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

[brian_custer]

nice job, Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

As you say, “The question is whether AGW is true.” Whether or not it is true is a question of scientific fact and not personal belief. What is your point?

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.

The comment is certainly accurate. Laudato Si, in paragraph 23, states that “there is a very solid scientific consensus that climate change is occurring.” This statement is not a belief or opinion. It is a reference to scientific studies. But that the sun rises in the East is certainly not a fact. The sun is stationary. The earth rotates.

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.

Laudato Si is a essentially a moral teaching and does not attempt to “shed light on the scientific question involved”. It explains the moral implications of science, both of science itself and of science as part of a cultural paradigm. If you can cite a reference where Laudato Si provides “a personal opinion about the truth of AGW”, please do so.

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.

This is the quote to which you respond above: “You may very well ignore Laudato Si, but ignoring it is to ignore Catholic social teaching.”

Laudato Si concerns far more than AGW. Your reply to the comment is not actually a reply to it. Again, what is the point?

In paragraph 23 of Laudato Si, Pope Francis does not express an opinion. He cites both a “very solid scientific consensus” concerning climate change and “a number of scientific studies that indicate that most global warming is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gasses…released mainly as the result of human activity.” This is not expressing an opinion. It is a reference to scientific studies.

Peace

 

[philipl]

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.

Yet the science based upon AGW is a myth. It has been proven the data its based up is a lie.

Next," to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority",has nothing what so ever to do with Catholicism.

I also disagree that consumerism is a bad thing. In fact it has raised the standard of living of everybody that is allowed to purchase wanted items.

I still have yet to find any catholic who agrees that we have too much consumerism in the world willing to tell me which industries they are willing to shut down. Yet they still use their computers, friges, tvs, meds, etc. etc.

 

[philipl]

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.

All you have to do to understand the poverty in Argentina is too look at its government. Its corrupt. Those people arent poor due to mean old corporations taking advantage of them, they live in poverty because their government is 100% corrupt.

 

[eamonnroma]

He has given this wonderful encyclical ‘Laudato sì’. No encyclical has ever sold so many copies as are being currently sold in the UK.

 

[philipl]

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.

So youre going to use the appeal to authority to claim the AGW is factual. But I can find just as many studies written by just as many Ph.d’s and Climate scientist that dispute AGW.

 

[philipl]

I wonder how many catholic that agree with the encyclical are getting rid of their A/C’s? A consumer product pointed out in Laudato si as a problem.

 

[gardenswithkids]

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

Many Catholics would like that–and we don’t want to be disrespectful of the pontiff either but we grow frustrated. Conservatives Catholics who feel distanced from our pontiff might not feel that way so much if the media promoted things that Pope Francis says and writes in regards to life issues. When I read his newest encyclical I was pleasantly surprised to read in several places Pope Francis addressing the problem of abortion. Your post here (and this thread in general) inspired me to re-read Laudato Si to find some of those quotes. Quickly scanning the document, here are a few which stood out to me:

117… When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for “instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature”.

1. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.
2. On the other hand, it is troubling that, when some ecological movements defend the integrity of the environment, rightly demanding that certain limits be imposed on scientific research, they sometimes fail to apply those same principles to human life. There is a tendency to justify transgressing all boundaries when experimentation is carried out on living human embryos. We forget that** the inalienable worth of a human being transcends his or her degree of development. **In the same way, when technology disregards the great ethical principles, it ends up considering any practice whatsoever as licit. As we have seen in this chapter, a technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power.

 

[Thomas_White]

All you have to do to understand the poverty in Argentina is too look at its government. Its corrupt. Those people arent poor due to mean old corporations taking advantage of them, they live in poverty because their government is 100% corrupt.

Thanks for the clarification. But I have a question: Have you read Laudato Si?

 

[estesbob]

He has given this wonderful encyclical ‘Laudato sì’. No encyclical has ever sold so many copies as are being currently sold in the UK.

Why would somebody buy something you can get online for free???

