have received from the Triune God.
111. When making decisions and taking action today, we must put into context the
perspective outlined by the vision of creation, illumined by the faith proper to
the Christian, within the wider collective commitment to address the grave
global ecological crisis we are experiencing. In this chapter, we therefore seek
to outline some courses of action to address the situation, looking to all
possible resources and initiatives that can contribute to the care of our common
home, whilst bearing in mind the specific contribution offered by the Christian
vision regarding the three essential relationships that define us as human
beings, together with our self-understanding and relationship with ourselves. It
is within all these dimensions that the effective dynamic of the change in
mindset characteristic of an authentic and integral ecological conversion can
and must emerge. From this perspective, we first begin this chapter with our
relationship with God, drawing inspiration from the institution of the Jubilee,
which, in faith, gives a clear invitation to a constant and comprehensive change
of mindset in relation to creation. Secondly, we focus on our relationship with
ourselves, offering some fundamental guidelines for an ecological spirituality.
Thirdly, we then focus specifically on our relationship with creation,
[187] before moving on,
fourthly, to our relationship with neighbour, bearing in mind that in these two
areas Catholic Tradition attaches great importance to reason
[188] and to respect for
the natural law.
[189]
Finally, we introduce an interreligious perspective, in order to highlight some
points of convergence regarding the care of our common home and the spirituality
that can inspire it.
1 From our relationship with God: the logic of the Jubilee
112. Saint John Paul II – in the run-up to the celebration of the Great Jubilee
of the Year 2000 – had already proposed an interpretation of the institution of
the Jubilee, as attested in the Old Testament (cf. Lev 25:2–22), from the
perspective of eco-social justice, with a theological foundation.[190]
The institution of the biblical Jubilee, in fact, contains a profound teaching
on the meaning of our common home and on how to inhabit it justly, in keeping
with an integral ecology.[191]
113. [The theological significance of the Jubilee]. To understand the
practice of the Jubilee, it is necessary to bear in mind two fundamental
theological premises. First, the creation narratives, Gen 1 and Gen
2, conceive of creation as a common home for all, which is in reality a temple
in which God dwells. For this reason, the whole of creation speaks of God
[192] and deserves respect
and care. Secondly, it is prescribed that the call to observe the Jubilee should
take place on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev 25:9). Thus, the meaning of
the Jubilee is framed within the day of divine forgiveness par excellence (cf.
Lev 16:29–31), which is also a day of fasting and, like the Sabbath, a
day of rest. The ultimate source of the Jubilee is the recognition of God’s
mercy, which must be translated in concrete terms into social justice: the
restoration of the land (cf. Lev 25:10, 13), so that everyone may have
their own plot of land; and ecological practice: the resting of the land (cf.
Lev 25:2–6), as a recognition of God’s gift and his lordship. In this way,
the Jubilee reaffirms the close interconnection between our relationship with
God (mercy), our relationship with neighbour (restitution) and our relationship
with the earth (rest). Furthermore, it emphasises two qualities that are proper
to God: his being the Creator and his acting with mercy.
114. [The fruits of the Jubilee]. This practice embodies great wisdom.
Indeed, the desire to covet the land, though forbidden in the Ten Commandments
(cf. Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21), combined with the uncertainties of life,
leads to situations in which the earth is no longer a common home for all,
shared equitably, in clear contradiction to God’s plan. Since God is its
ultimate owner (cf. Lev 25:23), the distribution of the earth as
originally envisaged in accordance with the divine will must prevail and be
re-established (cf. Deut 19:14; 27:17; 1 Kings 21:3; Hos
5:10) for the benefit of all (cf. LS 93–95). It follows from this that
fraternity and solidarity set an unsurpassable limit to greed in the
use of the land. Without effective fraternity, there is no common home.
The Jubilee implies, by its very nature, the recognition of God’s gift.
Ultimately, it is his favour that makes the fields fertile. This is why he can
sustain us during the seventh year (cf. Lev 25:20–22). The Jubilee is
therefore founded on gratuitousness and on the humility of those
who receive a gift, of those who do not succumb to the urge to hoard everything,
an urge driven not only by greed but also by a lack of trust in God. Fraternity,
solidarity, generosity, trust and humility: here are the deep roots anchored in
our relationship with God that lead to social justice, respect for and care of
creation; and which promote peaceful co-existence in our common home. The
preaching of Jesus of Nazareth on the coming of the Kingdom of God is fully in
keeping with this jubilee logic and, in a sense, represents its continuation and
intensification. Not only does it honour the merciful Creator, but it also
emphasises a preference for the little ones, the marginalised and the suffering,
calling resolutely for their free and preferential inclusion as the first to be
welcomed into the saving community of the Kingdom of God.
2 From our relationship with ourselves: outlines of an ecological
spirituality
115. [The need for an ecological spirituality]. This Jubilee logic
provides us with a guide in outlining the broad principles of an ecological
spirituality. As Pope Francis far-sightedly emphasised, an appropriate
spirituality is necessary to ensure that action and commitment to the care of
our common home do not give rise to pride or generate anxiety (cf. GE 28). It
was for this reason that, in
Laudato si',
he devoted the final chapter to ecological education and spirituality (cf. LS,
chapter VI).
116. [The urgency and difficulties of today’s context]. The promotion of
an authentic and effective ecological spirituality comes up against the dynamics
imposed by the technocratic paradigm that is currently predominant in the
economic sphere and in social life. There are many who suffer from stress,
anxiety and frustration due to inhuman rhythms of work, which harm not only
nature (energy, transport, waste, food), but also personal, family, social and
religious life. It has been shown that we can come to suffer from ‘nature
deficit disorder’ when we isolate ourselves and lose direct contact with
creation. Often, in many of our societies, we find ourselves trapped between an
underlying sense of unease, which calls for drastic changes in the way we manage
our lives, and the need to adapt to the imperatives of the frenetic pace imposed
by the market. Ecological spirituality charts a path out of this
self-destructive spiral, which mistreats us, makes us ill and causes us to
deteriorate, whilst at the same time turning us into agents of harm. A healthy
spirituality invites us to live in a balanced and mindful way, both as regards
the environment that sustains us and as regards others and ourselves.
117. [Some fundamental principles]. Ecological spirituality therefore
involves a focus on healthy rhythms of life, where work, rest, leisure,
contemplation, our relationship with nature and with other people, and silence
are combined in a style inspired by millennia of monastic wisdom. The
Benedictine ora et labora preserves an inspiration destined to permeate
the entire Christian community today. A healthy spirituality is mindful of
personal and family consumption; it strives to make it sustainable. It seeks to
minimise energy consumption at home and in transport. It pursues a healthy and
environmentally responsible diet. It helps people to discern what to buy, in the
awareness that every act of purchasing is a moral act (cf. CV 66; LS 206). It
invites people to practise thoughtful self-control over their pace of life and
consumption, encouraging them to choose to forgo certain products and practices
that are harmful to the environment. A responsible outlook considers society and
the planet without reducing them to the individual or their immediate
surroundings. For this reason, it calls for the exercise of fraternity and
solidarity. By fostering a spirit of contemplation, it enables us to give thanks
to God for his gifts and to join with all of creation in praising the Creator,
enjoying these gifts without the need to hoard or consume compulsively (cf. LS
222).
3 From our relationship with creation: ethical principles for the care of our
common home
3.1 Reverence
118. Human beings are part of the natural universe, the biosphere and the human
community (cf. no. 3). Every human person has a unique and irreplaceable
identity, which is constitutively expressed within a framework of radical
relationality. Their existence finds its meaning within the context of the
entire universe and of the particular communities that welcome and transcend
them. For this reason, in the face of the grandeur of creation, which speaks to
us of the Creator (cf. LS 85), bears his imprint and in turn praises him, there
is a call for an attitude of wonder, reverence and respect.[193]
God himself speaks to us through creation (cf. LS 84). All creation is precious
in itself (cf. LS 33) and in the sight of God (cf. LS 69). The development of
this sensitivity requires an education in contemplation and wonder, in the
manner of Saint Francis of Assisi, who:
‘tasted God’s fontal goodness in all creatures, as in so many streams flowing
from it; and, as if perceiving a heavenly concert in the harmony of the powers
and movements bestowed on them by God, he gently urged them to sing the praise
of the Lord, just as the prophet David had done (cf. Ps 148:1–14).’[194]
3.2 Responsible care
119. Respect demands that we take action to care for our common home, which has
been given and entrusted to us by the Creator.
[195]
Aware of this original gift, our mission as human beings to be custodians of our
common home is an expression of our being made in the image of God: it entails
acting as his representatives, guiding creation towards its perfection, not
towards its destruction. To care for means to actively protect, contributing to
the intelligent and sustainable use of nature, so that life, in all its variety
and richness, may be preserved and flourish. Sustainability, which is seriously
threatened in the short, medium and long term, is an indispensable criterion
that must govern our way of life and the economic model that underpins it. As we
have noted, the task entrusted by the Creator to humanity is to care for and
cultivate our common garden. We could perhaps go further and say that part of
the mission entrusted by the Creator to his created image consists precisely in
making the Earth a habitable garden for all, in which the life of all things,
and human fraternity and solidarity in particular, are sustained and flourish.
The principle of responsible care for creation cannot be realised without
dialogue and collaboration amongst all social actors, at both national and
global levels. This collaboration is the responsibility of international
organisations, states, non-governmental organisations, scientists and all men
and women of good will. It also concerns us who profess faith in Christ, and
this implies dialogue and concerted action from all Christians in an ecumenical
key.
