ECOLOGY FROM A NIHILIST POINT OF VIEW

FOR AN ECOLOGY THAT IS OPEN AND TRANSPARENT

Fra Clodovis M. Boff, O.S.M.

INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW

Premises

- Nihilism is a concept that affirms life is without meaning and

consequently of little or no value.
- In this perspective nature is debased. Nihilism is therefore one of the
root causes of the environmental crisis which is only one aspect of the more
general crisis of meaning widespread in today’s culture.
- The root of the nihilist crisis is atheism or secularism: “we live as if God
did not exist” (etsi Deus non daretur).
- To resolve these two crises we must encounter God’s path; God is the
origin of all meaning – including the meaning of nature. It is important that
we recover the religious or spiritual dimension of existence.

Outline

GOD

Is the relation on which

the universe is based
Detached from this
relation everything falls
and fails
Secularism and atheism are
the root of nihilism.
(Extreme
consequence: funda
mentalism)

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

I -------------------------------- HUMAN BEING -------------------------- THE
OTHER

- Symptoms of Nihilism - Symptoms of Nihilism

1. Suicide 1. Abortion and euthanasia
2. Use of drugs 2. Widespread violence
3. Dangerous sports 3. Lower birthrate
4. Unsafe sex 4. Sex trivialized
(Extreme consequence: 5. Exclude the poor
Self-absorption, selfishness (Extreme consequence:
Humanism)

NATURE

Four Successive Stages of Nihilism

1. Domination: nature is “useful” (profit, capitalist exploitation)

2. Pleasure: nature is “pleasurable” (hedonism, consumerism)
3. Indifference: nature is “neglected” (little or no value)
4. Destruction: nature is “violated” (death instinct)
(Extreme consequence: Ecocentrism, Neo-Pantheism).

I. ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS
ONE DIMENSION OF THE CRISIS OF MEANING

Crisis of meaning: framework of the environmental crisis

Ecology is an important concern today. But ecology is not the most important
problem we face. There are other equally important problems: poverty,
feminism, cultural identity or insecurity. A more important problem is What does
life mean. Why are we alive? Is life worth living? The really important problem
we face is the devaluation of existence, of being and of the world. In brief it is
a distaste for life: this is the problem that underlies all our others concerns.

Acquire urgency

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

This is the great question human beings have always faced, but it acquires even
greater urgency in our time when taedium vitae [a distaste for life] is so
widespread. Existence is lifeless, colorless and dull. In the words of the Bible
people’s eyes are “wasted.” (Deut 28,65) If the ecology of nature is in bad
shape the “ecology of man” (Benedict XVI) is in even worse shape. It is man
who is unwell and he is infecting nature with his malaise. It is not just in
the oikos [shelter] of nature that man does not feel at home but in
the oikos [shelter] of his soul he is equally not at home. He is like one who lives
in a palace but whose soul is troubled.

This distaste for life is apparent in the various dimensions of human relations
as described in the outline at the beginning of this paper. Truth to tell we are
living in an anti-life culture in the broadest sense of the expression. The
devaluation of nature is a part and expression of nihilism’s general devaluation
of everything. If my life is without value nature is worth even less. If I do not
love and respect myself I will love and respect the environment even less.

In his message for the 1990 World Day of Peace John Paul II says with reason:
“the destruction of the environment is only one troubling aspect” of a “profound
moral crisis.” H goes on to say: “If an appreciation of the value of the human
person and of human life is lacking, we will also lose interest in others and in
the earth itself.”

The crisis of meaning and its consequences for the environmental crisis

If my life is without meaning – what will be the immediate consequence?

Hedonism – as St. Paul so aptly puts it: “Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we
die” (I Cor 15, 32). Let us make the best of what life remains for us. Today’s
consumerism is just another name for hedonism. We know consumerism is anti-
ecological because it exhausts the earth’s resources. Indifferent to the earth’s
future the hedonist will say ‘so what!’ Après moi le déluge.

One can understand the apocalyptic expectations of certain ecology groups.

Apocalyptic alarm, however, does not necessarily lead to a responsible attitude.
On the contrary; the hedonist feels more inclined to pursue reckless pleasure
and consumption. He reasons “We might as well enjoy ourselves before
everything comes crashing down.” This has been the reaction of all frivolous
elites facing historical tragedy – witness the fall of Rome, the Black Plague or
the fall of Berlin in 1945.

