Fourteen Things Laudato Si Says. Nine Things It Does Not Say.

Fourteen Things Laudato Si Says. Nine Things It Does Not Say. June 19, 2015
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by Waiting for the Word https://www.flickr.com/photos/waitingfortheword/
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by Waiting for the Word https://www.flickr.com/photos/waitingfortheword/

I’m pretty sure that most of the people who’ve been snarling and sniping about Pope Francis’ latest encyclical have not read it.

The reason I say that is that they are angry — purple in the face, hissing and spitting angry — about things it does not say. They are also angry about things they claim it doesn’t say that it in fact does.

Laudato Si has a simple underlying argument. Pope Francis reasons that our spiritual bankruptcy has led us into destroying our earth, along with destroying ourselves. He teaches that the loss of respect for the human through our attacks on the sanctity of human life have led us into an extreme individualism that has in turn led us to a destructive relativism.

This shallow and meretricious outlook on life has caused us to befoul and slime our own nest, our home, which is this planet Earth.

Our financial, economic, social and political institutions, all of which should serve the common good, now operate only for their own immediate competitive success, without the element of moral responsibility on the part of those who control them. This deforms human life on a mass scale and leads to the destruction of the planet on which we live.

He calls this destruction of human value and human community a destruction of the human ecology. His teaching is that the human ecology and the natural ecology are linked and interwoven, as they must be if human beings have dominion over the earth.

Laudato Si states at one point that the decision of whether or not to leave a dead planet to future generations is ours to make.

Media pundits have used false claims about what Laudato Si says to get gullible people worked up into a hysteria.

Here are 9 things that Laudato Si does not say, but that people have been told it does.

1. Laudato Si does not attack the free enterprise system.

2. Laudato Si does not advocate Marxism. (This would be laughable except that foolish people keep falling for it.)

3. Laudato Si does not advocate socialism.

4. Laudato Si does not support population control.

5. Laudato Si does not support abortion.

6. Laudato Si does not support contraception.

7. Laudato Si does not support a global tyranny of nutty “greenies” who would take away all our freedoms.

8. Laudato Si does not support doing away with private property.

9. Laudato Si does not recommend specific legislation or reforms.

Here are 14 things Laudato Si does say

1. Laudato Si recommends support for forming small businesses on a global scale.

2. Laudato Si directly links disregard for the environment with the cheapening of human life caused by abortion, saying that when human life becomes conditional, nothing else is protected either.

3. Laudato Si specifically condemns the idea that population control is the way to “save the environment.”

4. Laudato Si specifically condemns business practices which ignore human rights and encourage human trafficking, drug trafficking, disruption of populations, seizure of individual’s property and wars for profit. It also condemns embryonic stem cell research and attempting to destroy the complimentarity between men and women.

5. Laudato Si calls for respect for local cultures and economic reforms which take the common good and human life into consideration.

6. Laudato Si says that all of life is interrelated and that human beings, as stewards of the earth have a grave responsibility to care for it.

7. Laudato Si condemns the out-sized consumption of goods by some parts of the world (ouch) which leads to impoverishment of people in other parts of the world. It calls us to look beyond consumerism to God to fill the emptiness of our lives.

8. Laudato Si says that access to life-giving water is a human right.

9. Laudato Si says that technology, if we use it incorrectly, can isolate and divide us.

10. Laudato Si condemns keeping poor people under a load of debt that makes it impossible for them to build lives for themselves.

11. Laudato Si exhorts us to develop solutions for housing crises which leave so many people homeless.

12. Laudato Si emphasizes the kinship and value of every living being. It also condemns extreme animal rights advocates who place greater value on animal life than human life and who would create a false tyranny with their ideologies.

13. Laudato Si calls for reforms of corruption in our financial systems.

14. Laudato Si says that the evidence for global warming comes from reputable scientific sources.

 

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

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

70 responses to “Fourteen Things Laudato Si Says. Nine Things It Does Not Say.”

  1. You missed my favorite bombshell: Laudato Sii:24 claims that pollution from the first world affects global warming, but that the actual cause of specific weather events is still unknown. In other words, global climate change is happening, but pollution is only one possible cause.

