Laudato Si

[Genesis315]

I have read it, Paul, many times. Thank you. What I find interesting, though, is that for decades now, almost all friends, colleagues, etc who are Roman Catholic, have used the same words in dismissing the document that are being used now by more conservative Catholics in the US regarding Laudato Si. As someone who is non-Roman, it makes me smile a bit. I guess we all have concerns that are important to us and rationale for defending/decrying them.

I am not taking a stand on either side, you know. Just standing back and listening, and trying to honor the beliefs.

First, to qualify, I don’t have a problem with anything in Laudato Si. But the document is qualitatively different from Humanae Vitae and the nature of what kid of assent or adherence is demanded is also different as a result. According to Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium the Pope’s teaching must be received

**"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, **“according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (LG 25)

Edited by moderator

In Laudato Si, as far as I can tell, the Pope notes some apparent problems, encourages us to dialogue in good faith to address them, and offers some Christian principles we need to keep in mind as we study the problems and try and seek solutions. He specifically says he is not trying to settle any scientific debates or provide any definitive solutions himself. His whole point is to encourage dialogue, debate, and discussion on the topic. There are no definitive doctrinal judgments or specific commands for particular action by individuals that I remember reading in there, although there is certainly a consideration of some general moral and ethical duties we have by virtue of our role as stewards of Creation which create bounds to the debate.

Compare that with Humanae Vitae, where the Pope explicitly sets forth the purpose as having the Magisterium authoritatively settle a particular moral question–it is not a call to simply consider the topic or dialogue about it. It then declares that answer and states that said doctrine is the law of God Himself, states what as a result must be absolutely excluded and condemned as serious error, what reasoning is invalid, and what actions are therefore morally illicit or licit. He of course also provides pastoral directives for shepherds to help their flocks live according to this doctrine.

Anyway, the point is, offering considerations for dialogue is not the same as providing a definitive judgment on a point of moral doctrine. They should be received and respected for what they are, not as if they were intended to be the same.

 

[Corki]

I think the issue is that they did sow seeds of doubt about anthropogenic climate change just BEFORE the Encyclical came out – I was at home then and saw it on TV. They had a fossil-fuel funded guy with his degree in Poli Sci claim it wasn’t happening. That is REALLY BAD, bec EWTN reaches so many people, and people trust it, even more than Fox TV.

I’m thinking even if they sow seeds of doubt about ACC, that is extremely bad, since it would make people think they are off the hook for doing anything about it. They would be feeding into the death and destruction from ACC, and abetting tipping the earth systems into a life-inhospitable state.

I still wouldn’t call that dissent. The “seeds of doubt,” if they were sown, had nothing to do with the authoritative message of the encyclical. The Pope specifically said it was ok to question the science as long as the end result was a better human ecology and stewardship of the environment. Even believing bad science isn’t dissent.

I didn’t see the EWTN episode you are referring to but there was a lot of pseudo-science being flung around on both sides of the climate change debate prior to the release of the encyclical. It would be sad that EWTN got drawn into that rather than waiting for the Pope’s words. But being imprudent in the timing of a program is also not dissent.

 

[lynnvinc]

I still wouldn’t call that dissent. The “seeds of doubt,” if they were sown, had nothing to do with the authoritative message of the encyclical. The Pope specifically said it was ok to question the science as long as the end result was a better human ecology and stewardship of the environment. Even believing bad science isn’t dissent.

I didn’t see the EWTN episode you are referring to but there was a lot of pseudo-science being flung around on both sides of the climate change debate prior to the release of the encyclical. It would be sad that EWTN got drawn into that rather than waiting for the Pope’s words. But being imprudent in the timing of a program is also not dissent.

Yes, not dissent. I guess what I’m getting at is overall effect. So if someone squirms around the issue without technically dissenting, but the effect is the same – to cause people not to mitigate environmental problems – it seems to me that is an important issue too. Let’s call it non-dissent dissent.

Or maybe “causing people to fall into error.” That would apply to a lot of behavior, I guess, including a spouse harping on something so much that it causes the spouse to do the opposite

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Anyway, the point is, offering considerations for dialogue is not the same as providing a definitive judgment on a point of moral doctrine. They should be received and respected for what they are, not as if they were intended to be the same.

This very helpful, Genesis. Thank you very much.

 

[commenter]

I think the question in the OP has been answered: no one has found any evidence of church hierarchy dissenting from Laudato Si.

The media is constantly trying to find a wedge between Pope Francis and so-called “conservatives”, who are supposedly gritting their teeth during this papacy. I have never met any of these conservatives.

