Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Blackmoore on Tuesday January 13 2015, @02:42AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the you-put-your-religion-in-my-science dept.

The Guardian reports that following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, Pope Francis plans to publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds. "A papal encyclical is rare," says Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, chancellor of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences who revealed the pope's plans when he delivered Cafod’s annual Pope Paul VI lecture. "It is among the highest levels of a pope’s authority. It will be 50 to 60 pages long; it’s a big deal." The encyclical will be sent to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners. Within Catholicism in recent times, an encyclical is generally used for significant issues, and is second in importance only to the highest ranking document now issued by popes, an Apostolic Constitution. “Just as humanity confronted revolutionary change in the 19th century at the time of industrialization, today we have changed the natural environment so much," says Sorondo. "If current trends continue, the century will witness unprecedented climate change and destruction of the ecosystem with tragic consequences.”

Francis’s environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles, particularly in the US – where Catholic climate sceptics also include John Boehner, Republican leader of the House of Representatives and Rick Santorum, the former Republican presidential candidate. “There will always be 5-10% of people who will take offence. They are very vocal and have political clout," says Dan Misleh, director of the Catholic climate covenant. "This encyclical will threaten some people and bring joy to others. The arguments are around economics and science rather than morality." Francis will also be opposed by the powerful US evangelical movement, says Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has declared the US environmental movement to be “un-biblical” and a false religion. “The pope should back off,” says Beisner. “The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US.”

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:20AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:20AM (#134271)

    How ironic that the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation [wikipedia.org] has as it is central thesis that Creation needs no stewardship:

    We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:44AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:44AM (#134295)

      Nothing ironic here, America is not catholic.

      • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday January 13 2015, @01:40PM

        by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @01:40PM (#134365)
        • (Score: 1) by Pessime on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:19PM

          by Pessime (4448) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:19PM (#134446)

          Probably from the same page you linked to :

          Roman Catholicism: Practiced by 69 percent[78] of the Latin American population, 81 percent[78] in Mexico and 61 Percent[78] in Brazil whose Roman Catholic population of 123 million is the greatest of any nation's; approximately 24 percent of the United States' population [79] and about 39 percent of Canada's.[80]

          Emphasis mine.

          24 percent is no where near a majority, especially along side

          Protestantism: Practiced mostly in the United States, where half of the population are Protestant

          • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:43PM

            by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:43PM (#134456)

            The original post is a non-sequitur anyway, but let's ignore that for now.

            Writing "America is not Catholic" doesn't make any sense. The majority of the population of the Americas is, in fact, Catholic. Even if by "America" you refer to the USA (which I assume you do), it's quite daft to dismiss a quarter of your population just like that.

            Anyway, the sentence is out of context, is daft and comes from an AC. I'm already giving it too much importance.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @10:32PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @10:32PM (#134559)

              Methinks you give yourself too much importance.

          • (Score: 1) by TheB on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:45PM

            by TheB (1538) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:45PM (#134458)

            Technically Catholicism is the largest single denomination, but you are correct, the sum of all Protestant denominations is much larger.

            There has been only one Catholic president, John F. Kennedy. The rest are almost exclusively Protestant. Atheist may not apply...

            • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday January 30 2015, @01:15AM

              by cafebabe (894) on Friday January 30 2015, @01:15AM (#139358) Journal

              Anyone can be the President Of The United States but it helps greatly if you're white, male, fiercely Protestant and married. They also changed the rules a while back to exclude foreigners.

              --
              1702845791×2
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @02:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @02:17PM (#134374)

        What does catholicism have to do with it?
        The is about an organization's name being in direct contradiction to its philosophy.
        It would be just as bullshit if religion wasn't even part of it.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @02:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @02:57PM (#134387)

      If you take man out of the equation, yes, the earth is very robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting. It remains to be seen if it is still self-regulating and self-correcting with man included in the picture. We are seeing some nasty wars and diseases brewing that would self-correct earth's ecosystems in time by reducing the population of man. Climate change itself would also have a self-correcting aspect in this regard.

