Pope Francis draws criticism from some conservative Catholics over stances on economy, environment, social issues

[Ender]

Actually that’s not exactly right. It’s more than an opinion.

Since even the scientists involved recognize they are dealing with theories, any position expressed on the validity of AGW is in fact an opinion, and it doesn’t become more than that simply because the pope offers his.

If you believe a Catholic Cardinal, what Pope Francis has said about the environment indeed really reflects a Catholic moral issue.

This is a bit of a bait and switch argument. It is inappropriate to speak about AGW, then say that protection of the environment is a moral issue, and imply that therefore agreeing with AGW is a moral decision. Protecting the environment is a general, moral obligation, like helping the poor. Specific proposals about how to protect the environment (e.g. accepting AGW and acting accordingly) or helping the poor (e.g. raising the minimum wage) are entirely practical choices and we are free to choose as we see fit.

The Cardinal goes on to explain how there is an entire package of the Catholic faith but some pick and choose parts and others pick and choose other parts.

We are not permitted to pick and choose among doctrines, but we are surely permitted to make our own prudential choices about the application of those doctrines in specific circumstances. We cannot choose to damage the environment (a doctrinal restriction), but we may decide for ourselves the best way to protect it.

Cardinal Wuerl: “I think he probably recognizes, as popes have always had to recognize, certainly as we bishops have to recognize, there are those who take part of what we say and there are others that take another part of what we say. But we have to keep saying the whole package. We have to keep delivering the entire package.”

The point is that Cardinal Wuerl’s preferences are not part of the package of church doctrines.

Ender

 

[Lucretius]

Also, remember that Canon law requires that Bishops and Priests refuse communion to pro-choice politians, yet the Good Cardinal seems to ignore that one. I love the Cardinal (I live in Pittsburgh), but he gets picky and choosy too, like we all do on a practice level at least.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Ender]

The point, and the subtext of what the Holy Father says, is that it doesn’t actually matter if AGW is ‘real’ or not (it is, by the way, but it’s pretty much irrelevant).

It will matter a great deal if we take the steps recommended in order to reduce CO2 output. It matters enormously whether AGW is or is not true.

Our activities which have such an impact climate change would be grossly harmful to the environment anyway, so regardless we should be cutting back and finding different, more sustainable solutions, to energy/manufacturing/construction/farming/etc problems. If by some miracle we can pump trillions of tonnes of CO2/etc into the atmosphere and not remotely impact the way the atmosphere works (which even just in terms of common sense makes, well, no sense), we still have just as much a duty to change our behaviour anyway.

This is an assumption on your part. Emitting CO2 is not otherwise harmful to the environment. Nor is it at all clear that eliminating major CO2 generators is possible without significant (read: catastrophic) dislocations in the world’s economies…at least in those economies that go that route. Since most countries won’t take those self-immolating steps it isn’t at all clear that we should devastate our economy simply to feel good about ourselves without actually doing anything beneficial.

Ender

 

[Murmurs]

Emitting CO2 is not otherwise harmful to the environment. Nor is it at all clear that eliminating major CO2 generators is possible without significant (read: catastrophic) dislocations in the world’s economies…at least in those economies that go that route. Since most countries won’t take those self-immolating steps it isn’t at all clear that we should devastate our economy simply to feel good about ourselves without actually doing anything beneficial.

Ender

You do know what acid rain is, right? (Yes, carbonic acid isn’t nearly as damaging as nitrogen/sulphur-based ones, but it’s not exactly un-harmful; and burning fossil fuels does more than emit huge quantities of CO2 which even a basic scientific understanding that isn’t hindered by nonsensical bias would suggest is harmful…)

I’m horrified that the biggest reason for not doing something profoundly good is “it’s hard to do it.” The world economy needs a shake-up anyway. If we don’t do it while we have the option, it will happen by a particularly unpleasant revolution sometime in the future. I’d much rather we had the pain now while we can moderate it.

While I would never dream of trying to put words in the Pope’s mouth, I slightly do get the impression that that’s his reaction, too.

 

[Ender]

You do know what acid rain is, right?

Yes, actually I do. According to the EPA it is this:“Acid rain” is a broad term referring to a mixture of wet and dry deposition (deposited material) from the atmosphere containing higher than normal amounts of nitric and sulfuric acids.

(Yes, carbonic acid isn’t nearly as damaging as nitrogen/sulphur-based ones…

I would guess that’s why the government doesn’t consider it a component of acid rain. At least not yet. I imagine when they discover this oversight they will include it. Whether it belongs in that category is probably not a question that will be addressed.