3.3 Listening to the cry of the Earth and of the poor
120. From a biblical perspective, creation is an agent, albeit an impersonal
one, which in its own way intervenes in the divine economy of salvation,
conveying messages to humanity on God’s behalf (cf. e.g. Gen 4:10).[196]
Today, it is urgent that we heed the heart-rending cry of the Earth (cf. LS 6;
117) in the voice of the oceans and rivers that are falling sick, of plant and
animal species that are disappearing or on the verge of doing so, of forests
that are being bled dry, and of glaciers and polar ice caps that are melting
away. The cry of the earth is tragically linked to the cry of the poor (cf. LS
49), who are those who suffer most from the consequences of the mistreatment of
the planet, together with the many who have died as a result of sin against
creation. We can no longer turn a deaf ear to the cry of the Amazon (cf. QA 48,
52), together with that of the many regions of the earth where creation and the
poor groan and weep, as we realise how their ancestral way of life is
deteriorating at an accelerated rate and their capacity to enlighten and sustain
life is in serious danger of disappearing forever. Creation, which nourishes and
sustains us, laments in pain and anguish: will we heed its cry, a cry that has
grown louder and calls for the liberation of creation through the action of the
children of God (cf. Rom 8:21–22)?
3.4 Respect for life
121. It is within the context of creation that the mystery of life flourishes on
our planet. Pope Francis’s ecological teaching emphasises that everything is
interconnected. The universe is one. Life arose from elements whose existence
preceded it and made it possible within the development of a dynamic and
fruitful universe in constant motion. This unity applies, in a special way, to
all members of the biosphere, which are all produced by a single evolutionary
process. Living beings also need one another for the sustenance and flourishing
of their own lives. As the only living beings endowed with moral responsibility,
human beings are entrusted with a singular responsibility to safeguard the gift
of life in the world.
122. To be applicable as a moral guide, this principle requires clarification
and nuance. We have spoken of the threefold gradation in what we might call a
natural hierarchy within created being: inanimate beings, living beings, and
personal human beings (cf. no. 68). But we must also recognise a gradation
amongst living beings. A bacterium, a fruit tree and a chimpanzee are all living
beings, yet there are clear and significant differences between them.
123. This gradation helps us to understand how God has ordained that some living
beings are to serve others, without this implying any disregard for their
dignity as creatures. In nature, this exchange takes place constantly. Human
beings need to feed themselves, even by sacrificing the lives of other living
beings, so as to stay alive. In Genesis 1:29, the food that God provides
for human beings consists of herbs and fruit trees. The same is indicated in the
second account of creation, where only trees are mentioned (cf. Genesis
2:16). The vegetarian movement finds an undeniable point of support here. Later,
after the Flood, in the covenant with Noah, human beings are permitted to
include animals as part of their diet, provided that the sacred nature of life
is recognised and that blood is not consumed (cf. Gen 9:3–4). It follows
that respect for animal life must always be balanced against the actual need for
nourishment, which must always be guided by moderation, proportion and
necessity. It is clear, moreover, that human beings must protect themselves from
living creatures that may cause disease or endanger their health and very lives.
In any case, we are obliged to avoid, or at least minimise as far as possible,
direct attacks on life, paying particular attention to avoiding anything that
might jeopardise the continuity and quality of life on our planet.
3.5 Asceticism and fasting
124. Although fasting is practised in many religious traditions,
[197] the current situation
of overexploitation of our planet imposes on everyone a moral duty voluntarily
to restrict consumption and the exploitation of resources, especially in wealthy
countries. We have not yet realised, on a global level, that we live in a world
of finite and limited resources (cf. LS 56). The current rate of energy
consumption and extraction of mineral resources, for example, as well as the
quantity and quality of harmful emissions, are unsustainable in the short term,
even in wealthy countries, due to the adverse global effects that also rebound
on them, albeit to a lesser extent at present. The consequences of the
persistence of current levels of damage to our common home are unpredictable. In
any case, based on the most widely accepted scientific and ecological knowledge,
the effects of such conduct are indisputably irresponsible. For this reason, an
ecological ethic calls for measures aimed at encouraging not only a minimum
level of responsible consumption, but also its considered and concerted
reduction. Asceticism and fasting express the finitude and gratuitousness of our
being (before God), our solidarity with others and with future generations (our
neighbour), our appreciation, respect and care for our common home (nature), and
our capacity for self-control in directing our lives not according to excessive
desire but according to responsibly chosen values (ourselves).
3.6 Differentiated commitment at the local level
125. Whilst we are all inhabitants of the same planet and jointly responsible
for its care, it cannot be ignored that environmental degradation is not caused
to the same extent by all human groups or by all countries, nor does it affect
everyone to the same degree. It is therefore a matter of justice that the
implementation of more responsible, demanding and respectful environmental
policies should be more rigorous for those who cause the greatest harm to our
common home or who have caused the most harm to it to date
[198] (cf. LS 51–52, 94–95,
170). On the other hand, we must also take account of local circumstances in
order to determine which policies are most urgent (cf. MH 26). Although
everything is interconnected, the flourishing of life sometimes revolves more
around a river basin, at other times depends more on the health of the seas and
forests, or is threatened by large-scale mining. It would be unjust for
wealthier countries to impose unsustainable and unsympathetic burdens on poorer
countries, demanding that they preserve the Earth’s ‘lungs’ and green oases,
whilst wealthy countries are unwilling to give up their high standard of living
and their patterns of consumption, which are among the factors contributing to
environmental degradation.
4 From our relationship with our neighbours: ethical principles for nurturing
our relationships with others
4.1 The sanctity of human life
126. Human life has a sacred value (cf. EV 2) because, as a divine gift, it is
called to ‘fellowship with God in knowledge and love of Him’ (EV 38). And this is why the human being is unique compared to the rest of
living beings and why human life is always a good (cf. EV 34). Here lies the
ultimate foundation of situated anthropocentrism (cf. no. 102). It follows with
all clarity that human beings enjoy an unconditional and inalienable right to
life, which must be protected and promoted by states, at all levels and by all
moral agents. This applies not only to our intrinsic dignity as beings created
in the image of God [199]
but also to our status as moral agents and, therefore, as guardians of the moral
and legal order. The very existence of human beings appears to be necessary for
the establishment of a proportionate system for the care and promotion of the
fabric of the biosphere. The effective protection of the unconditional right to
life of the human species and of each of its individual members requires that we
refuse to resort to war and seek alternative means of conflict resolution; that
we avoid any form of damage to or destruction of the environment; and that we
safeguard fundamental human rights, which guarantee quality of life for all.
[200]
4.2 The universal destination of goods
127. The promotion of human life is not limited to the safeguarding of
biological life. In order for every person to achieve personal fulfilment and
lead a life in accordance with the demands of human dignity, it is necessary to
guarantee every person, every family and every people access to and
participation in those goods which ensure and promote the attainment of this
end. For this reason, it is necessary to reaffirm a principle that is firmly
rooted in the Tradition and teaching of the Church: the universal destination of
goods. It states ‘an affirmation both of God's full and perennial lordship over every reality and
of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the
development of the whole person and of all humanity’. [201]
Private property is not an absolute right according to Christian Tradition. From
an ecological perspective, the principle must be broadened to include the
preservation of planet Earth for future generations and for the flourishing of
life, not only human life. This principle is a necessary corollary of the
ethical and social requirements of the integral ecology proposed by Pope
Francis. The uniqueness of human life and the right that is consequent on it
integrate, alongside the duty to care for our common home, the duty to promote
human life as found in the principles of the Church’s social doctrine, such as
the universal destination of goods, justice, peace, fraternity, mercy,
solidarity and the preferential option for the poor.
4.3 Fraternity and neighbourliness
128. From the perspective of the Christian faith, all human beings, created by
God and redeemed in Christ, are brothers and sisters as sons and daughters of
the same Father. We all, moreover, inhabit the same home. For this reason, we
must treat one another as good neighbours, who not only refrain from harming one
another but also help one another and together care for the home that shelters
them (cf. MH 74). Only in this way can the well-being of all be pursued. The
solidarity that stems from our belonging to the same species also makes us
brothers and sisters by virtue of our common origin and destiny. Failing to
regard and treat one another as brothers and sisters is a serious symptom of a
theological and anthropological blindness that breeds violence, injustice,
calamities and suffering, and which has its roots in a false, selfish, atrocious
and greedy individualism.
4.4 Mercy and compassion
129. The greatness of human beings lies in their capacity to love and to feel
compassion. It is in this way that they come closest to God (cf. Lk
6:36). Without love, human life not only turns away from God, who is love
[202] (1 Jn 4:8),
but degenerates to the point of sinking to subhuman levels. For this reason,
when we fail to show love and compassion for our neighbour, especially for those
most in need of our help, we betray our dignity and our vocation. Only by
bringing the best of ourselves, our empathy and mercy, to bear in an intelligent
and coordinated manner will we be able to reverse the ecological crisis.
4.5 Preferential option for the poor
130. Given that ‘the preferential option for the poor is implicit in the
Christological faith in that God who became poor for us, so as to enrich us with
his poverty (cf. 2 Cor 8:9)’,[203]
the Christian faith, looking to the Lord Jesus, professes a preference for the
poor in all its manifestations.[204]
Therefore, in our commitment to the environment, priority must be given to those
actions which, first and foremost, benefit the poorest, those who are most
severely affected by the current environmental degradation and who have the
fewest resources to mitigate its harmful effects.
4.6 A Retrospective View
131. All the ethical principles summarised thus far are rooted in, and draw
their inspiration and strength from, our relationship with God the Creator and
Redeemer, as revealed by Jesus Christ. At the same time, however, they can serve
as a solid starting point for dialogue and collaboration with different
religious traditions and with those who hold other cultural convictions.