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

Some lack any transcendent view of life. They are moved by the death instinct
and find perverse pleasure in seeing a tragic outcome to the environmental
crisis. The nihilist would say “If everything comes to an end it’s the same as if
it never existed.” If death demolishes everything then the hell with the world.
The essential argument that we have only one life to live does not necessarily
cause concern for the environment. The hedonist would more likely respond
with selfishness or indifference: “Let others worry about it. I don’t give a damn.”

The danger of destroying the earth has increased as our means of destruction
have become more powerful (e.g. atomic weapons, the machines of modern
industry.) The danger does not lie in the means of destruction but rather in the
human beings who use them. Our primary concern must be the human being
whose heart is infected with the virus of nihilism. We must try to free him from
this fatal disease. We must first save man if we hope to save man’s world. It is
true that mankind and its survival depend on the environment; it is equally true
that the environment depends on mankind and mankind’s sense of
responsibility.

The other side of the coin: positive reactions to the environment

We must realize that the crisis of meaning and its repercussions on nature are
only one side of the coin in our present situation. There is a positive side as
well. Ecology has a dialectic or competitive character where the negative
confronts the positive.

It cannot be denied that there is today a growing awareness of environmental

concerns. Proponents of the ecological counteroffensive include:
- numerous social groups: non-governmental groups and green parties are
fighting for the environment;
- governments increasingly include environmental concerns in their programs
and projects;
- religions are developing doctrine and practice that promotes respect for the
environment.

All these factors are creating a bulwark against nihilism. They show that there
is still a love of life and in times of crisis this love gains strength. We must,
however, determine “in whose name” are these groups unfurling the

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

environmental flag. Their work is good but is their motivation equally good? Are
they coherent? This is what we must examine.

II. THE ROOTS OF THE PRESENT CRISIS

Today’s anthropocentric and secularist view of nature

We know that modern anthropocentrism has – in the words of Descartes –

made man “the master and lord of nature.” Man has replaced God at the center
of the world. This is the “Copernican revolution” Kant spoke about. On the
whole modernity is anti-ecological. It desacralizes nature and reduces it to
material to be manipulated. The world is nothing more than a collection of
objects to be used at will, a mass of means man can exploit for his own benefit.

At the root of this mentality of ownership lie secularism and atheism. There is
no higher power to which a human being is ontologically or ethically linked. The
“God of this world” is man himself. Anthropocentrism becomes anthropotheism.
This is the origin of the nihilist view of modern anthropocentrism. Man goes
from being the “guardian angel” of creation to being its “Satan.” He may not
have created the world but he can destroy it. Modernity may be at the root of
the ecological problem but it cannot resolve that problem unless its basic
convictions undergo a radical transformation. If ecology’s only basis is
humanism – as moderns would have it – it would be subject to the same
instability human beings (individuals or groups) experience.

One of the shortcomings of modern humanism is its attempt to base concern

for nature on a technical, scientific, philosophical rational foundation. This is a
legitimate objection to the so-called “deep ecology.” The cause of life far
exceeds any kind of rationalism. The rational explanations brought forth to
defend the integrity of nature are not entirely convincing. Only something
transcendental, something like religion, can provide a solid foundation for life
precisely because it derives from a sacred or ultimate sanction. Moreover
religion provides simple justifications that can justify broad generalization as St.
Thomas notes in the opening of the Summa.

Equivocal alternatives to “deep ecology”

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

The so-called “deep ecology” is popular in the USA, Germany and Scandinavia.
It replaces anthropocentrism with biocentrism or more specifically ecocentrism.
It is not man at the center of the world but nature; nature is the whole and
man is a part of this whole.

For this reason “deep ecology” is not just concerned with the environment, its
concern extends to the ecosystem – i.e. to the whole of nature of which man
is a part. This is not simply ecology but rather ecologism. Ecology is not just
one cause among many; it is a philosophy, a Weltanschauung, a religion. At
this level one is no longer practicing nature sciences but ecosophy. Nature is
thus “re-sacralized.” To be sacred life must be a transcendent value and for this
reason a central value. Biocentrism is presented as an alternative to modern
anthropocentrism, a critique of modern science and technology.