      "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

      I really don't get how some Christians can use the Bible to deny the danger. My reading of it supports the notion that Man absolutely can bring doom upon himself with wickedness and foolishness. Likewise, he may reap prosperity and blessings from righteousness and wisdom.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:19PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:19PM (#134447)

        I really don't get how some Christians can use the Bible to deny the danger.

        Conservative Protestants in the US usually get there by arguing that the chaos and disorder that will result are just a prelude to the Second Coming, and they'll be safely Raptured away before anything really bad happens. So it's not so much "there is no danger", more "there is no danger to people that believe as we do, because God is giving us a way to avoid it. So long, suckers!"

        I'm not sure how Catholics can get around the problem, though, because you won't find any of that in Catholic dogma. The source of that kind of thought was formed during the Second Great Awakening of early 19th century America, and was thoroughly Protestant. Other outgrowths of that were the Scofield Reference Bible, William Miller's failed prediction of the end of the world (the Great Disappointment), and most of the African-American Protestant tradition.

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:23PM (#134536)

          The Catholics also believe in Revelations.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:39PM

            by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:39PM (#134543)

            Yes, Catholics believe in Revelations (they were responsible for its inclusion in the Bible, so this is hardly surprising). However, their interpretation of Revelations [usccb.org] is completely different from those Protestants who think it's a literal prophecy of things to come.

            --
            The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @11:04AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @11:04AM (#134698)

              One interesting bit from that link:

              four signifies the world, six imperfection, seven totality or perfection, [...]

              It's somewhat funny that the smallest perfect number [wikipedia.org] signifies imperfection, while the following deficient number [wikipedia.org] signifies perfection.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @08:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @08:37PM (#134526)

        It remains to be seen if it is still self-regulating and self-correcting with man included in the picture.

        Sure it is. But the self-regulating part does not have man in its picture. Plenty of other critters that would love nothing else than to be warmer everywhere (all sort of bacteria and parasites love warm too!)

        My reading of it supports the notion that Man absolutely can bring doom upon himself with wickedness and foolishness. Likewise, he may reap prosperity and blessings from righteousness and wisdom.

        Denial of reality is more powerful than the Bible. Just look at the number of people that start smoking. Even if you discount current smokers as hopelessly addicted, how do you explain new smokers? Pot smokers? Drug addicts? Probably the same way that denialists can be described as.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by fishybell on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:27AM

    by fishybell (3156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:27AM (#134272)

    Right now I am really missing his most catholic of reporters.

    • (Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:40AM

      by Buck Feta (958) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:40AM (#134275) Journal

      Father Guido Sarducci?

      --
      - fractious political commentary goes here -
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday January 13 2015, @04:43AM

        by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday January 13 2015, @04:43AM (#134283) Journal

        Oh how I miss Father Guido Sarducci, always had the cigarette in his hand, always laid back.

        I think a LOT of the backlash to AGW, and watch me get hate and downmods by the "We have to do something whether it makes any damned difference or not!" crowd but talking to others a LOT of it is the simple fact is the AGW platform has been hijacked by hypocrites like Rev Al Gore, who stuffs his face while he rides in a fleet of SUVs from his McMansion to his personal lear jet while saying WE need to "tighten our belt". And isn't it funny how the ONLY "solution" anyone is allowed to talk about is crap and trade, which has "rules" being written by bottom feeders [nakedcapitalism.com] so that it'll have loopholes you could drive a thousand Canyoneros through [youtube.com]?

        At the end of the day crap and trade is nothing but a reverse robin hood, the actual polluters will either be given tax breaks to move the pollution to the third world or will be given "indulgences" so they can do like Al and live like piggies and claim to be "carbon neutral" while only the poor and ever dwindling middle class get royally fucked. If you want to do something about AGW? Talk to somebody who is NOT A SCAMMER like Ed Begley Jr,, that man walks the walk and has plenty of great ideas that would actually lower the carbon footprint of this country....but of course HE is doing it because he cares about the environment, not because he has set himself up to become a member of the billionaires club [dailyfinance.com] if he can get his way.

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:19AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:19AM (#134290)

          You've got a serious case of confirmation bias going on there. So much so that it seems pointless to even try to point out where reality differs from your narrative.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 13 2015, @07:10AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @07:10AM (#134303) Journal

          Hairyfeet, chill. The papal encyclical will not affect the number of Wind9zw machines you get paid to fix in the slightest. Or at least not so much as that when you notice it will be too late to do anything about it. We told you! Switch to Linux! Now you are responsible for global warming and the Pope is on your case. Bummer.

          --
          You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday January 13 2015, @07:39AM

            by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 13 2015, @07:39AM (#134311) Journal

            Will it have more effect than your average Fatwa?

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday January 13 2015, @08:11AM

            by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday January 13 2015, @08:11AM (#134321) Journal

            Another FOSSie, dribbling shit out its mouth that has fuck and all to do with the conversation. Considering your hero is a crazy homeless person [youtube.com] I'd say its surprising...but then I'd be lying.

            --
            ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 13 2015, @08:43AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @08:43AM (#134328) Journal

              CIA killed Che, didn't make any difference in the long run. Windows still sucked. What was your point? Perhaps the church still has indulgences for dealing with diabolical operating systems? And global warming is only remotely connected to Micro$oft, especially connected with remote controls? Excessive server farm energy consumption? I really am at a loss in establishing the original relevance of your original intervention to the topic at hand. Hairy, hand.

              --
              You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
              • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday January 16 2015, @03:19AM

                by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday January 16 2015, @03:19AM (#135275) Journal

                Are you using one of those "bullshit bingo" generators for your posts? Because they make even less sense than your crazy homeless hero RMS. Reading your posts I think the only logical retort is the following [i.qkme.me] HAND.

                --
                ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 16 2015, @06:17AM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 16 2015, @06:17AM (#135300) Journal

                  What ever makes you think that RMS is homeless? Your hostility is a puzzle to me, and I imagine to many others. But we can just let it go. However, one suggestion: just because someone's language appears to be nonsense to you does not necessarily mean it actually nonsense. I imagine that that also sounds like nonsense. But I wish you well in your attempts to fix Micro$oft machines, Hairy! I really do.

                  --
                  You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @03:12AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @03:12AM (#134625)

              ...but then I'd be lying.

              So?

              That's never bothered you in the past, shillboy.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:01AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:01AM (#134286) Journal
        Huh? [wikipedia.org]

        He gave the prayer of invocation and roasted the UConn Huskies women's basketball coach Geno Auriemma I mean, it can't be ad litteram: the Geno Auriemma page doesn't show him as dead.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:21AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:21AM (#134292)

          roast [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday January 13 2015, @06:26AM

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @06:26AM (#134298) Journal

    If the pope (any pope) were to declare that the sky is blue, the evangelicals would insist that it's orange just to disagree.

    As for the Catholic Republicans, none have shown any evidence of having any religious or spiritual beliefs other than when they claim to at election time, so I see no change there.

    • (Score: 1) by frojack on Tuesday January 13 2015, @07:26AM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 13 2015, @07:26AM (#134308) Journal

      Every story comes down to US Republican vs Democrats to you doesn't it. What's up with that?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Tuesday January 13 2015, @07:42AM

        by sjames (2882) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @07:42AM (#134312) Journal

        Actually, no. You must have failed to even read the summary. If you had, you might have noted that it talked about two Catholic Republicans that would not likely appreciate the Encyclical.

        If the political angle bothers you, go complain to Hugh.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:51PM (#134409)

        The topic was brought up in the summary. That makes his comment on topic, and yours decidedly off topic.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 13 2015, @12:25PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @12:25PM (#134346)

      As for the Catholic Republicans, none have shown any evidence of having any religious or spiritual beliefs other than when they claim to at election time

      That's definitely not true. Some, such as former VP candidate Paul Ryan, have a religious belief in the Prophet Ayn Rand (peace be upon her). Many others are devotees of Saint Ronald of California, patron of thinly disguised racism and lowering taxes in the face of massive deficits.