…burning fossil fuels does more than emit huge quantities of CO2 which even a basic scientific understanding that isn’t hindered by nonsensical bias would suggest is harmful…)

I have more than a basic scientific understanding. Actually, assuming my position is based on “nonsensical bias” undermines your position. After all, if assertions coming from those who know nothing about the science involved can’t be refuted, what does that say about the robustness of your position?

I’m horrified that the biggest reason for not doing something profoundly good is “it’s hard to do it.”

And I am disappointed that my rather straightforward comment can be so profoundly misinterpreted.

The world economy needs a shake-up anyway.

You may make whatever argument you like about the world’s economic situation, but let’s not pretend that has anything to do with AGW. This comment simply reinforces a common impression that those who support AGW do so not because they believe it is true but simply because it allows them to achieve goals that are otherwise unobtainable…like altering the world’s economies.

While I would never dream of trying to put words in the Pope’s mouth, I slightly do get the impression that that’s his reaction, too.

Your putting words in the pope’s mouth is not a dream, it is now a reality.

Ender

 

[zz912]

You may make whatever argument you like about the world’s economic situation, but let’s not pretend that has anything to do with AGW. This comment simply reinforces a common impression that those who support AGW do so not because they believe it is true but simply because it allows them to achieve goals that are otherwise unobtainable…like altering the world’s economies.

Bingo. The AGW mythology is about control.

 

[TCEL]

Just as Pope Benedict drew criticism from some liberal Catholics over stances on the economy, environment, and social issues too, I’m sure. The only thing that really bothers me about the Pope isn’t the Pope, but the media. They are just as guilty of self-righteousness as their conservative counterparts they so easily accuse. Their appropriation of the man seems to indicate self-justification rather than an interest in the truth. That’s how it comes across to me, at any rate. However, I also know that God works in many ways, and that this might simply be a different method of seed-casting. Far be it from me to disparage the Pope himself, who is a man of integrity and respect.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

The difference is that we don’t live in the Renaissance.

All of our Popes for the last 150 years AT LEAST, have been exceedingly holy men worthy of the esteem of the faithful.

That’s fine, but now you are adding qualifiers to your notion of not liking a Pope. I didn’t know Pope’s prior to 1865 were excluded

Either way, I don’t find it sad or of any consequence either way. We are called to be obedient. Liking someone is a matter of taste, and as long as are feelings are not disordered or gained through malice or unholy emotions, I don’t see why it matters, frankly.

 

[Thomas_White]

One would think that a person who has more than a basic understanding of science and who understands Laudato Si would know that AGW and the global economy are related and that they are is a moral and not a political issue. To say it is a common impression that those who “support” AGW do so not because they “believe” it is true but because it allows them to achieve the goal of altering the world’s economies is unsubstantiated political rhetoric.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, actually I do. According to the EPA it is this:“Acid rain” is a broad term referring to a mixture of wet and dry deposition (deposited material) from the atmosphere containing higher than normal amounts of nitric and sulfuric acids.
I would guess that’s why the government doesn’t consider it a component of acid rain. At least not yet. I imagine when they discover this oversight they will include it. Whether it belongs in that category is probably not a question that will be addressed.
I have more than a basic scientific understanding. Actually, assuming my position is based on “nonsensical bias” undermines your position. After all, if assertions coming from those who know nothing about the science involved can’t be refuted, what does that say about the robustness of your position?
And I am disappointed that my rather straightforward comment can be so profoundly misinterpreted.
You may make whatever argument you like about the world’s economic situation, but let’s not pretend that has anything to do with AGW. This comment simply reinforces a common impression that those who support AGW do so not because they believe it is true but simply because it allows them to achieve goals that are otherwise unobtainable…like altering the world’s economies.
Your putting words in the pope’s mouth is not a dream, it is now a reality.

Ender

I would think that a person that has more than a basic understaning of science and who understands Laudato Si would know that AGW and the global economy are related and that they are is a moral and not a political issue. To say it is a common impression that those who “support” AGW do so not because they “believe” it is true but because it allows them to achieve the goal of altering the world’s economies is both unsubstantiated and political.

 

[Thomas_White]

Basically your argument is that because you are certain you understand the issue all those who oppose you are evil. Not mistaken, evil. Actually, this is one of my biggest problems with Laudato Si: it encourages people to view this as a moral choice rather than a scientific debate. Ender

“…a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming of recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide and others) released mainly as a result of human activity.” –Laudato Si, 23

Laudato Si does teach that this problem is a moral issue. The papal encyclical is now part of Catholic social teaching. That it is considered a problem that Laudato Si encourages people to view global warming as a “moral choice” is unfortunate, but to disagree with Catholic teaching is what it is.

 

[Ender]

I would think that a person that has more than a basic understaning of science and who understands Laudato Si would know that AGW and the global economy are related and that they are is a moral and not a political issue.

