A Sin Against Creation
ECHOES OF THE AMAZON PINK DOLPHIN
23/09/2026
The Cuyabeno Must Not Become a Chronicle of a Death Foretold
By
With gratitude to Xandra, our edelweiss, whose gentle insistence brought this article into being.
There are moments when new words allow an old wrong to be seen more clearly.
The Amazon helped Pope Francis bring the destruction of the natural world into the moral conscience of the Church. In Laudato si’, and later through the Amazon Synod, he joined the cry of the Earth to the cry of the poor and made clear that neither could be heard in isolation.
Under Pope Leo XIV, that teaching has acquired a more explicit theological expression. The International Theological Commission, in a document published with his authorisation, has proposed naming grave ecological wrongdoing for what it also represents within the Christian faith: a sin against creation and the Creator.
This is not merely a change of language. It marks a moral progression from recognising the sacred worth of the natural world to identifying the responsibility of those who knowingly destroy it—or who possess the power to prevent its destruction and decline to act.
In the Cuyabeno, those words are no longer theology alone. They have entered the water—water now carrying oilfield contamination through one of the most biodiverse tracts of rainforest on Earth.
Francis and the Meaning of Dominion
The language of ecological sin required the Church first to confront a more ancient question: what did God mean when humanity was given dominion over the Earth?
In the first chapter of Genesis, humanity is instructed to “fill the earth and subdue it” and to “have dominion” over other living beings. Read apart from the rest of Scripture, those words can appear to confer divine permission to possess, control and exploit. They have at times sustained the belief that the natural world was created principally for human use and that converting it into wealth therefore exercises, rather than violates, a divinely granted authority.
An obligation of care was gradually made to resemble a deed of ownership.
In Laudato si’, Pope Francis confronted that interpretation directly. He acknowledged that Christians had at times interpreted Scripture incorrectly and rejected the claim that dominion over the Earth justified absolute domination over other living beings. Genesis itself provides the correction: humanity is placed in the garden not merely to cultivate it, but to “till and keep it.” As Francis explained, tilling means working and cultivating; keeping means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving.
The distinction is fundamental. Humanity receives the fruits of the Earth, but never an unrestricted title to creation. “The earth is the Lord’s,” declares the Psalmist, while Leviticus speaks with still greater directness: “The land is mine.” What has been entrusted to humanity remains answerable to the Creator. Dominion therefore cannot mean the unrestricted authority of an owner. It is the responsibility of a trustee, answerable for the condition in which the gift is kept.
Francis’s correction reaches far beyond biblical interpretation. If creation belongs to God, its deliberate destruction cannot be justified as the exercise of a right supposedly granted to humanity. To claim absolute dominion is not to obey the Creator, but to take the Creator’s place.
That conclusion also unsettles the moral foundations of extractive economics. Forests, rivers, minerals and other forms of life can no longer be treated simply as resources awaiting conversion into human wealth. Economic use may be legitimate, but it cannot be separated from the obligation to protect the wider living systems upon which it depends. Creation possesses a worth that precedes the market and cannot be exhausted by the price placed upon it.
Here the teaching of Francis converges with SELVA’s Theory of Intact Ecosystems—TIES, an economic framework developed in response to conditions observed in the Amazon. Through economic reasoning, TIES recognises intact ecosystems as productive living systems whose value is generated continuously through water regulation, climate moderation, carbon storage, soil stability and biological diversity. Its central distinction is simple: intact ecosystems have a value; extractivism has a price.
Nowhere would the consequences of confusing responsibility with ownership become more visible than in the Amazon. There, the correction of a biblical interpretation encountered the physical consequences of extraction and dispossession. What Francis had established as a duty of care was moving towards a more exacting question: how should the Church name the acts—and the omissions—that destroy the conditions of life?
The Amazon Names the Sin
That movement acquired a more exact moral form during the 2019 Synod for the Amazon. Bishops, missionaries, lay participants and Indigenous representatives confronted the reality of a region in which oil pollution, mining, deforestation and the dispossession of communities had been treated as acceptable costs of development.
The assembly’s final document described the Amazon rainforest as a “biological heart” for an increasingly threatened Earth. Its forests and rivers influence rainfall and climate far beyond national boundaries. Yet it also exposed what was concealed beneath the language of progress: predatory extractivism governed by a logic of greed. Such projects concentrated economic and political power in the hands of a few and were often supported or permitted by governments.
