Pope's climate push at odds with U.S. Catholic oil investments

[KSU]

I learned my lesson back in 2001 on an exploratory oil company. It wasn’t very profitable when oil kept sitting at $20 a barrel.

Right. That type of investment is not for small investors or local Church portfolios. It’s for the big boys and high rollers who can afford to thoroughly investigate and gamble.

Although I would include the Vatican as one of the big boys, Cardinal Pell probably would frown on such high risk/high reward flyers. And, by doing so he would score points with the boss.

 

[frobert]

Pope Francis is an intelligent, humble, personable, maverick who is close to God; an extraordinary teacher of what our strictly spiritual relationship to God should be like. Media lies not withstanding, doctrine could not be in safer hands.

He draws praise from Socialists, secularists and other groups who normally wouldn’t be caught dead praising anything related to Catholicism, which they hate.

You appear to be making many unsubstantiated assumptions about the Pope’s abilities, knowledge and intelligence. Unfortunately that also appears to be the prevalent thought among this forum’s members. The Pope is well aware that we live on a finite planet which we abuse at an unsustainable rate. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to be aware of our collapsing fisheries, diminishing forest cover, depletion of fresh water systems, pollution of the oceans, the build up of carbon dioxide emissions, the inequality brought to us by neo-conservative economics along with its numerous ongoing wars, etc. Just to name a few.

Our present predicament (in the 2000s) was accurately predicted in 1970 in “The Limits to Growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project.” Unfortunately, their future predictions continue to be right on track.

From: Scientific America
Have We Passed the Point of No Return on Climate Change …

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU:
Pope Francis is an intelligent, humble, personable, maverick who is close to God; an extraordinary teacher of what our strictly spiritual relationship to God should be like. Media lies not withstanding, doctrine could not be in safer hands.

He draws praise from Socialists, secularists and other groups who normally wouldn’t be caught dead praising anything related to Catholicism, which they hate.​

You appear to be making many unsubstantiated assumptions about the Pope’s abilities, knowledge and intelligence. Unfortunately that also appears to be the prevalent thought among this forum’s members. The Pope is well aware that we live on a finite planet which we abuse at an unsustainable rate. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to be aware of our collapsing fisheries, diminishing forest cover, depletion of fresh water systems, pollution of the oceans, the build up of carbon dioxide emissions, the inequality brought to us by neo-conservative economics along with its numerous ongoing wars, etc. Just to name a few.

Our present predicament (in the 2000s) was accurately predicted in 1970 in “The Limits to Growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project.” Unfortunately, their future predictions continue to be right on track.

From: Scientific America
Have We Passed the Point of No Return on Climate Change …

I’m not surprised you don’t care for my favorable impression of the Holy Father. But this is a patriotic Catholic website. The very existence of the Club of Rome is offensive to me. infowars.com/club-of-rome-behind-eco-fascist-purge-to-criminalize-climate-skepticism/

 

[frobert]

Originally Posted by KSU:
Pope Francis is an intelligent, humble, personable, maverick who is close to God; an extraordinary teacher of what our strictly spiritual relationship to God should be like. Media lies not withstanding, doctrine could not be in safer hands.

He draws praise from Socialists, secularists and other groups who normally wouldn’t be caught dead praising anything related to Catholicism, which they hate.​

I’m not surprised you don’t care for my favorable impression of the Holy Father. But this is a patriotic Catholic website. The very existence of the Club of Rome is offensive to me. infowars.com/club-of-rome-behind-eco-fascist-purge-to-criminalize-climate-skepticism/

Really? It was not to offend you, I am sorry you took it that way. Yet I am not surprised by content of your reference, it isn’t the first time that religious right publications opted to kill the messenger with ad hominem attacks rather than discuss the message. The book was not about climate change it was about the limits of resources in our finite world and predictions if we refuse to live within our resources limits. The book was originally demonized but the predictions made were and continue to be accurate despite the demonetization.