 

[Ender]

As you say, “The question is whether AGW is true.” Whether or not it is true is a question of scientific fact and not personal belief. What is your point?

AGW is a question of scientific fact in the same way existence of extraterrestrials is a matter of fact. Both are matters about which the answer is a factual truth, but about which that truth is unknown. Therefore what people believe to be true in both cases is a matter of personal belief. It is a belief based on evidence, but it is a belief nonetheless.

Laudato Si, in paragraph 23, states that “there is a very solid scientific consensus that climate change is occurring.” This statement is not a belief or opinion. It is a reference to scientific studies.

It is a fact that many scientists believe in AGW. It is not a fact that AGW is true.

If you can cite a reference where Laudato Si provides “a personal opinion about the truth of AGW”, please do so.

How about this one?* Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.*

In paragraph 23 of Laudato Si, Pope Francis does not express an opinion. He cites both a “very solid scientific consensus” concerning climate change and “a number of scientific studies that indicate that most global warming is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gasses…released mainly as the result of human activity.” This is not expressing an opinion. It is a reference to scientific studies.

This is an example of the pope citing others citing their opinions. Since that’s not even his own opinion there is no more reason to take it seriously now than before.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

AGW is a question of scientific fact in the same way existence of extraterrestrials is a matter of fact. Both are matters about which the answer is a factual truth, but about which that truth is unknown. Therefore what people believe to be true in both cases is a matter of personal belief. It is a belief based on evidence, but it is a belief nonetheless.

It is a fact that many scientists believe in AGW. It is not a fact that AGW is true.

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

That climate change is occuring is now well established by science. The deniers are few in number and fast diminishing. It is a fringe issue. AGW is increasingly a scientific certainty. The fact that many respected scientists are convinced, as the result of scientific studies, that AGW is occurring is what should be acknowledged. To whatever extent AGW is occurring, an attempt to mitigate it is what Laudato Si calls for.

There are a number of scientific studies by respected scientists indicating that AGW is occurring but none by science indicating there is in fact extraterrestrial life.

How about this one?* Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.*

To whatever extent AGW contributes to climate change and global warming, an attempt to mitigate it is what Laudato Si calls for. This is a moral teaching. Reject it as opinion as you will.

This is an example of the pope citing others citing their opinions. Since that’s not even his own opinion there is no more reason to take it seriously now than before.

In Laudato Si, Pope Francis refers to scientific studies. These studies are not opinions.

[sophistry: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.]

Peace

 

[gardenswithkids]

“It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help us acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency of the challenge we face.” –Laudato Si, 15
…
To whatever extent AGW contributes to climate change and global warming, an attempt to mitigate it is what Laudato Si calls for. This is a moral teaching. Reject it as opinion as you will.

In Laudato Si, Pope Francis refers to scientific studies. These studies are not opinions.

The studies you and Pope Francis refer to are about science NOT religion.

Did St. Francis of Assisi only care for the earth, the creatures of the earth and his fellow humans because the scientists of his day told him to do it? No.

We are called to care for the earth and creation–including human life at all stages of development–regardless of how hot or cold it is, regardless of the depth of the ocean. It’s simply something we should do as good stewards.

The pope is promised infallibility in matters of faith and morals–not infallibility in matters of science, economics, or communications. His emphasis on some scientists’ opinions about global warming may be what interferes with the pope’s ability to get his message across effectively to some conservatives.

 

[Thomas_White]

The studies you and Pope Francis refer to are about science NOT religion.

Did St. Francis of Assisi only care for the earth, the creatures of the earth and his fellow humans because the scientists of his day told him to do it? No.

We are called to care for the earth and creation–including human life at all stages of development–regardless of how hot or cold it is, regardless of the depth of the ocean. It’s simply something we should do as good stewards.

The pope is promised infallibility in matters of faith and morals–not infallibility in matters of science, economics, or communications. His emphasis on some scientists’ opinions about global warming may be what interferes with the pope’s ability to get his message across effectively to some conservatives.

