Jesus sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the treasury, and many of the rich put in a great deal. A poor widow came and put in two small coins, the equivalent of a penny. Then he called to his disciples and said to them, ‘I tell you solemnly, this poor widow has put more in than all who have contributed to the treasury; for they have all put in money they had over, but she from the little she had has put in everything she possessed, all she had to live on.
Mark 12:41 - 44
Milan is a beautiful city. Its people are beautiful. It is the home of Armani and Versace. At its heart is the utterly impressive Galleria Vittorio Emmanuele I, an enormous, glazed arcade of immense proportions, named for the first king of a united Italy and built between 1865 and 1877. This is real window shopping. This retail centre is adjacent to the spiritual centre, the Duomo (Cathedral) of Milan. 500 years in the making, the Duomo is breathtakingly beautiful. After St Peter’s in Rome and the Seville Cathedral, the Duomo is the third largest church in Christendom.
Charles Borromeo was 12 when he was created an abbot; 21 when he completed his doctorate in law; 22 when his uncle Pius VI named him a cardinal; then archbishop of Milan. He founded seminaries, supported decrees of the Council of Trent and was rigorous in the reform of his diocese. His work and generosity to the poor was renowned. Charles brought a new simplicity to the Duomo, removing ornate tombs, banners and ornaments. He died in 1584. 25 years after his death, Charles was canonised. He is now the patron saint of bishops, students for the priesthood, catechists and catechumens. He was interred in a crypt under the Duomo, expressly contrary to his request.
The crypt is an eerie, dimly lit place. You have no doubt you are in the presence of the holy, of the sacred. Lying beneath the majesty of the Duomo, Charles’ tomb is a link between the saintliness we are each called to, and the humanity which drives our urges, hungers and desires.
We are familiar with Mark’s story (12:38 – 44) of the widow’s mite. Clearly Mark is teaching that those who give from their excess are not being generous, but those who give of their entire livelihood are worthy of great honour. Charles came from a family of great wealth and position, and while had titles of his own, he called on his total being as a gift to his Lord and God. Wealth and titles were for him but tools at the service of the poor and ignorant.
The City of Milan is a testament to humanity’s capacity to create beautiful churches, shopping complexes, motorcycles and clothing and should be a must see on your Italian sojourn, yet its rich and deep faith simmers not only in its underbelly, but in the celebration of life that the Milanese enjoy in their bounty.
St Charles Borromeo’s feast day is
this Thursday.
Peter Douglas
 |
How the world will come to an end – or how we can save ourselves and our common home
by
Agbonkhianmeghe E Orobator SJ
21 October 2021
In a talk earlier this month for Jesuit Missions, Fr Agbonkhianmeghe E. Orobator SJ considered the need to act both individually and collectively to respond to the challenge of climate change, which will be at the forefront of the discussions at COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021. He explored the way in which Caritas in veritate, Laudato si’ and African religious traditions all express a belief that the natural world is ‘a revelatory text of the actions of God who triumphs over death to save both humankind and the Earth.’
A fire broke out
backstage in a theatre. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it
was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think
that’s just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits
who believe it’s a joke.
This terse and
unsettling characterisation by the 19th century Danish philosopher, theologian
and cynic, Søren Kierkegaard, offers a fitting allegory for our present
predicament of global warming and climate change, and the attendant peril to
this Earth, our common home.
There was a time, even
during my lifetime, when predictions about the consequences of climate
emergencies sounded like storylines about a fictional future. Drawing on
imaginative assumptions, philosophical hypotheses and scientific modelling, and
with confidence tinged with hubris, we could tell stories about how things
would change in the distant future.
On the eve of the United
Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as the ‘Conference of the
Parties’ (COP26), the deafening protest of climate activists and the growing
stridency of environmental scientists and analysts awaken us to the reality
that the future of our planet is now – this was confirmed with the award of the
2021 Nobel Prize in Physics to three scientists for their work to understand
complex systems, such as the Earth's climate, that can predict the impact of
global warming.
The latest summary of
the evidence on climate change and the scientific data produced by the
authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), points to a
frightening conclusion, which UN Secretary-General António Guterres dubbed ‘a
code red for humanity’. Such findings lend relevance to Saint Paul’s assessment
of the signs of the times in his era: ‘For the world as it now exists is passing
away.’ (1 Cor 7:31). Yet the response of global leaders seems redolent of the
‘general applause’ of indifference and thoughtlessness displayed by
Kierkegaard’s clowning audience. Recently, Greta Thunberg satirised their empty
rhetoric in the face of ‘a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest
threat in thousands of years,’[i] to
quote naturalist Sir David Attenborough: ‘Blah, blah, blah….’
Climate is replacing
conflict as a formidable driver of humanitarian catastrophes through severe
weather events, demonstrating again and again the irrational logic of shifts in
climate patterns that lay the brunt of the impact on vulnerable and poorer
populations whose activities contribute the least to climate change.