But this overvalues ecology; is being overlaid with metaphysical and religious
meaning. Ecocentrism sees nature as the great ontological horizon beyond
which nothing exists. At the base of this concept there is an undeniable,
naturalist monism that leads to pantheism: natura sive Deus. Nature becomes
a new transcendence. Previously man was at the center; now it is nature and
life that transmit power (vitalism). Nothing is gained by moving from one
idolatry to another. This is but one more surrogate for religion: in place of God
we have nature – which is always a relative entity.

In an effort to establish an “ethic of responsibility” based on nature, the

philosopher Hans Jonas posits this almost self-evident principle: “Life says ‘yes’
to life.” Similarly Albert Schweitzer(1875-1965) cited “reverence for life” as the
foundation of all ethics; he posited this principle: “I am one life that wants to
live among other lives who also want to live.” This is beautiful but ambiguous.
In its immediacy life appears as an independent value. If we contemplate the
marvelous spectacle of life – its harmony, variety and gratuity – it is clear that
life has value for itself and not just for us human beings.

Clearly life is not self-sustaining. It comes from a transcendent source that

sustains its strength and exuberance. Nature bursts forth from a profound abyss
and generates everything – this is the natura naturans of St. Thomas not
Spinoza. Nature is even more necessary than life; it justifies and gives value to
life. This is where the supreme Reality we call the “living and true God” (1
Thess 1,9) comes in and more specifically the “Holy Spirit who is the Lord and

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

source of life.” By itself living nature – including man – cannot subsist; it lacks
the basic foundation. To pretend that nature can affirm itself on its own is to
ignore its feet of clay: a slight deviation in cosmic laws – a small stone rolling
down the mountain – is enough to smash it to pieces (cf. Dan 2, 34-45).

In synthesis: insofar as biocentrism is based on modern anthropocentrism

cannot validly counteract to ecological nihilism. “Deep ecology” is right in
positing a religious view of nature but its religious vision is based on myth
whereas the Christian religion is based on mysteries as we shall subsequently
see.

III. AN ECOLOGY BASED ON GOD THE CREATOR

Ecology between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism

Only an ecology that is open to the transcendent can effectively counteract

ecological nihilism. Only this kind of ecology can overcome the obstacles of
anthropocentric or ecocentric ecology. These two types of ecology not only fail
to repel nihilism they promote it. A genuinely religious ecology provides an ideal
middle path (via media) between these two extreme and diametrically opposed
approaches. It opposes anthropocentrism’s totally secularized nature that is
subject to arbitrary human manipulation. Similarly it opposes ecocentrism’s
absolutized nature that can be fetishized.

In the Christian faith neither man nor nature is the center of reality – God is.
God is the measure of all things, of both man and nature. They exist only
through His love and for His glory and in His glory they find fulfillment. It is true
that nature comes before and is greater than man – in one sense nature may
be our mother but ultimately she is our sister because she too was created by
God.

What is man’s legitimate place in creation? Neither at the summit nor at the
bottom – rather in the middle: between God and the world, between the Creator
and creation. The Book of Genesis articulates this image of human beings. From
the most ancient account of man’s creation (cf. Gen 2, 4b – 3, 24: Yahwist
source / tenth century) man’s origin is from earth and water. Man is the

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

gardener of creation. A more recent account (cf. Gen 1, 1 – 2, 4: Priestly source
/ sixth century) man’s origin is divine. He is the imago Dei [God’s image]. In
both accounts man is seen as superior to the animals and all other elements of
nature (cf. Gen 1, 26. 28; 2,18-19).

As the Fathers of the Church bear witness Christian doctrine professes an

undeniable anthropocentrism: man is the crown of creation. But it is a “relative
anthropocentrism” – it is subordinate to God and His plan. This is far different
from modern “absolute anthropocentrism” which relates everything to man. If
man has an indisputable primacy it is only in relation to creation for which he
must account to his Lord. Between God and the world man stands as a
caretaker or protector; he is the servant of God, the agent of God’s Will in the
world.

