Advertisement

Sophia

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 103–118 | Cite as

In Communion with God’s Sparrow: Incorporating Animal Agency into the Environmental Vision of Laudato Sí

  • Mary A. Ashley
Article
  • 121 Downloads

Abstract

Although a conventional environmentalism focuses on the health of ecological systems, Pope Francis’s 2015 environmental encyclical Laudato Sí invokes St. Francis of Assisi to emphasize God’s love for the individual organism, no matter how small. Decrying the tendency to regard other creatures as mere objects to be controlled and used, Pope Francis urges our enactment of a ‘universal communion’ governed by love. I suggest, however, that Laudato Sí’s animal ethic, as focused on ordering human and animal need, is inadequate to its overarching vision of cross-species communion. This vision requires the sort of cross-species relational bridge implicit in Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s view of agency as an irreducibly ‘animate’ expression of choice and afforded further definition in Kenneth J. Shapiro’s conception of a ‘kinesthetic empathy.’ As the phenomenological epistemology underlying both discourses makes possible a rough correspondence, I put these in conversation to demonstrate that a Merleau-Pontyan and reciprocal agency is a constitutive aspect of the fullest sort of cross-species relation, such that recognition of this agency can both deepen our understanding of ‘universal communion’ and foster engagement in its practice.

Keywords

Catholic Laudato Sí Communion Animal Agency Merleau-Ponty Kenneth J. Shapiro Pope Francis Pope Benedict XVI Nonmaleficence Saint Francis of Assisi Franciscan Kinesthetic empathy Telic naturalism Alasdair MacIntyre Phenomenology 

References

  1. Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  2. Acampora, R. R. (2006). Corporal compassion: animal ethics and philosophy of body (p. 120). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ashley, M. A. (2013). If you want responsibility, build relationship: a personalist approach to Benedict XVI’s environmental vision. In J. Schaefer & T. Winright (Eds.), Environmental justice and climate change: assessing Pope Benedict XVI’s ecological vision for the Catholic Church in the United States (pp. 34–36). Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  4. Barad, J. A. (1995). Aquinas on the nature and treatment of animals. Lanham: International Scholars Publications 13, 15, 27, 29, 44–47, 66, 70, 72–73, 83–87, 90–91, 106, 113–125, 129, 133–144.Google Scholar
  5. Bekoff, M. (2006). Animal passions and beastly virtues: reflections on redecorating nature. Fwd. J. Goodall. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Benedict XVI (2008). Welcoming celebration by the young people, World Youth Day 2008, Sydney, Australia, 17 July 2008. https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080717_barangaroo.html.
  7. Benedict XVI (2009). Encyclical letter caritas in veritate of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI to the bishops, priests and deacons, men and women religious, the lay faithful, and all people of good will, on integral human development in charity and truth. http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html, No. 48.
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.Google Scholar
  9. Dillard-Wright, D. B. (2009a). Thinking across species boundaries: general sociality and embodied meaning. Society and Animals, 17, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillard-Wright, D. B. (2009b). Ark of the possible: the animal world in Merleau-Ponty. Lanham: Lexington Books 38–39, 40, 44, 47, 73–75, 77, 79–81, 101.Google Scholar
  11. Doty, M. (2007). Dog years: a memoir. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  12. Evernden, N. (1993). The natural alien: humankind and environment (2nd ed.pp. 22–25). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  13. Francis (2015). Encyclical letter Laudato Sí of the Holy Father Francis on care for our common home. Vatican. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/events/event.dir.html/content/vaticanevents/en/2015/6/18/laudatosi.html, Nos. 11, 14, 33, 34, 42, 43, 58, 65, 66, 69, 77, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 97, 98, 100, 106, 117, 118, 119, 125, 127, 130, 138, 139, 140, 153, 155, 186, 210, 213, 216, 220, 221, 226, 228, 231, 232, 233, 240, 246.
  14. García-Rivera, A. R. (2003). A wounded innocence: sketches for a theology of art (p. 91). Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.Google Scholar
  15. Irvine, L. (2004). If you tame me: understanding our connection with animals. Fwd. M. Bekoff. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jonas, H. (1966). The phenomenon of life: toward a philosophical biology. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  17. MacIntyre, A. (1999). Dependent rational animals: why human beings need the virtues. Chicago: Open Court 8, 14, 15, 17, 23–27, 38, 46–48, 57.Google Scholar
  18. McDaniel, J. (2006). Practicing the presence of God: a Christian approach to animals. In P. Waldau & K. Patton (Eds.), A communion of subjects: animals in religion, science, and ethics (pp. 132–145). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1963). The structure of behavior. Trans. Alden L. Fisher. Fwd. John Wild, (pp. 156). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception. Trans. Colin Smith. New York: Routledge Classics, vii, xxiii, 31, 66–69, 111, 138, 160, 172, 214–215, 239, 270, 272, 369, 392, 394, 407, 410, 412, 415, 420, 438, 448–449, 475, 503, 512, 520.Google Scholar
  21. Midgley, M. (1983). Animals and why they matter (p. 114). Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  22. Myers, G. (2007). The significance of children and animals: social development and our connections to other species. 2nd ed., rev. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 52, 61, 65–88.Google Scholar
  23. Peterson, A. L. (2009). Everyday ethics and social change: the education of desire (pp. 82–109). New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peterson, A. L. (2013). Being animal: beasts and boundaries in nature ethics (p. 18, 149). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004). Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church, No. 133. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html, No. 133.
  26. Ricoeur, P. (1967 [1960]). The symbolism of evil. Trans. Emerson Buchanan. (p. 13). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  27. Ricoeur, P. (2009). Philosophie de la volunté, t. II: finitude et culpabilité. (p. 261). Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  28. Shapiro, K. J. (1990a). The human science study of nonhuman animals. Phenomenology and Pedagogy, 8, 32–33.Google Scholar
  29. Shapiro, K. J. (1990b). Understanding dogs through kinesthetic empathy, social construction, and history. Anthrozoös, 3(3), 184–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shapiro, K. J. (1997). A phenomenological approach to the study of nonhuman animals. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thomson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes and animals (pp. 278–279). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  31. Shapiro, K. J. (2003). What is it to be dog?: a qualitative method for the study of animals other than humans. The Humanistic Psychologist, 31(4), 74–79 80–81, 86, 90–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, C. (2010). What is a person?: rethinking humanity, social life, and the moral good from the person up. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 15, 108, 112, 409–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for nature: a theory of environmental ethics (pp. 122–123). Princeton: Princeton University Press 186–192, 210–211, 213.Google Scholar
  34. Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1968). The divine milieu (p. 63). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  35. United States Catholic Conference (1994). Catechism of the Catholic Church. English translation of the Latin from Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vatican, 1994. Washington, DC: USCC, No. 2418.Google Scholar
  36. Vacek, E. C. (1994). Love, human and divine: the heart of Christian ethics (p. 21). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press 25–26, 34, 39–40, 44, 58, 60, 91–92, 95, 97, 132, 140, 142, 167, 176, 184, 286, 299, 310.Google Scholar
  37. Weisberg, Z. (2015). Animal agency: what it is, what it isn’t, and how it can be realized. In E. Aaltola & J. Hadley (Eds.), Animal ethics and philosophy: Questioning the orthodoxy (pp. 64, 74–75). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  38. Willett, C. (2014). Interspecies ethics (p. 74, 97). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary A. Ashley
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Religious StudiesNotre Dame de Namur UniversityBelmontUSA
  2. 2.OaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations