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

[MarkR]

“-- 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.”

In other words, “Progressive” Catholics are going to organize. What a shock. They do nothing else. How many times in the past hundred plus years have we heard “It’s an idea whose time has come” coming from “Progressives” as they force everything from abortion, same sex marriage and euthanasia to a"collectivist", centralized government on us?

“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.)”

Lol–yeah, “Progressive” Catholics-- From an article about a statement written by Pope Saint John Paul II condemning New Age –

"The footnote cites a poll of prominent “New Age” luminaries conducted several years ago who were asked which thinker had most influenced them on their “New Age” path.

These luminaries identified Teilhard more often than any other person as the thinker who had launched them on the road to the “New Age.”

So, leftwing, New Age Catholics are about to take whatever Pope Francis says in his encyclical to further their agenda, with the lockstep Leftist media championing their cause all the way, trying to make people (especially Catholics) believe that this is now the only issue of consequence that the Church cares about. Vote Hillary. Vote “Progressive”. Predictable as the sun rising in the East.

For those who want to read more about Saint JP2’s statement on Teilhard and New Age, here’s the link–

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5832

This is a comedy possibly soon to become a tragedy.

.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

I disagree. I think the fact that a problem is likely is enough to initiate a conversation over the moral consequences. Take for example, the fact the human cloning is specifically condemned by the Church. This, despite the fact that it may never be technically possible to clone a human. If the Church were to follow your advice they would not even consider the morality of human cloning until something first proves it can be done.

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.

The example I gave was hypothetical, but it was not an instance of what you just described, for the person in my example was not just rejecting a solution on technical grounds, but on selfish grounds. The fact that some people may reject a solution on purely technical grounds does not make it unnecessary to speak to those that reject solutions for selfish reasons.

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.

I don’t understand that response at all. Saying that justice considerations should not be left in the hands of engineers and scientists does not close down honest debate, either about the scientific question or about the justice question.

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.”

You did notice, didn’t you, that my charge was directed at both sides in the debate, and that I did not even exclude myself as a target? Besides the reason I gave, what other possible reason can you give for the undeniable correlation between a person’s political leanings and that person’s view of global warming?

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.

I will have to remember that argument the next time someone criticizes the work of climate scientists because their lack of objectivity, their desire to get on the good side of their governmental funding sources, etc. These things don’t matter because the science stands on its own, right?

 

[lynnvinc]

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 actually the process of “classical environmentalism”: scientists alert the public to an environmental harm, the public and government respond and correct those harms. However, in the case of climate change, people are not responding appropriately or adequately.

I think is it a matter of the classical environmental problems mostly being caused by particular industries, and often solutions are not terribly difficult, and alternative less harmful methods or processes are found.

With climate change we are all culpable and guilty of contributing to the harms, but many refuse to acknowledge that it is even happening, and many more who do acknowledge it is happening are not really doing enough to mitigate the problem. In a case like that, when the ultimate cause is not greenhouse gases, but nearly all people (esp the rich) causing their emission, it becomes a moral issue. (Few would argue it is a sin to kill innocent people, whether by a knife, gun, or poison.) The Church must speak out on climate change if it is worth its salt, or 2000 years of Jesus’s moral teachings and the Church he established will be for naught.

Which is why JPII was speaking out on CC since 1990, and BXVI continued to do so after him. Actually I don’t expect Pope Francis to say anything new on the topic. I guess the hoopla this time is because CC denialists were able to dismiss JPII and BXVI as lacking scientific understanding and just plain ignore them, while that would be a lot harder with a pope who actually was a scientist and taught science.

 

[lynnvinc]

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

Let me see your logic here. You insulate your home better, you turn off lights not in use, you get energy efficient lighting, appliances, AC and heater (with their extra cost being paid for by the savings in electricity), you turn off the tap while brushing teeth and shaving, you install water saving showerhead and faucet aerator, you fix water leaks, you xeriscape (plant drought resistant plants that don’t need watering), etc etc … and that leads to higher utility bills. Wow, I never knew!

