The Encyclical…

…is here.

And the Right Wing Noise Machine is coming completely unglued. Greg Gutfeld lies to the consumers of Fox agitprop that the Pope is “in bed with Malthus” (um, no. He praises Humanae Vitae and condemns “neo-Malthusianism”) and declares him the Most Dangerous Man on the Planet.

Meanwhile, Michael Savage, the Right’s Monster from the Id, makes FOX look like the Summa as he goes off on a totally unhinged rant about Francis being the servant of Antichrist.

And Rush Limbaugh helpfully instructs the faithful that Francis is a Commie.

How this declaration of war against the Church by Movement Conservatism will play out is anybody’s guess at present. There are many promising signs that people outside the Bubble of the Right are willing to treat the encyclical seriously by, you know, reading it before commenting on it, much less condemning it and it author as evils from the infernal regions.

On the other hand, there is petulance like this within the Church too:

“Perhaps we can pay as much attention to the sections on markets and environment, as the catholic Left pays to Humanae vitae.”

This is, make no mistake, not Fr. Z making fun of leftist dissent. This is Fr. Z making fun of the encyclical and instructing his readers that they have complete permission to ignore and dissent from it in exactly the same way lefties ignore and dissent from Humanae Vitae. And his comboxers instantly get the message. “Great! Let’s do that” is the very first response. followed by many similar sentiments. Interestingly, that remark, nor the many like it signaling contempt for the encyclical and denouncing the Holy Father as an embarrassment receives not a word of rebuke. But those who clearly understand what is, in fact, being said, receive lots of angry “Get a sense of humor” rebukes from Fr. Z.

That said, there will also be lots of intelligent engagement too, I am confident. And there will be lots more back and forth about the encyclical. So on the whole, I have a hopeful sense that a paradigm shift is in the wind and that Catholics who are overly invested in both left and right wing narratives may finally be figuring out that the integrated whole that is the Church’s teaching may in fact make a lot more sense than the shreds and patches of Church teaching that are hastily patched on to our insane party politics. Looking forward to reading it.

Oh, by the way, somebody asked, “Haven’t you been expressing quite heavy skepticism about those scientists for some years now? A certain religious fanaticism in their advocacy was the provocation, among others, as I recall.”

I have always expressed ignorance of the science for the very good reason that I am not a scientist. I have always granted the premise that there is climate change for the very good reason that change is what climate does. Beyond that, I have always left the matter in the hands of experts to hash out because what do I know? What has always interested me, and interests me here, is how the whole debate is conducted in the popular culture using the language of faith–by both sides. The screams of heresy now being emitted by the Francis-haters completely comport with that phenomenon. He has betrayed the True Faith–and that Faith is Movement Conservatism.

Part of my reason for wanting to hear what the pope has to say is that, unlike legions of combox inquisitors and self-appointed media bishops, the pope actually understands the language of faith and where it leaves off and the language of science begins. But above all, what I want to see how it lays out the *whole* of the Church’s teaching, not just the sound bites that ideologues will fight about.

"I love my parents, too, despite their flaws. But I know that my mother was ..."

Finding Hope in the Crisis
"(Ah, we're almost the same age!) :)So--here's the thing. My parents loved me. A lot. ..."

Finding Hope in the Crisis
"I started D&D when I was 10, lo these 40 years ago, and still enjoy ..."

Finding Hope in the Crisis
"Ah! D&D! I will ask my 14 y.o. who is the Dungeon Master (dungeon master? ..."

Finding Hope in the Crisis

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Miguel

    Persecution will come from both left and right. Gods will be done for the betterment of our souls.

  • “I have always granted the premise that there is climate change for the very good reason that change is what climate does.”

    Come on, Mark, you are more clever and honest than that.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      Yeah, Mark, how dare you consistently repeat the same things you’ve always said about this issue?

      • That’s not the point. No climate scientist says there has never been climate change.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Do you know what a non sequitur is?

  • johnnysc

    Is climate change now a non negotiable? What to do when non negotiables conflict?

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      Read the encyclical.

    • Joseph

      Is it negotiable to destroy God’s creation, something that he has ownership of, to satisfy greed, waste, or lifestyles of overabundance?

      • johnnysc

        So if you are not on board with climate change you are thought to be destroying God’s creation like those that are destroying God’s creation in supporting abortion?

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Nope. I’m not on board with climate change, as you put it, but I’m also not thought to be on board with raping the earth for creature comfort.

          • Joseph

            Thanks! I thought I was going crazy, that I was the only person in the world who could think logically about this! 🙂

    • Rachel

      how about getting rid of the whole “non negotiable” crap and listen to what the Church says?

      • johnnysc

        That’s how the non negotiables came to be. Many liberal ‘catholics’ were not listening to what Jesus and His Church, the Catholic Church taught.

        • chezami

          Funny that you put “Catholics” in scare quotes when Lefties ignore the Church, but feel no obligation to issue such de fact bulls of excommunications against the Righties who are currently spitting on Francis and his encyclical. The cognitive dissonance among the Greatest Catholics of All Time is astounding.

          • johnnysc

            I thought you had that covered.

  • ManyMoreSpices

    I would think that the best way to deal with an encyclical you don’t like would be to say “thanks for your input” and just ignore it, which seems to be the approach taken by the left to Exitibus Pelvis. This freak-out calls attention to it.

  • orual’s kindred

    I am currently at this point: 50. Instead of resolving the problems […] some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. […] To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. My own thoughts? ‘OMG he actually used the phrase. I wonder how certain people will take it.’

    • Peggy

      The question for me is what does global warming have to do with third world poverty? How do transfer payments to the third world help save the planet? And do you think that money will go to help the poor? No. It will go in the pocket of third world dictators and otherwise corrupt governments. That’s the problem causing third world poverty. I now sign off.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        Hopefully to prayerfully read the Holy Father’s reflections on these very issues in order to educate and conform your conscience with the mind of the Church in the person of Christ’s Vicar.

        • Peggy

          I have read some and continue to read. The document, if I may attempt to summarize its approach, is largely about nature–the nature of humanity and the relation between man and nature created by God. And yes I am aware of and have read many good fundamental things with which I would not squabble at all.

          The areas of factual/scientific/economic concern have to do with whether the Holy Father has bought into the AGW theories or takes a stand that there is debate occurring. Secondly, what types of economic/scientific etc solutions has he indicated he favors. Surely we can discuss the efficacy of such ideas–upon reading of course.

          And, the good and obvious news, is that he does not favor pop/birth control. He’s written about the nature of the human body, ie, if you’re a female, you’re female. (transgender issues, etc). Many good fully appropriate things. Absolutely.

      • Joseph

        In all charity… would you shut up and read the encyclical? After you’ve read it then review your comments and wish, in futility, that you could delete them.

        • Peggy

          My comments are factual questions in and apart from the encyclical.

      • Population control enthusiasts say that we need to make sure that those in third world countries don’t breed, because having too many poor people is what is destroying the planet. Pope Francis is condemning this viewpoint.

        • Peggy

          Yes, I am aware of that. I think I’ve posted that on this blog somewhere.

      • orual’s kindred

        what does global warming have to do with third world poverty?

        I think global warming has to do with both real problems as well as agendas and ideologies. But as to its impact, how can it not affect those who are economically and socially marginalized? The culture that uses the environment as some sort of endless resource, as well as a political token, directly and indirectly harms those in the third world. And it harms those who are not. After all, the attitudes that inform such a culture trace back to an event that, interestingly, occurred in a garden. And this event resulted in far-reaching effects on mankind.

        How do transfer payments to the third world help save the planet?

        I would think that depends on the kind of transfer payments made, and the way they are spent. Financial aid well spent can, for instance, help further education and other endeavors meant to improve people’s lives, as well as the planet’s well-being. People are affected by other people, as well as financial budgets and the environment. Likewise, the environment is affected by people, and how they allocate monetary resources. And as long as countries are comprised of people, the effects of aiding the third world will also have a similar impact.

        And do you think that money will go to help the poor?

        I of course hope so. And I of course doubt that it will. I think I alluded to my background in my last comment in our last discussion…

        It will go in the pocket of third world dictators and otherwise corrupt governments. That’s the problem causing third world poverty.

        …which it seems you may have missed. I wonder how you read my above comment, then. Regardless, I should hope I have some familiarity with dictatorships and martial law, as well as social and government corruption. I should hope I am familiar with how things can turn out in poor countries.

        I think this is long enough for a courtesy reply to a comment that I rather find more odd as I re-read it.

        • Peggy

          The encyclical did get at some of the rape and pillage, if you will, of third world natural resources by multinationals. Francis also mentioned the corruption of some of those governments. The best thing that can happen is that the governments obtain concessions from multinationals to regulate use/harvesting of natural resources and labor policies. I think that is fully appropriate and nations should do that of their own accord, if they care about their own peoples. Another key piece missing, which I did not see in the encyclical (I’ll check again), is the absence of clear and legally defensible property rights for residents in these developing nations. This is very key to economic prosperity of the individual family.

  • Pete the Greek

    Who’s gonna wait until he has time to sit and read it before viewing ANY commentary on it by anyone (including Mark Shea’s)?

