LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
OK, now we are in the second method - comparing the reputation and trustworthiness of various authorities (not that there’s anything wrong with that either).
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
*]*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.
*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. But we need only take a frank look at the facts
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why should I? It s not a claim that I have been making.
E
estesbob
Guest
The strategy of buying and selling ‘carbon credits’ can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors."
K
Karen107
Guest
Catholics are bound to accept truth as spoken by Our Holy Father. That may take some time for some of you to accept, but none the less, The Church speaks truth, even if it means we have to refer to truths found in the scientific community as God is the source of all truths spiritual and scientific. These truths cannot collide as God is the source of both of them. Read the encyclical and learn from our Holy Father who teaches us that from the beginning man has been made dominion over all other creatures but with that comes responsibility to take care of Gods creation. Turning a blinds eye to the poor who are affected by climate change certainly isn’t what God had in mind. No, God said for man to take care of the garden, If burning fossil fuels isn’t the way for providing longevity, than we must come up with another plan. What that plan is will be up to us to figure out, but each of us can do something… turn off lights, eat less cows. carpooling and taking public transportation or biking, etc.
Genesis 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
E
estesbob
Guest
Does that mean you cant find in the encyclical where the holy father said Catholics are bound to accept AGW? If you can please post it. if you cant please admit you were wrong.
K
Karen107
Guest
Is this any different to anything the Pope has to say? Of course the left will twist what the Pope says but also will the right, our duty is to follow Jesus Christ who gave the teaching authority to the Church, and we are not bound to the left or the right. I remember Jesus saying… Give to Caesar what is Caesars, give to God what is Gods. And the best part of us should be saved for God…
There is always something more we can do to protect and preserve life… We can’t make life happen, that’s up to God, but we can protect and preserve it and even promote it. That we can do and what we should do.
E
estesbob
Guest
So you reject Jimmy Akins analysis of what the pope says but demand we accept yours. Again the encyclical was not focused on global warming, categorically rejected the solutions offer by most AGW advocates(population control and carbon credits) and in no way required a catholic to believe in AGW.Is this any different to anything the Pope has to say? Of course the left will twist what the Pope says but also will the right, our duty is to follow Jesus Christ who gave the teaching authority to the Church, and we are not bound to the left or the right. I remember Jesus saying… Give to Caesar what is Caesars, give to God what is Gods. And the best part of us should be saved for God…
K
Karen107
Guest
Nooooo! I did not say that… What I reject is your ‘fear’ that since the Pope speaking out on this is going to somehow be twisted by the ‘left’ when the left hasn’t begun to dictate what we believe in to my knowledge. Incidentally neither has the "right’. God be my guide not politicians… If the politicians make laws that are not in keeping with my beliefs, I have every right to reject them because it is my salvation is at stake. I’m not endowed to my government, I’m endowed to my Creator.
I have no problem with the Pope speaking out on global warming in the encyclical, which I might add, like all encyclicals, are teachings of the Church that the Popes wrote for us to learn from. I can imagine all encyclicals were a matter of debate for Catholics who didn’t believe in them but we have papal infallibility so that the truths of our faith and morals can be taught so we can live by that truth which will bring us to heaven as Jesus who is the ‘truth’ and the life and the way!.. And the way to live by that truth is to change our way of living to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere so that we slow the progression of global warming and so that we will not be so wasteful. He spoke out on a lot of things we are doing wrong and was right on in saying : The Earth, our home, is beginning to look like an immense pile of filth. I certainly took the Popes words to heart, have you? The Pope in this encyclical spoke in an infallible way while speaking issues of faith and morals to the Church. This is what the catechism says on Papal infallibility.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
Papal Infallibility
by Jeffrey Mirus, PhD
(This is the response of Jeffrey Mirus to a question about papal infallibility addressed to him in the “Ask the Experts” section of EWTN Online Services.)
While the the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility in 1870, you must understand that the date on which a doctrine is officially defined is not the date on which it becomes true. Rather, it was always true. It’s just that different aspects of the Faith are challenged at different periods of history, and when a challenge occurs or a serious concern or question arises, then the Church will settle the difficulty by formally stating what the truth of the matter is – to end the confusion. So papal infallibility has always been true, and, moreover, was accepted and practiced from the earliest times.
The evidence that papal infallibility is part of the Christian Faith comes from three sources…
E
estesbob
Guest
Nobody is disputing papal infallibility. But he most certainly didn’t invoke it here.
stanthonymessenger.org/AskAFranciscan/Question.aspx?Question=176
K
Karen107
Guest
Apparently you are disputing papal infallibility when you reject the Popes encyclical writing.
E
estesbob
Guest
So is not believing in AGW a mortal or a venial sin?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
That’s totally wrong. AGW is a major part of the encyclical, even tho it covers a whole host of other serious environmental problems harming especially the poor. Akins is clearly reading it in a biased fashion in a way he would like to hear it, not in the way it is. It seems Akins himself may be into AGW denialism, which the Pope speaks very strong against in Laudato Si.
