In Communion with God’s Sparrow: Incorporating Animal Agency into the Environmental Vision of Laudato Sí
- 121 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCatholic 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
- Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
- Acampora, R. R. (2006). Corporal compassion: animal ethics and philosophy of body (p. 120). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Bekoff, M. (2006). Animal passions and beastly virtues: reflections on redecorating nature. Fwd. J. Goodall. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
- Benedict XVI (2007). Homily, Vienna, 9 September, 2007. http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070909_wien.html.
- 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.
- 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.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.Google Scholar
- 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
- Doty, M. (2007). Dog years: a memoir. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
- Evernden, N. (1993). The natural alien: humankind and environment (2nd ed.pp. 22–25). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- García-Rivera, A. R. (2003). A wounded innocence: sketches for a theology of art (p. 91). Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.Google Scholar
- Irvine, L. (2004). If you tame me: understanding our connection with animals. Fwd. M. Bekoff. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
- Jonas, H. (1966). The phenomenon of life: toward a philosophical biology. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Merleau-Ponty, M. (1963). The structure of behavior. Trans. Alden L. Fisher. Fwd. John Wild, (pp. 156). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Midgley, M. (1983). Animals and why they matter (p. 114). Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Peterson, A. L. (2013). Being animal: beasts and boundaries in nature ethics (p. 18, 149). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Ricoeur, P. (1967 ). The symbolism of evil. Trans. Emerson Buchanan. (p. 13). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Ricoeur, P. (2009). Philosophie de la volunté, t. II: finitude et culpabilité. (p. 261). Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
- Shapiro, K. J. (1990a). The human science study of nonhuman animals. Phenomenology and Pedagogy, 8, 32–33.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1968). The divine milieu (p. 63). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Willett, C. (2014). Interspecies ethics (p. 74, 97). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar