One of the leading encyclicals penned by Pope Francis and released June 18, 2015, is Laudato Si’: On the Care for Our Common Home. Since its publication, this encyclical letter continues to enjoy wide readership and discussion within pastoral and academic settings. The encyclical's topic is climate change and inequality, a major reality affecting planet Earth. The encyclical focuses on large questions pertaining to the relationships among God, humans, and the Earth. Joining in the discussion is theologian Daniel R. DiLeo, who brings together twelve scholars from different theological backgrounds to create a volume that responds to Laudato Si’ from a variety of perspectives.

DiLeo divides his compendium into five sections: part 1, “Background and Reception”; part 2, “The Cosmos”; part 3, “Integral Ecology”; part 4: “Ecological Conversion”; and part 5: “Catholic Social Ethics.” The volume outlines the theological and sociological contexts from which Laudato Si’ emerged and its reception, explores Francis's understanding of nature, history, and the future of the universe, unpacks the concept of “integral ecology” and scholars’ use of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to understanding the interconnectedness of all things that exist, offers reflections on how people can respond to the challenges posed by the encyclical, and considers Laudato Si’ in the context of Catholic social teaching. The rich and succinct contributions within each section incorporate thought not only from theological perspectives but also from science, sociology, cosmology, mysticism, and, of course, ecology.

While all sections and chapters of the volume make substantial contributions to the conversations on Laudato Si’, the two parts that are, perhaps, most beneficial to readers are 1 and 4. Part 1 contextualizes Laudato Si’ to emphasize that since 1967, the time of Paul VI, the condition of the planet remains a major pontifical concern. Laudato Si’, however, is the first encyclical to deal squarely with the degradation of the planet, specifically, the causes, effects, mindsets, structures, and economic systems at the root of planetary devastation, and to define the challenges facing humanity and the changes needed if the course of destruction is to be reversed and the planet healed. To this end, the section on “Ecological Conversion” is the most compelling. It presents a major needed shift in human consciousness, namely the shift to an ecological consciousness, and a call to embrace not only certain qualities accompanying this shift but also a new ecological virtue ethics. In my view, the contributions in part 4 are visionary while capturing the vision of Francis for a flourishing planet.

All of the essays celebrate Francis's thought in Laudato Si’. They read with the encyclical's grain. What would push the ecological and theological fields further, as well as papal thought, is to read against the grain of the encyclical to challenge Francis's vision even further. For instance, the encyclical's use and incorporation of Scripture reflects the method of proof texting and not a critical hermeneutical approach that could strengthen this and other church proclamations. Another example is Francis's and the contributors’ repeated call for humanity to care for the planet when, in fact, this stance continues an anthropocentric posture that places the human in charge over the natural world without deference to the fact that the relationship is one of mutuality. Francis understands this point in the encyclical, but his expression of it at times signals a bifurcation in thought still in need of transformation. One last example is the economic one. Consider that electric car batteries are made from the resources of African nations, mined by wealthy nations to create environmentally friendly alternatives that only wealthy people can afford and enrich the profits of many empire nations’ companies. If another section were added that critiques Francis's thought more deeply, rigorously, and broadly within the global geopolitical economic realities, then readers would understand the heated economic debates around climate change and come to realize that the world's oligarchs could reverse our environmental course if they wanted to.

In sum, DiLeo's volume is inspiring but both the contributors’ and Francis's thought do not push hard enough against the economic and political powers at work that control and determine the course of our planet.