Pope calls for action on climate change

[rlg94086]

Great article from G.Monbiot re:Copenhagen
monbiot.com/archives/2009…s-is-about-us/

"This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves. Here, in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among impenetrable texts and withering procedures, humankind decides what it is and what it will become. It chooses whether to continue living as it has done, until it must make a wasteland of its home, or to stop and redefine itself. This is about much more than climate change. This is about us.

The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy. We are the universal ape, equipped with the ingenuity and aggression to bring down prey much larger than itself, break into new lands, roar its defiance of natural constraints. Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks.

The summit’s premise is that the age of heroism is over. We have entered the age of accomodation. No longer may we live without restraint. No longer may we swing our fists regardless of whose nose might be in the way. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow.

This is a meeting about chemicals: the greenhouse gases insulating the atmosphere. But it is also a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have. A new movement, most visible in North America and Australia, but now apparent everywhere, demands to trample on the lives of others as if this were a human right. It will not be constrained by taxes, gun laws, regulations, health and safety, especially environmental restraints. It knows that fossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Palaeolithic dreams. For a moment, a marvellous, frontier moment, they allowed us to live in blissful mindlessness.

The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around, accusing those who would impede them of communism, fascism, religiosity, misanthropy, but knowing at heart that these restrictions are driven by something far more repulsive to the unrestrained man: the decencies we owe to other human beings.

I fear this chorus of bullies, but I also sympathise. I lead a mostly peaceful life, but my dreams are haunted by giant aurochs. All those of us whose blood still races are forced to sublimate, to fantasise. In daydreams and video games we find the lives that ecological limits and other people’s interests forbid us to live.

Humanity is no longer split between conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and progressives, though both sides are informed by the older politics. Today the battlelines are drawn between** expanders and restrainers**; those who believe that there should be no impediments, and those who believe that we must live within limits. The vicious battles we have seen so far between greens and climate change deniers, road safety campaigners and speed freaks, real grassroots groups and corporate-sponsored astroturfers are just the beginning. This war will become much uglier as people kick against the limits that decency demands.

But somehow this first great global battle between expanders and restrainers must be won and then the battles that lie beyond it – rising consumption, corporate power, economic growth - must begin. If governments don’t show some resolve on climate change, the expanders will seize on the restrainers’ weakness. They will attack - using the same tactics of denial, obfuscation and appeals to self-interest - the other measures that protect people from each other, or which prevent the world’s ecosystems from being destroyed. There is no end to this fight, no line these people will not cross. They too are aware that this a battle to redefine humanity, and they wish to redefine it as a species even more rapacious than it is today."

So right, on so many levels…

So tyrannically wrong, on so many levels. The author is a partisan hack that demonizes those who disagree with him and attributes an extremism to them that doesn’t exist (“demands to trample on the lives of others as if it is a human right”). I can’t support someone who favors tyranny.

Thankfully, that is not what the Holy Father is calling for. I support sensible environmental policy that respects the rights of man in the process.

BTW…Monbiot is a zoologist…why do his thoughts on climate change have any weight at all? When scientists who are labeled “deniers” sign petitions, I always see posts that say they aren’t climatologists, so their opinions are worthless. What about a zoologist? Expert, apparently?

 

[Fran65]

It strikes me that the Pope is simply acknowledging that we live on a planet with finite resources and that we have a clearly defined responsibility as stewards of God’s creation. Whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, pollution and environmental destruction still need addressing. I am delighted that we have such a Pope.

 

[rlg94086]

It strikes me that the Pope is simply acknowledging that we live on a planet with finite resources and that we have a clearly defined responsibility as stewards of God’s creation. Whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, pollution and environmental destruction still need addressing. I am delighted that we have such a Pope.

Yes. What I like about the Pope’s work is that he seeks balance in accord with Church teaching on the dignity of man.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

Ambitious national policies are required, together with a necessary international commitment which will offer important benefits especially in the medium and long term. There is a need, in effect, to move beyond a purely consumerist mentality in order to promote forms of agricultural and industrial production capable of respecting creation and satisfying the primary needs of all.

Absolutely!

