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

[gilliam]

Pope Francis’ Integral Ecology

There’s a new term being bandied about, and it’s high time we paid heed: integral ecology.

Whenever the same notion arises synchronously in a number of different contexts – in this case the Catholic Church, the Occupy movement, the climate movement, and the new-economy movement – it’s an idea whose time has arrived.

Rumor has it that integral ecology is the central theme of Pope Francis’ encyclical on ecology and climate, due out at the end of summer. Encyclicals, “the highest and most comprehensive level of teaching in the Catholic Church,” are the primary instruments by which the Church advises its 1.2 billion members on pressing moral issues.

The impending encyclical has already generated considerable media buzz, much of which can be followed at the website of the Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology. Moreover, Teilhard Perspectives, the semiannual publication of the American Teilhard Association (ATA), has dedicated its most recent edition to providing background and commentary on integral ecology. (For those unfamiliar, Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), whose quotation begins this essay, was a Jesuit paleontologist-priest whose influence on Christian thought, some believe, is second only to that of St. Paul.) The lovely lead article, by ATA president John Grim, deserves to be read in its entirety. Here, I’ll summarize and offer a few complementary perspectives and quotations.

huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/pope-francis-integral-eco_b_7460058.html

 

[gilliam]

NEW YORK – There will be prayer vigils and pilgrimages, policy briefings and seminars, and sermons in parishes from the U.S. to the Philippines.

When Pope Francis releases his much-anticipated teaching document on the environment and climate change in the coming weeks, a network of Roman Catholics will be ready. These environmental advocates — who work with bishops, religious orders, Catholic universities and lay movements — have been preparing for months to help maximize the effect of the statement, hoping for a transformative impact in the fight against global warming.

“This is such a powerful moment,” said Patrick Carolan, executive director of Franciscan Action Network, a Washington-based advocacy group formed by Franciscan religious orders. “We’re asking ourselves, ‘What would be the best way for us to support the faith community in getting this out and using it as a call to action?’”

Francis is issuing the encyclical by the end of June with an eye toward the end-of-year U.N. climate change conference in Paris. While previous popes have made strong moral and theological arguments in favor of environmental protection, Francis will be the first to address global warming in such a high-level teaching document.

foxnews.com/us/2015/05/24/catholics-worldwide-prepare-to-promote-pope-francis-upcoming-climate-change/

 

[gilliam]

Pope readies faithful for climate-change encyclical

NEW YORK – When Pope Francis releases his teaching document on the environment and climate change in the coming weeks, a network of Roman Catholics will be ready.

These environmental advocates – who work with bishops, religious orders, Catholic universities and lay movements – have been preparing for months to help maximize the effect of the statement, hoping to make an impact in the fight against global warming.

“This is such a powerful moment,” said Patrick Carolan, executive director of Franciscan Action Network, a Washington-based advocacy group formed by Franciscan religious orders. “We’re asking ourselves, ‘What would be the best way for us to support the faith community in getting this out and using it as a call to action?’”

arkansasonline.com/news/2015/may/25/pope-readies-faithful-for-climate-chang/

 

[gilliam]

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

 

[estesbob]

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. 
   So when AGW is proven to be false our detractors will have another weapon to bludgeon the Church with

 

[dmar198]

So when AGW is proven to be false our detractors will have another weapon to bludgeon the Church with

Probably not. The pope has already pointed out, when asked about the global warming encyclical, that his statements on scientific matters are neither infallible nor Church doctrine. “If the Pope says that the earth is the centre of the universe, and not the sun, he errs, since he is affirming something that ought to be supported by science, and this will not do. That’s where we are at now.” source

I don’t think anyone will bludgeon him over something he has already said he isn’t infallible on.

I think he will make the traditional case for good environmental stewardship and use the scientific evidence for global warming as a non-infallible second reason to steward the environment responsibly.

 

[Theo520]

I don’t think anyone will bludgeon him over something he has already said he isn’t infallible on.

That may work within the church body, but outsiders will ignore whether it was technically considered an infallible declaration.

However, any backlash against the church will pale in comparison to the backlash against Govt and the reputation of scientists.

 

[estesbob]

That may work within the church body, but outsiders will ignore whether it was technically considered an infallible declaration.

However, any backlash against the church will pale in comparison to the backlash against Govt and the reputation of scientists.

What we will most definately see is multitudes of Democrat Catholics saying it’s ok to vote for Hillary Clinton because her opponent disagrees with the Pope about AGW.

 

[Dawnia]

I can almost guarantee that he will talk about the environment not being put ahead of people.

 

[Neofight]

What we will most definately see is multitudes of Democrat Catholics saying it’s ok to vote for Hillary Clinton because her opponent disagrees with the Pope about AGW.

This is the kind of nonsense that led me to become a non-voter…I find it disgusting when someone implies if one does not vote in lockstep with them they are somehow are bad Americans, or now, bad Catholics.

