CD, I believe you are spot on ! One last observation on this encyclical: 1. Re-iterated beautiful known catholic church teaching about the poor and God's creation 2. About global warming/climate change...just another stumbling block for above-mentioned serious Christians to return to catholicism 3. The Holy Father is just plain wrong on global warming/co 2 causes, a blow for anyone to believe in the infallibility of the papacy (I realize this encyclical is not infallible) 4. A blow to the institution of the papacy 5. A blow to Pope Francis's image among those catholics who believe he is wrong on this issue (including myself) What will the church gain from this encyclical? New converts? 1. I doubt it. Those who praise him for embracing the "liberal" political agenda on this issue, agree with him on helping the poor already (social justice catholics and atheists and agnotics) 2. As in politics, they now are just waiting for the church to cave on gay marriage, abortion, and contraception (which I believe was not even mentioned) 3. The Holy Father is sending these people the message that gay marriage is "on the table" by some of his bishop picks and synod openness to its discussion and "who am I to judge" comment with no clarification In conclusion: 1. He will gain few if any converts from this 2. The papacy has lost some of its prestige among its members and among our separated brethren 3. He is just plain wrong in front of the entire world
Another View: Before Saving Mother Earth, Let’s First Save Holy Mother Church BYBRIAN WILLIAMSON JUNE 20, 20151P5 BLOG InLaudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home, the new environmental encyclical by Pope Francis, the Holy Father speaks in part to the need for good stewardship of the earth, as well as the current generations obligation to the next: “The notion of the common good also extends to future generations. The global economic crises have made painfully obvious the detrimental effects of disregarding our common destiny, which cannot exclude those who come after us. We can no longer speak of sustainable development apart from intergenerational solidarity.Once we start to think about the kind of world we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently; we realize that the world is a gift which we have freely received and must share with others.Since the world has been given to us, we can no longer view reality in a purely utilitarian way, in which efficiency and productivity are entirely geared to our individual benefit. Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us…”(LS 159) This concept of “Intergenerational solidarity”, the responsibility to preserve what has been received for those not yet born, immediately struck me, but not in the manner it was intended. Looking back at the last fifty years since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council we are sadly able to see the damage wrought by two generations of churchmen who have often demonstrated little respect for the gift they received, let alone their obligation to future generations. To more clearly make my point, I would ask you to read the above paragraph fromLaudato Siagain, this time with the emphasis taken off of the planet, and instead focused on the Church, and her saving mission to promulgate the faith : “The notion of the common good also extends to future generations. Theglobal economic post-conciliar ecclesialcrises have made painfully obvious the detrimental effects of disregarding our common destiny, which cannot exclude those who come after us…Once we start to think about the kind ofworldfaithwe are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently; we realize that theworldfaithis a gift which we have freely received and must share with others. Since theworldfaithhas been given to us, we can no longer view reality in a purely utilitarian way…Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since theworldfaithwe have received also belongs to those who will follow us…” In the United States alone we can objectively declare that the preservation of the faith, taking what was received and then sharing it with those who follow, has been the real environmental disaster of the last fifty years. As Georgetown’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA)reports: Weekly Mass attendance has declined from 55% in 1965 to 24% in 2014 Total priests in the U.S. decreased from 58,632 in 1965 to 38,275 in 2014 While parish affiliated Catholics increased during this time from 46.3m to 66.6m… Those indetifying as former Catholic adults has increased from 7.5m in 1975 to 28.9m in 2014 Finally, a 2008 CARA survey found that over 40 percent of Catholics questioned view the Eucharist as only a symbol of Jesus Let me be clear: none of this is meant to dismiss what the Holy Father has presented to the Church inLaudato Si. While I have read excerpts from it, listened to analysis of it, and read others opinions about it, I have yet to read the entire encyclical myself. My point is simply this: before the U.S. bishops rush off to find new and exciting ways to incorporate this Eco-encyclical into the life of the Church, possibly they could first look to recover what the Vatican II generation failed to preserve. Is it asking too much for our bishops to be good stewards of the Church first? Shouldn’t the priority be more on saving souls and less on saving trees? The simple fact is this: a generation of the faithful (bishops, priests and laity) were given a faith that filled pews, rectories, convents and confessionals. A generation of Catholics were given a liturgy that had organically developed over 2000 years, largely unchanged for 1400 years in the Roman Rite, one replete with an aura of the sacred and beautiful sanctuaries that lifted our eyes and our hearts heavenward. This same generation was given Catholic schools that were Catholic, staffed by religious sisters and brothers, who taught the Catholic faith to Catholic children. As the CARA data confirms, theecclesialenvironmental degradation of the last fifty years has been staggering. Truth, beauty and goodness were replaced with ambiguity, minimalism and indifferentism. We have become, as Dietrich Von Hildebrand declared decades ago, a “devastated vineyard.” Before we look to heal “Mother Earth”, shouldn’t we first look to heal Holy Mother Church?