I have a moral obligation to care for the environment. I do not have a moral obligation to accept someone else’s opinion about the best way to do that, nor do I have a moral obligation to believe that AGW is true. My position before Laudato Si was based on my understanding of the scientific claims made about global warming. That encyclical added nothing to the scientific debate and my position is therefore unchanged. I am no more bound to believe in AGW than Galileo was bound to believe in a geocentric universe.

To say it is a common impression that those who “support” AGW do so not because they “believe” it is true but because it allows them to achieve the goal of altering the world’s economies is both unsubstantiated and political.

I said it was common; I didn’t say it was true. That it is commonly believed is shown by the number of posts in this forum that make that accusation. That it is political (as well as scientific) is surely true. Even your comments here support that position. You aren’t arguing that I should accept it because it’s true; you are asserting that I have a moral obligation to accept it. The question of whether it is true is irrelevant. Murmers explicitly said the same thing: I should accept it whether or not it is true. That is not typically thought of as a scientific approach.

Ender

 

[Ender]

“…a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming of recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide and others) released mainly as a result of human activity.” –Laudato Si, 23

That “A number of” studies “indicate” something is actually a long way from demonstrating that that something is true. I’m aware of those studies. I am also aware of the number of question raised even by AGW proponents that indicate there may be something fundamentally wrong with the climate models.

Laudato Si does teach that this problem is a moral issue. The papal encyclical is now part of Catholic social teaching. That it is considered a problem that Laudato Si encourages people to view global warming as a “moral choice” is unfortunate, but to disagree with Catholic teaching is what it is.

No, it isn’t.*Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Laudato Si does teach that this problem is a moral issue.

Let’s examine Laudato Si a little more closely.*A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. (#23)
*What is disturbing here is that the very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing no warming of the climatic system whatever. That warming was suspended over 18 years ago. It is asserted that the warming has simply shifted to the oceans, but there is certainly no scientific consensus about that claim.*In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events…
Well, aside from the fact that there has been no warming in recent decades, the sea level has been rising pretty much since the end of the little ice age and is irrelevant to the question of whether man is responsible. The real concern is the assertion that extreme weather events have increased. Again, completely aside from whether man is responsible for the warming that has been seen, the claim that weather has become more extreme is hotly debated, and frankly is not well supported by the evidence.…a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases…
*Can anyone seriously believe a statement like this is now Catholic doctrine? There has been no warming for nearly two decades *despite *the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. “A solid consensus”, “a number of studies”…these are not the words of moral guidance. And things don’t get any better.*The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas… *(#24)
This seems debatable on a number of counts, not least because it is unclear whether they have actually found methane or the microbes that produce it on Antarctica.

Surely the point is this: assertions like these are common in the scientific literature, as are rebuttals to the claims. These assertions do not become fact for being repeated in an encyclical. The scientific validity of the claims is properly determined by scientists, and until that happens there is simply no argument to be made that we have a moral obligation to believe on faith what is scientifically debatable.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I have a moral obligation to care for the environment. I do not have a moral obligation to accept someone else’s opinion about the best way to do that, nor do I have a moral obligation to believe that AGW is true. My position before Laudato Si was based on my understanding of the scientific claims made about global warming. That encyclical added nothing to the scientific debate and my position is therefore unchanged. I am no more bound to believe in AGW than Galileo was bound to believe in a geocentric universe.

Laudato Si does not proscribe “a best way” to address AGW. What is said concerning AGW in paragraph 23 of the encyclical is not a matter of belief. It refers to scientific fact and not “scientific” debate. That the encyclical added nothing to the “scientific” debate is correct but irrelevant.

I said it was common; I didn’t say it was true. That it is commonly believed is shown by the number of posts in this forum that make that accusation. That it is political (as well as scientific) is surely true. Even your comments here support that position. You aren’t arguing that I should accept it because it’s true; you are asserting that I have a moral obligation to accept it. The question of whether it is true is irrelevant. Murmers explicitly said the same thing: I should accept it whether or not it is true. That is not typically thought of as a scientific approach.

There is in social research what is known as sampling error. It is an error to conclude that a belief said to be commonly held among a very small subset is likewise a belief held by the larger population. It is the conclusion that the error is true that is in this instance political. It is not science. I have certainly not said anyone has a moral obligation to accept the error.

