Laudato Si

[billcu1]

I always look for how I (we) might also be responsible. There have been studies and investigations to show that the GW-enhanced serious drought in Syria contributed to the uprising there, and once Syria was in a state of disarray it was easy for ISIS to take over & fill in the vacuum.

If Bush had not wrongly assumed Iraq was a threat to us & invaded, then there would not have been the Iraq issue (not saying that the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was a picnic).

Maybe Obama should not have pulled out the troops, but I think the American people were very weary of the war and wanted them out. Who knew ISIS would take over? Are the war-weary American people ready to put boots on the ground to fight ISIS? I’m not sure.

The Pope indeed has continuously called for peace in the Middle East and denounced ISIS. They have made death threats against him.

BTW, the Pope can walk and chew gum at the same time (multi-task), and he is and should be addressing many issues that affect the Church and the world.

If I remember right. Every intelligence organization in the world was saying Hussein was developing nukes. Bush for some reason gave them a year to get rid of them instead of immediately going in. Many vehicles were seen traveling to Syria carrying cargo. Believed to be weapons, if not beyond a doubt weapons. I don’t believe Iraq was erroneously called a threat. But that’s kind of moot here. Pulling out troops (and saying Americans are war weary) or whatever propaganda by whatever political organization doesn’t change the fact. That an unstable area, when troops are removed AND equipment left behind, someone is going to grab it. Whoever does it. Obama or whoever, it happens that it was Obama. Syria is a desert. And has been for ages. Quite used to lack of water.

 

[godisgood77]

I don’t dissent from ANY Catholic teachings. Just politics.

Then you can’t disregard the encyclical. Pope Francis has clearly stated that the encyclical falls directly in to the Church’s social teaching in the line of Rerum Novarum.

 

[billcu1]

Then you can’t disregard the encyclical. Pope Francis has clearly stated that the encyclical falls directly in to the Church’s social teaching in the line of Rerum Novarum.

Rerum Novarum? Now that’s one I’ve never heard of. So this is part of “faith” then? of “Faith and morals?”

 

[godisgood77]

Rerum Novarum? Now that’s one I’ve never heard of. So this is part of “faith” then? of “Faith and morals?”

I would say so yes… Rerum Novarum is, in my opinion, one of the most important encyclicals in the past 200 years. I highly recommend reading/studying it. Pope Leo XIII circa 1891 I believe

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

From Laudato Si’:

“107. It can be said that many problems from today’s world stem from the tendency, many times unconscious, to make the methods and aims of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society. The effects of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life.”

 

[billcu1]

From Laudato Si’:

“107. It can be said that many problems from today’s world stem from the tendency, many times unconscious, to make the methods and aims of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society. The effects of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life.”

I’m not quite sure what he’s trying to say here. Of course it’s one citation. It looks like he’s saying the science is good and those who disagree are using epistemology. Is that right?

 

[Denise1957]

I rather like Fr. Hunwicke’s take on the issue, which seems sensible and prudent:

liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2015/06/encyclicals_20.html

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m not quite sure what he’s trying to say here. Of course it’s one citation. It looks like he’s saying the science is good and those who disagree are using epistemology. Is that right?

No. That’s not quite what Pope Francis is saying, and what he is saying in the long encyclical is not easily put into only a few words. He recognizes the benefits of science but I believe he is saying that the scientific outlook and its method will not do when this limited outlook becomes a cultural paradigm. Rather than the preferential “Thou” and “Thou”, it becomes subject and object.

In the quote, Pope Francis is addressing technology and says its development is “an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm”. Technology “exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation”. Man now “lays his hands on things”, exploiting them to fullest. It is a confrontational relationship wherein the earth’s resources are regarded as infinite, but this “only leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit”. (106)

This approach to nature then becomes an epistemology, as a cultural paradigm and the way contemporary man understands and engages the world: “in the most radical sense of the term (i.e., technology) power is its motive.” In this way, the approach is no longer limited to science, and Pope Francis seems to be saying it has become a way of life. This involves man’s relationship to both nature and human nature, and man’s freedom and creativity are thereby diminished. In short, in this paradigm powerful forces come to regard both man and nature as objects.

 

[lynnvinc]

No. That’s not quite what Pope Francis is saying, and what he is saying in the long encyclical is not easily put into only a few words. He recognizes the benefits of science but I believe he is saying that the scientific outlook and its method will not do when this limited outlook becomes a cultural paradigm. Rather than the preferential “Thou” and “Thou”, it becomes subject and object.

In the quote, Pope Francis is addressing technology and says its development is “an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm”. Technology “exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation”. Man now “lays his hands on things”, exploiting them to fullest. It is a confrontational relationship wherein the earth’s resources are regarded as infinite, but this “only leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit”. (106)

This approach to nature then becomes an epistemology, as a cultural paradigm and the way contemporary man understands and engages the world: “in the most radical sense of the term (i.e., technology) power is its motive.” In this way, the approach is no longer limited to science, and Pope Francis seems to be saying it has become a way of life. This involves man’s relationship to both nature and human nature, and man’s freedom and creativity are thereby diminished. In short, in this paradigm powerful forces come to regard both man and nature as objects.