    *THIS GUY*

    • Joseph

      I’m about half way through it now. It’s very good (and I’m no mindless zealot on either side). In fact, I love it so far. It makes perfect sense. I’m still waiting on something controversial but haven’t come across it yet. If anything, it should grate on the climate change zealots who are usually earth worshippers that double as atheists on the weekends. I can’t even count how many times Pope Francis refers to the earth, universe, and nature as created by God and is God’s alone. He also spends some time talking about how human beings are part of that nature as well. So destroying humans is not the answer. This should infuriate the AGW/Population Control/Carbon Credit crowd who think that reducing the amount of humans is the cure of all ills.

      • Pete the Greek

        I’ve downloaded it into a word doc and saved it, but with all the crap going on in my neck of the woods it’s probably going to be a couple of weeks before I get to it. I HATE partial readings, because when you have to stop in a dense document like this and come back later, half the time I’ve lost track of previous paragraphs and have to backtrack.

        I’ll get to it eventually, I guess. 🙂

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Good because, whether you believe me or not, you always have a valuable perspective on most anything. So find the time, man!

  • Ann

    You assume he understands where science and faith part- why? There appear to be two issues- climate change and how resources should be allocated. If one buys into the false hysterical narrative of the last few decades that we are doomed because of ‘global warming’ or latches on to the new and improved narrative of ‘climate change’ that doesn’t logically mean that resources need to be thrown at the issue.I suggest reading Bjorn Lomborg’s site and book. Was he consulted by Pope Francis? Because long before the rest of us were aware he knew that many ‘scientific’ reports were outright lies and misrepresentations by those with an agenda.
    Let’s identify what should be done first without demonizing ‘sides’ or institutions that we all, whether you like it or not, rely on in a developed world. We are not going back to an agrarian culture or hunter gatherer times so we work with what we have.

    • “the false hysterical narrative of the last few decades that we are doomed because of ‘global warming'”

      That’s question begging, assuming something proven, or stated, which has yet to be proved or stated.

      • Ann

        Not exactly. The fact is if you check you can see that what we were all told was solid science in the 90’s- Al Gore as an example- was often just false reports or exaggerations by some. Does the climate change and does human activity play a part? Assuming yes does not translate into only one choice of action- that seems to me to be what the problem is in this discussion overall. We are treated to hyped up terms and then told by many with personal financial stakes that we must do A and B- and no one may question those answers.

        • Al Gore has no scientific credentials. He is irrelevant to the what the science shows.

          • Bill

            The words “Al Gore” have magical properties. If someone mentions concern over climate change, simply say “Al Gore” and the conversation must immediately end and the issue dropped.

          • Joseph

            Hmmm… you can’t close your eyes, shake your head, and imagine that Banco de Algore (that specialises in Carbon Credits) is not at the center of the AGW debate. I hope that’s not what you’re doing, because if you are, you’re *denying* a basic reality.

          • jaybird1951

            He has no credentials, you are correct, but he has been the biggest populizer of global warming and even received a Nobel Prize for his efforts. He has also made a reported $100 million or more off the scare mongering. In that sense, he is relevant.

      • Silly Interloper

        You clearly don’t understand what question begging is. It’s only question begging when it is presented as part of argument, and that is not what Ann did. She directly and transparently asserted it, which is literally impossible to avoid in any discussion. What’s more, she presented it as a conditional, which implies that it is question. Study your fallacies a little closer, my friend.

        • It was part of the argument we’re having here. Either climate change as defined in this context is false or true.

          “Hysterical” is used here as an emotive term, the verbal equivalent of sneering.

          Best wishes.

    • Lomborg is not a physical scientist, is he? I thought he was a sociologist.

      • Ann

        The physical scientists, some, have deliberately lied in the past because of their agenda. You can google that issue. His point and that of the ‘physical’ scientists including Nobel Laurates who work with him, is that more good can be done by allocating money for the immediate help of those in need than spending billions around the world to ‘fix’ climate change which usually involves funding for such things as the defunct wind companies out west or moving carbon taxes around. These don’t provide clean water for poor people but certainly provide more money for politicians and lobbyists.

        • I’m only interested in what the science shows. What does it show?

          • LFM

            That is precisely what is in dispute – insofar as the scientists at the center of the research allow it to be disputed.

            • I’m not a scientist myself. If you are one in a relevant discipline, do you think the case made by most climate scientists is weak, inconclusive?

              • Peggy

                I have a statistical background as well, for the study of economics. Economics are an important element b/c of the massive cutback in “fossil fuels” that the AGW crowd wants in order to, ahem, save the planet. This means a huge loss of jobs of course, and huge increased costs to consumers. Further, for the developing world, it must mean that they must continue to live in primitive squalor.

                Pavel, I am not a scientist. I have done much research on the claims by AGWers and of the fraud or manipulated data. I have posted links to scientists and articles on this blog before. The AGW theories are NOT definitive. A set of NASA scientists dispute them, as do some other scientists. I have read work by scientist Roy Spencer and by Lomborg as well. It is not 97% of scientists that support AGW, it is 97% of published articles support the theories. Journal access can be controlled. The academe isn’t open to “climate skeptics.” Lomborg cannot get a uni in Australia to host his think tank b/c of his views on AGW.

                • LFM

                  Yes, that has made me suspicious too. As a former academic, I know how easy it is to manipulate access to journals and the peer review process itself. The latter is not nearly as “blind” as the public is led to suppose.

                • Peggy, scientists are human too, and fraud is perfectly possible on an individual basis. But is the general case a weak one?

                  Some years ago I interviewed an atmospheric physicist and an atmospheric chemist at NASA. They were researching the composition of the stratosphere above the Arctic, and they both seemed quite concerned.

                  The reported changes in the climate of the Arctic seem quite worrisome, and there are, for instance, measurements involving sea ice [especially thickness].

                  Something appears to be happening on a planetary scale.

                  • Peggy

                    Some scientists say, yes, there is some warming, but is it CO2 caused? Is it a natural phase? And some scientists, as others posted here, are saying NO warming at all. It depends on data sources. Michael Mann of the hockey stick, which was an early source of “proof” of warming, is considered (by skeptics) to have committed fraud or data manipulation in that work. The East Anglia U emails that were exposed, showed efforts to manipulate data or hide contradictory data in order to protect the narrative. I believe East Anglia is a primary source for the UN’s IPCC study group favoring the AGW agenda. NOAA of the US has on several occasions been found to manipulate or improperly adjust data on climate. Those are some primary sources being used for public policy debate. Now as for each academic article, I can’t say.

                    Some scientists do believe there is some AGW, but say it just isnt’ worth it to try to save the planet. We can only change it a measly degree over 100 years if we implemented all the drastic cutbacks prescribed.

              • LFM

                No, I’m not a scientist at all, unfortunately. I became skeptical about the thinking of climate change scientists when they and their supporters began to use phrases like “settled science”, which is something of an oxymoron except where mathematical principles are concerned, and to call those who were skeptical “deniers”. I have sometimes said (most recently in a thread a few days ago at CAEI) that “climate change is a crock” or words to that effect, but that is only in moments of impatience. Where the science is concerned, I do not know.

                Where the demands of the climate change true believers for radical lifestyle modification are concerned, if their worst projections regarding today’s trends are correct, I simply think it is neither morally nor practically possible to follow their suggestions. I do not see how we can cut carbon emissions the way they demand without seeing massive economic disruption (to ordinary people, not “big business”) and the deaths of millions from hunger and cold. In short, we’re “s****ed” either way, if they are right.

              • jaybird1951

                We have been in a 18 year period of no global warming, something that the climate models did not forecast. Also, scientists at the center of the ‘warmist’ camp have been shown to have fudged temperature statistics or kept contrary information quiet (the so called “Climate Gate” scandal). At the very least, there is good reason for skepticism. The pope should not have taken sides on that particular issue.

                • “We have been in a 18 year period of no global warming”

                  That seems to be incorrect. But you’d have to be a wizard statistician to argue the matter. I’m not.

                  • LFM

                    I’m not either. But when I checked out a recent article in Science magazine that was supposed to refute the “18 years of no global warming” argument, I found that it was not nearly as decisive about the matter as its headlines insinuated. In fact, the refutation was based on re-examining the statistics, determining that those of the period before the “pause” were inaccurate for reasons that are not entirely clear in the article, and finding other statistics, presumed to be more accurate because made with more reliable instruments or from more reliable sources, etc., and adjusting the temperatures of that period downward, so that the new graph of the temperatures indicated no pause. Whether this was scientifically justifiable I cannot tell, but the article was not terribly satisfactory as an explanation of the new consensus.

                    • I saw something of the same at Real Climate.

                      I’m just not competent to judge.

                  • Hezekiah Garrett

                    If you consult the satellite temperature data, widely regarded in the field of climate science as the more accurate method of measuring global temperatures, it most certainly is the case.

                    According to NASA’s data at least. Feel free to get that data from its source. That’s a much better method of inquiry than considering the claims of random poets on apologetics websites.

                    • Quite right, Hezekiah Garrett is much more authoritative than any random poet.

                    • Hezekiah Garrett

                      Nope, Pavel, don’t be dishonest. I directed you to NASA. I don’t even desire you to take my word for it. You’re a man with great experience. Why act like a petulant child?

