W
Vatican envoy: 'no further room for denial' on climate change [CC]
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
It is rare that a discussion so clearly includes a comparison of apples and oranges. The question was about the existence of solar farms. Your “demonstration” of their existence was to point to the Chinese share of the market for photovoltaic cells. On second thought, this might not even rise to the level of apples and oranges.
Ender
K
KSU
Guest
(Vatican Radio) The 20th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, is currently underway in Lima, Peru…
[In his message, the Holy Father] underlined that, “we can find solutions only if we act together and agree”…[and] concluded his message by saying that the effective fight against global warming will only be possible through a collective response and develops ** free from political and economic pressures.**
en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/12/11/pope_climate_change_an_ethical_and_moral_responsibility/1114382
The Holy Father is telling the UN that unless all the big CO2 polluters, including China, India, Russia and Japan, join with the rest of the world in slashing their economic output, there will be no solution to “global warming”. Further, he is saying that for any solution to be effective there must be no political and economic pressures.
He knows none of that has any chance of happening absent some near-catastrophic, **clearly man-made **climatic event which goes beyond the natural, historical warming and cooling. But, we must assume he knows that, for the last 17 years, even a natural warming cycle has stopped.
So, what is the Holy Father getting at? We can only wait to see his Encyclical.
[In his message, the Holy Father] underlined that, “we can find solutions only if we act together and agree”…[and] concluded his message by saying that the effective fight against global warming will only be possible through a collective response and develops ** free from political and economic pressures.**
en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/12/11/pope_climate_change_an_ethical_and_moral_responsibility/1114382
The Holy Father is telling the UN that unless all the big CO2 polluters, including China, India, Russia and Japan, join with the rest of the world in slashing their economic output, there will be no solution to “global warming”. Further, he is saying that for any solution to be effective there must be no political and economic pressures.
He knows none of that has any chance of happening absent some near-catastrophic, **clearly man-made **climatic event which goes beyond the natural, historical warming and cooling. But, we must assume he knows that, for the last 17 years, even a natural warming cycle has stopped.
So, what is the Holy Father getting at? We can only wait to see his Encyclical.
K
KSU
Guest
Good news! The climate alarmist religious Left has come out.
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1092
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1092
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Say for you, maybe. Others are overjoyed.
K
KSU
Guest
Pope Francis and his envoy, who have to explain this revelation to authentic Catholics, are not overjoyed.
The lead Vatican institution involved with this topic has shown itself to be anti-Catholic. I would expect the Lets Not have So Many Babies crowd at the UN to be overjoyed.
E
Ender
Guest
This was a sad exchange for anyone concerned about the church. If our concern is solely about getting to impose our personal solutions on others, I can understand why one side would be quite pleased. This view, however, sees the church as simply another lobbying organization capable of bringing pressure on a recalcitrant opposition. The comments made, however, were unacceptable and repudiate what the church herself teaches. If we can’t expect even Vatican officials to practice what the church teaches why should anyone else take those teachings seriously? As I said, one’s opinions about this exchange will be determined by whether one is more concerned about the church or about their position on global warming.
Ender
S
sps49
Guest
I can’t wait to see the plans for ideological compliance strategy. Sad is a proper and appropriate word to use for both the comment and the situation.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is abstract morality and applied morality.
Abstract morality teaches us that it is wrong to marry your brother’s wife while your brother is still alive. Applied morality says that it is wrong for Herod to divorce Phasaelis and marry Herodias. Should John the Baptist have stuck to abstract morality and refrained from accusing Herod personally? After all he might have been scientifically mistaken about Philip still being alive, or that Philip and Herodias were actually married.
The Church has a long history of addressing questions of applied morality. Some of these responses assume facts that come from outside the Church. Belief in those facts is not the main message of the response. It is unreasonable to ask that the Church to refrain from referencing any facts that are not explicitly part of the deposit of faith. If worldly facts were of no importance to the Church, there would be no Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and the Church’s message would be too abstract for the layperson to apply to his life.
