Alberto Parise MCCJ
Introduction
In 2015, the year of the Paris Climate Agreement, Pope Francis published the encyclical Laudato si’ (LS). It is a very articulate and complex document, which has not failed to receive much praise in the circles of the COPs on climate change, as well as inspiring a global Catholic climate movement. But it is not simply a “green” encyclical: it takes a systemic perspective through the interpretative and operational paradigm of integral ecology. As Costa (2016) points out, this paradigm is based on the awareness that everything is connected, and is articulated in four main aspects.
First, it is a paradigm for an integrated reading of phenomena. To understand them, it is necessary to overcome undue simplifications and reductive readings of the complexity of reality. The environmental dimension cannot be separated from the economic, social, cultural, political and everyday life dimensions. Integral ecology makes it possible to recognise and analyse the interconnection of phenomena such as, for example, global warming and migration, pollution and work (LS 25), the liveability and beauty of urban spaces (LS 150), and so on.
And even deeper, this paradigm allows the ecological crisis to be understood as an effect of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity (LS 119). If the immediate causes of the climate crisis are to be found in the unsustainability of a linear and extractive development model, based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, and in consumerist lifestyles, at the root of this system we find an inadequate anthropology (LS 118) which reduces the human being to homo oeconomicus and creation to a resource to be exploited, between the culture of waste – which affects both excluded human beings and things that quickly turn into rubbish (LS 21) – and indifference to the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor (LS 49).
Secondly, integral ecology implies dialogue between different perspectives, for an integral and integrating vision of reality. This is not only a matter of overcoming the disciplinary fragmentation and isolation of the sciences, which remain a fundamental tool that cannot be ignored today. But it also means to integrate other knowledge, such as the cultural-spiritual traditions of original peoples and the ethical and humanistic wisdom of religious traditions. It is also a matter of overcoming the reductionism of the techno-scientific, or “technocratic” paradigm, which tends to exert its dominance over economics and politics as well, since the economy, which nowadays dominates over politics, assumes every technological development as a function of profit, regardless of any negative consequences for human beings and the environment (LS 109). The technocratic paradigm as such, moreover, is totally inadequate to solve the climate crisis, since “technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others” (LS 20).
Integral ecology is also a way of life. To grasp reality as an interconnected whole, in relationship, means having a contemplative gaze, capable of grasping reality as a mystery that cannot be mastered. Relation also involves the emotional, attitudinal, values, ethical dimension; it involves the meaning of life and the way of living that follows, and therefore also the concrete choices, good practices, from the small ones of everyday life to the collective ones that inform policies at different levels. Condition for the effectiveness of interventions, the Encyclical states, are tenderness, compassion, concern, all fundamental dimensions of caring.
Finally, this paradigm also proposes a path of transformation, the search for new ways for humanity to collaborate responsibly in caring for the common home. The horizon is that of a transition from a society of accumulation and consumption to a society of care. The encyclical emphasises that “given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing our steps before it is too late. We know how unsustainable is the behaviour of those who constantly consume and destroy, while others are not yet able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity. That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth”. (LS 193)
A prerequisite for such a path of transformation is a cultural and spiritual transformation: what is needed is a different way – from the dominant one today – of seeing the world, of relating to each other, of living in fullness. This is why the encyclical dedicates its last chapter entirely to “Ecological Education and Spirituality”, emphasising that “Many things have to change course, but it is we human beings above all who need to change. We lack an awareness of our common origin, of our mutual belonging, and of a future to be shared with everyone. This basic awareness would enable the development of new convictions, attitudes and forms of life. A great cultural, spiritual and educational challenge stands before us, and it will demand that we set out on the long path of renewal”. (LS 202)
Five years after the publication of the encyclical, in view of an ever more serious climate crisis, Pope Francis relaunched the message of the encyclical with the proclamation of the special year of the 5th anniversary of Laudato si’. In that context, the community of the Comboni Missionaries in Rome took up the challenge and created an educational path in its park to promote a conversion to integral ecology.