If the Church’s magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism, it is because such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the “dignity” of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms. The Church, for her part, is concerned that the question be approached in a balanced way, with respect for the “grammar” which the Creator has inscribed in his handiwork by giving man the role of a steward and administrator with responsibility over creation, a role which man must certainly not abuse, but also one which he may not abdicate. In the same way, the opposite position, which would absolutize technology and human power, results in a grave assault not only on nature, but also on human dignity itself.

The question is how we move from a “consumerist mentality.” Many environmentalists wish to take a punitive approach. This is not what the Church is calling for. “International commitment” does not mean that cap-and-trade solutions that destroy an economy are necessarily a good idea.

 

[Shin]

While this speech does not directly say that the Pope believes in man-made global climate change, even if he eventually said so this would not make him correct, or believable.

It is a matter of modern science, not Papal proclamations. The Pope can be dead wrong on the matter, and badly advised by his compadres in the Vatican as to whether it is correct or not.

Vatican appointees are just as misleadable by politics as everyone else, as well.

Of course if the Pope were to err on this level, it would be a very bad sign generally, and people who know the truth would have a duty to all the more strongly oppose the error so that it did not become entrenched as some sort of Gospel.

 

[Michael_Saint]

While this speech does not directly say that the Pope believes in man-made global climate change, even if he eventually said so this would not make him correct, or believable.

It is a matter of modern science, not Papal proclamations. The Pope can be dead wrong on the matter, and badly advised by his compadres in the Vatican as to whether it is correct or not.

Vatican appointees are just as misleadable by politics as everyone else, as well.

Of course if the Pope were to err on this level, it would be a very bad sign generally, and people who know the truth would have a duty to all the more strongly oppose the error so that it did not become entrenched as some sort of Gospel.

Exactly. When the Church gets too involved in science and begins taking positions, it ends up like the Galileo affair did. We should have learned our lesson then. The Church has been wise with regards to the “science” of evolution not to take any position.

 

[bookmark]

So, in your view, we should ignore it and continue to go on our way, polluting the planet and making all cities look like Beijing whilst ignoring melting ice caps and the harm we are doing to the world? Actually, whether it is caused by man or not, we certainly aren’t helping, either.

saf

 

[bookmark]

It strikes me that the Pope is simply acknowledging that we live on a planet with finite resources and that we have a clearly defined responsibility as stewards of God’s creation. Whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, pollution and environmental destruction still need addressing. I am delighted that we have such a Pope.

The Pope also said " If the Church’s magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism," he said, “it is because such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things.” HE’S SAYING HUMANS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER LIVING THINGS However, at the same time the media studiously avoided the Holy Father’s above-mentioned criticisms of “ecocentrism,” as well as his suggestion that the Darwinist mentality leads to disregard for the environment. “Whenever nature, and human beings in particular, are seen merely as products of chance or an evolutionary determinism, our overall sense of responsibility wanes,” said the Pope, adding, “On the other hand, seeing creation as God’s gift to humanity helps us understand our vocation and worth as human beings.”

 

[Darryl1958]

The best thing that we can do for the environment is to ensure that the enviromentlalists wing-nuts don’t destroy the economy with their hair-brained schemes to safe us.

Maybe that is what the pope was saying. I doubt that the MSM reporters read what the pope was really saying either.

 

[JReducation]

Exactly. When the Church gets too involved in science and begins taking positions, it ends up like the Galileo affair did. We should have learned our lesson then. The Church has been wise with regards to the “science” of evolution not to take any position.

We have to be careful here. The Church has long defended its moral right and duty to be engaged in the sciences, so much so that the big bang theory is a Catholic product. It was developed by a Catholic theologian and scientist. The Church sets aside billions of dollars to study astronomy. It runs one of the largest observatories in the world right here in the USA. Astronomy has long been a science studied by the Church and handed over to the Franciscans during the Renaissance and today to the Jesuits. Human sexuality and reproduction are another area of study in which the Catholic Church invests millions of dollars and hires some of the world’s biggest names to work for the Church. There are currently monastic communities whose sole ministry is the study of these scientific issues. This is a return to holy tradition when monks were the great scientific minds of the world, doing research, while Franciscans and Dominicans taught what the monks discovered at such great universities as Oxford, Parish, Padua, Geneo, Louvain, Andalucia, San Marcos and others.

