Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The papal Laudato Si’ encyclical on global warming continues to be a source of division, and has prompted reportedly heated exchanges between senior church figures, at a recent top level meeting in Rome.
ROME, December 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – A heated exchange regarding global warming and magisterial teaching between a top Vatican official and various other presenters ended a December 3 Acton Institute conference in Rome. Argentinean Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, a close advisor to Pope Francis and the Chancellor of both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences stressed that the pope’s declarations on the gravity of global warming as expressed in the encyclical Laudato Si’ are magisterial teaching equivalent to the teaching that abortion is sinful.
Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press who obtained his doctorate in theology under Joseph Ratzinger prior to his elevation to the pontificate, told LifeSiteNews, “Neither the pope nor Bishop Sorondo can speak on a matter of science with any binding authority, so to use the word ‘magisterium’ in both cases is equivocal at best, and ignorant in any case.” Fr. Fessio added, “To equate a papal position on abortion with a position on global warming is worse than wrong; it is an embarrassment for the Church.”
I applaud the courage of senior church figures who have had the courage to speak out against this divisive encyclical. People like the North American Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, and Australia’s Cardinal Pell, church leaders with a track record of placing integrity before political convenience, who have publicly and repeatedly criticised the attempt to extend papal moral authority into deciding matters of science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Personally I think Mother Teresa was directly responsible for Global Warming. (seeing as how it practically stopped after her death in 1997) Perhaps this is why the present Poop is making her into a Saint?
The Poop wear funny hats too! Glad he has some sensible logical advisers who can follow the science, even if their logic does not extend to other matters.
The weirdest part to me is the swinging incense smoke around. Is he trying to cover up some other odor?
How do we know it wasn’t Princess Diana who caused global warming? Remember she died, or was killed, just before mother Teresa died. Some claim Prince Charles had her killed. Charles is a big anti-global warming guy. If Diana caused global warming, we might have a motive for Charles to have had her killed.
Make at least as much sense as blaming Mother Teresa.
The people who caused global warming are white conservative capitalistic Christians who like to drive their gas-guzzlers to klan meetings on Sunday afternoons.
We need a global socialist utopia to fix the mess that these racist greedy buck-toothed goobers caused. /sarc
@kramer – you do realize some people are going to take what you said as a real position and say even dumber things back don’t you?
The catholic church and its popes, bishops and priests have no moral or scientific authority. It would be far better for everyone if they spent their time purging catholic church deviants and pedophiles, as well as righting the significant wrongs committed by church princes against children everywhere.
I’m not sure.
But having your entrails cut out of you and thrown on a fire, might concentrate the mind.
Now try that when I’m armed with a loaded shotgun.
Totally agree….they could also go a long way to help those who live in poverty by selling the material wealth accumulated over the centuries. A useless bunch of hypocrites who do nothing for the betterment of mankind but they have the nerve to berate everyone else for not doing enough for the worlds poor.
Well lets see, just hitting the highlights; Henry VIII, French Revolution, Stalin, Hitler and many others have looted the church and killed countless religious rather enthusiastically. So you are in good company.
have looted the church
=================
and how did the church amass such wealth that it was a target to be looted? Why does the Church need to collect money from the poor?
reminds me of the protection racket run by organized crime. give us money each week or your business will burn down. organized religion; give us money each week or your soul will burn in Hell. where is the difference?
@ur momisugly Floyd Alsbach,
The catholic church did business with the Nazis during the war and aided their escape to South America via the Nazi rat line after the war. In fact, the church offered sanctuary to convicted Nazi war criminals well into the 1980s.
Most of that “material wealth” are things like church buildings, hospitals, and orphanages.
There are more public school teachers accused of abusing children annually than the total # of priests accused.
There are more public school teachers
=============
because there are 10 x more public school teachers than priests.
and unions fight to hide fact that as a % teachers abuse kids sexually more than priests did.
‘The existence of an evil cannot be justified by the demonstration of another or greater evil’ – Jeremy Bentham, sort of.
Amen!
The papacy claims moral authority, based upon their position. They cannot claim scientific authority. To be fair, Im not sure it does, but I haven~t been following this issue closely, assuming thie Bull is a home run for anti-papists.
I believe that the Church’s position on Scriptural infallibility versus is best summed up by the letter of Cardinal Bellarmino to Foscarini:
Is there a Biblical justification for the Catholic hierarchy, or even the existence of the Catholic Church?
Slywolfe on December 20, 2015 at 11:20 am
– – – – – – – –
Slywolfe,
And one can extend the idea behind your question to this question, ”Is there a corroborated Jesus teaching (not an interpretation of his teaching by individuals) to his followers which tells them to establish a church or a hierarchy within themselves?”.
John
We’re wandering away from the topic, towards an argument about religion. This will accomplish nothing or perhaps even less. Suffice it that Francis is not a scientist.
John, you already stated elsewhere that “faith is not relevant to what science demarcates as within science.”, so a discussion on faith is irrelevant here.
It’s relevant if anyone fonds it relevant, I say.
And I don’t give rat’s rear-end what “Science” demarcates as within science . . I grew up, and realized there is not a giant anybody, named Science, who has any authority or right to demarcate doodley squat, as far as I’m concerned . . It’s myth, perpetrated by the very same people and groups perpetrating this CAGW crap.
Grow up, I advise, and stop believing in Siants, the fictional character who wuvs truth and freedom of the mind ever so much . . . It’s totally unscientific to believe any such critter exists at all (it’s a form of occultism to believe in such collective “entities”), and watching this Global Warming BS ought to be telling the intelligent observer exactly that . . if they can manage to set aside their indoctrination, I say.
Answer: “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church…” Most take that to establish a Papacy based on the disciple Peter as the founder/ first pontiff, at least that’s what I remember (but I was raised Presbyterian, so I’m no expert.
