I have created a compost bin for scraps and use the composted materials in my garden.
I grew a garden each year with vegetables that lessen my dependence on things to but-even winter over spinach for spinach all year round.
I have two water barrels; one to catch rainwater so that I have “natural” water for indoor plants and garden and the other gets filled with water from the dehumidifier and air conditioning.
I bake my own bread. I also make my own jam and jelly.
I cook from “scratch” whenever possible so I’m not buying “packaged” items.
I buy in bulk: beans, lentils etc. I also make my own black bean and lentil burgers.
I freeze produce from the garden for the winter.
I like to make use of rummage sales and garage sales instead of buying things that are new.
I use ceiling fans to lessen reliance on air conditioning and heating.
I also sew blankets from scraps, even old T-shirts.
Lastly, I remind our schools to not use Styrofoam.
I hope this list gives you ideas for how you can also care for the Earth.
Prior to the session, participants should read Deep Transformation from the Self-Study Guide, paying particular attention to the definition of transformation and to the cases of transformative action. Access the suggested opening prayer, or select another prayer.
Outline for Session 6
Welcome and Prayer
After a welcome and any initial business, lead the opening prayer. The suggested prayer has space for personal reflection. Invite participants to share their reflections with the group.
Discussion
Remind participants of where we are in the process. We have listened deeply to the impacts of extractivism on people, communities and Earth. We have examined extractivism through various theological lenses, through analysis of systems that help the extractive development model to thrive, and through intersections with other contemporary issues. We are now looking at how this process has transformed us and is leading us into action.
Share this excerpt from the Self-Study Guide to ground your group’s conversation:
Transformation is not focused on a “one-time event of clarity and action” but a tug to always dig deeper.
Invite participants into a few moments of silent reflection to consider these questions:
What learning or insight in the process so far most stays with you?
How is that calling you to shift your perceptions?
How does it feel to move toward deep transformation and action?
Invite participants to briefly share their insights.
Next, invite participants into a few minutes of silent reflection on the case studies. Pose these questions for their consideration:
Which example and category of action spoke to you most? Why?
How does it influence your thoughts on what an appropriate individual, communal and corporate response would be?
Invite participants to share, and then invite the group to consider any commonalities among the individual responses. Where does this conversation seem to be leading the group?
Moving Into Action
Now that you have completed this journey of Deep Listening, Deep Reflecting and Deep Transformation, the next steps are up to individual participants and the group. Individually or collectively, they can tap into their deeper understanding and sense of where they feel called and look for opportunities to take action in solidarity with people, communities and Earth.
Learning about, reflecting on and discussing extractivism was important. Deciding to take action, the next step on this journey, is equally important. Failure to take action, to make a change, leaves the process incomplete.
This guide does not prescribe specific actions for participants to take. Individually or as a group, participants must discern their own choices for action. We do provide the following resources and suggestions.
Invite participants to look at the frequently updated Action Page, which contains information on current issues that are global in scope , as well as calls to action at the national level in the United States. They might find these resources helpful as they discern their next steps.
Since extractivism has very local impacts, we suggest participants focus their efforts first on what is happening in their own community or nearby communities. Encourage them to seek out organizations acting in solidarity with communities and natural spaces threatened by extractive industries and subscribe to their mailing lists. Getting to know these organizations will help participants determine how their skills, time and knowledge can best be utilized.
If the group wants to take action together, set another meeting time to identify concrete action and start planning.
We would love to know how you choose to take action and to hear about the fruits of your actions. You may email us at justice@sistersofmercy.org.
Deep Transformation: Moving into a life in harmony with people, communities and Earth
In our reflections, we have listened to, read about and seen video accounts of the life experiences of people and an Earth that have been negatively affected by extractivism.
We have analyzed and interpreted what we saw and heard. We applied various theological lenses and different perspectives to help us make meaning of those horrendous accounts. We have explored some of the difficulties wrought by the lens of the traditional Western theologies that have so long supported domination, subjugation, oppression and devastation through economic, political, cultural, religious and social means.
Our exploration has animated us to respond to and center our response in the cries of those made poor and the cries of Earth. The devastation of extractivism is unquestionable, yet the issue is complex. We know we may be complicit in the extractive development model by consumption of the products made with extractive industry byproducts as well as through our investment in extractive companies.
Now we are called to respond in a way that continues to center the voices of the people, communities and Earth most impacted by extractivism that have transformed our understanding.
What do you see and understand differently now?
How do you ensure that you continue to move forward centered in the voices of people most impacted by extractives instead of in the stories of corporations, consumerism and those who have traditionally held power?
How do you engage with others who have participated in this process?
Can you imagine how we might use our individual, communal and corporate voices to awaken our world to what we have learned?
How am I called to respond to and with those who have been most impacted? That is the big question!
How the Theological Lenses Move Us to Transformation
Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’ lens challenges us: “Many things have to change course, but it is we human beings above all who need to change.” He calls for “new attitudes, new convictions — new ways of being together in this world.” We need to be against what is death-dealing, disastrous, destructive. We need to be protective and care for all creation.
#225 An integral ecology includes taking time to recover a serene harmony with creation, reflecting on our lifestyle and our ideals, and contemplating the Creator who lives among us and surrounds us, whose presence “must not be contrived but found, uncovered.”
#229 We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it.
Ivone Gebara (Ecofeminism Lens) shares Pope Francis’ belief that humans are called to change:
“The invitation to love and to be mercy does not come from a reality that is external to us; rather, it is an urge that is present in our very humanity. Within our very being, there throbs in us an incredible attraction toward other beings, toward creation. We must allow our life experiences to be our first teacher.”
Daniel Castillo (Ecoliberation Lens) teaches that Christians are to respond to our planetary emergencies in a way that is grounded both in the preferential option for those made poor and Earth. Our response must reflect our belief in who God is and what God desires.
Engaging in Transformation
As you move forward in the third dimension of our theological reflection of extractivism, you may be tempted to act big, be bold and make a significant change. Practice keeping those decisions and those actions in perspective:
Who is leading your decision-making?
What do you need to prioritize in your decision-making regarding extractives?
This is not the END of the process but part of the circle. How can you continue to learn and be open to continued transformation?
What does it mean to acknowledge our individual and collective power and ensure that our actions, while courageous and compassionate, are not driven by that power but in solidarity with Black, Indigenous and people of color communities and Earth?
Transformation is not focused on a “one-time event of clarity and action” but a tug to always dig deeper. It is just as important to advocate for transformation at the systemic level as it is to commit to transformation at the personal level.
Case Studies of Transformative Action
We have collected some Case Studies, to show where communities have responded when their decisions and actions are centered in the experiences of the people, communities and Earth most impacted by extractives. These are not intended to serve as an exhaustive list, but the categories presented offer the structure to explore the paths that may be taken, depending on the situation. They are all different examples, but as you read, pay attention to the similarities and the common themes.
Read these stories with the same curiosity and engagement that you have used for all the stories and witness accounts throughout this process. Where else in the videos and articles in this process did you learn of transformative responses? What do they have in common?
After reflecting on these examples, spend some time in prayer and writing in your journal as you contemplate the following questions:
What other examples from your own experience and work fit with these examples?
What do you find yourself drawn to in these illustrative examples within each category? Does that surprise you? Would you have been drawn to the same example at the beginning of this process?
Final Reflection
It is impossible to move forward without taking time to review your notes and journal entries recorded throughout the process. Give yourself prayerful space and time to recall the reflection you have done and how you have learned and grown. The exercises described below may be helpful to you.
Reflection Time: As you have moved through this theological reflection process, what has stirred in you? Were you pulled to act in some way? If so, what level of action (personal or systemic) did you find yourself moving readily toward, and why did you move toward that level? What connections did you make on the systemic level?
Creative Expression of your journey: Return now to the voices you heard, the voices of those struggling with the effects of extractivism. Recall the voices of the Indigenous communities and of communities of color most impacted by extractivism. Recall the voices that rose from Earth, the rivers, the trees, and the creatures also impacted by extractivism. We invite you to:
Write a letter to Earth or to people or communities or to some living creature or plant most impacted by extractives What would you say? Where do you stand in relation to the voice you have chosen? What does this voice say to you about the impact of extractivism?
Create an artistic expression: written (poem, free verse), oral or graphic (painting, sculpture) that illustrates how you have come to understand the integral relationship between people, communities and Earth in a new or enhanced way through this process.
Moving Into Action
We have guided you on this journey of Deep Listening, Deep Reflecting and Deep Transformation. The next steps are up to you. We invite you to tap into your deeper understanding and sense of where you feel called and look for opportunities to take action in solidarity with people, communities and Earth.
Our frequently updated Action Page contains information on current issues that are global in scope, as well as calls to action at the national level in the United States. You might find theresources there helpful.
