Pope Francis' upcoming climate change encyclical 'Laudato Sii' (Praised Be)

[ringil]

This is a disturbing thought. The environmental debate is properly between the scientists involved in determining what is happening, why it is happening, and what if anything can be done about it… assuming anything needs to be done. Which of these questions is something on which a “theological lens” is supposed to focus?

If this approach actually appears in an encyclical it would indicate several assumptions are being made, none of which is really appropriate. First it would have to assume that AGW is true, then it would have to assume that mitigation strategies are possible, and finally (and worst of all) it would have to assume that those who oppose them do so for morally culpable reasons.

It is one thing to be called immoral (as opposed to mistaken) by others on this forum. It would be quite another thing entirely to have the pope imply such a thing, but what else could a “theological” analysis of the situation conclude other than that the true debate is not about scientific questions but moral attitudes? There is nothing good that can come from such a document.

Ender

You seem pretty informed about this issue. Maybe send the Pope a letter outlining you objections to the new encyclical.

 

[Seamus_L]

Multitudes of Catholics will vote for Hillary Clinton regardless of that.

 

[Ender]

You seem pretty informed about this issue. Maybe send the Pope a letter outlining you objections to the new encyclical.

Comments like this are not helpful. Raise an objection about something I said and I’ll respond to it. If you disagree with any of the points I made, say so, counter my arguments with your own.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Multitudes of Catholics will vote for Hillary Clinton regardless of that.

True. Abortion will remain legal in this country until Catholic Democrats come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP

 

[Path_Finder]

You seem pretty informed about this issue. Maybe send the Pope a letter outlining you objections to the new encyclical.

This is a discussion forum. Since I am not well informed on the issue, I welcome such discourses.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You seem pretty informed about this issue. Maybe send the Pope a letter outlining you objections to the new encyclical.

Probably true, and more’s the pity.

It would be my guess, however, that it will at least be fewer than before. Obama garnered fewer of Catholics’ votes in the 2012 election than he did in the 2008 election. Still, it’s difficult to imagine how any Catholic could bring himself/herself to vote for either of them.

 

[sps49]

Probably true, and more’s the pity.

It would be my guess, however, that it will at least be fewer than before. Obama garnered fewer of Catholics’ votes in the 2012 election than he did in the 2008 election. Still, it’s difficult to imagine how any Catholic could bring himself/herself to vote for either of them.

One reason would be an “ends justify the means” mentality, salted liberally with rationalizations.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One reason would be an “ends justify the means” mentality, salted liberally with rationalizations.

Trouble is, how many people actually desire the ends of another Clinton administration, namely the further enrichment of the Clintons and Wall Street?

So, neither the ends nor the means are desirable.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Here is NCR’s guess on what will be in it

Five things to look for in the encyclical on environment

1. 
   *]The encyclical will accept the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is due to human activity.
   
   *]The encyclical will embrace the environmental movement without endorsing every position it has taken.
   
   *]The encyclical will insist that environmental issues are not simply political and economic issues — they are moral issues.
   
   *]The encyclical will bring a theological lens to the environmental debate.
   
   *]The encyclical will insist that the burden of climate change or of attempts to deal with climate change should not be borne solely by the poor.
   
   ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/five-things-look-encyclical-environment

1. 
   All in all, I welcome this. But I do have reservations about embracing the concept of global warming as caused by man. I am not convinced we fully understand what is at work - I accept that the climate is changing. I just feel that an in depth, objective analysis of the evidence we have results in more questions than answers. Did the Church not concur with the view that the sun revolved around the earth (do I have that right)?
   
   Yesterday I was reading this old heart healthy cookbook I have from the 90s - no saturated fats, margarine, fat free, a disaster by today’s standards, laughable. (I never did follow the recipes right, even in the 90s, thank God)

 

[sps49]

Trouble is, how many people actually desire the ends of another Clinton administration, namely the further enrichment of the Clintons and Wall Street?

So, neither the ends nor the means are desirable.

In my experience, many. Considering how many have voted in the last two cycles, I would guess that there is still some attraction. The dialog I have had with people who state that they would vote in that direction leaves me with the impression that it is the same third rail issues at play, abortion, contraception, with the recent addition of SSM. The argument is always framed as one of a victimized class, with little oxygen left to explore it properly. Usually, the other person is satisfied to classify me as a bigot, homophobe, racist, or other caricature that satisfies their starting assumptions rather than to dig into the why’s or where’s.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This idea needs a stake through its heart. There are good consequences and bad consequences but there is no such thing as a moral consequence. An action can be moral or immoral, but the consequences of that action cannot be either. This belief does nothing but justify judging - and condemning - the motives of others. These threads all lead back to the same point: the belief not that ones opponents are incorrect but that they are immoral.

