A Vision of Hope: Lessons from Laudato Si’

“Truly, much can be done!” — Pope Francis, Laudato Si’

“Let us sing as we go. May our struggles and our concern for this planet never take away the joy of our hope.” — Pope Francis, Laudato Si’

Introduction

On 9 May, 2024, Pope Francis announced the theme of the upcoming 2025 Jubilee Year: Hope^[1]. Every twenty-five years since the fifteenth century, the sitting Pope has selected a topic related to forgiveness and reconciliation so that believers can renew their faith and conviction. “In the heart of each person,” Francis wrote in his recent Bull of Indiction^[2], “hope dwells as the desire and expectation of good things to come, despite our not knowing what the future may bring.” Even in the face of great uncertainty and anxiety around the future, Catholics can be pilgrims of hope, and should strive for renewed relationships with God through contemplation, reflection, and action.^[3] Francis went on to motivate and expound the virtue of hope. Addressing a primarily Catholic audience, although also appealing to a universal readers – “the entire civil community” – he suggested pragmatic, realistic strategies for the implementation of a far-reaching ethic^[4]. In one brief paragraph, although arguably the most important in the entire document, Francis drew attention to the environment, citing concern over ‘ecological debt’ between the global North and South^[5]. He reminded Catholics by invoking Leviticus that they are “aliens and tenants” of earth, and as such hoped that they will act as respectful, just stewards of the planet^[6].

A growing philosophical movement has similarly emphasized the importance of environmental hope, a belief that change is possible in light of overwhelmingly pessimistic projections of environmental futures, in a world confronted with increasingly uncertain prospects. In his 2022 book Mobilizing Hope: Climate Change and Global Poverty, for example, leading political theorist and environmental philosopher Darrel Moellendorf provides a compelling account of environmental hope that brings together philosophical, psychological, and moral theories of hope^[7]. He theorizes that there is reason to hope in spite of increasing challenges: “hope can be maintained in darker times than can optimism. And to the extent that there is hope, there is some light in the darkness^[8].” While the practical implications of Moellendorff’s book are ambiguous, he raises pertinent questions around environmental hope that ought to be further explored further by philosophers, social scientists, and scholars of religion.

Although not always explicitly, the Catholic Church has begun to play into discussions of environmental hope. In his 2015 Papal Encyclical Laudato Si’, for instance, Pope Francis brings attention to the urgency of the modern environmental crisis, outlines the official Catholic stance on the environment, and begins to map out potential responses to the crisis^[9]. Beyond writing, Francis embodied an ethic of environmental hope throughout his time in office, insisting that the global Catholic community promote stewardship and care for the environment. He chose to take on the name Francis when he became Pope – a symbolic act of homage to St. Francis of Assisi, Patron Saint of Ecology. Francis also promoted palpable, hopeful action, attending the 2023 COP28 Climate Summit in Dubai. Overall, his attitude toward the environment was grounded in scientific research, inspired by his predecessors’ formulation of Catholic Social Teaching, and driven by a concern for the plight of the poor^[10].

Nevertheless, Christian hope has traditionally been analyzed through an eschatological lens: it is often closely linked to the Beatific Vision Christians hope to attain in the afterlife^[11]. Given the Catholic Church’s renewed emphasis on hope, which rejects a solely eschatological orientation by promoting lived hopeful experience, Christian hope deserves reevaluation. Scholars are likewise calling for an understanding of Christian hope as a lived experience and motivator of moral action. Environmental ethicist Willa Swenson-Lengyel, for example, argues that “it is important for theological ethicists to examine hope also from the experiential perspective of the human hoper,” and moreover that “through examining hope as a fallible human activity, one can come to better understand hope’s importance to human life, its profound ambiguity, and the potential threat that the environmental crisis poses to it.”^[12] Ultimately, she urges ethicists to pay more attention to the lived experience of hope. Theologian Richard Baukham similarly suggests that ethicists ought to expand the scope of their consideration of Christian hope: “part of that contextualizing of Christian hope has to be engagement of some kind with the secular hopes of our time,” paying attention to hope as it relates to lived social realities and contexts^[13]. Nonetheless, although these scholars foreground lived realities and experiences, they do not consider the value of examining texts from within the Catholic tradition to understand and analyze hope. This paper argues that Laudato Si’ provides valuable input into the emerging conversation around lived environmental hope.

This intervention is particularly necessary given that scholars of religion and ecology have long neglected contributions from the Catholic Intellectual Tradition^[14]. Although there exist descriptive projects that draw attention to Catholic environmental teachings and activism, as well as the growing field of Ecotheology, many are unable to move beyond a preoccupation with combating anthropocentrism. Much of this comes down to Lynn White, Jr.’s 1967 article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” which blames Christian attitudes and teleology for the western climate crisis.15 As scholars agree, White oversimplified the causes of the ecological crisis and cohesiveness of Judeo-Christian attitudes.16 Some turn to theology in order to disprove White’s hypothesis, while others pursue religious activism or political projects. Yet, the field of religion and ecology continues to struggle to articulate its goals beyond rethinking cosmology. Environmental ethicist Willis Jenkins voices his frustration:

within environmental ethics, arguments from pragmatists, urbanists, and agrarians attempt to move the field away from focusing on anthropocentrism and nature’s value in order to shift discussion toward the political possibilities of civic experience. Within religion and ecology, critics point to the pluralism of environment-related religious experience, thereby calling their field to move beyond its reformist focus on worldviews.^[15]

Essentially, to “move beyond” White’s legacy, Jenkins suggests that scholars must move toward a discourse on political and civic engagement. Yet, even Jenkins neglects to account for the possibilities offered by religious Intellectual traditions, particularly the ways in which they present important ethical motivators like hope. His only mention of environmental hope appears in the afterword to his The Future of Ethics: Sustainability, Social Justice, and Religious Creativity, in which he references Jonathan Lear’s radical hope, which, in his own words, “anticipates a good for which those who have the hope as yet lack the appropriate concepts with which to understand it.”^[16]

Examining how Pope Francis presents an ethic of hope in Laudato Si’ provides a much needed new perspective on how environmental scholars and activists can combat the prevailing narrative of climate pessimism. Laudato Si’, penned and endorsed by the most senior figure in the Church, propounds the growing contributions of the Catholic tradition to environmental conversations at the most official level. This paper provides a close reading of Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’, examining the contributions the encyclical makes to discussions of environmental hope, and analyzing why this contribution is critical for scholars of religion and ecology. The paper argues that Francis’ hope delicately balances the demands of environmental realism with utopianism, pushes beyond traditional theological expectations – carving its way into the intellectual debates around religion and ecology – and begins, although does not go far enough, to articulate how action might start to combat environmental pessimism^[17]. Because there has been minimal scholarship on the role of hope in Laudato Si’, scrutinous close reading is necessary.