Benedict XVI is not the first or the last pope interested in the sciences. Many popes were scientists. Pope Benedict and others before him have insisted that the scientific community must include the research of the Church and keep the Church informed of their research. Today the Church has invested millions in the study of evolution and has an entire department at the Vatican that studies different aspects of science and culture. They sponsor congresses, research and other activities in the natural sciences. The Vatican Observatory in the USA is one of the best in the world and one of the most expensive to run.

We cannot divorce ourselves from the sciences for two reasons.

1. It is part of our Catholic patrimony.
2. It is the desire of the Pontiffs that we remain involved.

The role of the Church is to protect truth. Contrary to popular history, Galileo and Copernicus were not the tragedies that historians make them out to be. There were debates and contraversies. But in the end, the Vatican accepted the research and findings of these men. Copernicus himself was a Franciscan and was died in the good graces of the order and the Church. Galileo was also a devout Catholic. It’s not as some historians paint it that the Church slammed them and threw them away never to be heard from again. The real facts are that they ran into opposition, just as Pope Benedict is running into now. Well, that’s not surprise. Every scientist has run into opposition from other scholars. It’s an occupational hazaard of being a scientiest.

One of the most famous and and involved physicists and mathematicians of the 20the century was Maximilian Kolbe. His contributions to science and mathematics were overshadowed by his martyrdom. Had he not been martyred, he would have been famous for his theories and work in mathematical physics.

Pope Benedict himself combined science and theology in one of his doctoral theses for a theology degree when he chose to write on the relationship between history and faith from Bonaventure’s and the Frananciscan perspective. It was a very scientific approach to explaining God’s historical reality, without having to use the bible, just using pure historical reason. Bonaventure has begun this work in the 13th century.

We as Catholics should be very proud of our contribution to the sciences: medicine, physics, astronomy, anthropology, history, engineering, chemistry, biology, just to name a few. To wish that the current pope would not engage or speak about such things is contrary to our Catholic tradition. We have always been men and women of faith and science or as Pope Benedict likes to say, faith and reason.

Let us not sell our Catholic heritage short by wishing that the Church wouldn speak out on scientific and social issues, just to avoid the distortions of the media. Before there was the media there were others who distorted what our great Catholic scientists had to offer. Eventually they were exonerated, if not in their life time, later in history. We have not only been engaged in natural sciences, but also in social sciences since the earlly centuries of the Church. Some of the best social scientists were Catholic monks, friars and popes. In additiona, one of the commission that the Church has given to the Secular Orders is to engage in the scientific debates and research of our time.

Let us support our Holy Father’s effort to keep alive an old and honorable Catholic tradition, scientific inquiry and concern for the natural world. Let us not not try to narrow down the reach of the Church and the papacy to liturgy, sacraments, theology and the religious disciplines. That would be to stip away something that has been part of our Catholic heritage for centuries dating back to the dessert fathers and mothers, the monks, the mendicants, and the clerks regular.

For futher reading, we can now go to the Vatican site and Google the topics of our choice to see what the Church has said and done in different branches of science over the centuries. Our two most influential contributions have been in the areas of astronomy and medicine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nsper7]

Let us not forget some of those wonderful humanitarians atheism gave us like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. In fact, look at all the atrocities committed by atheistic Communist regimes.

 

[Tigg]

We as Catholics should be very proud of our contribution to the sciences: medicine, physics, astronomy, anthropology, history, engineering, chemistry, biology, just to name a few. To wish that the current pope would not engage or speak about such things is contrary to our Catholic tradition. We have always been men and women of faith and science or as Pope Benedict likes to say, faith and reason.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am in agreement with this; however as the climate debate goes on, you can readily understand why the faithful are becoming alarmed. Now there are reports that the UNFPA issued a statement in which they have called for a reduction of the population in the interest of the environment. According to one source, they are also using the same report to connect current concerns over the climate with women’s “reproductive rights.”

This is a common theme running through this entire issue and one that many have been warning about. I think it a very slippery slope and much discernment is needed.

Now we are told by our bishops we must “ecologically convert.” Well, of course we need to be good stewards of the earth, but since even the scientists are disputing certain claims, perhaps “The Cry of the Earth” is a bit premature.

