The encyclical is NOT about climate change. That issue is only briefly mentioned.
“The focus of Laudato Sí’ is the human person. The central thesis is that the fallen nature of the human heart and the resulting brokenness of human relations is the cause of the crises in our lives, families, nations, and now the life-sustaining ecosystems that form our common home.
The Holy Father laments throughout the encyclical how mentalities that seek instant gratification do not take into account “effects on human dignity and the natural environment” (56). That said, the problems of our age are not the result of this or that political or economic system. Rather they are rooted in how we may corrupt those systems within a wider “culture of consumerism, which prioritizes short-term gain and private interest.” (184)
The central solution to all this is not reworked political or economic ideologies. Ultimately, the pope tells us, the answer is Jesus Christ and our relationships with Him, our neighbors, and the created order, which “is of the order of love.” (77)
The encyclical is about “the heart of man and the disorders of our age.”
More information here:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3964/why_i_welcome_laudato_si.aspx
The Papal Encyclical or Papal Bulls-—as I call it, clearly, more than anything else, clearly reflects the Pope’s loathing of free market capitalism, private property, and individual liberty-—you know-—the very concepts which are the founding principles of our nation.
While I tend to agree with this analysis of the Encyclical, it really doesn’t matter anymore. It’s at least a losing battle here (on FR).
Why? Because the Holy Father chose this hot button topic to launch into this alleged “focus” of the Encyclical. He could have chosen other topics that fit nicely in with a concern for the “throwaway culture” namely abortion, euthanasia, or even the use (really abuse) of centralized government to “solve” the problem of poverty. These are all excellent starting points for the exact same kind of discussion he engages in the Encyclical. In other words he could have led off with any (or all) of those to illustrate the points he later raised. But he didn’t, and this is ultimately what makes the work so indefensible, from a (politically) conservative standpoint.
The Pope shouldn’t be talking about or arguing about politics period. He shouldn’t be “liberal” or “conservative” rather he should be Catholic, a Catholic pastor, a Catholic teacher, which is neither “liberal” or “conservative” it’s just Catholic.
I do tend to believe there is much good in the Encyclical, much that is quite useful. But it’s overshadowed by the hot button issue that is “man-made global warming”. That is squarely in the realm of the natural sciences thus by definition NOT “Catholic”. He has needlessly introduced a confounding factor a factor that ultimately distracts from the deep, rich lessons he later brings. And no one need apologize for that other than himself. He should have known better, really. In the very (anti) culture of consumerism he denounces, he should have realized such a topic would get distorted and used by BOTH “sides” really to further their common goal, which is the destruction of the ancient teachings he extols in the letter. Namely, God centered life, in every aspect.
He should have known better that in this truly “throwaway culture” the choice of such controversy would only lead to more confusion and polarization, because one of the symptoms of our disposable attitude towards life is our tendency to focus only on sound bytes and easy-isms, rather than dive into a lesson with a hunger for truth. He even talks about this tendency in the Encyclical yet allows it to get bogged down in this very problem, the problem of distraction, by his choice to announce to the world his opinion about the cause of climate change! How much more distracting could one get! It plays right INTO the sound byte culture he later derides.
I’ll keep him in prayer and still respect his office and him as Pope, but this has really changed my opinion of him. I used to think he might have a clever agenda to wake people up from their slumber in materialism. Now I just think he’s making stuff up as he goes along.
Oh well, he’s at least not a Borgia.