Since extractivism has very local impacts, we suggest that you focus your efforts on what is happening in your own community or nearby communities. Seek out organizations acting in solidarity with communities and natural spaces threatened by extractive industries. Get on their mailing lists and discern where your skills, time and knowledge can best be utilized.
We would love to know how you choose to take action, and to hear about the fruits of your actions. You may email us at justice@sistersofmercy.org.
Additional Resources to Go Deeper
Mercy Investment Services’ 2022 Accountability Report, which describes its commitment to reducing its holdings of shares in extractive industries and to investing in climate solutions. which describes its commitment to reducing its holdings of shares in extractive industries and to investing in climate solutions.
Robin Kimmerer’s presentation on Reciprocity (52 minutes). The author of Braiding Sweetgrass asks and begins to answer the questions: What does Earth ask of us? What is the relationship of story, science, justice and language?
Preparation for Session 5
Prior to the session, participants should read Deep Reflecting Part 3 from the Self-Study Guide. The following section, Contemplative Reflection, will be reviewed as a group during the session, so there is no need to read it beforehand..
Invite each participant to explore one of the issues that intersects with the impacts of extractivism: Earth (the environment), immigration, nonviolence, racism and women. Participants should be prepared to share their learnings with the group.
Access the interfaith prayer that concludes Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home.
Prepare to show the images of extractivism, which you will reflect on as a group and are available here (PowerPoint / pdf). Ideally, if your meeting is in person, you can share the images in a slide show. Other options include inviting participants to slowly scroll through the images on their own devices or printing the images and passing them around.
Outline for Session 5
Welcome and Prayer
After a welcome and any initial business, lead the group in opening prayer. Invite participants to share anything that came to them during this time of prayer.
Discussion
Remind people of where we are in the process: the third part of Deep Reflecting, where we will explore the intersections of the impacts of extractivism and other current issues in our world. We will use the issues that the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas have identified as their “Critical Concerns:” Earth, immigration, nonviolence, racism and women.
Invite participants to silently reflect and review their journals on their exploration of the intersection of the impacts of extractivism and these other issues.
Last session, each participant committed to focus on one of these issues. Name each issue in turn and invite the participant(s) who explored that issue to share their learnings.
Use these questions to stimulate sharing and discussion:
What new information did you learn from this document? Were there examples shared that you were not aware of?
How does this exploration of intersections help you frame your individual and communal, current and future, engagement with extractivism?
Explore together as many intersecting issues as time and interest allows, making sure to save time for the final section.
You will end this session reflecting on and discussing images related to the impacts of extractivism. Choose the number of images that time allows. After a short period of silence with each photo, invite brief sharing from anyone who wants to respond to the following questions:
What do I see in this photo? How does it make me feel?
What do I see differently now than I would have six months ago?
What questions does this image cause me to ask of myself? Or ask of my community or my organization? Where would I go to find answers or to learn more?
Preparation for Session 6
Prior to Session 6, participants should read Deep Transformation from the Self-Study Guide, paying particular attention to the definition of transformation and to the cases of transformative action. We will explore the Case Studies section as a group.
The following examples demonstrate the different ways people have addressed extractivism in their communities. Please give them prayerful reflection and consideration and identify common themes, gaps of possible responses, and those which resonate with you.
Villagers call the Condoraque River “burning waters” because the toxic waste coming from the mine upstream made the river untouchable. The once life-giving river in rural Puno, Peru, was devoid of life to the point that the Aymara Indigenous people of the village wondered how they would survive next to such a contaminated water source.
But after nearly seven years of working with the Human Rights and the Environment (DHUMA), a Maryknoll-supported nonprofit organization in Peru, the mine has finally launched a plan to restore the Condoraque to health.
Ubaldo Layme Gil, past president of Condoraque village, says residents persisted to have their voices heard. As first reported by Maryknoll magazine in 2010, about 50 Aymara families saw their water contaminated by tons of toxic tailings from a tungsten mine that opened near their community in the 1970s. The Indigenous people of Condoraque were not consulted before mining operations began, and when the original mining company left in the 1990s, it did not restore the damages it caused.
A second mining company later began operations in the area on the condition that it repair the environmental damage caused by the first mine. But the new company began mining without rehabilitating the area.
Realizing the new mining company was failing to fulfill its responsibilities to clear up the contamination, Condoraque community leaders invited DHUMA representatives to see what the toxic mine waste was doing to the people, their livestock and their property.
After other authorities ignored their plight, Simon Orihuela, a former community president, asked Maryknoll Sister Patricia Ryan, DHUMA’s president, and her team to “come and see” what the mine’s toxic waste was doing to the village and how the contaminated water was making their livestock sick and causing their alpacas to abort their calves.
“Once you go and see, you are totally convinced of the gravity of the situation,” says Sister Ryan, who as a Maryknoll missioner in Peru puts Catholic social teachings into action by advocating for social justice and care for the environment. “Since then, we have been working together with the community in monitoring the water and working on a penal case (to hold the mine responsible for the cleanup of the environmental contamination).”
Thanks to these efforts, mine officials have accepted their responsibility and launched a five-year plan to rehabilitate the environment of Condoraque. An integral part of this plan is the remediation of environmental liabilities, including dealing with more than 1. 2 million metric tons of toxic tailings and continuous acid drainage from the mineshaft, and the severe contamination of a natural lagoon between the mine and the river.
Although it still has an orange tint, the Condoraque River is slightly cleaner now because of channels dug to capture rainwater at the top of the mountains and transport it to the river in pipes to circumvent the toxic tailings below. Orihuela and Layme are still concerned that the water quality is not as healthy as it should be.
“It is going to take at least five years for the water to be restored to usable purposes,” Sister Ryan estimates and then adds, “There is still a lot of contamination.”
However, the beginning of remediation marks a victory for the village.
“We are very pleased by what we are seeing because the main objective of the people of Condoraque is that the environment be restored. as it had been before,” says Sister Patricia Ryan. “That their water is going to be drinkable … and that there would be birds and fish again and no more disease.”
2. ACCOMPANIMENT AND SOLIDARITY — PANAMA
Written by Extractives Theological Reflection Working Group
Sister Edia “Tita” Lopez has been accompanying the Ngäbe communities of Chiriquí Province, Panama since 2010. She worked in solidarity with the Ngäbe as they struggled unsuccessfully to resist the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam, and she continues to be present with them since they were evicted from their land. She expresses that her solidarity is rooted in the Gospel of Matthew 25: “As often as you do it for one of the least of these, you do it for me”; Pope Francis’ call to social friendship in Fratelli Tutti; and the Sisters of Mercy’s 2017 Chapter Recommitment, “Called to New Consciousness.”
Tita began and continues her solidarity with the people because they are the most impoverished, excluded and forgotten people in her country. She visited every 15 days, and now visits whenever they call on her to hear their stories and offer support.
She asks herself: How can I be in solidarity with them and do something to alleviate their pain and suffering? How can we change the reality of discrimination and racism that our Ngäbe brothers and sisters live with in the country? How can we act in solidarity for a just world?
Tita learned firsthand the impacts of the massive hydro project on the land and the communities of the Ngäbe. One of the Ngäbe communities, evicted from its land, continues to live as a resistance camp along a major highway. They face tremendous difficulties.
The Ngäbe communities had depended on the Tabasura river when it flowed generously through their lands, but the river is no longer freely flowing, and in certain seasons it dries up completely. Agriculture and fishing have declined. The GENISA company introduced tilapia, a non-native species of fish, and that has affected the river’s ecosystem. The Ngäbe suffer perpetual stomach problems and other ailments due to deteriorated water quality. Women of the Ngäbe communities must walk for hours to access clean water in order to cook, wash their clothes and do other household chores. Children and young people can no longer play in the river. The quality of life in the communities has been greatly diminished, and the environmental, social, and economic damage has increased exponentially. The communities suffer severe economic shortages, and their customs, traditions, livelihoods and whole way of life has been impacted.
Tita and others who have seen the devastating effects of the hydroelectric plant have joined with the Ngäbe communities in speaking with the authorities and trying to raise awareness of the plight of the Tabasara River. She documents the people’s experiences and contrasts these reports with those of the authorities to determine how their human rights are being violated.
3. ACCOMPANIMENT AND SOLIDARITY — THE PHILIPPINES
Missionary Sisters of St. Columban in the Philippines built on three decades of relationships with the Subanen people [a group Indigenous to the Zamboanga peninsula area, mainly living in the mountainous areas of Zamboanga del Sur and Misamis Occidental, Mindanao Island, Philippines] to support a successful campaign against mining in the community.
The sisters came to appreciate the Indigenous people’s traditional values centered in interconnectedness with Mother Nature. However, they lamented the encroachment of consumerism and practices such as fertilizers that damaged the land.
Sister Anne Carbon explains that the sisters’ long-term presence and understanding of traditional culture gained them the trust needed to counter pressure from local government and the Rio Tinto corporation seeking approval to mine in the area.