It has been awhile since I read the “Limits to Growth” I may be wrong, but I do not recall any mention of any religion in the book or its sequel. Can you state the forum rule that prevents discussion of the "Limits to Growth?

To verify the above I searched the 211 pages of the book for “religion” there was one reference as follows:

“In particular, those pursuits that many people would list as the most desirable and satisfying activities of man-education, art, music, religion, basic scientific research, athletics, and social interactions-could flourish.” pg. 175

In essence the authors refer to religion as one of "the most desirable and satisfying activities of man.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is heading of the OP: “Pope’s climate change push at odds with U.S. oil investments.”

“It would be quite simplistic to think that ethical principles present themselves purely in the abstract, detached from any context.” Laudato Si, 199

“Compulsive consumerism is one example of how the techno-economic paradigm affects individuals. Romano Guardini had already foreseen this: ‘The gadgets and technics forced upon him by the patterns of machine production and of abstract planning mass man accepts quite simply; they are the forms of life itself. To either a greater or lesser degree mass man is convinced that his conformity is both reasonable and just.’ This paradigm leads people to believe they are free as long as they have the supposed freedom to consume. But those really free are the minority who wield economic and financial power. Amid this confusion, post-modern man has not yet achieved a new self-awareness capable of offering guidance and direction and this lack of identity is a source of anxiety. We have too many means and only a few insubstantial ends.” Ibid., 203

This teaching concerns mass mans’ inability to properly grasp spirituality in light of the limits imposed by an epistological paradigm. It is existential and does not concern a “strictly spiritual relationship with God”. Nor does Laudato Si. Like Adam, mass man is no longer capable of discerning the good for the good cannot be known by reason alone. This is the result of a cultural paradigm. It is also what resulted from the corruption of free will that (metaphorically) resulted from Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thereby losing his ability to discern the good without the grace of God. This became the Original Sin long ago.

But back to the OP. This again is its heading: “Pope’s climate change push at odds with U.S. Catholic oil investments.”

It speaks for itself. So would disputing it. But science does inform us of grave dangers. Laudato Si describes what must be done. This will not be easily accomplished, for the complete worldwide acceptance of its teaching, requiring a different epistomological paradigm, would, I believe, require several centuries. But there is no luxury of time at all. It would seem unwise to ignore the encyclical’s teaching, and there is always the virtue of hope.

 

[Midwest88]

Fossil fuels helped build Apple computers.

We have a Pope that believes in almost every social justice warrior cause.

Now that’s embarrassing.

 

[Midwest88]

Pope Francis, an anthropological global warming believer.

 

[KSU]

Really? It was not to offend you, I am sorry you took it that way.

That you don’t share my favorable opinion of Pope Francis is not what offended me; you are entitled to your opinion, even on an orthodox Catholic website such as CAF. As you are fully aware, your hawking the despicable Club of Rome on a Catholic website is what offends me.

Yet I am not surprised by content of your reference, infowars.com/club-of-rome…te-skepticism/ KSU edit. it isn’t the first time that religious right publications opted to kill the messenger with ad hominem attacks rather than discuss the message.The book was not about climate change it was about the limits of resources in our finite world and predictions if we refuse to live within our resources limits. The book was originally demonized but the predictions made were and continue to be accurate despite the demonetization.

**Oh, you poor persecuted Leftists; when someone actually does discuss and expose your message for what it is, you refer to it as “ad hominem attacks”. For the convenience of the objective posters on this thread, the following is from my “reference”, i.e., from my above-emboldened link:

QUOTE The Club of Rome’s 1972 publication The Limits To Growth was a Malthusian blueprint on how the human population needed to be reduced in order to prevent an ecological collapse, which in itself was merely a disguised version of the abhorrent eugenicist ideas that were circulating in the early part of the 20th century and eventually died out with Hitler. The widely discredited population bomb paranoia of the 70’s and 80’s was gradually replaced by the climate change fearmongering that we see the organization pushing today, which again is merely another regurgitation of the eugenics-obsessed policies of the elite.
Prominent members of the Club of Rome include Al Gore and Maurice Strong, both of whom are intimately involved with privately-owned carbon trading groups like the Chicago Climate Exchange, whose multi-million dollar profits are solely reliant on protecting the credibility of the man-made global warming thesis from skeptics who have challenged its legitimacy in light of the Climategate scandal.
On page 75 of their 1990 publication entitled The First Global Revolution, the organization outlined how they would manufacture ecological scares in order to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government run by them. END QUOTE **

