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

[sps49]

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”).

Until recently, it was not a pillar of an environmental encyclical, an encyclical that could have stood quite well on its own with out the AGW reference. Prior to this you had to pick through over a dozen messages, addresses, letters and one encyclical that did not even mention AGW, and then apply a heavily biased perceptual lens to get the effect that harmful AGW is a scientific fact.

Pope Benedict XVI mentioned the “greenhouse effect” once in the World Day of Peace Message, but does not mention AGW, or that a “solid” consensus exists.

So, yeah, this is a hierarchical statement that has not existed before.

 

[estesbob]

Until recently, it was not a pillar of an environmental encyclical, an encyclical that could have stood quite well on its own with out the AGW reference. Prior to this you had to pick through over a dozen messages, addresses, letters and one encyclical that did not even mention AGW, and then apply a heavily biased perceptual lens to get the effect that harmful AGW is a scientific fact.

Pope Benedict XVI mentioned the “greenhouse effect” once in the World Day of Peace Message, but does not mention AGW, or that a “solid” consensus exists.

So, yeah, this is a hierarchical statement that has not existed before.

The problem is not with the pope said. The problem is those have twisted his words to push their own radical agenda

 

[lynnvinc]

Until recently, it was not a pillar of an environmental encyclical, an encyclical that could have stood quite well on its own with out the AGW reference. Prior to this you had to pick through over a dozen messages, addresses, letters and one encyclical that did not even mention AGW, and then apply a heavily biased perceptual lens to get the effect that harmful AGW is a scientific fact.

It was also there in BXVI’s “Caritas et Veritate” – which I believe was widely read.

1. “Let us hope that the international community and individual governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment. It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations: the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet.”

And BXVI spoke about AGW more strongly in his 2010 World Day of Peace message, and many other places.

Pope Benedict XVI mentioned the “greenhouse effect” once in the World Day of Peace Message, but does not mention AGW, or that a “solid” consensus exists.

So, yeah, this is a hierarchical statement that has not existed before.

Whoa, there. First of all it was JPII, not BXVI, in his 1990 World Day of Peace message who used the term “greenhouse effect.”

Back in the 1980s up through 1990 or so we were all referring to AGW as “the greenhouse effect,” with the terms “global warming” coming later in public discourse, and “climate change” coming even later. These are ALL synonyms for the same thing according to the people who were using them.

Some have even said these terms do not adequately get at the extreme harms, but sound too warm and fuzzy, that we should have some stronger term that better describes the harms and risks we’re facing and even experiencing now.

 

[estesbob]

It was also there in BXVI’s “Caritas et Veritate” – which I believe was widely read.

1. “Let us hope that the international community and individual governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment. It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations: the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet.”

And BXVI spoke about AGW more strongly in his 2010 World Day of Peace message, and many other places.

Whoa, there. First of all it was JPII, not BXVI, in his 1990 World Day of Peace message who used the term “greenhouse effect.”

Back in the 1980s up through 1990 or so we were all referring to AGW as “the greenhouse effect,” with the terms “global warming” coming later in public discourse, and “climate change” coming even later. These are ALL synonyms for the same thing according to the people who were using them.

Some have even said these terms do not adequately get at the extreme harms, but sound too warm and fuzzy, that we should have some stronger term that better describes the harms and risks we’re facing and even experiencing now.

And the reason they keep changing the terminology is that every single one of their predictions, every single one of those scenarios turned out to be wrong. It was hard to keep complaining about global warming when the world isnt warming. And of course once you change the terminology from global warming to climate change then you can start claiming cold-weather as a result of AGW as well as warm weather as well as every single weather phenomenon we has witnessed in the last 100 years. Why not just go back to the terminology that served us so well over the centuries-“weather”

 

[sps49]

Whoa, there. First of all it was JPII, not BXVI, in his 1990 World Day of Peace message who used the term “greenhouse effect.”

Back in the 1980s up through 1990 or so we were all referring to AGW as “the greenhouse effect,” with the terms “global warming” coming later in public discourse, and “climate change” coming even later. These are ALL synonyms for the same thing according to the people who were using them.

Yes, it was an error. That does not detract from the fact that the Church has never made a strong statement regarding AGW as a scientific fact backed by “solid” consensus. The message did not did not exist as anything other than an imaginary dog-whistle for Catholic environmental activists until the latest encyclical. Spin that anyway you wish, put it on the rinse cycle and the same facts emerge.

 

[lynnvinc]

It was also there in BXVI’s “Caritas et Veritate” – which I believe was widely read.