The Laudato si’ Park: educational tradition, approach and pedagogical dynamics
The design of this educational experience is inspired by the Encyclical letter itself, not only in terms of content, but also in terms of the way of confronting, involving and interacting with it. Obviously, since we are dealing with an itinerary in a park, which generally leads to encounters with people who are ever different – both in the sense of their individuality and that of new visitors – we are aware of the great limits within which we operate. It is not possible to deal with all the aspects elaborated in the Encyclical letter, nor to go into them systematically. To do so would require the development of a kind of long-term course. But we wanted to let ourselves be challenged by the communicative challenge of our time, which requires immediacy and short messages, rather than allowing time for depth and and articulating a discourse over a prolonged period. We realised, in fact, that our practices of popular education, in general, presuppose a sustained relationship and articulated paths over time, conditions that are difficult to achieve today. How, then, to offer the possibility of opening up to a new perspective for a sustainable world, in conditions practically antithetical to what we are used to? And even more, how to effectively invite people to take action for bringing about a change?
First, it is worth reflecting on the kind of transformation we are seeking. It is not some change – even a major one – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to protect biodiversity. As the LS highlights, the world needs systemic change and this is a momentous challenge. Beyond the various interests and resistance of those who benefit from the current system, the problem is that we are all part of that system – everything is connected – and it is very difficult to change the inertia of a world that continues to accelerate in the direction of environmental unsustainability and social injustice. The challenge is not only to change socio-economic, but also cultural structures, as there are ideologies that justify and sustain the status quo. This is why the educational challenge is crucial for change and is articulated, in the wake of the biblical prophetic tradition (Brueggemann 1978), in two dimensions: on the one hand, deconstructing the false ideological claims that sustain the system; on the other hand, imagining a different world and energising communities that promote an alternative. In other words, there is a dual movement of awareness and activation for social transformation.
The approach chosen to facilitate this process is that of integral ecology, with its four characteristics that we discussed at the beginning. In short, the path through the Laudato Si’ Park integrates:
= sensory experiences to facilitate reconnection with creation and with one’s inner self;
= the stimulation of a critical awareness of the epochal crises we are experiencing, starting from what has been experienced personally and collectively – in the line of Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy (2022) and Mezirow’s transformative learning (1995), crisis situations represent a privileged starting point for personal and social transformation1;
= meditation and listening exercises to open up to the unprecedented;
= thematic insights from an ecosystem perspective, for an awareness of the global situation and underlying mechanisms, demystifying the false claims of the dominant system;
= a dialogue of perspectives, from scientific to those of various cultures, actively involving participants;
= proposals for action, both on a personal level – rethinking one’s lifestyle – and on a collective level, as a commitment to systemic transformation.
The pedagogical dynamic that holds these components together is based on the dynamics of the encounter of humanity, observed over more than twenty years of missionary experiences of popular education in Kenya and Italy. It is a choice that goes well with the nature of the Laudato si’ path in the park, which consists of a human encounter, and encounter of lives, cultures and personalities: an encounter that becomes an opportunity for enlightening awareness and for sowing a seed of hope, which may grow and bear fruit in the future.
The architecture of the encounter
The methodology is based on the observation that there are a kind of invisible structures that facilitate the encounter, the experience of fraternity and the construction of a shared journey. In particular, five interdependent dynamics are activated: evoking humanity, facilitating participation, transcending differences, listening deeply and caring.
1. Evoking humanity: along the way, we propose activities that tend to bring out the humanity of the participants, with a sense of gratuitousness, of self-giving. For example, we pay particular attention at the beginning to dynamics of presentation, in an atmosphere of mutual reception, of recognition. This creates an atmosphere of welcome, security and helps to unleash the participants’ generosity and creativity. As we progress along the path, this dynamic is further enriched through moments of personal sharing, self-narratives and sharing of transformative experiences. An exchange is established that is never taken for granted, on the contrary, it is each time different, unique. The participants’ openness and self-revelations invite and recall each other, and we find ourselves, as if by magic, on “sacred ground”, facing the mystery of a shared humanity.