      --
      The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 13 2015, @08:16AM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @08:16AM (#134322)

    I don't understand the derision that has been piled upon this Pope's actions. This is a magnificent achievement from a cultural power that we would not expect this to come from. Just because it comes from a religious perspective the "intellectuals" heap their disdain and cynicism upon it. The changes this new pope has brought to a significant percentage of the world should be applauded even if the fundamental belief systems disagree. Shame on anyone for saying anything contrary to these progressive actions taken in the interest of humanity. Even if there are groups pushing back for ignorance, it does not diminish the achievement.

    Utopia is only a dream, but we should welcome every step that brings us closer. And I would think that encouragement for environmental awareness is a big step...

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 13 2015, @06:48PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @06:48PM (#134481) Journal

      This is a magnificent achievement from a cultural power that we would not expect this to come from. Just because it comes from a religious perspective the "intellectuals" heap their disdain and cynicism upon it.
       
      This atheist agrees 100%. Judge people on their actions. If their actions are just who cares what the justification for them are.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:21PM (#134535)

      Derision? What are you talking about? This pope is much more popular with non-Catholics than the previous two.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday January 13 2015, @01:17PM

    by The Archon V2.0 (3887) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @01:17PM (#134361)

    "Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US."

    And this is supposed to be an argument? Don't know if you noticed but there's over a BILLION Catholics and the guy you're railing against is the one who tells them what they need to do to get into Heaven.

    Y'know, if you're gonna be dishonest enough to use an argumentum ad populum, maybe you should at least be clever enough to make sure you're on the right side of it.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:01PM

    by ikanreed (3164) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:01PM (#134389) Journal

    Even if a religious leader is agreeing with me, the fundamental basis for how they evaluate everything is coming from a non-factual place. Sometimes bad assumptions can lead to good conclusions, but, in the end, Catholicism is just not a trustworthy framework for honest understanding.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @04:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @04:06PM (#134411)

      Are you completely nonplussed that the leader of a significant chunk of the world population is throwing his weight behind your flag?

      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 13 2015, @04:24PM

        by ikanreed (3164) on Tuesday January 13 2015, @04:24PM (#134417) Journal

        Well, it matters, in concrete terms. But I feel it shouldn't.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:28PM (#134538)

      take action on moral and scientific grounds

      Non-factual place?

      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 14 2015, @03:10PM

        by ikanreed (3164) on Wednesday January 14 2015, @03:10PM (#134755) Journal

        Yeah, and if this pope keels over and we get another religious hardliner, there's no functional difference in their credibility to the kinds of people who care.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:00PM (#134442)

    Calvin Beisner seems to miss a crucial point: Popes are infallible! (How we know? Well, a pope once said so, and since popes are infallible, what he said must be true.) So the fact that pope Francis says AGW is true means AGW is true. ;-)

    • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:06PM

      by Leebert (3511) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:06PM (#134532)

      Popes are infallible!

      I'm not Catholic, but that's a gross oversimplification. A slightly less gross oversimplification is: The pope is infallible under specific conditions, one of which is the invocation of the doctrine of infallibility by the pope.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 15 2015, @05:56AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 15 2015, @05:56AM (#135003)

    Calvin Beisner has his doctorate in which of the disciplines he expounds on? Economics? No. Some scientific domain? No. His doctorate is in Scottish History, which is certainly a worthwhile endeavour. But does that make him qualified to school a Jesuit pope on science? The pope's advisors probably told him which key papers to read, both for and against, summarized second tier papers to provide context, and then he may have read those papers himself with an advisor helping clarify any jargon. Beisner's unspoken assumption in his comment shows he didn't read the material himself but trusted the regurgitations of his corporate backers. His statement is a big joke that is only exceeded in size by his ego and chutzpah.