It has been awhile since I read the “Limits to Growth” I may be wrong, but I do not recall any mention of any religion in the book or its sequel. Can you state the forum rule that prevents discussion of the "Limits to Growth?

To verify the above I searched the 211 pages of the book for “religion” there was one reference as follows:

“In particular, those pursuits that many people would list as the most desirable and satisfying activities of man-education, art, music, religion, basic scientific research, athletics, and social interactions-could flourish.” pg. 175

In essence the authors refer to religion as one of “the most desirable and satisfying activities of man”.

**No, frobert, the authors did no such thing; it is “many people” who think of religion as desirable and satisfying, not the authors.You thus hoisted the authors by your own petard by pointing out that in a book, the scope of which is the entire world and its activities, religion is mentioned only once, and then only as an attempted camouflage for one of the anti-Catholic purposes of the book: population reduction in order to prevent an ecological collapse.

As I said in my earlier post, I’m not surprised you don’t care for my favorable impression of the Holy Father. In LAUDATO SI’, he ripped abortion and everything the Club of Rome stands for, especially Obama’s and the Left’s precious “carbon credits” scam. See #171:

QUOTE The strategy of buying and selling “carbon credits” can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors. END QUOTE

You undoubtedly are familiar with this exposé as well: prisonplanet.com/flashback-obama-intimately-tied-to-carbon-trading-scam.html**

 

[whipp711]

Other reasons why we should divest from fossil fuels, aside from AGW harms:

1. 
   *]Extraction and its myriad harms & accidents & leaks and spills; destruction of ecosystems and subsistence for peoples in the area – deep water drilling, tar sands bitumen, fracking, mountaintop removal, careless drilling in the Amazon, Nigeria, etc. Killing and executing of people who protest these harms. Flaring of regular gas wells in residential neighborhoods and the health effects from these.
   *]Shipping and it environmental costs, and accidents and spills
   *]Processing and the cancer alleys and local harms – and further harms during hurricanes like Katrina when those pollutants are spread all over the place.
   *]Storage and cleaning, and leaks from oil and gas – like the 33 acre underground benzene plume in the town next to me right under a low-income Hispanic neighborhood and elementary school where people have been dying of leukemia and other cancers. And nobody cares, but they sure to like to drive their cars or use gas for cooking on the products involved. And there are plenty other such plumes in my area.
   *]Combustion and the local air pollution and harms from that, and the regional & inter-regional acid rain harms from cars emitting NO2 and coal-fired plants emitting SO2
   *]Disposal of wastes, coal ash spills, etc.
   
   The list goes on, but I think these local and regional harms are plenty enough reasons to divest from oil, gas, and coal – gradually divest so as not to disrupt the economy – even if the very vast harms from AGW, which we are now witness to and will be harming for 100s & 1000s of years on into the future, are not considered.
   
   Since there are cleaner & safer alternatives, such as solar and wind, etc, then it is incumbent on us to shift to these as much as feasible and possible and as quickly as possible – as the Pope has asked us to do in LS. New Zealand and Germany are already at above 30% renewable energy. The US is about 10% and we can do much better.
   My husband and I have been on 100% wind-generated electricity since 2002, and as of 2013 have solar panels on our roof that supply about 40% of our electricity, and we charge our Chevy Volt and drive it about 85% of the miles on that cleaner & safer form of energy.
   
   If one looks into it we could reduce our energy needs by over 75% through energy efficiency and conservation, without lowering our productivity (see www.natcap.org and www.rmi.org). And at that level we could easily supply 30 to 50% of our energy needs or more with renewable energy.
   
