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

[Ender]

“Pope Francis: The Earth, our home, is beginning to look like an immense pile of filth”

Even if this debatable assertion was true it says nothing whatever about AGW, which is the topic being discussed.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Keep in mind that Pope Francis cares for natural resources, affirms AGW, and questions the effects of predatory capitalism on these two and on the poor.

And it is not necessary to buy into AGW to believe we should care for natural resources and care for the poor and needy. In fact AGW proponents proposals would have devastating effect on the poor and needy. Please note that the pope specifically rejected the proposals by the AGW alarmist to solve the “problem”

It is Unfortunate that the AGW proponents have hijacked this encyclical to promote their extremist agenda .

 

[sps49]

Disagreeing with a prudential judgment is not dissent.*Their *[the pope and the bishops] *prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.
*(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

Please. The definition of the word within the sphere of the Church as regards the willful disobedience to the teaching of the church is a wholly legal distinction. The etymology of the word does not support its exclusive use in this context.

 

[zz912]

Please. The definition of the word within the sphere of the Church as regards the willful disobedience to the teaching of the church is a wholly legal distinction. The etymology of the word does not support its exclusive use in this context.

AGW is not a teaching of the Church. Hence it is impossible to dissent from it.

 

[sps49]

AGW is not a teaching of the Church. Hence it is impossible to dissent from it.

One may “dissent” from any opinion.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Unfortunately though according to a recent Gallup poll, the Pope’s approval rating among conservatives in the U.S. has dropped since the release of “Laudato Sii”.

foxnews.com/us/2015/07/22/survey-pope-francis-approval-in-us-drops-from-2014-high-fueled-by-conservative/

 

[estesbob]

Unfortunately though according to a recent Gallup poll, the Pope’s approval rating among conservatives in the U.S. has dropped since the release of “Laudato Sii”.

foxnews.com/us/2015/07/22/survey-pope-francis-approval-in-us-drops-from-2014-high-fueled-by-conservative/

What was Pope Benedicts approval rating among Conservatives? What was St Pope John Paul II approval rating among “liberals”

You wont be able to find it because they didn’t take polls in the US concerning “approval ratings” for the Pope among various groups until Francis became Pope. Its a meaningless poll.

 

[Sy_Noe]

What was Pope Benedicts approval rating among Conservatives? What was St Pope John Paul II approval rating among “liberals”

You wont be able to find it because they didn’t take polls in the US concerning “approval ratings” for the Pope among various groups until Francis became Pope. Its a meaningless poll.

No it’s not meaningless. At least current and past polling can show Francis’ ratings are higher than Benedict’s but below John Paul’s. Today’s polling has simply been broadened to be more specific. That way a more accurate picture can be illustrated.

gallup.com/poll/184283/pope-francis-favorable-rating-drops.aspx

 

[sps49]

What was Pope Benedicts approval rating among Conservatives? What was St Pope John Paul II approval rating among “liberals”

You wont be able to find it because they didn’t take polls in the US concerning “approval ratings” for the Pope among various groups until Francis became Pope. Its a meaningless poll.

It is meaningless as regards the cause of the poll difference from other polls. Further, to ascribe meaning about the specific cause of a drop in a poll would need another poll designed to sample for that question.

 

[estesbob]

No it’s not meaningless. At least current and past polling can show Francis’ ratings are higher than Benedict’s but below John Paul’s. Today’s polling has simply been broadened to be more specific. That way a more accurate picture can be illustrated.

gallup.com/poll/184283/pope-francis-favorable-rating-drops.aspx

So we have nothing to compare it against, Correct? As far as we know Conservaitve approval of Pope fFancis is at all time highs compared to other Popes. its a nonsense poll-proves nothing other than it fits into the MM narrative that Francis is promoting “Liberal” ideas that other Popes haven’t-which we all know is false.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Real or not? It doesn’t matter to you whether AGW is real, only that we behave as if it were? People are to be judged not on their position with regard to the truth but solely on whether they can accept AGW, true or not? You must surely realize how unreasonable a position that is.
You’re jumping from one argument to the other depending on which one you’re getting pinned down on. The entire debate on this thread has to do with AGW. No one has suggested that we should be indifferent to pollution. There is no argument to be made about indifference to the environment or concerns about the economy because no one (on the anti-AGW side) has even commented on those topics except, as in this case, to reject out of hand the contentions that this debate has anything to do with those utterly disconnected topics.

