In the quotation you provide
There was no quotation in my post to which you are now responding.
, Pope Francis explains that we have always been morally obliged to stop polluting the environment, and if man-made global warming is occurring we would be obliged to stop it, insofar as we can.This is plain and clear language.
No, I said if we knew MAN-MADE global warming was occurring and why, then we would be obliged to stop it as best we could.
The scientific issue might not be considered settled so long as a few scientists dispute the question, but what is by far the conclusion of science is that it is occurring. But set that aside for the moment.
It can’t be put aside because it’s not what I or the Pope said, and it’s not true to begin with–there is no “conclusion of science” on the question, there is only an alleged consensus (which of course is not science) of many scientists on this, that and the other aspect of the question. catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1076
As I have explained, paragraphs 106-108 of
Laudato Si provide a description of an epistological paradigm. The description provides an explanation of how this paradigm has resulted in sinful behavior by viewing both humans and nature as objects. But this is hardly limited to climate change and AGW. I have tried as best I can to explain this, and at a point either one gets it or one does not.
You are getting too abstract to shed light on our particular disagreement, which you haven’t yet articulated.
Look through the comments on this thread and find the reference to “Barack Hussein Obama, the leader of the anti-scientific POLITICAL left” and then tell me you don’t know what I mean when I say some believe
Laudato Si is political.
That is my comment to lynn in #14, viz: “That’s true; why do you think I emboldened the word “political” in my post? I was not talking about the simply deluded, good-hearted liberals, which you represent. Once the Socialist anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-scientific POLITICAL Left latched onto the issue as a huge tax ripoff scheme, the issue of what is now called climate change became a farce. Power and money for Leftist politicians (and for those scientists who can be bought to prostitute the objectivity of their professions) has become the name of the game, which is made to order for unscrupulous scientists, politicians and, of course, the UN.”
Now, Thomas, l still don’t know what you mean when you say some believe Laudato Si is political. Clearly, I was talking about how the political LEFT–not the Pope, Thomas, the LEFT–has politicized the issue for political power and money.
Also look at your own post, #17, where to my comment where I said
Laudato Si “concerns morality and not politics”. Here is your reply: “You understand neither Catholic social teaching nor
Laudato Si which says just the opposite of your statement.” Is this not to say *Laudato Si * is about politics and not morality?
Again, no; it is not to say Laudato Si’ is about politics and not morality. Since you now understand, I hope, that I never said or believed that the Pope wrote a political encyclical, it should be obvious that in #17 I was responding only to the portion of your comment that said, “I’m thinking maybe scientists are correct when they say climate change and AGW deniers should simply be ignored. Laudato Si is now part of Catholic social teaching.” In short, what you believe about man-made climate change “deniers”–a pejorative coined by the political Left-- is NOT part of Catholic social teaching. But I’ll grant you this much, had I used the style of response I’m using here–a response immediately after your particular words at issue–this misunderstanding would not have occurred. Let’s call it a wash.
What is important is that I said I don’t think the encyclical can be understood when viewed through the prism of ideology.
You didn’t say ideology, you said and meant "politics; an entirely different matter because ideology simply means a system of underlying ideas explaining actions and beliefs of a social, religious or political nature. That’s why I asked, "Perhaps you meant ideological? Everybody has there own ideology, including Pope Francis."
When you say that Pope Francis has his own ideology, it only illustrates your lack of a clear understanding of this pope. I am sorry to have to say it, but it does. His firm objection to any ideology in Catholicism or Church teaching is central to his belief and to his teaching.
**I hope I answered that above–when I say ideology I don’t mean politics. The Pope is human and so has an ideology. What’s more, he’s a true Jesuit; his ethos precludes subservience to politics. So, Thomas, fear not: I agree with you more than you know, and I go further–despite both the UN and Obama’s efforts at the Vatican, Francis is not taken in by the political purposes of “climate change.” **
I don’t even know what it is you dispute other than it surely seems you do not want to view AGW as resulting from immoral behavior.
**You sure take a lot of words to get down to brass tacks.
Correct-- like many true scientists, I do not believe in man-made global warming. But, if I did, and knew as a scientific fact what was causing it, I then as a good Catholic would of course support stopping it if possible. **
If climate change and AGW do not exist, then I am even more puzzled by your comments.
Sorry, I don’t know what you’re getting at. What comments?