In order to paint their inaccurate portrait of Francis, the media omits most of what he says (for instance, about same sex marriage, and many other things). They then take certain documents, such as Laudato Si, and try to make them an attack on those imaginary “conservatives”. I am sure after Pope Francis dies, they will go on using his “out of context” statements, ignoring most of what he said, as a way of attacking his successors.

The reality is that Laudato Si is consistent with what the earlier popes have been teaching. For instance,

“Every campesino has a natural right to possess a reasonable allotment of land where he can establish his home, work for subsistence of his family and a secure life." - Pope Francis, Laudato Si - this is classic Catholic social teaching, not socialism.

Orthodox Catholics are concerned about the impact of human activities on the environment, as well as the impact of big government and big business on families. They are also concerned about those who exploit very real environmental issues to justify ever increasing demands for more government intervention, and to justify things like abortion.

Orthodox Catholics are united with Pope Francis. I prefer not to use terms like “liberal” and “conservative” which are from the political realm, and misleading applied here.

 

[lynnvinc]

…Orthodox Catholics … are also concerned about those who exploit very real environmental issues to justify ever increasing demands for more government intervention, and to justify things like abortion.

The only problem is the gov does have a legitimate roll in establishing and enforcing laws and regulations to protect people from environmental harms…but there is a tremendous shortfall re this in most countries around the world, including in the U.S. – mainly in enforcement, with the laws and regs being fairly good.

I know bec I teach Environmental Crime and Justice. The most egregious cases that could be tried as crime are either filed as civil cases or the people just have to lump it and die. The less egregious cases are just lump it and suffer, with “human sacrifice zones” attracting more and more pollution and env harms…which can add up and cause serious health problems.

As for climate change, there are many things governments could be doing, but they are falling extremely short, and time is running out before we may tip earth systems into a life-inhospitable regime. They say things like we only have 10 years or 5 years, but they really don’t know exactly.

Prudence requires Catholics to do the needful to avoid this right now… and not wait:

Laudato Si – #186. The Rio Declaration of 1992 states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a pretext for postponing cost-effective measures”132 which prevent environmental degradation. This precautionary principle makes it possible to protect those who are most vulnerable and whose ability to defend their interests and to assemble incontrovertible evidence is limited. If objective information suggests that serious and irreversible damage may result, a project should be halted or modified, even in the absence of indisputable proof. Here the burden of proof is effectively reversed, since in such cases objective and conclusive demonstrations will have to be brought forward to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not cause serious harm to the environment or to those who inhabit it.

 

[commenter]

The only problem is the gov does have a legitimate roll in establishing and enforcing laws and regulations to protect people from environmental harms…but there is a tremendous shortfall re this in most countries around the world, including in the U.S. – mainly in enforcement, with the laws and regs being fairly good.

I know bec I teach Environmental Crime and Justice…

I certainly agree with Pope Francis, and you, that the government does have a role here. No argument. The giant corporations that are responsive to no real human owner, to no worker, and to no government, have done enormous damage. They are not defended by Catholic social teaching, which is opposed to greed, especially when it impacts so hard on the poor. Subsidiarity does not mean people are allowed to harm other people.

Thank you for your role teaching on this topic.

 

[TimothyH]

I think the question in the OP has been answered: no one has found any evidence of church hierarchy dissenting from Laudato Si.

Great. Now can we close the thread?

We can debate the relative merits of the encyclical’s content but a search for dissent seems like a hunting expedition to me. I really don’t understand why anyone would be “just curious” about this nor what it will accomplish if dissent is found.

-Tim-

 

[Thomas_Casey]

NOTICE

When quoting a document, it is always good to copy and paste the entire sentence for the benefit of the person who has not read the document. In some cases the entire paragraph is needed to give clear meaning to the statement.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Unless he says there is a moral imperative to alter behaviors that lead to global warming, reckless consumerism, declines in biodiversity, etc.

Not so simple, because if the moral imperative he declares is contingent upon his prudential assessment of facts on the ground, the moral imperative would cease were that assessment to be faulty. To reduce to the absurd for the sake of clarity, if a papal encyclical declared “Scottish terriers often spontaneously combust, therefore there is a moral imperative to exclude Scottish terriers from any contact with human society,” the assertion of a moral imperative would not make it true that terriers do indeed spontaneously combust - a fact (or falsehood) which lies outside papal competence to define, and a fact upon which the supposed imperative depends.

It would be morally wrong to oppose the science in this encyclical, and exceedingly immoral not to mitigate climate change, even if one is not completely convinced it is happening. Prudence requires us to do the best we can with the knowledge we have to avoid harms to life on earth and our own progeny.