Ender

My position is that this thread is about Laudato Si which some here want to discount because it speaks of AGW along with the need for an entirely different attitude toward creation. LS calls for changes in lifestyle that have economic as well as environmental effects. LD is also about water, air, interdependency and the fact that the earth belongs to God not us.

So you do not accept AGW. What life style changes are you willing to accept that will clear the air and water, preseve bio-diversity, etc?

 

[Sy_Noe]

So we have nothing to compare it against, Correct? As far as we know Conservaitve approval of Pope fFancis is at all time highs compared to other Popes. its a nonsense poll-proves nothing other than it fits into the MM narrative that Francis is promoting “Liberal” ideas that other Popes haven’t-which we all know is false.

I realize this subforum is made up largely of political conservatives but if as you say conservative approval of Pope Francis could be at all time high compared to other popes, then to me that wouldn’t seem to be saying much about conservatives’ approval for the other popes either. But based on as far as what you think we know. I can only leave it at that.

 

[estesbob]

I realize this subforum is made up largely of political conservatives but if as you say conservative approval of Pope Francis could be at all time high compared to other popes, then to me that wouldn’t seem to be saying much about conservatives’ approval for the other popes either. But based on as far as what you think we know. I can only leave it at that.

In other words we have no basis to draw any conclusions from this poll . I hate to disappoint people but I love Pope Francis and he has not said or done a single thing since he became Pope that I’ve had a problem with . I do find it quite humorous how the mainstream media Democrat Catholics continually try to spin him into something he is not

 

[Ridgerunner]

My position is that this thread is about Laudato Si which some here want to discount because it speaks of AGW along with the need for an entirely different attitude toward creation. LS calls for changes in lifestyle that have economic as well as environmental effects. LD is also about water, air, interdependency and the fact that the earth belongs to God not us.

So you do not accept AGW. What life style changes are you willing to accept that will clear the air and water, preseve bio-diversity, etc?

Ender can answer for himself/herself. But I’m not yet persuaded that I should make any lifestyle changes to clear the air and water, preserve biodiversity, etc.

I don’t buy a lot of clothing. I drive where I need to drive. My pickup is a Silverado 2500 because I haul fertilizer, hay, no-till drills, and other things and don’t want to blow up my transmission or my engine doing it. I thin trees in the woods. I grow deep-rooted grasses and sycamores along streams, in order to avoid erosion. I “mob graze” cattle. I encourage fruit and nut-bearing native trees for wildlife and leave “refuge” places for it.

And, yes, I have a bobcat with the attachments necessary to do all of that. It burns diesel and, being a fairly robust one, really burns it up when I’m doing something demanding like timber clearing. I have a diesel tractor that, interestingly, is very sparing of fuel even though it’s big enough to haul a no-till drill around. That takes at least 100 horsepower. Doesn’t sound like much when a lot of cars have three times that, but in a tractor it’s pretty powerful.

I interseed grasses with legumes because it’s profitable, because it builds fertilizer naturally, and because all sorts of wildlife eats legumes and legume seeds. Ha! I even have a “buzzard nursery” in the loft of an old barn I preserve. Buzzard mothers lay their eggs and raise their chicks in the old hay that’s there. Buzzards are protected species, you know, because they remove all kinds of toxins and diseases from the environment. I also have an “eagle refuge”, along with a year-round one for blue and white herons. I have minks and river otters, which i protect. Even wild trout.

So, is my “carbon footprint” positive or negative? Am I an “environmentalist” or a scoundrel despoiler of the earth?

Now, I’m not saying any of that to feed my own ego. What I am pointing out is that the best environmentalists in this country are farmers and ranchers. They know the species of plants and animals and how to deal with them properly, provide wildlife habitat on purpose, and prevent more environmental damage than the Sierra Club ever dreamed of doing. And the very last thing this country needs is urban government people telling them what they should or shouldn’t do.

 

[Sy_Noe]

In other words we have no basis to draw any conclusions from this poll . I hate to disappoint people but I love Pope Francis and he has not said or done a single thing since he became Pope that I’ve had a problem with . I do find it quite humorous how the mainstream media Democrat Catholics continually try to spin him into something he is not

Actually we do. Based on the poll’s findings, the conclusion is less than half of US conservatives now have a favorable view of the Pontiff which would then put you in the minority of conservatives. And then either he scores lower or the same than the previous 2 popes among conservatives. Or if your theory were correct and 45% conservative support is an all time high compared to previous popes, then conservative support for the previous ones would have had to have been even less. But irregardless, there’s no need or basis for you to hate disappointing. Because I am not in the least disappointed that you love the Pope.