 

[lynnvinc]

Probably not. The pope has already pointed out, when asked about the global warming encyclical, that his statements on scientific matters are neither infallible nor Church doctrine. “If the Pope says that the earth is the centre of the universe, and not the sun, he errs, since he is affirming something that ought to be supported by science, and this will not do. That’s where we are at now.” source

I don’t think anyone will bludgeon him over something he has already said he isn’t infallible on.

I think he will make the traditional case for good environmental stewardship and use the scientific evidence for global warming as a non-infallible second reason to steward the environment responsibly.

Another point is that whatever we do to mitigate CC, also mitigates many other problems – pollution (in extraction, processing, transport, & combustion of fossil fuels), resource depletion, water depletion, and many other problems. And it is helpful to the economy and our personal pocketbooks by saving money. Reduce, reuse, recycle, go on alt energy when feasible, etc. These are what’s need to reduce CC AND many many other problems.

For instance, selecting a home that meets one’s specs that is closer to work – that saves money, time, nerves, etc., while reducing pollution, health harms, and helping to mitigate climate change.

So even in the end if we find out CC is not happening (perhaps bec everyone mitigated it to the hilt, destroying the data, so to speak), then we will have gone from a win-win-win-win-win situation to a win-win-win-win situation.

That’s much better than the lose-lose-lose-lose-lose situation we are in now.

There is also the “other hand,” that scientists now and the pope are grossly underestimating the harms from climate change. It seems people are only focused on the possibility that CC is not happening, not on the possibility that it is much worse than what they are saying. So by claiming he is not infallible on the science, he won’t be bludgeoned for underestimating the problem either…assuming there are any people left to go around bludgeoning people…or maybe that’s all they’ll be doing at that time.

 

[lynnvinc]

What we will most definately see is multitudes of Democrat Catholics saying it’s ok to vote for Hillary Clinton because her opponent disagrees with the Pope about AGW.

Hopefully both candidates will support mitigating climate change – at least in ways that save money for the gov, business, and people. That way it would not be an election issue. That is my hope and prayer!

 

[Ender]

1. The encyclical will bring a theological lens to the environmental debate.

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

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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?

That is indeed a debate that is properly between scientists, but it is not the only debate. There is also the issue that if there is a problem, whose problem is it? One can imagine a debater that says “I am comfortable here in the Northern US. Why should I sacrifice because some homes in Bangladesh are being flooded out? That is their problem. They should have thought about the possibility of sea level rise when then chose to live so close to sea level.” It would be to such a person that Church teaching could be addressed. A scientist or engineer can lay out various responses to global warming, but it takes a moral or theological lens to evaluate those alternatives in terms of justice. Justice is not a scientific or engineering concept.

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.

I think speculating on the level of specificity in an encyclical that no one has yet seen is unnecessary. But I will go ahead and speculate anyway and say that I doubt the message from Pope Francis will contain Hansen’s hockey stick as a matter of faith.

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

If it were just a matter of some people being mistaken over a scientific question, wouldn’t you think that the distribution of these “mistaken” attitudes over the science would be fairly random over the population? But instead we find that people on the political left take the scientific position that global warming is real and serious and people on the political right take the scientific position that global warming is a hoax, or at least not serious enough to needed addressing. This leads me to believe that neither group is honestly attempting to make a scientific judgement. Rather they are all taking whatever answer best fits with their political ideology and finding ways to support that position and avoiding evidence that does not. That is not being scientifically “mistaken”.

 

[CNA_News]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i..._Xavier_Mansfield_via_Unsplash_CNA.jpgVatican City, May 31, 2015 / 07:11 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Taken from St. Francis of Assisi’s “Canticle of the Sun” prayer praising God for creation, the likely name of the Pope’s upcoming encyclical was informally announced just weeks before its anticipated publication.

Fr. Giuseppe Costa, director of the Vatican Publishing House, reportedly announced the encyclical’s title during the delivery of the Cardinal Michele Giordano prize Saturday afternoon, May 30, in Naples.

The prize honors the former archbishop of Naples, who died in 2010, and was inspired by his keen appreciation for the media.

Expected to be published in mid-late June, the Pope’s encyclical “Laudato sii” has already been written and is currently being translated.

Although the title has not been officially confirmed, it will most likely contain the phrase coined by Pope Francis’ namesake in his famous prayer praising elements of creation such as “Brother Fire,” “Sister Moon” and “Mother Earth.”

Also referred to as the Canticle of Creatures, the Canticle of the Sun was written by St. Francis of Assisi around the year 1224.

The encyclical is also expected to be given the Italian subtitle: “Sulla cura della casa commune,” (On the care of the common home).

Fr. Costa told SIR – the official news agency of the Italian Bishops Conference – May 30 that “There are many foreign publishers who are already interested in the publication of the encyclical in their countries.”

Pope Francis himself spoke of the encyclical on his return flight from Seoul, South Korea last year, where he traveled Aug. 14-18 to participate in the 6th Asian Youth Day.

While in route back to Rome Francis said that he had frequently spoken about the encyclical with Cardinal Peter Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, which is responsible for handling themes such as this.