    Having said that, the other 14 points are then made in a way that is very convincing to me. If we can reverse the deadly effects of the economy of scale and decentralize our economy, we will be in much better shape as a race to, in Caritas for our brothers, deal with whatever the environment can throw at us.

    • I noticed 24 and that is one I think is wrong, just from my understanding. Poorer countries have more pollution including fuel use and even trash and sewage. I’ve been in a lot of villages where the trash dump is the river.
      I’m still trying to understand the economic stuff. I thought economies of scale were larger. I know that trade can rapidly improve the lot of poor people.
      I’m tempted to fall back on a truism: Never take advice on the economy from an Argentine.

        • OUR industry Manny. This is off the encyclical, but we have exported our industrial base to Communist China and made them into a great world power.

          • That benefitted some people a lot, a lot of people a little and hurt some people a lot and a lot of people some. I don’t know if it is good, not not. I certainly want our workers to have access to good, well-paying jobs and hope that our creativity will put some back to work. I know it has helped a lot of desperately poor people in China, but greatly benefitted the State in China. The countries that embrace free markets and capitalism lift people out of poverty.

    • “In other words…”

      Wrong. Humans are causing climate change, but that doesn’t mean that any particular hurricane or heat wave was caused by humans. It’s a simple point, but lay people on both sides of the issue seem to misunderstand it.

      • Or for that matter, polar vortex… 🙂

        But my point was more this- 10 years ago now I read a study showing that more methane was being released from the melting tundra in the summer than *all of mankind’s other carbon emissions combined*. That release is causing a lot of the warming we see now- we could stop all of mankind’s fossil fuel usage tomorrow and *still* not see a return to what once was.

        Maybe at one time climate change was solely caused by human beings, but it certainly isn’t now. Adaptation is our only realistic option- and luckily, if you read the other 244 paragraphs, you’ll see that is exactly what Pope Francis is urging.

  2. The only thing I disagree with is #14. After the climate-gate hockey-stick graph data faking incident, I went from “Yeah, I can see that we have some affect…” to …”now I doubt everything these climatologists say because they have an agenda.”

    Sadly, that means a lot of people think I’m a neanderthal. But I suppose I can live with that.

      • I agree. How do you get government grants to study weather? Make a crisis. The latest NOAA study relied on data points that were moved and others that were deleted to defend their model.

      • It’s not a moral teaching, by the way. The Encyclical doesn’t present it that way. It’s a line of thinking.

      • There absolutely was a data faking incident and data continues to be immorally changed up to the present date to falsify global warming. Research “Climategate” and read the actual emails themselves.

        Also, please watch Cal-Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller on how scientists are hiding the truth about global warming and changing the data to promote alarmism. Mr. Muller does not work for “BIG OIL”.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

        Finally, Thomas Karl of NOAA and a team of 8 just two weeks ago changed both current temperature data and 80 year old data to continue to deceive the public on the issue.

        This link is Karl’s explanation why it is OK to change the data. Amazingly current temperatures are always revised up and past temperatures just so happen to always be lowered.
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.abstract

    • It doesn’t matter if the source is reputable or not.
      Our duties as stewards of this planet compel us to make sure the services and products of our lives do not hurt the poor of other nations, much less do ecological damage to the earth itself.

      Some are guilty, all are responsible.

    • You’re not a neanderthal Ann. You are exactly right. The whole hockey stick graph was a fraud. You don’t even hear them make that argument any longer.

  3. Ann, #14 is why people are disappointed. I do not understand why Pope Francis found the need to insert unproven scientific claims (mostly from the enemies of everything the Catholic Church stands for) into the encyclical. Why?

    There is no scientific consensus man affects the planet through CO2 production and even if there were consensus that doesn’t matter. Science is NOT about consensus, only politics is. Science is about what can be proven and what cannot using the scientific method. The global warming advocates have had 30 years to present evidence that that CO2 from man, and only CO2 from man, causes climate warming/change. Despite six (6) IPCC reports they have failed to prove anything. (Note: The IPCC is filled with a lot of data showing “this and that”, but never any evidence on what causes “this and that”. But, of course, “this and that” can only be remedied by higher taxes, redistribution of wealth, depriving poor countries of cheap energy (coal and nuclear), abortion, assisted suicide, etc…) Yes, I understand the Pope specifically condemns these things but the enemies do not care. They got the Pope to say what they wanted him to say and will ignore the rest.

