U.S. Catholic bishops’ silence and denialism on climate change

Pope Francis’ (2015) ecological encyclical Laudato Si’ was a landmark document that expanded existing Catholic teachings on the urgent need to address climate change. Many scholars hoped it would catalyze robust climate action (Brulle and Antonio 2015, Carvalho 2015, Editors 2015, McNutt 2015). Much of this optimism was rooted in assessments by scholars that religion can uniquely catalyze climate action (Veldman et al 2014) and Catholicism is distinctively positioned to address the climate crisis (Dasgupta et al 2015) through many powerful institutional features. These include a community of more than 70 million followers in the U.S. and one billion globally (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate 2021); a hierarchical leadership structure to disseminate papal teachings about environmental and climate justice; a vast system of schools and parishes to educate millions of persons about climate science, ethics, socioeconomics, and policy; advocacy networks to support climate legislation; and an expansive grid of land, buildings, and investments to support renewable energy and energy conservation (DiLeo 2020).

Research has shown that Laudato Si’ impacted individuals’ concerns about climate change, but those impacts were polarized by politics. In the U.S., Pope Francis’s climate change teachings were positively correlated with increased concerns about climate change (Maibach et al 2015). Among those previously concerned about climate change, there was also a positive correlation between encyclical exposure and climate activism (Myers et al 2017). However, responses among both U.S. Catholics and non-Catholics were impacted by political ideology. Politically conservative Catholics discredited papal climate change teaching (Li et al 2016). Catholic Democrats were more likely than Catholic Independents to support climate change policies following review of stories that mentioned Pope Francis (Myrick and Comfort 2019). Irrespective of religion, Democrats and liberals/progressives were more likely to embrace the pope and his climate change teachings while Republicans and conservatives were more likely to resist the pope and these teachings (Landrum et al 2017, Schuldt et al 2017, Landrum and Vasquez 2020). These findings are consistent with scholarship that the biggest predictors of climate change beliefs are political identity and ideology in the United States, and that Republicans and conservatives are more skeptical of climate change and less supportive of mitigative actions (Kahan et al 2012, Hornsey et al 2016, Leiserowitz et al 2018).

It remains unknown how politics mediated responses to Laudato Si’ among U.S. Catholic bishops. Bishops lead geographic segments of the Catholic Church within which they have a duty to communicate and implement Church teaching (Second Vatican Council 1964, 1965). Since dioceses administer Catholic parishes, schools, facilities, wealth, and policies that can communicate and enact the climate teachings of Laudato Si’, bishops’ embrace of the encyclical is thus important to fully realizing its potential to spark social action on climate change. The Vatican explicitly stated that ‘bishops should promote Laudato si’’ in their dioceses (Vatican Radio 2016).

However, over the past several decades—first under Pope John Paul II (1978–2005) and continued under Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013)—U.S. bishops are generally recognized to have become more religiously conservative (Gillis 2020, Tentler 2020), politically conservative (Reese 2010, Schlumpf 2019, Rocca and Lovett 2021), likely to identify as Republican (Gelm 1990), sympathetic to Republican leaders (Danielsen et al 2021), and widely viewed as aligned with the Republican party (Quinn 2009, Gehring 2015, NCR Editorial Staff 2020). This comprehensive religious-political shift is consistent with strengthened correlation between religious and political ideology in the post-World War II U.S. Wuthnow (1988)—a phenomenon that was additionally fueled among Catholics and Republicans following the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade (Millies 2018) and has since been documented among at least one subset of U.S. Catholic priests (Levesque and Siptroth 2005) and the wider U.S. Catholic population (O’Brien and Abdelhadi 2020). It is also congruent with increased religious conservatism (Greeley 2004), political conservatism, and Republican identification among U.S. priests from among whom many current bishops have been chosen (Jelen 1993, 2003, Stammer 1994, Watanbe 2002).

Especially considering conservative U.S. Catholics generally prioritized partisan orthodoxy over papal authority in response to Laudato Si’ (Li et al 2016), U.S. bishops around the encyclical may have experienced tension around their political ideology, identity, and responsibility to communicate Church teachings on climate change. This seems especially likely since in the U.S., conservative white men have been found more likely to deny climate change than other persons (McCright and Dunlap 2011), white Catholics have been found less likely than Hispanic Catholics to affirm the reality of climate change or attribute global warming to human activities (Funk and Alper 2015), and the U.S. bishops are all men among whom 88% were white in 2016 (Fichter et al 2019). Further, a network of conservative thinktanks, nonprofits, and individuals fund and perpetuate climate denial (Brulle 2014, Farrell 2015) and U.S. bishops are variously connected with politically active wealthy conservative persons and entities (Gehring 2017, NCR Editorial Staff 2019, Roberts 2019). Since Laudato Si’ was the most authoritative Catholic teaching document published during our timeframe and should have preeminently influenced the content of bishops’ teachings, this raises the question: Have U.S. bishops communicated Catholic climate teachings around Laudato Si’? Or have they failed their duty to communicate Church teachings on climate change?