      • Ann

        By the way, the Pope consulted with pro abortionist economist Leonard Sachs on this. There are many non physical scientists who have input and should. Although I find anything Sachs has to say exceedingly problematic. And yes, I have read his book on this issue.

        • Joseph

          I guess Sachs was disappointed then. Did you read the encyclical or are you just shooting off your mouth based on what you saw on FoxNews? Because if you had actually read the encyclical, you’d see that the Pope specifically condemns the methods of *correction* prescribed by people like Sachs.

          • Ken

            Excuse me sir, but this is the internet we’re supposed to rely on other people who clearly haven’t read the document and make exaggerated comments based on what they say. I mean, this is only the Pope speaking why would any Catholic take to the time to read what he has to say?

          • Marthe Lépine

            And it is possible that Pope Francis talked with Sachs, instead of relying on secondary sources, in order to better understand his points and be in a better position to argue about, defuse or condemn them. Know your adversary or your enemy seems to me to be very prudent advice.

      • LFM

        Lomborg was educated as a political scientist but has since lectured on statistics and is presently associate professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus (as far as I can tell from online sources). Why are statistics significant to the study of climate change? Because of the size of the object of study – the history and the present state of the Earth’s atmosphere and its climate, and the requirement that future, global climate trends be predicted on the basis of such information as sea temperature, satellite weather patterns, local temperatures around the world now and in the past, tree ring size and core ice thickness. Without statisticians the climate change prediction project could not exist at all.

        • Agreed.

          • LFM

            FYI, Lomborg is not an actual climate change “denier”. He believes in “anthropogenic global warming”, i.e. that the earth is getting warmer and that this is generated by human activity, above all the release of carbon into the atmosphere via the use of fossil fuels. Where he departs from the consensus is in asking if climate change/global warming is likely to be as catastrophic as the doomsayers think. He has proposed instead that it might be possible to make use of warming trends, which will render some areas of the world more habitable even as others become less so. I think he also proposes that the most vulnerable regions, i.e. heavily populated, tropical, low-lying coastal areas, should receive assistance from the international community.

            • From what I can tell no one is predicting precisely how dire the effects of climate change might be. They could present big problems.

              • LFM

                No one? I’m not sure. There have been some rather terrifying predictions. I’ve heard anecdotes from parents about their children being kept awake at night by fears of massive tidal waves flooding their cities, etc.

                • In any case, the horror stories are not the main scientific issue.

                  Personally, I think the carbon loading side has nothing to worry about. We seem to be committed to carbon.

  • I have never understood why the question of climate change should be a political issue. It is, I know, but it should not be. The controversy, if there is one by now, has to do with the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not a political entity.

    • jaybird1951

      The political aspect comes with the demand of politicians of a certain stripe that the world, i.e. the wealthy part of the world, spend many trillions of dollars and hobble their economies to reduce a projected future temperature by maybe one degree Celsius or less.

      • Peggy

        Ding! Ding! Data from the EPA issued in a report from Sen Inhofe, shows exactly this.

      • That’s not a scientific issue.

        “Maybe” is a big maybe.

        • Joseph

          At this moment in time, reading the exchange between you and jaybird/Peggy/etc., I’d say that you all are zealots for either *political* side of the AGW debate… and none of you have actually read the encyclical. Carry on arguing about your fantasies.

          • Peggy

            I have not responded to the encyclical. I think we are discussing the science of AGW as a general matter. It is good to understand the science and debate about it in addition to whatever Francis has added to the discussion.

          • LFM

            We are not arguing about our fantasies. We are discussing the politics of global warming and trying to determine if there is a way to see through them, without much hope of doing so, alas.

            • Joseph

              The only elusion to the politics of AGW are pretty much destroyed in the encyclical. You should read it.

              • LFM

                I fully intend to read it and in any case I doubt from what I read here that I will have any disagreement with it.

                I do not see how the encyclical could “destroy” the politics of global warming in any single allusion (not “elusion”, which means escape). The politics exist. It is possible, although unlikely, that the Encyclical could destroy one side or another in the debate by a single allusion, but I’ll wait to see if that is what it actually tries to do.

                • Joseph

                  Gah. Internet spellcheckers/grammar experts. C’mon. We all have typos. I just looked over one of my other comments where I accidentally used ‘are’ instead of ‘our’. Certainly, that doesn’t mean that you toss out the entire comment.
                  The encyclical wasn’t written with the intention to *destroy* anything, so, bad choice of words on my part. However, it manages to relegate the political arguments from either side of the AGW debate to their proper place. Unfortunately, when one is so entrenched in their little paradigm, they tend to miss those things… which is why I suspect that every media outlet got the message so wrong.

                  • LFM

                    Sorry. I did not mean to suggest that I’d tossed out your entire comment! The word “elusion” gave me pause; I wasn’t sure what you might mean there and I actually looked it up, found that it was in fact a word, one I didn’t know, and was left scratching my head until I saw that you must mean “allusion”. (You had spoken of “fantasies” regarding Peggy so I had initially wondered if you meant “illusion”.) Anyway, I’m glad to hear that the Pope hadn’t “destroyed” any particular side but had simply relegated the politics of the issue to a lesser place.

          • Mike Petrik

            Seems to me that Peggy has been quite clear that she is not addressing the encyclical precisely because she has not yet read it. I do not see how this makes her a zealot or her statements fantasies.

            • Peggy

              My defender!

              • Peggy

                P.S. I hope this is pro bono. I remain unemployed.

  • ivan_the_mad

    Reading this encyclical, I cannot help but recall a bit from GKC:

    “He laughed with an almost horrible laughter to think that a man in a modern society is supposed to be master of his fate and free to pursue his pleasures; when he has not power to prevent the daylight he looks on from being darkened, or the air he breathes from being turned to poison, or the silence that is his full possession from being shaken with the cacophony of hell.”

    I will heed Peter, as is my duty, pace bloggers and comboxers.

    • ManyMoreSpices

      Well… if man doesn’t have the power to prevent the air he breathes from being turned to poison, the prescriptions in Laudato Si are a pointless waste of time, no? Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow our air turns to poison.

      We all love Chesterton, but I don’t think that quote is apt.

      • ivan_the_mad

        Oh well.

        ETA: GKC’s quote concerns a man, but your response concerns man. I’m not sure whether that’s an oversight or deliberate slight of hand on your part. Not to mention that GKC’s quote is from a work of fiction. So, in response to your question: No.

        • ManyMoreSpices

          Oversight of the Neil Armstrong variety. (I think… I’m not sure what his official position on “man” or “a man” was).

          In any event, I stand by my point. If “a” man has no ability to prevent environmental degradation, he might as well enjoy polluting. But of course he does, which is why I find the whole thing inapt.

          • ivan_the_mad

            You are of course welcome to your point, although it hasn’t got a thing to do with my reason for quoting GKC as I did.

  • Dave Fell

    Well, it appears the real document has all the element the Right feared in the leak.
    Rush Limbough had a “Traditional” Catholic (TM) woman on his show Tuesday to give the official spin and Bill Bennett was quick to cite the Galileo Affair as the most famous example of the Church having no competence in the area of science.
    Really Bill? Would we even have science without the Church?
    These sickos remind me of Holocaust Deniers.

    • David Fell

      And what did this lady guest on Excellence in Broadcasting cite to explain the “modernism” in the Church?
      You guess it! The warnings at Fatima and the coverup by the post Vatican ii Church. SO predictable .

      • Sue Korlan

        I didn’t hear the conversation, but the Church has approved the revelations of Fatima, so if they were correctly cited we should listen to them. I realize that’s a big if.

  • kenofken

    They should have issued a commemorative foil hat along with the press copies of the encyclical!

  • Peggy

    I didn’t see/hear others yesterday but Limbaugh over lunch. He was disappointed and puzzled as to why the Holy Father would take this route. I thought his comments were measured. He did not insult or attack the person of the pope or the encyclical in detail in any.

    • jaybird1951

      I agree. Since Mark doesn’t watch TV or likely listen to Rush Limbaugh, I wonder sometimes how he can comment like he does based on second hand reports. Rush did use the term Marxist which I disputed in a comment on his web site. I wish the pope had not taken sides in a very disputed issue like global warming/climate change. The last time that top church leadership sided with the scientific consensus of its day was the Galileo affair and that has been thrown back in our face for centuries since.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        So Marxist is measured, and not at all an insult or attack?

        Really?

        • jaybird1951

          No, it is not. That is why I wrote a comment on his web site disagreeing and advising him to read the encyclical in its entirety before jumping to conclusions.

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            Then why did you just agree with dear Peggy? You seem confused?

        • Peggy

          He did not call Francis a marxist. I think if he used the word at all it was rather indirect and not applied to Francis’ person. Why is “marxist” a bad word? It is a legitimate economic school of thought, however, wrong it may be.

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            It is not merely an economic school of thought, it is a theory of history as science that’s both inhuman and breathtakingly ignorant.

            It’s worrisome you don’t find Marxist insulting.

            • Peggy

              Indeed, marxism is very evil. We did study the econ tenets of Marx’ theories in grad school. Interestingly, the college students of today demand to be taught marxism. The brilliant children think that the econ schools are too biased toward market economics and want a different point of view presented.

              I understand that “capitalist” and “free marketeers” are evil people. I don’t feel insulted if I am called a capitalist. I don’t know that I’d call myself a capitalist per se anyway.