    Also, it’s a matter of recorded fact the planet has not warmed for over 18.5 years. Well, at least until NOAA last week immorally changed current and historical temperature data to hide that fact. (The Climategate emails from 2010 confirmed this was the plan by Michael Mann, Phil Jones et. al…but the Pope is unaware of this scandal?)
    Contrary to the Pope’s claim weather is NOT getting more violent nor are severe weather systems becoming more frequent (according to US data, I do not have world data). The oceans are “rising” but it should be noted land is also sinking and this as been occurring for over 20,000 years.

    The Pope could have easily said all his wonderful things in Laudato Si without mentioning global warning. It wasn’t necessary to Catholic theology. Why Pope? why give fuel to the enemies of everything you care about?

    Just today, the Brazilian government is now contemplating suspending agricultural expansion because of Laudato Si. That’s not great news for the poor or feeding the poor. The idea is expansion increases the carbon footprint which the Pope says we must reduce. BTW CO2 is not a pollutant (it’s plant food), yet the Pope unbelievably calls it pollution.
    One wonders when the Pope calls for a reduction of green house gas he understands water vapor is the #1 green house gas? CO2 is also a player but represents only 400 PPM of which the planet produces 385 PPM all on it’s own.
    Bottom line is a beautiful encyclical has forever been corrupted by junk science which the enemies of Pope Francis will use to further destroy Christian principles. It was sooooooo unnecessary.
    .

    • You can disagree with the Holy Father’s opinion that these findings are scientifically credible. But you can’t ignore his moral teaching that our concerns should be for the common good and that human economics is subject to the Lordship of Christ, just as all other areas of life are subject to His Lordship.

      Also, I think that it is important to consider what the Pope says about these findings in a careful thoughtful and extremely well-informed manner. I consider his opinion to be the only one I’ve heard that is not being given because of a money-making agenda. That alone means it has to be taken seriously. I would never disagree with anything the Pope said, even things that are not morally binding, unless I felt very sure — and I mean VERY sure — that I had sound and solid reason for doing so. Even then, my disagreement would be hemmed in my respect and fealty on every side.

      • It might be well-informed. I can’t tell, however, because that chapter has a footnote-per-paragraph rate almost 3 times smaller than the rest of the encyclical, which is already fairly low compared to other encyclicals.

        Then, when you get to Paragraph 42, we need to study ecosystems because they’re full of incredibly complicated relationships, which are all very important in comprising the whole. I agree with that completely. That is precisely why I’d like a little more proof why I should trust what “some scientists say” in the preceding paragraphs about the physical and biological characteristics and responses of an entire ecosystem of ecosystems, which is naturally at least another order of magnitude more complex.

        • You sound capable of doing the research.

          As for me, I confident that he is the ONLY person who’s weighed in on this who has the common good at heart. I’m also confident that he’s the ONLY person who’s weighed in on it who is an absolute follower of Jesus Christ. I am also confident that he’s the Vicar of Christ.

          So, I will take his word over every talking head out there. No questions about that.

          If you find it difficult to plow through this Encyclical’s footnotes you need to be ready give several months of your life to tracking down and analyzing the original research on all this. Secondary sources are too tainted to take seriously. You need to go to original sources and analyze them.

          Me? I really am going to just trust the Pope.

          • The problem isn’t that tracking down footnotes is difficult. The problem is that, in the section about the science, they don’t exist.

          • It is scary how much credibility is afforded to the pope simply because he is the pope. He knows less about this subject than I do. Also, his arguments rely a lot on the concept of creationism.

            Dragging in issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, accepting our gender, etc. doesn’t bolster his credibility either.

            • Frank, you are making a bold claim when you say that he knows less about this than you do.

              Abortion, embryonic stem cell research are part of the web of humanity’s attack on the human. They are, as the Pope says, the forerunners of our attacks on the human on a global scale. It is entirely consistent.

              When you say that you know more about this than Pope Francis, you are ignoring your obvious ignorance of the human condition in our willingness to cannibalize our own children as if they were things and not people. The Pope speaks of the whole of human existence, including the spiritual and moral side of human existence and our place in the universe are created beings subject to a higher law ourselves.