To answer this question, we compiled 12 077 columns published before and after Laudato Si’ by ordinary bishops ³ in official diocesan publications from 171 of the 178 U.S. dioceses. We assessed the quantitative frequency and qualitative features of their climate change discussions. Our data collection and content analysis methods were informed by the best practices in content analysis and grounded theory approaches. There is little research that has systematically quantified discourse on climate change among American religious leaders (but see Danielsen 2013 on Evangelical Protestant environmental discourse) and we know of none since 2014 to which we can compare our findings. In the field of scholarship on U.S. Catholicism, we believe our dataset of bishop official diocesan publication columns is novel.

2.1. Hypotheses

2.2. Data

2.3. Content analysis methods

3.1. Hypothesis 1: as a group, U.S. Catholic bishops were generally silent about climate change

Hypothesis 1 is supported. Of 12 077 columns over five years, only 93 columns (0.8%) mentioned climate change. Most dioceses had no such columns: 118 (69%) of the 171 dioceses we assessed did not publish a column in which the bishop mentioned climate change (figure 1). Most bishops failed to teach about climate change: 148 (74%) of the 201 bishops who served a diocese in our dataset never once mentioned climate change. In the majority of dioceses, U.S. Catholics heard nothing about climate change from their local bishop in his official diocesan publication around Laudato Si’. As discussed in detail below, it is worth noting here that bishops were not silent about other social issues.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

3.2. Hypothesis 2a: as a group, when U.S. Catholic bishops did mention climate change, they diminished and distanced themselves from Church teaching on this issue

3.3. Hypothesis 2b: as a group, when U.S. Catholic bishops did mention climate change, they downplayed relevant parts of Laudato Si’ that conflict with a conservative political identity/ideology

Hypothesis 2b is supported. This was especially true regarding climate science, economics, and action. In Laudato Si’ (no. 23–25), Pope Francis reiterates Catholic teaching that affirms the scientific certainty of anthropogenic climate change and urgency of the climate crisis. Conversely, U.S. political conservatism has a documented history of ignoring and sowing doubt about the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause of climate change (Oreskes and Conway 2010, Mayer 2016, Leonard 2019). In our dataset, U.S. bishops engaged in these behaviors. Out of 12 077 columns, only 56 columns (0.46%) described climate change in terms that suggest it is real or currently happening. Of these 56 columns, 23 (41%) were published in the first three months after the encyclical’s release. These 56 columns were written by 36 different bishops scattered across the country (figure 2). Bishop Pates of Des Moines (Iowa) wrote the most such columns (seven). It is worth noting during our time span, Bishop Pates was the only bishop affiliated with Catholic Climate Covenant, the leading U.S. Catholic organization working to address climate change.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Out of 12 077 total columns, only 29 columns (0.24%) discussed climate changes as something that is urgent and only 14 columns (0.12%) discussed the general scientific consensus that climate change is real. Relatedly, six of the 93 columns that mentioned climate change provided readers with clear opportunities to deny the scientific reality or importance of global warming, through statements like ‘no matter your position on climate change, there are important truths in Laudato Si’.’

In Laudato Si’ (no. 109), Pope Francis supports scholarly analysis that the predominate cause of climate change is growth-based, deregulated neoliberal capitalism driven by a ‘treadmill of production’ and consumption that narrowly defines efficiency in terms of monetary profit and externalizes the socioecological costs of greenhouse gas pollution (Pelling et al 2012). This reading directly challenges orthodox conservative free-market economic philosophy (Klein 2014). Amidst this dissonance, bishops are nearly silent on Pope Francis’s teachings about the economic causes of climate change. Of the 56 columns that spoke about climate change as real, only two columns (4%) described this phenomenon as a result of our economic systems. Thus, the vast majority (96%) of columns that recognize climate change as real commit ‘ideological denialism’ which ‘involves recognizing climate change as a problem [something few bishops even do], yet fails to diagnose the root causes’ (Petersen et al 2019).