I think the crux of the matter is that previous popes were telling the truth, but perhaps with a bit too much “charity.” Pope Francis is telling it a bit more forcefully.

Nothing wrong with that. Jesus said things like, “You brood of vipers…”

 

[sps49]

I think the crux of the matter is that previous popes were telling the truth, but perhaps with a bit too much “charity.” Pope Francis is telling it a bit more forcefully.

Nothing wrong with that. Jesus said things like, “You brood of vipers…”

That would be revisionism, not truth.

 

[estesbob]

I think the crux of the matter is that previous popes were telling the truth, but perhaps with a bit too much “charity.” Pope Francis is telling it a bit more forcefully.

Nothing wrong with that. Jesus said things like, “You brood of vipers…”

So now we have from “deniers” to “vipers” ?

 

[FollowChrist34]

So now we have from “deniers” to “vipers” ?

'Fraid so…I admire your tenacity here. I am one of the conservative Catholics in the unfavorable opinion category. I have never been very good at regulating negative emotions - a character fault I know. But I feel that I have so much to draw from - I watched liberal Catholics chastise Benedict up close and personal for years. I feel like I am taking up their torch and walking forward in pursuit of a truer Church. Thanks guys, well-trodden ground.

I personally see a growing slant at the Vatican (no so much the Pope - I agree with you he stays completely out of it in word and deed - but he allows it below him) to be more openly liberal. I don’t have any problem calling it out and speaking my peace. I think I still fall somewhere in the “good Catholic” bucket - hopefully. I would be more worried I wasn’t saying anything and feeling this way - what would that accomplish. May I reiterate I believe what I believe in good conscience and in accordance with the Gospel.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

I don’t consider Cardinal Wuerl part of the “big bad liberal mainstream media” though. And the Cardinal said the Pope is speaking about what faithful Catholics should be doing and believes global warming is indeed a moral issue. Cardinal Wuerl also has said the Pope speaks the whole faith, the whole package. There is no question the Pope speaks on those issues conservatives like to emphasize such as abortion and marriage. And he also speaks about global warming, the poor, and income inequality.

foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/21/cardinal-wuerl-back-pope-on-global-warming-but-says-bush-response-was/

foxnews.com/transcript/2015/06/21/cardinal-donald-wuerl-on-pope-climate-change-message-can-rick-perry-escape/

 

[estesbob]

I don’t consider Cardinal Wuerl part of the “big bad liberal mainstream media” though. And the Cardinal said the Pope is speaking about what faithful Catholics should be doing and believes global warming is indeed a moral issue. Cardinal Wuerl also has said the Pope speaks the whole faith, the whole package. There is no question the Pope speaks on those issues conservatives like to emphasize such as abortion and marriage. And he also speaks about global warming, the poor, and income inequality.

foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/21/cardinal-wuerl-back-pope-on-global-warming-but-says-bush-response-was/

foxnews.com/transcript/2015/06/21/cardinal-donald-wuerl-on-pope-climate-change-message-can-rick-perry-escape/

So if I don’t except global warming is that a mortal sin or a venial sin?

 

[lynnvinc]

That would be revisionism, not truth.

So the last 3 popes were liars?

 

[lynnvinc]

So if I don’t except global warming is that a mortal sin or a venial sin?

That’s a good question. I would think it would more be a matter of what one might be doing about it, not whether one has doubts.

If one says they find AGW hard to believe, I don’t think it would be a sin if they are working to mitigate it anyway – either bec it is the prudent thing to do “just in case,” or it helps to mitigate other problems (so why not do those things), or bec it saves money.

However, if one is bent on dissuading others from mitigating it, that might be another matter; we’d probably need some moral theologian to step in and guide us.

OTOH, while lack of knowledge of the law is no excuse, lack of knowledge of a sin actually is an excuse.

Just to be on the save side, however, I’d think it wise to turn out lights not in use and other types of measures to help mitigate AGW (and a host of other problems).

 

[sps49]

So the last 3 popes were liars?

Hyperbole much? Check your outrage, it may need refilling.

 

[estesbob]

That’s a good question. I would think it would more be a matter of what one might be doing about it, not whether one has doubts.

If one says they find AGW hard to believe, I don’t think it would be a sin if they are working to mitigate it anyway – either bec it is the prudent thing to do “just in case,” or it helps to mitigate other problems (so why not do those things), or bec it saves money.

However, if one is bent on dissuading others from mitigating it, that might be another matter; we’d probably need some moral theologian to step in and guide us.