              • “When you say that you know more about this than Pope Francis, you are ignoring your obvious ignorance of the human condition in our willingness to cannibalize our own children as if they were things and not people.”

                I am talking about the environment. I don’t know what connection you are trying to make by bringing up cannibalism. I’ve been in the environmental business for 40 years. I think I know a little more about this issue than Pope Francis.

                • I’m trying to answer your comments about the Encyclical linking questions such as these with the environment. I apologize if I didn’t myself clear. I must’ve been typing faster than my brain was working. 🙂

                  • I guess I agree that the defiling of this planet is symptomatic of our “sinfulness” in a sense. It is what we can agree on as to what a sin is. I’m sure we both see greed the same. As for other things that the Church identifies as being sinful, I’m not sure they have an effect on the environment either directly or indirectly. I think it’s a stretch to drag some of them into such a discussion on the environment.

                    • I don’t think I’m going to convince you, but the connection is so obvious to me that it gob smacks that others don’t see it. We live in a fallen world. Our fallen state has led us into an idolatry of self that has grown so destructive that we murder our young, elderly, disabled, for no other reason that they are an inconvenience. This loss of respect for the human, is, even though it seems the opposite a profound disrespect for our own selves. We have become shorn from what we are and from our common humanity. It’s a small step from there to a disregard for all of creation at well.

                    • The biggest polluters are the military complex and the energy sector. Both are trying to protect and support the style of life we have become accustomed to. If you mean we are fallen and have become spoiled rotten, then I can’t disagree with you.

                    • There is no military complex.

                      The biggest user of energy is China which lifted 350,000,000 people out of poverty in the last 15 years.

                      You want them to go back to being dirt-poor ?

      • “You can disagree with the Holy Father’s opinion that these findings are scientifically credible. But you can’t ignore his moral teaching that our concerns should be for the common good and that human economics is subject to the Lordship of Christ, just as all other areas of life are subject to His Lordship.”

        There are many secular people who also share the pope’s concern for the common good. And the science behind this is not subject to any “lordship” of any deity.

        • The Holy Father follows the true bellwether of the Gospels and Jesus Christ. Secular people follow themselves. That leads them to inconsistent self-made morality. They end up following the fashions of the day without recourse to the common good.

          We are all given a certain amount of the light of God by virtue of being made in His image. This is called Natural Law. When human beings try to find the good through their own actions, they have this light to follow. That tell them — as it does everyone, everywhere — that certain things such as murder of innocents, lying and theft are wrong.

          But human will and the whisperings of the devil are strong. Human intelligence, which can be used to either good or evil. allows people to devise arguments that they use to give themselves permission to violate and even destroy the common good. Thus we have secularists and fallen Christians following the siren song of euthanasia, abortion, egg harvesting, surrogacy, the destruction of marriage and other evils that destroy human dignity and wreck the common good.

          On the other hand, we have secularists and fallen Christians following the greed is good, money is everything notion of commerce that destroys human dignity and the common good, as well.

          The pope confounds all of these people for the simple reason that he follows none of them and their self-lies. He follows Christ. His appeal to the common good is based on his followership of the ultimate good: Jesus Christ. Following Christ enables him to steer clear of the many traps that mankind lays for itself and that secularists have little defense against.

          • “Secular people follow themselves. That leads them to inconsistent self-made morality. ”

            That is a common prejudice that religious people have against the rest of us. We just don’t want our lives ruled by anyone’s religion. The only way you could think that our lives should be ruled by your religion is for you to think that yours is the one true religion and worldview and the rest of us just don’t get it.

            • Frank, I spoke far too broadly. What I was referring to was militant secularists. Healthy secularism,which gives everyone room to think and let think has an important place in free and democratic societies. However, it seems somewhat odd to criticize the think of the pope for being religious. He is the pope.

                • Well, since I’ve once in my life taken it on myself to accost any atheist about their beliefs, much less insult and badger them, I’m hardly in the league of most of the atheists who ricochet around the internet. So my “militancy” is pretty tepid. On the other hand, if you mean convinced that Jesus Christ is Lord, you got me. I choose Christ.