“It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now 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

Though it should be obvious that science is not opinion, Pope Francis need not nor should he be expected to tailor his moral teachings to suit an imaginary U.S. Conservative Catholic Church. With all due respect, it is my observation that the difficulty is that many conservatives critical of Laudato Si either do not understand the encyclical or are unwilling or unable to accept that they are in disagrement with Catholic teaching.

 

[gardenswithkids]

“It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now 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

Though it should be obvious that science is not opinion, Pope Francis need not nor should he be expected to tailor his moral teachings to suit an imaginary U.S. Conservative Catholic Church. With all due respect, it is my observation that the difficulty is that many conservatives critical of Laudato Si either do not understand the encyclical or are unwilling or unable to accept that they are in disagrement with Catholic teaching.

In several posts you quoted a portion of paragraph 15. Here it is along with a little more of that same paragraph:

1. It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now 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. I will begin by briefly reviewing several aspects of the present ecological crisis, with the aim of drawing on the results of the best scientific research available today, letting them touch us deeply and provide a concrete foundation** for the ethical and spiritual itinerary that follows. I will then consider some principles drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition** which can render our commitment to the environment more coherent…

He starts with what he says is the “best scientific research available today”. Science may not be a matter of opinion, yet men and women of science sometimes hold opinions that they promote as “science” which are found later to have been wrong. Popes in the past have listened to scientists who were wrong about the world around them. Pope Francis writes that he’s providing this science as a foundation for what he will talk next: his ethical and spiritual itinerary. He then writes of ethical and spiritual matters, and he writes about Judeo-Christian tradition.

The Pope does not need to tailor his moral teachings to any particular group, yet if he uses terms and language that a certain group finds off-putting, it will be difficult to reach them. Further complicating communications, his message is often filtered through liberal media sources that ignore points which could help get his message across to many conservative Catholics while promote the ideas that might offend. The media largely ignored the points the pope made in this encyclical when he promote ethical and moral issues that conflict with liberal ideologies, such as abortion and research on human embryos. And the media also makes sure we hear when he makes off-handed comments like “rabbits” about mothers with large families while saying “Who am I to judge” about other groups. It doesn’t always feel like he wants to reach out with love and compassion towards conservative Catholics. But you’re right, he doesn’t have to tailor his message towards any particular group. The Holy Spirit didn’t promise us that.

 

[Thomas_White]

In several posts you quoted a portion of paragraph 15. Here it is along with a little more of that same paragraph:

“15. It is my hope that this encyclical letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help is to acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency of the challenge we face. I will begin by briefly reviewing several aspects of the present ecological crisis, with the aim of drawing on the results of the best scientific research today, letting them touch us deeply and provide a concrete foundation for the ethical and spiritual itinerary that follows. I will then consider some principals drawn from the Judeo-Christian tradition which can render our commitment to the environment more coherent…”

He starts with what he says is the “best scientific research available today”. Science may not be a matter of opinion, yet men and women of science sometimes hold opinions that they promote as “science” which are found later to have been wrong. Popes in the past have listened to scientists who were wrong about the world around them. Pope Francis writes that he’s providing this science as a foundation for what he will talk next: his ethical and spiritual itinerary. He then writes of ethical and spiritual matters, and he writes about Judeo-Christian tradition.

The part of the sentence above in bold font from Laudato Si simply means that Pope Francis aims to use scientific studies to shed light on “several aspects of the present ecological crisis”. He will use these aspects of the ecological crisis as a foundation for an ethical and spiritual itinerary. Rather than highlighting the phase in bold font, ignore it to understand the sentence. “Letting them touch us” refers to “several aspects of the present ecological crisis” and not “scientific studies”. With all due respect, what follows from this error results in a complete misunderstanding of Laudato Si.

What might be the issue with Pope Francis considering some principals drawn from the Judeo-Christian tradition? Is it wrong for Pope Francis to cite Genesis?

