Yeah, it kind of is. For me anyway. This encyclical is clownish and POLITICALLY driven. Fortunately, I don’t have to listen to a word that this “chatty” pope says that doesn’t apply to faith and morals issued by the Magesterium. I WILL have to explain it away to intelligent non-Catholics though.
Not at the expense of human beings he didn’t.
It was a real act of courage for Pope Benedict to resign. We are fortunate that we had a pope with such courage who knew when to step aside.
That right? An encyclical may not be infallible, nor even strictly doctrinal in all of its contents but it *is *authoritative and you must respect both the encyclical itself and the office of the author even if conscience compels you to disagree with elements of it (which I don’t dispute):
I think it is nothing short of disgraceful to hear some speak of their Pope in a flagrantly offensive manner. It earns the implicated individuals no kudos. Catholics should always read an encyclical in a spirit of open-mindedness, respect, obedience and convinced that our Holy Father has the purest of intentions. I think that some are judging the text before they have even read it, such that when they do read it it is through hardened hearts, closed minds and preconceived prejudice. I hope I am wrong but the offensive language being used by a vocal minority leads me to suspect otherwise,
Amen
Whether you agree or not with His Holiness, you are not entitled to insult his writing.
Quite on the contrary. Every comment I have read thus far from atheists on the Internet is positive and supportive. If anything, this encyclical is drawing them closer to the Church.
There is not a single sentence in the entire encyclical that says that. That is your interpretation, and yours alone.
Of course not, that isn’t the theme of the encyclical.
I have read atheists treat the Pope with more respect than you. You should be ashamed.
Wrong.
If someone who has read all of it, please tell me that he does offer solutions.You are just hearing frustration that the leader of the Church would base an encyclical on questionable scientific theory (and all scientific theories are questionable–that is the nature of science). I don’t believe the Church has ever endorsed a particular scientific view such as evolution or the Big Bang as being necessarily correct. In the end, I think that the Church will be forced to say publicly that it has not endorsed “substantially harmful man-made global warming” in this encyclical. However, in the meantime, people will think the Church has done so, and it will require a lot of explanation to address that harm (and to oppose government programs based on that misperception).
Ae they converting to the Church? Praising because it reinforces their preconceptions? I hear I might be Catholic, but little actual conversion.
Man-made global warming has deep moral implications. Don’t forget that. This is what the Holy Father points out.
I haven’t seen atheists reactions. I have only seen reactions of Catholics-in-name-only. And their reactions have been of the celebratory type…as in, finally, we have a pope who sees it their way! Meaning, they are not moving to the Church, but the Church is moving to them. (That is the protestant way: find a church that matches your personal beliefs; don’t bother conforming your beliefs to the one true Church.)
But you should be ashamed about your insults of the Holy Father. And you call yourself a Catholic?
Whatever. I only see defeat of hardcore right-wing conservatives who put their blinded ideology ahead of their Catholic Faith.
Indeed. Without global warming, we wouldn’t have Canada and the northern United States or northern Europe. All of that would be under ice. Global warming has been the greatest single boon to the growth of humanity on this earth…and all of that warming occurred without contribution by mankind.
The long term view sees that global warming has been a giant net positive for mankind.
You keep talking about how posters in this thread should be “ashamed”. Maybe you should look at your own motivations before you attack the faith of others (which I’m pretty sure is against forum rules)
It is the other way around. Conservatives are worried that Pope Francis is putting short term political ideology (warmist politics) first. They are not lobbying for the Pope to take a political stand. They want him to avoid taking a political stand. It is the environmentalist left who wants the Pope to take a political stand, and who thereby put their political views on par with the authority of the Church.
Whether there is or is not near precedent does not change the fairly clear message of wealth redistribution. As a voluntary thing, I think that’s fine. When it comes to state compulsion, I would think you would be even more wary of it than I, since you don’t even approve of social security.