                  • “Well, since I’ve once in my life taken it on myself to accost any atheist about their beliefs, much less insult and badger them, ”

                    I assume you mean “not once” and I admit that Christians generally show more respect for atheists than visa versa. That is what Christians have been taught to do, love their enemies. Atheists feel no such obligation.

                    You are part of the “Church Militant”. No need to deny it or be apologetic. I think this rift will intensify as more people become disenchanted with religion. Where it will end, God only knows.

      • Rebecca, I don’t think the pope is the only one with an altruistic, unselfish and Christ-loving motive. I heard Robert Royal talk about it and I don’t think he has an ax to grind. Pope Francis is a human being who brings his culture with him, just like all the rest of us.
        He only speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

  4. Where does it say anything about the complementarity of men and women? (I’ve read the whole thing…)

    • He doesn’t use the world complimentarity, but that is certainly what he is referring to here,

      “Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an en- counter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”.121”

  5. The Pope states the polar ice caps are melting. The problem is the data doesn’t support that claim. The ice caps are not melting (as in melting into non-existence because the Polar ice caps do melt to some degree in each hemisphere’s respective summer and refreeze in the winter) .

    One of the uploaded images is a chart that measures the sea surface area of at least 15% sea ice (on land or ocean) as far back as the official data goes (1978-79). There currently is more total global sea ice (25 million sqkm) than the historical average <24 million km). The north pole is lower than historical the south pole is higher.

    Considering we only have 37 years of data on a planet that is millions/billions of years old I would say the proper or natural amount of sea ice is unknown to us.

    Another point is if the ice caps were melting away (to any degree), what evidence is there it's due to man instead of returning to a historical natural norm? What is the historical natural norm? 20 million? 50 million? Maybe the perfect ecological balance is less ice than we have today? Maybe it's more ice? How do we know with so little data?

    Does the Pope know the planet is in what some scientists call a "CO2 starved" period? Does the Pope understand core samples (see other uploaded image) have shown the majority of the earth's existence has included CO2 levels above 1000 ppm? And that scientists point to a portion of this this period as plants and animals thriving (including oxygen breathing single vertebrae animals)? Why wouldn't life thrive again in higher CO2 environments? What is the natural CO2 level supposed to be? < 400ppm as some claim or 1000 ppm and higher?
    I fear the Pope has put his faith (only in terms of AGW only, I don't have issues with much else, and submit faithfully) in the hands of big government liberals who have co-opted the science to spread there secular errors to the detriment of the Church.

    • If you are not looking at primary sources and you are not looking at all of them and weighing them against one another, and if you are not conversant enough in these things, especially the math, to be able to read and evaluate those sources with accuracy … well, then … you don’t know anymore than I do.

      I wouldn’t believe the talking heads — on either side of the question — no matter what they said. They’re well paid to present an agenda, that agenda is about money.

      If you are looking at all the primary sources and you do understand them well enough to evaluate them, then congratulations. But I can not evaluate your expertise.

      The Pope, on the other hand, is absolutely acting on behalf of the common good and within Christian teaching. That means a lot to me in terms of whether or not I trust him. I guess what I’m saying is that I do trust him. I really do.

      • I’ve just re-read this and I came across far more forcefully than I intended. These are matters that should be discussed. I’m just defensive about the Holy Father. I trust him. But I shouldn’t have jumped on you. Apologies.

    • You’re too logical Rob. You’re providing too many facts. I have found no matter how many critiques of global warming one actually provides, it makes no difference. The culture has swallowed this hook, line and sinker.

      • Jeanna, it’s fine to discuss this issue and to link to other sources. But there are no little popes in Catholicism. Catholic blog sites do not supersede an encyclical issued by the man who wears the shoes of the fisherman.

        What I’m saying is that an intelligent discussion on the scientific merits of arguments both for and against global warming are useful and worthy. But the pope has spoken about what constitutes Catholic teaching. We can’t use Catholic web sites to counter the pope’s teaching about the thinking of the Church.

