Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
A very good contribution to the Climate Change/Global Warming issue from Rome.
- - - Updated - - -
+ 1000
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Vatican Encyclical on Climate Change
- Thread starter MartinAustin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
A very good contribution to the Climate Change/Global Warming issue from Rome.
- - - Updated - - -
+ 1000
caddieo
Member
This is a welcome (although incomplete) paradigm shift for the church - from being anti-science (Copernicus? Galileo?) to siding with it at least on this one issue. Far right Catholics/Conservatives will object to it and wish that the pope would confine himself to ritual and dogma. Heraclitus: the only thing constant is change.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that changing his religion's position on artificial contraception would do a lot more good when it comes to climate change, than issuing this encyclical. But having said that, as an athiest, I do have a soft spot for this particular Pope. He initially cracked the door to heaven open a bit for us, until the rest of his church slammed it closed later.
I disagree. I'm firmly on the side of Sam Harris' argument in "The Moral Landscape". In my view, science has a lot say when it comes to morals and wisdom -- much more than religion.
The Moral Landscape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If religion = morality then you've lost me with this equation.
I disagree. I'm firmly on the side of Sam Harris' argument in "The Moral Landscape". In my view, science has a lot say when it comes to morals and wisdom -- much more than religion.
The Moral Landscape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If religion = morality then you've lost me with this equation.
Really!!?? You are going to stop there? Why stop now? I am religious. I am mostly Republican but I tend toward the right end of the Republican spectrum. I think climate change is largely a cyclic phenomenon, one that I am not worried about or in fear of, but to say that I am "easily duped believing fictitious things on multiple levels" seems to take it to a whole new level. Why move into the realm of personal attacks? Is it because you are not secure enough in your scientific evidence?The pope speaking out is good news. An overwhelming majority (probably all of them) of climate change deniers are religious (and Republicans) at least in the U.S. Obviously these people are easily duped into believing fictitious things on multiple levels.
Vger
Active Member
I respect Sam Harris. I heard him speak and spoke to him personally at a TED conference.
I am not saying that religion = morality. I say what I mean, to the best of my ability.
I am generally skeptical of traditional dogmatic religion, but consider myself a deeply spiritual person. To me, that means that I seek not only to understand nature and her order, but to appreciate the wholeness of Nature.
Pope Francis comes from a certain tradition that is soaked in dogma, no doubt, but he is seeking to explode the boundaries and strictures of that tradition in service of the whole of humanity and Nature. I admire that greatly.
As a Christian, rather than saying that religion = morality, I instead take the Biblical position that all humans have a God-given, innate sense of morality. While we of faith have the advantage of morality spelled out for us, we have no monopoly on moral behavior (or immoral behavior, given our sinful nature). Further, while we of faith must continually seek to be better people, our end goal is not morality itself; it is an eternal relationship with our Creator and Savior.
It is to humanity's universal sense of morality that the Pope, and many, many laypeople like myself, appeal in our attempts to impress upon the world the seriousness of climate change. As to that "end goal", it is partly through our efforts to do what is right that others may come to see God. (Personally, one of the ways in which I see God is through the fact that He allows key leaders like the current Pope, Elon Musk, and many others to come into the world. Of course, we all have free will and many gifted leaders have chosen to use their talents for evil...)
To those who disagree on climate change and/or matters of faith, know that I was once as you are, in both areas. Being skeptical is okay, as we do need to test everything. I would merely ask that we all seek to be open minded.
It is to humanity's universal sense of morality that the Pope, and many, many laypeople like myself, appeal in our attempts to impress upon the world the seriousness of climate change. As to that "end goal", it is partly through our efforts to do what is right that others may come to see God. (Personally, one of the ways in which I see God is through the fact that He allows key leaders like the current Pope, Elon Musk, and many others to come into the world. Of course, we all have free will and many gifted leaders have chosen to use their talents for evil...)
To those who disagree on climate change and/or matters of faith, know that I was once as you are, in both areas. Being skeptical is okay, as we do need to test everything. I would merely ask that we all seek to be open minded.
Very interesting. I wonder whether those who would use this to insist that there be no debate on what to do about climate change will also insist that we follow the church's position on what the Pope says is a subject that can't be separated from climate change.
120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”
The Roman Catholic teachings don't provide a comfortable haven for either Republicans or Democrats. Based on the initial reactions of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, it appears that they are discarding the teachings of the climate change encyclical just as readily as Democrats step around the RC teachings on birth control.