Man’s central importance is clear in the New Testament as well. For Christ one
individual is worth more than the whole universe: “What profit is there for one
to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?” (Mk 8, 36). On several occasions
Jesus places the human being above other creatures (cf. Mt 10, 31; 12,
11; Lk 13, 15); he does not demean other creatures – on the contrary the
Father cares for them (cf. Mt 7, 26-30; 10, 29). St. Paul tells us that there is a
hierarchy in creation: “Everything belongs to you and you to Christ and Christ
to God” (1 Cor 3, 22-23). If man enjoys any sort of superiority it involves service
to others as the Gospel rule has it: “whoever wishes to be great among you will
be your servant” (Mk 10, 43). This applies to the realm of nature as well.

Christianity is ideally placed between anthropocentrism and biocentrism. It

includes what elements of truth these two may possess:
- with anthropocentrism it accepts the truth that man enjoys a privileged place
in creation and therefore special responsibility for it before the Creator;
- with biocentrism it shares the belief that all things have independent value in
relation to man. Man is not the absolute center of creation: he is not the Lord
of Nature but only a part of it – even if his place in nature is altogether special.

The Biblical idea of “creatureliness”

The Judeo-Christian concept of creation synthesizes the two elements described

above. Creation implies the two: operative autonomy and ontological
dependence. These two dimensions can be defined as follows: the creature
depends ontologically on its Creator both for its autonomy and its existence.

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

The creature’s autonomy is based on God (theonomy) and his existence shares
in the existence of the Creator.

If this is the case nature will decay and perish if it is disconnected from God.
The Second Vatican Council affirms this in monumental fashion: “For without
the Creator the creature would disappear.” (Gaudium et Spes, 36; Cf. Caritas
in Veritate 48). To overcome the modern dominant view of nature and provide
a broad and solid foundation to the cause of ecology we must recover the idea
of “creatureliness.”

Unfortunately secularism makes it difficult for moderns to understand the

concept of “creatureliness” – the original and final dependence on God which
is a natural and constituent element of the creature. From a Christian
perspective the unequivocal name for what is called variously “nature,”
“cosmos,” or “everything” is “creation.” Even linguistically “creation” refers to a
“Creator.” Jesus said this definitively when he saw the Father’s loving activity
in nature: the sun, the rain, the birds, the lilies of the field. This concept is
found throughout the Bible. The Psalmists see the world as related to God: “O
LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth!” (Ps 8). This
is true in the prophets as well, especially in Daniel’s canticle “Works of the Lord,
bless the Lord” (Dan 3). The saints echo this thought, especially St. Francis in
his “Canticle of the Creatures.”
For modern secularism the world is no longer a creation, it is merely nature. It
no longer has any native relationship with the one we call God. Secularism
denies the world’s ontological dependence on God. The world has lost
awareness of its creatureliness. It no longer realizes that its existence,
subsistence and autonomy derive from an ultimate Source. Now that they are
no longer creatures the realities of this world have been reduced to simple
things, objects to be used at the discretion of human beings. They no longer
speak of or for God but rather of man and his technological prowess.

Creation implies that both man and nature exist as distinct from their Creator
and follow their own laws. This does not mean that the creature’s autonomy
is total. There is the ambivalence of the Cabalistic theory of zim-zum much in
vogue today. God withdraws and leaves place to the world and man. This
theory may explain the creature’s autonomy but it does not create it. This
would turn autonomy into anarchy. We must realize that a creature’s
autonomy is dependent to the extent that it was established by God. This may
seem a paradox but the truth is that to the extent creatures are autonomous

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

they are attached to their Creator just as the lantern is attached to the roof,
the stream to the spring or daylight to the sun.

Our concept of “creation” must make clear that its essential and principle
element is the idea of “dependence” or “establishment.” The idea of autonomy
is a derived and secondary idea since a creature’s autonomy is “dependent.” It
was given and permitted by the Creator. In the words of Gaudium et Spes: if
things posses “their own stability, truth, goodness, proper laws and order” it is
because they have been “endowed” with these things by the Creator (36). This
is not a question of the simple logic of “on the one hand this and on the other
hand …” It is a rigorous dialectic between the “determiner” and the
“determined,” between the “stabilizer” and the “stabilized.” In close to ten
passages the New Testament refers to creation as a “foundation” (Cf. Mt 25,
34; Lk 11, 50; Jn 17,24 etc.)