        • I’m sorry if I sent the wrong message. The article I linked to, even though two years old, supports the Pope’s encyclical with scientific research (my guess is it’s the same research that Pope Francis was referencing in his encyclical). The Kateri Tekakwitha Conservation Center has compiled several writings of different popes on the topic. The well read Catholic will see that Pope Francis isn’t actually saying anything different than his predecessors. 🙂

          http://conservation.catholic.org/our%20collection.htm

      • Jeanna,

        Thanks for the link.

        As I read through it (and the links within it) it still all the same. Never any evidence. It is always “man is doing (A), we think the result of man doing (A) is causing (B) so let’s limit man from doing (A).” And let’s keep writing papers until we convince enough people.

        That’s not good enough for me, and the Pope does concede natural and solar effects may be the cause of (B) and not man.

        Anyway, the scientific method defined most simply is:
        1) Observed phenomenon

        2) Hypothesis
        3) Experimentation

        Jeanna, do you know the scientists that promote AGW have never completed #3? As far as I know they have never even tried! So as a person with two degrees in the sciences (that does not make me an expert) I can rightly conclude that man-made global warming and climate change (AGW) is in fact unscientific.

        So what is the basis for belief in AGW if scientists have not conducted #3? Computer models! Some scientists write equations and test their work with past historical data and adjust the equations according. It is an iterative process. Once equations match with past data they attempt to apply it for future projections.

        Did you know Jeanna that ALL the computer models have been wrong? All show temperature increases well above what is actually happening. All show sea level rises much higher than reality, many showed complete meltdown of arctic ice (which is not happening). The amazing thing is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports acknowledge the computer models are wrong but still say their theories are correct (LOL). It’s corruption at the highest level in my opinion!

        Why are the computer models wrong? Because it’s impossible to determine the constant value scientists call “Feedback”. You see, we think we have a handle on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere but we do not have a handle on the effects of clouds. Because “Feedback” is an “unknown” scientists make up a reasonable guess but continue to get it wrong.

        Unfortunately, some climate scientists basically no longer conduct scientific experiments, computer models only. What a shame!

        BTW, there is much more money from international governments (who stand to collect trillions in tax money) to force AGW on the public than money from businesses (and the Koch brothers) who are on the opposite.

        I care about people and the truth. If the Pope’s climate change suggestions are adopted ALL people are going the suffer especially the poor (certainly not the Pope’s intention). Why? Poor countries need cheap energy for better health and general quality of life but the cheapest of the cheap is coal! Problem…The Pope has essentially declared burning coal (or at least too much) as bad. Worldwide governments certainly see it as bad and are shutting down coal plants ALL over the globe. Banning Nuclear also. So what do poor countries do? The “world body” wants solar and wind energies for these countries. This (feel free to check the numbers) is unreliable and expensive! Poor countries also need FOOD. But the “World Body” is limiting deforestation and thus limiting agriculture (especially in poor countries). The Pope specifically mentions limiting agriculture (by reducing deforestation) which is a real head shaker for me.

        Conversely, for the developed world, if the Pope’s suggestions are adopted energy prices (which are high now) will certainly go higer (double? triple?) Higher energy costs lead to higher prices on everything for the consumer. As the consumer is forced to spend more money on energy there is less money to spend on other things (the Pope may say this is good) but less spending means less company profits, less profits mean layoffs, layoffs mean higher unemployment, higher unemployment means increased poverty. And round and round it goes.

        I understand this is simplistic but the world wide economy is EVERY bit as fragile as the environment.

        I respectfully suggest science and business economics is not this Pope’s calling (not that it has to be, his calling is to be a servant to the servants of God) . But he needs a much better balance of opinion from his group of advisers in both areas IMHO.

        God bless you Pope Francis, I pray for you. Pray for me!

        • I test the Theory of Gravity every single day and Newton is not offended, why do the AGW crowd dismiss further testing since the science is settled? They should embrace further testing. It is all so very wrong and narrow minded.

        • 20,000 years ago there was an ice sheet 9,000 feet thick covering 1/3rd of the United States.

          1/3rd !!!

          The entire Midwest was ice-covered.

          NEWS FLASH: The ice is gone !!! Hip-hip-hooray.

          Now….where did the ice go ? Why did it melt ? Did the cavemen drive SUVs ? No….it melted naturally as the temperature warmed.

          Since the Industrial Age dates to 1880 or so and since the ice was gone by then, any rataional person…..

