Have you read the book Laudato Si?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cecilia2019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve read the first half of it, and I consider it a wonderful introduction of ecologism to Catholics who maybe don’t know too much about environmental problems and their possible solutions. However, that’s the reason why I didn’t finish it, as I was an environmentalist before and I knew many of the things the Pope explained (that isn’t necessarily a negative point, as maybe other readers don’t know them).

The other strenght it has as an Encyclical is all the part about synthesising “environmental Theology” and reflecting upon all the Saints and Catholic writers who wrote about Creation, and the topic in the Bible. This also helps to build environmentalism as part of the Church’s Social Doctrine.

That second part is the one I find more novel and interesting, and the second half of the Encyclical talks about it so I probably should retake it when I have time…
 
Last edited:
AlbMagno said:
However, that’s the reason why I didn’t finish it, as I was an environmentalist before and I knew many of the things the Pope explained (that isn’t necessarily a negative point, as maybe other readers don’t know them).
Click to expand...
Yeah, to me it was one big long statement in flowery prose of obvious stuff that all educated people in USA should already know.

I try to remind myself that the Church is worldwide and that in many other countries, perhaps they didn’t have a decades-long ecology movement and people don’t know about these things.
 
Last edited:
I think it is important for us as Catholics to clearly hear about the importance of environmentalism from the top, so to speak. There is a still a strong “subdue the earth and have dominion over it” mentality among many of us, especially as it concerns the use of our limited natural resources, and even the dubious idea that however much we harm the environment, God will somehow fix it for us.
 
christofirst said:
There is a still a strong “subdue the earth and have dominion over it” mentality among many of us
Click to expand...
Seeing as this is literally what God told humanity to do, this is a good mentality that we must retain. To abandon it would mean subordinating the good of human persons to other things, and this is unacceptable. The whole earth was created for the sustenance and good of all men for all time. The issue is such “dominion” should be understood in the just sense, and not as an arbitrary and destructive tyranny, but rather one that orders the use of creation for all people’s good–present and future. In the Catechism, the Church places environmental concerns within the commandment “thou shalt not steal” because such a destructive tyranny over creation deprives future generations of the use and benefit of creation that is rightfully theirs.
 
Last edited:
When I read it I thought that the Earth was an allegory for the Church, then I realized that it wasn’t.
 
Last edited:
By the way, the OP’s title referring to this as a “book” highlights an issue that, IMO, papal encyclical lengths have gotten out of control in recent times (Laudato Si is 45,000 words). This chart also includes Exhortations I believe, which are similar enough.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 
Pope Francis addresses this in Laudato Si, chapter 2, 67:

“We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge that Judeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of he Genesis account which grants man “dominion” over the earth (cf. Gen. 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures.”

The “subdue and dominion” mentality that I was disparaging in my previous comment is one that diminishes the need for good stewardship of the earth. I’m thinking of slogans like “Drill, baby, drill!” when it comes to fossil fuels, slogans I’ve heard my fellow Catholics embrace, as if the earth was an unlimited cornucopia, an idea which ancient peoples likely assumed was true, but now we know better (or we should)…
 
Last edited:
And of course the translation of 2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

The other thing I often hear is that God created and gave us animals to eat. As if that is their only purpose. But, “Each creature possesses its own particular goodness and perfection… Each of the various creatures, willed in its own being, reflects in its own way a ray of God’s infinite wisdom and goodness. The entire material universe speaks of God’s love, his boundless affection for us.
Each creature has its own purpose. Non is superfluous.” - Laudato Si
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
Each creature possesses its own particular goodness and perfection…
Click to expand...
Does this refer to the Covid-19 CoV-SARS2 virus as well? It is God’s creature as well, isn’t it? Should be take care of her?
 
Last edited:
If a the best dog in the world becomes rabid, the dog has to be put down.

This virus is very good at virusing. It is so difficult to contain or prevent, there is a perfection in it’s adaptability. However, the virus is attacking and killing your neighbors, it must be put down .
 
AlbMagno said:
I’ve read the first half of it, and I consider it a wonderful introduction of ecologism to Catholics who maybe don’t know too much about environmental problems and their possible solutions. However, that’s the reason why I didn’t finish it, as I was an environmentalist before and I knew many of the things the Pope explained (that isn’t necessarily a negative point, as maybe other readers don’t know them).

The other strenght it has as an Encyclical is all the part about synthesising “environmental Theology” and reflecting upon all the Saints and Catholic writers who wrote about Creation, and the topic in the Bible. This also helps to build environmentalism as part of the Church’s Social Doctrine.

