"The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely. Hence,
there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain
trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person's face. The ideal is not only
to pass from the exterior to the interior to discover the action of
God in the soul, but also to discover God in all things. Saint
Bonaventure teaches us that 'contemplation deepens the more
we feel the working of God's grace within our hearts, and the
better we learn to encounter God in creatures outside ourselves.'"
Pope Francis, Laudato si', paragraph 233
Some of the day's talking heads are dismissing the Pope's Encyclical, Laudato si', without even reading it, apparently, because they seem to think that it is all about global warming and, because he isn't a scientist, they claim he has no business speaking about ecology. According to Rush Limbaugh, the Pope's encyclical confirms that he is a "Marxist." This isn't the first time that Limbaugh has labeled the Pope thusly. I wonder if the man has ever looked up the term in a dictionary.
Hear what Limbaugh has to say about "this global warming encyclical"
HERE where he attempts to reduce this beautiful, multi-faceted document into a "rant" against the rich. He also discounts the Pope's "assertions" about climate change because the Pope isn't a scientist. The Pope doesn't have to be a scientist to comment upon a spiritual orientation that is reflected in the world around it. He does mention some scientific facts, but he relies upon the findings of scientists for those.
I would hope that, just because Limbaugh and people like him are calling this the Pope's "global warming encyclical," the public will not dismiss it as such, because Pope Francis covers a lot of territory in this elegantly crafted but easily accessible document. All one has to do is read the document to see the Truth.
On the other hand, Ryan T. Anderson, of the Heritage Foundation, gives a more than credible overview of the encyclical, which surprises me because I do not typically agree with much of anything the Heritage Foundation has to say. It has always seemed to me that they were hostile toward the poor, but there wasn't much of that sort of thing in Anderson's article, which is titled
POPE FRANCIS' ENCYCLICAL IS ABOUT MORE THAN CLIMATE CHANGE. IT'S ABOUT CULTURE.
It seems to me that, here in America at least, the culture has a grim view of life that denies the majority of Americans the right to be connected with the beauty of nature and with cultural symbols, architecture and art that feed the soul. Francis talks about how it is not healthy for people to be surrounded by concrete, asphalt and glass, such as in most large cities. The poor, especially, are subject to a gritty version of bare survival that does not take into account the quality of life, the need for beauty and nature, the hunger of the human soul for the experience of God through the rest of God's creation.
Under the heading
DECLINE IN THE QUALITY OF HUMAN LIFE AND THE BREAKDOWN OF SOCIETY, paragraphs 43 through 45, the Pope says:
"43. Human beings too are creatures of this world,
enjoying a right to life and happiness, and endowed
with unique dignity. So we cannot fail to consider the
effects on people's lives of environmental deterioration,
current models of development and the throwaway
culture."
"44. Nowadays, for example, we are conscious of
the disproportionate and unruly growth of many
cities, which have become unhealthy to live in, not
only because of pollution caused by toxic emissions
but also as a result of urban chaos, poor transporta-
tion, and visual pollution and noise. Many cities are
huge, inefficient structures, excessively wasteful of
energy and water. neighbourhoods, even those
recently built, are congested, chaotic and lacking in
sufficient green space. We were not meant to be
inundated by cement, asphalt, glass and metal, and
deprived of physical contact with nature."
"45. In some places, rural and urban alike, the
privatization of certain spaces has restricted
people's access to places of particular beauty.
In others,"ecological" neighbourhoods have been
created which are closed to outsiders in order to
ensure an artificial tranquility. Frequently, we
find beautiful and carefully manicured green space in
so-called "safer areas of cities, but not in the more hidden
areas where the disposable of society live."
Paragraph number 45 spoke to me very strongly because my living situation exactly mirrors what the Pope is referring to therein.
When I moved into my apartment complex ten years ago as a disabled lady on limited income, it was a fairly pretty place, especially since it is a property that, though originally built as condominiums, had become partially occupied by disabled, elderly and the working poor on a low income program provided by the city. There was a dense line of tall, beautiful trees lining the ditch that runs the back side of the property. Along that line was a nice old wrought iron fence, punctuated now and then with a softly lit globe light on a matching black post. There was a dirt path that ran the full line of the property, from one end all the way to the fenced-in pool, and I often saw residents strolling the fence line at night, chatting quietly and enjoying the natural ambiance.
Honesuckle and rosemary bushes dotted the landscape, and a few giant cotton wood trees complemented them. Each downstairs apartment had a patch of grass and a patch of dirt in which to plant flowers. A peacock had somehow found its way to the property and was living here. There was a family of beavers, presided over by a giant, silver-backed female who studiously ignored me when she marched the path, preferring, occasionally, to walk from one end of the ditch to the other. In the spring time, large red-tailed hawks were in abundance, and I often was treated to the sight of them, clinging to the fence, searching for their next meal or teaching their young ones to fly and hunt.