   We will still need fossil fuels for quite some time during this transition – so your job iis secure. However, it is nothing new that societies and economies change and shift over time. And we should help and foster these positive changes.

1. 
   You’ve done remarkably well at lowering your carbon foot print. Kudos! But just think of the energy needs of large cities. Interesting study of the land needed for solar panels to power up a city of a million people. There simply isn’t enough open space. Alas, looks like environmentalist are turning on wind generators due to bird kills. This transition is going to get tough.
   
   However, we think of this transition in very U.S. centric thinking. Solar, wind are not cost effective without enormous tax incentives and credits. Energy storage from solar or wind is not quite there for the masses. Third world countries can not even touch the cost of alternative or renewable energy. I’m not counting palm oil in Malaysia. Who are we to deny developing countries the use of fossil fuels to power industry and improve the economics for their masses.
   
   You used coal in you response above. I support those statements because the technology of scrubbing is not there, and it may never arrive. Coal needs to go. Natural gas power plants are way cleaner, and cheap gas puts other BTU providers to shame.
   
   Not worried about divestment of oil company stocks. Remember, most oil companies are national and not IOC’s. Supply and demand dictates energy use for centuries to come. Fossil fuel will have to be in the mix. Or, we could go the French route (85% nuclear).
   
   In the meantime, I’ll drive my Corvette (fellow Chevy product). I usually downshift next to a Prius, just to let them know I’m harming the environment.
   
   Disclaimer: Most of my statements are tongue in cheek to address the issue of mankind making the right decisions on energy. After all, oil people can be Catholics too.

 

[frobert]

KSU:
@KSU

If you think I am for carbon credits think again. Government and carbon credits can not put humanity on a sustainable path only we, ourselves can do that.

The title is a childish attempt to assassinate the club of Rome
Club Of Rome Behind Eco-Fascist Purge To Criminalize Climate Skepticism

Calling someone a fascist to make your point is, you guessed it, ad hominem whether it comes from the right or the left. As a fun project look up the “F scale.” F stands for fascist but the scale better measures how much alike the far right and the far left are. It’s why I don’t give either much credence.

You are right. I took it for granted that the authors value religion but it does not change the fact that they recognize religion would flourish with a turn to a sustainable path. The problem is that we may have run out of time.

Again the predicted trends are right on track.

Increases in food production, per hectare of land, have not kept pace with increases in population, and the planet has virtually no more arable land or fresh water to spare. As a result, per-capita cropland has fallen by more than half since 1960, and per-capita** production of grains, the basic food, has been falling worldwide for 20 years**.

World Population, Agriculture, and Malnutrition

Humanity is losing the battle for clean air. Despite decades of efforts to combat it, air pollution is taking a growing toll on human health, the environment, and the economy, according to a new Worldwatch Institute study.

Once primarily an urban phenomenon in industrial countries, air pollution has spread worldwide. More than a billion people–one-fifth of all humanity–live in communities that do not meet World Health Organization air quality standards

.Air Pollution Now Threatening Health Worldwide

Brief article:
Forty years after the release of the groundbreaking study, were the concerns about overpopulation and the environment correct?

Looking Back on the Limits of Growth - Smithsonian magazine

If you want to disprove the “Club of Rome” present facts that dispute the trends they predicted. Calling them fascists doesn’t do it.

 

[frobert]

This is heading of the OP: “Pope’s climate change push at odds with U.S. oil investments.”

