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

[ProVobis]

Laudato Si is now part of Catholic social teaching. It concerns morality and not politics.

Is there a Latin version I can read?

 

[lynnvinc]

KSU:
Thanks for you apology. That was very big of you.

 

[KSU]

Is there a Latin version I can read?

Even in Latin, Pro, interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper fienda est ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum.

In other words, Laudato Si merely enhanced long standing social teaching regarding our duty to protect the environment. Any interpretation in any language that purports to add to Church doctrine the new, thoroughly politicized hypothesis of “climate change”, understood as AGW, would be absurd and is to be avoided. Those old Romans new their stuff, huh?

 

[lynnvinc]

.

Thanks for your apology. That was really big of you.

 

[lynnvinc]

…Laudato Si 188. “There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.”…

Here is the context of that:

1. The Rio Declaration of 1992 states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a pretext for postponing cost-effective measures” which prevent environmental degradation. This precautionary principle makes it possible to protect those who are most vulnerable and whose ability to defend their interests and to assemble incontrovertible evidence is limited. If objective information suggests that serious and irreversible damage may result, a project should be halted or modified, even in the absence of indisputable proof. Here the burden of proof is effectively reversed, since in such cases objective and conclusive demonstrations will have to be brought forward to demonstrate that the proposed
   activity will not cause serious harm to the environment or to those who inhabit it.
2. This does not mean being opposed to any technological innovations which can bring about an improvement in the quality of life. But it does mean that profit cannot be the sole criterion to be taken into account, and that, when significant new information comes to light, a reassessment should be made, with the involvement of all interested parties. The outcome may be a decision not to proceed with a given project, to modify it or to consider alternative proposals.
3. There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.

---

By “certain environmental issues” in 188 Pope Francis is NOT referring to AGW, which elsewhere in LS (and in his other writings and actions, such as calling conferences on AGW) he presents as a done deal – which is it, according to the science, if anyone would care to read all the 1000s of articles in top-tier journals that support the claim of AGW (with zero studies refuting it…in top-tier science journals).

He is obviously referring to some cutting edge science (with one or two studies supporting and one or two refuting) that has not yet reached 95% confidence (which AGW did in 1995) or “robustness” with 100s or 1000s of studies supporting the claims (which AGW has most certainly achieved by now).

 

[Thomas_White]

Is there a Latin version I can read?

Laudato Si was written in Italian. I did a quick search and there was a website that had translations in eight languages, but Latin was not one of them.

 

[KSU]

Laudato Si was written in Italian. I did a quick search and there was a website that had translations in eight languages, but Latin was not one of them.

To bad, Pro. Now you will never know whether or not to dump the obscene amounts of your fossil fuel investments. Just don’t tell your Archbishop.

But I may be able to get you a copy in Polish. (Inside joke, Thomas.)

 

[KSU]

…
By “certain environmental issues” in 188 Pope Francis is NOT referring to AGW, which elsewhere in LS (and in his other writings and actions, such as calling conferences on AGW) he presents as a done deal – which is it, according to the science, if anyone would care to read all the 1000s of articles in top-tier journals that support the claim of AGW (with zero studies refuting it…in top-tier science journals).

He is obviously referring to some cutting edge science (with one or two studies supporting and one or two refuting) that has not yet reached 95% confidence (which AGW did in 1995) or “robustness” with 100s or 1000s of studies supporting the claims (which AGW has most certainly achieved by now).

It seems you are putting words in the Pope’s mouth in re 188. And, if in fact the Holy Father said elsewhere in Laudato Si that AGW climate change was a done deal and is now Catholic doctrine, you, the Democratic Party, the UN and a hundred thousand others would be quoting him directly.

As best, Francis believes that man-made changes to climate may be partially factual. So what? Even I believe that we may be able to change the weather, at least in some respects, if we destroy a significant amount of the earth’s forests.

You would be on more solid ground if you took the position in Thomas White’s post #20.

 

[lynnvinc]

It seems you are putting words in the Pope’s mouth in re 188. And, if in fact the Holy Father said elsewhere in Laudato Si that AGW climate change was a done deal and is now Catholic doctrine, you, the Democratic Party, the UN and a hundred thousand others would be quoting him directly.

As best, Francis believes that man-made changes to climate may be partially factual. So what? Even I believe that we may be able to change the weather, at least in some respects, if we destroy a significant amount of the earth’s forests.

You would be on more solid ground if you took the position in Thomas White’s post #20.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this. I read the whole of LS and it very clearly presents AGW in a straight-forward fashion AND calls for us to mitigate it. Case closed.

There are, of course, other scientific issues re the environment, that are not yet well settled. You are free to find those and rant and rave about them.