“The role of the Catholic Church will be critical in the run up to Copenhagen, to remind world leaders of their moral duty to support those whose lives have already been devastated by climate change and commit to the lifestyle changes we all need to take for the common good.”

catholicbishops.ie/features/1586

It sure sounds good, doesn’t it, but beware of the deceptive times in which we live. I think it extreme naivete not to believe that Copenhagen is all about more government control and slavery (ignoring the fundamentals of subsidiarity,) an imposition of higher taxes and another way to impose morally objectionable restraints on a confused populace. The whole scenario reminds me of the “Consistent Ethics of Life” argument. Do we still have any clear priorities left?

 

[Ender]

So, in your view, we should ignore it and continue to go on our way, polluting the planet and making all cities look like Beijing whilst ignoring melting ice caps and the harm we are doing to the world?

Comments like this are one reason people more and more are coming to doubt the frantic cries that the sky is falling. If your reference to “ice caps” means the ice at the poles then your claim is simply wrong; sea ice is melting in the Arctic but growing in the Antarctic. As long as the world stubbornly refuses to act according to AGW predictions there is no compelling reason to believe that the theory is correct.

Ender

 

[JReducation]

Our holy Father Francis wrote a wonderful piece of theology that speaks to this topic, The Canticle of the Sun. Many here may have read it as a poem or a prayer. It was never intended to be that. It was actually three pieces of writing; all of them were ecological theology. This concept is not a new one. It dates back to Augustine.

When we listen to the Holy Father, we must listen with the ears of Augustine and Francis, who understood that the world was created by God for man. But man, because he is created in God’s image and likeness, has the same relationship with the world as God. This comes through very clearly in the theology of St. Francis and now again in the writings of Pope Benedict XVI. God is supreme over creation and one with creation. That which he creates, he governs. But that which he governs, he also becomes one with it through the mystery of the Incarnation. Therefore, every part of creation is not only for us to manage and protect, but it is also our brother or sister. Thus, Francis refers to the sun as brother, the moon as sister and the earth as Mother.

Francis observes in nature the threefold relationship between men. We are brothers and sisters. We are sons and daughters. We are mothers and fathers. Just as the created world reflects the natural relationships that God has built into man, man must also protect the created world so that the truth about our existence, which God reveals through creation, is never lost or obscured.

Francis believed that if we dismissed or ignored the dignity of creation, we would lose our own dignity, since all created things come from the hand of the same Father and all created things are indivisibly united. The call to attend to the theology of ecology is not a new call, nor is it a political statement. It is a call that is rooted in the scriptures and revealed to us by Christ himself in his own relationship with the created world, said Francis. Christ is the eternal Son of the Father who becomes a man, a created being, without being created himself. But as a man, he too benefits from the powers of nature and is subject to them, thus he can be killed, he experiences hunger and thirst.

To sum it up, the call to align ourselves with a worldwide movement to protect the earth is not an act of pantheism or liberal politics. Rather, it is the application of a theological perspective of creation that was revealed in scripture and written about by Francis of Assisi in 1224.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

To sum it up, the call to align ourselves with a worldwide movement to protect the earth is not an act of pantheism or liberal politics. Rather, it is the application of a theological perspective of creation that was revealed in scripture and written about by Francis of Assisi in 1224.

The topic of global warming has nothing whatever to do with whether or not the earth needs protection. It is not about ecology, sustainable development, destruction of natural habitat, or pollution. It is solely about whether the scientific theory of AGW is correct or incorrect. A lot of people who push the theory do so because they believe it would require nations to take actions that they support; for them it doesn’t matter whether the theory is true or not, only that it be accepted and action taken - like population control.

If you think the theory is correct then argue the scientific points. This is not a moral issue.

Ender

 

[Fran65]

It is a moral issue because of what it means for people if the theory is correct. If AGW is correct, we believe it to be correct and we do nothing then we are culpable for the suffering caused.It is also a moral issue if it is demonstrated to be incorrect and that there has been deception by some scientists and politiians.

Either way, this issue is not simply a scientific one, which is another reason for Pope Benedict XVI saying what he has.

 

[Shin]

The problem is that the Environmentalist movement has many of its roots in Communism and Socialism, and it is being used to push those idealogies subversively. The environmentalism is the excuse for extending government control over society, in higher taxes, in laws the restrict individual rights over property, in laws that are condemnatory of business in general, and which exert controls over businesses that make them virtually mere extensions of the government rather than run by their owners.

But, there is little awareness shown at the Vatican currently of these problems – if there was there would be some outright statements against it. But there is not to my knowledge anything particularly overt, which is not surprising since the mainstream press is in favor of these causes, and I rather believe so are many officials there as they are over here in the hierarchy.

