Aesthetics as Comprehensive Solution

How can religion and science work together to solve the ecological crisis? According to Pope Francis, a dialogue between religion and science is necessary to grasp the ultimate meaning and purpose of things.

It cannot be maintained that empirical science provides a complete explanation of life, the interplay of all creatures and the whole of reality. This would be to breach the limits imposed by its own methodology. If we reason only within the confines of the latter, little room would be left for aesthetic sensibility, poetry, or even reason’s ability to grasp the ultimate meaning and purpose of things.  (LS 199)

Religion and science both must dialogue to look for a solution to the environmental crisis. Otherwise, there will be little room for an aesthetic sensibility. It is precisely at this aesthetic sensibility that Hispanic theologian Alejandro García-Rivera (1951-2010) was looking in his work when proposing a theological cosmology.  After revising Teilhard de Chardin’s work, García-Rivera proposed a cosmological question from which Teilhard would profit: Where is Jesus now? The answer to this question will bring three new dimensions to Teilhard’s Christology and will let us understand more the role of a theological cosmology in the recovery of the aesthetic value of creation. These three new dimensions are the relevance of the Ascension, the notion of place and the role of beauty.

Following this postulate, García-Rivera turns his reflection to the role of the Holy Spirit in building his theological cosmology.  The fully cosmic Christ is also the Christ who sends the Holy Spirit. The role of the Holy Spirit is not simply to be the ultimate source of the beauty of living forms, but also to be the source of unity between us and their beauty. In doing so, the Holy Spirit shows us the way to our home in the cosmos. Through this understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role, we realize that “we are not simply to enjoy the living forms but also to be formed by their beauty.”

FlowerIdentifying the Holy Spirit as the “one who not only is the ultimate source of beauty of living forms but also the One who unites us to their beauty” helps us to understand stewardship in a new sense.  The stewardship of creation made us realize that we are formed by the same beauty of the living forms.  This is how stewardship must understand. In this sense, stewardship is a process that involved both “gift and giving, creating and appreciating.”

In the final chapter of Laudato Si’, Pope Francis makes clear that just as the problem is comprehensive, so must be the solution. A new aspect of Christian spiritual formation must occur, one based not on the materialist paradigm, but on the awareness of the spiritual connections among all aspects of the created world: “Environmental education should facilitate making the leap toward the transcendent which gives ecological ethics its deepest meaning” (LS 210); in other words, the process must entail the kind of “profound inner conversion” toward gratitude and generosity that we see in St. Francis of Assisi (LS 217-20).

One of the most profound and moving aspects of Laudato Sí is that Pope Francis’ voice is not one crying in the wilderness; in fact, he joins a growing call from people of all faiths, and of no religious faith, to re-evaluate our distorted commitment to “techonology über alles” and a materialistic worldview, and embrace a vision of reality, the breathtaking interdependence of all that is. Voices such as David Seidenberg (Jewish), David Loy (Zen), Will Tuttle (Buddhist, vegan), the aforementioned Alejandro García-Rivera, and of course Pope Francis, may be a minority in literal numbers. The swelling cascade of calls, however, to challenge the culturally inherited technocratic and dominance paradigm suggests to many of us that we are reaching a tipping point.  May we soon collectively turn from this deathly pattern and toward a paradigm of transformation by grace into the image and likeness of God, of the generosity that is the only legitimate response to the privilege of existing as a part of this stunningly beautiful world. And as Pope Francis encourages, “Let us sing as we go” (LS 244).

Nelson Araque teaches History of Latino Catholics in the Ministry to Latino Catholics Certificate Program and Pamela Hedrick teaches Sacred Scripture and spirituality for Saint Joseph’s College Online.

Technocratic Model vs. An Integral and Integrated Vision

Chapter Three of Laudato Sí is entitled “The Human Roots of the Ecological Crisis;” it could well be called “Original Sin, Reprise.” Once again, humans have participated with God in creating things with enormous potential for good, in this case all that falls under the term “modern technology,” then proceeded to spend an inordinate amount of time distorting that potential goodness.  We have done it now to the point that we worship (there is hardly another word for it) “an undifferentiated and one-dimensional technocratic paradigm” [italics his], increasing the tendency of the scientific method as “a technique of possession, mastery and transformation” (L.S. 107) to the point that this paradigm devastatingly dominates the world economy. “The economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings” (L.S. 109).

As if that critique were not disturbing enough, the Holy Father goes on to strike at the very root of the distortion, “an inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology” that has resulted in an “anthropocentrism” of mastery over rather than stewardship of the rest of Creation (L.S. 115-6).  (Notice how deeply ingrained the distortion is: we tend to say “creation” when we mean “everything except us.” The paradigm of dominance is woven into our everyday language.) Pope Francis wisely highlights the interconnectedness of the reality, and hence of the distortion: we cannot heal our relationship with the rest of creation in isolation, nor heal our human relationships without addressing the former: healing, like violence, is of a package (L.S. 119).

The counterpart of the technocratic model in which we are living according to Pope Francis in Chapter 3 is the need for a humanism with an integral and integrated vision, as Pope Francis explains,

We urgently need a humanism capable of bringing together the different fields of knowledge, including economics, in the service of a more integral and integrating vision. (LS, 141)

This integral and integrated vision of reality is urgently need right now because modernity img_0856based its great progress in the separation of the subject form the object. For Roberto Goizueta, theology professor at Boston College, modernity gave birth to “the autonomous agent of his or her own life” who does not just live in history but makes history. In this way “history is a product of the human activity or praxis.” The consequences of this view are reflected in our own language: “The modern subject ‘makes’ a living, ‘makes’ love, and strives to ‘make something’ of himself or herself.” This “making” of everything creates a separation of the subject from the object that Goizueta sees as a “precondition for the subject to control the object in order to manipulate it.”

The separation of the subject from the object implicit in the understanding of human activity as praxis has lead us to great advances in modernity. However, what caught Goizueta’s attention is the fact that “human beings can control and transform their natural and social environments, as well as their own lives,” which also carries with it the ideology of progress characteristic of modernity.

Thus, for Goizueta, modernity gave birth to the human subject as “maker” of history, as alienated from the object and able to “control” and “work on” his or her environment.

Human action–praxis, grounded in the separation of the subject from the object as modernity understood in Goizueta’s view has also “laid the foundation for the devastation of the environment”

This devastation of the environment which foundation was laid on by the separation of the object from the subject and that brought great progress, today is in need of an integral and  integrated  vison or what Pope Francis calls integral ecology, an approach to ecology that insist that environmental and social problems are interconnected, as Pope Francis explains,

We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature. (LS, 139)

This integral and integrated approach to ecology described by Pope Francis implies an “economic ecology” which considers that   “the protection of the environment is in fact ‘an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.’” (L.S. 141). A “social ecology” that understand that” the health of a society’s institutions has consequences for the environment and the quality of human life.” Because as Pope Benedict XVI in Caritas Veritate says, “Every violation of solidarity and civic friendship harms the environment.” (51) Finally, this integral and integrated vision of ecology requires a “cultural ecology” that lead to accept that “Culture is more than what we have inherited from the past; it is also, and above all, a living, dynamic and participatory present reality, which cannot be excluded as we rethink the relationship between human beings and the environment” (L.S. 143).

Nelson Araque teaches History of Latino Catholics in the Ministry to Latino Catholics Certificate Program and Pamela Hedrick teaches Sacred Scripture and spirituality forSaint Joseph’s College Online.