OTOH, while lack of knowledge of the law is no excuse, lack of knowledge of a sin actually is an excuse.

Just to be on the save side, however, I’d think it wise to turn out lights not in use and other types of measures to help mitigate AGW (and a host of other problems).

If I accept the alarmists solutions to global warming( which go far beyond turning out lights) I would be complicit in hurting the poor and needy .( Can you imagine how many people could’ve been fed with the money wasted on giving subsidies to people for solar panels and electric cars .?) Looks like I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

Of course the truth is Catholics are no more bound to accept global warming than they are bound to go down to the local soup kitchen once a week tob feed the poor . It is sad that people have taken the Popes well needed message about caring for the environment and twisted it so beyond recognition that we have the spectacle of a mayor who supports abortion, homosexual marriage and forced contraception coverage going to the Vatican and lecturing devout Catholics about “mocking God”

 

[lynnvinc]

If I accept the alarmists solutions to global warming( which go far beyond turning out lights) I would be complicit in hurting the poor and needy…

Look. The mitigation strategies that my husband and I have followed over the past 25 years to reduce our GHGs (and other pollutants) by over 30% below our 1990 emissions (BEFORE going on wind energy, putting in solar panels, getting a Volt) and by 60% after have saved us many $1000s – and that doesn’t count the savings we’ve realized by making it a point to live within 1 to 2 miles of work & shops for the past 45 years in order to save resources for future generations, which has also saved us a good deal of money.

I’m REALLLY having a hard time seeing how that harms the poor (and if they are paying in the 31% tax range, they aren’t poor). In fact because of those savings we are able to contribute much more to the poor.

As for any policies the gov may come up with to “inspire” thoughtless people into doing the right thing to reduce their harming and killing of people – well can’t someone come up with creative solutions that do not harm the poor? Are people so inane or evil all they can think of is take it all out on the poor – make them cough up all their money.

Quite frankly I see this focus on the poor as a bunch of crocodile tears. Such people who claim to be concerned for the poor don’t mind contributing to polluting the poor to smithereens and causing them leukemia, cancer, miscarriages, birth defects, lung disease, etc, destroying their subsistence base, crops, homes, and the myriad of other harms from local pollution to global warming effects.

They don’t mind contributing to harming and killing the poor and others and they seem totally incapable of coming up with solutions that could not only solve these problems, but do so in ways that do not harm the poor (or others, for that matter).

I guess even in my old age I’m astounded, shocked and dismayed by the “bad boys on the block.” Why don’t they try “good” for a change just to see if it makes thing better for them. They can always go back to “bad” later.

 

[estesbob]

Look. The mitigation strategies that my husband and I have followed over the past 25 years to reduce our GHGs (and other pollutants) by over 30% below our 1990 emissions (BEFORE going on wind energy, putting in solar panels, getting a Volt) and by 60% after have saved us many $1000s – and that doesn’t count the savings we’ve realized by making it a point to live within 1 to 2 miles of work & shops for the past 45 years in order to save resources for future generations, which has also saved us a good deal of money.

I’m REALLLY having a hard time seeing how that harms the poor (and if they are paying in the 31% tax range, they aren’t poor). In fact because of those savings we are able to contribute much more to the poor.

As for any policies the gov may come up with to “inspire” thoughtless people into doing the right thing to reduce their harming and killing of people – well can’t someone come up with creative solutions that do not harm the poor? Are people so inane or evil all they can think of is take it all out on the poor – make them cough up all their money.

Quite frankly I see this focus on the poor as a bunch of crocodile tears. Such people who claim to be concerned for the poor don’t mind contributing to polluting the poor to smithereens and causing them leukemia, cancer, miscarriages, birth defects, lung disease, etc, destroying their subsistence base, crops, homes, and the myriad of other harms from local pollution to global warming effects.

They don’t mind contributing to harming and killing the poor and others and they seem totally incapable of coming up with solutions that could not only solve these problems, but do so in ways that do not harm the poor (or others, for that matter).

I guess even in my old age I’m astounded, shocked and dismayed by the “bad boys on the block.” Why don’t they try “good” for a change just to see if it makes thing better for them. They can always go back to “bad” later.

