Church, climate change

[CrossofChrist]

What authority does a statement from the Pope on climate change have?

Here’s what Pope Francis has said in Laudato Si:

Climate change is a global problem with grave implications

And Pope Benedict XVI said this:

Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family.

We clearly have a grave obligation to do something to improve the environment; everyone agrees with that, too. But if climate change itself has “grave implications” as Pope Francis says, then we also have a serious obligation to do something about it. My concern here is some people say climate change isn’t caused by man in anyway, therefore there isn’t any obligation we have for doing something about the problem.

I’m wondering about the level of authority the Pope has in statements about climate change. It’s an issue that clearly relies on science to an extent, and also deals with moral directives which are things that the Pope (for instance, in the issuance of an Encyclical or in ordinary teaching) can discuss in a way that is binding on the faithful (see Donum Veritatis 17, and by binding I mean at the very least for religious submission of will/intellect). So my question is to what extent are the Pope’s statements on climate change binding?

 

[EamonnMichael]

What authority does a statement from the Pope on climate change have?

Here’s what Pope Francis has said in Laudato Si:

Climate change is a global problem with grave implications

And Pope Benedict XVI said this:

Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family.

We clearly have a grave obligation to do something to improve the environment; everyone agrees with that, too. But if climate change itself has “grave implications” as Pope Francis says, then we also have a serious obligation to do something about it. My concern here is some people say climate change isn’t caused by man in anyway, therefore there isn’t any obligation we have for doing something about the problem.

I’m wondering about the level of authority the Pope has in statements about climate change. It’s an issue that clearly relies on science to an extent, and also deals with moral directives which are things that the Pope (for instance, in the issuance of an Encyclical or in ordinary teaching) can discuss in a way that is binding on the faithful (see Donum Veritatis 17, and by binding I mean at the very least for religious submission of will/intellect). So my question is to what extent are the Pope’s statements on climate change binding?

Bergoglio has a chemistry degree so is more qualified than most to comment.

Add to that, there are a number of man made causes from a range of industries, from mass breeding of livestock for food, to obliterating forrests.

Morally, he’s entitled to comment on an issue caused by one thing and one thing only - man’s love of money.

 

[1ke]

Bergoglio has a chemistry degree so is more qualified than most to comment.

It is disrespect to reefer to Pope Francis as “Bergolio”.

Pope Francis does not have a university degree in chemistry.

 

[Kotton]

We clearly have a grave obligation to do something to improve the environment; everyone agrees with that, too.

I’m wondering about the level of authority the Pope has in statements about climate change. It’s an issue that clearly relies on science to an extent, and also deals with moral directives which are things that the Pope can discuss in a way that is binding on the faithful. So my question is to what extent are the Pope’s statements on climate change binding?

 

[TK421]

“Bergolio”.

Bergoglio.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I think this is merely an opinion of the Holy Father that is not binding upon the faithful in any way. I do not believe we have a grave obligation to improve the environment.

 

[Church_Militant]

Here’s a definitive article that answers whether Pope Francis has a degree in Chemistry. It seems he does have specialized training in Chemistry.
Does Pope Francis have a master’s degree in chemistry

As to whether his remarks (and those of Pope Benedict XVI) are authoritative. Keep in mind that in matters of faith and morals the church does speak with authority, so here’s my take.

1. This is not a matter of faith so that does not apply: However…
2. Since these Popes have spoken on our moral obligation to be good stewards of our world, then we have a applicable moral teaching that we need to heed.

So…faith, no…morals, yes.

 

[TK421]

Why does a 50-year-old chemistry degree or lack thereof make a person qualified or unqualified to talk about climate change?

He’s the Pope, and his encyclical focuses on the moral dimension of ecology, and in that respect it needs to be taken seriously.

 

[surritter]

As to whether his remarks (and those of Pope Benedict XVI) are authoritative. Keep in mind that in matters of faith and morals the church does speak with authority, so here’s my take.

1. This is not a matter of faith so that does not apply: However…
2. Since these Popes have spoken on our moral obligation to be good stewards of our world, then we have a applicable moral teaching that we need to heed.

So…faith, no…morals, yes.

Be careful on that second point. In terms of morals, yes we have an obligation to be good stewards, but the pope is not qualified to direct us as to what actions constitute being a good steward. So we would not have to heed any specific guidance about carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, etc. (I’m not saying you meant that, but I just wanted to clarify.)

It’s like a pope saying that we must care for the poor: we must abide by that instruction since it falls under faith and morals. But if he says that we must care for the poor by raising the federal tax rate to enhance charitable programs, then we are not obliged to abide by that instruction.

 

[Kelly77]

The papal mandate is to bring souls to salvation, not to save the environment

 

[Cathoholic]

There is an element of truth to anthropogenic global warming claims.