132. [Ethical discernment]. In order to put these principles into
practice appropriately and effectively, the mature exercise of the art of
ethical discernment is necessary.[205]
Indeed, as Saint Thomas Aquinas warned: ‘There is much uncertainty in things that ought to be done; because actions are
concerned with contingent singulars, which, by reason of their vicissitude, are
uncertain.’[206]
This discernment requires a rightly formed conscience,[207]
which integrates the light of revelation with the use of right reason[208]
and takes into account the fundamental element of the assistance of the Holy
Spirit.[209]
In this endeavour, we are called, both as individuals and as communities, to
manage a hierarchy of principles and criteria, which must be applied with
evangelical wisdom to the concrete situation, assessing the interaction between
individuals, groups and communities, available resources, goods to be protected
and evils to be avoided, in the pursuit of the best possible outcome, whilst
taking into account the complexity of the situation (cf. Rom 12:2). The
first and supreme ethical principle remains, without doubt, the inviolable
dignity of the human person[210]
(cf. LS 43) and the unconditional right to human life. Secondly, the Christian
faith sets forth as a guiding criterion the preferential option for the poorest,
the most vulnerable and the most disadvantaged. Thirdly, priority must be given
to the pursuit of the more universal good over the particular good. Fourthly,
attention must be paid to the sustainability of life on the planet, especially
in the medium and long term.
5 The contribution of religions to the care of our common home
133. The urgent and pressing nature of the ecological crisis demands that all
the forces involved – science, politics, the economy, the law, organisations of
civil society, and public administration institutions at all levels, national,
regional and local – join forces and collaborate actively with the aim of making
our common home habitable for all. In this context, the driving role of
religions in promoting the common good (cf. MH 27) stands out, as does their
capacity to inspire altruism and the conservation of and respect for the natural
environment, and to point to the source of a spirituality that permeates and
guides everyday behaviour.
The overview of the various religions that we offer highlights only some of the
most salient features that shed light on their contribution to a shared and
generative ecological spirituality. We regard them with respect and
appreciation, in the conviction that they have developed forms of wisdom over
the centuries. In them, the help of the Holy Spirit and the seeds of the Word
are not lacking.[211]
Certainly, it is only in Christianity that we find distinctive elements such as
the Trinitarian imprint on creation, creation through the Logos, the central
significance of the Incarnation and the Resurrection of Christ, the intimate
life-giving and deifying action of the Holy Spirit, the unique value of the
Eucharist, the eschatological fulfilment in and through Christ, and the role of
the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation, to name but a few key
elements. Therefore, we do not intend to seek a lowest common denominator
amongst religions, but to offer elements for building bridges from the Christian
faith, in order to promote collaboration in sharing certain fundamental
convictions. Indeed, despite the great diversity of presuppositions and
approaches, we share with other great spiritual and religious traditions the
legacy of love and care for our common home.
134. [Judaism]. Drawing on the worldview of Sacred Scripture, various
strands of Judaism propose a well-defined and comprehensive ethic of
responsibility towards the natural world that God has created and entrusted to
human beings as its stewards. This begins with the prohibition against any form
of destruction of or damage to the planet, as the Midrash warns: ‘Do not
destroy my world, for if you do, there will be no one after you to repair it.’[212]
To forget divine authority and deviate from the order established by God is to
commit an injustice against God and against all other creatures. This can be
remedied only by human beings themselves, which is why ‘repair of the world’ (Tikkun
olam) is one of the main concerns of modern Jewish groups, who link social
justice and the environmental crisis.
[213]
The Jewish response to the ecological crisis therefore has a very deep
foundation, being intimately linked to the ancient tradition of faith which
affirms humanity’s responsible stewardship of the earth that God has entrusted
to them. As long as Israel obeys God’s will, keeps away from idols and practises
justice, the land will remain fruitful and fertile, as Scripture promises;
otherwise, it will lose its fertility and the people themselves will be
destroyed (cf. Deut 6:10–15). There is, in fact, an invisible and
fundamental covenant binding God, who created the world, to all creatures, and
specifically to human beings as his stewards and administrators of creation (cf.
Gen 2:15).
135. [Islam]. The intrinsic value of creation in Islam is based on the
fact that it is altogether a sign (āya) of God. The Qur’an constantly
calls upon human beings to contemplate creation in order to recognise God’s
lordship. Furthermore, creation is not merely an inert or silent entity, for
‘there is nothing that does not glorify Him’.
[214]
Although, according to Islam, sovereignty (mulk) over creation belongs
exclusively to God, He bestows it on human beings as a trust (amāna). The
human being thus receives the mission to safeguard creation as a faithful
steward, without being able to dispose of it in a despotic manner. Despite the
humility of their origin from clay, human beings are distinguished from the rest
of creation in that they are constituted as representatives or vicegerents (khalīfa)
of God through the receiving of the names. This understanding of human
beings’ role in their relationship with other created beings is very close to
the concept of the image of God as attested in biblical accounts (cf. chapter
2), and so paves the way for collaboration between Christians and Muslims in the
field of ecology. It is true that, according to Islam, God has subjected
creation to the service of humankind (taskhīr), but the ultimate horizon
remains radically theocentric: the praise of God. Furthermore, beings depend on
one another for their sustenance and form communities amongst themselves.
[215] Finally, it is
necessary to mention the ecological implications of Islam’s fundamental belief
in the unity of God (tawḥīd). God is one, and all things in the world
form part of His creation. Consequently, there is a fundamental unity of
creation, founded on the radical unity of the divine. Here lies a further point
of possible convergence between Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
[216]
136. [Hinduism]. Ancient Hindu wisdom interprets the genesis of the world
as a sacrificial descent of the primordial One. [217]
This is why the world, in turn, is destined to undertake a sacrificial ascent
towards its Principle within a dynamic of mutual relationality. The primordial
One endows human beings with the capacity to participate in the primordial
consciousness, through which it is possible to live in harmony with the supreme
dynamism that sustains the cosmos. [218]
Owing to this emphasis on the fundamental unity of consciousness, the Hindu view
of the world, of the Supreme Being and of humanity is cosmotheandric, as
it manifests both the intimate unity and intertwined significance between the
Supreme Being, the world and humanity. The finite nature of the world and of
humanity attains its fullness in union with the infinite One by participating in
Its primordial consciousness. This consciousness is fostered by a non-dualistic
view of reality, through which one comes to perceive that ‘the whole world is
one family’ (vasudhaiva kutumbakam). [219]
This consciousness instils in human beings a profound ethical bond with all
other beings, governed by the virtues of compassion, kindness and service. This
is the bedrock of Hindu Dharma, the fundamental commitment to the world,
the Supreme Being and humanity. This ethic of compassion, kindness and service
extends to the geological, biological and spiritual spheres of the world and
calls for the protection of environmental conditions for the common good.
137. [Buddhism]. The Buddhist tradition advocates a profound respect for
all living beings, calling on us to approach them with compassion and
loving-kindness. It is said that, upon attaining enlightenment, the Buddha
perceived the radical interconnection of all natural phenomena, an experience
that in some way brings him close to the perception of cosmic brotherhood and
sisterhood experienced by Saint Francis of Assisi, as recalled and explored in
Laudato si'. In the vision inspired by the Buddha, our lives are not the result of a
single, isolated cause: on the contrary, they arise from the convergence of
multiple causes and conditions. We human beings must learn to respect every form
of life because all living beings are interconnected and form a harmonious
unity. It follows, therefore, that a righteous life requires respect for and
loving care of all living beings.
[220]
From a Buddhist perspective, the concept of Dharma goes hand in hand with
the concept of ahimsa,[221]
which expresses an ethical principle shared by Buddhism, Hinduism and
Jainism, and which requires us to refrain from causing harm to other living
beings. Today, many people committed to promoting an ecological culture draw
inspiration from the Buddhist principles of interconnection, compassion and
ahimsa.
138. [Confucianism]. According to Confucianism, in the religious and
cultural tradition of China, although life is organised and structured across
different levels, the entire cosmos participates in it in unity and harmony. The
supreme cosmic virtue that governs heaven and earth is that of transmitting and
cherishing life. Life and the practice of virtue are therefore closely
interlinked, such that Confucian ethics is essentially an ethics of virtue.
Ren (benevolence, humanity) is the most fundamental and greatest of all
virtues, for where there is benevolence there is life, and human beings are
truly human. All things in the universe cherish their own existence and seek to
preserve it and make it flourish, trusting that they are naturally protected
from any form of harm. The fullness of life is manifested in human beings, for
they are its most spiritual expression. The human heart is the heart of heaven
and earth, for it shares the same Tao (principle), and for this reason it
must be a benevolent heart. Human beings and all things in heaven and earth are
deeply interconnected, forming a ‘benevolence of the whole’. All human beings,
in developing their own lives, must simultaneously develop the lives of the
countless things in the universe. [222]
The key to Confucianism’s ecological vision is the concept of Ren
(benevolence) as the most fundamental and important virtue, which
signifies the capacity to be one with all living things, feeling the pain of
other persons and of all things as one’s own.
139. [African religions]. The perception of the unity of creation is also
very much present in the religious traditions of sub-Saharan Africa.
[223] The worldview they
express is often structured around a holistic vision that combines theological,
cosmic and anthropological dimensions. The sphere of divine life, that of the
physical universe and that of the human world exist in a state of mutual
interpenetration. In various traditions there is envisaged the work of a deity
to whom the origin of the world is attributed; the world is habitable because
each of its parts is governed by different manifestations of the transcendent.
The cosmic elements (the sky, the earth, the waters, the forests or fire) are
potentially hierophanic realities,
[224]
being vitally connected at a deep level to the Divine. [225]
They demand sacred respect and reverential treatment. The human world, too,
bears within it a divine dimension, which is expressed in the life that animates
it, in the force that sustains it, and in the interdependence that binds it to
all beings and forces in the universe. A sacred energy unites human beings with
animals, plants, inanimate realities and the divine world. Human beings are
called upon to relate to other beings with reverence and communion, for their
task is to establish communion between the earthly and divine worlds.