That second part is the one I find more novel and interesting, and the second half of the Encyclical talks about it so I probably should retake it when I have time…
Click to expand...
The Second Half:

CHAPTER FOUR – INTEGRAL ECOLOGY

I. ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY
II. CULTURAL ECOLOGY
III. ECOLOGY OF DAILY LIFE
IV. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON GOOD
V. JUSTICE BETWEEN THE GENERATIONS

CHAPTER FIVE – LINES OF APPROACH AND ACTION

I. DIALOGUE ON THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
II. DIALOGUE FOR NEW NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICIES
III. DIALOGUE AND TRANSPARENCY IN DECISION-MAKING
IV. POLITICS AND ECONOMY IN DIALOGUE FOR HUMAN FULFILMENT
V. RELIGIONS IN DIALOGUE WITH SCIENCE

CHAPTER SIX – ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION AND SPIRITUALITY

I. TOWARDS A NEW LIFESTYLE
II. EDUCATING FOR THE COVENANT BETWEEN HUMANITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
III. ECOLOGICAL CONVERSION
IV. JOY AND PEACE
V. CIVIC AND POLITICAL LOVE
VI. SACRAMENTAL SIGNS AND THE CELEBRATION OF REST
VII. THE TRINITY AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CREATURES
VIII. QUEEN OF ALL CREATION
IX. BEYOND THE SUN
A prayer for our earth
A Christian prayer in union with creation
 
Genesis315 said:
By the way, the OP’s title referring to this as a “book” highlights an issue that, IMO, papal encyclical lengths have gotten out of control in recent times (Laudato Si is 45,000 words). This chart also includes Exhortations I believe, which are similar enough.
Click to expand...
Working on my masters degree in theology. Class I’m taking centers on Vatican II teachings. Each week an assignment requires us to read a pre Vatican II encyclical, a Vatican II document, and a post Vatican II encyclical and write a 500-600 word summary on the development of doctrine. I fear all post-conciliar writings…sooooooo long.
 
My summary of the quite verbose Laudato Si: Don’t pollute…be a good steward of the earth
 
Shakuhachi said:
… a ray of God’s infinite wisdom and goodness …
Click to expand...
The wisdom and goodness are rays from God. Per Merriam Webster ray (noun) 2b “a moral or intellectual light” it can be understood as the order in nature given it by God.
 
Last edited:
one thing i’ve been wondering about WRT Laudato Si is why there is so much polarization (from what I’ve seen) about the basic message/issue

https://www.usccb.org/offices/general-secretariat/laudato-si-care-our-common-home

over time I’ve learned to accept that human nature has issues separating the message and the messenger,… since a picture is worth a thousand words consider

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...n-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace.html

AND

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Why middle-aged men hate Greta Thunberg

One of the things that has bothered me for a while is why so many middle-aged men seem to hate Greta Thunberg. Suddenly, thanks to her speech to the United Nations, I know. They are already rowing with their teenage kids and don’t need another one on their case.

It was the furious, accusatory tone in which she chided her audience: “How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood.” Has not every parent had that clash,…

Subscribe to read | Financial Times
Click to expand...
since people frame an issue based upon their education and own personal experience as I see things simply said Laudato Si is pope francis is asking people (not just catholics) to consider the simple question of “wants vs needs”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

the question might be simple BUT answering the question is not because of identity politics and false theology

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 
phaster said:
one thing i’ve been wondering about WRT Laudato Si is why there is so much polarization (from what I’ve seen) about the basic message/issue
Click to expand...
My thoughts: The basic message gets buried in politics, at least in the US. I think it lies in the usage of two different terms “global warming” and “pollution,” and it lies in the behaviors those advocating rather harsh changes to behaviors.

First: Global warming vs pollution. Everybody I know is against “pollution.” This would be dumping trashing in streets, rivers, lakes, and oceans. It would also be companies that have factories expelling all kinds of nasty things into the air or ground water. Then came “global warming,” which was on the heels of “we’re going to head into the next ice age.” Then came the classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant / major contributor to global warming. Well, given that humans expel carbon dioxide, what is one way to reduce CO2 emissions? Get rid of humans. People stopped talking about “don’t pollute” to “reducing your carbon footprint.” I think this change of language is very problematic to getting things done.

Second regarding behaviors. Its ultimately problematic when leaders say one thing and do another. When Bernie Sanders, Al Gore, or Joe Biden call global warming an “existential threat,” but insist on traveling on private jets, something is wrong. When Barack Obama said you don’t need a big house, or need to have your thermostat set low, but then buys a huge house on Martha’s Vineyard…something is wrong. When we are told that the US must abide by the Paris Accords, but China or India have special exemptions, thus eliminating any gains the US could possibly make, something is wrong.

This is why there is polarization, IMHO.

Personally, regarding Greta Thunberg, she is just a political pawn. (It would be interesting to see why the left hates Nick Sandmann so much…I realize not related to the OP, but it shows people get mad at, or show appreciation to, anybody that helps to further or obstruct their narrative.)
 
Last edited:
Off topic but good point or not I’d be hesitant to cite Donald Wuerl…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top