SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Despite the santorum splattered about, the Pontiff of the Church Universal and Triumphant [EDIT: This is actually referring to the Roman Catholic Church, not the Church Universal and Triumphant] is going to agree with the climate change consensus in an encyclical to be released on Thursday. Early leaks give some idea of the content.
Pope Francis is preparing to declare humans as primarily responsible for climate change, call for fossil fuels to be replaced by renewable energy and decry the culture of consumerism, a leaked draft of his much anticipated statement on the environment suggests.
The source for this somehow concerns Australians, but we will take any indication of infallibility where we can get it.
So the humble submitter has to wonder, does this mean that climate-change deniers are now to be considered heretics, rather than just Petro shills or anti-environmental conservative conspiracy theorists? It does add a entirely new dimension to the debate, and I hope that God will forgive your Conservative asses for screwing up Her creation in the quest for profit.
UPDATE - janrinok 18 Jun 12:36UTC
is it possible to update/append aristarchus' post "Pope Affirms Anthropogenic Global Warming" (https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/06/17/0317256), as follows:
Update: The encyclical can be read and downloaded here.
I am not affiliated with the submitter, aristarchus, or the pope. I have a slightly paranoid reason for asking for this update; it is my experience that, whenever politically important documents are published, the actual document often gets overshadowed by an enormous load of blog commentary, providing a bit of "damage control" and "spin". It is my fervent opinion that the readership of Soylentnews deserves to read the actual source documents. (It's only 82 pages long, in this case, anyway).
Original Submission
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @04:06PM
This seems unbelievable that the pope would finally use his power over the ignorant army of followers he has for good.
This is in my opinion the first and only time the catholic church has taken the side of reason and whats right. vs the usual what is best for maintaining control of the masses and increasing Vatican wealth
(Score: 1, Interesting) by idetuxs on Wednesday June 17 2015, @05:12PM
The last is exactly what the pope, and hence the church, is doing. They have to give in to keep their power. Not only on climate change but also as they did on those abuse cases. Coincidentally, that side is the side of reason, as is what most people think nowadays. What do you think most people will follow, a church that hides abuse and denies climate change, or a church that condemns abuse, recognizes the situation and finally accept the reality of our contribution to climate change?
Also, is not coincidental that after a lot of revolt and commotion about child abuse cases reaching the public news, they started the process of changing their angle about that.
Don't forget this, Pope Francis is a politician. Specifically a peronist (which means anything goes).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @07:48PM
history has shown they will follow either kind of church as long as they're taught at a young age that being lied to by people you trust is the same as any provable fact
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fritsd on Wednesday June 17 2015, @07:26PM
This is in my opinion the first and only time the catholic church has taken the side of reason and whats right.
Dunno, Dignitatis Humanae [wikipedia.org] (1965, on freedom of religion) and Gaudium et Spes [wikipedia.org] (also 2nd Vatican concilium 1965, the church in the modern world) were chart-smashing hits as well. (If there is a pop chart for encyclicals, which I actually doubt).
The 1960's and 70's were a totally different world from now, and not just the bell-bottom jeans and home-knitted sweaters either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @10:41PM
Maybe you should use your power to lift yourself above your historical ignorance.