[226]
140. [Indigenous religions of the Americas and the Pacific]. The
worldview of indigenous peoples, that is, the cosmic religion of tribal
societies, [227]
is passed down through narratives in which all beings in the world tell their
own stories and, in so doing, reveal the deepest meanings of the world and of
the human beings interwoven within it. In this way, the world is described and,
at the same time, guidance is given on how to live within it. Within this
worldview, indigenous communities express their experience of being embedded in
a web of respectful relationships with their lands and with the animals and
plants that inhabit them, which makes it possible for all to be sustained. This
ancestral form of ecological consciousness persists to this day in the lives and
traditions of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, and is also found in
Oceania. [228]
141. [Convergences]. Without wishing to force interpretations and whilst
taking differences into account, since not all the religions presented here
explicitly recognise the existence of a personal Creator, certain recurring
themes resonate in the testimonies summarised here, albeit formulated in
different ways. Not all of these elements, however, are present in each of the
religions under consideration. Among the most common elements, the following may
be highlighted: (1) the unity and interconnectedness of all that exists,
regarded as a value in itself and as an ethical imperative; (2) the recognition
of the duty to respect and show compassion towards all beings by virtue of a
certain intrinsic sacredness of nature, interpreted from very different
perspectives; (3) the particular responsibility of human beings to care for all
that exists.
Religious traditions that acknowledge the existence of a creative principle,
each in its own way, emphasise the fundamental importance of relationship with
God and with creation. Clearly, compassion and care for creation – or for the
existing world, in cases where there is no concept of creation – cannot be
separated from merciful concern for one’s neighbour. With varying nuances and
approaches, the various traditions that embrace the idea of a transcendent
Creator emphasise the decisive role of these three fundamental relationships for
the full realisation of human life and for the good of the planet. Many of these
aspects, at their fundamental ethical core, are compatible with the Christian
vision. Therefore, from the perspective of the Christian faith, the doors are
open to interreligious collaboration in the shared task of respectful care for
all creation in the service of the flourishing of life and of communion with the
Transcendent, which is the origin and foundation of all life.
Conclusion and Prospects:
the significance of our common home in God’s plan
142. [A retrospective view]. A faith-based perspective on the
ecological crisis in which we live helps us to understand decisively both the
theological roots that lie at its origin and the extraordinary theological
potential that constitutes the resource for addressing it and emerging from it
in a positive way. The primordial experience of Saint John of the Cross, from
which we began, and that of so many Christians, as well as members of other
religions, speaks of a relationship with nature as something precious, in which
one discovers, with wonder, respect and gratitude, the Creator’s imprint as a
reflection of his plan of love in our common home. From this experience springs
and is nourished the healthy and balanced exercise of the three essential
relationships that define us as human beings: with the Creator, with our
neighbour, and with creation. In particular, we have endeavoured to show that
this fundamental experience is an integral part of the heritage of the Christian
faith. The Triune God whom Christ has revealed has imprinted his mark on
creation, so that faith, both lived and reflected upon, recognises in it his
presence and the rich web of relationships that arises from Trinitarian action
in the world. God the Creator places human beings, not as isolated individuals,
but as a community (a couple), in the original garden of creation as his
representatives and direct interlocutors (in his image and likeness), entrusting
them with the task of caring for creation and dwelling in it in accordance with
the Creator’s will (as stewards), so that ultimately, by their perfecting and
completing it, creation may reflect his divine glory (servants of creation). We
are called to carry out this task with boldness, open-mindedness, intelligence
and clarity. This requires the application of the most proven scientific
knowledge and technical skills, but also the integration of ethical and
spiritual principles that stem from our relationship with God, with others, with
creation and with ourselves.
143. [Freedom and responsibility]. The various views on what the cosmos
is, on its origin, its meaning and destiny, and on the place assigned within it
to human beings, have specific implications when it comes to understanding our
responsibility in the ecological crisis and our capacity to safeguard and
promote life on planet Earth. If the most decisive forces, whether through
determinism or chance, were solely those of nature itself, human freedom would
in reality have very little scope for action. This would be even less so if,
ultimately, the existence of freedom and responsibility were denied, not only
before God but also before others who inhabit the planet now or will inhabit it
in the future. But in the Christian view, freedom is an essential dimension of
human dignity and an indispensable condition for the exercise of moral
responsibility (cf. Gal 5:1, 13). Without this freedom, neither the
original task of caring for creation, nor the sin at our origins, nor the sin
against creation and the Creator, nor the possibility of an ecological
conversion leading us to put an integral ecology into practice would make sense.
144. [Our relationship with creation is illumined by our relationship with
the Creator]. When it comes to establishing the moral obligation not to
plunder our planet, three main types of argument are put forward: responsibility
towards God (the worship of a Creator God), responsibility towards future
generations (intergenerational solidarity), and the respect due to planet Earth
(gratitude and acceptance of the gift received). In this third option,
pantheistic considerations often creep in, consciously or unconsciously, which
disrupt the harmony of the entire worldview based on faith. The Christian
perspective recognises the rationality inherent in faith in a Creator God,
appeals to intergenerational solidarity (cf. GS 70; PP 16–17; CV 48; MH 76), and
holds that creation is endowed with its own goodness, but only insofar as it is
the work of the Creator. In this light, Christian faith contemplates a certain
‘sacramentality’ of creation, recognising in it the Trinitarian imprint of the
Creator. Thus, creation, in its constitutive reference to the Triune Creator, is
drawn into humanity’s dialogue with God. Viewed in this light, creation invites
us to praise God and to come to know him through it, to receive it as a divine
gift, and to work in the garden in which we are placed in a spirit of service
and self-giving, so that it may flourish to God’s glory. In short, from a
Christian point of view, the ecological question ultimately becomes a
theological one: how do we relate to creation, our common home, the work of the
Triune Creator? Our relationship with creation constitutes a dimension of our
relationship with Him (cf. GS 13). As Saint Thomas Aquinas stated: ‘Errors
concerning creatures sometimes lead one away from the truth of the faith to the
extent that they are inconsistent with true knowledge of God’.
[229]
145. [The ecological turn]. It is common to describe a shift in the
prevailing paradigm of thought using the term ‘turn’. There has been talk of
phenomenological, anthropological, historical-social, linguistic and contextual
turns. Today it is clear that we urgently need an ecological turn to reorient
us, to help us understand more deeply our place within and our dependence on the
environment, for ‘wherever human life is involved, nature and culture are quite
intimately connected one with the other.’ (GS 53). By ‘ecological turn’, we
therefore mean the shared realisation that all of reality is interconnected,
comes from God as a gift, and displays his Trinitarian imprint.
[230]
146. This awareness entails recognising divine sovereignty, the goodness of
creation and the unique place of human beings in the cosmos as interlocutors and
representatives of God himself. It also entails recognising the structures of
sin against creation and the Creator, and the need for a conversion towards an
integral ecology. An egocentric and solipsistic ‘I’ relates to the other either
with the impulse to possess (greed) or to control as if the other were a threat
(aggression). These two attitudes – greed (cf. Gen 3:6) and violence (cf.
Gen 4:8) – are, on closer inspection, defining features of the
technocratic paradigm and of predatory anthropocentrism, and are symptoms of a
fallen humanity that closes itself off to the action of divine grace. By
succumbing to them, we deny and distort the truth of reality as it comes from
God and is destined for Him (cf. 1 Cor 8:6). Pope Francis, in the homily
at the start of his pontificate in which he urged care for creation, for our
brothers and sisters, and for ourselves, exhorted:
‘But to be “protectors”, we also have to keep watch over ourselves! Let us not
forget that hatred, envy and pride defile our lives! Being protectors, then,
also means keeping watch over our emotions, over our hearts, because they are
the seat of good and evil intentions: intentions that build up and tear down! We
must not be afraid of goodness or even tenderness!’ [231]
147. [Spiritual turn]. The ecological turn is not merely a paradigm shift
concerning the mind, but entails a profound spiritual conversion, modelled on
that attested by Saint Francis of Assisi. His luminous and moving relationship
with creation springs from his following of Christ, poor and crucified, in whom
he recognises the face of the Son for whom all things were created and
reconciled. It is his experience of living in conformity with Christ that impels
him to praise the Creator and Father, to care for creation, to sing of the
beauty of creation according to God’s plan, and to care for his brothers and
sisters.[232]
His marriage to ‘Lady Poverty’ frees him from any claim to despotic dominion and
opens his gaze to the world and to history in a spirit of peace, to the point of
even welcoming death as a ‘sister’, a sign that creation is not destined for
destruction, but for transfiguration in Christ.
148. [Christian hope]. As we contemplate creation through the lens of
Christian revelation, we cannot fail to recognise that the environmental crisis
we are experiencing puts our hope to a severe test. Yet it does not diminish its
strength. The Gospel remains the ‘good news’ even today: God wishes to redeem
human creatures in the totality of their souls and bodies and, together with
humanity, to renew the whole of creation (cf. Rom 8:22). And he has
already done so ‘once and for all’ (Heb 9:12) in Christ, who died and
rose again, and ascended to the right hand of the Father.
This hope is not a superficial optimism. It is the sure conviction that all
things are in the hands of God. Hope enables divine grace to open our eyes so
that we may aspire ‘to the Kingdom of Heaven and eternal life as our happiness,
placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but
on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit’.
[233]
It is hope that does not exempt us from personal responsibility, but rather
calls us to and strengthens it, including in the context of our commitment to
the environment (cf. LS 61, 180, 244). As a theological virtue – a gift from God
– it enables us to act with sure confidence that the Creator, who made all
things through Christ and ‘willed to reconcile all things through him, whether
on earth or in heaven’ (Col 1:20; cf. 1:15–20), will bring his plan of
liberation and salvation to fulfilment. Looking forward to the fulfilment of all
things, we therefore await the coming of ‘a new heaven and a new earth’, for He
who sits on the throne declares: ‘Behold, I am making all things new’ (Rev
21:1, 5; cf. Is 65:17). In this new creation, alongside the
transformation of all suffering and pain, all the acts of love and generosity we
have shown towards creation, towards our neighbour and towards God will be
included. Thus, ‘we join together to care for this Common Home entrusted to us,
knowing that all the good found within it will be welcomed into the heavenly
feast’ (LS 244).