              It is objective to call something marxist if it is marxist. Some economic ideas are indeed marxist.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                Are Pope Francis’s ideas Marxist? That’s Germaine. As to the rest, of course college kids are clamoring for something new to tickle their ears. Judging from the late 20th-early 21st centuries perspective, I wonder sometimes if the university is the worst creation our Christendom wrought.

                • Peggy

                  I honestly don’t recall how marxist was used if at all. It is jaybird who recalled the word. I don’t know that RL called Francis’ ideas or leanings marxist. He did not call Francis any names or mock or deride in any way. He did repeatedly say how cautious he was feeling about wading in on responding to the Holy Father getting in on the AGW debate.

                  But, aside from that, one should be able to have a discussion of economic ideas in which some ideas may very well objectively be called marxist economics without a need for a safe sound or a warning signal. (I also recall many Catholicl missionaries in South Am in the 80s proudly considered themselves marxists. They believed that to be the solution to the evil oligarchs.)

                  • Hezekiah Garrett

                    I also recall this Holy Father being slammed in the presses early in his pontificate for not accepting such aspects of liberation theology as Archbishop, leading to the torture of 2 such Marxist Jesuits at the hands of the secular government. So any intimation of Marxism on the part of Francis should make a decent human Being’s blood boil.

                    • Peggy

                      The Holy Father has said a variety of things that cause a person to wonder whether he subscribes to liberation theology or marxism as an economic system.

                    • Hezekiah Garrett

                      No, Peggy, just you.

                    • Peggy

                      Not just me, sir.

                    • Hezekiah Garrett

                      Ok, those of your persuasion. The rest of us can differentiate the Pope from a Marxist.

              • Marthe Lépine

                Don’t you think that there exist some other interesting, and even valid, theories between marxism and market economics? Maybe these are what to-day’s students would like to explore…

                • Peggy

                  Sure. That is possible. But I believe that marxism was included. It’s been a while, but I think you may have been part of that conversation here too….

      • Joseph

        I don’t think you’ve read the encyclical. You should really do that before taking sides here. I’m about halfway through it and, really, your comments look really stupid. They don’t reflect what’s in the encyclical at all.

        • jaybird1951

          No, I have not read it yet. I just got up an hour ago and have read the headlines and the comments here. How are my comments “really stupid” by the way. I only said that I wished Francis had not taken sides in the global warming dispute. That makes me stupid?

          • Joseph

            Because stating that he *took sides* is false, and attributing that to the Pope’s words makes you look stupid. His arguments in the encyclical are well reasoned having to do with stewardship of God’s creation; co-operation with God in caring and loving his creation; and manifesting our love of God through loving and caring for his creation. Then explaining ways in which we have not done this and what the temporal result of those *sins* are. There is no *taking sides*. There are, however, loads of practical examples of how are consumerist, greedy, and *throwaway* society has destroyed the environment to the detriment of all of us, especially the poorest.
            .
            He doesn’t presume to know an exact remedy other than returning to our destiny of loving God (also manifesting this in love and care for his creation) and loving our neighbours (also manifesting this in love and care for his creation… our neighbours being part of that creation).
            .
            He is obviously and entirely opposed to any proposal that seeks to *reduce populating*… especially in the ways most often proposed by the AGW zealots.

            • Ken

              Loving God and our neighbors? This guy has finally gone too far!!!

            • Sam Schmitt

              How exactly is the quotation above (“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. . . . .) not “taking sides”?

              And Francis does indeed give particular remedies besides the general notion that we should “return to our destiny of loving God.” For example, he says (n. 26) “There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced”; and that (n. 165) “technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels. . . needs to be progressively replaced without delay.” In n.175, quoting Benedict XVI, he says that “to guarantee the protection of the environment . . . there is urgent need of a true world political authority.”

              So Francis isn’t simply saying we should all love God and our neighbor more. He asserts particular positions on the environment and offers specific solutions.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                “How exactly is the quotation above (“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. . . . .) not “taking sides”?”

                Ok, total climate skeptic here, but that’s a pretty accurate summation of the state of affairs. There is a firm scientific consensus of such a thing. We who dispute the conclusion are very much arguing against a firm scientific consensus.

                That’s not taking sides at all.

                • Sam Schmitt

                  Actually a number of climate scientists dispute this, or at least dispute the strength of the consensus. And Pope Francis clearly intends this statement not simply as an observation of a fact (“most scientists think the climate is changing”) but as a basis for action, as the other quotations I cited show.

                  • Hezekiah Garrett

                    Who do you expect the Pope to take seriously, me and you, or published climatologists?

                    Maybe the difference between you and I is that I’m concerned about the science and you’re concerned about something else?

              • Marthe Lépine

                Do you mean to say that recognizing pollution as being bad and needing to be corrected is “taking sides”? Do you really disagree that many gases can be polluting”? Do you think that it is a bad idea to try to find technologies that are less polluting than fossil fuels (since of course fossil fuels are not polluting – go and ask that question to some of the aboriginal communities living near Alberta’s oil sands exploitation)?

      • chezami

        Limbaugh labeled him Communist on Twitter yesterday. Gateway Pundit declared him the “Red Pope” and “Commie Pope Francis”. The Right is coming unglued.

        • Peggy

          I am surprised. Limbaugh just got done saying yesterday what a sewer twitter is.

        • Stu

          Why not call him Mark? Isn’t this just a great opportunity to engage him?

        • Allen

          The official Rush twitter does not appear to have been used since April, not sure where you saw that yesterday.

      • Tweck

        Headline from Rush Limbaugh’s website: “The Pope’s Leaked Marxist Climate Rant” <– this is clearly calling the Pope a Marxist, and referring to the encyclical as a "rant," which it is not, and which is typical of Rush's knee-jerk hate speech.

        Man-made climate change is a proven reality, and it's pretty obvious when you look at the educated scientific consensus on it. The Galileo affair was a mistake – this is not. The right in this country needs to let go of their egos and accept that reality.

        • Peggy

          That’s not what it says.

          What I do note is that Rush doesn’t quite understand or appreciate the idea of sacrificial giving, which the Holy Father talked about. He seemed to be quoting a Francis homily about how care for the poor is not communism.
          http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/06/17/pope_francis_give_and_give_until_everyone_is_poor_to_save_the_planet

          • ivan_the_mad
            • Peggy

              You guys might be surprised to know that I turned off local radio woman Dana Loesch when she started talking about this. I can’t stand her in general. She went off on whether the Vicar of Christ should be getting into politics, etc. She was catty. She is not Roman Catholic, but an evangelical.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                That doesn’t surprise me Peggy. I might think you’re wrong about some things (Lord knows I wouldn’t believe you if you said otherwise about me!) But you are a class act, the epitome of feminine genius!

                • Peggy

                  God bless you! That is very very kind! Wow! Made my day. I just got turned down for a job today. I think I may be overqualified. (Ego there?) Thank you!

                  A good man you are as well, sir!

                  • Hezekiah Garrett

                    Prayers on the way! Please send some back. Today is my last day in my job. Following my newlywed wife to D.C. next week. Hope I find work there fairly quickly. I hear there’s plenty of work in 911 there. While that’s good news on the job front, it makes me wonder about quality of life in Sodom on Potomac.

                    • Peggy

                      May St Joseph pray for you as well. Good luck. We left there and I haven’t gotten much work but sub teaching as my kids grow up. Now, ready for more profitable work. They’re not ready for me, apparently.

                      Congrats on your marriage as well! Many happy years ahead for you both. We just celebrated 15 on Wed!

                    • Marthe Lépine

                      Praying for good jobs for both Hezekiah and you.

                    • Peggy

                      Thanks so much! You are a very very kind person, Marthe! May God bless and keep you and yours!

          • Tweck
            • Peggy

              I must have been out having a life or doing my job when that happened. I don’t hold to every word every commentator states…but it sounds like our host keeps up.

              • Tweck

                I just googled “Limbaugh encyclical” and it’s the first thing that popped up. Also, it’s pretty clear that if you aren’t a hard-right Republican about every single issue, then to Rush you are a Communist, a Marxist, etc. etc. etc. The guy is an insult-machine.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          I’m sorry, If you don’t understand the Galileo affair centuries later, Why should you be taken seriously about current events?

          • Tweck

            What?

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              The Galileo affair was no mistake. The Papacy looked at the firm scientific consensus of the time, compared it to Galileo’s argument, saw Galileo had no evidence for his speculation, and moved accordingly.

              The evidence that gave credence to Galileo’s theory didn’t come until the 1830s. Until then Bacon had the data backing a modified Ptolemaic model.

              Of course, by the early middle of the 20th century, it had become obvious that both positions were inadequate in the face of reality.

              It’s a very good study in why you not only don’t base papal decisions on scientific consensus, but also why you never let angry university scientists use the Church to attack a gadfly underwritten by private funding.

              • Tweck

                I know that about Galileo.

                Note that the Church isn’t advocating for the arrest of climate-science deniers. Note also that when people get angry and insult the Church, inquisitors do not show up at their door.

                It’s not the middle ages anymore. Science actually has the tools now to prove such things as man-made climate change, which is real.

