Nothing to Stand For
Ex Voto
King Charles, Laudato Si', and the moment JD Vance could not affirm even the simplest claim about the natural world
Karen Elizabeth Park
May 04, 2026
There was an awkward moment during King Charles’s address to Congress last week, one that was barely noticed and only briefly discussed before it was dismissed as a “childish snub.” However, before it completely disappears into the constant churn of supposedly minor controversies, it is worth lingering over for a moment. During his speech, King Charles addressed many topics having to do with the shared history of support and diplomacy between the UK and the US. He spoke about the upcoming 25th anniversary of 9/11, his Christian faith, and his desire for peace. And toward the end of his speech, he spoke briefly about the natural world, saying:
(A)s we look toward the next 250 years, we must also reflect on our shared responsibility to safeguard nature, our most precious and irreplaceable asset.
At this point, everyone in the chamber applauded, and then stood—except one very visible person seated just behind the King: JD Vance. Vance sat stubbornly stone faced, refusing to either applaud or stand, even as Speaker Johnson, seated to his left, nodded appreciatively, clapped, and took to his feet—looking over at Vance quizzically.
snip
Not surprisingly, there’s a religious angle here. Charles’s language in this short section of his speech, sounds remarkably close to that of Laudato Si’. Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical in which he endeavored to “address every person living on this planet.” Laudato Si’ is often treated as a document about environmental policy. It is not. Its claims are not actually about policy, they are instead about both theology and anthropology. In sum: human beings do not stand outside the world they inhabit, but within a created order that both precedes them and, importantly, places limits upon them.
But Vance isn’t big on limits when it comes to the environment and its exploitation. He opposes nearly all environmental regulations or alternative energy solutions to address climate change. And, importantly, his rhetoric consistently treats the natural world as something to be dominated. It is therefore not enough to say that Vance puts profits or corporations before people, because he regularly opposes alternative energy industries that would create jobs and make people money. What he objects to are any limits whatsoever on the right to destroy and dominate the earth and its resources—which is why it is clear that his refusal to stand last week is a statement about his theology as much as his politics.
Full article
https://open.substack.com/pub/karenelizabethpark/p/nothing-to-stand-for