Over 15 years, while the government and the corporation tried to sway the local people with money and promises of benefits from the mines, the sisters educated them about their rights, supported petitions and letter-writing efforts, and even visited Rio Tinto’s offices in London. The key to the eventual success in convincing governmental officials to reject the mining proposal was carefully reviewing the corporation’s applications and identifying where similar promises to other communities were never fulfilled. The sisters and the people visited those communities and saw the diseases afflicting those living near mines and the pollution of water sources.
Sister Anne says that connecting with others seeking dignity for Indigenous peoples and protecting the environment is also critical. Sisters and priests working with Indigenous peoples in the Philippines, for instance, meet monthly to support one another in their ministries. And representatives from Indigenous groups from throughout the country meet at least once a year.
4. CREATIVE PROTESTS
Written by Marianne Comfort, Mercy Justice Team
In the summer of 2017, the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation used eminent domain to seize land from the Adorers of the Blood of Christ in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, to extend its Atlantic Sunrise natural gas pipeline.
The sisters felt strongly that this violated the land ethic they had adopted in 2005. They had committed to honoring the sacredness of all creation, kinship with all living beings, reverencing Earth as a sanctuary and treasuring land as a gift of beauty and sustenance. They also stated that they “seek collaborators to help implement land-use policies and practices that are in harmony with our bioregions and ecosystem.”
The Adorers joined the grassroots coalition Lancaster Against Pipelines and agreed to install a chapel on their property to draw people to prayer and reflection about just and holy uses of land. The sisters believed that the chapel gave a tangible witness to the sacredness of Earth. At the same time, they challenged the pipeline’s construction as a violation of their deeply held religious beliefs around stewardship of the environment.
The sisters lost a series of lawsuits.The pipeline was completed in 2018 and now carryies natural gas from the Marcellus Shale of northeastern Pennsylvania to the Mid-Atlantic and southeastern regions of the U.S. But their witness inspired many others.
5. ADVOCACY THROUGH SHAREHOLDER PRESSURE
By Pat Zerega, former Senior Shareholder Advocacy Director of Mercy Investment Services
After seeing mountaintop removal in West Virginia and the explosion of fracking wells in southwestern Pennsylvania while living in those areas, I thought I was prepared to experience mining in Central America. But my first visit to a gold mine in Peru in 2012 was eye-opening. The enormity of the project –– stripping miles of land and going deep into the Earth, making the giant trucks look like tinker toys –– took my breath away. During meetings with community groups, my heart broke as I heard from residents who lost relatives in the struggle and whose communities and livelihoods were forever changed. That first visit ignited my passion to address the human and environmental impacts of mining.
In 2014, after hearing from Sisters in Honduras, the Institute Justice Office contacted Mercy Investment Services to determine how shareholder engagement could effectively complement other ongoing advocacy efforts seeking to address the social and environmental impacts of Aura Minerals, a Canadian mining company operating a gold mine in Honduras. Because Mercy Investment Services did not own any shares, we intentionally purchased five hundred dollars in company stock strictly to influence their decisions through engagement. I connected with the Jesuit Committee on Investment Responsibility, which had been engaging Aura to develop a human rights policy, and they welcomed Mercy Investment Services’ participation. At an in-person meeting with the company, Mercy Investment Services and the Jesuit team shared what an exemplary human rights policy contains, emphasizing the inclusion of Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) and identifying and addressing the company’s salient human rights risks. In 2016, shareholders and Aura management discussed the company’s plan to move the Azacualpa cemetery, and shareholders implored the company to address the community’s concern.
Meeting with the company on behalf of the sisters and impacted communities is a privilege and a huge responsibility. We present the lived stories of affected people, having a unique entree at top levels of the corporation. I met with Aura’s past and current Chief Executive Officers, who listened intently to shareholders’ call for a new approach to human rights. As a first step, we requested that Aura create a company-wide policy to adopt and train all employees in FPIC.
After years of discussions and many leadership changes, the company agreed to this approach. In 2021, Aura’s board of directors approved a new Human Rights policy, which is available on the Aura website in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. It covers many of the original points requested, including reference to United Nations norms, FPIC, a call for a human rights analysis and implementation through its business partners. Shareholders shared this policy with local community contacts to engage the company on their concerns, including those around the cemetery.
Mercy Investment Services will continue to stay engaged with Aura to ensure that it implements the policy to address community concerns and with local groups to continue to bring their voices to the company. My work in shareholder engagement to combat human rights and environmental impacts at Aura and other extractive companies complements the Sisters of Mercy’s discussions and community actions, investment choices, legal actions, and, most importantly, personal consumption decisions as we collectively seek justice, equity and peace for impacted communities.
6. PERSISTENT MASS MOBILIZATION
Written by Marianne Comfort, Mercy Justice Team
Since 2008, the Sioux and other Indigenous peoples in Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have resisted the placement of the Keystone XL Pipeline through traditional homelands and treaty territories. They feared potential impacts on their fishing and hunting rights, water systems and cultural sites.
The pipeline, to be built by the TransCanada (TC Energy) corporation, was to carry oil from heavy tar sands in Alberta, Canada, down to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Native-led mass mobilization and court proceedings fueled a strong international response. They raised public awareness of the dangers of a fossil fuel economy and the call to enable kinship and the flourishing of the community of life.
Rallies, marches, and large waves of civil disobedience in Washington, D.C., drew environmentalists, students, people of faith and, in one particularly compelling demonstration, solidarity between ranchers and Indigenous communities from Nebraska. There was also strong opposition at public hearings in states along the proposed route of the transnational pipeline. Four years after Mercy sisters and coworkers joined the first large protest at the White House in 2011, President Obama announced that he was rejecting the pipeline proposal. The Trump Administration tried to move the pipeline forward again, but ongoing lawsuits in Nebraska delayed construction. President Biden canceled the permit on his first day in office. The pipeline sponsor, TC Energy, announced in June 2021 that it was giving up on the project.
7. CORPORATE VOICE AND SOLIDARITY
Written by Extractives Theological Reflection Working Group
Leading up to the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland, in 2021, the religious conference for women and men religious in Brazil reached out to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the U.S. to explain their deep concern for the Amazon rainforest and its peoples.
Sister Carol Zinn, LCWR’s executive director, promptly wrote a letter to President Biden and the White House and State Department staff. It reads, in part: “We stand in solidarity with the Indigenous Peoples of Brazil knowing there is no future for the Brazilian Amazon or planet Earth without protecting the rights to land, health, and culture of those who have cared for this precious ecosystem for millennia.” The letter asked that the Biden administration support Indigenous leaders’ call for protecting 80 percent of the Amazon rainforest by 2025 and called for the protection of the human rights of Indigenous leaders, who were criminalized for defending their land and way of life.
8. LISTENING SESSIONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Written by Marianne Comfort, Mercy Justice Team
Church leaders invited peoples of the Amazon rainforest to give input in advance of the Amazon Synod, a high-level Church meeting held at the Vatican in October 2019. The Synod was called to identify new pastoral approaches and ways of supporting communities threatened by extractivism, deforestation, climate change and human rights abuses.
Mercy Sister Denise Lyttle of Guyana attended one of many listening sessions hosted by dioceses, parishes and organizations throughout the nine-country territory.
“There, I learned that our Amazon needs to be cared for by all, not just by those who live in the Amazon,” Sister Denise wrote in a reflection soon after the experience. “As someone said, ‘the pain and groans of our people are the groans of our Mother Earth’ who is calling us to be more conscious and more responsible in caring for the ‘lung’ of our world, on which depends our life and that of future generations.”
Mercy sisters, associates, ministry colleagues and friends also participated in two discussions with representatives from REPAM, a Catholic Church network that promotes the rights and dignity of people living in the Amazon. These conversations, through the lens of Laudato Si’, touched on many issues and concerns, including land titles for Indigenous people for lands that they have occupied for generations, water pollution from both garbage in the city and gold mining in the interior regions, corruption, the need for a spirituality that meets the people, the impact of deforestation, and the benefits and challenges of finding oil in Guyana.
This and other input from throughout the Amazon was compiled into a preliminary report to serve as a basis for the meetings at the Vatican.
In an unusual move, delegations to the Synod included Indigenous leaders (men and women) amid the expected bishops and cardinals. Pope Francis’ affirmation of the Synod’s final document included quotes from poets of the Amazon and a deep sense of the interconnectedness of creation found in Indigenous spirituality.
As one outcome of the Synod, in June 2020, Catholic leaders created the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon to help implement the recommendations. The conference’s executive committee is composed of the heads of church bodies in Latin America and three Indigenous leaders.