From that reality emerged a decisive proposal. The Synod proposed defining ecological sin as an action or omission against God, one’s neighbour, the community and the environment. It encompassed not only acts of pollution and destruction, but failures of responsibility towards future generations and the relationships that sustain life.
The inclusion of omission transformed the moral argument. Responsibility no longer rested only with those who felled the forest, opened the mine or contaminated the water. It extended to those who knew that grave harm was occurring, possessed the authority to prevent or end it and declined to act. Knowledge created responsibility; authority created duty. Silence could become complicity.
The Amazon was therefore not an illustration appended to doctrine. Its wounded forests, poisoned rivers and threatened communities helped the Church recognise the inadequacy of a moral language limited to direct individual acts. Ecological destruction moved through living systems and chains of authority. Its causes were economic and political; its consequences were human, ecological and spiritual.
What Francis began by correcting the meaning of dominion, the Synod for the Amazon carried towards a definition of ecological sin. One further step remained: to name grave destruction not only as a sin committed within creation, but as a sin against creation and the Creator.
Leo XIV and the Moral Consequence
Under Pope Leo XIV, that further step has now been articulated. The moral journey that began with Francis’s correction of humanity’s claim to dominion, and continued through the Synod for the Amazon’s proposal to define ecological sin, has reached a more exacting expression.
Leo has not allowed the ecological teaching of Francis to become merely an honoured inheritance. His pontificate has carried it within a wider defence of human dignity and peace. He has placed against the violence of the present age the possibility of a peace that is “unarmed and disarming.” In Magnifica Humanitas, he affirmed that human dignity does not depend upon ability, wealth or position, but is a gift that precedes every human achievement.
His defence of creation belongs within that same moral vision. Human beings and the natural world are not disposable because they are vulnerable, nor do the powerful acquire the right to sacrifice them because doing so is expedient. Power does not provide its own moral justification; it increases responsibility for how that power is used.
It was within this wider understanding that the International Theological Commission published Caring for Our Common Home: A Responsible and Fraternal Response to the Triune God with the authorisation of Pope Leo XIV. Developed between 2022 and 2025, it is the work of the Commission, not a text written by Leo. That distinction is essential: the document does not carry the same authority as papal teaching. Its publication with Leo’s authorisation nevertheless places its proposal before the Church as a serious theological development under his pontificate.
The document proposes speaking of grave ecological wrongdoing as a “sin against Creation and against the Creator.” Those words change the moral field. The offence is not confined to damage inflicted upon a resource presumed to belong to humanity. It also represents a refusal of the Creator’s intended purpose for creation and therefore implicates humanity’s relationship with God.
Francis corrected the interpretation that had allowed dominion to become domination. The Synod for the Amazon proposed that ecological sin could be committed through action or omission. The Commission’s document, published with Leo’s authorisation, carries the reasoning further: grave wrongdoing against creation may also be understood as an offence against the Creator.
Where the Words Enter the Water
Yasuní and the Cuyabeno are where that theological proposal encounters a living world. Both lie within the western Amazon, one of Earth’s richest regions of biological diversity, but each reveals the conflict between protection and extraction in a different form. Their forests, wetlands and rivers lie within Ecuadorian jurisdiction; the waters they carry, the carbon they store and the life they sustain do not remain within national frontiers.
Yasuní, designated a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in 1989, has become the better-known symbol of this inheritance and its vulnerability: a forest of extraordinary biological and cultural diversity standing above immense petroleum reserves. The Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve is no less significant.
One of Ecuador’s largest protected areas, it safeguards an exceptionally rich complex of rivers, lagoons, wetlands and flooded rainforest. Here, the conflict between protection and extraction is expressed through water: through lagoons that rise and recede with the seasons, rivers passing through inundated forest, and currents that carry life—and whatever threatens it—beyond boundaries drawn on land.
It is here that the language of a sin against creation and the Creator acquires physical meaning. Contamination released into such a place does not remain where it first enters the water. It travels through the relationships that constitute the ecosystem: from river to lagoon, from sediment to fish, from fish to dolphin, and from the water into the bodies and lives of the people who depend upon it. In the Cuyabeno, an act committed in one place becomes a wound distributed through an entire living world.