But didn't God first make his Covenant with Adam and Eve, long before Holy Mother Church ? The Church arose out of the Old Covenant because we were disobedient. The Church was/is God's final plan for Salvation. I am confused about your point. You seem to be saying that everything before AD 00.00 is pointless.....
This author with The Catholic Thing makes an interesting point about his dislike for the use of the word "consensus" in the recent encyclical. Besides the fact that there isn't a consensus in the scientific community regarding global warming, the author ponders whether the "consensus" word will be an argument that will also be used at the upcoming Synod. Pure speculation of course, but thought provoking . A Discouraging Word in “Laudato Si” By Brad MinerTUESDAY, JUNE 30 2015 In an encyclical of nearly 40,000 words, there’s a lot in Laudato Si with which to agree and disagree, and, God knows, there’s been plenty of praise and rancor from commentators so far. On the day that Sandro Magister of L’Espresso released an Italian copy ahead of the Vatican’s embargo date, I cut and pasted big chunks of the encyclical into Google Translate, which – by the way – was surprisingly accurate. But I didn’t give the document a full and faithful reading until the official English translation became available. I will admit that I was a “global warming” skeptic before reading Laudato Si, and I remain so after reading and thinking about it over the last week. Pope Francis doesn’t need for me to praise his work only to then do an “on the other hand,” so let me be blunt. He lost me when he used the word consensus: “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” Now this is a really big problem with really big potential implications, and I don’t know if any pope has ever made such a questionable assertion in an encyclical – questionable in its endorsement of the notion of “scientific consensus.” The writer Michael Crichton was a remarkable man. Just about everybody knows him as the author of a string of remarkable bestselling novels that began in 1969 with The Andromeda Strain (actually his sixth novel, but the first written under his own name) and ended with the techno-thriller, Next, published posthumously in 2006, the year after Dr. Crichton’s death from cancer. (Two other reconstructed novels have been published since then.) In between, of course, were The Terminal Man, The Great Train Robbery . . . and Jurassic Park. He wrote twenty-seven novels in all. What some may not know about Crichton is that he received an M.D. from Harvard in 1969. He did postgraduate work at Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California. He never actually practiced medicine, because he always wanted to be a writer. I give this background to indicate why Crichton may be taken seriously on the subject of science. In a lecture at Cal Tech in 2003, he famously said: “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” Earth: January 1, 2015 The title of that lecture was “Aliens Cause Global Warming,” and its message was a cautionary tale about how “science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity.” He took on popularizers of scientific fads such as Carl “Nuclear Winter” Sagan and Paul “Population Bomb” Ehrlich. The popularity of their doom-and-gloom prophecies was based on a kind of peer-pressure, consensuspolitics that endured until the prognosticators were proved false. Dr. Crichton then applied actual scientific discipline to the global warming scare. We call it “climate change” now, since recent data seem to contradict the “warming” scenario. (This linguistic adaptation is like the way “homosexuals” became “gay,” and “socialists” were rechristened “progressives.”) Crichton concluded: Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds? Obviously, I would not be writing this if I didn’t agree with Michael Crichton’s position with regard to consensus in this context. And, if you also agree, we’re left with real worry that Pope Francis may have walked out on a limb that may be sawed off behind him. (Recall how Fr. Georges Lemaître, S.J. convinced Popes Pius XI and XII not to assert that his work confirmed the Biblical account of Creation, even though it seemed to.) And there’s another worry. If the pope believes consensus is sufficient to encourage the world’s policy makers to adopt draconian decisions with regard to economic policy, such as outlawing air conditioners, what might he think if the consensus among bishops in October is to change some of the core teachings of the Church on marriage and sexuality? I know, of