          Oh right, I forgot we’re not dealing with rational people but the Looney Left and now the Vatican wants to hope into bed with them.

  6. Maybe I’m one of those snarling, sniping people who will not read it, but hey when I see this I have to comment:

    “Laudato Si directly links disregard for the environment with the cheapening of human life caused by abortion, saying that when human life becomes conditional, nothing else is protected either.”

    So there was no pollution before abortion became legal? So how come when the death penalty was an everyday occurrence in the center of town, nature was pristine? Come on. Just because the Pope says something, doesn’t mean the argument isn’t silly.That link is such nonsense.

    • Manny, I’m not sure what to say to you.

      Are you seriously arguing that abortion has not cheapened the value modern society places on human life? Are you maintaining that redefining a whole class of human beings as non-human to be disposed of at will has no effect on our treatment of all people and our world?

      Are you going to join in with the pope haters who throw over the Church for their politics? You don’t have to agree with the pope about these studies, but you really do need to accept his teaching authority on matters of morals, and there is clear teaching authority on matters of social justice in this encyclical.

      As for MY interpretation of his words, disagree all you want. But consider carefully what you are doing when you take up arguments that could have come from an abortion advocate to defend your position.

      I almost feel like asking if this is Manny or someone else, writing this.

      • Hey Rebecca… Don’t be too hard on my friend… Remember that there are two Many, “I” mean Manny’s running around but if “IT” is the Manny Engineer that we love and look up to …let’s just say that some of his spiritual reality brain cells may have forgotten about the con self, “I” mean concept of “Divide and Con, “I” mean conquer… 🙂

        Keep UP the good work Rebecca … for what “IT” is worth…I like your post… Now to read the rest of the comments.

        What do YA mean you’re starting to have second thoughts about what you’ve written here?… LOL

        Go Figure?

        God Bless Peace

          • Now that I’ve read every comments… I must congratulate you on believing that His Holiness Papa Francis is the one most likely to lead US (usual sinners) in the right path and as far as his critics are concern… they are right when they quietly say in so many words that even “HE” must be kept in honest check.
            Until next time give my best to The Anchoress and please keep praying for me.
            God Bless Peace

      • I was away on vacation and could bot respond until now. Of course abortion has been destructive to modern society. I am totally against abortion. What I was criticizing was the Holy Father’s tenuous link between the environment and abortion. Do you seen a causal link between the two? Come on, that’s ridiculous. It was the Pope who jumped into a political matter when he didn’t need to. If he would have stopped at the moral imperative to care for God’s creations, I would have endorsed it. But he went into this Global Warming crap, and the way he did it it was a poke in the eye to all who see the science differently.

        • Manny, I’m going to jump over the immediate arguments and say something a bit more generic. Western civilization is crumbling. Christians, in particular Catholics, are going to be under attack as never before.

          I’ve heard some pretty hair-raising stories of verbal attacks against Catholics over gay marriage just this weekend. The Church itself is going to be embattled in a way that Americans have never thought possible.

          We need the Pope. And we need to stand behind him. Forget your danged politics Manny. There are more important things.

  7. Here’s one you won’t find there: Oil and gasoline are a blessing. They have created the modern living standards we enjoy today. I wouldn’t change the industrial revolution one iota.

  8. Well, and now we have this.

    French scientist who’s research leads him to believe that climate change is solar/natural and not caused by’s man activity was uninvited by Pope five days prior to meeting with other scientists. I wonder if the Pope had any diversity of thought at all on his science panel.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3133468/French-climate-change-doubter-uninvited-Vatican-summit-weeks-Pope-declared-global-warming-man-problem.html

  9. I’ve been trying to read that thing and am getting more disappointed. There are some gems, but wrapped in a lot of trash. I don’t think the message is clear. It reads like a document written by committee to me.

  10. It’s obvious all the naysayers haven’t actually read the encyclical, because otherwise they would have seen paragraph #188:

    188. There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.

  11. Meanwhile true Christians are being beheaded throughout the world. I wonder if the papal fiddle is tuned properly….

    • The Holy Father has spoken out strongly about Christian persecution. He has also traveled to dangerous areas and visited refugee camps. There is no basis whatsoever this criticism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.