 

[gardenswithkids]

The part of the sentence above in bold font from Laudato Si simply means that Pope Francis aims to use scientific studies to shed light on “several aspects of the present ecological crisis”. He will use these aspects of the ecological crisis as a foundation for an ethical and spiritual itinerary. Rather than highlighting the phase in bold font, ignore it to understand the sentence. “Letting them touch us” refers to “several aspects of the present ecological crisis” and not “scientific studies”. With all due respect, what follows from this error results in a complete misunderstanding of Laudato Si.

What might be the issue with Pope Francis considering some principals drawn from the Judeo-Christian tradition? Is it wrong for Pope Francis to cite Genesis?

I have no issues with Pope Francis drawing on Judeo- Christian tradition. That’s the kind of thing one expects a pope to do.

That sentence in paragraph 15 cannot be properly understood apart from part that I bolded. You are telling me to ignore a crucial prepositional phrase–he writes FOR and then provides his reason for writing all that he did. He has an ethical and spiritual iternerary. He wants to take us on a spiritual journey, but he starts with today’s scientific theory that there is an ecological crisis to “provide a concrete foundation”. Concrete foundations sometimes crumble with the test of time. Catholics don’t have to take his science lessons literally in order to understand his spiritual and ethical message. Telling Catholics we must take all of his science literally will prove about as effective in getting his spiritual message across as telling scientists that they must take the seven day creation story found in Genesis literally.

 

[estesbob]

I have no issues with Pope Francis drawing on Judeo- Christian tradition. That’s the kind of thing one expects a pope to do.

That sentence in paragraph 15 cannot be properly understood apart from part that I bolded. You are telling me to ignore a crucial prepositional phrase–he writes FOR and then provides his reason for writing all that he did. He has an ethical and spiritual iternerary. He wants to take us on a spiritual journey, but he starts with today’s scientific theory that there is an ecological crisis to “provide a concrete foundation”. Concrete foundations sometimes crumble with the test of time. Catholics don’t have to take his science lessons literally in order to understand his spiritual and ethical message. Telling Catholics we must take all of his science literally will prove about as effective in getting his spiritual message across as telling scientists that they must take the seven day creation story found in Genesis literally.

The sad part is hicks admonition to protect the environment was immediately trampled under by the AGW crowd who used encyclicals to push their political agenda . The ironic part is he specifically rejects the" solutions" put forward by the AGW crowd.
But that too is lost as the AGW crowd tries to convince people Pope has said any Catholic who does not support AGW it is condemned to eternal hellfire

 

[Crossbones]

But that too is lost as the AGW crowd tries to convince people Pope has said any Catholic who does not support AGW it is condemned to eternal hellfire

Can you provide an example of ths, because you’ve mentioned it several times, but I haven’t seen it anywhere?

 

[Thomas_White]

The part of the sentence above in bold font from Laudato Si simply means that Pope Francis aims to use scientific studies to shed light on “several aspects of the present ecological crisis”. He will use these aspects of the ecological crisis as a foundation for an ethical and spiritual itinerary. Rather than highlighting the phase in bold font, ignore it to understand the sentence. “Letting them touch us” refers to “several aspects of the present ecological crisis” and not “scientific studies”. With all due respect, what follows from this error results in a complete misunderstanding of Laudato Si.

What might be the issue with Pope Francis considering some principals drawn from the Judeo-Christian tradition? Is it wrong for Pope Francis to cite Genesis?

The itinerary is the planned planned route for the narrative of the encyclical. This is not “the reason for writing all that he did”. Scientific studies shed line on the narrative but are not the ethical and spiritual teaching of Laudato Si.

The foundation of the ethical and spiritual teaching of the encyclical is found in paragraphs 106-108. These paragraphs and the ones that follow are a description and explanation of an epistomological and cultural paradigm where both humans and nature are viewed as objects that are exploited by a powerful elite. In this paradigm, science and the scientific method are explained as the difficulty and hardly as the “foundation” of the ethical and spiritual teaching of Laudato Si.