LAUDATO SI' -- Enironmental Encyclical - COMMENTARY FOR PARISH USE - Mrs. Don-o

I am sure that Pope Francis is a product of his environment just like the rest of us; it's his perception of reality.

The danger I see is that the real wacko environmentalists will use what he says on the one hand about depletion of resources and use it to beat the Church over the head about population control, abortion, euthanasia, and so forth.

I will have to look up Julian Simon, but I've argued with other Catholics that surely a God who was smart enough to give us the Sacrament of Reconciliation when we pollute our souls would also account for environmental pollution.

Thank you for the ping. And thank you Mrs. Don-o for all your hard work here. It shows in the quality.

To answer your question directly not a peep about the encyclical at my parish. It’s a parish in Baltimore so you can imagine the “political climate”. They probably all accept the entire thing without question and probably even believe it’s a vindication of their environmental concerns.

I only know one other family,personally. They are good people but haven’t spoken about the encyclical. I should ask their impressions sometime.

I go there for the beautiful ceremony and architectural splendor, not for theological discourse, so there’s that to consider with my report. Also the Mass has no liturgical abuse that I can see (other than the Our Father hand holding of course). I might try the TLM in Towson sometime. If I can convince my wife to go.

Anyway there’s my parish report.

Thank you, by the way, for your good thoughts.

I'm not sure I would even recommend reading "Laudato Si'". It's too long by half and not well organized. It's possible to use your time reading something better...

God save Pope Francis!

God save the Catholic Church!

Thanks for the report.

I know for a fact that the climate activists are already making a pitch to the bishops of the Appalachian Dioceses, and that includes mine: http://catholicphilly.com/2015/07/news/national-news/catholic-appalachian-group-asks-bishops-to-be-strident-on-laudato-si/>

This is a really good piece and I appreciate the emotional detachment with which it was written.

There are a couple of points that I'd address. One I'll discuss below and, perhaps, will address more later on.

First, the issue of the encyclical's Chapter 4 (Integral Econology).

First, the concept itself. The term "integral ecology" was initially termed by Dr. Hilary Moore in his 1958 book Marine Biology, where he defined it as the merger between synecology and autecology. However, it was popularized in Ken Wilber's originally described in his 1995, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (and summarized in his 2000 book, A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality).

Wilber is known as the father of Integral Theory, where he attempts to merge Eastern Religious Philosophy with Western philosophical constructs. With the fully predictable results.

Sadly, in Chapter 4 of LS, this vision of nature espoused by Wilber seems to be fully engrained.

Contrast Caritas in Veritate with Laudato Sì:

CV (50): Human beings legitimately exercise a responsible stewardship over nature, in order to protect it, to enjoy its fruits and to cultivate it in new ways, with the assistance of advanced technologies, so that it can worthily accommodate and feed the world's population. On this earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature itself — God's gift to his children — and through hard work and creativity. At the same time we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it. This means being committed to making joint decisions “after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”.

You will note that the tone of this passage is stewardship.. Nature is God's gift to man...all men. And thus it is man's responsibility to steward nature so that the gift will be available to all men and to all of our descendants.

LS (138-139): 138. Ecology studies the relationship between living organisms and the environment in which they develop. This necessarily entails reflection and debate about the conditions required for the life and survival of society, and the honesty needed to question certain models of development, production and consumption. It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. Time and space are not independent of one another, and not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation. Just as the different aspects of the planet – physical, chemical and biological – are interrelated, so too living species are part of a network which we will never fully explore and understand. A good part of our genetic code is shared by many living beings. It follows that the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance, unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality.
139. When we speak of the “environment”, what we really mean is a relationship existing between nature and the society which lives in it. Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it. Recognizing the reasons why a given area is polluted requires a study of the workings of society, its economy, its behaviour patterns, and the ways it grasps reality. Given the scale of change, it is no longer possible to find a specific, discrete answer for each part of the problem. It is essential to seek comprehensive solutions which consider the interactions within natural systems themselves and with social systems. We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature.

You will note that this talks about man being simply another part of nature. A distinctly different tone than I, personally, have read in any other formal papal document. And, disturbingly, one that sounds like it could have come out of Ken Wilber's mouth.

Just for reference, let us examine some extraordinary Magisterium on the subject:

[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

I'd say that this is fairly clear.

Later in Chapter 4, he cites Principle 4 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, even going as far as to quote from it: The protection of the environment is in fact “an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it”.

Here is the full text of that principle: In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

You will note the term sustainable development. (the term is also cited later on in Chapter 4...paragraph 159)

The term "sustainable development" has some very, very troubling implications. Since we were talking about the Rio Declarations, let's look at Principle 8:

To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.

Guess what the UN means when talking about appropriate demographic policies? Included in those policies:

5.12. Awareness should be increased of the fundamental linkages between improving the status of women and demographic dynamics, particularly through women's access to education, primary and reproductive health care programmes, economic independence and their effective, equitable participation in all levels of decision-making.
United Nations Environmental Programme, Demographic Dynamics and Sustainability

The other thing is, in general, statements that are directly contradictory to the already extant Magisterium. For example, he repeatedly decries inequality. Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, and John Paul II directly contradict him. I can work examples, but I'm sure you're already familiar with them.

Yes, I recognize that this document is mostly in the realm of prudential judgment and even testifies of itself in that fashion, but most with agendas will not make that distinction and, frankly, we can't expect most Catholics (your Joe Six-Pack in the pew) to appreciate that difference. And I have a very hard time believing that Francis wouldn't have known that going in.

I am aware of what you're saying and I, too, and very troubled by it. I was willing to give Pope Francis a wide "Hermeneutic of Continuity" benefit of the doubt, assuming always that whatever was ambiguous should be interpreted within the Great Tradition. But when Laudato finally come out, I realized it was untenable to make that assumption because I could see in practice how Pope Francis wanted to interpret it. Like so:

http://www.lepantoinstitute.org/vatican-representative-endorses-un-sustainable-development-goals-verbatim/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/30/vatican-advisor-hans-schellnhuber-boasts-of-having-skeptics-excluded-from-participating-in-drafting-climate-encyclical/

http://thischangeseverything.org/july-1-naomi-klein-at-the-vatican/

And the hits keep on coming. These are just the worst moves possible. In a sense, it doesn't matter what the Laudato Si' said and whether it was really, really, really magisterial or not.

These appointments define papal diplomacy, and this diplomacy defines Laudato Si'.

It's actually a lot worse than most people know.

It's actually a lot worse than most people know.

Thankfully, one pope cannot undo 2,000 years of Ordinary Magisterium...or even 200+ years of Magisterium on social issues. Of course, there are a whole lot of people who don't understand that.

What truly frightens me, though, is how the leftist publishers of Religious Ed texts will blow this completely out of proportion. It will take decades to undo the damage this has done with our own children and grandchildren.

Well, fortunately Cardinal Dolan and his confreres are closing lots and lots of Catholic schools.

=:o/

Post#50...LOL!!! But I agree!