                The Church’s support for geocentrism was not the issue, nor was its rejection of Galileo’s ideas as fact – it was the heavy-handed treatment of Galileo – THAT was the mistake, not her weighing in on scientific matters.

                • Hezekiah Garrett

                  She didn’t weigh in on scientific matters. And your confusion of science and technology, while extraordinarily common, is still oh so precious!

                  And frankly, I welcome house arrest in a well stocked Italian villa. So if you want to start prosecuting ‘deniers’ in a ‘heavy handed’ way, all I can say is”Me first! “.

              • ManyMoreSpices

                Of course, by the early middle of the 20th century, it had become obvious that both positions were inadequate in the face of reality.

                So we got rid of geocentrism in the… early middle of the 20th century?

                How high are you right now?

                • Hezekiah Garrett

                  No, we got rid of heliocentrism in the middle 20th century, with the widespread acceptance of Einstien’s Relativity.

                  You are the cutest thing when you don’t know you don’t know what’s going on!

                  • ManyMoreSpices

                    So the answer is: “very, very high.”

                    Heliocentrism was discarded by William Herschel, and he died in 1822. You know, the 1822 that’s not in the mid-twentieth century, sweetheart.

                    • Hezekiah Garrett

                      No, sugarplum, Herschel disproved geocentrism by demonstrating parallax. His work provided the first evidence FOR heliocentrism.

                      And heliocentrism stood until Relativity was accepted.

                      But you’re still precious! We should do this again sometime!

    • Tweck

      “Marxist Climate Rant” is not a measured response, and it certainly is an insult to both the pope and the encyclical.

    • Jamesthelast

      Rush is a sad angry man to listen too. Spend your time with better things.

      • Peggy

        What bossy busy bodies some people are.

  • We all like to think of ourselves as independent thinkers, but everyone sits at the feet of a master. Will it be at the feet of Jesus through His Church or will it be some talk show host, some politician or political party or blogger. Who will the master be? This is the kind of thing where we find out.

    • Ken

      If you were to ask the people who are criticizing the Encyclical ten years ago if they had to choose between the church and their political beliefs they would have all said they would choose the church. Unfortunately, when actually presented with this choice many are choosing to go with a TV Network and Radio Host.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        10 years ago is 2005. Pretty sure those you reference had already made the decision ‘re torture And war.

        • LFM

          I am not criticizing the Encyclical but global warming politics; I do not support torture (nor do any other conservative Catholics I know); and I was never a supporter of the war in Iraq, again along with most other conservative-or-what-you-may-call-them Catholics I know.

          You are determined to demonize your opponents and to dismiss all their questions, doubts and arguments as mere persiflage to disguise their greed, laziness and lack of charity.

          • This is always a good reminder for all of us. We are quick to demonize and slow to analyze.

          • Joseph

            I hate the politics too. I can’t decide which side I hate the most though. I tend to dislike zealots in general. But the side that really annoys me is the AGW zealots because most of them have simply no idea what they are talking about but they still maintain the seat of sanctimony. They are like the Occupy Wall Street kid who’s complaining because he can’t get WiFi for his Apple iPad from his tent so he spends his time playing Angry Birds instead while calling his parents on his iPhone on the AT&T network and sipping on his Starbucks in his GAP clothing.

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            Um, no, I wasn’t talking to or about you, obviously. That you think I am is something for you to address, now isn’t it?

            Besides, I’m a climate skeptic. Do you not pay attention to who’s who in these discussions?

            • LFM

              It says nothing about me because I did not think you were talking to me, but to people of conservative bent in general, who had views that were unacceptable to the Church.

              I have not read your comments regarding climate change before and did not know until after reading further in this exchange that you were a climate skeptic.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                Nope, specifically Catholics of a conservative bent who’s thinking is antithetical to the magisterium.

                I actually wasn’t referring to you because you don’t seem to be arguing against, or rejecting, the encyclical, just AGW.

                • LFM

                  I’m not even sure that I do reject AGW. As I say somewhere else in here, I am suspicious of it because of the way it has been handled by those who support the concept. They are far too inclined to pounce on those who express any doubts at all as “deniers”, they are clearly high on a sense of moral mission, and they try to suppress or denigrate work by scientists who have got the credentials to argue, (even if the latter ultimately turn out to be wrong). None of this is how science is supposed to function, while the idea of a “settled science” rather than a “widely accepted hypothesis” is utterly unscientific. Of course, I see too that none of this nonsense proves that there is no AGW, but it does make me suspicious, as I said.

                  • Hezekiah Garrett

                    Apparently, you and I hold pretty much the exact same beef on this issue.

                    I don’t think I’ve ever met another one.

                    • LFM

                      Ha. In the late 1980s, when AGW first hit the public consciousness, there was a series of noticeably hot summers in my Canadian city and many others around North America. This was still called the “greenhouse effect” and was not yet politicized in the sense of being a football tossed between left and right. Instead, we were told by scientists that they didn’t know the reason for the trend. Some thought the present Ice Age was once again in retreat, after a long period of stalling, possibly as a result of solar flares. (It’s been a while, but I think that was one hypothesis bandied around between 1987-1992.) Others proposed that it might be the result of carbon dioxide emissions. Debates were more or less polite, with no sense that anyone knew the answer.

                      When the Clinton administration came to power in 1993, the issue seemed to vanish from the public sphere, although summers continued to get hotter. Then came your 2000 election and the Gooey Kablooey. Al Gore, enraged at being excluded from the presidency, looked around for another cause and hit on what was now called global warming. Scientists who had toiled on AGW resesarch in obscurity for years jumped for joy; eco-warriors followed; and suddenly everyone HAD to be worried about AGW to be considered a good person.

                      Of course, for all I know, scientists were really worried about global warming all along, and its disappearance from the public radar was merely down to media weariness. Even if they were not, that does not prove that AGW is a mere trifle or a deliberate deception about which we need not worry. But given all the murk that surrounds it now, how can we tell?

                    • Jamesthelast

                      Maybe it’s because the massive corporations of the throwaway culture are the ones that basically run the world’s governments. That’s probably why the world’s governments are sitting on their hands, because there’s too much money flowing into their back pockets.

        • Ken

          You are unfortunately, very much correct.

  • Kathleen S.

    The encyclical is awesome! Read it this morning. Beautiful.

    • Joseph

      Yes. Let the idiots who didn’t read it continue to debate their fantasy. My thoughts are that it’s much too long for their short attention spans to digest. So, they’ll continue to debate what they *think* it says. The great part is, the encyclical makes both sides of the politicised AGW debate look really bad. Morons.

  • vox borealis

    “23. The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.”

    Where to begin with problems in this nugget.

    • Joseph

      You can start by reading the entire thing in context. A *nugget* it is. But why go for a nugget when you can have the whole meal?

      • vox borealis

        I have read it all. I am re-reading now. Lots of good stuff. Some real head scratchers, too. This section struck me as particularly problematic and indeed calm almost incoherent, at least with respect to its internal logic. Maybe it’s a translation issue. I’ll have to look at the official Latin version.

        • Tweck

          Incoherent? I dunno, it makes perfect sense to me.

          • Jamesthelast

            That’s truth blowing up previously believed errors. Now the question is, does he accept he was wrong and move on? Or dig in and fight reality?

    • HornOrSilk

      So it is saying our sin is destroying the earth, and we need to repent. Basic biblical message.

      • Joseph

        I think he’s complaining about all the climate change stuff. But you’re right.

  • Stu

    “This is Fr. Z making fun of the encyclical and instructing his readers that they have complete permission to ignore and dissent from it in exactly the same way lefties ignore and dissent fromHumanae Vitae.”
    ——————
    I think you are mistaken.

    • Tweck

      If he isn’t making fun of it, he should try to be more clear about it. His comment-comments (in red) appear to highlight that he’s being sarcastic.. but it appears to me that he’s making fun of “liberals,” and using the pejorative “libs,” which honestly makes me sad when it’s coming from a Catholic Priest. And indicates a clear right-wing political bias.

      • Stu

        So if he said “liberals” it would be okay?

        Maybe he could/should have been more clear in his sarcasm. But quite often you get accustomed to your audience knowing you and what you mean.

        Mark made a mistake in his conclusion of what Father Z meant. Let’s see if he fixes it.

        • Tweck

          Just sayin’ – “libs” is a commonly understood snide pejorative meant to belittle people on the left. That’s just what it is, and aren’t we not supposed to be belittling people?

          I don’t think his post is okay – if misread, which it very obviously has been by many people (including myself UNTIL I checked his combox responses), it becomes an incitement to conservative Catholics to disregard Church teaching, and encourages Catholics on the right to go on with their insulting rhetoric toward the Pope.

          It’s irresponsible.

          • Stu

            Does it belittle them? Really? Does it belittle the economic liberals as well or only the pelvic liberals?

            • Peggy

              I thought the “libs” was just an abbreviation. I get tired of typing long words often and will abbreviate where it would be recognized. Conservatives are often called “cons.” WIth no pejorative attached. But then, I am not troubled if some economic ideas are classified as marxist b/c they are so.

              • Tweck

                It doesn’t take any more effort to type 5 more letters. “Libs” is a commonly employed snide pejorative used to belittle people on the political left. Liberals don’t call themselves that, only people on the right do. It’s obvious.