 

[ishii]

Let me see your logic here. You insulate your home better, you turn off lights not in use, you get energy efficient lighting, appliances, AC and heater (with their extra cost being paid for by the savings in electricity), you turn off the tap while brushing teeth and shaving, you install water saving showerhead and faucet aerator, you fix water leaks, you xeriscape (plant drought resistant plants that don’t need watering), etc etc … and that leads to higher utility bills. Wow, I never knew!

That is not what JimG was referring to. He was (probably) talking about Obama’s energy policy which focused on “green” energy, (solar, wind, etc) which is more expensive than things such as coal, etc. The green energy is much more expensive than coal and therefore the utility bills go up.

But don’t take my word for it:

"Mr. Obama outlined his anti-carbon dioxide scheme to The San Francisco Chronicle in 2008: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” He explained, with a certain glee, that power plants that use an affordable fuel, such as coal or natural gas, will have to install expensive new equipment to comply with unattainable standards. “That will cost money,” he said. “They will pass that [cost] on to consumers.” It’s happening.

Ishii

 

[JimG]

Let me see your logic here. You insulate your home better, you turn off lights not in use, you get energy efficient lighting, appliances, AC and heater (with their extra cost being paid for by the savings in electricity), you turn off the tap while brushing teeth and shaving, you install water saving showerhead and faucet aerator, you fix water leaks, you xeriscape (plant drought resistant plants that don’t need watering), etc etc … and that leads to higher utility bills. Wow, I never knew!

Those things would all be responses to skyrocketing utility rates which are skyrocketing by government policy. It is doubtful that all of them together will be able to offset the increases or that the poor will be able to afford them, or that the poor in developing nations will ever be able to develop cheap energy.

 

[MarkR]

What’s different (and insidious) about the “climate change” swindle is that, traditionally (and rationally), when science comes up with a new theory , the burden of proof lies with them to prove its validity. In this case, the burden of proof has been placed on those who say that the theory is deeply flawed. Add to this that even when those who descent prove their case, their evidence is either ignored, vilified or blacked out. This is what totalitarian governments invariably do, e.g., don’t question the Nazis" race theory.

Fortunately, the vast majority of the American people at least don’t believe the Climate Bund’s claims, and the evidence against “climate change” (as well as common sense/sanity) is becoming too decisive and overwhelming to shut up. Major “defections” are happening. This means they will have to rely upon force through legislation, “social engineering” and apathy, which they’re already doing.

The only “change” that the “Changelings” have proven is how quickly they can change a name–“Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. This alone has let the cat and the cat’s grandmother out of the bag.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I doubt 1% of the people in the U.S., if that, actually favor environmental degradation, and not many more would favor activities that cause it incidentally. I further doubt a significant number of people in the U.S. would fail to affirm that great strides have been made in the last few decades in protecting the environment and reversing earlier damage.

And, unless NCR has some “leaked” information about the encyclical (and it might) my expectation is that the encyclical will be tentative and general in its nature, as it should be in dealing with issues that are not, in themselves, moral issues, and are actually not “settled” despite assertions of partisans that they are.

However, I am getting that “deja vu” feeling about this; the feeling I increasingly got in the aftermath of Vatican II, when all sorts of knowing or unknowing enemies of the Church seized upon the writings, corrupted them, misstated them, “further interpreted” them, and caused a chaos that fifty years has not entirely managed to heal.

Of Catholics in the U.S., for example, a minority is truly faithful to the teachings of the Church, support the Church, and are regular in their attendance. That minority also tends to be conservative policically, or is at least not greatly given to acceptance of the ideologies of political radicals. Remembering, as I do, the consternation and anguish some of the “spirit of Vatican II” excesses caused to some of the most faithful members of the Church, the falling off of many of the faithful, the development of heretical and near-heretical groups, theological and moral confusion, I dread the potential effect of what many will see as a Papal endorsement of one side of a highly politicized geophysical argument and potentially severe political consequences flowing from that argument.

