The Terra dei Fuochi, or “land
of fires,” is a region in southern Italy where “decades of illegal dumping,
burying and burning of waste” had been devastating by the time Pope Leo paid
Acerra a visit in May, 2026.[1]
Lest visual images of hell’s fires reminiscent of Jonathan Edwards’ sermons
come to mind, the devastation was squarely in the this-worldly domain of public
policy. The pope’s speech can thus be viewed as an over-reach from the
standpoint of his native fauna—the sui generis domain of religion, whose
referent transcends not only the limits of cognition, perception, and
sensibility (emotion), but also Creation itself![2]
Departing from religion as
transcendent experience, the pope “called for a rethink of current economic
and social models, urging those present to try to rediscover values centered on
solidarity and respect for the land.”[3]
As I, like that pope, was born and raised in the Midwest (both of us in
northern Illinois, in neighboring regions), I can perhaps be too direct, even
blunt, in stating that all of the theological education in the world does not
include expertise in socio-economic models. Accordingly, liberation theology is
open to criticism for dogmatically reducing the kingdom of God to one economic
model. Similarly, Arthur Rich’s attempt to apply seven criteria of justice
based on Karl Barth’s theology of creation—even though Christology is
much more salient in Barth’s writings—to economic systems warrants a suspicious
eye, especially as he, a German, concluded that the social-market economy of
Germany to be the most just. Bad air! Yet another of Nietzsche’s expressions
also comes to mind: human, all too human. For a theologian or cleric to jaunt
over to political economy as if one were an expert in that field of knowledge
can indeed be said to be human, all too human.
Even basing a call for respect
for the land on a Creation theology (i.e., God created the land) may be a
stretch. To the extent that God orders by separating as the Creator, we too,
who are in the image of God, separate uses of land. Just as it is not possible,
even in the best of all possible worlds, for everyone to be above average, so
consuming organic beings such as humans must lay waste, though of course there
is a limit to everything and responsibility can reasonably be inferred. The
Biblical Book of Genesis can be interpreted as including Yahweh ordering rather
than merely as creating ex nihilo. To be sure, “God created the
heavens and the earth,” but the emphasis in chapter 1 extends to separating,
and thus on distinguishing. Even creating the heavens and the earth implies
that the two are distinguished. Furthermore, in Genesis we read, “God separated
the light from the darkness,” created a sky that separated “the waters from the
waters,” and “let dry land appear” such that the seas were separated. Accordingly,
we can separate lands from lands as per different uses. Furthermore,
theological concept of Logos, which refers to God’s rational activity
in creating, is more applicable to distinguishing than to making something out
of nothing (other than the initial decision to make at all, rather than
continue to be self-complacent). Accordingly, we can apply reason to
stewardship of the land. Even though stewardship of the land follows from even
such an expansive interpretation of Creation as including ordering, the
specificity of the pope can be viewed as dogmatic, even ideological, and thus
better categorized under public policy. For example, the pope applauded “broad
awareness of the seriousness of the criminal activity and the indifference that
has left room for these crimes.”[4]
He was undoubtedly referring to illegal dumping of chemical waste. I submit
that a broad theological argument against such waste as criminal is a
stretch.
Similarly, even though the
social principle of solidarity, which is a political principle that is
widely valued in the E.U. (but not in the U.S.!), can be related to Paul’s
writings on Christians being of one spiritual body in Christ Jesus, the tight
link between solidarity and social policy, such as affordable housing for the
poor, puts the word solidarity firmly in the domain of politics rather
than religion. Jesus’ conception of neighbor-love, or benevolentia
universalis, in interpersonal in nature, rather than communal, as in the
solidarity of a people. Likewise, the Gospels’ espousal of “love thy neighbor”
would lose its flavor if put in terms of the political concept of the
common good. “Let us learn, then,” the pope said on his visit, “to be rich in a
different way: more attentive to relationships, more intent on fostering the
common good, more attached to the local area, more grateful in welcoming
and integrating those who come to live among us.”[5]
In reference to land, the common good harkens back to land that towns separated
off from private property for public use. Your horse could feed on the
grass there, but not in your neighbor’s front yard! This is a civic rather than
a theological distinction.
To be sure, the pope was on
firmer ground in referring to interpersonal relationships and even on
marginalizing certain people, for “neighbor-love” exists between persons, and
Jesus in the Gospels advocates compassion to the marginalized, even a
prostitute (which is not Mary Magdalene). So the pope spoke closer to home
(i.e., the religious domain) in a specifically Christian motif in observing
that the “name ‘Terra dei Fuochi’ refers to the fires lit on the edges of
cities, sometimes by small, rejected and marginalized minorities of brothers
and sisters whom few know or value.”[6]
Compassionately reaching out to the human needs of another person, especially
when doing so is inconvenient because of dislike or even hatred, is the very substance
of the kingdom of God, according to the American theologian, Samuel Hopkins,
who was Jonathan Edwards’ protégé. So Jesus of the Gospels would be proud of
the pope for saying, “Marginalization always breeds insecurity: the steep path
s to combat marginalization, not the marginalized, to break the entire chain,
not to strike only its last link.”[7]
But the Christian way of breaking the entire chain is not through public
policy, but, rather, one person at a time, through compassionate reaching out
to value even as others are repudiating and distancing. Put another way, the Way
into the kingdom of Heaven within is not through public policy or even urging
solidarity for the common good. To be sure, it is easy to get sidetracked.
2. I am borrowing here from Pseudo-Dionysius, a sixth-century Christian theologian, who wrote on what I would call God’s radical transcendence. Relatedly, God has been thought of as being wholly other. In both of these characterizations, it follows that the domain of religion is not only distinct from every other domain, but also unique.
3. Pinto, “Pope Leo XIV Visits Southern Italy’s ‘Land of Fires’.”
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