If you listen carefully to the leaders in the Global Warming movement, the Global Warming Hoax is about alarmist environmental arguments that have a partial truth used for POWER and CONTROL.

But there is ALSO a LOT of falsehood too.

Phony “science”, extremely incorrect predictions that have not came true (based on “science”), an “environmental religious evangelism” apparently disguised as concern for the environment, and HUGE business deals based upon being able to use a Global Police force to ENFORCE these business deals.

Business deals that look very suspect to me like the Chicago Climate Exchange (set up in part by Al Gore). Or the European Climate Exchange.

Here is a partial list of the control wish-list that the Global Warmist leaders have OPENLY stated.

. . . . . . . . . attempting to gain control of (or at least partial control of) global taxation, wealth distribution, a global POLICE FORCE, water resources, agricultural resources, mining, chemical engineering, waste management, and who gets to define research as . . . “science” . . . . or . . . . “not science” etc. etc.

Remember. Pope Francis called us to global cooperation (NOT GLOBAL GOVERNANCE) with this problem and reminds us that we are to be good stewards of God’s creation.

Global Warming proponents try to morph Laudato Si into a need-for-Global-GOVERNANCE admonition.

This is phony.

Pope Francis is correct. We should aim for “cooperation” in MANY areas.

POPE FRANCIS . . . New forms of cooperation and community organization can be encouraged in order to defend the interests of small producers and preserve local ecosystems from destruction. Truly, much can be done! (From Laudato Si Section 180. Emphasis mine)

There are truths in the Anthropogenic Global Warming community (not EVERYTHING they say is false).

But don’t be fooled into thinking the Holy Father is preaching and officially teaching we need a UN Global Governance model (with all of the controls they have on their proverbial “birthday list”).

And don’t be bamboozled about the “chicken-little” scenarios from Warmist propaganda that we have seen with cities allegedly being underwater by the end of 2015 (BUT WAIT. . . There are still a few days to go in 2015!).

These types of dramatics and histrionics are used among other reasons, to make people hurry headlong into unwise decisions. Unwise decisions . . . . like turning over the proverbial “car keys” (of power), to the UN (as they have openly stated they want).

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[lynnvinc]

…Pope Francis does not have a university degree in chemistry.

But he’s smart, well-read, knows well of which he speaks re climate change, and has the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to help advise him.

I don’t have a degree in climatology or related field, but I have understood enough about climate change for over 25 years to understand that we are harming and killing people and others of God’s creatures thru our contributions to climate change. And I know it would be the height to imprudence and arrogance to reject what the bona fide scientists are saying about it and stubbornly refuse to mitigate the problem, even when doing so saves people money and mitigates other harmful environmental problems.

Pope Francis and the Church have not only the right but the duty to tell people to stop harming and killing people.

 

[shockerfan]

We have a moral obligation to not be a jerk to the environment.

There certainly is a question about what that entails, since some of the science is in question. However, there is a moral obligation to think about being a good steward of the environment, and to act according to your well formed Catholic conscience.

For me, that means picking up trash around my house, trying to recycle, trying to use refillable glass bottles for water instead of plastic throw-away bottles, supporting initiatives to reduce what I do believe pollution to be (things we all agree on, like sulphur dioxide, lead, etc), I don’t think everyone need agree on CO2 in order to act like good stewards, however, we need to continually get a better understanding on topics in debate and change our views as necessary.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I just finished reading the whole encyclical: w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

To call this document a document about climate change misrepresents it I think. It has a far bigger scope about caring for our ‘Sister’ the earth from a theological perspective. The Pope discusses water resources, pollution, third world debt, unsustainable use of resources, deforestation, and he puts a special emphasis on destruction of biodiversity. Yes climate change comes up too and he acknowledges the limits of science to pin clear blame on anything specific.

Regarding what he is telling Catholics to do, I note that he says:

"60. Finally, we need to acknowledge that different approaches and lines of thought have emerged regarding this situation and its possible solutions. At one extreme, we find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change. At the other extreme are those who view men and women and all their interventions as no more than a threat, jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced and all forms of intervention prohibited. Viable future scenarios will have to be generated between these extremes, since there is no one path to a solution. This makes a variety of proposals possible, all capable of entering into dialogue with a view to developing comprehensive solutions.

1. On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views."

80% of the document is on the theological basis for need to care for Creation. It is a beautiful; exposition and clearly written. I think the main theme of the document is that the Church has a theological basis for wanting to defend Creation and that this voice is often left out of the scientific and social discussion regarding ecology. The document puts a theological perspective on ecology and is universal, quoting from John Paul II many times as well.

Any claim of faith and morals entering in would be directed to the basic premise that we must Love God, and God loves his Creation, so should we.

Reminds me of what I tell my kids every Sunday based on what Pope Benedict said: The bible teaches us that the purpose of the Sabbath is to enjoy Creation.