9. IGLESIAS Y MINERIA – CHURCHES AND MINING DIVESTMENT CAMPAIGN
Written by Extractives Theological Reflection Working Group
In August 2019, Mercy Sister Anamaria Siufi of Argentina participated in the fourth general assembly of Iglesias y Mineria (Churches and Mining). This network of Christian communities, pastoral teams, religious congregations, theological reflection groups, bishops, pastors, and laity seeks to respond to the violations of rights caused by mining activities in Latin America. They also aim to strengthen popular movements and sectors, democratic values, gender equality, respect for multiculturalism, interculturalism and interreligious dialogue and ecumenism.
At the general assembly, the deaths of 272 people in a collapse of a dam used by the Vale mining corporation in Brumadinho, Brazil, weighed heavily on participants’ minds. Ana shared in a reflection afterward:. “The harrowing testimony of that diocese’s bishop along with other heartbroken people from that area moved us, and we shared their tears, which became a prayer and Eucharist,” she wrote.
One of the priorities that came out of that assembly was a campaign to promote divestment from mining companies in the Global North.
Fr. Dario Bossi of Iglesias y Mineria presented this campaign at a workshop co-hosted by the Mercy Justice Team at Ecumenical Advocacy Days in April 2021.
The campaign is designed to show the realities of extractivism in Latin America, dispute the positive image that corporations try to portray of their contributions to local communities, and build alliances. Organizers want organizations to understand that they may be investing in corporations damaging the environment and communities. And they want to propose alternatives for more socially and environmentally responsible investments and forms of development that are sustainable and focus on the autonomy of local communities. This includes supporting local or regional economies and financial systems, such as cooperatives.
Preparation for Session 3
Participants will be expected to read Deep Reflecting Part 1 in the Self-Study Guide found here.
For Mercy Groups: If your group is made up of participants affiliated with the Sisters of Mercy, they should read, reflect and journal on the Mercy theological lens material. They should also watch the video “Social Analysis and the Mercy Lens,” with Sister Terri Bednarz and engage with at least one other lens.
If your group is not affiliated with the Sisters of Mercy, they should read, reflect and journal on at least one of the theological lenses. You are also invited to offer them another reading or video that connects to your group’s charism, scriptures or teachings.
Choose one of the two options for opening prayer. There is a short prayer in the text of the Self-Study Guide for Session 3. There is also a longer prayer resource available here.
If you wish to extend the session, choose one of the additional resources listed at the end of the guide for this session to explore as a group.
Outline for Session 3
Welcome and Prayer
After a welcome and any initial business, lead the group in the opening prayer you have selected. Invite participants to share anything that came to them during this time of prayer.
Discussion
Discuss the reading material for Session 3. Give special attention to this excerpt from the reading, which will help to set the tone for this session:
We are compelled to reflect deeply on what we have heard from those people and communities who have been most impacted by the violent intrusions of extractivism. We have heard the call to decenter ourselves. Now we turn to engage with the theological perspectives rising from the lands in which extractivism is inflicting incredible wounds. Theological lenses help us to see differently. They aim to decenter us so we might listen more deeply to voices that may be unfamiliar to our way of seeing and understanding.
Invite participants to quietly reflect for a couple of minutes on one of the lenses they read about on their own. If your group decided to focus on one of the lenses together, whether it is the Mercy lens, a reading or video chosen to resonate with your group, we suggest you start with that one.
Then pose the following questions and invite each participant to share:
Which element or description from this theological lens stays with you?
In what way does this lens call us to respond to extractivism?
Is there a concept or insight that challenges you?
After everyone has shared and you finish any group discussion, invite participants into another couple of minutes of silent reflection on what they have just heard from each other and on a second theological lens they chose from the self-study.
Then offer these questions for this round of sharing:
Which element or description from this theological lens stays with you?
What, if any, is the biggest difference between framing things with this lens and the lens with which you have been most comfortable?
In what way does this lens call you to respond to extractivism?
Is there a concept or insight that challenges you?
How does this lens call you to consider a systemic response to extractivism beyond your individual response?
What exploitative and oppressive systems were identified as you reflected on the lens?
Ask participants to summarize what they have heard in this session and what seems to be emerging at this point in your participation in this process.
Preparation for Session 4
Ask participants to read, reflect and journal on the Deep Reflecting Part 2 Self-Study found here. This includes two video interviews with Mercy Associate Nelly del Cid of Honduras and the identification of systems that have made the extractive development model thrive.
The Self-Study Guide also names systems that have helped the extractive development model thrive. They are economic, political, environmental, media/public information and social. Each system, or perspective, is followed by a series of questions to foster deep reflection and analysis.
Rather than expect each participant to explore all these perspectives, ask each participant to select one system they would like to engage with on their own and then share with the group next time. They can explore that perspective generally, through an example of extractivism from this process or from an example of extractivism in or near the community where they live or once lived.
Make sure that all the perspectives are covered by the group; it is fine if there is more than one participant assigned to a perspective.
Additional resources to go deeper:
Mercy Associate Virginia Fifield reflects on extractivism through a Native lens. Mercy Sister Mary Pendergast shares her experience of extractivism in Alberta, Canada, in a 13-minute video..
Prior to the session, participants should read Deep Reflecting Part 2 from the Self-Study Guide, found here. This includes two video interviews with Mercy Associate Nelly del Cid of Honduras and the identification of systems that have made the extractive development model thrive.
Rather than expect each participant to explore all these perspectives, ask each participant to select one system they would like to engage with on their own and then share with the group next time. They can explore that perspective generally, through an example of extractivism from this process or from an example of extractivism in or near the community where they live or once lived.
Make sure all the perspectives are covered by the group; it is fine if there is more than one participant assigned to a perspective.
Prepare to show the video of Pope Francis from the self-study as an opening prayer. Or select another prayer that will ground your group in the reality of extractivism.
If you wish to extend the session, choose one of the additional resources listed at the end of the guide for this session.
Outline for Session 4
Welcome and Prayer
After a welcome and any initial business, the group in the opening prayer you have selected. Invite participants to share anything that came to them during this time of prayer.
Discussion
Remind people of where you are in the process: the second part of Deep Reflecting, in which we will use social analysis to understand how systems help the extractive development model to thrive. Read aloud this section from the preparatory materials and then lead the group into this discussion:
As we engage in social analysis, we will learn about the various impacts of the extractive development model (social, communal, political, economic, etc.). At this stage of the process, after we deeply listened to the harms of extractivism, we continue to be cautious about any tendency to problem-solve or to make decisions about what should or could be done. The focus here requires us to ask, Why? rather than, What can we do?
Invite participants to reflect silently or review their journaling on the videos they watched of Mercy Associate Nelly del Cid of Honduras.
Then pose these questions for discussion:
What did you learn from these interviews?
Knowing the theological lenses we have explored and discussed, did you watch this differently?
What questions did these videos raise for you about where power and decision-making occur?
Where would you turn to learn more about the situations described?
In their self-study, participants reviewed systems – economic, political, environmental, media/public information, social – that have helped the extractive development model thrive.
Last session, each participant committed to focusing on one of these systems. Name each system in turn and invite the participant(s) who explored that system to share their learnings. Then review that system’s questions, available in the Self-Study Guide. Explore together as many systems as time and interest allows.
Preparation for Session 5
Prior to Session 5, participants should read Deep Reflecting Part 3 from the Self-Study Guide until the section titled Contemplative Reflection, which will be reviewed as a group during the session.
Invite each participant to commit to exploring one of the issues that intersect with the impacts of extractivism. Those issues are Earth (the environment), immigration, nonviolence, racism and women. Participants should be prepared to share their learnings with the rest of the group.
Additional resources to go deeper:
Sister Terri Bednarz reflects on extractivism in her backyard The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save Our Earth Mercy Justice Team member Jean Stokan talks about conquest, neocolonialism and women activists in the struggle against extractivism in Honduras in this 12-minute video.
Social Analysis of the Extractivism Development Model
As we engage in a social analysis of the extractive development model, we will learn about the various impacts of the extractive development model (social, communal, political, economic, etc.).
At this stage of the process, after we have deeply listened to the harms of extractivism, we continue to be cautious about any tendency to problem-solve or to make decisions about what should or could be done. The focus here requires us to ask, Why? rather than, What can we do?
Our analysis comes from a place of harmony and right relationship with the community of life. We remind ourselves that, as shared through the theological lenses, we, as humans, are within the dynamics of the planet. We are in a reciprocal, non-dominant relationship with the community of Earth. We can no longer take the view of subjugating Earth; rather, we are called to be responsible stewards.
When we engage in social analysis, we work to answer the question, What is really going on in this situation? We continue to ask and answer questions to understand and analyze the situation. Authors Joe Holland and Peter Henriot define social analysis as “the effort to obtain a more complete picture of a social situation by exploring its historical and structural relationships.”
For an example of this type of analysis, view a two-part interview with Mercy Associate Nelly del Cid about the situation in Honduras. You may view part 1 here and part 2 here. After watching the videos, you can reflect or journal on the following questions:
What did you learn from these interviews?
Knowing the theological lenses we have explored and discussed, di you watch these interviews differently?