When the Lake Exhaled
To understand what such a wound means, we must return to the Cuyabeno before the present emergency—to one of its lakes, and to an encounter that revealed why destruction there could never be measured only in hectares, barrels or money. Entering the water was to surrender certainty before understanding could begin. Its coolness closed around the body, refreshing and almost weightless, while the reassurance of knowing what was near quietly receded.
At first sight, the lake appeared dark, holding the reflection of the flooded rainforest until sky, trees and depth became difficult to separate. Yet when we cupped the water in our hands, it was crystal clear. The darkness belonged to the lake, not to the water itself.
The air carried the damp scent of river mud and wet leaves. Insects pulsed in the forest; unseen birds called across the lagoon; now and then, something moved among the branches or disturbed the surface before slipping from view. Black caiman inhabited the banks; anacondas moved between river and flooded rainforest; beneath us were piranhas, electric eels, stingrays and other lives concealed by water that gave almost nothing away. There were, it must be admitted, less complicated places in which to dive.
We moved farther from the shore, conscious of what surrounded us and of the apprehension such knowledge brought. The water pressed against the skin. The trees seemed very close, yet much of their living abundance remained beyond sight. In the Cuyabeno, one did not enter the water carelessly.
Then the lake exhaled.
A sudden breath broke the stillness. Beside us, a dolphin rose clear of the water, suspended for an instant between the dark lagoon and the green immensity of the forest—grey touched with rose, then unmistakably pink as the light reached it. For that moment, the living Amazon seemed to have risen to breathe. The sound remained in the air after the dolphin had submerged. Others surfaced nearby, emerging and returning to the depths as though moving between two different worlds.
Until then, the Amazon pink dolphin had belonged more readily to imagination than to experience. Yet there it was, breathing the same air and moving beside us. Its presence carried an evolutionary history almost as remarkable as the encounter itself: ancestry in the ocean, followed over immense reaches of time by adaptation to the rivers, lagoons and flooded rainforest of the Amazon. A marine inheritance had become a life inseparable from the forest and its waters.
From below came the dolphins’ clicking—the pulses of echolocation through which they perceived a realm closed to our senses. They slipped beneath us and returned, their colour shifting between grey, rose and pink as they passed through shadow and reflected light. They appeared peaceful, intelligent and almost joyful. Whether they intended to protect us, we cannot know. But in a place where caution was never optional, their presence gave us the unmistakable feeling of being accompanied—and perhaps protected.
The inhabitants we had feared remained where they had been, and unseen movement continued beneath us. The danger had not lessened; our relationship to it had changed. The lake was no safer than before, but we no longer felt alone.
Here was creation in one of its most astonishing forms. The dolphin’s existence required no economic justification: its value preceded any usefulness humanity might assign to it. Yet its survival depended upon everything beneath and around each brief breath—clean water, abundant fish, connected rivers and flooded rainforest. To protect the pink dolphin was therefore to defend the living whole of which it formed a part.
That experience gave life to SELVA’s emblem. The Amazon pink dolphin became not merely a species to be defended but a presence that had transformed apprehension into trust. What Francis described as creation entrusted to humanity rather than owned by it had surfaced beside us and drawn breath. The reality now given more exact moral expression under Leo—that grave destruction may be understood as a sin against creation and the Creator—was before us in body, colour and breath.
Now, in the contaminated waters of the Cuyabeno, that relationship has been reversed. Once, the dolphins made us feel protected. Today, the duty to protect them belongs to us.
The Test in the Cuyabeno
The meaning of that duty became concrete on 5 May 2026, when the casing of Petroecuador’s Cuyabeno 4 reinjection well (CUY-04RW) failed within the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve, allowing produced water to escape. During a subsequent field inspection, a Petroecuador representative confirmed both the casing failure and its consequence: the release could not be stopped simply by closing the well at the surface, and repair would require a drilling rig.
CUY-04RW was drilled by CEPE, Petroecuador’s predecessor, around 1982 as a production well and converted for produced-water reinjection in October 2010. Operational records indicate that by October 2011 it was receiving approximately 9,123 barrels of produced water each day—around 1.45 million litres. The documented rate reveals the scale of the system placed under containment. Within a protected reserve, managing a flow of this magnitude required a correspondingly high standard of inspection, maintenance and precaution.