Canadian geese and their chicks, guarded by an inexplicable giant white domestic goose, were plentiful, as were gorgeous little wood ducks and their tiny chicks. Mallards were in no short supply, and white herons of some variety were often seen hunting from the banks or, with particularly tall individuals, right in the middle of the ditch! At night, the black crested night herons would perch in those trees on the ditch line. I was lucky enough to catch sight of a few green herons, which are pretty shy. It was a rich ecological smorgasbord that attracted a giant whitish owl who flew straight down the middle of the ditch at dusk, swiveling its head to look at me with its wide-set eyes as it passed me.
There were plentiful bass, trout and catfish in the ditch, along with the ubiquitous carp that no one wanted to eat, except the really desperate fisherman, but unless you trespassed on our property, you couldn't fish our excellent fishing holes because the dense treeline at the bank wouldn't permit it. The maintenance man would occasionally fish during his lunch hour, and I shared recipes with him for the catfish that were quite large at the time.
We couldn't really see the golf course on the other side of the ditch, except for a glimpse here and there between the thicket. Occasionally, we could hear a loud conversation of some golfers that had driven their balls too close to the fence or, which often happened, into the water.
One day, someone in power decided to kill all the grass and bushes. They turned off the sprinklers for good and just waited for everything to die, which it did in short order. The grass, the honeysuckle, the rosemary. A tiny patch of grass was left at the driveway, just below the sign for the apartment complex, false advertising if you ask me! Another patch of grass near the mailboxes was allowed to live - just barely. It never really looks like grass any more, but a collection of clipped weeds of one variety or another. In front of my garage, one of the two small trees that bore a profusion of beautiful flowers every spring, was allowed to die of thirst and was eventually removed by the "gardeners." I notice that a nearby neighbor started watering the other one to try and keep it alive. So far, it is hanging on.
Then someone decided to remove ALL the trees from the banks of the ditch, which I
used to call "our creek" because it was so charming. No more. It took no time for giant machines to come and rip out the trees and carry them away. Then the banks of the ditch were laid over with a giant netting of huge cement blocks, the purpose of which, I imagine, was to delay the erosion that the trees were preventing by their presence at the water line. Then the quaint light globes that had dotted the fence line were also ripped out.
Huge machines came in and ripped up the back yards. They placed some kind of tubing under the soil, which they then topped with heavy weed screen, over which they piled loads of crushed up cement, which is called "crusher fines" in the construction trades. On the walking path that was previously dirt, they laid a thick carpet of gravel that is almost impossible to walk upon, chunks of gravel finding their way into any kind of shoe you might wear. Walking the back fence was no longer practical, anyway, because there was no light and most of the line was pitch black at night, except for the occasional harsh light from one of the lamps that was placed on select walls of the buildings.
This is when my childhood asthma came back like a lion into the Colosseum, and I have had terrible trouble breathing every day. The wind whips up, picking up the dust, dirt, cement and sand choking my sinuses and windpipe. The back of my throat feels as if it's been sandblasted and, I suppose, it has.
I rarely see a hawk any more. A young beaver has taken up residence where the old lady used to live. We have very few fish and almost no turtles since the trees were removed because people could (and did) wander up and down the property just outside our fence line. I watched them as they took large nets and scooped absolutely everything edible out of our "creek." Carp, turtles, frogs, bass, trout: they took everything. Soon, the ditch was barren of life. It is struggling to regain its footing. The elm trees are making another appearance all along the ditch line and, if left alone, will be tall enough to screen out our view of the golf course one day.
As for the country club, they seem to have an unlimited supply of water for their lush greens and big cottonwoods. We can look at it from across two fence lines; the wrought iron one on our side and the wire one on theirs. At about 9:00 at night, I can hear their sprinklers coming on, with a rhythmic splash into the water of the ditch because at least one of them has a swing that is too wide.
I fought the decimation of our natural world on this side of the fence, but in America it is assumed that only the rich can have access to the beauty of living things, and it was a losing battle from the start. I have tried (unsuccessfully) to grow various things in pots in my back yard, but I don't have the money I would need to fix the ugliness outside my window. I often tell people how ironic it is that my "view" from the living room is disturbing: the artificially dyed approximation of dirt on
my side, and lush greenery on the rich folks' side. They tell me I should shut up and be thankful that I can see the pretty place where the rich folks play. "How many people in your position could have a view like that?" they ask me.
I would say that city planners should be required to read The Pope's encyclical before dooming people to living and working in vast expanses of man-made structures, cement plazas, and artificial dirt substitute in favor of integrated green space where the movement of nature can be witnessed and with which we can freely interact.
Quality of life is not something I read about or something I hear on news programs discussing what to do about the poor, for instance. There is an underlying presupposition in America that only people with money have the right to a decent quality of life, to beauty and to a life lived within the harmony of natural space. Clearly, the Pope does not agree. Neither do I.
The Pope's vision is vast and comprehensive, which is why he spent almost 200 pages discussing ecology and related issues. It deals with global warming, to be sure, but it is much more than that. Do yourself a favor and read the document and you will see what I mean.