[1] John of the Cross, Cantico Spirituale, Paoline, Cinisello Balsamo (Milan)
1991, Stanza 5, p. 162.
[2] Cf. K. Armstrong,
Naturaleza sagrada. Cómo podemos recuperar nuestro vínculo con el mundo natural,
Barcelona 2022.
[3] ‘By the “thousand graces” he was pouring forth, he alludes to the multitude of
innumerable creatures; … for creatures are like a footprint of God’s passing by,
in which one glimpses his greatness, his power, his wisdom and the other divine
attributes’: John of the Cross, Spiritual Canticle, Stanza 5, Explanation
2–3, p. 614.
[4] Cf. ibid., Explanation 3–4.
[5] Cf. J. Tatay, Ecología integral. La recepción católica del reto de la sostenibilidad, Madrid 2018.
[6] Cf. in particular: Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato si'
(24 May 2015); Id., Apostolic Exhortation
Laudate Deum (4 October 2023);
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, On Earth as in Heaven. Ecological Vision
and Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, edited by J.
Chryssavgis, New York 2012; Id., Global Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew. Peace, Reconciliation, and Care for Creation, edited by J.
Chryssavgis, Notre Dame (Ind.) 2023; O. Llewellyn, F. Khalid et al.,
Al-Mizan: Covenant for the Earth. The Islamic Foundation for Ecology and
Environmental Sciences, Birmingham 2024.
[7] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato si'
(24 May 2015), nos. 16, 91, 117, 138, 240; Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic
Exhortation
Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020),
nos. 41–42.
[8] Id.,
Address to members of the International Theological Commission, 24
November 2022.
[9] John Paul II,
Catechesis (17 January 2001), no. 4; Francis, Encyclical
Letter
Laudato si' (24 May 2015), no. 5, and in particular nos. 216–221.
[10] Cf., for example: Programma delle Nazioni Unite per l’ambiente, Prospettive ambientali mondiali
– GEO 6. Sintesi per i responsabili politici, Nairobi 2019. Available
in different languages at
https://www.greenpolicyplatform.org/research/global-environment-outlook-6-summary-policymakers
(consultato il 16 aprile 2025); Prospettive mondiali sulla diversità
biologica 5, Sintesi per i responsabili politici, Montreal
2020. Available in different languages at https://www.cbd.int/gbo5 (consultato
il 16 aprile 2025); Settimo rapporto delle Nazioni Unite sull’ambiente:
https://www.unep.org/geo/global-environment-outlook-7 (consultato il 16 aprile
2025).
[11] L. White, ‘The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis’:
Science
155/3767 (1967), 1203–1207, esp. 1206.
[12] A Message from the Catholic Episcopal Conferences and Councils of Africa, Asia,
Latin America and the Caribbean on the occasion of COP30, A Call for Climate
Justice and Our Common Home: Ecological Conversion, Transformation and
Resistance to False Solutions (12 June 2025).
[13] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), no.
3. Confirmed by the United Nations Environment Programme, Global Environment
Outlook 7 Executive Summary: A future we choose – Why investing in Earth now can
lead to a trillion-dollar benefit for all, Nairobi 2025
(https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-7 accessed 15
December 2025).
[14] Cf. Leo XIV, Discorso alla Commissione Teologica Internazionale (26
November 2025).
[15] Cf. id., Encyclical Letter
Magnifica humanitas (15 May 2026), no. 84.
[16] Ibid., no. 20.
[17] Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter
Divinum illud munus (9 May 1897), ASS
29 (1896/1897) 647 (DH 3326).
[18] Council of Florence,
Decree for the Jacobites (4 February 1442): DH 1331.
Cf. Thomas Aquinas, S.Th. I, q. 45, a. 6.
[19] Basil the Great, De Spir.
XVI, 38: SCh 17 bis, 378. Shortly before this,
he states, with regard to the angels, that one should think of ‘the Father as
the original cause, the Son as the creative cause and the Spirit as the
perfecting cause’ (SCh 17 bis, 376–8).
[20] Catechism of the Catholic Church,n. 258.
[21] Epistle of Barnabas 5:5; 6:12: FuP 3, 168; 176.
[22] Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 12.3: CCSL 2, 1173. On the Trinitarian character
of creation, cf. Athanasius, Ad Serapionem I, 23–24; 28: PG 26, 585–588;
596; Augustine, In Io. 20:9: CCSL 36, 208. John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter
Dominum et vivificantem (18 May 1986), no. 12.
[23] Cf. Justin, Dial. 62: Bobichon I, 348–352; Theophilus of Antioch,
Ad
Autol. II, 18: FuP 16, 142; Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. haer. IV, praef., 4: SCh 100/2, 391; IV, 20,1 (627); V, 1,3: SCh 153,29; Tertullian,
Res. 5,6; 6,4: CCSL 2, 927; 928; Adv. Prax. 12,1–2: CCSL 2,
1172–1173.
[24] Cf. Clement of Rome, 1 Clem 33.4: FuP 4, 112; Theophilus of Antioch,
Ad. Aut. II, 18: FuP 16, 142; Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. haer. IV,
praef., 4: SCh 100/2, 391; IV, 20,1: SCh 100/2, 627; V, 5,1: SCh 153, 63;
6,1 (73); 28,4 (361). There are precedents in Philo of Alexandria, Virt.
203: Œuvres 26, Paris 1962, 146 and Opif. 148: Œuvres 1,
Paris 1961, 240.
[25] Gregory of Nazianzus,
Oratio 34.8: SCh 318, 212.
[26] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution
Dei Verbum (18
November 1965), no. 3; Athanasius, Contra gentes 40: PG 25,
80B–82B; Hilary of Poitiers,Trin. V,5: CCSL 62 A, 154–156.
[27] Cf. Origen, Homiliae ad Genesim 1,1: SCh 7 bis, 25; Augustine,
Confessions XIII,5,6; XI,5,7: CCSL 27, 244; 198; City of God
XI,33:
CCSL 48, 354.
[28] Cf. Ad Diognetum 7.2: Funk
2 1906, 138; Justin, First
Apology 59.5: SCh 507, 286.
[29] Cf. Theophilus of Antioch,
Ad Autol. II,10: FuP 16, 116–120; Athenagoras,
Leg. 10: SCh 379, 100–2; Justin, Dial. 61–62: Bobichon I, 346–352;
Tertullian, Adv. Herm. 18.1–4: SCh 439, 124–128; Adv. Prax. 6.1–7.5: CCSL 2, 1164–1166.
[30] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyons,
Adv. haer. V, 18,3: SCh 153, 247; Dem. 34: FuP 2, 128–131; Thomas Aquinas,
S.Th.
I, q. 34, a. 1 ad 3; III, q. 3, a. 8.
[31] Cf. Maximus the Confessor,
Amb. Io., 33: PG 91, 1285 CD; Thal. 35: PG
90, 377 C; SCh 529, 374–376.
[32] International Theological Commission,
Communion and Stewardship. Human
Persons Created in the Image of God (2004), no. 75.
[33] Cf. Augustine, Trin.
XV,19,37: CCSL 50A, 513.
[34] Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus,
Oratio 39,12: SCh 358, 172.
[35] Cf. Theophilus of Antioch,
Ad Autol. II,13,3–4: FuP 16, 128; Tertullian,
Adv. Herm. 32,2: SCh 439, 164–166; Adv. Marc. IV,26,4: CCSL 1,
615. Cf. also Bonaventure, Brev. II, 5,4.
[36] ‘Appropriation’ means that we are speaking of something that is fully common to
the three divine Persons, but is attributed to one of them because some likeness
to that Person is perceived.
[37] Cf. Augustine, Gen. litt.
I, 6,12: CSEL 28/1, 10.
[38] Cf. Basil the Great,
De Spir. XVI, 37–38: SCh 17 bis, 374–378.
[39] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyons,
Adv. haer. IV, 20,1–2.4: SCh 100/2, 625–31.
[40] Cf. Basil the Great,
De Spir. XVIII,46: SCh 17 bis, 410. On the human
person: Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. haer. V, 9,1: SCh 153, 107–9.
[41] Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer III.
[42] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyons,
Adv. haer. V, 6,1: SCh 153, 77.
[43] Liturgy of the Hours,
hymn for Vespers following the Ascension of the Lord; see also the
Veni Sancte Spiritus sequence for Pentecost Sunday, at the Mass of the Day.
[44] Italics in the original. See, in this regard, Bonaventure,
Myst. Trinitatis,
I, 2, conclusion, which we reproduce below.
[45] Ibid.; cited in LS 239. Cf.
Brev. II, 12,1.
[46] Cf. Leo XIV, Discorso alla Commissione Teologica Internazionale (26
November 2025).
[47] Cf. Augustine, Trin.
VI, 10: CCSL 50, 241–242; Civ. Dei XI, 28:
CCSL 48, 348.
[48] Id., VI, 10, 12: CCSL 50, 242; Italian translation by G. Beschin, in
Opere di Sant'Agostino – Opere filosofiche-dommatiche, Vol. IV, Latin text from the Maurist edition collated with the edition of the Corpus
Christianorum, Città Nuova Ed., Rome 1973; De Civitate Dei XI, 25: CCSL
48, 344.
[49] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyons,
Dem. 11: FuP 2, 79–80; Adv. haer. V, 6,1: SCh 153, 77.
[50] Cf. Tertullian, De carnis resurrectione 9.1: CCSL 2, 932; however, in
Adversus Marcionem II, 5.6: SCh 368, 46, he tends to restrict the divine
image to the soul alone.
