Draft of Environmental Encyclical Leaked: 12 Things to Know and Share [Akin]

[Mayita30]

Thanks. I meant threat of hell in that if we are obliged to belive something and take the decision not to, we will go to hell. I do expect the best from my Pope, but that doesn’t mean my expectations are being met. I personally thing what is going on here is very dangerous and I am scared to death the Church is going to require me to belive something I know to be false.

Just curious, what do you think the Church is requiring you to believe regarding Climate change? … I am really wondering why a lot of people are making a big thing about this…

 

[Mayita30]

Thanks. My fear is that is will be twisted into a matter of faith or morals based on the morality of protecting the environment based on a false premise.

I believe it is a matter of faith and morals because it is our duty to take good care of what God has given us. However, the claim that Overpopulation is the cause of Climate change is extremely false. The Church is pro-life and does not support the “Overpopulation excuse” for what is going on in our Climate…

 

[Soib]

In my opinion regardless of what the Pope says the media will spin it as Gospel, whether its the Popes opinion or not. So much of what he has stated on other things have been twisted already. Than when he the pope clarifies what is said t with what is binding due to the Faith & Morales it goes unheard.

 

[eightydeuce82]

I’m wondering when our church will start producing encyclicals on pertinent matters like fixing itself from within rather than focusing on climate and other ridiculousness.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’m wondering when our church will start producing encyclicals on pertinent matters like fixing itself from within rather than focusing on climate and other ridiculousness.

You mean like Lumen fidei, Pope Francis’ other encyclical (though mostly written by Benedict)?

Or do you mean like every encyclical that St. John Paul the Great wrote? All 14 of them?

Benedict promulgated two pastoral encyclicals and one social one (Caritas in Veritate).

So this may be the second social encyclical written since JPtG took Office in 1978.

I would say the Popes have been looking after the pastoral needs of the Church.

 

[BartholomewB]

I’m wondering when our church will start producing encyclicals on pertinent matters like fixing itself from within rather than focusing on climate and other ridiculousness.

I think there’s a question of timing that we need to bear in mind. In three months’ time Francis will be visiting the United States, a country where the Church has been particularly hard hit by sexual abuse of minors aggravated by the policy, only recently abandoned, of denial and cover-up. Now the whole thing has come back into the public eye with the arrest and upcoming trial of the Polish former nuncio to the Dominican Republic.

There is also, of course, the long-running drama of conflict with the prevailing social ethos in the areas of contraception, abortion, gay marriage, and so on. Look at the current campaign of vilification against Archbishop Cordileone in San Francisco.

Francis realizes that he needs to do something that puts the Church in a favorable light and that, at the same time, is important enough for the media to chatter about. One thing the Sandro Magister business has shown is that, whatever else Laudato Si may lack, at least it meets the newsworthiness requirement.

 

[billcu1]

Now I’m a little confused on encyclicals. Now even more so. Some are saying here not to listen it’s a matter of the magisterium. Is it not binding on laypersons then? An encyclical? What about the contents of Humanae Vitae?

 

[Hans_W]

… As a growing number of reputable scientists, including me, believe this assertion is complete garbage, what are we to do with a Pope who is spreading unproven falsehoods on so many levels?

There are so many threads starting up on this encyclical that it’s difficult to keep up …

I question your statement that “a growing number of scientists …”. That is definitely not true. On the contrary every day AGW gets more confirmation.
May I ask you in what field of science you specialise?

 

[agnes_therese]

My question is to what level of creedence must we give, as a matter a Faith bound by threat of hell, to a Papal Encyclical? It appears the Pope is poised to release an encyclical stating definitively that man is the cause of global warming. As a growing number of reputable scientists, including me, believe this assertion is complete garbage, what are we to do with a Pope who is spreading unproven falsehoods on so many levels?

Have you received a special advance preview copy of the encyclical? Or are you spreading unproven accusations against the Holy Father?

 

[thinkandmull]

Now I’m a little confused on encyclicals. Now even more so. Some are saying here not to listen it’s a matter of the magisterium. Is it not binding on laypersons then? An encyclical? What about the contents of Humanae Vitae?

Some people say the Pope was clear enough that he meant to bind beyond religious submission, others say he didn’t say as much

 

[billcu1]

I saw something briefly in the news about a “leak” or something of this encyclical and the Vatican is investigating. I am going to their site now to see if something is said. It might be a bad rumor.

 

[Hans_W]

I think there’s a question of timing that we need to bear in mind. In three months’ time Francis will be visiting the United States, a country where the Church has been particularly hard hit by sexual abuse of minors aggravated by the policy, only recently abandoned, of denial and cover-up. Now the whole thing has come back into the public eye with the arrest and upcoming trial of the Polish former nuncio to the Dominican Republic.

