We all have to self examine and seriously consider this encyclical.
There have only been two infallible teachings, both about Mary.
He just did. As the years progress with warming taking place and finally scientists have to admit they were wrong it will take generations for them to regain their credibility and when people criticize the church they will always mention Gallileo and the global warming fiasco.
Quite the opposite. It’s precisely the denialist attitude that may remind people of the Galileo affair – and thankfully the Pope has done the opposite, for he has embraced the concensus of the scientific community in order to promulgate a more responsible lifestyle, instead of issuing an encyclical at odds with the current-day science.
Perhaps you can add that to your list, since the Church is wrong about Galileo (btw, they didn’t dispute his science, just his theology) and the climate, they could be wrong about the beginning of life.
The church doesn’t have a scientific opinion about the pill. It condemns contraception . If the pill did not provide contraception it would still be a sin to use it if the intent of using if the was to prevent inception.
Exactly. We called to protect God’s creation whether AGW is correct or not. There is nothing in this encyclical this says we have to support the tax and regulations schemes propose by warmists to mitigate this “problem” In fact there is nothing in this encyclical that binds a Catholic to support AGW as fact. AGW is not the focus of this encyclical- protection of the environment is. One could disbelieve AGW and still work to protect the environment.
You are trying to say that the Church’s teaching on abortion is not an infallible teaching?
This is true. On the other hand, there are those on the other side who claim that these tax and regulation schemes are socialism. That is equally as false as saying we must support tax and regulatory schemes. There is a lot of misinformation on both sides of this debate.
The church condemns abortion from the moment of conception on. One is not required believe that life begins at conception , just required to not have an abortion or support abortion after the conception occurs . In fact one could believe a stork placed the fertilized egg in the woman’s womb as long as they did not use that to justify abortion
Agreed. . Under socialism there’s no need for taxes as the government controls all the means of production .
That’s not true. That Jesus is God is an infallible teaching. The resurrection is an infallible teaching. The true presence is an infallible teaching. In fact every doctrine of the church is an infallible teaching .
No. I am saying encyclicals are how we are taught about the faith. Only two issues have had an ex-cathedra statement made. Other issues, just as true, are discussed in encyclicals. However, if one can say this encyclical is wrong, how are we to say that others can’t ignore other encyclicals.
We seem to be going in a circle. We can’t ignore teachings declared to be infallible.
So what is the purpose of an encyclical?
newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm
How do I know which is which? I am not a Church scholar.
A simple search of reliable sites.
I have no idea where you got that from my post about Sander’s proposals being at odds with Church teaching.