What questions did these videos raise for you about where power resides and decision-making occurs?
Where would you turn to learn more about the situations described centered in the experience of people, communities and Earth?
We do not need to be experts in extractivism or extractive industries, but we must be confident and informed to ask the right questions to uncover the systems that have made the extractive development model thrive. Recommended questions for reflection and journaling are framed below, and the answers to these questions should be developed in the experiences heard through our deep listening and seen through the various theological lenses that have been shared. You might also consider these questions in relation to extractivism in or near a community where you live or once lived.
Perspectives for Analysis
When we engage in social analysis, we review a situation through the following perspectives. You may find this Glossary of Terms helpful as you move through the systems and questions.
ECONOMIC
Production, distribution and consumption, and patterns of ownership and decision-making about land, capital, technology, resources and labor
Who owns?
Who controls?
Who benefits?
At whose expense does the economy benefit?
Do Black, Indigenous peoples, and Communities of Color benefit and have equitable access to economic resources?
What role does a global economy play in economic decision-making?
Where do we see a recentering that focuses on human relationships and all of creation rather than on profits?
How are the labor and needs of Black, Indigenous peoples and Communities of Color centered in the predominant economic model at play?
POLITICAL
Structure and health of a country’s political system
Who has the power?
Who is making decisions? For whom?
Who has access to governmental decision making?
Who is prioritized in political decision making and policy setting?
Who is accountable?
What role does corruption play?
How do outside political structures influence decisions?
What role does judicial power play?
How are the judicial system, police and military being used against human rights and land defenders? (Are human rights and land defenders criminalized for their protection efforts?)
Are popular and social movements’ demands heard?
How is the current issue, policy or program shifting power dynamics to better integrate voices and priorities of communities of color?
Are there legal barriers to racial equity at play?
ENVIRONMENTAL
Health of land, water, air and living species
How do decisions impact the land, vital ecosystems and species in the short term?
How have decisions contributed to the climate emergency?
Who has access to clean resources?
Who determines access to water?
What priority does the health of the environment have in decision-making?
How are just relationships among all beings being prioritized?
How are Indigenous peoples’ social, cultural and ancestral rights to land honored?
Are corporate polluters and extractives industries held accountable for destruction and payment for remediation?
Do Indigenous peoples have control over ancestral territories?
What is the environmental impact for communities of color?
MEDIA/PUBLIC INFORMATION
The flow of information to people
Who controls the messaging within the community and to the wider public?
Who owns the media or other information channels?
Who benefits from media messaging?
How is messaging manipulated?
SOCIAL
How people relate to one another: ethnicity, race, class, age, gender
Who is damaged? What do they lose?
Who is visible and valued to the decision makers? Who is not?
What is the basis for inclusion?
What is the basis for exclusion?
What systems have reinforced the decisions of inclusion and exclusion?
How do decisions reinforce white supremacy and colonialism?
How are we meaningfully including or excluding people (communities of color) who are affected? What policies, processes and social relationships contribute to the exclusion of communities most affected by inequities?
Are Black, Indigenous and leaders of color integral to social system and planning?
Additional resources to go deeper
Sister Terri Bednarz reflects on extractivism in her backyard The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save Our Earth Mercy Justice Team member Jean Stokan talks about conquest, neocolonialism and women activists in the struggle against extractivism in Honduras in this 12-minute video
Slowly read the interfaith prayer that concludes Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Reflect on how this prayer connects with your learnings about extractivism.
Exploring Interconnections
Identifying connections between the impacts of extractivism and other current issues helps us go even deeper in our reflection and analysis. The Sisters of Mercy of the Americas have named five “Critical Concerns” that guide our work: Earth, immigration, nonviolence, racism and women. We invite everyone participating in this process to explore the interconnections of these issues and the harms of extractivism. If you would like to learn more about the Mercy Critical Concerns, click here.
Mercy Associate Nelly del Cid names many of these intersections in this nine-minute video. This six-minute interview with Mercy Justice Team member Jean Stokan explores these interconnections more explicitly. After each video, spend time in quiet reflection and consider the following questions:
What did you learn from examples shared?
Given your knowledge of the theological lenses we have explored and discussed, how did you view these videos differently?
Where did you see the intersection with Mercy’s Critical Concerns in the videos?
What questions did these videos raise about where power and decision-making occur?
Where would you turn to learn more about situations centered in the experience of people, communities and Earth?
Spend time reading and reflecting on this document, which provides explanations and examples of where the impact of extractivism connects with other issues. After reading this information, spend some time in reflection on the following questions:
What new information did you learn from this document? Were there examples shared that you were not aware of?
How does this exploration of intersections help you frame your individual and communal, current and future, engagement with extractivism?
Contemplative Reflection
Now we invite you into contemplative reflection around images (PowerPoint / pdf) at the intersection of the Mercy Critical Concerns and extractivism. After a short period of silence with each photo, reflect on and journal your responses to the following questions:
What do I see in this photo? How does it make me feel?
What do I see differently now than I would have six months ago?
What questions does this image cause me to ask of myself? Ask of Mercy? Where would I go to find answers or to learn more?
We are compelled to reflect deeply on what we have heard from those people and communities most impacted by the violent intrusions of extractivism. We have heard the call to decenter ourselves. Now we turn to engage with the theological perspectives rising from the lands in which extractivism is inflicting incredible wounds. These theologies push back against the oppressive anthropocentric and androcentric theologies that have come from the Global North. Theological lenses serve to help us to see differently. They aim to decenter us so that we might listen more deeply to voices that may be unfamiliar to us as we are engaged in our own way of seeing and understanding. And so, we invite you to explore using the Sisters of Mercy lens, an eco-feminist lens, an ecological liberation lens, and the lens of Pope Francis’ integral ecology. These theological lenses will guide us in responding to the cries of those who have been made poor and to the cries of Earth.
We offer some reflection questions after each of the descriptions of these lenses. Following these descriptions, we offer some further questions for reflection and additional resources.
Mercy Lens – A View Toward Harmony and Right Relationship in Our Suffering World
Background: The Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas embraces the tradition of Catherine McAuley. We have been shaped by her vision and by her Gospel commitment to walk with those who are suffering in poverty. Following in her footsteps, we vow to be of service to persons who are made poor, persons who are sick and persons who are uneducated. We have continued to deepen our Mercy tradition in these contemporary times. In the course of our last three Institute Chapters (governance gatherings), we intensified our desire to live in solidarity with our suffering world and with all of God’s creation. We continually seek to transform ourselves toward greater integrity of word and deed.
“The God of Mercy, Wisdom and Mystery is calling us, as Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, an international and intercultural community, to deepen our relationship with God and one another, and to intensify our work in communion with others who seek a more just and inclusive world.”
Through an expressed commitment to our Critical Concerns, we give special attention to five interrelated areas of need in our suffering world – Earth, Immigration, Nonviolence, Racism and Women. We understand our commitment to these critical concerns must be considered within a broader context and in relation to each other.
Call to a New Consciousness
During the 2017 Institute Chapter, we deepened our commitment to listen to the cries of people, Earth, and communities most deeply impacted by extractive industries and to respond with “integrity and clear intention” to their demand for justice and the flourishing of life for all.
As Mercy, we are called to consider more profoundly our responsibilities to Mother Earth. We seek to live in harmony and interrelatedness with Earth, and to support the right of the Earth and her inter-related communities to fulfill their important roles in the ever-renewing processes of life (Berry 1999). As Mercy, we are called to listen to the communities of color and indigenous communities, which continue to be disproportionately and violently impacted by extractive industries. Working to become an anti-racist congregation and to address our climate emergency, requires a recentering on the stories and experiences that drive our decision-making. We are called to explore what it means today for Mercy to stand in solidarity with communities harmed by extractive industries. With a listening heart, we strive to hear what these communities say to us about the actions that are needed to heal Earth. We seek to understand how we, as individuals and as community, are complicit in the climate crisis that is unfolding in our time.
“Called in this moment to act,” we are compelled to respond to the impact of extractive industries on people, communities, and Earth. By committing ourselves to a decentered way of listening, seeing, and making decisions, we engage in decolonized analyses of our own structures and practices. We seek right relationship and harmony with the community of life, in which we strive to embrace a reciprocal, cooperative, and non-dominant stewardship with all of God’s creation.
“We hear the call of our suffering world. The impoverishment of peoples, the devastation of Earth and oppressive social norms and systems call us at this moment to act…To intensify our efforts to align our investments with our values and especially now, to pursue education and action against practices of extractive industries that are destroying people communities and Earth.”
We serve the suffering of our world with a special commitment to our Critical Concerns.
We work toward transformation of greater integrity in word and deed.
We listen to the cries of communities demanding justice from where they stand and in their own experience.
We seek right relationship and harmony with Earth’s community of life through reciprocal, cooperative and non-dominant relationships.
We listen to the stories and experiences of others from a decentralized and decolonized place.