There is also, of course, the long-running drama of conflict with the prevailing social ethos in the areas of contraception, abortion, gay marriage, and so on. Look at the current campaign of vilification against Archbishop Cordileone in San Francisco.

Francis realizes that he needs to do something that puts the Church in a favorable light and that, at the same time, is important enough for the media to chatter about. One thing the Sandro Magister business has shown is that, whatever else Laudato Si may lack, at least it meets the newsworthiness requirement.

Pope Francis doesn’t “realise that he needs to do something that puts the Church in a favourable light …”. He cares for the wellbeing of all people on this planet, present and future generations. That’s part of his job.

 

[expectthebest]

There are so many threads starting up on this encyclical that it’s difficult to keep up …

I question your statement that “a growing number of scientists …”. That is definitely not true. On the contrary every day AGW gets more confirmation.
May I ask you in what field of science you specialise?

I’m sorry sir. You are quite incorrect. The entire theory of climate change based on human involvement in unraveling more and more every day. If you look at the data, the reason is clear. I emplore you to independantly reseach the data. Don’t listen what people tell you and don’t look at the data organizations like NASA put out filled with their “fixes” which indicate warming when there is no warming. Don’t even listen to me. Do you own research. Look at the definition of what science really is. And then come to your own conclusions.

The Pope is not saying overpopulation is causing climate change. He is saying that humans are causing climate change due to their use of energy. This is indisputable because he has alread claimed this on other occasions. It seems if he gets his way, the UN, or an organization similar, will have world power over how all of us live our lives with respect to energy, which affects most everything we do. This is very, very dangerous thinking.

The reason for my question is to find out if encyclicals were binding in any way. If not, then we can simply disregard what the Pope is saying when we know it to be false and destructive.

 

[Hans_W]

I’m sorry sir. You are quite incorrect. The entire theory of climate change based on human involvement in unraveling more and more every day. If you look at the data, the reason is clear. I emplore you to independantly reseach the data. Don’t listen what people tell you and don’t look at the data organizations like NASA put out filled with their “fixes” which indicate warming when there is no warming. Don’t even listen to me. Do you own research. Look at the definition of what science really is. And then come to your own conclusions.

The Pope is not saying overpopulation is causing climate change. He is saying that humans are causing climate change due to their use of energy. This is indisputable because he has alread claimed this on other occasions. It seems if he gets his way, the UN, or an organization similar, will have world power over how all of us live our lives with respect to energy, which affects most everything we do. This is very, very dangerous thinking.

The reason for my question is to find out if encyclicals were binding in any way. If not, then we can simply disregard what the Pope is saying when we know it to be false and destructive.

Humans have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to concentrations not seen in the last 20 million years. This creates an imbalance in the energy exchange and is heating the planet. There is little chance of CO2 levelling off at 560 ppm, which would be a doubling from pre-industrial levels.

 

[1ke]

Now I’m a little confused on encyclicals. Now even more so. Some are saying here not to listen it’s a matter of the magisterium. Is it not binding on laypersons then? An encyclical? What about the contents of Humanae Vitae?

No that is not what anyone on this thread has said.

 

[thinkandmull]

Catholics accept the authority of the Pope and Councils because of our reading of the Scriptures. The hierarchy claims it also has the authority to bind us to their non-infallible judgments on theology and morality. Use your own conscience. The majority of things said in encyclicals are not said in such as way that it seems to Pope is binding anyone anyway.

 

[BartholomewB]

Pope Francis doesn’t “realise that he needs to do something that puts the Church in a favourable light …”.

What makes you think he doesn’t realize it?

He cares for the wellbeing of all people on this planet, present and future generations. That’s part of his job.

Yes, he does that too. That goes without saying.

 

[esieffe]

I think we can all agree [setting aside the “whodoneit” dilemma] that not loading the air and water with toxins and particulate matter, cleaning up our ocean “garbage patches” and so on is a good idea. Creating cost effective biodegradable substitutes for plastics and other waste products is a good idea. Managing our resources responsibly is an imperative.

The Holy Father is right to be concerned with issues such as these, given the level of poisoning and human suffering going from waste and spills from energy and chemical companies in South America and Asia. [if your curious as to what companies or where, please do a quick google search] He is concerned about any human suffering, especially those with no voices.

Why people are so “up in arms” about the upcoming Encyclical, is a mystery to me. This is our planet, and we are really trashing the place up.

 

[Hans_W]

What makes you think he doesn’t realize it?
.

Just use your logic. Do you really think the pope would put his name on a document which has a 50% chance of proven to be false?

 

[billcu1]

The cause of global warming is not a matter of faith or morals. not sure why you think the Church is going to require you to believe anything at all on the matter.

idk. I thought these were authoritative statements from the church. It is…it isn’t.