                (edit: Okay, it takes 5 more finger movements over a span of a couple of seconds. 🙂 )

                • Peggy

                  Ok. And libs don’t call conservatives “cons”. They call them racist, sexist, homophobes.

                  No. It’s not obvious. People type “Dems” too. Republican is too danged long. So, one might type “GOP”…

                  Whatever, though. It seems that readers here are arguing about enough today. Let’s set up a safe zone and create a warning signal for this hurtful word.

                  • Hezekiah Garrett

                    Ok, say whatever you want, Peggy, but please don’t lump me with twerp!

                    Calling the Vicar of Christ Marxist? Fighting words.

                    Calling liberals libs? Efficient.

                    • Joseph

                      I like to call them libtards (please, not intending to insult special needs people… I just like the sound of it and it really pisses them off)

                    • Peggy

                      No worries. Thou shalt not lump. I got it.

                      Hey, I will agree that one can use “marxist” in a “name-calling” intent w/o regard to real policy considerations and beliefs in tenets of marxism. So, yeah, it can be name-calling, but it can also be legitimate analysis of econ policies, for example.

            • Tweck

              Do go on. My comment is in line with reality. “libs” is a pejorative, and everyone knows it. There’s no need to dance around the fact that he’s belittling the “left.”

              • Stu

                Whoopy-do.

              • Joseph

                So is libtard.

                • Peggy

                  Now that one is clearly insulting and I’ve seen it and disliked it.

          • Jamesthelast

            Liberal is a dumb term for Catholics. What if you believe that Latin is awesome, all human life must be protected, sexuality is sacred and not to be trifled with, and that governments have a big role to play in society?

  • Stu

    And as to Gutfeld, he is clearly wrong. Is he lying, as you assert, or mistaken? I don’t know. But if one looks to the fact that the Vatican is working with John Schellnhuber on this, who is a Malthusian, it shouldn’t be that shocking that people make judgments based upon the company being kept.

    If Elton John can interpret the words and actions of the Pope incorrectly in thinking there is some change in Catholic teaching, then so can others.

    • Jamesthelast

      Clearly talking with someone means you believe their errors to be true.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Perhaps now many Catholics will wake up and see that the GOP is not the ally they thought it was. It is past time for many Catholics to start being Christians first and Republicans second (or not at all).

    • Athanasius2

      Neither party fully represents Catholic thinking.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        Yeah, but I think most of us already knew that about the OTHER party, didn’t we?

        • johnnysc

          Yet 50% of Catholics voted for a staunch pro abortion president who also heavily endorsed anti Catholic policies. If climate change is looked on as a non negotiable it will make it much easier for those who place more importance on their political ideology than on the teachings of Jesus to vote their well formed political conscience.

          • Tweck

            And the other 50% voted for a staunch pro-war, pro-torture, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, anti-homeless, pro-greed guy who attempted to deceptively hide his tax returns. It’s a double-edged sword no matter which way you turn it.

            • Mark S. (not for Shea)

              Yup.

              The solution? Don’t pick up the sword. Don’t put on the Ring. Realize that joining Saruman to fight Sauron is just exchanging one monster for another.

              If every Catholic in the U.S. would stand up to both parties and say, “We’re done with you,” then the parties might start taking our voice seriously again.

              • Tweck

                Amen to that!

            • Doyle

              It’s part of our faith that sins have different weight. Abortion, the amount of it occurring, and the moral acceptance of it outweighs these other issues, so the dichotomy you paint will mislead the faithful from fighting this #1 issue.

              Before it hits- I am not saying condone or ignore the other issues, just that abortion trumps the other issues in gravity, number and moral perversion as a direct assault on life.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                When you find a viable party in America working to really end this scourge upon the nation, come back and let us know, alright?

              • Joseph

                Yes, but the Church has already made their position abundantly clear on abortion… time and time again. In fact, for knowingly participating in an abortion, did you know you’re automatically excommunicated? So far, there’s no word on being excommunicated for dumping acid into a lake. So, tell me again how the Church doesn’t pay enough attention for the sin of abortion?
                .
                That’s right. Now, if you’d actually taken the time to read the encyclical, you’d probably find you’d have very little to disagree with.

                • Doyle

                  I was just responding to Tweck’s comment not the encyclical. I haven’t even read it yet! (Don’t we have to pass it first to find out what’s in it?)

              • johnnysc

                I agree I think there is a concerted effort by liberals to put forth agendas such as climate change and anti death penalty on an equal basis or even supplanting in importance the evil of abortion, contraception and the redefining of marriage.

              • antigon

                Which is why it’s a shame the past two GOP presidential nominees, apart from the other foulness Tweck above observed, only pretended to be anti-abortion, & no more wanted to see Roe overturned than Obama did.

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            Yeah, but they aren’t reading CAEI.

      • Mark S. (not for Shea)

        Yup. I’m not suggesting fleeing to the Democrats. I am suggesting fleeing from the Republicans. That unholy alliance has lasted too long.

      • Tweck

        I don’t think there’s a political party in existence that fully represents Catholic thinking… which gives me a great idea! The Catholic Party! Ain’t no party like a Ca-tho-lic par-tayyyy!! 🙂

        • Dan13

          I believe there were attempts in Europe to create political parties based on Catholic social teaching but I think those parties have drifted from their roots.

        • Alma Peregrina

          Did somebody say Catholic party?

        • Joseph

          I have always dreamed of that. But, Christianity has been so demonised in the public sphere that a political party in the US with ‘Catholic’ in it would surely fail. The fear of theocracy alone would kill it, unfortunately. The party platform would look too religious, there is still anti-Catholic bias in the Protestant community who would think that it would indicate the rise of the antichrist, etc.

          • Alma Peregrina

            I have some experience with that. In Portugal, there was a christian-democrat party. It degraded itself with time and became infected with an elite, led by a politic with no scruples (named Paulo Portas), that now monopolizes the party and rules with almost absolute power for many years now (he is the longest-standing party-leader, even lasting more than the Communist Party party-leader).

            They don’t call themselves christian-democrats anymore, but centrists. And other ideologies buried the conservatives and the catholics, so that the party is now populated with capitalists. It’s the portuguese party more close to the republican party’s rhetoric (which, by european standards, is quite extremist).

            The “christian-democrat” party is now in office (though in a coalition with the social-democrat party). There were all kinds of economic sins crying out to Heaven during their governance. But was anything done to correct the previous errors of the socialists?

            Not… a… thing…

            Abortion on demand is still legal. Homosexual “marriage” too. No-fault divorce (which is quite recent in here) too.

            A petition to introduce restrictions on abortion (namely, not being free on our healthcare system, when many REAL healthcare procedures are now paid) has been submited to our congress and postponed to after the elections.

            On the other hand, when abortion was legalized, we started a party, named the Pro-Life Party. It is completely based in the Catholic Social Teaching. It’s the party I vote for. It’s also a party with no electoral representation whatsoever.

            It is true that is a pretty amateurish party… but the thing is, the “christian-democrat” capitalist party rejects any debate with the Pro-Life Party, and is constantly making the boogey-man threat of the “lesser of two evils” and the “useful vote”.

            That is one of the reasons why I can’t stand capitalists.

            Also, the general public here don’t care much about pelvic issues. They are concerned solely with economic issues, that are perceived as being the ones affecting them directly. They think pelvic issues are abstract philosophical disagreements, fait-divers, “how many angels fit on the point of a needle” kind of debates.

            And mind you, this is not in a Protestant country with antibodies against Catholicism. This is in a profoundly cultural catholic country.

        • Alma Peregrina

          Please see my reply to Joseph bellow about my coutry’s experience with catholic parties.

  • Athanasius2

    I read the draft in Italian on Monday and the full text this morning. There are tons of good things in it: NO to abortion and any kind of disrespect of embryos, including experimentation; NO to population control as an answer – in fact it is exactly the WRONG way to deal with the environment; YES to the uniqueness and unique dignity of the human person, even while agreeing that we are all connected, including things of nature, by virtue of being created; YES to the Creator, and not simply as an “add on” to evolution but as the order of Love (there has been too much forgetfulness of the Creator, as B16 often pointed out); many quotes and footnote references to JPII and B16, putting the encyclical squarely in the tradition, etc. YES to the distinction of the sexes and YES to the family. The technology section relies on Guardini, a favorite of JPII and B16. Lots of Scripture!
    But I slightly disagree with Mark here – I think the howling from the Right is matched by the utter blindness from the Left, as if the only thing here were political and economic issues. Both sides have problems with reading comprehension. And yes, there certainly CAN be disagreements on the prudential judgments involved, without resorting to name-calling.
    Full disclosure – I have long worked with people who wrote the draft so I knew what was coming. No surprises here.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      I appreciate having your input here. I won’t have time to read the encyclical until this evening, but I’ve been looking forward to it for a while.

    • Yes, I too appreciate your input.

    • Joseph

      Your comment should be added to the post with the disclaimer: If you are unwilling or too lazy to read the encyclical yourself, please read *this* summary before commenting.

  • Sam Schmitt

    “This is Fr. Z making fun of the encyclical and instructing his readers that they have complete permission to ignore and dissent from it in exactly the same way lefties ignore and dissent from Humanae Vitae.”

