LAUDATO SI' -- Enironmental Encyclical - COMMENTARY FOR PARISH USE - Mrs. Don-o - [CATHOLIC CAUCUS]

My own fevered brain | July 30, 2015 | Mrs Don-o

[asyouwish]

It was a typo. It’s Jeremiah 30:24 and had you read verse 24 you would have seen it.
At this point, I will leave this thread.

[Salvation]

Ping to an interesting discussion.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Should our parish run low on bathroom tissue, I might be able to find a good use for Laudato Si.

[mlizzy]

You've done a beautiful job, Mrs. Don-o. You are a scholar in my book, but regarding the two parishes we currently are attending, I think the parishioners would be more apt to go for your "color-coded" encyclical of the pope's. In fact, I, myself would like to order that one. It's a great idea! =)

[Cicero]

It’s a tough business. I don’t like to speak ill of the Pope. But my first reaction these days, more often than not, is—what a jerk. Even when he says something perfectly harmless, he always seems to be thinking about himself, and how he can make a good impression. Yet, one should speak respectfully of the Pope and his office, or keep one’s mouth shut.

If any Protestants read this, they should keep in mind that the world will be a better place if the Pope doesn’t go off the rails. Just as Catholics should keep in mind that the world will be a better place if Protestant pastors and leaders stick to the Bible and basic Christian principles.

If the Pope is a jerk, that shouldn’t make anyone happy.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It wouldn't do your pipes any favors.

The parts Pope Francis cribbed from "Religions United" and "Agenda 21" would compost suitably with some additional nitrogen sources.

And compost produces CO₂, which is a nice touch.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Send me a Private Message with your e-mail address and I’ll get it right into your in-box.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oft thought but ne’er so ell expressed.

[steve8714]

If the Pope wanted to open discussion, he would have chosen another vehicle. If you disagree, you are hit over the head with “encyclical”. My priest compared Francis to the prophet Amos! Could I have a second helping of hubris? We need a Pope who is a little less Jesuit in his opinion of his own wisdom, and maybe a little more humble when it’s not for show.
Pride is less about wearing Prada or Gucci and more about thinking you’re the smartest and holiest guy in the room.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I, personally, think it should have been split into two documents. One document would be the faith-and-morals content, which is the proper material for an encyclical. The rest of it --- an "Environmentalist Manifesto" consisting of ecological-political musings--- could run in the op/ed pages of L'Osseratore Romano. The last sentences could have been,

"So, anyhoo, that's my two cents' worth. YMMV. What do the rest of you guys think? Sincerely, Sr. J. Bergoglio."

[steve8714]

That would have been welcome, I agree with you. There’s a danger of schism from this.

[Grateful2God]

Perhaps more than a positive spin, the intent of having given the bishop the responsibility of sorting out the facts of the entire document in context, rather than listening to the fodder from the MSM. His writings as a whole are actually very good. I can’t believe people actually think his desire is to rule the world.

[Grateful2God]

" ...to think for itself. "

Aye! There's the rub!- as Mr. Shakespeare said. Do people really think for themselves today? This is not the era of Huntley/Brinkley, or Cronkite. It's all full of opinion and slant. Universities teach secular philosophies over the classical. Kids come out of college with all sorts of ideas: they are "taught to think critically" but how much is their own thought, over that of their professors?

Few people will read the actual document. They are satisfied with the MSM speculation which existed long before the document was promulgated. Most people will not bother to read it. They will just be reeds in the prevailing wind. Then shoot their judgements from the hip.

[NYer]

Catholic ping!

[Grateful2God]

I think you are much wiser than you give yourself for: prayer, especially to the Holy Ghost, is the best answer of all!

[shurwouldluv_a_smallergov]

Again I have to admit I have read very little of the encyclical. I will gladly take your word that it contains things disturbing to those who believe that less government is better than more.

I certainly don't want to sound argumentative nor in denial, but...

where exactly Pope Francis says AGW is a fact?

I see things like number 23 where he says "A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system"

and

"a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases".

Maybe I'm parsing too much? At least he didn't say "the science is settled"!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yes,I would have cited the two quotes you pulled out from (23). The problem is that throughout the encyclical, he simply assumes this as a fact.

Look at (24): the entire paragraph is based on the assumption that CO₂ is pollution. "Carbon dioxide pollution" is named in the 5th sentence, and in (25) is singled out again: "here is an urgent seen that... the emision of carbon dioxide be drastically reduced..." In (51) the encyclical deplores "gas residues which have been accumulating for two centuries" -- from the context, that must be combustion products of fuels that have been burned since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, from around 1800 with the conversion from charcoal to coke/coal and the use of steam engines.

So yeah, this is a lament against all the fossil fuels that have powered industrial progress for the last 200 years, and lifted vast numbers of people from destitution.

From a practical point of view, one of the essentials needed for poor people to achieve a dignified life with adequate food and fuel year-round, is cheap energy. That's fossil fuels or nuclear. There's simply no way around it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

And as for the overall issue of AGW: once again, he states it a few times (it's explicitly discussed in, I think, just 4 paragraphs out of the 246) but he assumes it everwhere. Ithink it accounts for the overall pessimistic "crisis" tone concerning our depleting all the resources and ruining the systems of "fragile" world. (Why does he never note that resources are becoming more and more plentiful? Why does he never refer to a "sturdy, self-renewing world"?)

Pope Francis doesn't seem to know that Julian Simon won the famous Ehrlich-Simon wager. Nor does he, apparently, understand why.

[Mrs. Don-o]

As Laudato Si puts it in paragraph 165:

"We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels — especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas — needs to be progressively replaced without delay. Until greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the lesser of two evils or to find short-term solutions."<> We do not know this. It is an assumption of a certain hypothesis, one whose evidence is failing, but which is simply stated as fact as a (non-Magisterial) judgment in the encyclical.

[shurwouldluv_a_smallergov]

I sort of see an “out” in the quotes I cited in the sense that he specifically talks about “science” and “scientific consensus”. Almost as if to say “this is science speaking, not me”.

Though looking at the paragraphs you cited, like 51 does not leave any wiggle room: “The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries”...

I'll probably not bother reading the entire thing; there are too many other encyclicals I'd rather read. That's another reason to appreciate your fine analysis- thanks again!