2. Facilitating participation: the use of participatory methodologies is intended to promote the involvement of participants, release their creative energy and build more meaningful relationships. It is meant to promote a participatory learning process, in which everyone contributes to the discovery of the world and the construction of meaning. This is facilitated in various ways: in some moments, for example, a dialogic dynamic derived from Danilo Dolci’s “reciprocal maieutic” is activated – that is, ‘a process of collective exploration that takes, as a starting point, the experience and intuition of individuals’ (Dolci, 1996) – through generative questions and a respectful dialogue, appropriately moderated; in other moments, a symbolic dynamic is brought into play, starting from observation and interaction with installations created at particular spots. Another possibility is an application of Paulo Freire’s psycho-social method, starting with problem posing materials presenting life situations that the group analyses and then relates to their own living environment and experience. This facilitates involvement and the discovery of new possibilities and invites choices to influence change.
3. Transcending differences: any dialogue open to diversity and different perspectives generates displacement, discomfort and contrasts. This is inevitable and, indeed, if it does not happen it means that there has not yet been a real engagement with diversity. Diversity should not be obliterated or levelled, but welcomed and respected, in the knowledge that the difficult recomposition – without erasing differences – can only take place at a higher level, where we can still recognise the humanity that unites us, a sense of mutual belonging and a common destiny. It is possible to build together a shared horizon, in which everyone can recognise themselves while remaining different. When we receive heterogeneous groups, with people who have very different histories and backgrounds, we try to activate these dynamics through the sharing from the participants themselves; in any case, being missionaries with many years of service in various parts of the world, with encounters and transformative experiences with different cultures and worlds, we can share these elements from our own experiences and thus evoke similar experiences in the participants.
4. Listening in depth: listening to each other is a fundamental aspect of an approach that makes dialogue its backbone. On the part of the facilitators accompanying the visitors, however, it is important to grasp what is moving in the participants’ hearts, appreciate it and bring it out. Along the way, moments of contemplation of creation and exercises in listening to one’s inner self are proposed, facilitating emotional self-awareness and the emergence of intuitions, inspirations and aspirations from deep within.
5. Taking care: this dynamic is of fundamental importance in our case, given that the reference horizon is the emergence of a society of care. Taking care of people, of creation, of institutions, of the situations we encounter on a daily basis reconnects us with the mystery of life, restores beauty and fullness to life, introduces us to the joy of the Gospel. The variety of care proposals that are presented, both on a personal and collective level, by the Laudato si’ Park stimulate and invites visitors, in the hope that each one can find a starting point for their own journey. Generally, visitors are passing through and there is a lack of feedback on the influence the visit has on their lives. However, there are also cases in which partnerships with groups and associations arise from the visits, sharing new paths and initiatives. It is the seed sown that germinates and bears fruit, putting us back in the game with new commitments to follow and accompany.
The Laudato si’ Park Tour
In concrete terms, the route runs through seven stations. The first, at the start, serves as an introduction, where we get to know each other and present the history, motivation and dynamics of the Park. An attempt is made to create an atmosphere of welcoming, listening and dialogue; at the same time, the facilitators accompanying the group try to grasp aspects that can help participants connect with the themes and proposals of the Park. We listen to grasp what skills each person carries along, in order to solicit them and bring them into play during the visit. The dynamics that are adopted may change depending on the group, in consideration of age, background, experience and so on. It is one thing, for example, to interact with children or teenagers, another with retired professionals.
The following six stations are an opportunity to present some of the themes drawn from Laudato si’: the interconnectedness of everything, integral ecology and energy, the carbon footprint and lifestyles, land and water, the circular economy and waste reduction, ecology and mission.
Each theme is introduced by a sensory experience, which is facilitated through ad hoc installations, followed by the moderation of a collective reflection. In addition to the five traditionally recognised senses (hearing, sight, taste, smell, touch), we also stimulate kinaesthesia and sense of balance. In some cases, the sensory exercise is used as a catalyst for small contemplative experiences, such as the exercise of listening to the sounds of the park, or the tactile and olfactory perception of aromatic herbs, or, at the end of the walk, the experience of walking through a labyrinth, according to the Christian spiritual tradition dating back to the Middle Ages. However, the sensory aspect is continually recalled as we move through the park, in an informal dialogue aimed at inviting participants to share their knowledge and experience of nature.
The angle taken for each topic can vary depending on the group involved. Experiences and personal insights are shared in a dialogic way, enriching discussions with some in-depth content. At times, we use targeted games and exercises to make complex ideas like that of the carbon footprint more accessible and engaging. Each theme also includes exploring possible actions to address global challenges, both individually and collectively, with examples of best practices from around the world. At the end, participants reflect on their experience, considering personal takeaways and actions to pursue.
