The International Theological Commission (ITC) has published this Wednesday, September 2, the document Caring for Our Common Home: A Responsible and Fraternal Response to the Triune God, a comprehensive text dedicated to offering a specifically Christian foundation for the care of creation and to situating the current ecological crisis within the relationship of humanity with God, with neighbor, and with the created world.
Among its most significant formulations, the Commission proposes using the expression “sin against creation and against the Creator” instead of terms such as “ecocide” and considers that the formula “ecological sin,” employed in recent years, does not express with sufficient clarity the properly theological dimension of the issue. The ITC thus links damage to creation not only with its environmental consequences, but also with the mandate received by humanity to care for it.
The document also addresses the limits that Christian anthropology finds in certain ecological conceptions. It rejects both a “predatory anthropocentrism”, which considers humanity the absolute owner of creation, and biocentrism and ecocentrism when they eliminate the singularity of the human person. In contrast to both extremes, it presents humanity as steward and servant of creation.
A Document Prepared Between 2022 and 2026
The text is the result of several years of work by the International Theological Commission. A subcommittee chaired by Alenka Arko studied during the tenth quinquennium of the ITC creation in light of the revelation of the Triune God and its relationship with the responsibility to care for the “Common Home.”
The work was carried out both in the meetings of this subcommittee and in the plenary sessions of the Commission held between 2022 and 2025, under the coordination of the Secretary General, Monsignor Piero Coda. The resulting document was approved by a majority of the ITC members through a vote held on July 23, 2026.
Subsequently, the President of the Commission and Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, presented the text to Leo XIV on July 28. Fernández authorized its publication on August 21.
The Commission clarifies from the beginning that its purpose is not to offer technical responses to environmental problems. Those solutions, it notes, are “complex and necessarily interdisciplinary.” Its contribution aims to provide a vision capable of inspiring culture and, especially, spirituality, delving into theological aspects that occupied a lesser space in Laudato si’.
The document is structured in three major chapters. The first studies the “Common Home” as the work of the Triune God and engages with certain scientific and philosophical conceptions of the cosmos; the second analyzes the place of the human being in creation and environmental degradation; and the third sets forth theological and ethical principles for its care, as well as addressing the contribution of other religions.
From “Ecological Sin” to “Sin Against Creation and Against the Creator”
One of the central sections of the document is dedicated to theologically formulating moral responsibility for the degradation of creation.
The Commission recalls the precedents existing in the Magisterium. Saint John Paul II already used the expression “grave sin against the natural environment,” while Francis referred to “ecological sin.” The final document of the Synod for the Amazon subsequently proposed defining the latter as an action or omission against God, neighbor, community, and the environment.
The ITC now considers a different formulation preferable:
“We propose to understand this sin against the Common Home as sin against creation and against the Creator, insofar as it violates the meaning of creation willed by God the Creator.”
The Commission explains that it deliberately seeks “a formulation that is clearly theological”, privileging concepts proper to the faith over others coming from different spheres, such as “ecocide.” In its judgment, the expression “ecological sin” also does not sufficiently manifest that alongside the harm caused to nature there exists “the ignorance or even the rejection of the Creator’s design.”
The document maintains that God has entrusted humanity with the mission of caring for and perfecting creation and adds:
“Not doing so, through actions or omissions, is disobedience to God.”
The ITC links this responsibility with three dimensions: the relationship with God the Creator, with neighbor, and with creation itself. Insufficient care for the “Common Home,” it maintains, not only harms creation, but especially harms “the poorest and future generations.”
Neither “Predatory Anthropocentrism” nor Biocentrism
Another significant part of the document seeks to clarify the place that corresponds to the human being within creation. The ITC rejects two extremes that it considers incompatible with Christian anthropology.
The first is the so-called “predatory anthropocentrism”, which conceives humanity as “absolute owner of all creation.” According to the document, this position generates a dynamic of violence and exploitation because it ceases to be regulated by respect for nature, neighbor, and God the Creator.
The Commission rejects, however, that the response consists in equating humanity with all other forms of life. It expressly questions certain radical manifestations of biocentrism and ecocentrism that replace the human being with the ecosystem or with life considered as a whole “without recognizing the differentiated value among its various forms.”
For the ITC, this radical egalitarianism can lead to conclusions incompatible with the Christian faith:
“The denial of the singularity of the human being, proper to these points of view, leads to conclusions impossible to accept for the Christian faith.”
Among them, it mentions considering the death of large numbers of people as something positive for the well-being of other creatures or denying any reasonable and regulated use of non-human beings for the benefit of humanity.
The document also warns that an absolutization of nature can open the way to “a new form of pantheism tinged with neopaganism”. In contrast, it maintains the difference of identity and value between the human person, “direct interlocutor of God,” and other living beings. Humanity must act as responsible steward of creation: a function that “must not be abused, but from which one also cannot abdicate.”
Human Life Has a “Sacred Value”
This distinction leads the Commission to expressly reaffirm the singular dignity of the person.
“Human life has a sacred value,” the document affirms, because it constitutes a divine gift and is called to communion with God. The ITC indicates that this is the reason why the human being is unique with respect to the rest of living beings and his or her life always constitutes a good.