We caution against the imbalance and destructive forces perpetrated by the dominance of the powerful, privileged, white, patriarchal, and capitalistic/imperialistic perspective.
Sister Terri Bednarz explains how to use this lens in social analysis in this six-minute video.
Reflection Questions:
What stays with you from this description of the Mercy lens?
Is there a concept or element in the description that you need clarified? If so, what?
What is the key word that speaks most to you about using a Mercy lens to analyze extractivism?
An Ecofeminist Theological Lens – God is Relatedness, God is Everywhere Present
The ecofeminist perspective of Ivone Gebara provides us a lens with which to examine the values and assumptions at work and in tension with anthropocentric theologies. This perspective challenges the patriarchal notion that humans are mandated by God to subdue and dominate Earth. She explains that language about God not only forms our theologies about God, but also shapes our behavior toward Earth and her vulnerable communities. When metaphors become literalized, the mystery of God is replaced by absolutism and rigidity of beliefs. Gebara proposes a metaphoric way of knowing God that expands beyond images. God is “relatedness.” Relatedness means that experience is a value and a way of knowing the mystery of God. Relatedness expresses presence, but “not something that can be reduced to some form of being.” Through this theological lens, Gebara adds, God can be “encountered in a variety of expressions.”
Ivone Gebara is a member of the Augustinian Congregation of the Sisters of Our Lady. She has two doctorates: one from the Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo and the other from Catholic University in Louvain, Belguim. She is a Latin American ecofeminist philosopher who taught for many years at the Instituto Teológico de Recife (Brazil) along with Hélder Camara, a notable liberation theologian.
Ivone Gebara, Longing for Running Water: Ecofeminism and Liberation (Fortress Press, 1999).
The ecofeminist perspective of Ivone Gebara provides us a lens with which to examine the values and assumptions at work and in tension with anthropocentric theologies. This perspective challenges the patriarchal notion that humans are mandated by God to subdue and dominate Earth. She explains that language about God not only forms our theologies about God, but also shapes our behavior toward Earth and her vulnerable communities. When metaphors become literalized, the mystery of God is replaced by absolutism and rigidity of beliefs. Gebara proposes a metaphoric way of knowing God that expands beyond images. God is “relatedness.” Relatedness means that experience is a value and a way of knowing the mystery of God. Relatedness expresses presence, but “not something that can be reduced to some form of being.” Through this theological lens, Gebara adds, God can be “encountered in a variety of expressions.”
God is not out of touch in some transcendent realm and relating to us from afar with occasional and limited incarnational incursions (the traditional view of sacraments). Using Sallie McFague’s metaphor of the universe as God’s body, Gebara unites the immanence and transcendence of God. “Everyone and everything become potentially a sacrament of God.” The metaphors of God as relatedness and the universe as God’s body compel us to see Earth, creation, and ourselves differently in relation to one another. God is in all and all is in God. We cannot locate God. We cannot say God is here and not there. God is not a pure essence existing in itself, rather God is better symbolized as relatedness or relationship. When we speak of God, it is by means of relationships and relating. When we speak of God, it is out of our personal experience.
Gebara raises another theological point, that we are compelled to experience God as presence. The language of God’s presence and God’s absence is dualistic. How is God absent? To say that God is absent from creation, or stands outside of creation, places God in some ethereal space. These dualistic and hierarchical beliefs are patriarchal notions of God. They have led to all kinds of theologizing such as why this “remote” God does or does not answer the pleas of the poor or care about the suffering of “lowly creation.”
Gebara urges us to move beyond dualistic anthropocentric theologies that elevate human suffering above the suffering of other creatures and creation itself. She notes that many of us have been so embedded in anthropocentric values that eco-feminist views may strike us as strange, even pantheistic. But again, we cannot locate God here or there. When we pray as if God is out there, we locate God in some place outside of ourselves. In a sense, we objectify God. When we have not felt the integrated, interconnected, and interdependence of all things, it is harder for us to imagine God except in our own image and likeness.
The Bible is full of non-anthropocentric images of God, yet we have latched onto the human image because our worldview is embedded with patriarchal ways of seeing. The idea of a divinity, Gebara explains, that pervades all beings, times, and places has been dismissed by patriarchal voices as primitive and mythical. In order to subdue and dominate creation, patriarchal views hold to the notion that we must be better than and have a higher status than creation. But Gebara objects, we can no longer speak of God existing before creation as if there was some linear ordering of God first, then creation. There is no gap between the atemporality of God and the temporality of creation.God does not exist as a being separate from creation—God is always and everywhere present. By separating God radically from creation, we uphold God as an untouchable “moral reserve” that permits humans to leave an evil domain or evil actions. In effect, with God’s help, we can remove ourselves from what we have destroyed and leave it behind, or with a modern apocalyptic notion, we can believe it will all be replaced with a new and improved Earth.
Why does Gebara’s eco-feminist lens matter? Why shift our way of perceiving God? Gebara says we will not solve the problems of human anguish and suffering with the traditional dualistic discourses that separate God’s presence from creation. We need a unitary and a very realistic perspective. We seek to understand and alleviate the suffering of Earth, of animals, of humans, not believing that one suffering is superior or inferior to the other. Relatedness is not a discourse about the “being” of God, but about what we perceive of the mysterious body of the universe to which we belong. This way of seeing challenges traditional discourses about God and reclaims metaphors for God from rigid literalist and dogmatic niches. We can expand our images of God, share experiences of God and move away from images of God that are no longer meaningful.
Gebara explains that the invitation to love and to be mercy does not come from a reality that is external to us; rather it is an urge that is present within our very humanity. Within our very being throbs an incredible attraction toward other beings, toward creation. We must allow our life experiences to be our first teacher.
Reflection Questions:
How did your family and your childhood experiences shape your perspective of God? In what ways did your perspective of God shape your interactions with creation and creatures?
In what ways has the community shaped your relationship to God and Earth? What did you find yourself letting go of? What inspired your change? How have your values shifted?
What about Gebara’s theological lens challenged you? What about Gebara’s theological lens inspired you or affirmed your own experience of God?
How is Gebara’s eco-feminist lens relevant to your discussion on extractivism?
Which eco-feminist values create tension within you as you have listened deeply to experiences of trauma? What has emerged in you?
An Ecological Theology of Liberation – The Preferential Option for the Poor and the Problem of Plunder
Theologian Daniel Castillo engages us through the influential lens of Gustavo Gutierrez’ theology of liberation but further develops it with an ecological lens. He also challenges, as does Gebara, the oppressive anthropocentric and androcentric theologies of the global north but sets these theologies within their Anthropocene context.
Daniel Castillo’s work provides us with context as he explains how the World Bank and developed countries such as the U.S. and European nations collaborated to shift dirty industries to the global south. Latin America and Africa became the dumping grounds for toxic waste and extracted resources. Castillo explains that we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. Extractivism is devastating the Earth’s ecosystems at unprecedented levels, and the poisoning of Earth’s land, air and water is occurring at unprecedented rates. Indigenous peoples, who live simply and in harmony with Earth, suffer greatly from the effects of extractivism. Their water and land have been seized, even at the cost to their own lives. The violence perpetuated by powerful economic and corporate forces is often sustained by oppressive governmental forces.
Daniel Castillo is an Associate Professor of Theology at Loyola University Maryland, who has published extensively on ecological theology. His work is grounded in the liberation theology of Gustavo Gutiérrez. He earned his doctorate at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana.
Daniel Castillo, An Ecological Theology of Liberation: Salvation and Political Ecology (Orbis Books, 2019).
For Castillo and other liberationists, responding to the evils of extractivism requires us to rethink our cosmological perspective. The idyllic view that we are part of the grand scheme of God’s creative process stands in stark contrast to the evolutionary perspective in which humans are evolving as complex creatures through triumphalist behaviors.
Castillo argues that we may indeed experience a greater sense of connectedness with creation when we see everything as composed of stardust, but this grand unified feeling does not help us deal with harsher realities. How do we respond to genocides, to climate change, and to viruses as these too are part of creation and composed of stardust? The universe story is not just some beautiful history of cosmology; it consists of the process of evolution that can be brutal as life evolves from simple to complex. The emergence of higher forms of life details a triumphalist account of history in which victors emerge, and it is their history that is celebrated. The cries of the Earth and of those who have been made poor have been and continue to be buried in triumphalist accounts. The historical reality of evolution is far starker and much messier than our idyllic view of cosmology lends itself to. Castillo urges a politico-ecological approach that seeks to illuminate the abuse of power within the world.