Perhaps I did not explain myself very well. When I said “moral consequences” I meant “issues relating to global warming that are about right and wrong”. So with that understanding, I was saying that the mere possibility that global warming is valid is sufficient to initiate a conversation over these issues of right and wrong. This, in refutation of your claim that it is unreasonable for the Church to discuss the moral aspects of a problem before we know for sure that the problem is real.

The issues are in no way similar. Human cloning is an immoral act, but what is the moral question facing us in determining whether AGW is valid and what can be done about it? That’s the point: there isn’t one. There is no moral issue.

You know human cloning is an immoral act because the Church has considered the problem and determined that it is immoral. Despite the fact that no human has ever been cloned, and it may actually be impossible. This, in contrast to your assertion that it is unreasonable for the Church to consider a problem (like human cloning) until it has been proven to be a real problem.

The question of whether or not AGW is valid is not a moral issue. I agree with you on that point. But the subject matter of a potential encyclical need not be limited to that one question, as I showed in my example someone responding to global warming selfishly.

What is the need for an encyclical acknowledging that some people may behave selfishly and, more significantly, how is one to tell the difference between the righteous and the selfish?

These problems are not unique to global warming. Any subject dealing with right and wrong is a valid subject for a pope to write an encyclical. It is up to that particular pope to decide which subjects are serious enough to warrant the special attention.

What will inevitably happen (and all you have to do is read any of lynnvinc’s posts to see it) is that everyone who opposes AGW will be branded as selfish and uncaring (at a minimum).

This will happen whether the Pope writes an encyclical about this or not. Any encyclical, no matter how well conceived, is open to misinterpretation and misapplication. The question the Pope will hopefully consider is whether the potential for misinterpretation of an encyclical outweighs the good that encyclical may do when properly interpreted.

I reject the idea that justice is any more a part of this discussion than it is part of a discussion about how to repair an automobile. It’s like asking what day it is and getting Ohio as an answer.

Even in the area of car repair, there are justice issues. When a repairman finds something minor wrong with your car, but unnecessarily replaces parts that were not defective just to pad the bill, that is unjust. And with respect to global warming, the discussions in this forum frequently focus on the injustice of burdening the poor with “skyrocketing” energy bills. If it fair game to discuss the moral problems with mitigating global warming, it is fair game to discuss the moral problems with failing to mitigate it.

 

[Ender]

When I said “moral consequences” I meant “issues relating to global warming that are about right and wrong”. So with that understanding, I was saying that the mere possibility that global warming is valid is sufficient to initiate a conversation over these issues of right and wrong.

If we are discussing merely the possibility that AGW is valid how can there be any meaningful discussion about who should pay to implement solutions that may not work to a problem that we don’t know exists? Also, the words right and wrong are ambiguous in that they could mean either correct/incorrect or moral/immoral.

This, in contrast to your assertion that it is unreasonable for the Church to consider a problem (like human cloning) until it has been proven to be a real problem.

That is not at all what I said. The issue of human cloning is a moral question quite aside from any technical concerns. The question of AGW is purely a scientific concern with no moral aspect at all.

The question of whether or not AGW is valid is not a moral issue. I agree with you on that point. But the subject matter of a potential encyclical need not be limited to that one question, as I showed in my example someone responding to global warming selfishly.

People can respond immorally to any issue; that is not a basis for an encyclical.

Any subject dealing with right and wrong is a valid subject for a pope to write an encyclical.

You asserted above that AGW was a valid issue because people could behave selfishly in regard to it, but surely this is literally true of every issue, therefore according to your definition every subject is a valid topic. What would be the purpose of saying about an endless list of issues “people, don’t misbehave”? Is this really what we should look for in an encyclical?

Any encyclical, no matter how well conceived, is open to misinterpretation and misapplication.

True, but the problem is greatly exacerbated when things are written in such a way as to encourage such misinterpretations, and by way of example I would cite pretty much every statement by a bishop on what should be done to resolve our immigration problems or how our budget should be balanced.

Even in the area of car repair, there are justice issues.

No, there really aren’t, and this mindset significantly clouds the issue, which is not at all about the nature of individuals but is entirely about the solution of a problem. There are no moral decisions involved in determining why a car won’t start or whether AGW is true, and acting as if there are simply diverts the discussion from a review of the facts to a characterization of individual motivation. It is mudslinging, it is wrong, and it is unhelpful.

And with respect to global warming, the discussions in this forum frequently focus on the injustice of burdening the poor with “skyrocketing” energy bills. If it fair game to discuss the moral problems with mitigating global warming, it is fair game to discuss the moral problems with failing to mitigate it.

