Posted on 05/02/2015 4:04:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Wesley Smith at National Review Online caught my attention while I was down here at Right Online with this piece on the question of nature rights.
The nature rights movement is real and extremely subversive to human freedom and thriving.
Most people think such a thing can never happen. But it already is happening. Bolivia and Ecuador have legalized the rights of nature, as have more than 30 U.S. cities, including Santa Monica. Moreover, the Secretary General of the UN, Ban-ki Moon has declared his support.
Smith is referring to an article at Commonweal which discusses the Pope’s upcoming encyclical and expectations that he may address the issue of climate change. For Smith’s part, he argues against such a move coming from the Vatican as it would cause a great schism because it would shatter the RCC’s intense focus on the unique dignity of man. I’ll leave that question for Ed, who is far more well versed on the habits and thinking of the Holy See than I ever will be. But Papal policy aside, there are some more general concerns about such a policy which should resonate with the layman.
Here’s some more from Commonweal.
When Pope Francis issues his encyclical on the environment this spring or early summer, some American Catholics will welcome it—but only some. Broadly speaking, Catholic opinion on climate change matches the American political spectrum, and thus the polemics around this polarizing issue are Catholic polemics as well. As numerous recent articles make clear, Francis is concerned about global warning. Catholics who oppose policies meant to halt or ameliorate climate change—Catholic climate skeptics—grant the pope’s authority in the moral realm, but dispute his expertise in climate science. Some have not hesitated to call him out on his views, at times harshly. One called Francis imprudent and apocalyptic; another said he was “an ally of the far left,” a “Marxist” who has been “snookered” by climate-change ideologues.
I suppose it all comes down to whether or not you believe that each and every word written or spoken by each and every Pope is the equivalent of text straight out of the bible or the Word of God. But historically it hasn’t been all that uncommon for at least some sectors of the faithful to disagree with the Papacy, though sometimes it takes a while for the message to get through. This is particularly true when discussing more “modern” matters of science or technology which were likely not thought much about – or even heard of – in biblical times. The case of Galileo comes to mind, and even the Vatican eventually came around on that one. The question of anthropogenic global warming might be a bit beyond the depth of His Holiness unless he’s receive some direct guidance from above to which we’re not privy.
But even beyond questions of Papal omniscience, we can observe this particular debate and return to the perennial question of whether or not “rights” can ever be assigned anywhere except to human beings. Whether you’re talking about ancient Greek philosophers or 20th century judicial findings, “rights” have traditionally been a fairly anthropocentric concept. We could spend the rest of the evening debating the relevance of noting that that the Earth, along with all its plants and animals, were a gift to man from God and, as such, should be treated as a precious thing. (Fair enough) But that still does not, as I read it, provide a sufficient ramp to make the jump from there to the point of saying that the government created by man should assign court-enforceable rights to creation.
Of course, now that I get to that point of the mental railroad tracks, it almost seems like I’m circling back around. I’ll toss it over to the readers to lend their insight.
The Catholics are going to have to save the planet by themselves.
have there been “peaceful demonstrations” for “earth’s rights” yet?
imagine “the planet” wearing a black shirt....bearing the words no justice no peas!!
PFL
Earth rights mean nothing other than empowering governments with totalitarian powers to violate human rights.
Anyone who believes something else is a child.
Bingo. I was listening to ‘sermon’ last night by Jim Jones. He spouted the same ‘sustainable’ crap. Straight from the Kremlin.
Such a move is nonsense on its face. How does one ever discern a demand of the earth? If we even wanted to recognize such a thing?
God wants mankind to honor God with what they have. That would mean fighting gratuitous pollution. It would mean addressing every concern of the earth that good science could illuminate that would hurt the ability of humanity to thrive (this is what global warming pretended to be, but the “science” was a total crock). We might want to preserve perishing rare animals and plants in zoos and parks for future generations’ admiration of God’s work.
But we can’t worship every nook and cranny of the earth, especially when that inexorably leads to the notion that mankind doesn’t even belong.
The question is, sustaining just what.
The ‘top leaders’.
Which so conveniently speak up for “CERTAIN” things about the earth.
Yep. All for THEM......little for US.
Like Al Gore and the carbon footprint he has that surpasses thousands of peons’ carbon footprints.
The premise that nature possesses intrinsic value-that nature is valuable in and of itself, apart from all contribution to human life and well-being is an anti-man premise because it logically implies hatred for man and his achievements.But the nature of man as a rational being is God-given.It is the application of his reason in the form of science, technology, and an industrial civilization that enables him to act on nature on the enormous scale on which he now does. Thus, it is his possession and use of reason-manifested in his technology and industry-for which he is hated.
These are clearly the very end times.
And the worst thing is not just the “little for us” but the “nothing for God.” It arrogates to set the whims of men in God’s seat... exactly what I thought the religion-haters were aghast at seeing.
Gone down a veritable rabbit hole of philosophy.
The Pope has no authority to do this, and nobody in the Church has any obligation to accept it.
This Pope is a leftist, a fool and probably only got to be pope through chicanery and politicking. (Also, I’ll never be convinced that he wasn’t involved in forcing BXVI to resign.)
Whatever he says that conflicts with or does not support the established doctrine of the Church can be dismissed. It’s just his opinion.
He’s very autocratic and has intimidated and silenced many people, in addition to the opposition he has just (borderline illegally) removed and sent to Siberia. So people are scared of him.
But nobody has to accept anything he says unless it is in harmony with Catholic doctrine...and this would not be. Man is the gardener of the garden, and while creation may be his responsibility, it has no rights of its own. Especially as defined by an elderly Argentinian who hasn’t had a real job in his life where he supported himself, and who lives in a clerical residence in Rome, tended by nuns.
Exactly.
4:3 he makes an ex cathedra proclamation.
I’m old enough to remember when the only politics the Pope would engage in is to condemn slavery, political oppression, and person-on-person violence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.