“It would be quite simplistic to think that ethical principles present themselves purely in the abstract, detached from any context.” Laudato Si, 199

“Compulsive consumerism is one example of how the techno-economic paradigm affects individuals. Romano Guardini had already foreseen this: ‘The gadgets and technics forced upon him by the patterns of machine production and of abstract planning mass man accepts quite simply; they are the forms of life itself. To either a greater or lesser degree mass man is convinced that his conformity is both reasonable and just.’ This paradigm leads people to believe they are free as long as they have the supposed freedom to consume. But those really free are the minority who wield economic and financial power. Amid this confusion, post-modern man has not yet achieved a new self-awareness capable of offering guidance and direction and this lack of identity is a source of anxiety. We have too many means and only a few insubstantial ends.” Ibid., 203

This teaching concerns mass mans’ inability to properly grasp spirituality in light of the limits imposed by an epistological paradigm. It is existential and does not concern a “strictly spiritual relationship with God”. Nor does Laudato Si. Like Adam, mass man is no longer capable of discerning the good for the good cannot be known by reason alone. This is the result of a cultural paradigm. It is also what resulted from the corruption of free will that (metaphorically) resulted from Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thereby losing his ability to discern the good without the grace of God. This became the Original Sin long ago.

But back to the OP. This again is its heading: “Pope’s climate change push at odds with U.S. Catholic oil investments.”

It speaks for itself. So would disputing it. But science does inform us of grave dangers. Laudato Si describes what must be done. This will not be easily accomplished, for the complete worldwide acceptance of its teaching, requiring a different epistomological paradigm, would, I believe, require several centuries. But there is no luxury of time at all. It would seem unwise to ignore the encyclical’s teaching, and there is always the virtue of hope.

Excellent summary.

 

[KSU]

@KSU

If you think I am for carbon credits think again.

I never said you were for carbon credits. The author of the linked article pointed out that the members of the Club of Rome were. But, since you are a fan of that despicable entity, don’t be surprised if in the future someone comes to that conclusion about you.

The title is a childish attempt to assassinate the club of Rome
Club Of Rome Behind Eco-Fascist Purge To Criminalize Climate Skepticism

For goodness sake, frobert, by your definition that might be an ad hominen attack on the author of the article in the link. infowars.com/club-of-rome-behind-eco-fascist-purge-to-criminalize-climate-skepticism/

Calling someone a fascist to make your point is, you guessed it, ad hominem whether it comes from the right or the left.

**You may not notice it, but your writing style literally accuses me of an ad hominem attack. I assume what you meant to do is accuse the author of the linked article because of his statements, such as: QUOTE With global warmists despondent at the fact that reality hasn’t backed up their increasingly fanatical predictions, and with public opinion increasingly turning against them, they’re simply pushing ahead anyway with the agenda to impose authoritarian control measures to regulate and tax every aspect of our existence. END QUOTE Is that ad hominen? **

You are right. I took it for granted that the authors value religion but it does not change the fact that they recognize religion would flourish with a turn to a sustainable path. The problem is that we may have run out of time.

No, my friend, they don’t recognize religion would flourish; they merely allege it. Catholicism, especially, is NOT compatible with the Club of Rome’s ideological agenda of population reduction and anti-subsidiarity.

…If you want to disprove the “Club of Rome” present facts that dispute the trends they predicted. Calling them fascists doesn’t do it.

There you go again; I didn’t call them fascists. The author of the linked article entitled it CLUB OF ROME BEHIND ECO-FASCIST PURGE TO CRIMINALIZE CLIMATE SKEPTICISM. Based on the Club’s nightmare of an Anti-American, anti-Catholic, and anti-Constitutional agenda, the author used the term eco-fascist. The Club also wants to give authority to the UN to criminalize ME because I am a “denier.” So, frobert, “eco-fascist” sounds literally correct. Are you therefore going to accuse me again of an ad hominen attack?

 

[lynnvinc]

…But back to the OP. This again is its heading: “Pope’s climate change push at odds with U.S. Catholic oil investments.”

It speaks for itself. So would disputing it. But science does inform us of grave dangers. Laudato Si describes what must be done. This will not be easily accomplished, for the complete worldwide acceptance of its teaching, requiring a different epistomological paradigm, would, I believe, require several centuries. But there is no luxury of time at all. It would seem unwise to ignore the encyclical’s teaching, and there is always the virtue of hope.