 

[Theo520]

Actually we do. Based on the poll’s findings, the conclusion is less than half of US conservatives now have a favorable view of the Pontiff which would then put you in the minority of conservatives. And then either he scores lower or the same than the previous 2 popes among conservatives. Or if your theory were correct and 45% conservative support is an all time high compared to previous popes, then conservative support for the previous ones would have had to have been even less. But irregardless, there’s no need or basis for you to hate disappointing. Because I am not in the least disappointed that you love the Pope.

I think you are reading too much into the survey. You can love and support someone without ‘liking’ what is being published in the media about their positions.

 

[Ender]

Please. The definition of the word within the sphere of the Church as regards the willful disobedience to the teaching of the church is a wholly legal distinction.

Not exactly; words have connotations as well as denotations, and in the context of this discussion, which involves the church, the word dissent has implications well beyond any mere “legal” distinction. The word is used as a stick to beat on those who still refuse to accept AGW in spite of the new encyclical.

The words used in a debate are important because of what is implied without being said, and the vague perceptions created by those terms are often hard to overcome.

Ender

 

[Ender]

My position is that this thread is about Laudato Si which some here want to discount because it speaks of AGW along with the need for an entirely different attitude toward creation.

Again, you misstate the nature of the debate. No one has suggested that the entirety of Laudato Si should be discounted; the entire discussion has been about that portion dealing with AGW, and what our response should be given the pope’s comments. There is simply no connection between AGW and any other conservation issue.

So you do not accept AGW. What life style changes are you willing to accept that will clear the air and water, preseve bio-diversity, etc?

Just so we’re clear: the fact that a particular bill is intended to “clear the air and water, preserve bio-diversity, etc” doesn’t mean it should necessarily be supported. What it allegedly intends and what it will achieve are not always the same. As of the moment, I am not aware of any life changing proposals that I feel are necessary, but I will again reiterate: none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the debate about Laudato Si and AGW.

Ender

 

[sps49]

Not exactly; words have connotations as well as denotations, and in the context of this discussion, which involves the church, the word dissent has implications well beyond any mere “legal” distinction. The word is used as a stick to beat on those who still refuse to accept AGW in spite of the new encyclical.

The words used in a debate are important because of what is implied without being said, and the vague perceptions created by those terms are often hard to overcome.

Ender

If this were a nuanced debate, I might be able to agree with your point, but it is more like a fist fight. My observations of the dialog/debate surrounding AGW both here and elsewhere inform me that the “stick,” as you put it, has a much simpler threshold of use than you imply. It’s only threshold value is when anyone, anywhere dares to be skeptical of any flavor of AGW.

The only difference that exists now in the Catholic sphere is that AGW now has a hierarchical component that it did not have before. This distinction will embolden those whose perception is that AGW skepticism is akin to a violation of doctrinal or moral theology. Therefore it does not matter one whit if I use “dissent” or “disagreement” or “difference of opinion” or “objection,” it will have the same effect.

That being said, I will stick with dissent, which is a reasonable word to use in a debate where skepticism is greeted with outrage and derision. An absolutely perfect word.

 

[lynnvinc]

…The only difference that exists now in the Catholic sphere is that AGW now has a hierarchical component that it did not have before…

That’s not completely true. It has had a “hierarchical component” for the past 25 years; JPII as early as 1990 and BXVI have been repeatedly admonishing us to mitigate AGW (AKA “the greenhouse effect”).

However, I’m thinking an encyclical is a stronger document than papal messages. Also I think many Catholics don’t like other things Pope Francis is saying, so they’re just adding AGW & the encyclical to the pot.

It’s interesting, though, that this also plays out in the non-Catholic world, and there are now tremendous fans of Pope Francis and his encyclical among non-Catholics. And this may help if not to convert many people to Catholicism, at least to reduce or end their hatred of and bad talk about Catholicism.

The Catholic media, like EWTN, seem luke warm (or luke cold) about the encyclical, while environmentalists concerned about life on earth are extremely wowed by it and buzzing all over about it.

Again, it is too bad they didn’t know that JPII and BXVI were also strongly into this issue, so much so, they’ve been working to reduce the Vatican’s carbon and environmental footprint.