Hope: Realistic or Utopian?

A leading question for proponents of environmental hope is whether hope ought to have realistic or utopian qualities. In the context of Laudato Si’, not only have scholars neglected to examine lived environmental hope, but they have fallen short of questioning the form of Francis' hope. Inquiring whether Francis promotes realistic or utopian hope in Laudato Si’ provides a new insight into a new Christian hope: Pope Francis provides a nuanced approach that balances the need for both realistic and utopian approaches. His emphasis on realistic hope is particularly cogent, given that the Church has traditionally considered hope through an eschatological lens. Francis suggests that acting on Christian hope includes acting to save the environment in the present, challenging the traditional Christian stance that hope lies most significantly in the world to come. Laudato Si’ bridges the gap between realistic and utopian hope, avoiding the problems associated with either extreme. Ultimately, Francis does not abandon the utopian vision of a transcendent reality that drives his vision of a better world, yet affirms that action to be taken in the here and now must be driven by the demands of our present reality.

Forms of Environmental Hope

Previous scholars of hope have fallen short of identifying that there is less tension between realistic and utopian hope than first meets the eye. Within philosophical circles, the main contemporary proponent of environmental realism is philosopher Allen Thompson. He articulates that “we need new hopes consistent with a narrative accepting that some significant environmental and social systems will collapse… We are not going to ‘solve’ climate change and need to prepare for an inevitably undesirable environmental future.^[18]” For Thompson, hope must be grounded in the reality of failure. It must draw on current economic and political realities rather than take on other-worldly or utopian qualities. Yet, there are drawbacks to this approach: how can we make effective change if stuck in the mindset of the present pessimism? In other words, is realistic hope possible given the increasingly dire environmental realities that dominate the present? Thompson also falls short of recognizing that environmental realism is largely inseparable from some form of utopianism. For instance, Thompson draws heavily on Jonathan Lear, who in his renowned book Radical Hope: Ethics in the face of Cultural Devastation describes the adaptation of Plenty Coups, the last great Chief of the Crow Nation, to life on a reservation^[19]. In order for Plenty Coups to maintain hope, he must have “a commitment to the idea that the goodness of the world transcends one’s limited and vulnerable attempts to understand it.”^[20] Yet, “there is no implication that one can glimpse what lies beyond the horizons of one’s historically situated understanding… Indeed, this form of commitment is impressive in part because it acknowledges that no such grasp is possible.”^[21] Radical hope thus entails a projection of the good into an unknown future: using a utopian vision to motivate action. Lear’s stance is more ambiguous than Thompson takes it to be, and perhaps even leans more on the utopian side. So, although radical and utopian conceptions of hope are often pitted against each other, they are not necessarily at odds. There are nevertheless drawbacks to a solely utopian approach too: how can we hope, given that the future is unknown? Might hopes get too abstract if they are not based at least somewhat in present pessimistic realities? It seems that there are problems with assuming hope to be on either end of this scale as either entirely realistic or utopian in form: neither alone adequately represents the experience of the human hoper.

The Technocratic Paradigm

From the outset of Laudato Si’, Francis positions hope in opposition to the technocratic paradigm he blames for having caused the environmental crisis. He thus postures Christian environmental hope as a tool to be used to tackle environmental degradation in the present. The technocratic paradigm, Francis claims, occurred in conjunction with the rise of technology^[22]. Although technology has been hugely beneficial to humans – leading to improvement in human quality of life, beauty, and art – it also also led to an unprecedented increase in human power^[23]. “Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely^[24].” The technocratic paradigm is “undifferentiated” and “one-dimensional.”^[25] It has limited human ability to reason; a mechanization of reality has resulted in an age that fails to engage properly with human values. As a result, we are stuck in a “period of irrational confidence in progress and human abilities^[26].” However, Francis envisions a way out of the technocratic paradigm driven by hope, self-restraint, integral ecology, lived realities, and dialogue. Hope is presented as the antithesis to the technocratic paradigm. Indeed, “we can once more broaden our vision. We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology;” there is an “urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution^[27].” Technology must no longer supplant the role of the Pope, and hope must drive forward bold revolutionary action. Francis thus conceives of a new Christian hope which manifests itself in the present. Hope involves navigating out of the technocratic paradigm and avoiding its potentially fatal consequences; if left unaddressed, the technocratic paradigm could be responsible for humanity’s downfall. Francis thus constructs a way out of the technocratic paradigm using both realistic and utopian forms of hope – while it is clearly grounded in the present, Francis is also driven by a vision of an unknown yet hopeful free of the technocratic paradigm. In using hope to motivate his discussion of the future of the technocratic paradigm, he subverts the assumption that Christian hope is always eschatologically focused.

Integral Ecology

Francis’ conception of integral ecology serves as another prominent example of how Christian hope bridges the gap between realistic and utopian hope, avoiding the problems associated with each extreme. He conceptualizes a new Christian hope that encompasses and prioritizes action in the present world. Most radically, Pope Francis grounds integral ecology – a way of thought that understands the world as inherently interconnected – firmly in reality. He sides at least partially with the school of environmental hope that champions realism, a thorough move away from hope that is solely eschatological. Indeed, for Francis, “realities are more important than ideas.”^[28] In the first chapter of Laudato Si’, Pope Francis hones in on the multiplicity of environmental problems humans face today including pollution, loss of biodiversity, access to water, global inequality, and weak responses to human-caused environmental problems^[29]. Francis is prepared to tackle real world challenges, calling to a shared human capacity to work from within the realities that surround us today. Francis continues to emphasize the realistic quality of integral ecology in his discussion of concrete, specific environmental solutions. Those brainstorming realistic solutions, he suggests, will ask of themselves: “What will it accomplish? Why? Where? When? How? For whom? What are the risks? What are the costs? Who will pay those costs and how?”^[30] Francis sides with an approach to environmental futures grounded in understandings of everyday realities, providing a radical turn away from eschatological hope and toward a vision which posits that solutions to the environmental crisis can be found in the present.