It could only be morally wrong to “oppose the science” if one were willfully or at least negligently opposing something he knew (or ought to know) to be true. But if one were simply, after conscientious, well-informed study, to disagree with your - or even the pope’s - confidence about what is supposedly settled scientific fact, that would not be immoral. It would be wrong, nonetheless and as you say, to refuse to plot a prudent course based upon the knowledge you have, with concern for one’s neighbor and God’s creation. But if one’s own assessment of the data were that the likelihood of negative consequences from suggested “mitigation strategies” outweighs the likelihood of negative effects from not adopting them, that would make NOT doing the (scare-quoted) “responsible” thing the prudent and moral course of action. Accordingly, there is morality woven throughout, but not much chance that it will be of such clear-cut *principled *nature that it would fall directly (rather than in consequence) under the faith and morals competence of the Magisterium.

That’s the thing about science. Numbers. What defines a thing as a science is scientific method. The ability to reproduce under exact instances the exact results another did. Forget things unseen, such as paranormal. Or simple invisible things. Science doesn’t concern itself with that. Epistemology does. Numbers show only correlations to variables. The non-sequitor “inexact science” has always baffled me. Inexact, is not science.

The “reproducible” numbers in play here simply tell us that the earth is (or was, if one trusts the satellite readings indicating no warming for 18 years) slowly getting warmer. But those numbers don’t say anything about the root cause of that warming, and any claims to have determined that cause will not be scientific claims, since it is impossible to conduct a scientific experiment on global climate - we can’t reproduce results when we can’t repeat the process (after a reset) in the same environment or compare it to a nearly identical variation, we can’t isolate variables to test them singly and/or in combination. Claims to anthropogenesis rely on extrapolation from other scientifically based conclusions, but that doesn’t make them, in and of themselves, scientific conclusions. That being said, this lack of scientific standing equivalent to how other claims are verified doesn’t make claims of anthropogenesis any more true or false. We just ought to be honest in recognizing they are not simply science; and beyond that, to remember that even if they were science they still would not command our religious assent of mind and will.

Encyclicals are often merely pious opinion, not doctrine or dogma. Disagreement with opinions in an encyclical does not constitute dissent.

One is indeed free to disagree with opinions expressed in an encyclical, but there ought to be some indication that the item under consideration is in fact being presented as an opinion (or else through force of some other logic should reasonably indicate it is an opinion). The genre of an encyclical is, after all, a teaching document meant to express the pope’s ordinary Magisterium. So in doubt it is better to default to religious submission.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

In Laudato Si, as far as I can tell, the Pope notes some apparent problems, encourages us to dialogue in good faith to address them, and offers some Christian principles we need to keep in mind as we study the problems and try and seek solutions. He specifically says he is not trying to settle any scientific debates or provide any definitive solutions himself. His whole point is to encourage dialogue, debate, and discussion on the topic. There are no definitive doctrinal judgments or specific commands for particular action by individuals that I remember reading in there, although there is certainly a consideration of some general moral and ethical duties we have by virtue of our role as stewards of Creation which create bounds to the debate.

I would add to your distinctions the fact that the letter “Laudato si” is not addressed to the Church (or, indeed, explicitly to anyone at the outset) but merely to all men and women of goodwill, and at one point even feigns apology for undertaking specifically Christian analysis. But I still think it safer that if a particular assertion of the encyclical appears to teach on faith and morals, that we take the pope’s mind as expressed through his choice of genre (an encyclical, a teaching document, as opposed to some other sort of letter he could have chosen) to outweigh the other indications of conversationality/intention to dialogue.

Prudence requires Catholics to do the needful to avoid this right now… and not wait:

Laudato Si – #186. The Rio Declaration of 1992 states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a pretext for postponing cost-effective measures”132 which prevent environmental degradation. This precautionary principle makes it possible to protect those who are most vulnerable and whose ability to defend their interests and to assemble incontrovertible evidence is limited. If objective information suggests that serious and irreversible damage may result, a project should be halted or modified, even in the absence of indisputable proof. Here the burden of proof is effectively reversed, since in such cases objective and conclusive demonstrations will have to be brought forward to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not cause serious harm to the environment or to those who inhabit it.