Of all the potential converts to Catholicism in the U.S., possibly the greatest number is that which is the least likely to accept “political MMGW” and the political oppressions that are likely to result from it. Knowing many such people, as I do, there is little doubt in my mind that any endorsement of MMGW by the Pope will cause them to conclude that the Catholic Church is simply one more left wing political organization that is more interested in international politics than it is in saving souls. I have already heard some of that, and fear that will become even more widespread.

I think we can be certain that if the Pope endorses MMGW ideology, it will affect the policies of no nations other than those of the west. Nor will it cause people in the west to volunteer more in taxation to pay it to NGOs and third world dictators that deliberately keep the living conditions in their countries primitive in order to cash in on the sale of “environmental credits” to western corporations and governments. The only way that can truly happen is if central governments in the west gain sufficient power to force their populations to pony up money for things that are of no benefit to anyone other than international organizations, bureacrats, and national dictators. It is difficult for me to see any merit in the Church seeming to endorse Obama’s “making utility bills skyrocket” and thereby additionally empowering him and erstwhile totalitarians like him to force such measures on the populace.

And in a country such as ours, in which the political party that claims to be the “champion” of the poor actually does nothing for the truly poor except provide them with free abortions, does anyone actually believe “political MMGW” will fail to be a burden on the poor? Even if working people are additionally taxed to subsidize the utility bills of others, that’s hardly the end of what would be required. What about food bills? Food is extremely energy-dependent. What about jobs lost to countries that will not comply?

I see absolutely no possibility that the truly poor will fail to be additionally burdened by governmental policies aimed at making energy less plentiful than it is naturally, and more expensive than it has to be.

One would hope the Pope will be resistant to the voices of those who want to make him the ally of those who purport to support radical environmentalism, but whose real belief is in totalitarianism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Those things would all be responses to skyrocketing utility rates which are skyrocketing by government policy. It is doubtful that all of them together will be able to offset the increases or that the poor will be able to afford them, or that the poor in developing nations will ever be able to develop cheap energy.

Some developing nations, like China and India, will absolutely ignore anything the Pope says about anything, and certainly anything he says against the use of fossil fuels. They are determined to build their economies, and don’t care how they do it.

Some other developing nations’ dictators will ensure that their economies remain primitive in order to cash in on any kind of “redistributive” programs enforced by international organizations or governments in the west. One is reminded of Al Gore’s throwing farmers off the land in South America to establish “tree farms” of trees that contribute nothing to food or energy supplies, so he could sell “environmental credits” to MMGW ideologues in the west. But as with Al Gore’s tree farms, I think we can rest assured that such dictators will not share the wealth with the citizenry if they receive “CO2 credit” money, any more than they share the wealth now.

 

[ishii]

Another excellent post.

And in a country such as ours, in which*** the political party that claims to be the “champion” of the poor actually does nothing for the truly poor except provide them with free abortions,*** does anyone actually believe “political MMGW” will fail to be a burden on the poor?

(my bold italics)

One would hope the Pope will be resistant to the voices of those who want to make him the ally of those who purport to support radical environmentalism, but whose real belief is in totalitarianism.

One would hope.

 

[MarkR]

I doubt 1% of the people in the U.S., if that, actually favor environmental degradation, and not many more would favor activities that cause it incidentally. I further doubt a significant number of people in the U.S. would fail to affirm that great strides have been made in the last few decades in protecting the environment and reversing earlier damage.

And, unless NCR has some “leaked” information about the encyclical (and it might) my expectation is that the encyclical will be tentative and general in its nature, as it should be in dealing with issues that are not, in themselves, moral issues, and are actually not “settled” despite assertions of partisans that they are.

However, I am getting that “deja vu” feeling about this; the feeling I increasingly got in the aftermath of Vatican II, when all sorts of knowing or unknowing enemies of the Church seized upon the writings, corrupted them, misstated them, “further interpreted” them, and caused a chaos that fifty years has not entirely managed to heal.