Yet, Francis is unwilling to entirely abandon the transcendent perspective traditionally associated with Christian hope, underscoring his careful oscillation between the realistic and utopian forms of hope. For Francis, all facets of life, whether it be the economic, social, cultural, or political, should be understood as interdependent and mutually constructive: “time and space are not independent of one another:” even down to a subatomic level, things cannot be considered independently^[31]. Francis constructs a powerful utopian metaphor of an all-encompassing system, an “ensemble of organisms existing in a defined space and functioning as a system.”^[32] This imaginary system is reminiscent of a transcendental, Divine perspective, evoking an idealist viewpoint from which humans are able to rise above their individual situations. As is the case in Lear’s description of Plenty Coups’ radical hope, Francis keeps a utopian idealistic vision in mind. Nonetheless, he does not fall into the trap of discounting present solutions, or projecting fantastical situations into the future, potential dangers of utopian hope gone too far. Instead, Francis carefully blurs the traditional distinction or separation between the transcendent and the realistic.

Religious scholar Stephen Bede Scharper comments insightfully on this combination: Pope Francis is not simply regurgitating or rehashing contemporary findings in climate change science. Rather, in his understanding of integral ecology, he is really adopting a more holistic perspective of ‘environmental’ science, one reflected in the work of Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, and other pioneering environmental thinkers. This is a science that is multidisciplinary, inclusive, and open to both natural and cultural biodiversity.”^[33]

Scharper’s comment has the fascinating implication that Francis’ “multidisciplinary, inclusive” perspective is a work of “science^[35].” Yet, the science described by Scharper seems to refer to Francis’ utopian vision, implying that in reality there is little tension between the utopian and realistic forms of hope Francis presents. What appears to be “science” to one person might look like a transcendental, divine vision or perspective. As Francis himself points out, his vision could result in a “humanism capable of bringing together the different fields of knowledge… in the service of a more integral and integrating vision,” which might ultimately serve secular purposes as well as those tied more explicitly to religious environmentalism^[34]. Francis’ writing thus demonstrates environmental futures wherein utopian and realistic visions coexist. He articulates a new Christian form of hope without abandoning a traditional transcendental perspective, uniquely bringing together utopian and realistic elements. Salvation is explicitly tied to taking action in this world to create a hopeful vision of the future.

Francis’ later propositions of a cultural ecology and an ecology of daily life reaffirm that realistic and utopian forms of hope are not in opposition to each other, and equally that Christian hope is uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between the two. Francis advocates protecting “cultural treasures” by integrating local knowledge into environmental practices^[36]. He staunchly opposes imposition from above, suggesting that environmental solutions must be implemented from “within their proper culture^[37].” Hope is thus grounded in the material realities of everyday life. Importantly, emphasizes Francis, he is not advocating a form of cultural relativism – Catholic teachings cannot and will never advocate for cultural relativism^[38]. Integral ecology nonetheless necessitates the integration of local perspectives into discussions of environmental futures and treating people with the dignity and love they deserve: regardless of cultural differences, there is a correct way to treat others^[39]. Indeed, “a truly ecological approach always becomes a social approach: it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor^[40].” This resonates strongly with the language of environmental realist Lisa Kretz, for whom hope must respond to social issues and empower hopers – in other words, it must be “epistemically and socially responsive^[41].” However, given the neglect of the poor and marginalized in current political discourse, Francis is pointing to a utopian vision of a future in which people’s voices have been restored. In this idealistic scenario, all groups would be able to practice a cultural ecology or ecology of everyday life. Thus, Francis is able to carefully weave together a hope that takes on a realistic form but that is driven by a unique utopian vision of the future based on hope for a better world. There is much less tension between them than perhaps first met the eye.

Environmental Language

Francis’ environmental language demonstrates a bridging of realistic and utopian visions of hope not only in the abstract, but also serves as inspiration for his reader to take up a similar linguistic practice. He on the one hand grounds his hopeful approach to reality in human language. Yet, Francis also champions taking a more abstract “language of fraternity,” recognizing the earth as a suffering sibling and treating it as though “endowed with reason,” a stance that is certainly more utopian – after all, it is unlikely that all would subscribe to a school that conceptualizes the earth as ‘suffering^[42].’ He wants us to have an “openness to categories which transcend the language of mathematics and biology, and take us to the heart of what it is to be human^[43].” While this has a firm basis in reality – a fundamental premise of linguistics is that language precedes a way of understanding the world – it also includes a somewhat utopian form of hope for a future that upends traditional linguistic constructions of agency.

Francis demonstrates how his reader might begin to cultivate this more utopian practice in speech and writing. He begins the Encyclical by personifying Mother Earth: “our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us… this sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her^[44].” Francis’ metaphorical language might inspire us to take on this language – realistic in the fact that it grounds change in language and utopian in that it imagines nature as a personified being. While personified sister Earth “now cries out to us” because of “irresponsible use… abuse” and “abandon[ment],” there is still hope: even in a damaged relationship, the possibility of forgiveness through love, hope, and renewal remains^[45]. Humanity retains the capacity to treat nature, mother or sister earth, in the same way that Francis encourages his reader to treat other human beings – as “brothers and sisters.”^[46] Francis thus draws attention to how his readers might begin to use hope to construct their own hopeful vision imbued with both realistic and utopian aspects – confronting his readers with the hefty task of reevaluating human language yet inspiring them to use it as a method of granting agency to the environment.

Theological Hope?

Another debate that preoccupies scholars of Laudato Si’ is whether Francis’ hope is purely theological. In focusing on the way in which Francis’ writing draws on and resonates with the Catholic Social Tradition, scholars often fail to recognize that Laudato Si’ expands beyond the traditional scope of theology, using hope as a connecting thread between traditional and newer, more radical suggestions. Hope is the throughline between traditional theology and Francis’ advocacy for Catholic engagement with the environment in the present. Throughout Laudato Si’, Pope Francis places emphasis on reevaluating the past of the Catholic Church in line with the unique problems presented by modernity in order to create environmental hope. In doing so, he subverts the typical eschatological understanding of hope and moves toward the suggestion that hope has far reaching implications for scientists, politicians, and society at large. Francis’ interpretation of scripture or exegesis is no longer solely theological: hope fundamentally renews his understanding of how the Church can face up to its past as it relates to the environmental crisis.

Structuring the encyclical in this way, Francis constructs an ethic of hope that moves beyond the scope of traditional theology and toward a new form of lived environmental engagement.

