Full text: Laudato Si

[Joe_5859]

I am on another forum with non-Catholics (pagans, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, atheists etc.) and the difference in tone is stark. The overriding impression so far is decidedly positive, with one poster opining that the encyclical “is an intellectual masterpiece” and another praising the quality of the prose.

It is interesting to me how often criticisms of writing style come up in discussions over content. I saw it all the time in the DaVinci Code and Harry Potter threads. “Yes, I disagree with what this person is saying. And, by the way, their writing is terrible!”

Not to say that people’s writing styles cannot be critiqued. But when it gets interjected into a conversation about content, it strikes me as a bit petty.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I take every encyclical seriously.

I think we need to be careful about being too cynical. A lot of us try too hard to read the tea leaves and we wind up making presumptions about the pope’s motives, and those presumptions can fill us with bitterness and resentment towards our Holy Father. That’s not good.

For me, it isn’t a matter of his motives. I’m sure they were the best. Nor is it the prose. My problems are that he puts his thumb on the scale of a scientific debate which, in this country at least, has potentially serious political and economic consequences, and creates the impression of taking what, in this country at least, is a partisan political position.

 

[Tomdstone]

So you are putting your conservative political ideology ahead of your Catholic faith?

Good point. Belief in the teachings of the Vicar of Christ must come before belief in a narrow political ideology.

 

[sps49]

For me, it isn’t a matter of his motives. I’m sure they were the best. Nor is it the prose. My problems are that he puts his thumb on the scale of a scientific debate which, in this country at least, has potentially serious political and economic consequences, and creates the impression of taking what, in this country at least, is a partisan political position.

Part of 23,* “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon.”*

Part of 169, “With regard to climate change, the advances have been regrettably few. Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most…”

Putting the thumb on the scale of scientific debate is a charitable way of reading this. Intentional pro-AGW messaging with a dash of equivocation is another way to see this. Considering the influence it will have, and the importance of the subject (scientific integrity), this is also a charitable view of the document.

 

[adrift]

It is interesting to me how often criticisms of writing style come up in discussions over content. I saw it all the time in the DaVinci Code and Harry Potter threads. “Yes, I disagree with what this person is saying. And, by the way, their writing is terrible!”

Not to say that people’s writing styles cannot be critiqued. But when it gets interjected into a conversation about content, it strikes me as a bit petty.

Good point! I guess I am pretty dumb, because I like the style:shrug: I haven’t quite digested the content.

 

[adrift]

So you are putting your conservative political ideology ahead of your Catholic faith?

ad hominem question?

 

[Vouthon]

Good point! I guess I am pretty dumb, because I like the style:shrug:

Not at all. A very intelligent non-theist told me today that “the encyclical is brilliant. Well argued and beautifully written”. I also like the style. I do think that those exhibiting problems with the prose are perhaps a little raw over the content and so are looking for anything to gripe at. Then again, people do have different opinions on what makes good writing. Very subjective.

 

[Joe_5859]

For me, it isn’t a matter of his motives. I’m sure they were the best. Nor is it the prose. My problems are that he puts his thumb on the scale of a scientific debate which, in this country at least, has potentially serious political and economic consequences, and creates the impression of taking what, in this country at least, is a partisan political position.

And I just have to say, I appreciate how you have conducted yourself in this thread (and every thread ), Ridgerunner. I sense no animosity towards the Holy Father in your posts. And I think you raise legitimate points to consider.

 

[Tomdstone]

It reads like a teenager’s diary or an internet forum post. (

It seems like a great masterpiece of writing to me.

 

[Vouthon]

And I just have to say, I appreciate how you have conducted yourself in this thread (and every thread ), Ridgerunner. I sense no animosity towards the Holy Father in your posts. And I think you raise legitimate points to consider.

Allow me to give that a big :clapping:

Ridgerunner is an exemplary poster. Always thought-provoking, always eloquent in his writing style, always respectful and civilized in his mode of expression. I have enjoyed reading his posts, as ever, in these threads and I think that if anyone wishes to critique the thesis along with the facts underlying this encyclical in a mature and charitable manner, then they should model their approach on his.

 

[Ned_Hill]

"…A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.