Produced water is not ordinary wastewater. Deep underground, oil and gas lie within porous rock formations that also contain highly saline formation water. When petroleum is brought to the surface, this water rises with it and is separated from the oil. Even before oilfield treatment, the resulting fluid contains high concentrations of dissolved salts and varying concentrations of residual petroleum, metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, known as PAHs. During production, operators also add biocides, corrosion and scale inhibitors, demulsifiers, surfactants and other treatment chemicals. The exact mixture differs among oilfields. Together, its salinity, petroleum residues, metals and added chemicals make an uncontrolled release a serious threat to rivers, lagoons and flooded primary rainforest.
Once separated from the oil, this fluid must be managed. At CUY-04RW, the method used was reinjection: pumping it under pressure into a deep geological formation intended to remain isolated from aquifers and surface waters. Reinjection does not make the fluid harmless. Its safety depends upon steel casing, cement seals and confining rock maintaining that separation over time. It is a method of containment, not purification.
When containment fails, the chemical burden remains; the barrier separating it from the living world has been breached.
Within petroleum operations, each additive serves a defined purpose: suppressing bacteria, protecting wells and pipes, separating oil from water, removing oxygen or controlling poisonous hydrogen sulphide. Once containment is breached, however, those substances enter an entirely different environment. Chemicals selected to control processes within an oilfield come into direct contact with the cells, gills, roots and microorganisms of a freshwater ecosystem.
For aquatic plants, extreme salinity creates a form of drought. Although surrounded by water, they lose the ability to absorb it normally; leaves discolour, tissues weaken and vegetation dies. Biocides disrupt the microorganisms that sustain decomposition, soil fertility and the food web. Petroleum hydrocarbons and PAHs pass into organisms through water, sediment and food. Some damage cell membranes and internal organs; genotoxic compounds damage DNA—the molecular code governing how cells develop, function, repair themselves and reproduce—with consequences for immunity, fertility and survival.
The damage also unfolds over different timescales. Some lighter hydrocarbons disperse or break down, while salts and metals remain, and many heavier PAHs bind to soils and sediments, where they persist for years or decades. Ending the discharge is therefore only the first obligation. What has already entered the reserve must be located, measured and, wherever possible, removed or remediated. Substances concealed in sediment or absorbed by organisms continue to move through the ecosystem long after the surface appears clear.
This combination of toxicity, persistence and engineering dependence exposes the contradiction at the centre of petroleum production inside a protected reserve. CUY-04RW required a chemically dangerous waste stream to be forced beneath an ecosystem whose exceptional value Ecuador had undertaken to conserve, while its safety rested upon steel, cement and geology maintaining their separation under pressure. The reserve carried the consequences if any part of that system failed. On 5 May 2026, it did.
Beyond the Cuyabeno, the warning is equally clear. Wherever oil extraction is authorised inside a national park, wildlife reserve or other conservation area, promises of control must be weighed against the toxicity of the wastes produced, the longevity of the infrastructure and the duration of the harm if containment fails. Companies and governments can issue permits, technical reports and assurances. None can provide an eternal warranty for the system—or for the willingness of every future authority to act in time.
The ecosystem is therefore made to bear the very danger from which its protected status was intended to shield it. Protection that accepts this contradiction ceases to be protection in any meaningful sense.
In the Cuyabeno, that danger is no longer theoretical. Siona community members and SELVA field teams report whitish currents, powerful odours, fish deaths and vegetation losing colour along the course of the discharge; their accounts also include the body of a pink dolphin found along that same course.
One recorded body is an observation, not a census. Pink dolphins move through interconnected rivers, channels, lagoons and flooded rainforest, much of it beyond continuous human observation. Without a comprehensive survey, the number of dolphins—or other animals—that have died or disappeared remains unknown. What comes into view marks the beginning of what is known, not the boundary of the damage.
Evidence from the affected area gives those reports quantitative force. A field video documenting conditions along the course of the discharge features members of the Siona community, Alexandra Almeida—a biochemist and Acción Ecológica’s spokesperson on petroleum issues—and a Petroecuador representative.
Where the whitish current was observed, electrical conductivity reached between 1,800 and 2,000 microsiemens per centimetre; beyond its apparent reach, the reading was approximately 160. Conductivity reflects the concentration of dissolved salts and other ions in water. Taken together with the confirmed casing failure, the more than tenfold difference provides measurable evidence that highly saline produced water entered the surrounding waters.