It has become a cliché to say that by conferring autonomy on creatures the

idea of creation has secularized the world and left it open to scientific
exploration. The passage from secularization to secularism is short. This
passage fatally occurs when one loses sight of the fact that a creature’s
autonomy is relative (to God) and shared (through the action of God). Creation
accounts in Genesis demythologize the world – but only insofar as they
“creaturize” it. Things cease being idols and become creatures. This is true
secularization. Moderns have dangerously radicalized this insight: not only have
they “demythologized” the world they have also “de-creaturized” it and
collapsed into secularism. They have removed the world from its foundation
(Grund) and left it suspended over an abyss (Abgrund). Deprived of its
foundation the world disappears into the vortex of nihilism – like water in a
bottomless barrel.

Finally, “creation” implies “meaning.” Creation presupposes the free and loving
act of God. He does not create out of need but out of his exuberant goodness.
He creates to reveal His love and His glory and so that creatures may share in
that love and glory. God creates nothing without a plan, a wise and good plan.
Nothing in creation is haphazard. Everything has meaning; everything comes
from love and moves towards glory.

The Christological Dimension of Ecology

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

If we stop at the idea of God the Creator and do not go forward we will never
achieve an ecological theology that corresponds to the Christian faith. Without
Christ nature hides its final secret, its deepest mystery. That mystery is the
Christ-like constitution of nature.

If with God we discover nature as creation with Christ we descry nature

enveloped in a higher mystery, the mystery of salvation. This is what comes of
Christology from a salvation-history perspective.

1. By the very fact of Creation the world carries traces of Christ because “All
things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be” (Jn 1, 3).
In him all things hold together (Cf. Col 1, 17; 1 Cor 8, 6). Christ’s incarnation
was conceived before every creature, Christ is the “firstborn of all creation”
(Col 1, 15) and its supreme archetype.

2. Through the Incarnation in time Creation was in a sense assumed into and
through Christ. It becomes part of his mystical-ontological constitution. It is his
“cosmic body.” This process is called “recapitulation” and it extends throughout
the whole of evolution. In the Holy Eucharist the “natural” elements of bread
and wine become “transubstantiated” into the body of God.

3. Through the Paschal Mystery the “heavens and the earth” and not just
mankind were redeemed by the blood of Christ and reconciled to their Creator
(Cf. Eph 1, 1-20; 2, 14. 16; Col1, 20). In Christ the whole world, and not just
mankind, is reconciled with God (Cf. 2 Cor 5, 18-19).

4. Through Christ’s glorification Creation – like human beings – is given an

eternal and blessed destiny. It is for this glorious destiny that Creation sighs in
its depths and waits with so much anxiety (Cf. Rom 8, 18-21). The Risen Christ
represents simultaneously the first-fruits and the guarantee, the model and the
cause of the world’s eschatological apotheosis. If Christ’s incarnation is called
“the first-born of all Creation” his resurrection has the glorious title: “the first-
born of the dead” (Col 1, 18; Apoc 1, 5).

We should speak about the Spiritus Creator (Spirit Creator). He is the most holy
breath from the Father and from the Son (Filioque); He is proclaimed “the Lord
who gives life” in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. His mission is to
complete the work of Creation and lead it back to its ultimate source (redditus).

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

But we will not say more about this subject here which has already been
handled by J. Moltmann.

IV. A WAY OUT OF ECOLOGICAL NIHILISM

AN ECOLOGY BASED ON GOD

To “restore the love” of nature in the deepest and most coherent sense we
must go back to its source: the Creator. The more love there is for the Creator
the more love there will be for his creation. This is true of the saints and
especially the ecology saints. If St. Francis, the patron saint of Christian
ecology, “loved creation” how much more he “loved the Creator” (cf.
Celano, Vita prima, 80-81). For Francis creation was a stairway that led to the
throne of God, “a clear reflection” of his goodness (cf. Celano, Vita prima, 165).

Today we need a theologically based ecology. The following three levels (in
descending order) will help us re-evaluate ecology from a Christian perspective.
The highest level is spirituality, the middle level is ethics and the lowest level is
our daily activity.

1. Re-discovering the “creatureliness” of things (the spiritual or

mystical level)

If moving away from the Creator has led us to disdain nature going back to him
will restore our love of nature. If we abandon the Creator the whole of creation
will abandon us. We could say that the fundamental solution to the ecology
problem is conversio ad Deum: a return to the Creator. We must learn again
how to look at all things as “creatures” of God. As we said above “Creation” is
the authentically religious and theological term Christians use to speak of the
world and the Cosmos.