[51] Cf. Augustine, Civ. Dei
XI,24: CCSL 48, 409.
[52] Cf. id., Trin.
XV,7,11: CCSL 50A, 457; ibid. 7,12: CCSL 50A, 366.
[53] Cf. id., Gen. litt.
III, 20: CSEL 28/1, 86–87.
[54] Cf. id., Trin.
IX,3,3: CCSL 50, 295ff.
[55] Ibid.,X,11,17: CCSL 50, 329.
[56] Ibid.,
IX,5,8: CCSL 50, 300. Bonaventure takes up these two triads: Myst. Trin.
q.1, a.2, resp.
[57] Cf. Augustine, Trin.
IX,5,8: CCSL 50, 300.
[58] Cf. Hildegard of Bingen,
Liber Divinorum Operum, I. 2: CCCM 92, 47–50.
[59] Cf. id., Scivias
II. 1: CCCM 43, 7–92; Liber Divinorum Operum I.
1: CCCM 92, 46–47.
[60] P. Dronke, Women Writers of the Middle Ages: A Critical Study of Texts from
Perpetua (†203) to Marguerite Porete (†1310), Cambridge 1984, 175.
[61] Theodericus monachus Ecternacensis,
Vita Sanctae Hildegardis Virginis, II, 16: CCCM 126, 44.
[62] Hildegard of Bingen,
Explanatio Symboli S. Athanasii: PL 197, 1075–1076.
[63] Id., Liber Divinorum Operum
I. 2: CCCM 92, 47–50.
[64] Itin. VI, 2.
[65] I Sent. dist. 3 q.2.
[66] Brev. II, 1.
[67] Itin. I, 10.
[68] Brev. II, 2, 2.
[69] Cf. also in this sense:
Hex. I, 17.
[70] I Sent. d. 16, a.1, q.1, f. 4.
[71] I Sent. d. 6, a.1, q.3, ad 4.
[72] Itin. I, 7; I, 15.
[73] Itin. IV, 1.
[74] Cf. Itin. II, 13.
[75] De myst. Trin.q.1, a.2.
[76] De myst. Trin.q.1, a.2.
[77] Cf. Itin. II, 13; IV and
passim.
[78] II Sent. dist. 16, q. 1, a. 1.
[79] S.Th. I, q. 2, proem.
[80] S.Th. I, q. 3, a. 3–5.
[81] S.Th. I, q. 44, a. 1.
[82] S.Th. I, q. 45, a. 6.
[83] S.Th. I, q. 45, a. 6, corp.
[84] S.Th. I, q. 45, a. 6, corp.
[85] Sent. I, d. 14, q. 1, a. 1. Cf.
S.Th. I, q. 34, a. 3; q. 37, a. 2, ad 3;
Sent. I, d. 32, q. 1, a. 3.
[86] S.Th. I, q. 32, a. 1 ad 3.
[87] Cf. De potentia,
q. 9, a. 5 ad 23. Cf. Basil the Great, De Spir. XVIII, 46: SCh 17 bis, 408–9.
[88] S.Th. I, q. 39, a. 8 ad 4. Cf.
In Ioann. 1,3 (n. 76).
[89] S.Th. I, q. q. 34, a. 3 ad 1.
[90] Cf. S.Th. I, q. 37.
[91] Cf. S.Th. I, q. 38.
[92] Cf. S.Th. I, q. 13, a. 7, corp.; q. 37, a. 2.
[93] Cf. Fourth Lateran Council (11–30 November 1215), chap. 2: DH 806.
[94] Sup. Io. c. XVII, l. 3.
[95] Francis, Apostolic Constitution
Veritatis gaudium (8 December 2017), no.
4a, quoting from
Laudato si',
no. 240.
[96] Cf. Augustine, Contra Serm. Arian. I,8: PL 42, 688 C; Theodoret of Cyrus,
Eranistes 100: PG 83, 137 C; Ettinger, 133; Leo the Great, Ep. ‘Licet
per nostros’ to Julian of Cos 3: DH 298.
[97] Council of Trent,
Decree on the Sacraments (3 March 1547), can. 2: DH
1602; indirectly, Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution
Lumen Gentium (21 November 1964), no. 35.
[98] Cf. International Theological Commission,
The Reciporcity between Faith and
Sacraments in the Sacramental Economy (2020), nos. 16–32; J. Ratzinger, ‘Die Sakramentale Begründung christlicher
Existenz’, in Theologie der Liturgie. Gesammelte Schriften 11, Freiburg 2008, 197–214.
[99] Metropolitan J. Zizioulas,
Il creato come eucaristia. Approccio teologico al problema dell'ecologia,Edizioni Qiqajon – Comunità di Bose, Magnano (Bi) 1994; id.,
Priests of Creation. John Zizioulas on Discerning an Ecological Ethos,
edited by J. Chryssavgis and N. Asproulis, London 2021.
[100] Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter
Orientale lumen (2 May 1995), no. 11;
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, On Earth as in Heaven, passim. For a
brief introduction to the Orthodox approach to the ecological crisis, cf. J. Chryssavgis,
‘A New Heaven and a New Earth: Orthodox Theology
and an Ecological World View’, The Ecumenical Review 62/2 (2020),
214–222.
[101] Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer III.
[102] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter
Placuit Deo (22
February 2018).
[103] Cf. Thomas Aquinas,
S.Th. I, q. 28, a. 2; q. 29, a. 4.
[104] Bonaventure, II
Sent. dist. 16, q. 1, a. 1. Cited supra.
[105] The term ‘Anthropocene’, coined by the Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Paul Crutzen,
is subject to debate amongst scientists.
[106] Roman Missal, Preface V of the Sundays in Ordinary Time.
[107] Cf. J. Zizioulas, ‘Relational Ontology: Insights from Patristic Thought’, in J.
Polkinghorne (ed.), The Trinity and the Entangled World, Grand Rapids
(MI), 2010, 146–156.
[108] Cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission,
The Interpretation of the Bible in the
Church, 1993.
[109] First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution
Dei Filius (24
April 1870), Chapter IV, ‘Faith and Reason’: DH 3017; John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter
Fides et ratio (14 September 1998).
[110] Apostolic Constitution
Veritatis gaudium
(8 December 2017), n.4c.
[111] Cf. P. Clayton – A. Peacocke (eds.),
In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being:
Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World, Grand
Rapids (MI) 2004; J.W. Cooper, Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers,
Grand Rapids (MI) 2006.
[112] Cf. John Paul II,
Letter to Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the
Vatican Observatory (1 June 1988).
[113] Cf. Bonaventure,
Myst. Trin., q. 8, ad 3; Thomas Aquinas, S.Th.
I, q. 32, a. 1, ad 3.
[114] Cf. E. McMullin and H. Rolston III, in
John Paul II on Science and
Religion: Reflections of the New View from Rome, Osservatorio Vaticano 1990,
pp. 53–58 and 83–94, respectively.
[115] Various propositions put forward by sociobiology, which caused quite a stir at
the time, deny that there is a significant leap between human beings and the
rest of the animal kingdom. Cf. E. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Cambridge (MA) 1975;
idem, On Human Nature, Cambridge (MA) 1978; idem, Consilience: The
Unity of Knowledge, New York 1998; R. Dawkins, The God Delusion, New
York 20082.
[116] The footnote in the original refers to
Gen 9:11; Deut 5:26; Job
34:15; Isa 40:6; 52:10; Ps 145 [144]:21; Luke 3:6; 1 Pet
1:24.
[117] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Dominum et vivificantem (18 May 1986),
no. 50. Italics and quotation marks as in the original. Cf. Second Vatican
Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et spes (7 December
1965), no. 22.
[118] We draw inspiration from Pontifical Biblical Commission,
Che cos’è l’uomo?
Un itinerario di antropologia biblica, 2019; P. Beauchamp, El uno y el otro Testamento. Cumplir las Escrituras,
Madrid 2015, 105–152.
[119] For the connection between the sixth and seventh days, cf. Ambrose,
Hexaemeron 6.10.76 (CSEL 32/1, 261).
[120] Based on the Italian translation by the Pontifical Biblical Commission,
Che
cos’è l’uomo?, no. 46: “Facciamo l’uomo a nostra immagine (ṣelem) a nostra somiglianza (dəmût).”
[121] Cf. International Theological Commission,
Quo vadis, humanitas? Thinking
through Christian Anthropology in the face of certain scenarios for the future
of humanity (2026), no. 117. See notes 51 and 52.
[122] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyons,
Dem. 22; 32: FuP 2, 106; 123; Adv. haer. III, 22,1; 22,3: SCh
211, 432; 438; V, 16,2: SCh 153, 216; Tertullian, Res. 4,3–5: CCSL 2,
928; Adv. Prax. XII, 4: CCSL 2, 1173; Adv. Marc. V, 8,1: CCSL 1,
685; Origen, Hom. in Gen. I, 13: PG 12, 156–8; BPa 48, 92–95; Athanasius,
Contra gentes 45: SCh 18 bis, 201; De incarnatione Verbi 14,2: SCh
199, 315; Hilary, Trac. Myst. I, 2: SCh 19 bis, 76; Peter Chrysologus, Ser. 117,1–2: CCSL 24A, 709; Gregory of Elvira,
Tract. Orig. XIV, 25;
XVI, 22: FuP 9, 344; 372; Aurelius Prudentius, Apotheosis, V, 309; 1040:
Opere complete, Madrid 1981, 200; 240.
[123] Cf. also Irenaeus of Lyons,
Adv. haer. III, 22,3: SCh 211, 439; Dem.
32: FuP 2, 122–123; Tertullian, Res. 6.3–5: CCSL 2, 928; Adv. Prax.
12.3–4: CCSL 2, 1173.
