“Human ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good, a central and unifying principle of social ethics” (156). “… the common good calls for social peace, the stability and security provided by a certain order which cannot be achieved without particular concern for distributive justice” (157). “The climate is a common good belonging to all and meant for all” (23). He challenges politicians not to allow themselves to be subject to the economy nor “the economy subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy” (169). He minces no words when he states that “Politics itself is responsible for the disrepute in which it is held on account of corruption and the failure to enact sound public policies.” He states clearly that “What is needed is a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis … if politics shows itself incapable of breaking such a perverse logic, and remains caught up in inconsequential discussions, we will continue to avoid facing the major problems of humanity” (197). On the role of technology he cautions that every advance must not be viewed simply in terms of its economic benefits without concern for the potentially negative impact on society. He further cautions against an overreliance on technology to solve environmental and social problems without recognizing the “mysterious network of relations between things” lest one problem is solved only to create others. He advocates not returning to the “Stone Age, but to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur” (114). Fall 2015
Pope Francis criticizes a consumer culture which prioritizes short-term gain and private interest over the common good. “Environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces,” he wrote (190). In an economy where profits alone count he notes that “biodiversity is considered at most a deposit of economic resources available for exploitation, with no serious thought for the real value of things, their significance for persons and cultures, or the concerns and needs of the poor” (190). He also mentions a number of times the importance of everyone being at the table. Today’s problems cannot be solved by a few, nor can people in one place assume they know what is good for people in another. Everyone needs to have a voice. People need to participate in their own development. The term “integral ecology” is used throughout the document and continually emphasizes the need to view societal problems today through multiple lenses simultaneously: environmental, social, economic, cultural, and political. He calls for a serious and prayerful examination of personal lifestyles and both the importance and urgency of critiquing commonly held “myths of modernity grounded in a utilitarian mindset” such as individualism, unlimited progress, competition, consumerism, and the free market. Though he presents the enormous challenges facing humanity today which can appear overwhelming, he affirms that change is possible; that humanity can change course. He invites all people to a change of heart and encourages a “culture of care.” The encyclical is written for all people, but he reminds Christians in a special way that “The ecological crisis is a summons to a profound interior conversion … an ecological conversion whereby the effects of our encounter with Jesus Christ becomes evident in our relationship with the world around us” (217). 25