Primarily Theological Approaches

The majority of scholarship on Laudato Si’ contends that the hope it presents should be understood as an extension of traditional theology, an approach which discounts its practical, more radical implications. Philosopher Andrew Fiala, for example suggests that “Pope Francis’ recent ecological encyclical grounds hope in theology… it is a fundamental postulate of Christian faith: the joy of Christian hope is a metaphysical first principle.”^[47] He focuses heavily on Chapter Two, “The Gospel of Creation,” as well as Francis’ section on spirituality at the very end of Chapter Six, sections which set out the Catholic underpinnings of Laudato Si’, appealing to interpretations of scripture and human dignity as the primary reasons to act against environmental destruction. Yet, this largely ignores the aforementioned realistic qualities of hope, perhaps Francis’ newest, most radical proposition. The new Catholic position on hope articulated by Francis engages contemporary philosophical debates around the environment, and as such is clearly not intended only as a work of traditional theology.^[48]

Celia Deane-Drummond comes closer to identifying Francis’ carefully balanced approach in her comment that:

the virtue of hope is also significant both theologically and for the theme that Pope Francis seeks to address. But this is generously interpreted, so that, inspired by the example of Noah, “all it takes is one good person to restore hope” (LS 71). Hope is premised, then, on biblical narratives that showed how the people of Israel hoped, in spite of everything, that “the God who created the universe out of nothing can also intervene in this world and overcome every form of evil” (LS 74). But what is different, perhaps, from many other theological works is the inclusion of the virtue of profound joy as mixed in with hope… Perhaps one of the greatest contributions that this encyclical will engender is a strong sense that another world really is possible, and the explicit message for scientists is one of both encouragement and restraint. Ecologists and natural scientists more generally will hope that this encyclical will have wider political and social ramifications, especially in the wake of the practical demands of the agreements reached at the international climate summit in Paris in November 2015^[49].

For Deane-Drummond, hope extends the encyclical’s influence to influence scientists, ecologists, and politicians around the world. Nevertheless, she neglects to comment on the radical nature of Francis’ hope, subsequently substituting her initial focus on hope with “profound joy.” Closer examination reveals that the joy to which she refers looks more like realistic, pragmatic hope – full of “encouragement and restraint.” With her comments in mind, it seems more appropriate to emphasize hope as the factor that makes the encyclical appealing to ecologists, natural scientists, politicians, and those who exhibit care for the environment around the world.

Reinterpreting the role of the Catholic Church

Hope allows Pope Francis to move beyond the scope of theology, encouraging his readers to continue to reinterpret Catholic history and scripture and use this reinterpretation to fuel environmental action^[50]. Without the throughline of hope, it would be difficult for him to dismantle negative environmental stereotypes associated with the Catholic Church. For example, Francis argues that Lynn White’s piece, which blamed Christianity for the ecological crisis, was premised upon a fundamentally mistaken interpretation of scripture. Chapter 3 of Laudato Si’ is titled “The Human Roots of the Ecological Crisis,” a clear response to White’s article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” ^[51]Therein, Francis proposes that the technocratic paradigm, rather than Christian anthropocentrism, caused the ecological crisis. Lynn White, Francis suggests, was mistaken in his theory that blamed Christian anthropocentrism for the environmental crisis: “an inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world^[52].” White mistakenly believed that Christianity supported an attitude of dominance over rather than stewardship of the environment, and fallaciously advocated that this attitude, rather than the technocratic paradigm, led to environmental destruction. According to Francis, however, what Christianity really advocates is not a “Promethean vision of mastery,” but rather a “responsible stewardship^[53].” By positioning White’s hypothesis as misguided, Francis makes it possible to envision a hopeful approach for Catholics which rather than asserting a paradigm of control over nature in fact encourages a responsible stewardship of nature. He also displaces a burden of blame Christians may have felt for complicity in the environmental crisis^[54]. Ultimately, Francis uses hope to criticize the scholarly preoccupation around Christian anthropocentrism, presenting hope that moves beyond eschatology or theology. Hope discourages complacency and acceptance of stereotypes and instead encourages a new, engaged theology which actively encourages stewardship and concern for the environment.

Catholics must correctly understand official teaching on the environment rather than submissively accept stereotypes diffused by scholars in the wake of Lynn White: “we need to develop a new synthesis capable of overcoming the false arguments of recent centuries^[55].” They must actively cultivate a new way of thinking in which hope is the connecting thread between theology and interpretation of environmental futures. Francis thus aptly demonstrates hope’s ability to bridge the gap between understanding of scripture with real-world environmental action.

Theology and Anthropology

Pope Francis similarly utilizes hope to weave theology together with an updated, modern version of Christian anthropology. He emphasizes the role of religion in shaping the way people view the world around them, conceding to White’s notion that cosmology deeply influences the way we see the world around us: “there can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology^[56].” Francis recognizes the importance of translating an approach of stewardship rooted in Biblical understandings of environmental stewardship into a modern ecological setting. He draws attention to the importance of interdisciplinary dialogue – Christian anthropology and ecology, claims Francis, go hand in hand. Indeed, he urges that:

what is needed is a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis… a strategy for real change calls for rethinking processes in their entirety, for it is not enough to include a few superficial ecological considerations while failing to question the logic which underlies present day culture^[57].

This updated Christian anthropology extends into the realm of politics, a powerful addition to the lived hope to which Francis draws attention throughout the encyclical^[58]. Voicing his hope for an anthropology that extends into the world rather than being solely relevant to Biblical interpretations of stewardship roles in nature, Francis underlines that Catholics ought to deeply engage with lived realities and ethical systems. The role of the encyclical is not solely to present a theological or moral hope, but to conceptualize an anthropology that extends from Christianity into all aspects of the world.

Beyond Theology

Pope Francis’ expansion of theology, made possible by his focus on hope, also appeals to readers by transcending the rigid boundaries of genre. Laudato Si’ is not just based in scripture or traditional Catholic teaching, but engages wider questions that preoccupy philosophical debate. In his “Introduction to the Focus Issue on Laudato Si’,” religious ethicist Willis Jenkins astutely reminds the reader that Laudato Si’ could be read as “Pontifical teaching… normative argument… social critique… environmental literature… Anthropocene scripture” and more^[59]. In a similar vein, religious scholar Cristina Traina suggests that Laudato Si’’s strength lies in the fact that its “exeges[is] is more homiletical – hortatory and persuasive, based in their authors’ devotional readings of scripture – than definitely, deductively morally authoritative^[60].” While this is not entirely true – after all, Francis spends significant time establishing what he takes to be moral norms and issues staunch judgements on issues of human dignity – both Traina and Jenkins point out the substantial literary power of Francis’ text^[61]. Francis’ writing is rife with metaphors of ‘mother’ or ‘sister’ earth, interconnected idealistic nature imagery perhaps evocative of transcendentalist writing, and direct literary analysis of texts including Genesis and Assisi’s “Canticle of the Creatures.”^[62] His writing rejects strict genre categorization. As with other pieces of literature, the reader is confronted with the responsibility of interpreting and analyzing Francis’ words.