Of Catholics in the U.S., for example, a minority is truly faithful to the teachings of the Church, support the Church, and are regular in their attendance. That minority also tends to be conservative policically, or is at least not greatly given to acceptance of the ideologies of political radicals. Remembering, as I do, the consternation and anguish some of the “spirit of Vatican II” excesses caused to some of the most faithful members of the Church, the falling off of many of the faithful, the development of heretical and near-heretical groups, theological and moral confusion, I dread the potential effect of what many will see as a Papal endorsement of one side of a highly politicized geophysical argument and potentially severe political consequences flowing from that argument.

Of all the potential converts to Catholicism in the U.S., possibly the greatest number is that which is the least likely to accept “political MMGW” and the political oppressions that are likely to result from it. Knowing many such people, as I do, there is little doubt in my mind that any endorsement of MMGW by the Pope will cause them to conclude that the Catholic Church is simply one more left wing political organization that is more interested in international politics than it is in saving souls. I have already heard some of that, and fear that will become even more widespread.

I think we can be certain that if the Pope endorses MMGW ideology, it will affect the policies of no nations other than those of the west. Nor will it cause people in the west to volunteer more in taxation to pay it to NGOs and third world dictators that deliberately keep the living conditions in their countries primitive in order to cash in on the sale of “environmental credits” to western corporations and governments. The only way that can truly happen is if central governments in the west gain sufficient power to force their populations to pony up money for things that are of no benefit to anyone other than international organizations, bureacrats, and national dictators. It is difficult for me to see any merit in the Church seeming to endorse Obama’s “making utility bills skyrocket” and thereby additionally empowering him and erstwhile totalitarians like him to force such measures on the populace.

And in a country such as ours, in which the political party that claims to be the “champion” of the poor actually does nothing for the truly poor except provide them with free abortions, does anyone actually believe “political MMGW” will fail to be a burden on the poor? Even if working people are additionally taxed to subsidize the utility bills of others, that’s hardly the end of what would be required. What about food bills? Food is extremely energy-dependent. What about jobs lost to countries that will not comply?

I see absolutely no possibility that the truly poor will fail to be additionally burdened by governmental policies aimed at making energy less plentiful than it is naturally, and more expensive than it has to be.

One would hope the Pope will be resistant to the voices of those who want to make him the ally of those who purport to support radical environmentalism, but whose real belief is in totalitarianism.

Great post Ridgerunner. Thanks.

 

[JimG]

"Vatican Burns with Global Warming Enthusiasm." The question is why?

 

[sps49]

"Vatican Burns with Global Warming Enthusiasm." The question is why?

Excellent question, JimG, one worth carrying forward from the article. Briggs is right, GW has made itself vulnerable to verification, and sustainability is invulnerable from it since it is undefined. This works well for a period in politics (short attention span), but not so good with science and engineering.

 

[Ender]

I disagree. I think the fact that a problem is likely is enough to initiate a conversation over the moral consequences.

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.

Take for example, the fact the human cloning is specifically condemned by the Church. This, despite the fact that it may never be technically possible to clone a human. If the Church were to follow your advice they would not even consider the morality of human cloning until something first proves it can be done.

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.

The fact that some people may reject a solution on purely technical grounds does not make it unnecessary to speak to those that reject solutions for selfish reasons.

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? 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).

I don’t understand that response at all. Saying that justice considerations should not be left in the hands of engineers and scientists does not close down honest debate, either about the scientific question or about the justice question.

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.

Besides the reason I gave, what other possible reason can you give for the undeniable correlation between a person’s political leanings and that person’s view of global warming?

A correlation even if one existed would be irrelevant. As I said before, it doesn’t matter what people really believe or why they believe it; all that matters is the validity of the arguments they use to defend their positions. Judging a person’s motivations is something we are expressly forbidden to do.