I’m not responsible for the arguments of others. They aren’t my positions and I have no need to defend them.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If we are discussing merely the possibility that AGW is valid how can there be any meaningful discussion about who should pay to implement solutions that may not work to a problem that we don’t know exists? Also, the words right and wrong are ambiguous in that they could mean either correct/incorrect or moral/immoral.

I doubt that any encyclical would propose specific “who should pay” plans. As for right and wrong, I do mean them in the moral/immoral sense. But I think you knew that.

That is not at all what I said. The issue of human cloning is a moral question quite aside from any technical concerns. The question of AGW is purely a scientific concern with no moral aspect at all.

Again you are reducing the potential content of the potential encyclical to the question of whether and how much the earth is warming. I suggest that you wait for the encyclical and see if your fears materialize.

People can respond immorally to any issue; that is not a basis for an encyclical.

Well, when you are Pope you can decide what is and what is not the basis for an encyclical.

You asserted above that AGW was a valid issue because people could behave selfishly in regard to it, but surely this is literally true of every issue, therefore according to your definition every subject is a valid topic. What would be the purpose of saying about an endless list of issues “people, don’t misbehave”? Is this really what we should look for in an encyclical?

There are unique aspects to questions of global environment that do not come up in most subjects dealing with morality. Usually for local issues you have one or a small number of people that could be unfairly treating another person or small group. With global ecology issues you have a vast number of people that can share responsibility and a vast number of people that could be unjustly harmed. This extreme dilution of blame and of suffering can, in most people’s minds, convey the illusion of blamelessness. It is why a firing squad always has a number of riflemen, and sometimes they even load a few of the guns with blanks. It only takes one person firing one gun to execute someone. But they use many executioners so the dilution of responsibility makes each rifleman feel like he is not to blame. This is one reason I can see to treat the issue of global warming differently than other moral issues. There may be other reasons that I have not thought of too. But I would not assume these moral issues are adequately covered in generic “people, don’t misbehave” admonitions.

True, but the problem is greatly exacerbated when things are written in such a way as to encourage such misinterpretations, and by way of example I would cite pretty much every statement by a bishop on what should be done to resolve our immigration problems or how our budget should be balanced.

I pray that Pope Francis keeps these considerations in mind.

No, there really aren’t, and this mindset significantly clouds the issue, which is not at all about the nature of individuals but is entirely about the solution of a problem. There are no moral decisions involved in determining why a car won’t start or whether AGW is true, and acting as if there are simply diverts the discussion from a review of the facts to a characterization of individual motivation. It is mudslinging, it is wrong, and it is unhelpful.

We’ve been over this ground before. As I showed there are other things to talk about with respect to global warming besides its scientific validity, just as there are other things to talk about with respect to car repair besides why a car won’t start. I’ve given morally-related examples of both.

I’m not responsible for the arguments of others. They aren’t my positions and I have no need to defend them.

Do you specifically denounce those postings that criticize the AGW position because of the effect of mitigation costs on the poor?

 

[Ender]

I doubt that any encyclical would propose specific “who should pay” plans. As for right and wrong, I do mean them in the moral/immoral sense. But I think you knew that.

I don’t like making assumptions.

There are unique aspects to questions of global environment that do not come up in most subjects dealing with morality.

Name one.

We’ve been over this ground before. As I showed there are other things to talk about with respect to global warming besides its scientific validity, just as there are other things to talk about with respect to car repair besides why a car won’t start. I’ve given morally-related examples of both.

What you have done is blur the distinction between the validity of a position and the ethics of the person holding it. Asserting that position A is valid and B is invalid is legitimate; suggesting that the people who hold either of these positions are immoral is quite another, and that is all a debate about the morality of AGW boils down to. It is a judgment of people, not ideas.

Do you specifically denounce those postings that criticize the AGW position because of the effect of mitigation costs on the poor?

No, but I do reject the assertion that CO2 emissions can be meaningfully reduced without having a catastrophic effect on the world’s economies.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Name one.

I did. It was the rest of the paragraph following “There are unique aspects to questions of global environment that do not come up in most subjects dealing with morality.”

What you have done is blur the distinction between the validity of a position and the ethics of the person holding it. Asserting that position A is valid and B is invalid is legitimate; suggesting that the people who hold either of these positions are immoral is quite another

…and something I have not done. If position A or B are about the scientific truth to global warming, then I have never implied that there is any moral fault in holding one position or the other. If you think otherwise, please cite where I did this.

and that is all a debate about the morality of AGW boils down to.

I disagree. I gave an example of a question of morality arising from a person who, without commenting on the scientific truth of global warming, took a position of blamelessness for himself based on his expectation that those that are harmed by global warming are themselves to blame for stupidly living close to the sea. We could have a debate about that position and it would not involve accusing the person of immorality based on his view of the science, for in that example, the person agrees that AGW is real, but still wants to avoid being blamed.