Conclusion: A Journey in Progress
The educational initiative of the Parco Laudato Si’ does not aspire to achieve dramatic results, recognizing the limitations of such a small-scale experience. Nonetheless, it stands as a humble gathering of humanity that plants a seed of ecological conversion, aiming to develop social coexistence and build a community where differences harmonize into a shared project. As the Encyclical Laudato Si’ reminds us, “beginning in the middle of the last century and overcoming many difficulties, there has been a growing conviction that our planet is a homeland and that humanity is one people living in a common home. An interdependent world not only makes us more conscious of the negative effects of certain lifestyles and models of production and consumption which affect us all; more importantly, it motivates us to ensure that solutions are proposed from a global perspective, and not simply to defend the interests of a few countries. Interdependence obliges us to think of one world with a common plan.” (LS 164).
The dynamics adopted in Parco Laudato Si’ activities introduce visitors indirectly to the four principles that, in Evangelii Gaudium (EG 222-237), Pope Francis presents as essential guidelines for building such a common project. The first principle, “time is greater than space”, highlights the importance of starting processes and building pathways, accepting the limitations of a confined space without the obsession for immediate results. In facing enormous challenges that might easily discourage commitment, it is crucial to balance the immediacy of the moment with a vision that opens to the future as an inspiring dream: “What we need, then, is to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society and engage other persons and groups who can develop them to the point where they bear fruit in significant historical events. Without anxiety, but with clear convictions and tenacity.” (EG 223).
“Unity prevails over conflict” is the second principle, emphasizing that the journey cannot be without challenges, as differences generate conflict; yet, this is part of the path toward building communion in diversity, a solidarity grounded in respect for the dignity and humanity of each person (EG 228).
The third principle, “realities are more important than ideas”, calls for starting from reality, from experience, as the path to challenge ideologies and false truths that sustain and justify unjust socio-economic structures. Without remaining within the confines of pure ideas, idealizations, or appearances, it is necessary to engage concretely and operationally with reality.
Finally, the fourth principle, “the whole is greater than the part,” is vividly illustrated by Pope Francis with the image of the polyhedron, “which reflects the convergence of all its parts, each of which preserves its distinctiveness” (LS 236). This represents unity in diversity: “people who wholeheartedly enter into the life of a community [do not] need to lose their individualism or hide their identity; instead, they receive new impulses to personal growth. The global need not stifle, nor the particular prove barren. ” (LS 235). This also tells us not to become overly obsessed with limited and specific issues, but to widen our perspective to recognize a greater good. Thus, one works on a small scale, with what is close, but with a broader outlook.
The educational experience of the Parco Laudato Si’ embodies these four principles within the vast horizon of building a critical mass, a people in solidarity with all humanity and their common home, for transforming the world in search of a different and sustainable development model.
References
Brueggemann Walter, 1978, The prophetic imagination, Fortress Press.
Costa Giacomo, 2016, “Laudato si’: quale cura della casa comune? Dalla realtà, all’azione”, Seminario di studio sulla Custodia del Creato, Roma, 18 marzo.
Dolci Danilo, 1996, La struttura maieutica e l’evolverci, Scandicci, La nuova Italia,
Francesco, 2013, Evangelii gaudium, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano.
Francesco, 2015, Laudato si’, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano.
Freire Paulo, 2022, Pedagogia degli oppressi, EGA-Edizioni Gruppo Abele.
Mezirow Jack, 1995, “Transformation theory of adult learning”, in M.R. Welton (a cura di), In defense of the lifeworld, 39-70. New York: SUNY Press.
1In Freire’s psychosocial model, personal and social transformation are closely intertwined and occur when the oppressed reflect and act on the economic and socio-political injustices that affect them. On the other hand, personal transformation is also necessary in the face of personal and social fragmentation, which easily occurs when people experience situations that simply do not fit or make sense within their worldview. Personal reintegration requires a self-examination of feelings and a critical evaluation of assumptions. It will take the reflection phase to explore and discern a new worldview, including roles, relationships and actions, rehearse them and ultimately find a new sense of identity, meaning and integration (Mezirow 1995, 50).