Warming has been ongoing for the past 18,000 years as we come out of the last Ice Age. It remains to be seen if any of that warming is anything but good. Thus, the only part I disagree with is the “disturbing” part. So far, I like the warming that has occurred. Where I live is no longer under ice.
Francis in his encyclical Laudato Si:

In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level

Recent decades? Try recent millenia. Great Britain used to be a land-locked part of the European continent. The seas have risen over 100 meters in the past millenia as we have come out of the last Ice Age. The rise of the seas in the “recent decades” has been negligible. Comments like these should give even avid warmists pause, since it shows a lack of understanding of global warming.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

51. Inequity affects not only individuals but entire countries; it compels us to consider an ethics of international relations. A true “ecological debt” exists, particularly between the global north and south, connected to commercial imbalances with effects on the environment, and the disproportionate use of natural resources by certain countries over long periods of time. The export of raw materials to satisfy markets in the industrialized north has caused harm locally, as for example in mercury pollution in gold mining or sulphur dioxide pollution in copper mining. There is a pressing need to calculate the use of environmental space throughout the world for depositing gas residues which have been accumulating for two centuries and have created a situation which currently affects all the countries of the world. The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries has repercussions on the poorest areas of the world, especially Africa, where a rise in temperature, together with drought, has proved devastating for farming. There is also the damage caused by the export of solid waste and toxic liquids to developing countries, and by the pollution produced by companies which operate in less developed countries in ways they could never do at home, in the countries in which they raise their capital: “We note that often the businesses which operate this way are multinationals. They do here what they would never do in developed countries or the so-called first world. Generally, after ceasing their activity and withdrawing, they leave behind great human and environmental liabilities such as unemployment, abandoned towns, the depletion of natural reserves, deforestation, the impoverishment of agriculture and local stock breeding, open pits, riven hills, polluted rivers and a handful of social works which are no longer sustainable”.

USA is not a culprit in this as far as I can tell (unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary). If other individuals or countries are doing this, that is a grave concern and detrimental to the long term health of the planet. To say it isn’t would be to say that it really doesn’t matter - which instinctively it does matter.

 

[Tomdstone]

USA is not a culprit in this as far as I can tell (unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary).

The US is heavily dependent on foreign countries for rare earth minerals.
aei.org/publication/dangerous-dependence-us-increasingly-beholden-to-imported-raw-material/

 

[Vincent_N]

Somehow I doubt anyone posting until this point has fully read or understood the encyclical. Reading from my phone was hard, especially at work. I couldn’t resist the temptation to skip to the end…and so I did…at the end of an immensely, perhaps shattering all previous records, long encyclical…

1. At the conclusion of this lengthy reflection which has been both joyful and troubling, I propose that we offer two prayers. The first we can share with all who believe in a God who is the all-powerful Creator, while in the other we Christians ask for inspiration to take up the commitment to creation set before us by the Gospel of Jesus.

For those thinking Pope Francis has taken a political side in the AGW debate, please check again. He acknowledges the dissenting opinions.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

The US is heavily dependent on foreign countries for rare earth minerals.
aei.org/publication/dangerous-dependence-us-increasingly-beholden-to-imported-raw-material/

Looks like this is a recent phenomenon - over the past five years or so. China is a big problem ecologically.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Looks like this is a recent phenomenon - over the past five years or so. China is a big problem ecologically.

If there is a country that needs to read the Pope’s encyclical, China is it.

 

[ishii]

If there is a country that needs to read the Pope’s encyclical, China is it.

That makes sense - as they are huge polluters. what incentive would they have to take the encyclical seriously? None, really.

 

[ishii]

Of course, I have not seen anything in this encyclical against capitalism.
.

Unfortunately it will be used to implement more socialist measures, in the name of protecting the environment.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That makes sense - as they are huge polluters. what incentive would they have to take the encyclical seriously? None, really.

Perhaps if Christians in other countries refused to do business with them until they cleaned up their act, they would have an incentive to take the encyclical seriously. I mean, I am all for free trade, but if my buying cheap junk from China is causing more pollution, perhaps I share part of the blame as well.

 

[Vincent_N]

Vouthon:

Not at all. A very intelligent non-theist told me today that “the encyclical is brilliant. Well argued and beautifully written”. I also like the style. I do think that those exhibiting problems with the prose are perhaps a little raw over the content and so are looking for anything to gripe at. Then again, people do have different opinions on what makes good writing. Very subjective.

1. Please you and others stop attacking me and others based on your assumptions. In my case you are dead wrong.
2. You have a problem me and others here giving stylistic criticism. Yet, you do not have a problem with “A very intelligent non-theist” doing the same. I don’t see those who are joining in your personal attacks pointing this out. Therefore, I see a clear bias here.
3. You can have an opinion that I write like a chimp. That is fine and dandy. But as soon as you impugn motive on someone such as myself, you are being uncharitable.