On 18 June, representatives of Petroecuador, the environmental authority and Ecuador’s Ombudsman’s Office inspected the affected area. From that date, the State’s knowledge of the emergency is beyond doubt. The Ombudsman’s participation placed the constitutional rights of the Siona communities and the Rights of Nature squarely before the public authorities. Operational control of the well and the power to compel repair and remediation, however, remained with other institutions.
Authority follows a clear chain. EP Petroecuador, under its acting General Manager, Sebastián Maag Pardo, operates CUY-04RW and controls its technical records and the equipment required to repair or isolate the failed system. Juan Carlos Damián Blum Baquero, Minister of Environment and Energy, heads the ministry responsible for petroleum policy and environmental protection. President Daniel Noboa oversees both the state oil company and the Ministry.
Their powers carry distinct obligations: Petroecuador must stop the source and demonstrate that the repair is complete; the Minister must establish the extent of the damage and enforce effective remediation; and the President must ensure that neither institution delays, conceals or evades its duty. Power is divided; accountability is not.
The decisive question is whether CUY-04RW has been repaired. As this article is written, SELVA has received no independently verifiable engineering record confirming that the failed casing has been isolated, that the release has ceased or that the freshwater aquifer above the reinjection formation remains uncontaminated. The institutions controlling the well also control the evidence capable of answering those questions. Until they disclose it, the condition of the source cannot be treated as resolved.
An engineering failure began the emergency; what followed became a test of knowledge, authority and choice. An accident has a date; an omission acquires a duration. Once the defect and its danger are known, the issue is no longer confined to ageing steel beneath the forest. It becomes a question of whether those charged with acting will stop the release, determine the extent of the contamination and protect the communities and living systems at risk. Each day without independently verifiable repair adds another entry to the record. The calendar itself becomes evidence.
Here the emergency acquires the logic of magical realism: oil waste moves through the forest, the extraordinary settles into administrative routine, and the calendar advances as though contaminated water were an ordinary matter of procedure. Yet nothing is imagined. Fish die; vegetation loses its colour; Siona communities confront a danger they did not create. What reaches human sight is only the visible edge of a disturbance passing through water, sediment and flooded rainforest. To call this a minor lapse would require an unusual economy with the truth.
When Extraction Loses Its Moral Licence
Naming grave ecological destruction a sin against creation and the Creator reaches beyond theology. It withdraws the licence upon which extractive economics has often depended: the assumption that employment, investment, energy security or public revenue justify exposing irreplaceable ecosystems and the communities within them to serious harm. Their legitimacy ends where grave harm is knowingly imposed. Economic calculation retains a place in public policy; it loses the authority to decide that everything has a price and nothing lies beyond sacrifice.
Catholic moral theology distinguishes the nature of an act from the personal culpability of those responsible for it. Mortal sin requires three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent. Individual conscience cannot be fully known from outside, but actions and their consequences remain open to moral analysis. When decision-makers understand the damage, possess the means to end it and deliberately allow it to continue, these criteria become directly relevant.
If the destruction of nature is truly a sin against creation and the Creator, then what is occurring in the Cuyabeno cannot be called a minor sin. Nor is such a sin resolved merely because it is finally acknowledged. Confession requires repentance, and repentance requires a change of conduct and reparation for the harm inflicted. The well may be silenced, but the forest does not receive absolution with the closing of a valve. The discharge must end, the truth must be disclosed and, insofar as it remains possible, what has been damaged must be restored.
In the Cuyabeno, the moral argument extending from the pontificate of Pope Francis into that of Pope Leo XIV converges with Ecuador’s Rights of Nature and the rights of the Indigenous communities of the Amazon. Although rooted in different moral and legal traditions, all reach the same judgement: no government, corporation or officeholder may knowingly sacrifice a living world, whatever justification is invoked.
Those responsible must answer before the law. Within Catholic teaching, they must also answer before God—and neither public office, political protection, institutional silence nor the passage of time provides refuge. The measure of that accountability will not be found in declarations, but in consequences: in a forest no longer made to bear our waste, in communities able to trust the water upon which their lives depend, and in the breath of a pink dolphin rising through waters recognised at last not as a possession, but as a living trust.
Comments