Their are two flaws in your premise

1. The idea that those who do not accept global warming do not care for the environment.
2. The dismissal of the negative affect these misguided government policies have on the poor and needy

I simply cannot Reconcile dumping trillions of dollars into suspect global warming initiatives with our duty to care for the poor and needy. And I’m not talking about these initiatives taking away from direct subsidies to the poor . I am talking about the huge increase in the cost of living and meeting their everyday needs that these initiatives bring about . Such initiatives burden the middle class with increased taxes and higher prices and have an even more devastating effect on those who struggle.financially now In countries like United States the government will step in and try to minimize the harm they are causing increasing taxes even more and passing on more subsidies to the poor. But those who live in Third World countries will start dropping like flies as a cost of energy, food, and getting these necessities to them skyrockets beyond their reach. Of course for the real environmental zealot such a result is a good thing as population control is at the heart of the modern environmental movement

 

[sps49]

If I accept the alarmists solutions to global warming( which go far beyond turning out lights) I would be complicit in hurting the poor and needy .( Can you imagine how many people could’ve been fed with the money wasted on giving subsidies to people for solar panels and electric cars .?) Looks like I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

Of course the truth is Catholics are no more bound to accept global warming than they are bound to go down to the local soup kitchen once a week tob feed the poor . It is sad that people have taken the Popes well needed message about caring for the environment and twisted it so beyond recognition that we have the spectacle of a mayor who supports abortion, homosexual marriage and forced contraception coverage going to the Vatican and lecturing devout Catholics about “mocking God”

It is a common reaction from activists, to demand changes, rail against any dissent, and appropriate and distort the words and thoughts of leaders. Conscience is actually removed from the picture, as well as a notion of free will or ability to reason, in favor of dictates of compliance. Quite tasteless, but it’s good that it is getting exposure so that all who have the ability to read and understand can see for themselves the nature of their commands.

 

[lynnvinc]

Subsidizing solar panels and electric cars take hard aren’t taxpayer money that could be much better used for other purposes…

Wrong.

You have NO idea of all the environmental harms and how offsetting dirty, finite energy with renewable energy can help. Perhaps reading Laudato Si is a good place to start for some basic understanding on a wide range of environmental problems, many of which can be mitigated by renewable energy.

Here are some quote from LS on renewable energy:

1. "There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy.
2. “Taking advantage of abundant solar energy will require the establishment of mechanisms and subsidies which allow developing countries access to technology transfer, technical assistance and financial resources, but in a way which respects their concrete situations, since “the compatibility of [infrastructures] with the context for which they have been designed is not always adequately assessed”.128 Taking advantage of abundant solar energy will require the establishment of mechanisms and
   subsidies which allow developing countries access to technology transfer, technical assistance and financial resources, but in a way which respects their concrete situations, since “the compatibility of [infrastructures] with the context for which they have been designed is not always adequately assessed”.128 The costs of this would be comparatively low, given the risks of climate change. In any event, these are primarily ethical decisions, rooted in solidarity between all peoples… In any event, these are primarily ethical decisions, rooted in solidarity between all peoples.”

---

BTW the tax-breaks for the Volt will be over in a few years…they only go up to the first 100,000 cars and they are at about 50,000 sold. With the 2016 improved model they expect the sale to go up to some 20,000 per year. So grab your Volt soon. It’s the best car on the road (tho it only seats 4 and you need a place to plug it in, so it’s not for everyone). You can spread your $7500 tax break over three years if you wish, taking $2500 off each years tax.

 

[Ender]

If one says they find AGW hard to believe, I don’t think it would be a sin if they are working to mitigate it anyway – either bec it is the prudent thing to do “just in case,” or it helps to mitigate other problems (so why not do those things), or bec it saves money.

Just the idea that rejecting AGW might be a sin is all one needs to know about the problem caused by including this topic in Laudato Si.

However, if one is bent on dissuading others from mitigating it, that might be another matter; we’d probably need some moral theologian to step in and guide us.

Moral theologians are no more needed in discussing AGW than they are in discussing the Big Bang theory. This conversation has gone from silly to preposterous. I’m doing my part to make the Earth a better place by opposing each and every “mitigation” policy that appears. I use quotes around mitigation for the same reason I put them around same sex “marriage”; that is, to denote that the thing exists not in fact but solely by definition. It is no more real than unicorns.

Just to be on the save side, however, I’d think it wise to turn out lights not in use and other types of measures to help mitigate AGW (and a host of other problems).

Common sense and reasonable behavior are not “mitigation” strategies, nor is recycling or any other conservation practice any part of AGW. This is a basic distinction that should be insisted on. It is no more reasonable to believe that one can mitigate AGW by turning off lights than it is to believe it possible to bail out Lake Michigan with a teaspoon. There are good reasons not to waste things, energy included, but they have nothing to do with AGW.

Ender