    I know this doesn’t feed into the “conservatives are dissenters” narrative, but Fr. Z’s own comments in the comboxes show this is exactly what he is not doing.

    • Tweck

      He is, however, clearly making fun of “libs,” which is a pejorative I wouldn’t expect to hear from a priest. But then we are all human.

      • antigon

        To the contrary, t’is a pejorative priests should be condemned for not having engaged more robustly, against asinine ‘conservatives’ as well as libs.

  • Silly Interloper

    I am done with patheos. I was writing an entry when it forced me away from the entry to watch two ads, not allowing me to scroll back until they were finished. I’m sick and tired of being treated like a thing that has to be annoyed until I pay attention to their stupid promotions. Reading blogs and commenting simply isn’t important enough to tolerate this sh*t. Patheos–and the sponsors who allow it–can kiss my @**. Sorry Mark.

    All I wanted to say was that you don’t have to be a professional scientist to understand science, and you are not disqualified from making judgments about science simply because you aren’t a professional. It is quite telling, in fact, that the professionals who tout climate change alarmism have not been able to soundly refute the voices against them. If they are so sciency and smarter than the rest of us–they should have no difficulty doing so.

    But, through no fault of Mark’s, this will be my last post and near last visit here. Good-bye.

    • ManyMoreSpices

      Use Chrome, dude. And Adblock.

    • Jamesthelast

      There’s a logic gap in your post. You said that climate science isn’t right because there are still doubters. Well, doesn’t that negate the Church? How are you judging that they soundly refuted the doubters? Are you taking all the data and doing the research yourself? Or are you just saying what CATO, Heartland, Fox, Watts et al say?

      Also, get ublock, blocks all ads!

  • JM1001

    My only complaint is that the Vatican site only has the option of downloading a PDF version. There should also be an EPUB version (which looks better on my Nook). Oh well. I look forward to reading it.

  • Dan13

    The Francisicans will love this encyclical. Not only with Francis of Assisi but St. Bonaventure is heavily cited as well. There are some nice spiritual passages about the Trinity as well.

  • Three line stanzas:

    WITHIN THE FORTRESS

    A clear fine day in middle spring,

    On rising ridges five miles off

    Single trees reveal themselves

    But as the locust sconces blossom

    White and lilac pendant clusters

    And as the clover blooms its wool

    There are no bees to forage here

    A desolation, holocaust –

    Is there no one to see and fear?

    They are the sentinels of God

    Withdrawing from their outer posts

    As we within the fortress feast

    Pavel

    May 20, 2015

  • We have yet to see a single honey bee all spring here in south central Pennsylvania. The whole state has lost 50% of its hives.

    I don’t know if you do but I hope you understand that this is no trivial loss, but as if a great battle has been lost.

    It is, in fact, a bit frightening, and I am not attempting to instill hysteria or to promote a sense of doom.

    The biosphere is obviously under great stress.

    • Pete the Greek

      “The biosphere is obviously under great stress.”
      – You do know that honeybees are NOT native to the US, right? Much like boar, they were brought here by Europeans.

      While I share your concern about loss of bees, I think we should remember that them being here at all was because of us, regardless of Mormon claims to the contrary. I think we will find a way to assist them in recovery.

      • I knew that Pete.

        We aren’t native either, and neither are most of our crops.

        • Pete the Greek

          Ah. I said that mainly because when I hear people talking about ‘biosphere stress’ on species, they are assuming native species to an area.

      • As for your other point, entomologists and others have been working on this problem for years, and even pinning down the cause has been extremely difficult. As I understand it, the hypothesis now is that pesticides weaken the bees’ immune system, which renders them vulnerable to viral infection.

        So there is perhaps a potential remedy, but it would be enormously expensive.

        • Pete the Greek

          “So there is perhaps a potential remedy, but it would be enormously expensive.”
          – Even though Mark has several times accused me of NOT having it, I actually have faith in America’s ability to innovate a solution that will work. We’ve done it for other species before.

      • BTW, there are very few other kinds of bees observable now. A few carpenter bees et. al.

    • Marthe Lépine

      However, some people are saying that certain kinds of insecticides may be responsible for some, or most, of the problem with honey bees.

      • Yes, perhaps. But I think it’s not likely to be only one factor, or one species.

  • Elmwood

    when science tells us mercury or lead is bad for us and the environment, few people have a problem, but whey the vast majority of scientists tell us anthropogenic CO2 is warming the climate, suddenly the science is suspect and there is a UN-Vatican-Lefty conspiracy of epic proportions to swindle the makers out of their money. it’s a message that some people don’t want to hear, so they try and discount the science behind it.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      But that isn’t the only motivation behind criticism of ACC. It’d be nice if that was acknowledged, but I’m not holding my breath.

      • Elmwood

        the other big problem was that global warming became politicized when Al Gore made his inconvenient truth movie and started advocating for cap and trade. IMO, he’s largely to blame for this.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          I don’t disagree with that, but my beef is with the poor approach taken to manipulate data by some of the ‘respected ‘ names in the field.

          And again, I’d banal the infernal combustion engine right off if you made me emperor of earth, So no friend of big oil here. Nor unfettered capitalism.

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            I’d ban, not I’d banal.

            Joseph, there’s solidarity for you!

        • Joseph

          He’s not the only one. He was merely the spokesperson for a large group of investors attempting to create a Carbon Credits bank off of the science in order to perpetually line their pockets based off of something completely unmeasurable and arbitrary. The junk scientists had their hand in the same cookie jar (you remember the ‘hockey stick’; Climategate; etc.). As long as the message was that end of the world was imminent and there was no doubt that they could stop it as long as people *believed in them* (a bit Messianic) and they didn’t get caught, they’d be laughing all the way to the bank… but they got caught… and any legitimate science or data that existed was tarnished. Why? Because the quack scientists were actually *defended* by their legitimate pals, because the media (always a friend of crooks) defended those who had obvious egg on their face. The *science* of AGW is forever tainted by the idiots who suffer from groupthink and really don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Their use of language to demonise and ridicule those who doubt (like ‘denier’) only pushes people further away. AGW is repulsive outside of the circles who hang out at the Apple store. It’s an insult to intelligence… you’re right… Al Gore had a lot to do with it, but he wasn’t the only one.
          .
          Now this encyclical is a masterpiece. It explains it in a practical way and in a theological way. I think the *science* is doomed. Because of the hive mind, it’s lost all credibility. So, the only people left who can really accept that we’re doing real damage and come up with real solutions to solving the problem are Christians, specifically Orthodox and Catholics. And this encyclical explains it in language that *we* should be able to clearly understand. Protestant Evangelicals won’t get it, they think they need to hurry up and end the world anyway. They really think that they can force Christ to return by paying for Jews to return to Israel. Some of them even think that Global Warming is the next flood, and the faster they can make it happen the sooner they’ll be scooped up in the Rapture.
          .
          Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of those pretending to be Catholic. Just like there’s a lot of Democrats in Catholic clothing.

          • Jamesthelast

            I’m confused, you said the scientists are wrong on explaining climate change, but Pope Francis is right about climate change because he’s says the same thing the scientists are saying (about science, not the theology obviously).

            • Joseph

              Nope. That’s what you wish I said, but that’s not what I said.

        • Jamesthelast

          It’s a political issue though. Climate Change is something that requires massive global cooperation, how can it not be political?

          Carbon credits are dumb because it still let’s people pollute at the same rate if they are rich enough. What we need is a straight up carbon tax while getting rid of the payroll tax in order to encourage the market to swing towards renewable.

          • Joseph

            A carbon tax (as the lefty minions propose) is based off of something completely immeasurable and arbitrary. You can’t give that kind of power into the hands of the already verifiably corrupt western world leadership. They will, no doubt, abuse it to line their own pockets, with or without the Banco de Algore. You’re going to have to come up with a better solution rather than the *easy* ‘tax your way out of everything’ proposal. For example, fat ass Algore flies all around the world in a private jet to tell everyone to reduce their carbon footprint when he’s not at home in his mansion that requires more energy to run than an entire Atlanta subdivision. You’d give these blatant hypocrites and abusers the power to arbitrarily tax people for something they aren’t even willing to measure themselves (because they can’t) because you’re happy with the easy pat yourself on the back solution: look, I did something. The Pope is actually calling for great minds to come together and come up with *real* solutions that don’t give more power to the already powerful, the opposite of your suggestion.

    • Joseph

      Make no mistake, this encyclical is far from *left-wing*. It’s antagonistic to the lefty sacraments as well as the righty sacraments. If you’re a lefty, don’t be too hasty picking up your pom-poms until you actually read it.

      • Elmwood

        of course, the church rightly points out the connection between abortion and environmental destruction as symptoms of the same thing–culture of waste and sin.

        • Joseph

          Exactly… I *loved* the way he tied them together. Looovvveed it!

    • ManyMoreSpices

      when science tells us mercury or lead is bad for us and the environment, few people have a problem

      Correct. So when Global Warming Crypto-Nazis like me accept testable scientific hypotheses in some areas but are skeptical of others, perhaps our reasons are more nuanced and thought-through than you’re giving us credit for.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        Probably not though, if you also think stellar parallax disproved heliocentrism…

        Just sayin ‘.

    • Jesus Bones

      MONEY!!!!!!!