Nevertheless, Jenkins goes too far in speculating that Laudato Si’ could be read as a work of “Anthropocene scripture.” True, Pope Francis advocates policy proposals, calls for dialogue, and puts faith in scientific research, as well as “consider[ing] principles drawn from the Judeo-Christian tradition” throughout^[63]. However, Francis’ writing primarily underlines traditional

Judeo-Christian understandings, repeatedly emphasizing the importance of traditional Catholic values like the family unit and a belief in scripture and Church practice. It is a step too far to claim that Laudato Si’ can be read entirely removed from its theological context: hope merely bridges the gap between traditional theology and newer ecological arguments therein. Rather, Francis’s reformulation of theology is perhaps best understood as an activist undertaking. He is what renowned environmental non-fiction writer Rob Nixon terms a “writer-activist… In a world permeated by insidious, yet unseen or imperceptible violence, imaginative writing can help make the unapparent appear, making it accessible and tangible by humanizing drawn-out threats inaccessible to the immediate senses^[64].” Combining realistic and utopian hope, Francis conceptualizes and humanizes a hopeful environmental future. Francis’ writing provides a new form of hope beyond the expected scope of theology. He makes the “unapparent appear,” setting out a new form of environmental engagement with traditional theological teachings.

Hope’s Limitations

Although Francis is able to delicately balance realistic and utopian forms of hope and push beyond the typical bounds of theology, there are limits to his new formulation of Christian hope, because of the constraints of an encyclical. Hope might have the effect of energizing environmental movements, but it does not help him to set out a plan for implementing pathways toward his goal; if Francis is truly attempting to incite a “cultural revolution,” hope should do more than solely motivate action^[65]. Indeed, Francis asserts hope as a substitute for action, hindering the Catholic Church’s ability to incite genuine change.

Ecological Conversion

Debate, creativity, and a rejection of the technocratic paradigm are central components of Francis’ ‘ecological conversion,’ an imagined path toward hopeful environmental futures^[66]. Yet, although hope inspires Francis’ call to ‘ecological conversion,’ it ultimately fails to manifest in any tangible action. Francis suggests that “a broad, responsible scientific and social debate needs to take place, one capable of considering all the available information and of calling things by their name^[67].” In the abstract, debate encourages critical reflection, provides an opportunity for new insights, and motivates collective action, all of which might lead to hopeful environmental futures. Nevertheless, the form of debate Francis envisions is left imprecise. Francis’ emphasis on prioritizing creativity over existing economic systems, rejecting the current dominant mindset of “compulsive consumerism,” fails to break from description in broad strokes to formulations that lay out the form dialogue might take^[68]. This is disappointing because hope ultimately fails to live up to the revolutionary aspects promised by Francis^[69]. What would it look like for humanity to abandon the technocratic paradigm, or move away from our traditional emphasis on consumerism? One way around this vagueness – a way to excuse Francis’ lack of practical call to action – is to interpret Francis’ call to ‘ecological conversion’ as a reference to Catholic Social Teaching (of which debate and dialogue are central components), or draw attention to its theological significance. Anthony J. Kelly, who provides perhaps the most extensive existing commentary on Laudato Si’, interprets ecological conversion as a theological call to turn to face God and contemplate his infinite beauty^[70]. Quoting Romans 5, Kelly argues that ecological conversion necessitates a fundamental hope in God given the reality of suffering^[71]. As an aside, he suggests that integral ecology entails religious, ecclesial, moral, intellectual, and psychological components^[72]. Yet, Kelly’s primary reading is not entirely persuasive, and discounts Francis’ urging of action in the present. Francis’ appeal to the “other” to which Kelly refers – “we are always capable of going out of ourselves toward the other” – likely does not refer solely to God but rather indicates the others in our present reality^[73]. Given Francis’ focus on actions like debate and creativity under the umbrella of ‘ecological conversion,’ it seems likely that Francis is trying to do more than set out a theological conversion. Kelly’s secondary criterion, including intellectual and psychological conversion, play a more significant role. Political theologian Anna Rowlands’ interpretation of ‘ecological conversion’ is more compelling^[74]. She envisions ‘ecological conversion’ as explicitly political:

Laudato Si' is able to show that any science that gets close to acknowledging our radical interdependence and thus challenges the dominant ideas of competitive individualism is already uttering a kind of politics and a kind of theology, even if it can not itself recognize this. And thus, it challenges powerful interests. The encyclical pulls no punches in making explicit the ways in which vested interests prevent progress toward a hoped for “global ecological conversion.” Francis is frankly excoriating about the state of contemporary political life^[75].

If this is the case, it is disappointing that Francis fails to really highlight how ecological conversion might take shape beyond a broad reconceptualization of debate and rejection of consumerism. That Francis does not necessarily “utter a new kind of politics” which might map out realistic environmental action tangibly beyond the new “kind of theology” he advocates, highlights that beyond a new environmental language practice and updated theology, it is unclear whether a new formulation of Christian hope is enough to motivate a radical shift toward environmental futures.

A New Political Philosophy

Francis also attempts to build a new political philosophy driven by hope, although falls short of highlighting how practical action might map out and implement his goals. One of Francis’ major arguments concerns the common good, a term he directly from the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.’^[76]” Francis envisions a system wherein “interdependence obliges us to think of one world with a common plan,” expressing that “humanity still has the ability to work together in building our common home.”^[77] This is a radical reconceptualization of the existing state of politics, calling for a new political philosophy that caters to the needs of everybody, emphasizing the common good. Nonetheless, Francis’ plan shows that hope in this instance does drive any practical action beyond approximating a new political utopia, leaving it a weak substitute for action. How will this new political philosophy come into existence? When Francis later explains the failure of the common good in political and economic terms, he blames the fact that the world’s current technocratic agenda oftentimes prioritizes exclusive viewpoints and trumps the true concerns of the common good^[78]. He merely emphasizes that society has an obligation to the common good – the common good is an “ethical imperative.”^[79] If Francis were to use hope to motivate action, he would provide the guidelines for his new ethical system, and set out a pathway through which to reject existing economic systems and challenge the technocratic paradigm. One could even go so far as to accuse this weak approximation of clouding the possibility for tangible future environmental action. Perhaps this is due to the genre constraint of the Encyclical: after all, Francis’ priority in this piece of writing seems to be to set out moral guidelines rather than necessarily act as a policymaker. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that Francis was unable to point to any tangible examples of ways in which the Catholic Church could exemplify this commitment to the common good. Ultimately, hope proves to be a strong motivator of a new political philosophy, but a poor substitute to environmental action that could lead to tangible change.