There is a possibility for culture (world view, ethos, ideology) to change more rapidly with “revitalization movements” or (in sociology) “social movements.” Examples of these are the “historical” religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) and their off-shoots, cargo cults in Melanesia, the Ghost Dance movement among Native Americans, Marxism, the hippie movement (I did a term paper on that as a revitalization movement, since I was in SF in 1966 living in the Sunset district, next to Haight-Ashbury, and saw its very rapid evolution ).

---

The stages (by anthropologist, Anthony F. C. Wallace – got this mainly from Wiki) are:

I. Period of generally satisfactory adaptation to a group’s social and natural environment.

II. Period of increased individual stress. While the group as a whole is able to survive through its accustomed cultural behavior, changes in the social or natural environment frustrate efforts of many people to obtain normal satisfactions of their needs.

III. Period of cultural distortion. Changes in the group’s social or natural environment drastically reduce the capacity of accustomed cultural behavior to satisfy most persons’ physical and emotional needs. Responses are mainly negative – black market, drug dealing and addictions, Zealots trying to overthrow Roman occupation, etc.

IV. Period of revitalization:
(1) a cultural hero/leader undergoes a “mazeway resynthesis” which is a rather sudden reformulation of the person’s world view & ethos – from a divine revelation or insight into a better, more fulfilling way of life – Buddha under the Bo tree; (2) communication of this new culture; (3) organization of a reformulated cultural pattern; (4) adaptation of the reformulated pattern to better meet the needs and preferences of the group; (5) cultural transformation; (6) routinization, when the adapted reformulated cultural pattern becomes the standard cultural behavior for the group.

V. New period of generally satisfactory adaptation to the group’s changed social and/or natural environment

---

Sociology’s “social movements” theory also adds the importance of “resource mobilization” of knowledge, money, media, labor, solidarity, legitimacy, and internal and external support from power elite as being helpful in bringing this better-adapted-to-conditions-culture about.

So what we need and could happen fairly quickly – within a decade or two – is a revitalization movement, and I think this is happening (despite what one would glean from CAF).

I guess one problem is that with modern technology rich nations (including their middle classes) are insulated from the harms and dangers from AGW and other env problems, and don’t experience them, or don’t link them back to AGW…such as the wild fires in the West, etc. We see corporate media news coverage of these fires, floods, and droughts (bec “if it bleeds it leads”), but they purposely to satisfy their sponsors do not link these to AGW, which have been linked in scientific studies.

Now all the major religions have spoken about our need to mitigate AGW. News from yesterday: “Islamic leaders join growing religious outcry over climate change” msnbc.com/msnbc/islamic-leaders-join-growing-religious-outcry-over-climate-change

Paul Hawken (see blessedunrest.com) has written about the huge and quickly growing number of environmental groups around the world. It is bubbling up.

With God, all things are possible! Glory be to God!

 

[KSU]

According to the news, U.S. oil futures on Friday settled below $41 a barrel for the first time since the Great Recession.

Perhaps by necessity, some Catholic entities and some other small to mid-size investors will shed their oil holdings. A few may cross their fingers and say, “Hey, it’s only money. We took the hit to our investment credibility, and to our employees’ pensions and health care because we want to be socially conscious.”

This is what the big boys–the smart money folks-- are waiting for, of course. They can afford to wait for prices to hit what appears to be the bottom, then buy oil investments low, and if they ever want to, sell them high in a few years.

And none of that will have anything to do with the personal ideology of Pope Francis, whose ideology BTW was informed by liberal Vatican advisers who disgracefully wanted only one side of the debate heard while the encyclical was being drafted for and by the Pope.

A few Catholics may sincerely believe or hope that man-made “climate change” is now officially taught by the Catholic Church as a scientific fact, and others, such as Reuters (see the OP article), want the public to believe that it’s now Church dogma because (1) it makes for a great opportunity to stir the money-making controversy pot; (2) show what disloyal hypocrites Catholic investors are, and (3) unless one actually reads the encyclical, it supports the international Left’s environmental carbon credits tax ripoff scheme. Reuters of course even managed to work in the sex abuse scandal.