This is a great example of a general moral principle, not contingent upon prudential judgments, that would command universal submission. But while excluding uncertainty as “pretext”, the imperative of a “precautionary principle” still doesn’t rule out disagreements about the best prudential course forward. Biofuels are illustrative of this. In a rush to reduce fossil fuel consumption (to “do the needful thing right now”) there was a push toward biofuels, a push that some warned would cause too great a disturbance in the price of staple grains to be worth its relatively low impact upon climate. Now I have read that governments have been backing off the biofuel push precisely because they are coming to agree that the effect on grain prices has been too severe. The well-intentioned strategy to preserve the planet for all, including the poor, was having a disproportionate and unacceptably deleterious effect upon the poor. It’s not just that in hindsight the “anti-biofuel” party’s (to use inaccurate but convenient shorthand) immoral proposals were somehow converted into morally prudential strategies; instead, all along it was perfectly licit for both sides of that debate to draw different conclusions about the advisability of a certain course of action, even if in agreement that morally responsible action was necessary even in the absence of absolute certainty.

 

[lynnvinc]

…
RE to my earlier post:

Prudence requires Catholics to do the needful to avoid this right now… and not wait:

Laudato Si – #186. The Rio Declaration of 1992 states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a pretext for postponing cost-effective measures”132 which prevent environmental degradation … If objective information suggests that serious and irreversible damage may result, a project should be halted or modified, even in the absence of indisputable proof. Here the burden of proof is effectively reversed, since in such cases objective and conclusive demonstrations will have to be brought forward to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not cause serious harm to the environment or to those who inhabit it.
This is a great example of a general moral principle, not contingent upon prudential judgments, that would command universal submission. But while excluding uncertainty as “pretext”, the imperative of a “precautionary principle” still doesn’t rule out disagreements about the best prudential course forward. Biofuels are illustrative of this.

All the environmentalists I know were against 1st generation biofuels – that is, food-to-fuel – from the get-go, and for several reasons. 1st off they take food out of the mouths of people, including starving people. The same is true of a heavy meat diet from crop-fed livestock – and that has been an issue for many decades, aside from environmental considerations.

2nd they are not necessarily solutions to reducing GHGs or other pollution, since a holistic view of them reveals many GH emissions & pollution from industrial farming and its heavy water use, etc.

The people who have been in favor of them are farmers and politicians who represent farmers .

What most environmentalists I know promote (both to reduce GH emissions & other pollution, as well as save non-renewable resources) is REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE and go on Alt energy when feasible (all of which are in the Pope’s encyclical – see below). We promote becoming energy/resource efficient/conservative. And most of these can be done cost-effectively – for instance my husband & I have been saving many $1000s over the 45 years of our marriage that we’ve been implementing them.

Nowhere does the Pope’s encyclical mention biofuels.

IOW, “biofuels” is a red herring strawman to deflect people from taking environmental harms seriously, or to impugn environmentalists so people will think ill of them.

As you mention the farming sector has not been as successful as planned in promoting food-to-fuel biofuels as a solution to environmental problems.

However, biofuels from agricultural & other waste (garbage, excreta) and quick-growing-plants-on-land-not-used-for-food-crops could certainly be considered

---

REDUCE in the Pope’s encyclical:

1. Since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending…
2. The current global situation engenders a feeling of instability and uncertainty, which in turn becomes “a seedbed for collective selfishness”.145 When people become self-centred and self-enclosed, their greed increases. The emptier a person’s heart is, the more he or she needs things to buy, own and consume.
3. …“Purchasing is always a moral – and not simply economic – act”.146 …

REUSE & RECYCLE in the Pope’s encyclical:

1. These problems are closely linked to a throwaway culture which affects the excluded just as it quickly reduces things to rubbish. To cite one example, most of the paper we produce is thrown away and not recycled. It is hard for us to accept that the way natural ecosystems work is exemplary: plants synthesize nutrients which feed herbivores; these in turn become food for carnivores, which produce significant quantities of organic waste which give rise to new generations of plants. But our industrial system, at the end of its cycle of production and consumption, has not developed the capacity to absorb and reuse waste and by-products. We have not yet managed to adopt a circular model of production capable of preserving resources for present and future generations, while limiting as much as possible the use of nonrenewable resources, moderating their consumption, maximizing their efficient use, reusing and recycling them…

---

IOW, mitigation solutions are moral decisions & within the scope of “faith and morals.” Furthermore, it is the moral dimension of these that is the true motivator to do good & right to overcome such deadly sins as greed, sloth, pride, envy, and gluttony – which are the true root causes of the environmental problems mentioned in the Pope’s encyclical. I know I tend to fall into some of these sins & need to overcome them with God’s abundant grace for the sake of the life of the world and God’s kingdom, so one of the most important solutions is a strong prayer life of petition for help and of thanks and praise for God’s abundant grace and gift of Himself.

 

[Beircheart]

What I find interesting, not necessarily here at Catholic Forums but just in general, is how many are eager to engage in argument over the encyclical without actually having read it for themselves!

