How can we harness popular religiosity in caring for the environment?
I fully but sadly agree with the editorial “Toxic display at mass piety” (1/18/24) and its respectful (mincing its words) but incisive observation of the utter lack or absence of discipline of many devotees’ nonchalant disposal of their waste materials (primarily plastics) amid frenetic expressions of popular religiosity. The 46 garbage trucks deployed to collect 128 metric tons of trash speak volumes about what Pope Francis calls a throwaway culture.
Interestingly, and if it is of any consolation, in the 2020 observance before its suspension due to the pandemic, Manila’s public services department reported that it deployed 68 garbage trucks to collect 330 metric tons of garbage. Quite an improvement, considering that there were an estimated 6.5 million attendees this year. Enough has been said about the planet becoming better off with less garbage in dump sites.
Given that the Catholic religion also teaches care for the environment as an integral part of devotion to the Black Nazarene, such an attitude of collective and habitual apathy is not easy to understand. What explains such apathy? To be sure, there are many explanations for this phenomenon.
Is it the failure to understand that their religion is not only about praying but also as a practical guide to daily living? Is it a case of personal devotion without catechesis? Is it a case of what social psychologists call social loafing, where many hands can powerfully diffuse or diminish responsibility without accountability?
Is it a failure of persuasive messaging? There are three ingredients of persuasion: the communicator, the message, and the audience. First, who is saying something makes a big difference. The religious leaders and environmental advocates must ask what else they need to do to become more credible and attractive messengers of “Laudato Si.” Second, what the messengers say, or the content of their message also matters. To persuade the devotees more effectively to care more for the environment, they may need to evoke good feelings about doing good for the environment or arouse fear if they continue their indifference. Third, who receives the message also matters. For example, their age, gender, educational achievements, and socioeconomic status influence their response to the call. Thus, a one-size-fits-all approach may no longer be practical but must be tailored to the intended recipients’ needs and conditions.
The more pressing question is: How can we harness this tremendous collective religiosity as a positive force in caring for Mother Earth and building a more just and humane society? However, in particular, the millions of devotees need to ask themselves how they can blend so much religious fervor with a personal and collective commitment to save our environment.
Noel G. Asiones,
