Pope’s climate change encyclical isn’t the gospel for Catholics

Francis on climate isn’t the gospel

It is rare that a papal encyclical makes the world news. But this week the release of a papal “letter” on the environment, Laudato Si, or Be Praised, was causing a stir even before its release on Thursday. The media and proponents of climate change were jumping the gun, interpreting Pope Francis’s thoughts, which naturally carry great weight.

The encyclical should be seen as part of the Catholic Church’s whole theology on creation and the safekeeping of the environment. But the most likely interpretation will be narrow and political.

This is only the second time since World War II that a papal encyclical has caused such worldwide interest. The first time was the famous encyclical of Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, On Human Life, which affirmed the church’s teaching on the inviolable link between sex and the transmission of life and, as part of that, the teaching against contraception.

Many of its dire predictions have come true, but at the time when the pill was first developed and marketed as the panacea for all the ills of an overpopulated world, the encyclical was very unpopular, even in quarters of the church. Euphoria after the Second Vatican Council had encouraged a much more laissez-faire approach to ancient doctrine.

Needless to say, the full message of that encyclical wasn’t well conveyed.

It is interesting that when a papal encyclical reinforces ancient church teaching and undermines popular trends, the interpretation is negative, “it is just an encyclical”. On the other hand, if a pope puts out an encyclical that seems to reinforce popular views, then it is “exciting”, “new” and “revelatory”. And, of course, Francis’s populist instincts and huge charisma lend themselves to that. Even my youngest has heard of the encyclical and thinks it’s great that the Pope is doing this.

So, how revolutionary is Francis? And is the focus on climate in this encyclical justified?

As for the Pope’s focus on poverty, the preferential option for the poor was actually a phrase used by John Paul II, but Francis’s focus is both laudable and timely, with huge migrations of people from the Third World to the first. However, it is mostly capitalist mechanisms that deliver improvements to poverty. If you are on about poverty, corrupt and dictatorial regimes are more likely to cause that than climate change. Another problem that Francis’s encyclical needs to reconcile is whether climate change is always an oppressive thing for the poor.

The encyclical states that the worst effects will be felt by the poor, “because their means of subsistence is largely dependent on natural reserves ... and they have no other financial activities or recourses which can enable them to adapt” and it highlights “the tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation”.

This is not necessarily true. War is as much a reason for this as environmental degradation. And environmental degradation and delivering people from poverty often go together. China has delivered huge numbers of people out of poverty, although at great cost to the environment. Delivering people out of poverty is never a smooth transition. There was a time when cities such as Manchester and Pittsburgh were polluted, too. You have to be careful about saying to China or India that you “can’t do that” when it might affect poverty levels.

One of the more interesting comments this week came from Father James Grant, adjunct ­fellow at the Institute of Public ­Affairs.

“Pope Francis’s encyclical on climate change should not be treated as official Catholic doctrine binding on all Catholics, but rather a personal position of the Pope. Many will see the Pope’s encyclical as the official position of the church on the area of climate change … An encyclical is meant to provide spiritual guidance from the Pope on a particular subject, for bishops to then discuss with their faithful. In Catholic doctrine, it is completely acceptable for ­Catholics to disagree with the opinions of the Pope in an encyclical. So while the encyclical will hold significant weight … Catholics can feel safe in being sceptical about the Pope’s opinions.”

That Grant is on board at a conservative think tank might elicit a sigh of “he would say that, wouldn’t he?” However, his position is not dictated by the IPA’s views on climate change but rather, as a former Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism, on previous experience. He has often seen a popular issue being turned into a vehicle for what is sometimes called outreach — “to put bums on seats”, not to save souls. And unfortunately the Anglican Church has collapsed because it has stopped concentrating on core things. He quotes the example of Philip Freier, Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, who gave a Good Friday sermon on the evils of the big four banks rather than the meaning of the suffering and death of Jesus.

Grant says: “Relevancy on popular issues doesn’t really bring people in. The spiritual does.”

What does this encyclical mean for the rest of Francis’s papacy, which, for health reasons might not last much longer than another four years? His thinking, in the words of one critic, is “a hotchpotch … In the favelas on one day, criticising people who drive big cars another”. His last encyclical, The Joy of the Gospel, was criticised as a bit incoherent. But he has great skill in the broad stroke and imagery. Perhaps that is why he is popular among the young, who are visual and tend to think in images.

Despite the focus on environment, the biggest problems facing the church are the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, the decline of the natural family in the West and, of course, the disconnect between the official church and the populace.

So perhaps this new approach of Pope Francis will help repair that. After all, there are many ways to skin a cat.