Education

Francis similarly falls short of repurposing education, one of his major focuses toward the end of the encyclical. This is disappointing because education has clear potential to invite tangible environmental action from Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, influencing the next generation of thinkers to take action against environmental harms and damages. From the opening pages of his encyclical, Francis makes it clear that he believes that change can only happen through education^[80]. Although he expresses gratitude that environmental education has already expanded to include a criticism of the pervading myths of modernity (including a criticism of the technocratic paradigm), Francis argues that it is necessary for educators to renewal their missions – “it needs educators capable of developing an ethics of ecology, and helping people, through effective pedagogy, to grow in solidarity, responsibility, and compassionate care^[81].” Theoretically, education plays an important role in his construction of a new ethic of lived hope, drawing attention to how the traditional Catholic values on education can be repurposed in the modern world – building on the lived hope that Francis champions throughout. However, Francis falls short of detailing concrete plans for the implementation of this new system. While he later attempts to describe some ways in which hope might be implemented – through school, families, media, catechesis, and within political and social settings – these represent broad groupings rather than specific calls to action:

education in environmental responsibility can encourage ways of acting which directly and significantly affect the world around us, such as avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption, separating refuse, cooking only what can be reasonably consumed, showing care for other living beings, using public transport or car-pooling, planting trees, turning off unnecessary lights, or any number of other practices. All of these reflect a generous and worthy creativity which brings out the best in human beings^[82].

Educators are left grappling with what this new system might really look like, as Francis again falls short of providing any tangible examples^[83]. If, as leading environmental philosopher Daniel Moellendorf underlines, “hope is mobilized through activism, politics, and activism,” Francis ought to have set out a more pragmatic framework for environmental education^[84]. Although hope-driven environmental education might promote “ways of acting,” it is unclear how this change will come about or be implemented by the Catholic Church. On the whole, Francis is still unable to lay out a plan toward education, leaving scholars and critics to speculate on what this new system might look like^[85].

Constructive Dialogue

Finally, Francis does not go far enough in addressing the Catholic Church’s role in cultivating constructive dialogue. From the beginning of his encyclical, Francis advocates a “new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet… a conversation which includes everyone^[86].” His stated aim is to construct a “worldwide ecological movement” that encompasses “new and universal solidarity^[87].” For theologian Anthony Kelly, dialogue is the crux of the encyclical, advocating a comprehensive understanding of the world^[88]. A case might be made that this openness to new perspectives proves crucial to the conversation of environmental hope: given the state of pervasive environmental pessimism, the exchange of ideas and experiences can inspire solutions, foster optimism, and help people envision better environmental futures. The encyclical provides a valuable perspective on how religion can provide hope and visions of alternative environmental futures that harnesses the spirit of dialogue as adopted by the Catholic Church following Vatican II.^[89] Yet, from the outset, dialogue without an action plan forward seems ambitious – how does the Catholic Church realistically intend to implement dialogue? The closest Francis gets to voicing what dialogue might look like is a vague commitment to poverty abolition, equality, Indigenous rights, workplace rights, and a whole host of other relevant social movements throughout the Encyclical: Francis wants “to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development^[90].” While Francis’ writing reflects hopeful intentions, he ultimately fails to lay out a concrete path for action – hope leads Francis to naively assume that action will follow automatically.

Francis goes on to specifically emphasize the necessity for dialogue between different disciplines, including theology, religion, and science. Again, however, Francis fails to set out a concrete plan of action; Francis’ hope for dialogue clouds practical action. Science, Francis claims, needs to take “philosophy and social ethics” into account^[91]. A free exchange of views is imperative^[92]. Beyond disciplines themselves, there must be “openness to different possibilities which do not involve stifling human creativity and its ideals of progress, but rather directing that energy along new channels^[93].” On the one hand, combining knowledge from different disciplines will theoretically lead to hope, for pooled expertise will entail more comprehensive solutions and pathways forward. Moreover, when climate science is combined with humanistic analysis, it becomes more accessible to communities, thus making it easier to mobilize toward positive change. Francis tacitly taps into a crucial pathway forward out of climate pessimism. Yet, although this is an admirable approach to the environmental crisis, Francis fails to establish how this might occur in a real world setting. After all, the Catholic Church has had negative stereotypes associated with its compatibility with science that now manifest in accusations of climate change denial^[94].

Francis’ only compelling appeal to dialogue is found in his call for a renewed understanding of interfaith dialogue and intrafaith global dialogue. Notably, Francis embeds teachings from other important Christians throughout the document and begins to reflect on what an interfaith world might look like with regards to environmental futures. For example, throughout the encyclical, Pope Francis references Bishops from across the world and invites his readers to consider the teachings of Patriarch Bartholomew of the Orthodox Church^[95]. He draws attention to the importance of tackling the discrimination faced by Indigenous people in the global south, specifically pointing to Indigenous relationships with the land^[96]. Here, Francis begins to apply his new Catholic hope – by drawing on the teachings of figures from different faiths, he provides fitting examples of how the teachings of others might encourage pragmatic environmental futures. He concretely demonstrates what an openness to the perspectives of others might look like, ultimately setting an example for Catholics which is seldom found beyond his practice of environmental language and clarification of Catholic anthropology. However, this is just one of the many arguments in Francis’ broader appeal to dialogue. On the whole, his appeal to dialogue fails to incite any real change beyond broad strokes plans.

Conclusion

In this paper, I drew attention to Pope Francis’ formulation of a new Catholic ethic of environmental hope. I argued that in Laudato Si’, Pope Francis masterfully reconciles realistic and utopian forms of hope, and uses hope to move beyond the traditional expectations of theology.

However, I suggested that hope ought to go further: although hope allowed Francis to set out admirable general objectives, it falls short of providing pathways toward tangible environmental action in line with his revolutionary aims. Perhaps Laudato Si’s greatest power lies in the reader’s ability to take its message to heart and act accordingly^[97]. As Francis tellingly reminds his readers toward the end of the encyclical: all is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start, despite their mental and social conditioning. We are able to take an honest look at ourselves, to acknowledge our deep dissatisfaction, and to embark on new paths to authentic freedom… we are always capable of going out of ourselves and toward the other^[98].

Even though the majority of Laudato Si’ focuses on existing environmental problems, tackling negative associations between the environment and the Catholic Church, and brainstorming environmental futures, what Francis wants readers to take away from the encyclical in the end is that humans together have the capacity to work towards a brighter environmental future. In spite of the dire environmental realities that dominate the present, change is possible. In his 2019 article “Slow Hope: Rethinking Ecologies of Crisis and Fear,” historian and director of the Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society Christof Mauch uses Laudato Si’ as an example of ^[99]slow hope^[99].^[99]

According to Mauch, slow hope, the opposite of environmental scholar Rob Nixon’s slow violence, is “a language of positive change” entailing “visions of a better future – in other words, hope^[100].” We imagine that environmental change is possible when we center narratives that involve stories of gradual change and progress^[101]. Mauch contends that it makes sense… to collect and re-tell, and analyze stories of slow hope while acknowledging that oftentimes these stories do not have a clear beginning, and all of them are open-ended. We need to imagine them in a dialectic way with crises as the antithesis to a status quo – in which every hopeful synthesis forms a new level^[102].