    • AquinasMan

      On the other hand, the same scientists can’t figure out when life begins, so, these are the guys who should inspire encyclicals.

      • Jamesthelast

        Three problems: One, being wrong on something else in a totally different subject doesn’t negate truth in something else. St Thomas Aquinas was wrong on the Immaculate Conception, I guess he has nothing worth reading! Two, a lot biologists will tell you life begins at conception but will then erroneously say it’s ok to murder an embryo. Three, the question of life and person hood is a philosophical question that is out of the realm of science.

  • jaia60

    Always entertaining to see how good “Christians” turn on their own when one challenges the far right politics.

    • Joseph

      I wonder if you misplaced your scare quotes. Would have been more effective as “good” Christians.

  • Jim

    Mark Shea

    You clearly owe Fr. Z an apology. He is clearly not part of the petulance within the church.

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/06/good-news-about-the-new-encyclical-laudato-si/

    Catholics no more have to agree with Pope Francis on Climate Change being man made then we have to agree with Paul V on the movement of the Earth around the sun & sober people can say maybe the Pope should have stayed out of the debate.

    Of course on the other side the melt down of the right over this is just sickening.

    But you are not help here either.

    • chezami

      No. I don’t.

      • freddy

        I am only an occasional reader of Fr. Z. and I also think you misunderstand and misconstrue his words. Maybe you don’t owe him an apology, but you owe a duty to the truth to re-think your take and maybe re-read what he wrote.
        Anyway great piece on this the other day, and God bless you.

      • Jared Clark

        Jim linked to a post wherein Fr. Z told his readers not to freak out and offered several positive commentaries on the encyclical. He also wrote a short post praising it when it was leaked.

        If. in light of that, you cannot apologize for missing a joke, then you have lost a reader.

    • Stu

      Indeed, this post of Mark’s wasn’t helpful. Sadly, it averages out the previous post he did on the encyclical days prior which was outstanding.

      Some years ago, a guy by the name of Sean Dailey (you may know of him) and I would post together, in of all places, Ann Coulter’s forum. You had all manner of opinions there with good people of all thinking. There were also some real wacky people as well.

      One thing that Sean did that was awesome was to simply post every few days in one thread a few sequential paragraphs from every new encyclical when it was released until we got through the whole thing. It was a great way to get everyone to read it (both left and right) and generate good conversation instead of the typical tribal stuff. I think some minds were changed and for those that remained in disagreement, at least they really knew what the encyclical said.

      Father Z isn’t doing what Mark claims and anyone who knows Father Z or simply reads the original post would come to that conclusion.

      Gutfeld is just wrong. Perhaps he could be reasoned with.

      Savage is just wacky. So who really cares.

      And Limbaugh, in my opinion, could benefit from someone talking him through it. Anyone who is a serious distributist knows that you will be called a communist when discussing economics and that’s because there is misalignment in terms. I think this is true for Limbaugh.

      Regardless, it would be good to see Catholic apologists actually taking the time to explain things rather than go after political tribes.

      • antigon

        Ok, Stu. As one who fears the current pontiff’s rather more Clericalist than Catholic, this initial reaction:
        *
        Opening: delightfully Catholic, then descriptions of the doom upon us that brought to mind warnings from previous Pontiffs of what would obtain if we didn’t collectively repent (which it seems fair to propose we didn’t), followed by what seems like a truly Luddite & properly anti-rapine analysis of, perhaps with some caveats, a most admirable kind.
        *
        Now on to paragraph 43.

    • Jamesthelast

      There’s isn’t much of a comparison between climate science and geo vs heliocentrism.

      • Jim

        Other than the point the Pope is not infallible on matters of science.

        Neither Francis or Paul V.

        He who weds the science of this age will be a widow/widower in the next one.

        Science is tentative. I hold Augustine’s view that if a particular interpretation of Scripture contradicts a particular interpretation of Holy Writ then it is the interpretation that must yield.

      • Jim

        Let me re-phrase as I was distracted

        “if the known science contradicts a particular interpretation of Holy Writ then it is the interpretation that must yield.

        • Jamesthelast

          That’s sound reasoning, but man’s CO2 causing climate change is not contradicting scripture and is much more able to be tested and observed than astronomy back in the 17th century.

          Look, science is a good thing and we shouldn’t be so scared of it. It’s only bad when it tries leave it’s limits and replace philosophy/theology.

          • Jim

            I don’t agree with the Pope that man is causing climate change.

            I also don’t believe it is against the faith to believe the opposite of what I believe & to agree with him on this matter that is not one of faith or morals.

            It is that simple for me.

            • Jamesthelast

              Ok, but have good reasons for it. Beware of denying reality like the transgender people do. Only this one could actually kill your grand kids.

              • Patrick

                More than likely, if man-made global warming is indeed happening, one’s grandkids will live in a world of more abundance because vegetation grows better in warmer places (visit Hawaii, for example, or check out how people in California are able to grow their own food in an urban area because of the climate).

  • Jared B.

    lots of angry “Get a sense of humor” rebukes from Fr. Z.

    I found an example of that in Fr. Z’s comments, which read,

    “But, seriously, if they are going to shove this in our faces, shove Humanae vitae in theirs. They can’t have a pass on this. They can’t have it both ways.”

    So what precisely about that statement is untrue?

    Evidently we are supposed to read his blog post with utmost seriousness, and interpret it such that “This is Fr. Z making fun of the encyclical and instructing his readers that they have complete permission to ignore and dissent from it”. But simultaneously we are supposed to read his comments or replies to comments such that he does not at all mean what he says. I think that this uncharitable interpretation of Fr. Z’s post is also trying to have it both ways.

  • Artevelde

    And a special thanks to Fr. Z on behalf of all of us closet ”liberal Catholics”. We can now kill babies and still bask in the warm light of the joint left-right sacrament called ”shoving things in each other’s face”.

  • Because of the time zone differences, it was early evening (here) before the encyclical was made available online. I’ve managed to read part – though not all. I haven’t read anything so far that would lead me believe that there is anything outrageous in it. The little I’ve read seems quite reasonable to me.
    I was amazed to see that when I arrived at this post, there were already more than 200 comments. As I’ve said, I’m on the other side of the world in relation to North American readers, but have all the folks commenting here actually read the encyclical? As I write this, it is about 15 hours since the release of the encyclical……..hardly enough time for anyone to read, study, and seriously contemplate on what the Pope has written.

  • Patrick

    Francis’s pessimism leads him to his turn toward politics and government. If you believe we are in the midst of an unprecedented crisis, then it makes more sense to hit the panic button and turn the world over to “experts” who will turn things around. Thus, we find in Francis’s work a call for governments, through coercion, to rid the world of pollution, to make the poor rich, and the weak strong.

    But what a contrast this presents to Francis’s predecessor John Paul II (who was known for his optimism). Francis turns to human institutions, and new human programs, new human experts, and new human initiatives to solve the world’s problems. John Paul II, however, took a much different position, writing in a 2000document:

    “What must we do? We put the question with trusting optimism, but without underestimating the problems we face. We are certainly not seduced by the naïve expectation that, faced with the great challenges of our time, we shall find some magic formula. No, we shall not be saved by a formula but by a Person … [i.e., Jesus]. It is not therefore a matter of inventing a “new programme.” The programme already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition, it is the same as ever.”

    Note the prevalence of religious language; one need not be a Christian to see the contrast here. John Paul II, as a religious leader, encourages his audience (in a recurring theme in his writings) to turn to personal virtue as the solution to the ills of the world. Francis, on the other hand, looks to political institutions in both of his major writings.

    https://mises.org/library/pope-francis%E2%80%99s-relentless-pessimism-fuels-his-faith-politics

    • capaxdei

      I won’t dispute the claim that St. John Paul II was more optimistic than Pope Francis. St. John Paul II was more optimistic than Dora the Explorer.

      But it seems tendentious to me to contrast this quotation from Novo Millennio Ineunte with Laudato Si’, as though they were both addressing the same question and therefore St. John Paul was rejecting wholesale the proposals of Pope Francis. Nor do I think “personal virtue is the solution to the ills of the world” is an accurate representation of St. John Paul’s social teaching.

      And the implication that Pope Francis doesn’t believe we shall not be saved by a formula but by a Person, if intended, is simply ridiculous.

    • chezami

      The only people hitting the panic button are American Movement conservatives. They are pulling out all the stops to shout Francis down. They are making themselves ridiculous to the rest of the human race.

      • Patrick

        There’s no panic in the linked article, it’s simply pointing out that Francis’ approach so far, in his major documents, seems to advocate “solutions” from coercive entities that have no track record of making the human race better off (cf 20th century government activity), and this approach stems from a pessimism that is at odds with actual observations of the human condition today. The author is also certainly nothing close to an “american movement conservative” but is indeed an enemy of such.

  • Dave G.

    I haven’t read all of the comments yet. But I haven’t seen any saying ‘here’s the radical changes in my life I’m going to undertake as a result of the encyclical.’ I’d like to think that is its purpose, not simply being a paper version of a Francis shaped cudgel with which we can bludgeon other Catholics. Hopefully, once I get through the list, there will be some sharing ideas. I know I have been rethinking my approach to things, I’d be interested in hearing from others and their ideas.

  • Jared Clark

    Did you make any attempt to contact Fr. Z before writing this?