That such a gigantic un-scientific hoax as man-made global warming is still being pushed despite its obvious falsity, and that the Vatican has not spoken out strongly against this hoax, shows yet again that we have deep troubles high and low at this point in time.

 

[Fran65]

On another thread itinerant1 has posted links to a couple of articles dealing with some of your points:

Vatican Newspaper Slams the Copenhagen Summit over Population Control, “Nihilism”

Positive Steps Don’t Depend on Global Accord: Holy See

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=382825&page=54

They are contained in posts numbered 807 and 808.

 

[Shin]

On another thread itinerant1 has posted links to a couple of articles dealing with some of your points:

Vatican Newspaper Slams the Copenhagen Summit over Population Control, “Nihilism”

Positive Steps Don’t Depend on Global Accord: Holy See

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=382825&page=54

They are contained in posts numbered 807 and 808.

I’m glad to see that there is more being said on some levels than I thought, thank you for the links.

 

[miguel]

Our holy Father Francis wrote a wonderful piece of theology that speaks to this topic, The Canticle of the Sun. Many here may have read it as a poem or a prayer. It was never intended to be that. It was actually three pieces of writing; all of them were ecological theology. This concept is not a new one. It dates back to Augustine.

When we listen to the Holy Father, we must listen with the ears of Augustine and Francis, who understood that the world was created by God for man. But man, because he is created in God’s image and likeness, has the same relationship with the world as God. This comes through very clearly in the theology of St. Francis and now again in the writings of Pope Benedict XVI. God is supreme over creation and one with creation. That which he creates, he governs. But that which he governs, he also becomes one with it through the mystery of the Incarnation. Therefore, every part of creation is not only for us to manage and protect, but it is also our brother or sister. Thus, Francis refers to the sun as brother, the moon as sister and the earth as Mother.

Francis observes in nature the threefold relationship between men. We are brothers and sisters. We are sons and daughters. We are mothers and fathers. Just as the created world reflects the natural relationships that God has built into man, man must also protect the created world so that the truth about our existence, which God reveals through creation, is never lost or obscured.

Francis believed that if we dismissed or ignored the dignity of creation, we would lose our own dignity, since all created things come from the hand of the same Father and all created things are indivisibly united. The call to attend to the theology of ecology is not a new call, nor is it a political statement. It is a call that is rooted in the scriptures and revealed to us by Christ himself in his own relationship with the created world, said Francis. Christ is the eternal Son of the Father who becomes a man, a created being, without being created himself. But as a man, he too benefits from the powers of nature and is subject to them, thus he can be killed, he experiences hunger and thirst.

To sum it up, the call to align ourselves with a worldwide movement to protect the earth is not an act of pantheism or liberal politics. Rather, it is the application of a theological perspective of creation that was revealed in scripture and written about by Francis of Assisi in 1224.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This is an excellent post JR. I highlighted “the call” for clarity. I assume you mean Pope Benedict’s call. I don’t assume you mean “the call” of certain environmental extremists to reduce global CO2 emissions by “80% by 2050” which we now know has been based on fraudulent science. And as an engineer, I don’t think people fully understand how radically that goal would change our lives if actually enforced. I also don’t assume you mean “the call” to reduce global CO2 emissions via the Chinese population control model. That said, I think US over-dependence on foreign oil is a cause of war and should be addressed from that perspective. I also think it should be addressed from an ecological (i.e., a conservation for future generations) perspective. And I do think we’re out of balance in the way energy is produced.

 

[rlg94086]

To sum it up, the call** to align ourselves with a worldwide movement to protect the earth is not an act of pantheism or liberal politics**. Rather, it is the application of a theological perspective of creation that was revealed in scripture and written about by Francis of Assisi in 1224.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well…yes and no. The Holy Father warns about that very thing:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

If the Church’s magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism, it is because** such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the “dignity” of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms. **The Church, for her part, is concerned that the question be approached in a balanced way, with respect for the “grammar” which the Creator has inscribed in his handiwork by giving man the role of a steward and administrator with responsibility over creation, a role which man must certainly not abuse, but also one which he may not abdicate. In the same way, the opposite position, which would absolutize technology and human power, results in a grave assault not only on nature, but also on human dignity itself.