For him, Laudato Si’ acts as a literary embodiment of slow hope: it appeals to a brighter future, presenting an open-ended narrative that pushes against the status quo. Yet, what is most powerful about the document, this paper highlighted, is not necessarily that it functions as a piece of literature, activism, and environmental nonfiction, but that it uses hope to connect these genres with theological arguments. Importantly, it proposes a renewed Christian hope that balances being grounded in the present with a utopian vision of the future. Contrary to Mauch, the paper maintained that Laudato Si’ ought to be clearer – including a firm “beginning” and a path forward out of the pessimism that dominates environmental futures.

In 2023, Pope Francis published Laudate Deum, an Apostolic Exhortation that builds on Laudato Si’ to again expound the urgency of the climate crisis and encourage global collaboration on environmental policy, technologies, and futures^[103]. Rather than remaining vague or imprecise, Francis modelled how hope might turn into action. He began by urgently underscoring the magnitude of the environmental crisis: “I have realized that our responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point^[104].” Summarizing the themes of Laudato Si’, Francis emphasized the disproportionate effects of climate change on those excluded from positions of power, drawing attention to the very real signs of climate change and the necessity of tackling these demands. He combined realistic and utopian elements of hope and moved beyond the bounds of theology to advocate the necessity of Christian environment hope grounded in our present realities. Francis also once again touched on the technocratic paradigm, condemns an ethic of unbridled power, criticizes postmodern humanity for failing to recognize its own limits, and including a brief commentary on spiritual motivations for climate action. Toward the end of Laudate Deum, Pope Francis turned to the real, lived implications of climate change. Ultimately, he reminded the reader, “it is not a matter of replacing politics, but of recognizing that the emerging forces are becoming increasingly relevant and are in fact capable of obtaining important results in the resolution of concrete problems, as some of them demonstrated during the pandemic^[105].” In sections subtitled “Climate Conferences: Progress and Failures” and “What to Expect from COP28 in Dubai?,” he underscored political action rather than using hope to cloud his words^[106]. Francis invited his reader to examine how hope might be implemented in these political settings, calling for collective action and responsible leadership^[107]. This Exhortation is just one example of how the Catholic Church has continued to build on the shortcomings of Laudato Si’ in recent years to proclaim the necessity of environmental hope^[108]. Francis’ resilience demonstrated the force of his new lived hope. Indeed, it resonates with Mauch’s nostalgic yet compelling invocation of the myth of Pandora’s box at the end of his article on slow hope. According to Mauch, humanity’s saving powers will come from Pandora’s forgotten box of hope: from diverse cultures and initiatives, from thinkers and mavericks and communities around the world; and yes, from the environmental humanities. They will come from those who understand the power inherent in the way we tell stories, from people who think and act ecologically, from women and men who are inspired by slow hope^[109].

Mauch’s assertion might well be speculation. Nevertheless, Pope Francis’ reformulation of Christian hope indeed shows itself to be a spark of promise amidst uncertain environmental futures. Not only did Francis provide a much needed reevaluation of Christian hope, but he provided a framework from which Christians and non-Christians alike might draw inspiration to hope even in the face of environmental uncertainty and pessimism.

Bibliography

Annet, Anthony. “Our Common Responsibility for Our Common Home: The Activist Vision of Laudato Si’.” In Care for the World: Laudato Si’ and Catholic Social Thought in an Era of Climate Crisis, edited by Frank Pasquale. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Bauckham, Richard. “Ecological Hope in Crisis?” ANVIL 29, no. 1 (2013): 43-54. https://doi.org/10.2478/anv-2013-0004.

Blake, Deborah D. “Toward a Sustainable Ethic: Virtue and the Environment.” In And God Saw That It Was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment, edited by Drew Christiansen and Walter Grazer. United States Catholic Conference, 1996.

Boff, Leonardo. Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Translated by Phillip Berryman. Orbis Books, 1997.

Christiansen, Drew. “Ecology and the Common Good: Catholic Social Teaching and Environmental Responsibility.” In And God Saw That It Was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment, edited by Drew Christiansen and Walter Grazer. United States Catholic Conference, 1996.

Dalton, Anne Marie and Henry C. Simmons. Ecotheology and the Practice of Hope. SUNY Press, 2010.

Deane-Drummond, Celia. “‘A new anthropology? Laudato Si’ and the question of interconnectedness.” In Laudato Si’ and the Environment, edited by Robert McKim. Routledge, 2020.

Deane-Drummond, Celia. “Laudato Si’ and the Natural Sciences: An Assessment of Possibilities and Limits.” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2016): 392-415.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.princeton.edu/10.1177/0040563916635118.

Deane-Drummond, Celia. “Pope Francis’ Integral Ecology Paradigm: An Exploration of Its Theological Foundations and Ethical Implications.” Irish Theological Quarterly 88, no. 2 (2023): 99-111. https://doi-org.ezproxy.princeton.edu/10.1177/0040563916635118.

Dorr, Donal. Option for the Poor and for the Earth: Catholic Social Teaching. Orbis Books, 2012. Eaton, Matthew. “Conclusion: Ecocide as Deicide: Eschatological Lamentation and the Possibility of Hope.” In Integral Ecology for a More Sustainable World: Dialogues with Laudato Si’, edited by Dennis O’Hara, Matthew Eaton, and Michael T. Ross. Lexington Books, 2020.

Fiala, Andrew. “Playing a Requiem on the Titanic: The Virtue of Hope in the Age of Ecological Calamity.” In Ecology, Ethics and Hope, edited byAndrew T. Brei. Rowan & Littlefield, 2016.

Francis. Laudate Deum [To All People of Good Will on the Climate Crisis]. The Holy See, October 4, 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/2 0231004-laudate-deum.html.

Francis. Laudato Si’ [On Care for Our Common Home]. The Holy See, May 24, 2015. https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa

-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf.

Francis. Spes Non Confundit [Bull of Indiction of the Ordinary Jubilee of the Year 2025]. The Holy See, May 9, 2024. www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/bulls/documents/20240509_spes-non-co nfundit_bolla-giubileo2025.pdf.

Gold, Lorna. “The Disruptive Power of Laudato Si’ – A ‘Dangerous Book’.” In Laudato Si’: An Irish Response, edited by Sean McDonagh. Veritas Publications, 2017.

