S
Sarcelle
Guest
AGW is not a dogma of the church.
Pope Francis draws criticism from some conservative Catholics over stances on economy, environment, social issues
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Of course it isn’t. I think we all know that.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Why did you tell philipi that ignoring this encyclical is bad for his spiritual growth?Of course it isn’t. I think we all know that.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Here is what Laudato Si actually has to say about AGW:
“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system…a number of scientific studies indicate most global warning of recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity.” –Laudato Si, 23
With respect to Laudato Si, it is equally reasonable to conclude that if there is AGW, as a number of scientific studies indicate, then it is a moral issue. But in any event, Laudato Si concerns far more than the question of AGW.
P
pnewton
Guest
What I said was, " Ignoring Catholic teaching is not conducive to spiritual growth. " In response to the statement that he was going to ignore this encyclical. This encyclical is a teaching on stewardship, primarily, not climate. I understand that we are all ignorant about many things. Choosing ignorance though, deliberately saying that one will ignore what the Pope is teaching, is wrong for any Catholic.
P
pnewton
Guest
And this is in an encyclical, what 70-100 pages long? I only read it online, so I do not know the number, but it is really long. Picking out the global warming statement took a lot of effort by the media, and of course, they fed it to the gullible so that some think that is what this encyclical is about. It is not. It is about Christian stewardship of this world God has given us, something that is a part of Catholic teaching.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
One does not have to agree with AGW to agree with the need to properly steward the environment. AGW or no AGW, we still should be respectful of God’s creation.
All I see of AGW is a scam that sells so called carbon credits. What’s next? A tax on how much carbon dioxide you breathe out?
P
philipl
Guest
Since there is no such thing as man made global warming and its based upon fake science, there is no way I can accept it. The whole concept is nothing more than a way for government to become even more authoritarian than is already is.
P
philipl
Guest
Since I am not ignorant about the myth of climate change and the Pope is basing his writings on false science then I may very well ignore it. There very fact it mentions consumerism over and over that its bad for people and the environment is wrong.
P
philipl
Guest
Please dont given them any ideas!
P
philipl
Guest
The Pope has made it very clear he wants a poor church for poor people.Let me put it this way, by today’s standards it would be more difficult for a middle class American to enter into heaven than for an elephant to enter through the eye of a needle.
The great uptick to that is that with God all things are possible. Hallelujah. There is hope for us all!
P
philipl
Guest
If the whole world were to apply the mains points of the encyclical, all the industrialized countries would have to revert back to the 1800’s. That world couldnt sustain the current population.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
This involves the concept of the “preferential option for the poor” that was developed by Latin American bishops in 1968. It concerns the teaching of Christ and the Sermon on the Mount. The very poor, who are in abject poverty and on the periphery of society, are most in need of help. It does not mean that poverty is the ideal situation for Catholics (or any person).
Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis) was a Jesuit missionary who worked with those in extreme poverty in Buenos Aires. One of his insights was that the poor who had been effectively excluded from mainstream society had not been corrupted by its values. In this way, the genuine religiosity of the people can inform the Church.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
It would appear this is a rationalization. AGW is a question of scientific fact and not belief. As Laudato Si explains, there is “a very solid scientific consensus” that climate change is occurring. This conclusion is factual and not belief. The encyclical also states, in the same paragraph 23, that “a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming…is the result of human activity”. This is AGW. Its existence is presented in the light of scientific fact and not as a matter of belief.
You may very well ignore Laudato Si, but ignoring it is to ignore Catholic social teaching.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I do agree with the majority of the encyclical but I still am not sold on the concept of AGW.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
It is not possible to revert back to the 1800’s, but it is possible to accept the moral teachings of Laudato Si. It seems to me that to reject the encyclical, if it is understood, is to reject Catholicism. But it appears that many of those critical of Laudato Si also self-identify as embracing a particular politically ideology and are thus viewing the encyclical through the prism of that ideology. This is in a significant way a manifestation of the cultural paradigm the encyclical describes. This is either understood or it is not. Laudato Si explains it, and I am not going to elaborate on it in a forum comment.
For others, there is surely a lack of proper cathesis, for at the heart of Laudato Si is Catholicism. It is the same Catholic teaching that I know was taught in the pre-Vatican II era and that remains today as it was during that period. If one nevertheless does not understand the teaching concering the epistomological paradigm, there are the writings of the Catholic theologian Romano Guardini. He is mentioned in a significant way in Laudato Si, and familiarity with his writings would provide insight into the moral issues related to the technoscience paradigm and modernity.
Laudato Si is a very important encyclical. At the heart of its moral teaching is nothing less than the Catholicism that has endured through the centuries.
E
Ender
Guest
No, this is not the way morality is determined. If today I believe AGW is not valid, but some time in the future it is determined to be true, my position is not retroactively sinful. No one knows whether AGW is true or not. Each of us takes a position based on what we believe to be true now, and regardless of what we learn about AGW in the future there is no sin in either accepting or rejecting it in the present.
It is not a moral issue because there is no moral choice involved.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
The real question here is what parts of the encyclical constitute Catholic teaching. Clearly we are not obligated to accept the comments on AGW as doctrine since we are not even obligated to accept them as accurate. I think Philipi’s comment about ignoring the encyclical really had to do with AGW.
Whatever the encyclical is about, this thread is mostly about its comments on AGW. It really has nothing whatever to do with stewardship since no one opposes that concept.
Ender
B
brian_custer
Guest
i wish Pope Francis would make one more public statement about the horror going on at Planned Parenthood
and one less about his opinion about the weather
i hope this is not construed as disrepectful
and one less about his opinion about the weather
i hope this is not construed as disrepectful
E
Ender
Guest
The question is whether AGW is true. It may be a “question of scientific fact” but the fact is that that question is unanswered. We don’t know the truth of the matter.
No, this is absolutely not accurate. The conclusion of those who believe in AGW, just like those who reject it, is a judgment based on their interpretation of what is known. It is their belief. That the sun rises in the East is a fact. That AGW is true is not.
There is nothing in the encyclical that sheds light on the scientific question involved. There is no more there - and considerably less - than can be found in the articles, blogs, papers, reports, and opinions that we have all encountered and addressed. It is a personal opinion about the truth of AGW.
The comments on AGW do not represent Catholic doctrine. They are opinions. Opinions about the validity of AGW are neither more nor less true simply because the pope has expressed his.
Ender
- Status