[124] Cf. Justin, Dial. 62: Bobichon I, 348–352; Theophilus of Antioch,
Ad
Autol. II, 18: FuP 16, 142; Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. haer. IV, praef., 4: SCh 100/2, 391; IV, 20, 1 (627); V,
1,3: SCh 153,29; Tertullian, Res. 5,6; 6,4: CCSL 2, 927; 928; Adv.
Prax. 12,1–2: CCSL 2, 1172–1173. Cf. notes 21, 22 and 23.
[125] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyons,
Dem. 11: FuP 2, 79.
[126] Cf. Basil the Great,
Hexaemeron 9.6: SCh 26 bis, 516–8; Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio
VI: PG 44, 140 B–C.
[127] Ephrem the Syrian,
Hymni de Fide 18,4–5: CSCO 154, 96–97; 13,2–3: CSCO 154, 60.
[128] Leo XIV, Encyclical Letter
Magnifica humanitas (15 May 2026), no. 50; see
nos. 48–50.
[129] Cf. Council of Trent,
Decree on Justification (13 January 1547), chaps. 5 and
6: DH 1525–1527 and canons 3–5, 7 and 9: DH 1553–1555, 1557, 1559.
[130] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyons,
Adv. haer. IV, 39,2: SCh 100/2, 965–9; V, 6,1: SCh
153, 73–81; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2, 97, 1–2: FuP 10, 230;
Origen, Prin. III, 6,1: FuP 27, 764–6; Ephrem, H. de Paradiso
9,19–20: CSCO 174, 40; trans. CSCO 175, 37.
[131] We shall follow closely, as we have done so far: Pontifical Biblical Commission,
Che cos’è l’uomo?; P. Beauchamp, The Old and New Testaments,
105–152.
[132] Cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission,
Che cos’è l’uomo? , no. 47.
[133] Cf. ibid., no. 217.
[134] We follow closely Pontifical Biblical Commission, Che cos’è l’uomo?,
no.
72.
[135] Cf. ibid.,
nos. 271–275.
[136] Ibid., nos. 113–116.
[137] Cf. Didache, 14:1 (FuP 3, 106); Ignatius of Antioch,
Magn. 9:1
(FuP 1, 132).
[138] Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter
Dies Domini (31 May 1998), no. 59.
[139] Cf. Epistle of Barnabas, 15:9: FuP 3, 216–8; SCh 172, 188–9; Augustine,
Sermo 8 in octava Paschalis, 4: PL 46, 841. Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter
Dies Domini (31 May 1998), no. 26; J.
Daniélou, Bible et liturgie. La théologie biblique des sacraments et des
fêtes d’après les Pères de l’Église, Paris 19582.
[140] Cf. Francis, Bull
Spes non confundit (9 May 2024), no. 20.
[141] Ignatius of Antioch,
Eph. 20, 2: FuP 1,126. Cf. Serapion of Thmuis, Euchologium, 13,15: Funk 2, 176; Clement of Alexandria,
Prot. X,106.2: FuP 21, 296; PG 8, 221B; Str. VII,11 [VII,61,5]: FuP 17, 452; PG
9, 485C.
[142] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Letter
Octogesima adveniens (14 May 1971), no. 21;
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Redemptor hominis (4 March 1979), no. 15;
Encyclical Letter
Dives in misericordia (30 November 1980), no. 2;
Message for the celebration of the 23rd World Day of Peace: ‘Peace with God the
Creator, Peace with all of Creation’ (8 December 1989); Benedict XVI,
Encyclical Letter
Caritas in veritate (29 June 2009), no. 51. Many other
texts and data can be found in J. Tatay, Ecología integral, 11–344.
[143] In December 2025, the report: United Nations Environment Programme,
Global
Environment Outlook 7 Executive Summary: A future we choose – Why investing in
Earth now can lead to a trillion-dollar benefit for all, Nairobi 2025
(https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-7) confirms the data
we present and emphasises the urgency of coordinated multilateral collective
action.
[144] Global Biodiversity Outlook 5,
Summary for Policymakers, 3.
[145] Ibid., 12.
[146] Programma delle Nazioni Unite per l’ambiente,
Prospettive ambientali globali
– GEO 6. Sintesi per i responsabili politici, Nairobi 2019, p. 7. Available in several languages at
https://www.greenpolicyplatform.org/research/global-environment-outlook-6-summary-policymakers
(accessed 16 April 2025).
[147] Ibid., 10–11.
[148] Ibid., 11.
[149] Ibid., 16. For further details, cf.
ibid., 16–18.
[150] A future we choose, 7. Cf. also Prospettiva mondiale sulla diversità biologica 5,
Sintesi per i responsabili
politici, 23.
[151] Cf. Leo XIV,
Message of the Holy Father for the tenth World Day of Prayer for the
Care of Creation (30 June 2025), Seeds of Peace and Hope.
[152] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Querida Amazonia (2
February 2020), in particular Chapter I: ‘A Cultural Dream’; Synod of
Bishops Special Assembly for the Pan-Amazonian Region,
Amazonia: New Paths
for the Church and for an Integral Ecology. Final Document (26 October 2019), especially nos. 10–14.
[153] Cf. id.,
Apostolic Journey to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.
Meeting with authorities, civil society, and the diplomatic corps (31
January 2023).
[154] Italics in the original Italian.
[155] Cf. Prospettiva mondiale sulla diversità biologica 5, Sintesi per i responsabili
politici, 16 and 23.
[156] Cf. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Reconciliatio et
paenitentia (2 December 1984), no. 2;
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of
the Church, no. 119.
[157] In this sense: John Paul II,
Message for the celebration of the 23rd World Day
of Peace: Peace with God the Creator, Peace with all of Creation, nos. 3
and 6; Encyclical Letter
Centesimus annus (1 May 1991), no. 38; Benedict
XVI, Message for the 43rd World Day of Peace (1 January 2010),
‘If you want
to cultivate peace, protect creation’, no. 6.
[158] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato si' (24 May 2015),
no. 8, citing Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Keynote Address at the Symposium
in Santa Barbara (California, 8 November 1997), reproduced in On Earth as
in Heaven, 99.
[159] John Paul II,
Homily at Zamosc (12 June 1999), no. 3.
[160] Synod of Bishops Special Assembly for the Pan-Amazonian Region,
Amazonia: New Paths
for the Church and for an Integral Ecology. Final Document (26 October 2019), no. 82; cf. also nos. 48 and 80.
[161] Leo XIV,
Message of the Holy Father for the tenth World Day of Prayer for the
Care of Creation (30 June2025), Seeds of Peace and Hope.
[162] Cf. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Reconciliatio et
paenitentia (2 December 1984), no. 16.
[163] Cf. id., Encyclical Letter
Sollicitudo rei socialis (30 December 1987), nos.
36–40, 46;
General Audience (25 August 1999),
Combating personal sin and the ‘structures of sin’; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1869;
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of
the Church, nos. 193, 332, 446, 556.
[164] John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Reconciliatio et
paenitentia
(2 December 1984), no. 16.
[165] Cf. Francis,
Message for the celebration of the 54th World Day of Peace (8 December 2020),
A Culture of Care as a Path to Peace.
[166] John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Reconciliatio et
paenitentia
(2 December 1984), no. 16.
[167] Leo XIV,
Message of the Holy Father for the tenth World Day of Prayer for the
Care of Creation (30 June 2025), Seeds of Peace and Hope.
[168] Cf. Leo XIV, Encyclical Letter
Magnifica humanitas (15 May 2026);
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and Dicastery for Culture and Education,
Note Antiqua et nova (28 January 2025); International Theological Commission,
Quo vadis, humanitas?(2026).
[169] A. Naess, Ecology. Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy,
Cambridge 1989 (translation from the original Norwegian of 1976); ‘The Shallow and the
Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary’, Inquiry 16 (1973), 95–100;
‘A Defence of the Deep Ecology Movement’: Environmental Ethics 6 (1984),
265–70; G. Sessions (ed.), Deep Ecology for the Twenty-first Century:
Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, Boston
– London 1995; M. E. Zimmerman et al., Environmental Philosophy: From Animal
Rights to Radical Ecology, Englewood Cliffs (NJ) 1993.
[170] Cf. W. Aiken, ‘Ethical Issues in Agriculture’, in T. Regan (ed.),
Earthbound: New Introductory Essays in Environmental Ethics, New York 1984,
247–88.
[171] ‘Let no one irresponsibly destroy the natural goods that speak of the goodness
and beauty of the Creator, nor, much less, submit to them as a slave or
worshipper of nature’: Telegram of the Holy Father, signed by the Cardinal
Secretary of State, to the bishops of the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon,
18 August 2025.
[172] Cf. Benedict XVI,
Message for the 43rd World Day of Peace (1 January 2010),
‘If
you want to cultivate peace, protect creation’, 13; cf. id., Encyclical Letter
Caritas in veritate (29 June 2009),
no. 48;
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Redemptor hominis (4 March 1979),
no. 15; id., Encyclical Letter
Centesimus annus
(1 May 1991), nos. 37–38.
[173] It is heavily criticised by R. Bauckham,
Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the
Community of Creation, London 20213 (2010), 1–36.
[174] Cf. J. Chryssavgis and N. Asproulis (eds.),
Priests of Creation: John
Zizioulas on Discerning the Ecological Ethos, London 2021. The same perspective is found in O. Clément, Il senso della terra. Il creato nella visione cristiana, Lipa, Roma 2007; A. Schmemann,
L’Eucaristia. Sacramento del Regno, Edizioni Qiqajon – Comunità di Bose, Magnano (Bi) 2005.
[175] Cf. J. Peçanha Enqvist, S. West, V. A. Masterson, L. J. Haider, U. Svedin, M. Tengö,
‘Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability research: Linking care,
knowledge and agency’: Landscape and Urban Planning 179 (2018), 17–37.