We know that Francis loved the realities of nature not because he was a devotee
of nature but because he was a devotee of creation. For him everything was a
part of creation. In his “Canticle of Brother Sun” the Saint is not celebrating
creation directly but praising God because of His creation. He wants his brothers
to be “interpreters of God” and not just singers of creation (Legenda perugina,
43).

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

Genesis I tells us seven times that things are “good” because they come from
the loving hands of God. The whole world is beautiful and good, marvelous and
lovable. If there is evil in the world it is because human beings have badly used
the good things God created. The spiritual person sees everything enveloped
in a “sacred aura.” For the spiritual person things are “transparent” or
“diaphanous.” They reverberate with the presence of the Creator. This is not
pantheism – rather it is “omnipresence”: God is present in things and things
are present in God.

We must eliminate decisively the concept of a remote or foreign God who is

opposed to the world. This is an heretical, Gnostic concept that leads
to contemptus saeculi (contempt of history) and fuga mundi (flight from the
world). The Second Vatican Council teaches us that the Christian “loves and
receives … things as flowing constantly from the hand of God … using and
enjoying them in detachment and liberty of spirit” (Gaudium et Spes 37,4).

Consequently the relationship between God and the world follows the dialectic
of direct and not inverse proportionality. Karl Rahner tells us that the more God
is immanent in the world the more he transcends it and the more he transcends
the world the more he is immanent in it. In his tenderness God embraces
creation and with his power he overcomes it. He is intimately within things and
at the same time he overwhelms them infinitely. He is deeply present and at
the same time immensely distant.

God reveals his presence and marvelous power especially in living things. God
is “the lover of every living thing” (Wis 11, 26). There is there a breath of the
Creator (Cf. Gen 2, 7) and an “incorruptible spirit” (Wis 12, 1). The Orthodox
theologian, John Zizioulas, tells us that man is, before God, the priest of the
Cosmos. The human being praises God through and with creation. According
to Paul Claudel creation needs human beings to carry out the essential task of
proclaiming God. Creation’s praise is stuck at the first letter of the alphabet, it
can but stammer. The human being is like the priest and king of the Cosmos,
he can transform creation’s stammer into “Abba.”

We must re-discover a spirituality of creation that responds to the challenge of

ecology and more directly to the challenge of nihilism. This must not be a
functional spirituality that is artificially created for the sake of ecology but rather
a Christian spirituality that can stand on its own. This is a spirituality that grows

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

naturally and can re-integrate the whole of creation by re-presenting the Triune
God.

2. To re-discover “ecological justice” (the moral or ethical level)

We know our moral obligations to others and to God. But to creation? Is there
such a thing as “ecological justice?” There is a fierce debate about whether the
things of nature have rights and duties; are they really ethical or legal subjects?
Michel Serres speaks about a “natural contract” between man and nature.

But the whole discussion is poorly laid out if one ignores the third pole: the
Creator. The authentic relationship is, as elsewhere, triangular: man, nature,
God. If we see the things of nature as creatures we can escape from the dead
end of economics. Without a theological perspective – even just a rational one
– it is impossible to lay out the question of ecology correctly.

As creatures things are not without rights. They enjoy an intrinsic dignity and
value linked to the nature with which the Creator has endowed them. Things
are ontologically good in themselves. Their worth does not derive from the use
to which they can be put or the financial value they represent as
anthropocentrism would have it. St. Augustine (City of God, XI, 1) tells us their
worth derives from their very nature and the place they occupy in creation. Of
itself nature has the right to subsist and live, to keep healthy and enjoy its
harmony and above all to be spared suffering and be allowed to grow.

If things have value independent of human beings we can affirm that they are
truly independent subjects of law. Since justice involves respect for the law
there must be an ecological justice. Human beings have ethical obligations to
nature. As the imago Dei (image of God) man is the “shepherd of Creation.” He
must care for it “in God’s name” and according to God’s Will. He cannot use
nature as he pleases as moderns would have it. But at the same time he cannot
worship nature as neo-pantheists would have it. The source and measure of
ecological justice is neither man nor nature itself but rather God who is the
creator of both man and nature.