From a public policy perspective, however, there's a tremendous difference. Choices on reproductive rights are local, while policy choices on climate change have global impact.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Very good response Robert... wish I could give you more rep points;
The destination here is action... it remains to be seen how much this encyclical will further that goal. There are a couple Catholic Churches near my home in NM... I'll be VERY disappointed if they don't have PV panels up soon. The church needs to back its words with action.
Xenoilphobe
Well-Known Member
I gave Robert more rep points anyway. Both actually have a global impact. Less people on the planet actually protects the ecosystem from damage. I believe in God and in protecting the environment and I am also mostly republican. I wouldn't own two Teslas, have solar panels and make local buying choices if I didn't care about the environment. As Robert said above - a lot of things are local - use your dollars to "vote" for those things that have a long term impact on the future.
The popes message was more about excessive consumption - and the effects of affluence on the rest of the planet - this is not a new message - just presented from a different aspect of "Mother Earth" Its actually a pretty interesting read - and the first one I have ever opened - glad he took a stand on something that actually has a real impact on humanity. 184-page encyclical, entitled "Laudato Si.
The popes message was more about excessive consumption - and the effects of affluence on the rest of the planet - this is not a new message - just presented from a different aspect of "Mother Earth" Its actually a pretty interesting read - and the first one I have ever opened - glad he took a stand on something that actually has a real impact on humanity. 184-page encyclical, entitled "Laudato Si.
Tedkidd
Member
Not according to the Pope. He clearly makes no such distinction. So if you're going to rely on the Pope's words for public policy, you can't pick and choose which are convenient and try to explain away the points you don't like by injecting an artificial and ludicrous distinction that is at odds with the words he wrote. In other words, if you're going to use the Pope to push a climate change agenda, you have to accept that says that abortion is interrelated with climate change action. It may be, as he says, inconvenient or troublesome for those who want to use the power of the Pope on the one issue, but one doesn't have to resort to the Pope's words in the first place. Once you decide you're going to use them to support your position, you can't change what he says.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Hmmm... The only way I can read this turn of events is (bear with me I know I'm cynical but c'mon there really can't be any other true explanation) is that the Vatican is done devesting from fossil fuel based investments and have invested over in future based technology, renewables etc. Cue the Pope...
Visting Fukushima, the Pope likened nuclear energy to the "Tower of Babel". Doesn't seem to say much else, in the Encylcical. I know there are people around here who think the solar blue squares will arrive on time. I don't, and believe the Pope needs to chose between a nuclear tower, or a CO2 tower. Unlike the last couple years, we need to actually start reducing our emissions.
http://www.zentrum-oekumene-ekhn.de/fileadmin/content/Japan/Pope_Francis_calls_Nuclear_Power_Plants_2.pdf
I like this.
http://www.zentrum-oekumene-ekhn.de/fileadmin/content/Japan/Pope_Francis_calls_Nuclear_Power_Plants_2.pdf
I like this.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Solar is now cheaper than nuclear; What factors lead you to believe we can expand nuclear power faster than solar?
Here's a key fact to keep in mind. The same people that fund nuclear are largely the same people that own coal. Let's do some role playing... you own Duke Energy and operate 17 coal plants... what incentive do you have to build more nuclear plants to reduce CO2?
The nuclear industry (people in nuclear power) deny climate change as much as those in coal. Sad but true.
Thumper
Active Member
The first Christian pope in a long time, maybe ever! Ironic that the no-birth-control thing contributed and continues to contribute to the global poverty and climate problems!
beeeerock
Active Member
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
LOL, well then, I guess I'm cynical too...
I'm not trying to disrespect Christianity or the Catholic church here but let's be real: the Vatican is basically one of worlds larger sovereign wealth funds but they work very hard to seem a lot less richer than they are. They do all sorts of things to direct focus and attention away from the enormous fortune they have invested in real estate and different securities. The Vatican is also a very large private bank/lender. But they want to portray the image of a few pious and simple men, leading a simple life in the service of God.
Imagine if you ran a large investment fund and at the same time had a guy in a position to influence hundreds of millions of people on almost any aspect of life (by interpreting the will of God for them). Would you not use this to your advantage? I'm not necessarily saying the bankers dictate what the Pope is going to say but on the other hand I'm quite sure they get told well in advance. In any other setting this would be considered acting on insider information. But since it's a religious matter it's exempt from this kind of scrutiny. Just like the Vatican and in most places the Catholic Church doesn't pay taxes.
Last edited:
I will let you refresh your own memory of the counter arguments I have posted, in direct reply to you, by searching. I can't keep up with the rate you post, and offer imagery. Most of it is in the 'nuclear' subject thread.
Similar threads
- Article
