SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.”
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:20AM
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
Nothing ironic here, America is not catholic.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday January 13 2015, @01:40PM
Where did you get that from? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by Pessime on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:19PM
Probably from the same page you linked to :
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
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
Methinks you give yourself too much importance.
(Score: 1) by TheB on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:45PM
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
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
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
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
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 only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:23PM
The Catholics also believe in Revelations.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:39PM
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 only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @11:04AM
One interesting bit from that link:
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
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
Right now I am really missing his most catholic of reporters.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:40AM
Father Guido Sarducci?
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday January 13 2015, @04:43AM
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
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
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.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday January 13 2015, @07:39AM
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
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
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$oft, especially connected with remote controls? Excessive server farm energy consumption? I really am at a loss in establishing the original relevance of your original intervention to the topic at hand. Hairy, hand.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday January 16 2015, @03:19AM
Are you using one of those "bullshit bingo" generators for your posts? Because they make even less sense than your crazy homeless hero RMS. Reading your posts I think the only logical retort is the following [i.qkme.me] HAND.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 16 2015, @06:17AM
What ever makes you think that RMS is homeless? Your hostility is a puzzle to me, and I imagine to many others. But we can just let it go. However, one suggestion: just because someone's language appears to be nonsense to you does not necessarily mean it actually nonsense. I imagine that that also sounds like nonsense. But I wish you well in your attempts to fix Micro$oft machines, Hairy! I really do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @03:12AM
...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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @05:21AM
roast [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday January 13 2015, @06:26AM
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
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
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
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
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 only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 13 2015, @08:16AM
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
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
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
"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: 2) by hubie on Tuesday January 13 2015, @02:47PM
He's just using the argument that 50 Million evangelical Christians can't be wrong [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 13 2015, @03:01PM
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
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
Well, it matters, in concrete terms. But I feel it shouldn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13 2015, @09:28PM
take action on moral and scientific grounds
Non-factual place?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 14 2015, @03:10PM
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
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
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
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.