He begins with the anthropocentric biases inherited from medieval-era Christianity. Castillo points to a common Christian belief that God instructed humans to exploit nature for their use (a common misinterpretation of Genesis 1:26-27). Medieval theologies also desacralized the natural world with calls for Christians to separate themselves from worldly things and focus on otherworldly pursuits. The secular was made out to be dirty and ungodly. Humans were viewed as redeemable with souls that could be saved and elevated, while the natural world lacked a soul and existed only to serve humans (dismissing the idea that creation gives glory to God by its being). According to Castillo, this desacralizing process has both sanctioned and catalyzed the exploitation and domination of nature, which in turn, led to our current ecological crisis. With these anthropocentric views, we fail to see that humans are responsible before God for our actions. We must act with an understanding of who God is and what God desires. We are called to reevaluate old theologies and soteriologies that linger in us to assess whether we have seen what God really desires. Castillo points to understanding God’s self-disclosure in our Christian tradition (the Bible, doctrine, and other sources of tradition), but he also affirms nature as a source of God’s revelation (as elucidated by Pope Francis in Laudato Si). According to Castillo, Jesus embodies the desires of God when he offers good news to the poor and gives hope to the captives and adjures his followers to take care of the least ones (Matt 25:35-40) (897). The Beatitudes speak of God’s desire to bless the vulnerable (Matt 5:3-12 // Luke 6:20-25). Jesus proclaims God’s good news to the poor (Matt 11:5 // Luke 4:16, 7:22).
In the 1950s and 1960s, the influence of liberation theology took hold in Latin America. Its core tenet is the belief that the “preferential option for the poor” compelled communities to respond to the injustices oppressing and killing those who are poor and other marginalized peoples. Castillo explains that two divergent understandings of liberation theology and its emphasis on the “preferential option for the poor” began to emerge. On one hand, liberation theology urged a call to radical transformation on the part of God’s people that required participation in the struggle against psychological, political, cultural, and economic forces (908). On the other hand, supporting the causes for those who are poor and marginalized did not necessarily require a conversion of life. One could remain in a position of apathy but also remain in a place of non-involvement regarding structural transformation (908). Castillo argues that in its heart, liberation theology requires a community of believers to practice works of charity and mercy, but also and importantly, to confront and transform the socioeconomic, political, and cultural forces that produce injustices, material poverty and oppression (919). If the love of God and the desire of God is to be lived through a commitment to a preferential option for those who are poor, it demands conversion, which necessitates a reorientation of our lives and communities toward the service of transforming the world (919). How can conversion happen unless we are awakened and grow more deeply aware of our own participation in the oppression and injustices that affect the poor? We are called to see how our own ideologies contribute to these injustices. We are called to a new consciousness.
Castillo explains how colonialism and the ideology of plunder shaped relations between the two global hemispheres. In short, the North has plundered the global south for more than 500 years, driven by the Doctrine of Discovery and the Papal Bulls. He adds that this plunder was perpetuated by the ideology of plunder that incorporated racism, misogyny, and cultural superiority. And it was sanctioned in varying ways by Christian theology. In the aftermath of World War II, colonialism as we knew it began to collapse, but a new form of colonialism was on the rise, and it was being powered by the mythos of progress (938). While Castillo does not mention it, the rise of the Prosperity Gospel and its close theologies influenced the undercurrent of U.S. cultural values that to this day continue to plunder the global south. As the global south welcomed the decline of old colonialism, Castillo writes that President Harry Truman (1945-1953) urged an era of developmentalism. He advocated effectively for improving underdeveloped regions by bringing scientific advances and industrial development to them. In effect, he ushered in a neo-colonial era before the global south could construct and institute new paradigms for themselves (949). Their short-lived welcome of liberation from old colonialism reverted into a new kind of colonialism in which the global north used developmentalism and modernization to mask the plundering of the resources of the South (in labor, in land, in minerals and other resources).
It was within this new era of neo-colonialism and in response to the violence and devastation that characterized it that Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian philosopher and theologian, first produced and put forth the ideas of liberation theology (1971). Essentially, he called forth a radical shift toward liberation and urged a break from the developmentalism. Castillo reminds us how Gutiérrez revealed the misleading and dangerous undercurrents legitimized and obfuscated by the rhetoric of development and modernization (981). He helped raise critical questions. What was really happening in the name of development and modernization, and how are these concepts of progress preventing real transformations? And furthermore, who is really benefiting from these concepts instituted by the global north? Gutiérrez’s call for liberation from sociopolitical and cultural structures of development requires an imminent conversion, not some delay into the distant future (981).
There are three essential points expressed in Gutiérrez’s liberationist lens.
First is his concept of salvation. He explains that salvation is not exclusively an afterlife otherworldly reality, but it is experienced in history and in communion with God. Salvation is not only liberation from sin, but also the experience of grace. Salvation occurs through experiences of communion and solidarity with the vulnerable and marginalized.
Secondly, Gutiérrez emphasizes what he means by “neighbor.” The neighbor includes most especially the poor and oppressed, because as he explains, the love of God is expressed through a profound love of “the least.”
Thirdly, Gutierrez emphasizes that solidarity with the poor requires a commitment to transform the structures and forces that produce poverty, oppression, and death. Cultural and structural sin, most especially in the guise of development, must be confronted with a radical break (993).
Castillo develops Gutierrez’s theology of liberation with an ecological lens by linking the cries of the poor to the cries of the Earth. The mythos of progress persists because it lures one by the idea of a better way of life, but in reality, only a few will benefit. For example, when multi-national companies seize land and water rights to develop labor-intensive projects (e.g., hydroelectric plants), they often bring in outside laborers and contractors. Once the projects are finished, people are left jobless and landless with their whole way of life upended. Castillo cites Pope Francis in saying that we cannot separate the human world from the natural world, because everything is connected. (no. 16, Laudato Si). An integral approach to ecology is needed. Transformation needs to occur on a cultural/psychological level and on socio-structural level.
As Pope Francis says, we need a vision of “right” ordering so that what is best for the common good is attended to. It will require a personal and societal embrace of limitation, restraint, and humility (Laudato Si). In order to respond to the cries of Earth and the poor, paradigm shifts on many levels are needed. Politics, economics, social, cultural, and religious formations all need to shift away from structures of exploitation. We are called to a praxis of care oriented toward God’s desires. Specifically, we are urged to perceive creation as a “thou” as opposed to an “it.” How we view creation informs our praxis. If we approach nature without a sense of awe and wonder, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, and ruthless exploiters. We will be unable to set limits on our immediate needs. If we feel intimately united with all that exists, solidarity and care will well up (no. 11, Laudato Si). God desires for us to care, protect, preserve, and oversee, and to live in communion with God, neighbor and Earth. If we live with care for Earth, we will find ourselves standing in solidarity with God’s preferential option for the poor.
Reflection Questions:
What different ways of seeing emerged in you? How did Castillo challenge your own perspective of creation? In what ways were your own perspectives of creation affirmed?
Let’s broaden our questions… How would Jesus urge us to address the problem of extractivism, especially as it devastates the care of Earth and the poor? What about Catherine’s advice—what would she say?
The Lens of Integral Ecology – Interconnectedness of all Life and Earth as Our Sustainer and Caretaker
On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis shared with the world an encyclical letter, Laudato Sí’. In the tradition of Catholic Social Teaching, he discussed various human causes of environmental deterioration and he called the world to act in unity for the care and health of Earth.
Pope Francis begins by praising the beauty of Earth, our common home, and naming Earth as our sustainer and our caretaker. Earth produces flowers, food and other goods that benefit the creatures of Earth. Our very bodies are made up of Earth. We are interdependent with Earth. But Earth, Francis states, is sick. Water, air, and soil have been poisoned. And Earth, like those who have been made poor, has been abandoned and maltreated and her ecosystems are failing. Pope Francis himself states that he was not the first pope to address ecological concerns. In 1971, Pope Paul VI expressed in his encyclical Pacem in Terris a serious concern for the global escalation of industries and the exponential increase in destructive human activity. Scientific advances, technology and unbridled economic growth were among his deepest ecological concerns. Pope Paul stated that exploitation of nature would lead to tragic consequences. John Paul II in Redemptor Hominis raised concerns about destructive production and unrestrained consumption and called for conversion of lifestyle, a shift away from consumerism and a move toward a moral global ecology. Pope Francis points to other groups who share serious ecological concerns including scientists, theologians, and environmental organizations, as well as from Catholic and other Christian communities. The voices of alarm are increasing and uniting to make themselves heard.
In Laudato Sí, Pope Francis turned to the words of Bartholomew I, the patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church. In June 2003, Bartholomew called each person to repent for their role in harming Earth. Humans have destroyed the biological diversity of God’s creation, degrading Earth’s ecosystems, stripping out natural forests, destroying the wetlands, contaminating waters, air, and land. Bartholomew urged repentance, noting that our sins against the natural world are sins committed against God and ourselves. But he goes further in calling for a change in how humanity treats Earth. We must address the ethical and spiritual roots of the problem. Technological solutions are not sufficient. Bartholomew calls us “to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with sharing, a moving away from what I want to what God’s world needs.” He urges an ascetism that compels “learning to give, and not simply to give up.” Christians are called “to accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbors on a global scale.” (LS 0.8-9).