Grim, John and Mary Evelyn Tucker. Ecology and Religion. Island Press, 2014.

Hinze, Christine Firer. “Catholic Social Teaching and Ecological Ethics.” In And God Saw That It Was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment, edited by Drew Christiansen and Walter Grazer. United States Catholic Conference, 1996.

Hulme, Mike. “Climate Change and the Significance of Religion.” Economic and Political Weekly

52, no. 28 (2017): 14-17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26695869.

Hrynkow, Christopher. “Placing Integral Ecology at the Heart of Education: Transformative Learning, Laudato Si”, and Cooperation” In Integral Ecology for a More Sustainable World: Dialogues with Laudato Si’, edited by Dennis O’Hara, Matthew Eaton, and Michael T. Ross. Lexington Books, 2020.

Jamieson, Dale. “Theology and Politics in Laudato Si’.” AJL Unbound 109 (2015): 122-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S239877230000129X.

Jenkins, Willis. “After Lynn White: Religious Ethics and Environmental Problems.” Journal of Religious Ethics 37, no. 2 (2009): 283-309.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9795.2009.00387.x.

Jenkins, Willis, ed. Focus Issue on Laudato Si’. Journal of Religious Ethics 46, no. 3 (2018): 404–495. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.princeton.edu/toc/14679795/2018/46/ 3.

Jenkins, Willis. The Future of Ethics: Sustainability, Social Justice, and Religious Creativity.

Georgetown University Press, 2013.

Kelly, Anthony J. An Integral ecology and The Catholic Vision. ATF Press Publishing, 2016. Kretz, Lisa. “Hope in Environmental Philosophy.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2013): 925-944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9425-8.

Kretz, Lisa. “Singing Hope’s Praises: A Defense of the Virtue of Hope for Environmental Action.” In Ecology, Ethics and Hope, edited byAndrew T. Brei. Rowan & Littlefield, 2016.

Lear, Jonathan. Radical Hope: Ethics in the face of Cultural Devastation. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Loeb, Zachary. “Towards a Bright Mountain: Laudato Si’ and the Critique of Technology.” In Care for the World: Laudato Si’ and Catholic Social Thought in an Era of Climate Crisis, edited by Frank Pasquale. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Mauch, Christof. “Slow Hope: Rethinking Ecologies of Crisis and Fear.” RCC Perspectives no. 1 (2019): 1-45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26588127.

McDonagh, Sean. “Laudato Si’: A Prophetic Challenge for the Twenty-First Century.” In Laudato Si’: An Irish Response, edited by Sean McDonagh. Veritas Publications, 2017.

Mizzoni, John. "Environmental Ethics: A Catholic View." Environmental Ethics 36 (2014): 405–419. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201436445.

Moellendorf, Darrel. Mobilizing Hope: Climate Change and Global Poverty. Oxford University Press, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190875619.001.0001.

Nixon, Rob. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard University Press, 2013. Northcott, Michael S. A Political Theology of Climate Change. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013.

Northcott, Michael. “Ecological Hope.” In Historical and Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Hope, edited by Steven C. van den Heuvel. Springer International Publishing, 2020.

Nothwehr, Dawn M. Franciscan Writings: Hope amid Ecological Sin and Climate Emergency. T&T Clark, 2023.

Nothwehr, Dawn M. “The ‘Brown Thread’ in Laudato Si’: Grounding Ecological Conversion and Theological Ethics Praxis” In Integral Ecology for a More Sustainable World: Dialogues with Laudato Si’, edited by Dennis O’Hara, Matthew Eaton, and Michael T. Ross. Lexington Books, 2020.

Pasquale, Frank. “A Critique of Mastery and an Ethics of Attunement: From Spe Salvi to Laudato Si’.” In Care for the World: Laudato Si’ and Catholic Social Thought in an Era of Climate Crisis, edited by Frank Pasquale. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Rowlands, Anna. “Laudato Si’: Rethinking Politics.” Political Theology 16, no. 5 (2015): 418-420. https://doi.org/10.1179/1462317X15Z.000000000166.

Scharper, Stephen Bede. “A Compassionate Science: Pope Francis, Climate Change, and the Fate of Creation.” In Integral Ecology for a More Sustainable World: Dialogues with Laudato Si’, edited by Dennis O’Hara, Matthew Eaton, and Michael T. Ross. Lexington Books, 2020.

Spina, Alessandro. “Laudato Si’ and Augmented Reality: In Search of an ‘Integral Ecology’ for the Digital Age.” In Care for the World: Laudato Si’ and Catholic Social Thought in an Era of Climate Crisis, edited by Frank Pasquale. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Swenson-Lengyel, Willa. “Beyond Eschatology: Environmental Pessimism and the Future of Human Hoping.” Journal of Religious Ethics 45, no. 3 (2017): 413-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/jore.12184.

Thompson, Allen. “Adapting Environmental Hope.” In The Virtue of Hope, edited by Nancy E. Snow. Oxford University Press, 2024.

Thompson, Allen. “Radical Hope for Living Well in a Warmer World.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (2010): 43-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9185-2.

Traina, Cristina L.H. “‘Sources of authority in Laudato Si’.” In Laudato Si’ and the Environment, edited by Robert McKim. Routledge, 2020.

Turkson, Peter Kodwo. “The Evolution of the Concept of Integral Ecology in Papal Teaching.” In Integral Ecology for a More Sustainable World: Dialogues with Laudato Si’, edited by Dennis O’Hara, Matthew Eaton, and Michael T. Ross. Lexington Books, 2020.

Van Wieren, Gretel. “‘Realities are more important than ideas:” The significance of practice in Laudato Si’.” In Laudato Si’ and the Environment, edited by Robert McKim. Routledge, 2020. Vogt, Christopher P. “Laudato Si’: Social Analysis and Political Engagement in the Tradition of

Catholic Social Thought.” In Integral Ecology for a More Sustainable World:

Dialogues with Laudato Si’, edited by Dennis O’Hara, Matthew Eaton, and Michael T. Ross. Lexington Books, 2020.

White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155, no. 3767 (1967): 1203-1207. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1720120.

Williston, Byron. “Climate Change and Radical Hope.” Ethics and the Environment 17, no. 2 (2012): 165-85. https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.17.2.165.

Wilson, Erin K. “Cast Out Fear: Secularism, (In)security, and the Politics of Climate Change.” In Climate Politics and the Power of Religion, edited by Evan Berry. Indiana University Press, 2022. Woodworth, Paddy. “‘We were nowhere. We’ve got somewhere.’ Does Laudato Si’ go far enough, and is the Church on board for the climate journey?” In Laudato Si’ and the Environment, edited by Robert McKim. Routledge, 2020.