 

[Thomas_White]

Perhaps by necessity, some Catholic entities and some other small to mid-size investors will shed their oil holdings. A few may cross their fingers and say, “Hey, it’s only money. We took the hit to our investment credibility, and to our employees’ pensions and health care because we want to be socially conscious.”

This is what the big boys–the smart money folks-- are waiting for, of course. They can afford to wait for prices to hit what appears to be the bottom, then buy oil investments low, and if they ever want to, sell them high in a few years.

And none of that will have anything to do with the personal ideology of Pope Francis, whose ideology BTW was informed by liberal Vatican advisers who disgracefully wanted only one side of the debate heard while the encyclical was being drafted for and by the Pope.

The personal ideology of Pope Francis? Liberal Vatican advisors? And you really cannot understand why I said in post #34 that some believe Laudato Si is political? By your comment, you have managed to persuade me that you really don’t. But it would have been better if I had said in post #34 that some view Laudato Si through the prism of both politics and ideology.

With all due respect, it is your perspective (the cultural paradigm itself) that is in opposition to the teachings of Laudato Si. I am sorry you do not understand this.

Peace.

 

[KSU]

The personal ideology of Pope Francis? Liberal Vatican advisors? And you really cannot understand why I said in post #34 that some believe Laudato Si is political? By your comment, you have managed to persuade me that you really don’t. But it would have been better if I had said in post #34 that some view Laudato Si through the prism of both politics and ideology.

**Frankly, Thomas, I could not follow some of what you were saying in #34. At the very end of your comment, however, you clearly implied that my earlier posts indicated I believed Laudato Si’ was a political document.

I told you before that I do not believe that, even though it is an indisputable fact that ugly politics swirled around the encyclical before, during and after it was written, inside some Vatican entities, the White House, the UN and the media. It has never stopped, and the Left will continue to pollute interpretation of the encyclical for political ends because as you and lynn know, it would require a humongous shift in both POLITICAL and cultural paradigms to effect what the Pope wants. He said It is not enough to propose merely technical solutions to effect changes because they are “powerless to solve the serious problems of our world if humanity loses its compass…"**

With all due respect, it is your perspective (the cultural paradigm itself) that is in opposition to the teachings of Laudato Si. I am sorry you do not understand this. Peace.

What I don’t understand is the shorthand and implications in your posts. If you want to say something about my beliefs and “perspective”, then please come out and say it. Am I supposed to guess at what it is that’s upsetting you. Please read these:
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1092

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1105

 

[Thomas_White]

In the comment you have formatted so it cannot be directly quoted you state the following:

“I told you before that I do not believe that, even though it is an *indisputable * fact that ugly politics swirled around the encyclical before, during and after it was written, inside some Vatican entities, the White House, the UN and the media. It has never stopped and the Left will continue to pollute interpretation of the encyclical because as you and lynn know, it would require a humongous shift in both POLITICAL and cultural paradigms to effect what the pope wants.” emphasis added

The above comment at least is a political one, and it is of the far right. Frankly, considering your own political remarks a statement like the following would cause me to wonder whether your own view of Laudato Si might be politiical: “the Left will continue to pollute interpretation of the encyclical”. And I would suggest that is your own interpretation and that it is political.

Laudato Si does not advocate for a shift “in both POLITICAL and cultural paradigms”. There is but one cultural paradigm that Pope France’s describes, and it is not political. Perhaps you are familiar with the writings of Rene Descartes and Romano Guardini and would know this would be helpful in understanding Laudato Si. My comment #34 might not then seem so difficult to understand. It was simply a straightforward comment concerning what I thought was said in the papal encyclical.