Furthermore the Encyclical constantly praises the actions of environmentalists and environmental groups (direct quotes from the Laudato Si itself):
- The worldwide ecological movement has already made considerable progress and led to the establishment of numerous organizations committed to raising awareness of these challenges. Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective, not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.
- We cannot fail to praise the commitment of international agencies and civil society organizations which draw public attention to these issues and offer critical cooperation, employing legitimate means of pressure, to ensure that each government carries out its proper and inalienable responsibility to preserve its country’s environment and natural resources, without capitulating to spurious local or international interests.
- Worldwide, the ecological movement has made significant advances, thanks also to the efforts of many organizations of civil society. It is impossible here to mention them all, or to review the history of their contributions. But thanks to their efforts, environmental questions have increasingly found a place on public agendas and encouraged more farsighted approaches.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
As a Skeptic, here is what I like about Pope Francis’ encyclical:
- There is a considerable amount of opinion, conjecture and theoretical language in the document.
- He is not teaching on a subject which is a matter of faith or morals, and he has certainly not indicated that the teaching is infallible.
- Pope Francis has addressed *Laudato Si *to all people. (An encyclical addressed only to the Catholic faithful is more authoritative) He is therefore not delivering teaching which is binding, and within the encyclical he speaks of the need for dialogue, discussion and growth in learning on these matters.
E
estesbob
Guest
*Of the 40,500 words in the official English translation of the document, the word warming occurs nine times and the phrase climate change occurs twelve times.
*
E
estesbob
Guest
It was a very important and very thought provoking encyclical. It is too bad AGW proponents have twisted it beyond recognition to try and support their agenda.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Doing a word search does not amount to actually reading LS for what it says.
Furthermore, the Pope is holding numerous talks and conference on AGW. And he has spoken and written about it before LS. It is quite clear he considers AGW to be one of the most, if not the most, serious environmental problem confronting humanity today, and he is quite adamant that we should be mitigating it and getting our governments to do the right things to help mitigate it. It really can’t get much clearer than that, in case people have not been following that JPII and BXVI have also been saying about AGW and our need to mitigate it.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Leaf, old friend, we have had many discussions about this subject for some time now.
I have maintained that man is not responsible for global warming.
Global warming may or may not occur, but man can have no effect on it.
I maintain that this whole subject is less about “science” and mythical environmental control than it is about politics. Those who promote this hoax are only interested in passing laws like “Cap and Trade”- - the bartering of “carbon credits”, and the redistribution of wealth from industrial nations to third world countries.
I have stated that there is no evidence proving that man is capable of causing climate change.
I am confident of this statement because it is true and more and more people are beginning to think this way.
I want to see some results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. That is science. Not consensus, not computer models, not estimates, and not conjecture.
I am still waiting for the “Big Announcement” from a University or a non-partisan laboratory…
TA-Dah…“We have conducted an experiment and have verifiable results proving that man made CO2 is causing Climate Change™”
E
estesbob
Guest
He Said we needed to protect the environment. I don’t know of anybody that disagrees with that. He specifically rejected the calls AGW proponents have had for population control and carbon credits. He also emphasized that any steps taken cannot unduly hurt the poor which would seem to be a rejection of the AGW proponents war on coal It is Specious to try to distill this excellent and much needed encyclical down to a clarion call for the acceptance of AGW and a demand that all Catholics toe the AGW line
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Have I EVER said we need to kill off a huge chunk of humanity to mitigate climate change? If that were the case we could just as well let it happen and let AGW kill off a huge chuck of humanity over the centuries and millennia it will be playing out
The whole point of mitigating it is so that people may live, not so they may die, for pete’s sake. Sheesh!
(Of course, there would be those who would want other people and their unborn children to die out, so they and their own children and progeny can thrive and continue to live high on the hog. No one ever claimed there were not evil people in the world, and the Pope is right to speak against these types.)
And yes, Pope Francis and a number of other thoughtful people are against Cap & Trade, which is actually a plan by businesses to make more money.
He is mainly against it because we all just need to mitigate AGW and not “buy indulgences” to get off the hook of mitigating it.
I am further against it because I think it just won’t work and won’t help reduce GHGs, certainly not fast enough.
Cap & Trade schemes were somewhat successful for reducing SO2 & NO2 – precursors to acid rain – and CFCs, which were destroying the stratospheric ozone hole, but that was because they targeted very narrow “point source” emissions. It was a way of helping businesses reduce without putting them out of business.
AGW and GHGs are different, being mainly “non-point source” emissions. If the governments of the world could have solved it without bothering us people too much – the way they handled acid rain and ozone depletion (which are still problems, but not nearly so bad now as before) – then they would have done so by now.
AGW requires everyone and their relatives to get involved in doing their parts, including but not limited to governments. That is one reason why JPII, BXVI, church leaders from nearly all faiths, and now Pope Francis have been calling on us to mitigate it over the past 25 years – bec we people, even the back-pewers, need to do the needful.
That means you too.
- Status