 

[Thomas_White]

Let’s examine Laudato Si a little more closely.*A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. (#23)
*What is disturbing here is that the very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing no warming of the climatic system whatever. That warming was suspended over 18 years ago. It is asserted that the warming has simply shifted to the oceans, but there is certainly no scientific consensus about that claim.*In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events…
Well, aside from the fact that there has been no warming in recent decades, the sea level has been rising pretty much since the end of the little ice age and is irrelevant to the question of whether man is responsible. The real concern is the assertion that extreme weather events have increased. Again, completely aside from whether man is responsible for the warming that has been seen, the claim that weather has become more extreme is hotly debated, and frankly is not well supported by the evidence.…a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases…
*Can anyone seriously believe a statement like this is now Catholic doctrine? There has been no warming for nearly two decades *despite *the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. “A solid consensus”, “a number of studies”…these are not the words of moral guidance. And things don’t get any better.*The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas… *(#24)
This seems debatable on a number of counts, not least because it is unclear whether they have actually found methane or the microbes that produce it on Antarctica.

Surely the point is this: assertions like these are common in the scientific literature, as are rebuttals to the claims. These assertions do not become fact for being repeated in an encyclical. The scientific validity of the claims is properly determined by scientists, and until that happens there is simply no argument to be made that we have a moral obligation to believe on faith what is scientifically debatable.

Ender

If there is not climate change and AGW, then there is no moral issue. It is that simple.

 

[Thomas_White]

That “A number of” studies “indicate” something is actually a long way from demonstrating that that something is true. I’m aware of those studies. I am also aware of the number of question raised even by AGW proponents that indicate there may be something fundamentally wrong with the climate models.

Pope Francis, in paragraph 23 of Laudato Si, refers to a number of scientific studies that indicate that in recent decades AGW has occurred. Again, if in fact AGW is not occurring, there is no moral issue there. If one does not believe AGW is occurring, then why is there a concern with respect to the moral teachings of Laudato Si?

No, it isn’t.*Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

To disagree with the Catholic teaching of a papal encyclical is not to disagree with Catholic teaching? What would prudential judgment have to with this?

“It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency of the challenge we face.” –Laudato Si, 15

 

[Ender]

Laudato Si does not proscribe “a best way” to address AGW. What is said concerning AGW in paragraph 23 of the encyclical is not a matter of belief. It refers to scientific fact and not “scientific” debate.

But this is the whole point: the assertions made by AGW proponents are in fact…not fact. They are at best informed assumptions about what all the various data points mean. They are conclusions drawn from facts but they are not facts themselves.

If there is not climate change and AGW, then there is no moral issue. It is that simple.

Yes, exactly. Whether or not AGW is true will eventually be determined by further scientific investigation. Clearly there is no moral obligation to believe what cannot be shown to be true. The church (at first) actually took a much more reasonable position with Galileo, saying that he could teach heliocentrism as a theory, but because it could not be proven correct, he could not teach it as fact.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

But this is the whole point: the assertions made by AGW proponents are in fact…not fact. They are at best informed assumptions about what all the various data points mean. They are conclusions drawn from facts but they are not facts themselves.

Yes, and it involves the same fact that a premise cannot be proven true or false within its own logical argument. As a result, statistics and probability are often used as tools in scientific research. Generally, a 95% level of confidence is considered sufficiently significant for accepting the hypothesis (<.05 level of significance). However, in that instance, there remains a 5% probability that the hypothesis is null. But when repeated studies indicate that an hypothesis is probable at a 95% level of confidence, the level of confidence tends toward certainty.

It is a question for science. And I don’t see where Laudato Si enters the so-called scientific debate. In that respect, that there has been controversy surrounding the encyclical is perplexing. There is no “there” there. There is no moral issue if there is no climate change and AGW.

Yes, exactly. Whether or not AGW is true will eventually be determined by further scientific investigation. Clearly there is no moral obligation to believe what cannot be shown to be true. The church (at first) actually took a much more reasonable position with Galileo, saying that he could teach heliocentrism as a theory, but because it could not be proven correct, he could not teach it as fact. Ender

Again, I think Laudato Si is very careful not to teach AGW as a fact. The encyclical only notes a concern and does so without taking any position. It notes what scientific studies have indicated, but I don’t see where Laudato Si teaches that there is a moral obligation to “believe” in AGW. AGW either is a scientific fact or it is not, and there is no moral argument in Laudato Si entailing belief. That there is not is what I find odd about the controversy. It seems to involve a misunderstanding of the encyclical.

Laudato Si teaches of a cultural paradigm that involves far more than the question of AGW.

 

[Cath4life]

We may struggle with a particular teaching or or have questions about the church be we should always remember that the presumption of truth rests in the church. She has been endowed with the authority of Christ and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit to interpret and teach with authority on all matters of faith and morals.

Judge not. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged and the measure you give is the measure you get. -Matt 7:1-2

You have no right or authority to say who is Catholic in spirit and Catholic in name. This is a statement of pride.

There is no left or right in the kingdom of God. No liberal or conservative Angels. We are the church militant and God will decide, not man who makes the final cut.

Well said! God knows the heart of each person and their true motives and intentions. He alone will be able to judge.