After being questioned about the encyclical by journalist Juergen Erbacher from German TV, the Pope said that he had “spoken a lot with Cardinal Turkson and also with others and I have asked Cardinal Turkson to bring together all of the contributions.”

The Pope said then than the contributions had arrived and that a first draft of the encyclical – which he said was “a third bigger" than his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium – was delivered to him just four days before he left for South Korea.

He told journalists that ecology is “not an easy issue because on the protection of creation and the study of human ecology, you can speak with sure certainty up to a certain point then come the scientific hypotheses some of which are rather sure, others aren’t.”

“In an encyclical like this that must be magisterial, it must only go forward on certainties, things that are sure,” he said, explaining that if the Pope decides to say that the earth is the center of the universe rather than the sun, then he’s wrong because he said something that’s scientifically untrue.

“We need to make the study, number by number, and I think (the encyclical) will become smaller. But going to the essence is what we can affirm with certainty.”

The encyclical could also have a huge weigh-in on talks surrounding climate change, and is expected to set a key ethical framework for discussion and policies surrounding the topic ahead of the Pope’s address to the United Nations during his visit to the U.S. in September.

Francis is set to address a U.N. Special Summit on Sustainable Development Sept. 25.

U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki Moon told journalists while in Rome April 28 for a summit on the theme of the environment and sustainable development that the Pope’s speech will have “a profound impact.”

In a private meeting with Pope Francis ahead of the summit, the U.N. secretary-general said he told the Pope that he’s “looking forward to his encyclical as soon as possible…I count on his moral voice and moral leadership.”

Pope Francis recently spoke of the importance of caring for creation during his May 24 homily for the feast of Pentecost.

The feast serves an occasion to remind Christians of their duty to care for and respect the earth, he said, explaining that “the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent from the Father, and the Creator Spirit who gives life to all things, are one and the same.”

“Respect for creation, then, is a requirement of our faith: the ‘garden’ in which we live is not entrusted to us to be exploited, but rather to be cultivated and tended with respect.”

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/lLLUNAg-xJ8

Full article…

 

[Ender]

That is indeed a debate that is properly between scientists, but it is not the only debate. There is also the issue that if there is a problem, whose problem is it?

It is not reasonable to discuss who should solve a problem before it is known whether one exists and what if anything can be done about it.

One can imagine a debater that says “I am comfortable here in the Northern US. Why should I sacrifice because some homes in Bangladesh are being flooded out? That is their problem. They should have thought about the possibility of sea level rise when then chose to live so close to sea level.” It would be to such a person that Church teaching could be addressed.

I think this is precisely the kind of thing that will be charged. That is, there will be (as there has already been) a rash and uncharitable judgment made about millions of people for no other reason than that they reject the solutions preferred by others.

A scientist or engineer can lay out various responses to global warming, but it takes a moral or theological lens to evaluate those alternatives in terms of justice. Justice is not a scientific or engineering concept.

This is just nonsense and once again assumes both that the unknown is known and that choosing the best solution for a problem involves moral decisions. It leaves no room for honest debate; it is nothing more than a moral club to be used to browbeat the recalcitrant into line.

If it were just a matter of some people being mistaken over a scientific question, wouldn’t you think that the distribution of these “mistaken” attitudes over the science would be fairly random over the population? But instead we find that people on the political left take the scientific position that global warming is real and serious and people on the political right take the scientific position that global warming is a hoax, or at least not serious enough to needed addressing. This leads me to believe that neither group is honestly attempting to make a scientific judgement. Rather they are all taking whatever answer best fits with their political ideology and finding ways to support that position and avoiding evidence that does not. That is not being scientifically “mistaken”.

This is a personal judgment of yours about the beliefs of others. It is not a position open to reasoned debate. It is a charge: as in “you people over there are moral lepers.” The worst thing about such allegations is not their casual viciousness but their utter irrelevance. Why I believe something has nothing to do with whether the arguments in support of my position are valid. My claims are either right or wrong, and why I make them has no bearing on their accuracy.

If this encyclical comes out in support of AGW - or, as it is apparently being re-re-branded: integral ecology - allegations and condemnations such as yours will be ratcheted up to an even higher level.

Ender

 

[ishii]

What we will most definately see is multitudes of Democrat Catholics saying it’s ok to vote for Hillary Clinton because her opponent disagrees with the Pope about AGW.

Or they will say, “I can’t vote for the pro-life candidate because he opposes the Church teaching on global warming.”

Either way, its all going to be used as another excuse for voting for pro-abortion rights Democrats.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

Or they will say, “I can’t vote for the pro-life candidate because he opposes the Church teaching on global warming.”

Either way, its all going to be used as another excuse for voting for pro-abortion rights Democrats.

Ishii

Probably going to have to add it to the list!

 

[ishii]

Probably going to have to add it to the list!

The ever growing list. It is very sad to see the Vatican contributing to the moral confusion that already exists in the US.

Ishii

 

[JimG]

"5. 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.

No doubt this will bring up interesting discussions with those who, like Pres. Obama, have commented that “utility bills must necessarily skyrocket.”