In Laudato Si’ (nos. 52–57, 163–198, 202–232), Pope Francis stresses the need for individual and collective environmental action that is both internal (e.g. prayer and education) and external (e.g. political). This approach reflects Catholic teaching that internal and external actions are complementary and essential. Although most U.S. adults believe religious groups should stay out of American politics (Gecewicz et al 2019), Francis’s writing also expresses Catholic teaching that the Church has ‘a right and a duty’ to participate in politics generally (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2019) and environmental politics specifically (Benedict 2010). Conversely, conservative Catholic theology often prioritizes interiority/spirituality over external systemic reform (Ahern 2015) and political conservatism generally resists state intervention and climate change policies in particular (Leiserowitz et al 2018).

Amidst these tensions, bishops who discussed climate change positively mentioned internal more often than external environmental action, especially the need for climate policies. Of the 93 columns that mention climate change, 73 columns (78%) mentioned internal action and 36 columns (39%) mentioned an external environmental action. Twenty of the 93 columns (22%) referenced environmental politics, which we defined as concrete policies or actions to influence policies. Only 14 columns specifically mentioned climate change politics (as opposed to general environmental politics) and only nine columns mentioned a particular climate change policy (e.g. Paris Agreement). Bishops’ relative silence on environmental politics is especially notable since they were not silent about politics on other social issues. Compared to the 14 columns on climate change politics, 284 columns mentioned abortion politics, 118 columns mentioned healthcare politics, and 93 columns mentioned immigration politics (figure 3).

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

The bishops arguably also indirectly undermined dialogue and action around Church teaching on climate change politics by framing climate change as socially controversial, e.g. as a topic that divides American society. Of the 93 columns that mention climate change, 28 columns (30%) discussed the phenomenon as a socially controversial topic. Eighteen columns (19% of 93 climate change columns) only addressed climate change in terms of its social controversy (i.e. did not also affirm the scientific consensus of climate change or recognize Church teaching on the issue). Notably, 11 of those 18 columns (61%) substantively addressed ecology (Depth = 3). Exclusive emphasis on climate change as socially controversial was thus not limited to bishops’ cursory ecological references. Since invocation of controversy may decrease dialogue (Chen and Berger 2013) that can mitigate polarization (Barthold 2020) of the sort preventing U.S. climate policy (Jaffe 2018), the bishops’ reification of social controversy may thus have indirectly inhibited discussion of Church teaching on climate change policy.

3.4. Hypothesis 2c: as a group, when U.S. Catholic bishops did mention climate change, they emphasized parts of Laudato Si’ that correspond to a conservative political identity/ideology

Hypothesis 2c is supported. Although U.S. Catholic bishops were overwhelmingly silent on climate change, they were not so silent about other social issues that are nearly or entirely absent from Laudato Si’ but have become identified priorities for U.S. political conservatives—especially abortion (Kurtzleben 2020) and religious freedom (Green 2017). Compared to the 93 columns that mentioned climate change, 1036 columns mentioned abortion and 534 mentioned religious liberty or religious freedom (figure 4). This is notable since Laudato Si’ mentions climate change 24 times but only mentions abortion once and never mentions religious liberty or religious freedom. Although Laudato Si’ mentions climate change 24 times more than abortion, the bishops mentioned the issues with equal frequency in the context of the encyclical. Out of 211 bishop columns that referenced Laudato Si’, an equal number (59 columns) mentioned abortion or pro-life (a term that for many Catholics is solely synonymous with abortion opposition) as mentioned climate change.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Thus, although climate change was a preeminent focus of Laudato Si’, the U.S. Catholic bishops disproportionately lifted up their own priorities generally and in the presence of Laudato Si’ specifically. Interestingly, the conservative Fox News Channel—widely known for promoting climate change skepticism (Feldman et al 2012, Hoewe et al 2020)—employed a similar ‘issue diversion’ tactic in its coverage of Laudato Si’ to manage the dissonance between Pope Francis’s climate change teachings and conservative political identity/ideology (Tandoc et al 2018). This is particularly notable since in 2016, 47% of U.S. bishop survey respondents said Fox News Channel was as their primary source of cable news (Fichter et al 2019).

Our study offers the first comprehensive, systematic analysis of U.S. Catholic bishops’ discussion of climate change around Laudato Si’ and tests four hypotheses based on existing research that (a) political conservatism is associated with climate denial and negative reactions to Laudato Si’ and (b) U.S. Catholic bishops as a group are generally politically conservative. Using a dataset of 12 077 columns published by U.S. Catholic bishops in official diocesan publications around Laudato Si’, we found all hypotheses were supported. As a group, U.S. Catholic bishops were generally silent about climate change (Hypothesis 1). When they did mention climate change, the U.S. Catholic bishops often undermined Church teaching on the topic (Hypothesis 2a), downplayed relevant parts of Laudato Si’ that conflicted with political conservatism (Hypothesis 2b), and emphasized parts of Laudato Si’ that correspond to political conservatism (Hypothesis 2c).