This isn’t the same thing, but in 1969 during the 2nd wave of the environmental movement an ecological anthropologist presenting on “Religion and the Ecological Movement” at an anthro conference, said (something to the effect) that earth systems are so complex, that science cannot really understand the full complexities and impacts and that people in the movement were coming to realize that what was needed was sort of a religious “awe” of the earth systems/environment (God’s creation) and humility to protect it. That we need to treat earth systems with care so as not unwittingly to do great harm.

IOW, the scientific epistemology (or the sci-tech epistemology, or “production science” v. “impact science”) falls far short and could be dangerous, and we need a more religious perspective on the environment.

That all makes sense to me. After all, it is God’s creation, which He saw was good, and we must respect it and not think God just cast it away so we could destroy it willy nilly, without a care for people harmed by our environmental abuse now & on into the future.

In the Encyclical is mention of one of our first commandments – to till and keep the garden – which was the theme of a really great film "Keeping the Earth: Religious and Scientific Perspectives on the Environment."

#67. “…The biblical texts are to be read in their context, with an appropriate hermeneutic, recognizing that they tell us to “till and keep” the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15). “Tilling” refers to cultivating, ploughing or working, while “keeping” means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations…”

The film I referred to talks about how we are to “serve” the earth, while it “serves” us - a “co-service,” a conservation, whence the term “conservative.” This should actually be a conservative issue, as it was with Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, our 2 greatest environmental presidents.

 

[johnnyc176]

Then you can’t disregard the encyclical. Pope Francis has clearly stated that the encyclical falls directly in to the Church’s social teaching in the line of Rerum Novarum.

We can have prudential judgement about the science though. One can care about the poor and the environment and still be skeptical of ‘climate change’. But if you claim to be caring about only some of God’s creation (environmental issues) but not all (contraception and abortion policies, etc.) then it seems you have placed more importance on your political ideology than on the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Lormar]

Has anyone here actually read the entire encyclical?

 

[Lormar]

I rather like Fr. Hunwicke’s take on the issue, which seems sensible and prudent:

liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2015/06/encyclicals_20.html

Denise, I thank you very much for posting this link.

This is the third time I am editing this post. Just pray for me please.

 

[godisgood77]

We can have prudential judgement about the science though. One can care about the poor and the environment and still be skeptical of ‘climate change’. But if you claim to be caring about only some of God’s creation (environmental issues) but not all (contraception and abortion policies, etc.) then it seems you have placed more importance on your political ideology than on the teachings of Jesus.

I don’t believe it is an either or scenario… Meaning one supports environmental morality and responsibility or one opposes abortion and uses contraception. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I also disagree that the Popes encyclical falls in to the political realm. The entire basis for the teaching is moral in nature.

 

[johnnyc176]

I don’t believe it is an either or scenario… Meaning one supports environmental morality and responsibility or one opposes abortion and uses contraception. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I believe that is what I was getting at. Caring for the environment and opposing contraception and abortion are interrelated…or should be.

I also disagree that the Popes encyclical falls in to the political realm. The entire basis for the teaching is moral in nature.

I didn’t say the Pope’s encyclical was political however it will have political influence in voting decisions.

 

[godisgood77]

I believe that is what I was getting at. Caring for the environment and opposing contraception and abortion are interrelated…or should be.

I didn’t say the Pope’s encyclical was political however it will have political influence in voting decisions.

Correct… So in the U.S. it will be very difficult for a Catholic to vote for a Republican or a Democrat in the upcoming elections. You could make the argument that there is a lesser of two evils, but neither can happen without serious discernment and a trip to the confessional.

 

[Denise1957]

This is the third time I am editing this post. Just pray for me please.

I’ll be happy to offer prayers.

 

[lynnvinc]

Has anyone here actually read the entire encyclical?

I’m up to about pg. 32 (#76) of the 106 pages. The science chapter, Chapter 1 or “statement of the problems” chapter, goes from pg. 9 (#17) to pg. 25 (#61). From what I’ve read, it jives perfectly with what I’ve learned over the past 3 decades of learning about environmental issues, and with the textbook I use for teaching “Intro to Environmental Studies” – Humans in the Landscape: An Intro to Env Studies (see books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=4294969924); this text came highly recommended by top experts, including Dr. Shirley Vincent, the Director of Educational Research for the National Council for Science & the Environment.

I can say from all my gained knowledge over the decades the science in the Encyclical is very solid and accurate.

The moral and religious parts are truly beautiful and profound. This is an amazing work…so far.

I only have one problem with it – the dismissal of increasing use of air-conditioning, without some thought about how AGW is increasing people’s need for it (see below):

---

#55 … People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning…

---

It is probably true that we are using more AC than we need, and more and more people are getting into, and overusing it. But it is also true there are ever greater health risks from heat waves. In the past there would be some cooler hours during the night & very early morning, during which people’s bodies could recuperate from the heat stress during the day. However, one of the effects of AGW due to the enhanced greenhouse effect is that minimum diurnal (night) temps are increasing faster than maximum diurnal (day) temps. Experts say that many of the 70,000 heat-related deaths in Europe summer of 2003 could have been avoided with AC during the nights. (I’ve also ready studies that show plants, such as paddy, need cooler nights, as well, and the increasing diurnal minimum temps are harming the crops.)

