By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

An essential principle of environmental science is that everything is interconnected. An ecology’s climate, geology, and every one of its life forms influence each other.

In last week’s brilliant and inspiring encyclical, Pope Francis applies the same principle to the integration of natural and human worlds. “Praise be to you, my Lord” is nominally about climate change. It is subtitled, “On care for our common home,” and in it, Francis says that our common home “is beginning to look like an immense pile of filth.”

To accurately describe climate change’s causes and solutions, Francis explores interconnections among pollution, resource depletion, species extinction, suffering of the poor, greed of the rich, economic and political institutions that produce these conditions, and the culture that accommodates them.

In the first of five chapters, Francis vividly describes “the present ecological crisis,” “drawing on the results of the best scientific research available today.” He states 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.”

He identifies the link between the two as “economic powers [that] continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain…”

He writes movingly about economic inequality and how the environmental crisis disproportionately affects the poor, although they are the least responsible for it.

He describes the disintegration of human relationships, that “now tend to be replaced by a type of internet communication which enables us to choose or eliminate relationships at whim, thus giving rise to a new type of contrived emotion which has more to do with devices and displays than with other people and with nature.”

In Chapter 2, Francis reviews Judeo-Christian scriptural injunctions regarding humans’ obligation to the natural world. He rejects those who take out of context the Genesis account wherein God grants man “dominion” over the earth. Instead, God put humanity on earth to till and keep it (Genesis 2:15), and “keeping it” means “caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving.”

Francis rejects any claim by humanity or individual humans to “absolute ownership.” “The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property.”

He says that nature is not just God’s creation, but God’s location. And he advocates a “sense of deep communion with nature.” “When our hearts are authentically open to universal communion, this sense of fraternity excludes nothing and no one.”

In Chapter 3, Francis examines “the roots of the present situation, so as to consider not only its symptoms, but also its deepest causes.” He begins by praising a number of science’s and technology’s accomplishments. “Technoscience, when well directed, can produce important means of improving the quality of human life.”

But he goes on to condemn the emergence of a paradigm in which technoscience becomes its own end and its own morality. “This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who…progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This has made it easy to accept…the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods.”

Francis believes that “We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral.”

Moneyed interests who oppose environmental regulation, trade constraints, and social programs in the name of “freedom” block such efforts. But, “to ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while real conditions bar many people from real access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to practice a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute.”

So, “It is remarkable how weak international political responses have been… There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected.”

In Chapter 3, Francis advances, “some broader proposals for dialogue and action.” He insists that our interconnectedness with nature makes it necessary to seek comprehensive solutions to “one complex crisis, which is both social and environmental.”

He suggests an “integrative ecology” that begins with human solidarity and respect for the common good. “Every violation of solidarity and civic friendship harms the environment.”

The common good is “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.” Considerations of common good must extend to future generations.

In Chapter 4, he outlines “major paths of dialogue which can help us escape the spiral of self-destruction,” because “a global consensus is essential for confronting the deeper problems,” and “enforceable international agreements are urgently needed.”

Elements of that consensus include recognition that coal and oil technology need to be “progressively replaced without delay.” And “the countries which have benefited from a high degree of industrialization, at the cost of enormous emissions of greenhouse gases, have a greater responsibility for providing a solution to the problems they have caused.”

He states that, “The principle of the maximization of profits…reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy.”

In this context, he takes special aim at the finance sector: “Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price, foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms the absolute power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises after a slow, costly, and only apparent recovery.”

Francis begins Chapter 5 by stating, “Many things have to change course, but it is we human beings above all who need to change.” He then offers “some inspired guidelines for human development to be found in the treasure of Christian spiritual experience.” Any human, regardless of faith, will be uplifted by these observations.

In response to the encyclical, right-wingers who in the past have misappropriated Catholic Social Teaching are furious. Last week Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum pronounced that, “The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we’re good at, which is theology and morality.” Santorum suggested that he knows more about climate science than the Pope.

That’s laughable on several counts. Santorum and his ilk regularly reject scientific validity in favor of “faith.” Now, the leader of a billion of the world’s faithful, who was a chemist before he was a priest, applies the principles of faith to the findings of science.

Regarding politicians like Santorum, Francis says, “The same mindset which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty.”

In fact, Catholic Social Teaching has always challenged the wealthy and the politicians who serve them. In the first encyclical ever written, Pope Leo XIII called for the pursuit of justice in behalf of workers. In a 1931, Pope Pius condemned “the alarming concentration of wealth and power.”

In 1963 and 1971, Pope Paul VI issued encyclicals that gave conservatives fits. He condemned imperialism and the marginalization of the poor. His teaching is often summed up by his statement that, “If you want peace, work for justice.”

Right-wingers took comfort in Polish Pope John Paul II’s anti-communism. But they ignored exhortations from him like this: “It is manifestly unjust that a privileged few should continue to accumulate excess goods, squandering available resources, while masses of people are living in conditions of misery….Today, the dramatic threat of ecological breakdown is teaching us the extent to which greed and selfishness…are contrary to the order of creation, an order which is characterized by mutual interdependence.”

For me, the best response to reactionaries who say that the Pope ought to confine himself to “religious” matters is provided by Francis himself in these eight words that appear on the first page of his encyclical:

Nothing in this world is indifferent to us.