Common to current
approaches is the belief that the right combination of science and technology
offers the key to saving planet earth. True. But neither science nor technology
goes to confession. We need to explore an alternative order of priorities,
criteria and principles. One such line of thought derives from the idea of
‘interdependence of forces’ in African philosophical and religious traditions,
and its concomitant communal ethics of ecological solidarity, stewardship and
gratitude to meet the challenge of climate change.
To elucidate this idea,
I would like to recall Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in
veritate (2009), on integral human development, where he argues that
dysfunctional models and practices of development pose a threat to ‘the earth’s
state of ecological health’ (Caritas in veritate [CV] §32).
Benedict anchors his argument in the claim that the human person is the
measure, driver and goal of development, whose objective is also vitally linked
to the reverence for the means of sustaining human life in the ecological
realm. He then notes that: ‘The way humanity treats the environment influences
the way it treats itself, and vice versa’ (CV §51).
I find that notions
native to African religious traditions blend well with Benedict’s pivotal
teaching that the ‘book of nature’ comprises not just the ‘environmental
ecology’ but, more critically, the ‘human ecology’ (CV §51), both
of which form incontrovertible constants of integral human development. As he
put it: ‘Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one
places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan
that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature’
(CV §51).
Caritas in veritate correctly notes
the temptation to ‘view nature as something more important than the human
person. This position leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism’ (CV §48).
Often viewed against this backdrop are African indigenous religious traditions
which consider the realm of the natural environment as charged with and
inhabited by a multiplicity of spirits. This can lead to those indigenous
African beliefs that underpin respect for environmental ecology being
prejudicially construed as ‘Neopaganism,’ ‘pantheism’ or ‘animism.’ This
prejudice misses the point.
The vital connection
that Benedict establishes between ‘environmental ecology’ and ‘human ecology’
aligns well with what foremost African theologian Bénézet Bujo describes as the
‘interdependence of forces’ between the human person and the earth, which
allows each to influence the other. Such is the intensity of this vital
connection that ‘one can only save oneself by saving the earth.’ This
interdependent approach to ‘environmental ecology’ translates into a uniquely
African spirituality and practice vis-à-vis the created world in which the
latter acquires a sacramental dimension as a revelatory text of the actions of
God who triumphs over death to save both humankind and the Earth.
This spirituality
engenders an ethical imperative of reverence for nature, whether human or
environmental, and contains a powerful reminder that the duty to protect and
preserve ‘environmental ecology’ and ‘human ecology’ derives from their
constitution ‘not only by matter but also by spirit’ (CV §48). At
its best, the notion of ‘interdependence of forces’ concurs with Christianity’s
deepest truths that recognise creation as ‘the wonderful result of God’s
creative activity, which we may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate
needs, material or otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of
creation’ (CV §48).
My point is that,
besides science and technology, the imperative to correct the catastrophic
global course of current climate predicament requires a capacity to perceive
the agony of the Earth as the flip side of the anguish of humanity. For, as an
African proverb says, ‘a chicken develops a headache when it sees another chicken
inside the cooking pot.’ Pope Francis captures this logic of environmental
intimacy by reminding us in Laudato si’ that: ‘Our
relationship with the environment can never be isolated from our relationship
with others and with God. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than romantic
individualism dressed up in ecological garb, locking us into a stifling
immanence’ (Laudato si’ [LS] §119).
As I see it, this
ecological interdependence is rooted in the principles of the common good and
social justice. Francis explicitly makes the claim that: ‘The human environment
and the natural environment deteriorate together; we cannot adequately combat
environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and
social degradation’ (LS §48). In other words, the degree to which
we are successful in redeeming our socioeconomic dysfunctionality is an
indicator of our overall ecological health and wellbeing. If we desire to be
saved, we should wish, hope and act for no less for our planet.
I am persuaded that the series
of environmental catastrophes witnessed in recent times are consequences of
anthropogenic climate change. Extreme meteorological events, such as heat
waves, droughts, forest fires and floods, in some instances with unprecedented
ferocious intensity, tragically evoke the ‘intimate relationship between the
poor [of this world] and the fragility of the planet’ (LS §16).
Thus, as we damage our planet we also blight the lives of poor and vulnerable
people and their communities. The argument in reverse should not be a
complicated one, namely, that as we attend to the needs of the poor and
vulnerable populations in charity and in justice, we potentially heal the
planet.
For people who perceive
and understand that there is no injustice quite so appalling and alarming as
that visited on planet Earth by human beings, Laudato si’ offers
a prophetic proclamation of faith: that this Earth, our Mother, is a gift; it
is the outcome of an intentional act by a loving God who is deeply involved and
invested in the destiny of the Earth (LS §§67, 220). Our moral
response to this gift includes a duty of care and a practice of ‘stewardship’
that seeks not solely to exploit the resources of nature and extract value at
all cost, but desires primarily to care for and preserve creation.
Whether we profess
religious faith or not, planet Earth is not the product of an act sequestered
in an impenetrable and irretrievable cosmic past. This Earth, our common home,
represents an enterprise continually being fulfilled, in mutuality and reciprocity.
Therefore, the focus need not dwell on how the Earth came into being but on how
‘to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations’ (LS §67).
To return to
Kierkegaard’s clown: to disregard the body of evidence on anthropogenic climate
change is to risk settling for what Pope Francis describes as a ‘globalization
of indifference’ (LS §53) and a ‘collective selfishness’ that only
aggravate the crisis. If the pope is right, such indifference and selfishness
pose the greatest challenge to any initiative to mitigate and reverse the
damage inflicted on our common home.
For it is in the nature
of indifference to dispense with ‘… that sense of responsibility for our fellow
men and women upon which all civil society is founded’ (LS §25) and
it is characteristic of selfishness and greed for ‘some [people to] consider
themselves more human than others, as if they had been born with greater
rights’ (LS §90). Either way, Pope Francis’ message is clear and
decisive: if we capitulate to indifference and selfishness, we become culpable,
‘silent witnesses to terrible [ecological] injustices’ (LS §36).
The point of all this is
the truth that individually and collectively we are not bound inexorably to a
practice of ecological violence. We can chart a different course, we can embark
on a path of care, healing and protection of Mother Earth. We can save
ourselves and our common home.
Key to this new course
is the understanding that protecting, caring for and healing the Earth is
primarily about protecting, caring for and healing humanity, because how we
treat Mother Earth is a reliable measure of how we treat ourselves. In the
context of the present ecological crises, the commitment to healing the Earth
must now shift the narrative from threat of destruction to the promise of
survival and action towards the flourishing of the biosphere.
I hold the firm
conviction that the ecological crisis of our times does not leave us bereft of
ideas and initiatives. As Laudato si’ reassures, we can all do
something. We can all make a difference. If Pope Francis is to be believed,
every human person is part of the unfolding drama of climate change, hence the
necessity, as he puts it, to become protagonists of ‘small everyday things’ and
‘little everyday gestures’ (LS §231); practitioners of ‘simple
daily gestures’ (LS §230) and ‘small gestures of mutual care’ (LS §231).
This idea of enlisting
as protagonists of ‘little everyday gestures’ or practitioners of ‘small
gestures of mutual care’ on behalf of our planet was already poignantly formulated
and articulated by the late Kenyan Nobel Laureate for Peace, Wangari Muta
Maathai, long before the arrival of Pope Francis as a visionary and prophetic
global champion of environmental justice. Wangari Maathai believed deeply that:
today we are faced
with a challenge that calls for a shift in our thinking, so that humanity stops
threatening its life-support system. We are called to assist the Earth to heal
her wounds and in the process heal our own – indeed to embrace the whole of
creation in all its diversity, beauty and wonder.[ii]
Wangari would have
agreed wholeheartedly with naturalist Sir David Attenborough that: ‘If we don’t
take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of
the natural world is on the horizon.’[iii]
With the keen awareness
that, ‘the generation that destroys the environment is not the generation that
pays the price,’ Wangari Maathai resolved to do something about it. ‘It’s the
little things citizens do. That’s what will make the difference,’ she declared.
‘My little thing is planting trees’. By the time of her death, Wangari Maathai
had mobilised Kenyans to plant more than 30 million trees. Also, owing to her
influence, a UN programme led to the planting of over 10 billion trees. Her
example remains an inspiration and a lesson on how we can save ourselves and
our common home.
Rather than join in the
general applause of news of a devastating climate change she opted to heal
humanity by healing our common home. Therein lies the true allegory and an
ethical warrant for confronting our ‘man-made disaster of global scale. Our
greatest threat in thousands of years’.
I’d like to end with a
postscript.
The distinguished
professor of history, Phillip Jenkins, has predicted that ‘a near-certain
consequence of a climate-driven disaster will be a quest for the malefactors
thought to be responsible’ and ‘a powerful thirst for religious explanations of
the ongoing disasters’ (‘Climate catastrophe and the future of faiths,’ The
Tablet, 25 September 2021). Although Jenkins’s argument is compelling, he
overlooks the fact that the context of the 14th century is a distant past to
our highly globalised and networked world. When it comes to explanations of the
ongoing climate-driven catastrophes, we know the enemy: the enemy is us. This
is ‘unequivocal’ and ‘an established fact,’ according to the latest IPCC
report. The gods are not to blame.
Fr Agbonkhianmeghe E. Orobator SJ is the
President of the Jesuit Conference of Africa and Madagascar. He holds a PhD in
Theology and Religious Studies from the University of Leeds in England. He is
the author of Theology Brewed in an African Pot (Orbis Books
2008); Religion and Faith in Africa: Confessions of an Animist (Orbis
Books, 2018); and The Pope and the Pandemic: Lessons in Leadership in
a Time of Crisis (Orbis Books, 2021).
Listen to a recording of the talk on which this article is based, which was delivered on 5 October 2021, at: https://jesuitmissions.org.uk/fr-orobator-on-saving-our-common-home/
[i] Matt McGrath, ‘Sir
David Attenborough: Climate change “our greatest threat”’, BBC (3 December
2018): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46398057
[ii] Wangari Maathai,
Nobel Lecture (Oslo, 10 December 2004): https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2004/maathai/26050-wangari-maathai-nobel-lecture-2004/
[iii] McGrath, op.
cit.