While we who use AC should see about reducing our AC use as much as possible, we should not jeopardize or risk our health. We keep our AC set at 79 to 80 F, but could probably put is up to 82 or higher during parts of the day (it gets to 115 F in our area during the dead of summer .

 

[Denise1957]

I only have one problem with it – the dismissal of increasing use of air-conditioning, without some thought about how AGW is increasing people’s need for it (see below):

---

#55 … People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning…

---

It is probably true that we are using more AC than we need, and more and more people are getting into, and overusing it. But it is also true there are ever greater health risks from heat waves. In the past there would be some cooler hours during the night & very early morning, during which people’s bodies could recuperate from the heat stress during the day. However, one of the effects of AGW due to the enhanced greenhouse effect is that minimum diurnal (night) temps are increasing faster than maximum diurnal (day) temps. Experts say that many of the 70,000 heat-related deaths in Europe summer of 2003 could have been avoided with AC during the nights. (I’ve also ready studies that show plants, such as paddy, need cooler nights, as well, and the increasing diurnal minimum temps are harming the crops.)

While we who use AC should see about reducing our AC use as much as possible, we should not jeopardize or risk our health. We keep our AC set at 79 to 80 F, but could probably put is up to 82 or higher during parts of the day (it gets to 115 F in our area during the dead of summer .

I agree that the use of AC is important in those areas which have excessive nighttime temps. Does the encyclical have any recommendations for alternatives to AC? I personally think that homes or apartments could be designed to make use of such things as cross-drafts by placing windows in the right areas. A lot of old houses (like mine) were designed with this in mind. I agree that settings for AC could be put higher, as you’ve suggested.

 

[Thomas_White]

I for one have read the entire encyclical, and I found Chapter Three most interesting, particularly beginning with #107, where Pope Francis discusses ‘The Globalization of the Technocratic Paradigm’. This section concerns theology and philosophy.

The Pope’s concern is that the methods of science and technology have in his view become a cultural paradigm, and it is clear he is convinced that environmental decline cannot be effectively addressed, let alone reversed, from within this paradigm. As others have noted, there is the influence of Saint Francis Assisi and Romano Guardini, a Catholic theologian and priest prominent during the middle of the last century who wrote about the effects on technology on human nature. In a word, Guardini was opposed to modernism, which became influential some five-hundred years ago during the Enlightenmemt and with the philosophy of Descartes. Pope Francis would overthrow this entire line of thought insofar as it has become an epistemology by which man lives. Since he believes the environment has become an urgent crisis requiring the cooperation of science, finance, government and so on–everyone–he is careful about offending sensibilities. But beyond doubt, and though the Pope never uses the word, the argument is about secularism. In Chapter Three, it becomes clear that it is utterly beyond consideration for Pope Francis that science, technology and their methods could possibly solve the problems they have created. It will require much more than that. And though it is complex, the essence of it concerns the dominant cultural paradigm’s view of both human nature and nature as mere objects that can be exploited for power and profit.

While to some in the media it perhaps might seem the encyclical advances a radical viewpoint, this is totally incorrect. I believe the encyclical very much reflects the traditional teachings of the Church.

 

[Denise1957]

I for one have read the entire encyclical, and I found Chapter Three most interesting, particularly beginning with #107, where Pope Francis discusses ‘The Globalization of the Technocratic Paradigm’. This section concerns theology and philosophy.

The Pope’s concern is that the methods of science and technology have in his view become a cultural paradigm, and it is clear he is convinced that environmental decline cannot be effectively addressed, let alone reversed, from within this paradigm. As others have noted, there is the influence of Saint Francis Assisi and Romano Guardini, a Catholic theologian and priest prominent during the middle of the last century who wrote about the effects on technology on human nature. In a word, Guardini was opposed to modernism, which became influential some five-hundred years ago during the Enlightenmemt and with the philosophy of Descartes. Pope Francis would overthrow this entire line of thought insofar as it has become an epistemology by which man lives. Since he believes the environment has become an urgent crisis requiring the cooperation of science, finance, government and so on–everyone–he is careful about offending sensibilities. But beyond doubt, and though the Pope never uses the word, the argument is about secularism. In Chapter Three, it becomes clear that it is utterly beyond consideration for Pope Francis that science, technology and their methods could possibly solve the problems they have created. It will require much more than that. And though it is complex, the essence of it concerns the dominant cultural paradigm’s view of both human nature and nature as mere objects that can be exploited for power and profit.

While to some in the media it perhaps might seem the encyclical advances a radical viewpoint, this is totally incorrect. I believe the encyclical very much reflects the traditional teachings of the Church.

A thoughtful analysis, with much to consider. It’s interesting that for Pope Francis, that science, technology and their methods can’t solve the problems they’ve created. I also detect a slight Luddite influence as well, but that’s not a bad thing, IMO.