I am sorry if you might find this and other comments as shorthand. It is a complex topic and so hopefully others will understand what might require a fairly large book to fully explain. I am sure many would. But there is no implication. Nothing is upsetting me, and I am also sorry if you have that impression. It wasn’t upsetting, but I did question this statement from your comment #71:

“And none of that will have anything to do with the personal ideology of Pope Francis, whose ideology BTW was informed by liberal Vatican advisers who disgracefully wanted only one side of the debate heard while the encyclical was being drafted for and by the Pope.”

Pope Francis’s ideology was “disgracefully” informed by “liberal Vatican advisors”? What would you expect a person to make of that comment?

Peace.

 

[KSU]

In the comment you have formatted so it cannot be directly quoted you state the following:

“I told you before that I do not believe that, even though it is an *indisputable * fact that ugly politics swirled around the encyclical before, during and after it was written, inside some Vatican entities, the White House, the UN and the media. It has never stopped and the Left will continue to pollute interpretation of the encyclical because as you and lynn know, it would require a humongous shift in both POLITICAL and cultural paradigms to effect what the pope wants.” emphasis added

The above comment at least is a political one, and it is of the far right. Frankly, considering your own political remarks a statement like the following would cause me to wonder whether your own view of Laudato Si might be politiical: “the Left will continue to pollute interpretation of the encyclical”. And I would suggest that is your own interpretation and that it is political.

Laudato Si does not advocate for a shift “in both POLITICAL and cultural paradigms”. There is but one cultural paradigm that Pope France’s describes, and it is not political. Perhaps you are familiar with the writings of Rene Descartes and Romano Guardini and would know this would be helpful in understanding Laudato Si. My comment #34 might not then seem so difficult to understand. It was simply a straightforward comment concerning what I thought was said in the papal encyclical.

I am sorry if you might find this and other comments as shorthand. It is a complex topic and so hopefully others will understand what might require a fairly large book to fully explain. I am sure many would. But there is no implication. Nothing is upsetting me, and I am also sorry if you have that impression. It wasn’t upsetting, but I did question this statement from your comment #71:

“And none of that will have anything to do with the personal ideology of Pope Francis, whose ideology BTW was informed by liberal Vatican advisers who disgracefully wanted only one side of the debate heard while the encyclical was being drafted for and by the Pope.”

Pope Francis’s ideology was “disgracefully” informed by “liberal Vatican advisors”? What would you expect a person to make of that comment?

Peace.

Regarding your last paragraph, I would expect a person, after comparing my actual words to your twisted version of them, to say it’s not productive to attempt an honest debate with you.

What I say to refute your contentions I back up with links, but you simply ignore them and continue on with your contentions and accusations.

Finally, you simply refuse to join the issue, whatever it may be. To escape, you say things such as, “It is a complex topic and so hopefully others will understand what might require a fairly large book to fully explain.”

So, Thomas, I’m ending our useless back and forth now.

 

[Thomas_White]

Regarding your last paragraph, I would expect a person, after comparing my actual words to your twisted version of them, to say it’s not productive to attempt an honest debate with you.

What I say to refute your contentions I back up with links, but you simply ignore them and continue on with your contentions and accusations.

Finally, you simply refuse to join the issue, whatever it may be. To escape, you say things such as, “It is a complex topic and so hopefully others will understand what might require a fairly large book to fully explain.”

So, Thomas, I’m ending our useless back and forth now.

What I would clarify is a sentence in the third to last paragraph of my comment. It would have been better said this way: “But I am sure many would already understand the complexities of the topic. In any event, Laudato Si provides an explanation.” Neither this nor the sentence before it is directed toward any individual. The last paragraph of my comment is simply a question that might have been answered by an explanation. That’s all.

I will let it go with that. Peace.

 

[KSU]

Well, it’s started. Obama, his EPA and others have managed to reduce the value of fossil fuel holdings, especially coal, to rock bottom. So guess what, now the big boys can move in and scoop them up for a song. Surprise, surprise!
independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Sierra-club.jpg

Electricity bills will go sky high, and people will suffer,especially the poor. But don’t worry, U.S. Catholic Church entities still will dis-invest their holding to stop climate change which will help the poor.