From this affirmation derives, according to the text, that human beings possess an “unconditional and inalienable right to life”, which “must be protected and promoted by States and at all levels and by all moral agents.”
The Commission links this defense of life with the whole of its conception of ecology. The promotion of human life, it explains, is not limited to safeguarding biological existence, but requires guaranteeing persons, families, and peoples access to the goods necessary to live in accordance with their dignity. At this point, it recovers the traditional principle of the universal destination of goods.
Technology, Economy, and Political Responsibility
The ITC identifies among the causes of the ecological crisis the so-called “technocratic paradigm,” but does not present technology as an evil in itself.
“Technology can and must be used respecting the environment and at the service of the common good,” the document states. The Commission recalls that technology has accompanied humanity from its origins and maintains that the current economic regime is the result of human decisions and not an inevitable reality.
Responsibility for environmental degradation is also not limited to individual behavior. The ITC indicates that damages can transcend far beyond “the levels of individual, family, and small community responsibility” and affect the lifestyles of entire societies and the economic and development decisions made by actors with greater capacity for influence.
In this context, the document includes an intervention by Leo XIV according to which environmental justice represents a demand that “goes beyond the simple protection of the environment,” since it also affects “social, economic, and anthropological justice” and constitutes, for believers, “a theological demand.”
The ITC Calls for Differentiating the Responsibilities of Rich and Poor Countries
The document also addresses the international distribution of environmental responsibilities. The Commission starts from the fact that degradation has not been caused to the same extent by all human groups and countries and does not harm all equally.
For this reason, it considers it just that the most demanding ecological policies be applied with greater rigor to those who most harm the “Common Home” or have done so historically. At the same time, it calls for taking local circumstances into account to determine which policies are priorities.
The ITC expressly warns:
“It would be unjust for the richest countries to impose unsustainable and un-solidary burdens on the poorest countries.”
The Commission considers it incoherent to demand that poor countries preserve large natural spaces while the richest societies are not willing to reduce levels of living and consumption that contribute to environmental degradation.
War, Natural Resources, and Environmental Destruction
The relationship between armed conflicts and the destruction of creation also occupies space in the document.
In reconstructing the antecedents of its formulation on “sin against creation and against the Creator,” the ITC includes words from Leo XIV about situations in which nature becomes “an instrument of exchange” or a good used to obtain economic or political advantages.
The text mentions as examples agricultural areas and forests made dangerous by the placement of mines, “scorched earth” policies, conflicts over water sources, and the unequal distribution of raw materials, which especially harms the weakest populations.
The effective protection of the right to life also leads the Commission to demand the rejection of recourse to war and the search for alternative ways to resolve conflicts.
Asceticism, Fasting, and “Ecological Conversion”
The proposals of the document are not limited to public policies. The third chapter sets forth a Christian response articulated from the relationship with God, with oneself, with creation, and with neighbor.
Among the principles indicated appear reverence before creation, responsible care, listening to the “cry of the Earth and the poor,” respect for life, asceticism and fasting, fraternity, mercy, and the preferential option for the poor.
Asceticism and fasting are presented as practices that simultaneously express one’s own limitation before God, solidarity with others and with future generations, respect for creation, and the capacity to control desires to orient life in accordance with values freely and responsibly chosen.
The document also resorts to the biblical institution of the Jubilee to relate divine mercy, social justice, and care for the earth. The ITC recalls the restitution of lands and their periodic rest and indicates that the biblical practice establishes a relationship between God, neighbor, and the earth: “mercy,” “restitution,” and “rest.”
Collaboration with Other Religions
The final section of the document analyzes the possible contribution of other religious traditions to the care of creation.
The Commission identifies some common elements, although it specifies that they are not present in the same way in all religions: the unity and interconnection of what exists, the duty of respect and compassion toward beings, and the particular responsibility of humanity in the care of the world.
The ITC considers that many of these elements, “in their fundamental ethical core,” are compatible with the Christian vision and concludes that, from the perspective of the Catholic faith, “the doors are open to interreligious collaboration” in the care of creation.
The Care of Creation as a Theological Question
The conclusion returns to the thesis that runs through the entire document: the ecological question must not be addressed solely as a scientific, economic, or political problem.
The Commission presents creation as the work of the Triune God and humanity not as the absolute owner of the world nor as an undifferentiated element of the ecosystem, but as a creature endowed with a singular dignity to which God has entrusted a specific responsibility.
The ITC maintains that God places human beings in creation “as his representatives and direct interlocutors” and entrusts them with the task of caring for it. To fulfill this responsibility, it considers it necessary to resort both to “the most accredited scientific knowledge and technical capacities” and to the ethical and spiritual principles derived from the relationship with God, with neighbor, with creation, and with oneself.
The new document expressly situates itself in continuity with Laudato si’, but the Commission identifies as its own contribution the deepening of the theological foundations of the care of the “Common Home”, especially from Trinitarian doctrine, Christian anthropology, and the moral consideration of the harm caused to creation.