course, that some will say I’m mixing the apples of climate science with the oranges of moral theology. Or that the new climatologists are right on the facts (but, if so, why refer to consensus?) and that the old moralists are wrong about Church rules concerning marriage, divorce, annulment, and the reception of the Eucharist (and, if so, why a magisterium?). Or that (and this is my hope) far from overturning, for example, Humanae Vitae, Pope Francis will reject the German consensus and reaffirm Catholic tradition after the October synod. G.K. Chesterton wrote in the Illustrated London News(1907): “Right is Right even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong about it.” Obviously, I don’t know if those who believe in anthropogenic global warming are right. I’ve not studied the data, which anyway I wouldn’t understand. More than that, I don’t know if specific solutions offered (by Francis or anybody else) will succeed in lowering global temperatures in – as the pope writes in the sentence just before his endorsement of scientific consensus – “a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life.” [Italics added.] And there’s real reason to doubt that most solutions are politically viable. A last thing: the pope’s liberality – as, for instance, in placing the atheist neo-totalitarian and abortion-and-contraceptive advocate H.J. Schellnhuber (who has, quite unconvincingly, tried to deny what his record confirms) among those included in the launch of the encyclical – will win him no actual friends on the Left. Francis’ single, tepid mention of the horror of abortion (how it too lacks “concern for the protection of nature”) has been and will continue to be ignored by those with whom he has made common cause.
I don't care about the encyclical. Its really not that important to me. I love Pope Francis but the environment is not going to change, damage is done and we have more urgent problems in our midst.
http://www.theonion.com/article/pope-francis-reverses-position-capitalism-after-se-51363 Pope Francis Reverses Position On Capitalism After Seeing Wide Variety Of American Oreos WASHINGTON—Admitting the startling discovery had compelled him to reexamine his long-held beliefs, His Holiness Pope Francis announced Tuesday that he had reversed his critical stance toward capitalism after seeing the immense variety of Oreos available in the United States. “Oh, my goodness, look at all these! Golden Oreos, Cookie Dough Oreos, Mega Stuf Oreos, Birthday Cake Oreos—perhaps the system of free enterprise is not as terrible as I once feared,” said the visibly awed bishop of Rome while visiting a Washington, D.C. supermarket, adding that the sheer diversity of flavors, various colors and quantities of creme filling, and presence or absence of an outer fudge layer had led to a profound philosophical shift in his feelings toward the global economy and opened his eyes to the remarkable capabilities of the free market. “Only a truly exceptional and powerful economic system would be capable of producing so many limited-edition and holiday-themed flavors of a single cookie brand, such as these extraordinary Key Lime Pie Oreos and Candy Corn Oreos. This is not a force of global impoverishment at all, but one of endless enrichment.” At press time, the pontiff had reportedly withdrawn his acceptance of capitalism, calling any system that would unleash a Roadhouse Chili Monster Slim Jim on the public “an unholy abomination.” *Yeah, it's old, but it's funnier now than when it was first written.
Well the only response I can make to this posting from Brian from a very coarse website is that it is at least of a higher quality than the columns he normally quotes from LifeSiteNews!
No, I don't do any pope bashing. I simply defend the Faith. Even when it's the pope I'm defending it against. I expect to need to defend the Faith against liberals and progressives such as David (and you if necessary) but I never dreamed I''d ever have to defend the Faith from the words of a pope. But such is the reality, and the cross, of the age in which we find ourselves.
Do you not think God knows what He's doing? Im almost certain He does.(Sarcasm) Is your Faith that small? This same Faith you're "defending"?
BrianK,why is it funnier to you now than when it was written? If i set a poll for the forum members i doubt i would find many that would agree. I too see it as Pope bashing. Satire is used often for subjects that one holds in contempt.
Do you consider yourself the wheat? The one who only posts the negative articles about the head of The One True Church?