[176] John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation
Ecclesia in Asia (6 November 1999),
no. 41; where he refers to Encyclical Letter
Redemptor hominis (4 March
1979), no. 15: ‘Yet it was the Creator's will that the human being should communicate with
nature as an intelligent and noble "lord" and "steward", and not as a heedless
"exploiter" and "destroyer".’
[177] Id.,
Letter to Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican
Observatory (1 June 1988).
[178] Cf. Gregory of Nyssa,
De Opificio hominis 16: PG 44, 181B; In Canticum
canticorum 11: GNO VI, 333,13–15; De anima et resurrectionem: GNO
III/3, 781ff.; Homiliae in Hexaemeron: PG 44, 121; Maximus the Confessor,
Amb. 41: PG 91, 1304–1305.
[179] Cf. Maximus the Confessor,
Thal. 51: SCh 554, 148–151.
[180] For this reason, in keeping with the spirituality and theology of the Christian
East, human beings are sometimes referred to as ‘priests of creation’. However,
R. Bauckham, in Bible and Ecology, pp. 83–86, criticises this category
for an anthropocentric tone that detracts from the central role of creation
itself in its praise of the Creator.
[181] Cf. Maximus the Confessor,
Thal. 51: SCh 554, 142–143.
[182] Ibid. 1: SCh 529, 134.
[183] Id., Amb. 41: PG 91, 1308–1312.
[184] It is in this light that the contribution of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin should be
understood; cf. Paul VI, Discorso in un importante stabilimento
chimico-farmaceutico (24 February 1966): Insegnamenti 4 (1966),
992–993; John Paul II,
Letter to Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of
the Vatican Observatory (1 June 1988). Insegnamenti 5/2 (2009), 60;
Benedict XVI,
Homily for the celebration of Vespers with the faithful of
Aosta (Italy) (24 July 2009): L’Osservatore Romano, 31 July 2009, p.
3ff.
[185] Cf. Benedict XVI, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Sacramentum caritatis
(22 February 2007), no. 92.
[186] Cf. Synod of Bishops Special Assembly for the Pan-Amazonian Region,
Amazonia: New Paths
for the Church and for an Integral Ecology. Final Document (26 October 2019), nos. 17–19 and 65–85.
[187] A valid proposal can be found in the Earth Bible Project, the result of a
consensus among numerous biblical scholars. They set out the following
principles: 1) the principle of intrinsic value; 2) the principle of
interconnectedness; 3) the principle of voice; 4) the principle of purpose; 5)
the principle of mutual custodianship; 6) the principle of resistance. Cf. https://www.webofcreation.org/Earthbible/ebprinciples.html. These
principles are in line with LS.
[188] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Fides et ratio (14 September 1998).
[189] Cf. International Theological Commission,
In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New
Look at the Natural Law (2009).
[190] Apostolic Letter
Tertio millennio adveniente (10 November 1994), no. 13.
[191] Cf. M. García Fernández, ‘Leviticus 25 – Towards a Common Home and an Integral
Ecology’: Religions 14 (2023), 1501, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14121501;
F. Cocco, ‘Cuando la tierra descansa. Claves bíblicas para entender el jubileo’:
Sal Terrae 113 (2025), 393–404.
[192] Cf. in this document the chapter ‘The Trinitarian imprint in creation’, nos.
17–33. Cf. also: Ps 19; LS 73–86.
[193] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 399, 2415–2418.
[194] Bonaventure, Legenda maior, 9,1: St Francis of Assisi,
Escritos. Biografías. Documentos de la época, edited by J. A. Guerra, Madrid 19802, 436.
[195] Cf. Francis,
Message for the celebration of the 54th World Day of Peace (8 December 2020),
A Culture of Care as a Path to Peace.
[196] Cf., for example, R. Bauckham,
Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation,Londra32021 (2010); C. Yebra Rovira, E. Aldave Medrano (eds.),
Biblia y ecología: nuevas
lecturas en un mundo herido, Estella (Navarre) 2024; J. Tatay, ‘The
Evolution of Catholic Ecological Hermeneutics’, Theological Studies 85/3
(2024), 379–399; F. Milán, ‘Hiperconectado con su entorno: una lectura ecológica del libro de Jonás’:
Estudios Eclesiásticos 99/390 (2024) 669–708.
[197] Cf. in particular, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,
On Earth as in Heaven:
Ecological Vision and Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,
edited by J. Chryssavgis, New York 2012.
[198] Cf. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (3–14 June 1992), in
particular Principle 7
(https://www.un.org/spanish/esa/sustdev/agenda21/riodeclaration.htm. Accessed 7
February 2026). United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Global Climate
Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good (15 June 2001).
[199] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas infinita
(2 April 2024), nos. 1, 11, 12, 18, 22, 38.
[200] Cf. Universal Declaration of Human Rights; John XXIII, Encyclical Letter
Pacem in terris (11 April 1963), nos. 11–27.
[201]
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of
the Church, no. 177. More recently, Leo
XIV, Encyclical Letter
Magnifica humanitas (15 May 2026), nos. 65–67.
[202] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter
Deus caritas est (25 December 2005);
Francis, Encyclical Letter
Dilexit nos (24 October 2024); Leo XIV,
Apostolic Exhortation
Dilexi te (4 October 2025).
[203] Benedict XVI,
Address to the Inaugural Session of the Fifth General Conference
of the bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean (Aparecida, 13 May 2007), no.
3.
[204] Cf. Leo XIV, Apostolic Exhortation
Dilexi te (4 October 2025),
especially Chapter II (nos. 16–34) and passim.
[205] Cf. J. Martínez,
Conciencia, discernimiento y verdad, Madrid 2019; T.
Mifsud, ‘El discernimiento: de la espiritualidad a la ética’, Cuestiones
Teológicas 47, no. 108 (2020), 134–145.
[206] S.Th. I–II, q. 14, a. 1.
[207] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church,
nos. 1776–1794.
[208] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Gaudete et exsultate (19 March 2018),
nos. 166–175.
[209] Cf. John Chrysostom,
Hom. on Mt I, 1: PG 57, 13–15; Thomas Aquinas, S.Th. I–II, q. 106, a. 1.
[210] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas infinita
(2 April 2024).
[211] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Redemptoris missio (7 December 1990),
nos. 28–29 and 55–56; International Theological Commission,
Christianity and the
World Religions (1996), nos. 81–87.
[212] Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:13.
[213] A. Waskow (ed.),
Torah of the Earth: Exploring 4,000 Years of Ecology in
Jewish Thought, vol. 1: Biblical Judaism and Rabbinism, vol. 2: Zionism and
Eco-Judaism, Woodstock (VT) 2000; in particular, J. Benstein, vol. 1, chapter
21: ‘Nature vs. Torah’, 180–207; E. Katz, ‘Nature’s Healing Power, the Holocaust
and the Environmental Crisis’: Judaism. A Quarterly Review of Jewish Life and
Thought, 1 January 1997, 309–320.
[214] Qur’an 17:44.
[215] Cf. Qur’an 6:38.
[216] Cf. M. K. Gueye and N. Mohamed,
‘An Islamic Perspective on Ecology and
Sustainability’, in L. Hufnagel (ed.), Ecotheology. Sustainability and
Religions of the Earth, London 2023. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.105032; O. Llewellyn, F. Khalid et al.,
Al-Mizan: Covenant for the Earth, Birmingham
2024. Cf. also the contributions of the Laudato Si’ Research Institute at Campion
Hall (Oxford): https://lsri.campion.ox.ac.uk/node/276.
[217] Cf. Purusha Sukta
in the Rig Veda, X,90.
[218] Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, II,1.
[219] Maha Upanishad, 6.71–75.
[220] Cf. FABC (Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences) – OTC (Office of Theological
Concerns), Sprouts of Theology from the Asian Soil: Collection of TAC and OTC
Documents [1987–2007], Vimal Tirimanna (ed.), Bangalore (India) 2007,
388–389.
[221] Cf. H. de Lubac,
Aspects du Bouddhisme, Paris 1951, 11–12.
[222] Cf. FABC – OTC,
Sprouts of Theology from the Asian Soil, 395–396.
[223] The work of the African Society of Culture has demonstrated just how imprecise
and inadequate certain terms used to describe this religious reality are:
animism, fetishism, pantheism, manism, totemism, etc. Cf. Société Africaine de Culture,
Colloque sur les religions, Abidjan
5–12 December 1961, Paris 1962; Les Religions africaines traditionnelles,
Paris 1965; Les Religions africaines comme source de valeurs de civilisation,
Paris 1972. Cf. also B. Adoukonou, alons pour une théologie africaine. Essai d’une herméneutique chrétienne du
Vodun dahoméen, 2 vols., Paris 1980.
[224] Cf. L. Magesa,
African Religion: The Moral Traditions of Abundant Life,
Maryknoll (NY) 1997.
[225] Le Sillon Noir,
Une expérience africaine d’inculturation, vol. 2, Cotonou 1992.
[226] Cf. J. S. Mbiti,
African Religions and Philosophy, 2nd rev. and
expanded ed., Oxford 1990.
[227] Cf. A. Pieris,
An Asian Theology of Liberation, Edinburgh 1988, 54.
[228] Cf. J. Grim,
‘Indigenous Cosmovisions: Introduction’ in W.
Jenkins, M. E. Tucker and J. Grim (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Religion and
Ecology, New York 2017, 107–108; M. Henare, ‘Pacific Region. In
search of harmony: Indigenous traditions of the Pacific and ecology’, in Routledge Handbook of Religion, 129–137.
[229] Summa contra gentiles, II, 3.
[230] Cf. R. Williams,
Looking East in Winter, London 2021.
[231] Francis,
Homily for the beginning of the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome
(19 March 2013).
[232] Id.,
Homily for the Pastoral Visit to Assisi (4 October 2013), no. 3.
[233] Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1817.
|