 

[Thomas_White]

You would be on more solid ground if you took the position in Thomas White’s post #20.

it wasn’t a position. Of course climate change and AGW are extremely important and the most critical environmental crisis. But that they are is not the moral teaching of Ladato Si, which teaches that in the existing cultural paradigm humans and nature are viewed not as subjects but as objects that can be manipulated and exploited. I would have thought this was clear.

 

[zz912]

I was not talking about responsible arms manufactures who in it for defense and to protect people, nations, etc.

I’m was speaking about the unethical and irresponsible ones who sell arms to terrorists, evil dictators, black markets, sell to both sides, etc.

You made no distinction in your post, and a fair reading of it was a general condemnation on all who make weapons. You should be more careful with your words

 

[zz912]

As late as 5 years ago someone called me from the national Democrats, and when I told them global warming was my issue they didn’t have the slightest idea about what I was speaking.

A person from the office of the national Democratic Party was UNAWARE of a topic that has been non-stop pushed by the left for two decades? Really?

He was unaware of an issue that the 2000 Democratic candidate for President made a movie about, one which won several (obviously politicized) awards and earned a couple hundred million? He was unaware of the issue?

I simply don’t believe you.

 

[zz912]

“It is my hope that this encyclical letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency which we now face.” Ladato Si (15)

Of course the papal encyclical Ladato Si is a moral teaching.

Laudato Si is moral teaching, AGW is not.

 

[ProVobis]

Even in Latin, Pro, interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper fienda est ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum.

True, but at least it gives you something real to compare against, like previous teachings on the same subject.

 

[Thomas_White]

Laudato Si is moral teaching, AGW is not.

That was my point. In my view, the basic moral teaching of the encyclical is that science and the scientific method have become a cultural paradigm in which humans and nature are often viewed as mere objects and thus manipulated and exploited in an immoral way. This concerns far more than climate change and AGW. The argument is philosophical and ultimately a rejection of modernity and secularism.

Climate change and AGW are not intrinsic evils, nor could they be unless God created evil. That he would have is heresy. It is man’s role in it that is immoral. It is a misuse of the environment (God’s Creation). The misuse of God’s Creation results in many sins, in this instance violations of the Fifth and Seventh and Tenth Commandments among others. One would not expect to see the concepts (ideas) of climate change and AGW called forth at the Last Judgment. Ideas do not have souls. Humans do.

I know that those who believe that what Laudato Si says about climate change and AGW is in itself a moral teaching misunderstand the encyclical, as do those who believe this is political.

 

[ProVobis]

To bad, Pro. Now you will never know whether or not to dump the obscene amounts of your fossil fuel investments. Just don’t tell your Archbishop.

I don’t need to read the archdiocese financial statements in Latin, fortunately.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU:
Even in Latin, Pro, interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper fienda est ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum.

True, but at least it gives you something real to compare against, like previous teachings on the same subject.

Yes, Pro, I know what you meant, and that is an excellent point. BTW, Dr. Ben Carson made an equivalent point this weekend when the Left attempted to lie about his pro-life position.

 

[Thomas_White]

Originally Posted by KSU:
Even in Latin, Pro, interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper fienda est ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum.

Yes, Pro, I know what you meant, and that is an excellent point. BTW, Dr. Ben Carson made an equivalent point this weekend when the Left attempted to lie about his pro-life position.

As a Jesuit priest, Pope Francis underwent fourteen years of Jesuit formation. He certainly knows his Latin. But if one does not realize why Pope Francis wrote the encyclical in Italian, I would suggest one perhaps might not fully understand this pope or Laudato Si.

 

[KSU]

As a Jesuit priest, Pope Francis underwent fourteen years of Jesuit formation. He certainly knows his Latin. But if one does not realize why Pope Francis wrote the encyclical in Italian, I would suggest one perhaps might not fully understand this pope or Laudato Si.

The point I believe ProVobis was making is that if there is an honest, scholarly argument about how the encyclical affects the body of acknowledged Catholic social teaching, which is written in Latin, it might be beneficial to compare it to a Latin version of Laudato Si’. What’s wrong with that? It is a valid, useful tool for scholars.

Now that I’ve explained that, will you please explain why we can’t fully understand Laudato Si’ if we don’t understand why the Pope chose to write it in Italian? That seems to be a non sequitur. Perhaps I’m missing your point.

 

[ProVobis]

As a Jesuit priest, Pope Francis underwent fourteen years of Jesuit formation. He certainly knows his Latin.

But this is what baffles me. He knows a lot of Latin and supposedly he spends some time making sure his Latin tweets come out precisely as he wants to some 375k followers, according to his Latinist, Msgr. Gallagher. Then shouldn’t he be just as serious, if not more so, with this encyclical?