My impression, and I merely read it and didn’t study it, is that two things are contained therein. 1) Pope Francis gave insight into his *personal *perspective on climate change. 2) Where he actually called Catholics to action, in this case increased awareness, introduced nothing new but reminded laity of obligations we have had for centuries; those of being good stewards of God’s creation and tempering capitalism with compassion.

What I am seeing is so many getting angry over the first point because the Pope’s personal perspective doesn’t match their own, that they are completely dismissing the second.

 

[lynnvinc]

What I find interesting, not necessarily here at Catholic Forums but just in general, is how many are eager to engage in argument over the encyclical without actually having read it for themselves!

My impression, and I merely read it and didn’t study it, is that two things are contained therein. 1) Pope Francis gave insight into his *personal *perspective on climate change.

I for one did read it (I’m on the last few pages now), and I didn’t get that all from it.

Pope Francis stated the well-established scientific facts about climate change and other environmental problems. Where he suggested we could dialog and debate was on the mitigation policies, since there are many ways we can mitigate these, and we need to do so without harming the poor.

Frankly the science parts and some other parts sounded very much like the textbook I just used for the Environmental Studies course I just taught. These are NOT his personal views, but the views of top, practicing climate and environmental scientists. I was amazed and astounded by the accuracy and detail into which he got into the science part.

I know he himself has good background in science and has been concerned about the impact of climate change & other env problems in S. America for a long time (esp the impacts on the poor and indigenous peoples), so he knows quite a bit and has a solid lay background in environmental science, as much as or better than my own lay background in it as a professor of Environmental Studies (I keep in contact with scientists when I have questions or doubts).

The encyclical was not “ghost written” by experts, tho I’m sure the Pope had experts review it for accuracy and tweak it to be more accurate and detailed. He is a person who really knows what he’s talking about.

It’s very refreshing to have a Pope who is so knowledgeable of many fields. It is not enough just to know “faith and morals” in the abstract – such as “Thou shalt not kill” – we also have to know how we are harming and killing people and harming God’s creation, so we can better cease and desist from it.

 

[lynnvinc]

…2) Where he actually called Catholics to action, in this case increased awareness, introduced nothing new but reminded laity of obligations we have had for centuries; those of being good stewards of God’s creation and tempering capitalism with compassion.

That was certainly in there, going all the way back to St. Francis. The Pope’s call to mitigate climate change & other env problems was nothing new, since JPII and BXVI have been calling us to that for 25 years now, unfortunately ineffectively it seems. Also he does echo the previous popes in their call for a compassionate capitalism that does not harm the poor.

Pope Francis’s encyclical is just a more urgent call to mitigate the much more serious environmental problems our generation (and many generations to come) face, getting into a lot more specificity about them.

The trajectory of these papal environmental statements over the past 25 years sort of reminds me of a homily our priest once gave – about how a priest started with general, abstract principles about stealing (with the hope of stopping the theft from a local lumber company in the town), and everyone thought the homilies were great.

Since the theft didn’t stop with his abstract homilies, he stared getting more specific, and finally specified that the people stealing from the local lumber company should stop doing do. The parishioners got really angry at him then since they were all stealing from the company, and they kicked him out of their parish.

I do hope people will heed the Pope’s encyclical without trying to twist it to their meanings of we don’t have to mitigate AGW and other env problems bec it’s just a bunch of take-it-or-leave-it suggestions, or worst still develop a real dislike for the Pope and even leave the Church.

Let’s pray those things don’t happen.

 

[Thomas_White]

Pope Francis was a Jesuit missionary and provincial in Argentina, and I don’t believe this background should be understated. The Jesuit missionary spirit goes beyond mere awareness of a difficulty and calls for concrete action to attempt to resolve the problem, to actually do something about it. And I believe this is the moral imperative of the encyclical.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Pope Francis was a Jesuit missionary and provincial in Argentina, and I don’t believe this background should be understated. The Jesuit missionary spirit goes beyond mere awareness of a difficulty and calls for concrete action to attempt to resolve the problem, to actually do something about it. And I believe this is the moral imperative of the encyclical.

We should all be able to agree that this is God’s creation, God’s world, God’s environment entrusted to our care. We should all be able to agree that we can do better.

 

[lynnvinc]

We should all be able to agree that this is God’s creation, God’s world, God’s environment entrusted to our care. We should all be able to agree that we can do better.

And we should all do better

We just adjusted our AC from 79F to 82F a few days ago (as Laudato Si suggests a reduction in AC usage) and so far so good. It’s in the high 90s low 100s these days.

It’s interesting that the Japanese are ahead of the curve and have been doing little things like that to help reduce AGW for some years now.