The purpose of the Church in the issue of global warming is not to decide a scientific issue. It is to show how the abstract morality of stewardship is applied in this case. To paraphrase you, one’s opinion on the proper role of the Church in this issue will be determined more by their ideology of personal freedom than about general principles of the Church’s mission.
E
estesbob
Guest
Do you think this bishops ad hominem attacks on the tea party helps or hinders this dialogue ?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I think he was probably maneuvered into it by media questioning that focused on all the sensational (and less important) aspects of the question. In exasperation he may have responded unwisely.
T
Theo520
Guest
I’ll take that as a yes.
Typically when one is pushed off balance or their guard is down, they reveal what is in their heart. In this case his heart was full of logical fallacy.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It was not a yes/no question.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
It kind of was.
Help and hinder are opposite terms.
Yes to help means no to hinder and vice versa.
Help and hinder are opposite terms.
Yes to help means no to hinder and vice versa.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Journalists need to be trained to break down the guards of political figures and find out what really makes them tick. It sounds like that is what happened in this case.
Inevitably it happens with virtually all the global warming fanatics. One does not have to scratch too far below the surface to notice the reddish hue motivating their arguments.
E
Ender
Guest
Which one of those justifies slander and rash judgment?
It is not unreasonable, however, to demand that those in the church hierarchy comport themselves in accordance with what the church teaches about civility and charity.
Justifying comments like those of the archbishop makes the notion of morality itself an abstraction.
Either the archbishop’s comments were acceptable or they were not, and the ideologies of others is utterly irrelevant to that question. Whatever may be true of me or others on this forum is a distraction. The “general principles of the church’s mission” do not allow for such statements. They were unacceptable. They were contrary to what the church teaches about truth and charity, and they are not justified by his intentions or “general principles.” It is disappointing that you will not acknowledge at least that.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I am neither acknowledging nor denying that the archbishop spoke rashly concerning other people’s motives (under duress, I might add). It is just that such a focus on his personality faults and his ability to handle questioning from the secular press has no relevance to the message of our responsibility of stewardship of the earth.
K
KSU
Guest
Who cares about personality faults? He’s human; that’s not the issue.
The issue is the surprising level of subterfuge (even to a battle-worn old cynic like me) and political, unprofessional bias of the top two administrators of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences* (PASS); the Holy Father’s lead agency and adviser on the topic at issue in this thread.
Now we have to pray that PASS’s political agenda and bias are not the underpinning of the forthcoming encyclical. If that proves to be the case, the Church would suffer a terrible hit to it’s already weakened global credibility regarding social doctrine. Our enemy–the Left’s anti-Catholicism–would rejoice.
It’s now legitimate to wonder how much (name removed by moderator)ut Pass had into the politically biased, tortured English language mis-translation of Evangelii Gaudium. Here’s a bit of the rejoicing:
QUOTE But as an economic mission statement, Evangelii Gaudium places the pope — as Vatican watcher Rev. Thomas Reese predicted in March — “to the left of Nancy Pelosi.” In his decidedly populist document, Pope Francis specifically criticizes the economic “trickle-down theories” that were the beating heart of Ronald Reagan’s anti-tax, anti-regulation revolution. END QUOTE theweek.com/articles/455407/pope-francis-hates-trickledown-economics-but-isnt-liberal
*The Academy of Social Sciences is one of the Pontifical academies at the Vatican in Rome. It is established with the aim of promoting the study and progress of the social sciences, primarily economics, sociology, law and political science. The Academy, through an appropriate dialogue, thus offers the Church the elements which it can use in the development of its social doctrine, and reflects on the application of that doctrine in contemporary society. The Academy, which is autonomous, maintains a close relationship with the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. ( Wikipedia)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I agree. It is everyone else who is jumping all over his accusations about the Tea Party involvement. I couldn’t care less.
No one has proven to me that there is subterfuge in the Pontifical Academy. You should be more careful about throwing around irresponsible accusations - which is, oddly enough, just what you are accusing the Pontifical Academy of doing. Remember, this is a part of** your Church** that you are demeaning.
- Status