No, but I do reject the assertion that CO2 emissions can be meaningfully reduced without having a catastrophic effect on the world’s economies.

Would you then conclude that those that wish to proceed with CO2 reduction without any concern with the world’s economies or its effect the poor are doing so immorally? Or are they just, in some sense, blamelessly mistaken?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Anyone who truly believes in MMGW will turn off his computer immediately and never turn it on again. It requires a lot of energy to manufacture, is largely made of petroleum products and requires a significant amount of energy to operate. And, it’s not essential to life.

I have to leave fairly soon here, but I’ll probably look in tomorrow to see how many people have disappeared.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Anyone who truly believes in MMGW will turn off his computer immediately and never turn it on again. It requires a lot of energy to manufacture, is largely made of petroleum products and requires a significant amount of energy to operate. And, it’s not essential to life.

I have to leave fairly soon here, but I’ll probably look in tomorrow to see how many people have disappeared.

Not quite true as we hove become dependent on not only computers but automobiles, trucks and just about anything invovled in the transport of any goods. So we would also have to boycott just about everything except what we grow in our own back yard.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Lest we forget…
MMGW is not the only issue on the environment. There are lots of others including the most important question of all:

What is our relationship to the rest of creation?

Are we overlords? Are we gardeners? Are we equal citizens in Eden?
Are we enemies of Eden? Should we work in tandem with nature, or should we just continue to smash, rent and destroy it and ourselves into oblivion?

This is a moral issue, and is as important as what is our relationship to God? The leader of the Catholic Chuch has not only a right, but a duty to address it. Is it fair, wise and good that we are destroying the earth and her systems, not just for ourselves, but for everyone?

I for one have been looking forward to this encyclical for a while now. I’d like to see humans reinstated as fellow creatures in creation rather than overlords. I’d like to see that we have responsibilities to other creatures and to creation rather than being given permission to simply rape and pillage at will.

I’d like to know that at least someone else is speaking and thinking carefully about my children’s future on this beautiful earth, as well as the present and future welfare of all of God’s handiwork. Global warming is just a small part of this.

Pope Francis has the ear of the world. Let him speak!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Lest we forget…
MMGW is not the only issue on the environment. There are lots of others including the most important question of all:

What is our relationship to the rest of creation?

Are we overlords? Are we gardeners? Are we equal citizens in Eden?
Are we enemies of Eden? Should we work in tandem with nature, or should we just continue to smash, rent and destroy it and ourselves into oblivion?

This is a moral issue, and is as important as what is our relationship to God? The leader of the Catholic Chuch has not only a right, but a duty to address it. Is it fair, wise and good that we are destroying the earth and her systems, not just for ourselves, but for everyone?

I for one have been looking forward to this encyclical for a while now. I’d like to see humans reinstated as fellow creatures in creation rather than overlords. I’d like to see that we have responsibilities to other creatures and to creation rather than being given permission to simply rape and pillage at will.

I’d like to know that at least someone else is speaking and thinking carefully about my children’s future on this beautiful earth, as well as the present and future welfare of all of God’s handiwork. Global warming is just a small part of this.

Pope Francis has the ear of the world. Let him speak!

Yes.

Recall Genesis
1:15The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.

Cultivate it and care for it. Not exploit it and despoil it.

Let him speak and let us listen settiing aside all our political leanings. And setting aside the gods of our conveniences.

 

[anthony022071]

This is a disturbing thought. The environmental debate is properly between the scientists involved in determining what is happening, why it is happening, and what if anything can be done about it… assuming anything needs to be done. Which of these questions is something on which a “theological lens” is supposed to focus?

Its alright for theologians to get involved in the debate over climate change theory if they scrutinize its claims about causes and effects to see if they make logical sense,and if they keep in mind what the Church and Catholic theology teach about God’s power over nature and his care for it.

We should not leave knowledge of nature entirely to scientists,because their claims are not always logical,and knowledge of nature is not limited to the natural sciences. We have knowledge of nature from experience and reason and the teaching of the Church and Catholic theology. Scientists explain things according to the naturalistic and mechanistic point of view. This sometimes leads to false assumptions and misinterpretations about causes and effects.

If this approach actually appears in an encyclical it would indicate several assumptions are being made, none of which is really appropriate. First it would have to assume that AGW is true, then it would have to assume that mitigation strategies are possible, and finally (and worst of all) it would have to assume that those who oppose them do so for morally culpable reasons.

It is one thing to be called immoral (as opposed to mistaken) by others on this forum. It would be quite another thing entirely to have the pope imply such a thing, but what else could a “theological” analysis of the situation conclude other than that the true debate is not about scientific questions but moral attitudes? There is nothing good that can come from such a document.

Ender

What is going on with Catholics promoting climate change theory is like what has been done with the theory of evolution.