I will have to remember that argument the next time someone criticizes the work of climate scientists because their lack of objectivity, their desire to get on the good side of their governmental funding sources, etc. These things don’t matter because the science stands on its own, right?

As far as the validity of a scientific claim is concerned, those things are utterly irrelevant. They are valid topics in a different context, just not that one.

Ender

 

[Ender]

That is actually the process of “classical environmentalism”: scientists alert the public to an environmental harm, the public and government respond and correct those harms. However, in the case of climate change, people are not responding appropriately or adequately.

Do you really not understand that people simply do not believe that AGW is valid or that the claims of impending doom are true?

With climate change we are all culpable and guilty of contributing to the harms…

This assumes that man has actually caused the climate to change adversely, an assumption that monthly grows more difficult to sustain.

… but many refuse to acknowledge that it is even happening…

I’m one of those who does not acknowledge we have now entered a harmful climate phase. What are the harmful effects you speak of?

… and many more who do acknowledge it is happening are not really doing enough to mitigate the problem.

Even according to the IPCC there is virtually nothing man can do to keep CO2 levels down to “acceptable” levels. Everyone acknowledged that the Kyoto protocols, had they been met by every country in the world, would have theoretically reduced temperature in 100 years by mere hundredths of a degree. No one has shown that any mitigation strategy is workable.

In a case like that, when the ultimate cause is not greenhouse gases, but nearly all people (esp the rich) causing their emission, it becomes a moral issue.

I realize I’m shouting into the wind on this, but people just don’t seem to grasp that just because an issue is serious doesn’t mean it has a moral component. That’s the case here. You assert that the rich are destroying the planet and have a moral obligation to stop. I could with as much justification assert that people like you are destroying civilization and have a moral obligation to stop. What makes your assertion more valid than mine? That you believe it is true? Here’s the thing though: neither of us has a moral obligation to do what we think is harmful so I have no more a moral duty to accept your position than you do to accept mine. There are questions of correct and incorrect here, but not of moral or immoral.

I guess the hoopla this time is because CC denialists were able to dismiss JPII and BXVI as lacking scientific understanding and just plain ignore them, while that would be a lot harder with a pope who actually was a scientist and taught science.

The idea that we should take the opinion of even a pope on a scientific question simply because at one time he studied science is breathtakingly preposterous. It would be a good bit more appropriate to hope that he would never embroil himself in a scientific controversy in the first place.

Ender

 

[Padua55]

Ridgerunner:

However, I am getting that “deja vu” feeling about this; the feeling I increasingly got in the aftermath of Vatican II, when all sorts of knowing or unknowing enemies of the Church seized upon the writings, corrupted them, misstated them, “further interpreted” them, and caused a chaos that fifty years has not entirely managed to heal.

Of Catholics in the U.S., for example, a minority is truly faithful to the teachings of the Church, support the Church, and are regular in their attendance. That minority also tends to be conservative policically, or is at least not greatly given to acceptance of the ideologies of political radicals. Remembering, as I do, the consternation and anguish some of the “spirit of Vatican II” excesses caused to some of the most faithful members of the Church, the falling off of many of the faithful, the development of heretical and near-heretical groups, theological and moral confusion, I dread the potential effect of what many will see as a Papal endorsement of one side of a highly politicized geophysical argument and potentially severe political consequences flowing from that argument.

Of all the potential converts to Catholicism in the U.S., possibly the greatest number is that which is the least likely to accept “political MMGW” and the political oppressions that are likely to result from it. Knowing many such people, as I do, there is little doubt in my mind that any endorsement of MMGW by the Pope will cause them to conclude that the Catholic Church is simply one more left wing political organization that is more interested in international politics than it is in saving souls. I have already heard some of that, and fear that will become even more widespread.

Amen.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Video: Rev. Sirico on What to Expect from Pope Francis’ Encyclical on the Environment

 

[convert_2000]

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

I agree and some may be disappointed.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

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.

Isn’t that how it is with the pro-choice/pro-life issue?

 

[ringil]

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.

That’s Democratic!