Our findings do not definitively show that U.S. Catholic bishops’ political conservatism was the single or even primary cause of their silence on climate change or skewed teachings around Laudato Si’. Correlation does not prove causation and there could be other reasons for why bishops communicated as they did. For example, some bishops in the 1980s likely did not speak about the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ two documents on peace/war and economics because of perceived personal lack of topical technical expertise and fear of pushback from Catholics in their diocese (DiLeo 2015). Thus, it is conceivable that some bishops did not speak on climate change around Laudato Si’ primarily for similar reasons. It is also worth noting that some bishops generally viewed as politically conservative did speak on climate change while some bishops widely recognized as politically progressive did not speak on climate change—sometimes very often, sometimes at all.

Nevertheless, our findings demonstrate that around Laudato Si’ U.S. Catholic bishops were silent on and distorted Church climate change teaching. This research supports existing literature that political identity/ideology is the strongest predictor of climate change beliefs and conservatism positively correlates with climate change skepticism (Kahan et al 2012, Hornsey et al 2016, Leiserowitz et al 2018). Relatedly, our findings extend this literature by showing these phenomena appears true among religious leaders. Our findings also offer a potential new, religious illustration of the theoretical ‘conspiracy of silence, whereby a group of people tacitly agree to outwardly ignore something of which they are all personally aware’ (Zerubavel 2006). In this case, the U.S. bishops were undoubtedly aware of the climate change teachings in Laudato Si’ but overwhelmingly chose to ignore them.

Since silence about climate change can be a form of denial (Washington and Cook 2011), the bishops’ silence regarding Church teachings on climate change can plausibly be taken as such. This is especially so given the history of climate denial by Republicans and other political conservatives with whom the bishops identify as well as the bishops’ aforementioned engagement in ‘ideological denialism’ (Petersen et al 2019). Considering U.S. bishops are connected with politically active wealthy conservative persons and entities (Gehring 2017, NCR Editorial Staff 2019, Roberts 2019), our findings also raise significant questions about the relationships between U.S. Catholic bishops specifically and religion more broadly to the network of conservative thinktanks, nonprofits, and individuals that fund and perpetuate climate denial (Brulle 2014, Farrell 2015).

Amidst these questions, our findings contribute to research that climate denialism is spread by organizations (e.g. Supran and Oreskes (2017) on ExxonMobil). However, our work expands this literature by showing that organizational climate denial appears to exist within a religious organization whose leader emphasized the reality of and urgency to act on climate change. This invites scholars to apply environmental communications and organizational sociology research that has been done on companies (Allen 2016) to religious institutions. This seems especially relevant to our findings since the Catholic Church in many ways mirrors the scope and structure of a transnational corporation (Lin 2018).

Many hoped Laudato Si’ would ignite action to mitigate the climate crisis. However, our findings indicate individual U.S. Catholic bishops’ diocesan communications have collectively snuffed out the spark of Laudato Si’. Consistent with our hypotheses, we found that U.S. Catholic bishops’ political conservatism correlates with silence, denial, and biased communications of Church climate change teachings in their official diocesan publications around Laudato Si’.

We encourage future research into how political conservatives, such as U.S. bishops, may come to accept and prioritize climate change despite Republican Party resistance. We also encourage scholars to assess diocesan activities related to climate change, which would complement our research on bishops’ communication. A bishop may have led his diocese to take practical climate action while remaining silent on the issue in his diocesan publication columns. Scholars could also examine bishops’ climate action and communication over time, especially around the Vatican’s new Laudato Si’ Action Platform (Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development 2021) and the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference that Pope Francis will attend (Pullella 2021) and in which the U.S. bishops are accredited to participate (Krantz 2021). Future research could additionally compare bishops’ climate action and communication to those of leaders from other Catholic institutions, such as parish priests, university presidents, and hospital CEOs. If these leaders are more committed to Catholic climate change teaching than bishops, activists might prioritize working with them. Finally, scholars and activists could both explore how lobbying and nonviolent action strategies from political and social sciences could inform those still willing to directly engage bishops. This would build on recent calls from two Catholic cardinals for Catholics to communicate with their bishop about climate change (Roewe 2021a, 2021b).

This research was supported by the Louisville Institute Project Grant for Researchers, the George F Haddix President’s Faculty Research Fund at Creighton University, and the Kripke Center for the Study of Religion and Society at Creighton University. The authors thank the staff at many dioceses and libraries for their generous gift of time and knowledge. The following people provided helpful feedback that strengthened our final paper: anonymous peer-reviewers, Pierce Greenberg, Katharine Hayhoe, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, and Ryan Wishart.

The data generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available for legal/ethical reasons but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.