Inspired by St. Francis of Assisi, Pope Francis reminds us of the saint’s concern for God’s creation, for the poor and the outcast. He lived simply and in harmony with God, with others, with nature. Pope Francis explains a new concept for many of us referred to as “integral ecology.” What is “integral ecology”? The understanding that everything is interconnected and interdependent. All ecological systems are interrelated. Humans must play a critical role in redressing the damage caused to God’s creation. Each person is the answer to solving the crisis, no matter how small their efforts, whether one applies their talents to addressing a particular damage to Earth or reshapes their lifestyle to reduce or eliminate damage to Earth. We must all cooperate for the care of creation. Pope Francis notes two key elements needed for change to happen: motivation and the process of education. (LS 1.10-15)
What is striking about the acceleration of changes underway, is not the element of change itself. Change is ever present in complex systems, but human activity has accelerated the speed of change far beyond the “naturally slow pace of biological evolution.” Pope Francis addresses key areas of accelerated change: pollution, waste, and throwaway culture; the depletion of healthy water and water in general; the loss of biodiversity; the effect of pollution and privatization on human communities; the social and economic inequities; congestion and poverty of urban communities; and inequality. The deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable, those made poorest among us. Pope Francis urges a global response that hears “both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.” The affluent live far removed from the cries of those who are poor. (LS 1.18, 48)
The global north has plundered the resources of the global south resulting in severe environmental and societal destruction. Francis cites examples like the use of mercury in gold mining. Rivers and other water sources have been polluted by mercury poisoning. The global north exacts more than plunder in taking the resources. It also deposits poisonous waste in the global south. Dangerous waste includes electronic parts from computers and smart phones. Francis adds, the global north does not want such poisonous waste in its own lands, so it deposits it in the lands where those who are poor cannot object. Food waste is another issue of concern. A third of all food produced, Francis notes, is discarded and never reaches the table of the hungry. Extreme and selective consumerism generates this waste. As resources dwindle or become depleted, wars break out. Although some progress has been made such as the cleaning of rivers and the restoration of forests, these renewal projects, in and of themselves, will not solve the global ecological problem. We are captivated by the myth of progress. We believe that a better future lies ahead of us through technological advances, but these advances themselves contribute to a culture of waste. In the name of progress and development, the destruction of our common home continues at a rapid pace. (LS 1.50-1.58)
An Integral Ecology
Pope Francis calls for a vision that considers the interrelatedness of all things. In short, working toward a sustainable solution to the global crisis requires an integrated approach.
Environmental, Economic and Social Ecology
Francis emphasizes that the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of Earth are interconnected. He urges us to question “certain models of development, production and consumption” that deteriorate and diminish this interrelatedness (4.138).
An integral ecology requires a shift in our perceptions. Are we unique and special in God’s creation and so the only creature beloved by God? Some important observations by Pope Francis in Laudato Sí include:
Scientific data shows that “much of our genetic code is shared by many living things.” Francis writes that “nothing stands in isolation, not time, space, atoms, subatomic particles. Nature is not something separate from us nor it is the mere setting in which we live.” The environment is the relationship that exists between nature and that which lives in it. Essentially, Francis believes that there is a deeply embedded interconnectedness and interrelationship with all of creation. To his point, “there are not two separate crises, an environmental one and a social one. One crisis is interwoven with the other crisis. Combating poverty and protecting nature are interrelated.
(LS 4.138-139)
Pope Francis urges the need for more ongoing research and education to help us understand Earth’s ecosystems and how these ecosystems regenerate and interrelate. The critical questions include how to foster economic growth that protects the environment. He insists that development cannot come at the expense of the environment. Effective legislation is needed to protect forests. Social institutions are needed to regulate human activity and relationships (LS 4.142). Without effective legislations and the development of social institutions, serious degradation will continue. The environment, ecosystems and human communities will continue to deteriorate through acts of injustice and corruption. Violence, the loss of freedom, and the destruction of lives will escalate (LS 4.140-4.142).
Cultural Ecology
The destruction of communities in the name of progress has devastating effects on the historic, artistic, and cultural inheritance of a place. The original identity is lost when cities and places are rebuilt. Local cultures must be incorporated into studies of the environment so that dialogues can occur between “scientific-technical language and the language of the people.” “Culture is more than what we have inherited from the past; it is also, and above all, a living, dynamic and participatory present reality.” Culture evolves from its past, and lives in the present. Local cultures have developed their own processes, which need to be respected and heard. Today’s globalized economy, Francis points out, tends to have a “levelling effect on cultures, diminishing the immense variety of heritages.” Resolving problems from the outside is not the adequate answer. Local cultures need to develop new processes through their own culture to preserve their heritage. The disappearance of culture is as serious as the extinction of a species. Francis urges respect and care for indigenous communities and their cultural traditions. Many indigenous are being pressured to abandon their lands so that “progress” can be made. What follows are agricultural and extraction projects that disregard and decimate nature and culture (LS 4.143-4.146).
Ecology of Daily Life
Pope Francis addresses concerns for the quality of daily life. The environment that people inhabit, especially the poor who live in densely populated urban settings, can be “chaotic, saturated with noise and ugliness” and lead to overstimulation and the feeling of asphyxiation. The people living in extreme poverty in such areas often lack harmonious open spaces, or beautiful safe spaces. In addition, social anonymity creates uprootedness, which leads to antisocial behavior and a rise in crime. Pope Francis urges a number of ways to enhance the environment in which persons who are poor live. Consideration in the design of buildings and planning of public spaces are examples of the ways and programs of mutual assistance. (LS 3.147-150)
Principle of the Common Good
For Pope Francis, the vision of an “integral ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good.” He defines the common good as the principled respect of the human being, and of their basic and inalienable rights. The welfare of society depends on the well-being of its members and on their ability to live in peace, in security and with stability. Key to the development of the common good are the principles of subsidiarity (e.g., processes which that focus on organizing, decision-making and authority at the community level) and distributive justice (i.e., concerns that ensure a socially just allocation of resources). The pursuit of the common good requires a particular solidarity and a “preferential option of the poor,” who are the most vulnerable in society. Where more and more people are denied their human rights, where more and more people are perceived of as expendable, we are called to stand in solidarity with them. (LS 3.156-158).
Justice Between the Generations
Pope Francis also urges that a commitment to the common good must extend to future generations. The environmental and economic crises of the world are having detrimental effects on our common destiny. We are obligated to leave future generations with a just, and sustainable world. We cannot leave them an uninhabitable, debris-filled, desolate, and filthy planet. Rampant individualism, instant self-gratification, impulsive and wasteful consumption are just a few of the factors leading to the deterioration of a viable world for future generations. Francis makes an urgent appeal for intragenerational solidarity to address these issues (LS 3.159-162).
Moving Forward with an Integral Approach
Through Laudato Sí’, Pope Francis has urged us to take a deep look at our interconnectedness with the cries of those who are poor and the cries of Earth. Our lifestyles, our institutions, and our corporate and political decision-making processes continue to profoundly impact the lives of those who are economically poor and vulnerable women and their communities and cultures. We find ourselves called in an urgent response to a catastrophe already under way.
Our consumeristic consumptions, our support of multinational corporations, and our institutional structures are, in effect, creating a new kind of colonialism—a neo-colonialism that subjugates and exploits Earth and people for the benefit of the privileged. At the root of this neo-colonialism is the practice of extractivism. The purchase of products accrued through extractivism plays into this neo-colonialism. Extraction industries rely on processes like fracking and strip-mining. These industries insert themselves into communities, poisoning their land, water, and air destroying ecological and cultural diversity. These industries depict beautiful images of happy families, educated children and healthy communities on their webpages, but in reality, they promote violence against women and their families and open wide the door to human trafficking. They bring into these communities the horrific abuse of human rights, the suppression of culture and the escalation of labor conflicts. Communities become divided, disfigured, and displaced.
Everything is interconnected and interrelated. One eco-system effects another and brings the repercussion of our decisions back upon ourselves.
Reflection Questions:
How do we commit to the principle of the common good that protects, serves, respects Earth and all of creation?
How do we shape our lifestyles and corporate decision-making in ways that replenish the health of Earth and move us into meaningful solidarity with the persons and communities, who are most vulnerable?
How do we respond to the most damaging activity of our time, extractivism?
In what ways can we develop corporate decision-making processes that help us respond with urgency to cries of Earth and the poor?
For Further Reflection:
Use the following questions for additional reflection. You are encouraged to write your reflections, insights and emerging questions in your journal.
Which voices are prioritized in the lenses that you chose to use?
Whose voices are missing, and why might that be?
What sustains an extractivist model of development?
In what ways do the lens(es) you chose challenge complicity in extractive industries?
How do we see ourselves contributing to and shaping a viable future for the whole Earth community?