Some would propose a “new alliance” with nature. There is no need of such a
thing. Rather we must extend the eternal alliance of God with mankind and the
rest of creation. This alliance is sealed with the Ten Commandments. It needs
no new or special commandment concerning ecology. The commandment

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

“Thou shalt not kill” involves taking care of every living thing, of every being in
nature. “Thou shalt not kill” means “Thou shalt not destroy things in vain.” Even
the general commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” can easily
include nature which is morally “a neighbor” to us and our biological destiny.

There are limits to humankind’s exploitation of nature. And this leads to our
critique of consumerism – something prejudicial not just to nature but to
mankind as well. This gives rise the increasing insistence on a “sustainable life-
style.” John Paul II talks about a “new and rigorous lifestyle.” But already the
New Testament tells us: “If we have food and clothing, we shall be content
with that.” (1 Tim 6, 8). Today we all need an example of sober consumption.
This example can be given through teaching – but is better transmitted as a
living example especially within the family.

This ethical-professional stance does not free us from exerting pressure on

government and large companies that are especially responsible (80%) for
pollution and ecological destruction. Politically governments and materially
industries bear the principal responsibility for protecting the environment.
Paragraph 16 of the UN Rio Declaration (1992) explicitly declares: “the polluter
should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution.” In simpler terms: “whoever
makes the mess should clean it up.”

In synthesis: conversion (return) to God involves an authentic return to creation

– an “ecological conversion” to use John Paul II’s words.

3. New admiration for nature (the esthetic or poetic level)

Finally we need a new sort of that “eternal romanticism” that dwells in the
human soul. We need a romanticism that is more aware of our feelings of
communion with nature as part of a universal brotherhood under the eyes of
Christ. We must see everything with the eyes of children, poets and saints. We
must once more look at creation with eyes of wonder. When he was an old man
St. Ignatius went into his garden in Rome and touched the flower gently saying:
“Speak softly, I am listening to you.”

There is a temptation we must avoid; a temptation to which all human beings

are prone: an exaggerated love of nature that turns it into something divine.
This temptation was the subject of a pithy condemnation in the Book of
Wisdom: “For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God,

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is,
and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; But either fire, or wind,
or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries
of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods. Now if out of joy
in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent
is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them.”
(Wis 13, 1-3). Job tells us he was attracted by the beauty of the world but
resisted the temptation to see it as divine: “Had I looked upon the sun as it
shone, or the moon in the splendor of its progress, And had my heart been
secretly enticed to waft them a kiss with my hand; This too would be a crime
for condemnation, for I should have denied God above.” (Job 31, 26-28).

Honor is only genuine when it corresponds to the dignity of the creatures being
honored. We have seen that creation certainly involves dependence but at the
same time it shares in the beauty, goodness, power and wisdom of the Creator.

Conclusion: our essential position

Only by re-discovering the Creator will we re-discover creation and its value;
we will thus provide creation with an ultimate foundation. Without this
foundation nature will continue to sway back and forth like a building without
a foundation. This is what happens when we are trapped by the extremes of
modern anthropocentrism and pantheistic ecologism. If we build our
environmental concern on a religious foundation it will acquire a transcendent
and sacred guarantee.
When we see God as the measure of all things including nature, nature will be
protected from the threats posed by man’s arbitrary decisions on the one hand
and the seductive beauty of nature itself on the other. When we believe and
experience God we effectively eliminate the nihilist point of view and the loss
of ultimate meaning which is the root of our ecological crisis.
Motivated by faith in their Creator and Father, Christians will commit themselves
to creation; they will join with the followers of other religions to fight for an
ecology that is open to the Transcendent. As Christians fight alongside other
environmental activists they will zealously claim and preserve their own spiritual
identity. If they should lose this spiritual identity they will be like salt that has
lost its savor and in the words of the Master: “no longer good for anything but
to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” (Mt 5, 13).

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma

Today we discover that faith is the “salt of the earth” and that this is true in the
realm of environmental concerns as well. It is salt that preserves the earth from
corruption and restores the savor of meaning.

Curitiba (Paraná) February 16, 2010

Solemnity of the Seven Holy Founders

Copyright © CURIA GENERALIZIA OSM, Piazza San Marcello, 5 – Roma