Taylor,
“Answer: “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church…”
He’s speaking to Peter, so it makes no sense (to me) that he would say “on this rock”, to the person he is addressing. Before those words;
~ Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. ~
That right there is the “this rock” he is referring to; it seems rather obvious to me, his Father in heaven revealing who he (Jesus) is to people. Not built on a man (?) but on something far more solid and dependable; God informing people.
Peter actually meant ‘rock’, but of the throwing/rolling sort. The word written ‘rock’ there is not the same term, it’s one that meant truly solid/stable, as when we say something like “built on solid rock”.
The language use makes no sense if he meant the person he was speaking to, I say, but it makes perfect sense if he meant what he had just spoken of; how Peter came to know he was “the Christ, the son of the living God”.
The Popes are what is left over from the Roman Emperors of old. Their old power went from military force to religious force…So and so.
jorgekafkazar,
You look at topic that way. But I think the questions go to the authority of the church to act on behalf of the followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ. In that sense it is very relevant.
If there isn’t a Jesus teaching basis for vesting power of authority in anyone or in any hierarchy to represent the faithful in Jesus teachings, then the Pope statements on climate isn’t different than your or my statements on climate.
John
And the problem with your argument and that of Skywolfe’s is it depends on deductive reasoning and empirical evidence, neither of which is the domain of the Abrahamic religions.
The Pope holds sway among followers of Catholicism not because it makes objective sense, but because they have faith; in sociological terms it’s a “core belief’. It can’t be changed by argument so there’s really no point to the discussion.
Bartleby,
I think you misunderstood; you talk as if Skywolfe’s initial comment and my subsequent comments at him have as their subject either theology or theism or a religious faith. They don’t. We are talking about documentation of events and thoughts in the history of Christianity. Christianity has a history. History is a valid kind of systematic, corroboratory, circumspect study of the past; it is as much a contributory science as archeology or anthropology are.
The history of Christianity going back to historical documentation and independent corroboration of what Jesus actual taught directly to his followers is crucially relevant to the recent activities, positions and secular involvement in a recent history making controversy about Pope Francis.
NOTE TO Skywolfe – I hope I interpreted your comment correctly to be in a History of Christianity context and that is is not mainly in a theological or religious context.
John
John Whitman- “the Pope statements on climate isn’t different than your or my statements on climate.”
You don’t even have to bring Jesus into the matter at all. Encyclicals are papal letters widely circulated within the church. Catholics are advised to give them serious consideration. Encyclicals are not, however, documents of official church doctrine. Catholics are not bound to observe them.
Encyclicals are not pronouncements made ex cathedra (“from the chair”) regarding faith and morals, which is why they are not presented by the church as official teachings. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a liar or completely uninformed on the Catholic Church. You don’t have to take my word on this either. (My bold below)
***********
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2385/pope-francis'-climate-change-encyclical-not-binding-on-catholics
“Pope Francis’ encyclical on climate change should not be treated as official Catholic doctrine binding on all Catholics, but rather a personal position of the Pope, according to Father James Grant, Adjunct Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
“Many will see the Pope’s encyclical as the official position of the Church on the area of climate change. This is simply not the case,” says Father James.
“An encyclical is meant to provide spiritual guidance from the Pope on a particular subject, for bishops to then discuss with their faithful. In Catholic doctrine, it is completely acceptable for Catholics to disagree with the opinions of the Pope in an encyclical.”
“So while the encyclical will hold significant weight in the Catholic community, there is nothing new in the debate regarding encyclicals. Catholics can feel safe in being sceptical about the Pope’s opinions,” says Father James.
“While it is reasonable for the Pope to use his moral authority on issues such as the Trinity or the nature of God, it is altogether different if a Catholic disagrees with a Pope on his environmental views.”
************************************
And here’s a study done on Catholics and how much the Laudato Si affected their beliefs about climate change vs how a document from unnamed climate scientists affected their beliefs about climate change-
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FrancisEffectReport.pdf
Since Republicans/Conservatives are pretty much the hold outs on swallowing the AGW narrative completely, if the Laudato Si changed their minds significantly, it would indicate that the Pope’s letter was indeed a “game changer”. But it wasn’t:
******
“Catholic Republicans who read about Laudato Si were more likely to agree that human activities are responsible for climate change (37%) than those who received the alternative message (27%), and to agree that humans have a moral duty [to protect the environment] (77%) than those who read the story featuring generic climate experts (70%).”
“It is worth noting that differences were more modest (and statistically insignificant) when it came to agreeing that the U.S. government needs to take action: 33% among those who read about Laudato Si, and 30% among those who read the alternative message.”
********************
Simply put, the Pope’s statement on climate change only had a 10% impact (for WEEKLY, active church attendees) on the idea that humans are causing climate change, a 7% impact on the idea that humans have a moral duty to protect the environment, and only a 3% (and insignificant) impact on the idea that the US government should take action. Based on this evidence, the Pope’s statements really didn’t change anything.
– – – – – – –
Aphan,
I disagree. What the multiple Histories of Christianity corroborate about Jesus’ direct teachings to his following is the most relevant thing as to the credibility of Pope Francis in his position of leadership of the RCC at this moment in history. And I make a bet with you that is exactly the discussion going on within the cloisters of the RCC and even in protestant cloisters and meeting places.
John
“Aphan, I disagree. What the multiple Histories of Christianity corroborate about Jesus’ direct teachings to his following is the most relevant thing as to the credibility of Pope Francis in his position of leadership of the RCC at this moment in history. And I make a bet with you that is exactly the discussion going on within the cloisters of the RCC and even in protestant cloisters and meeting places.”
You can disagree with me all you like. But if you do not provide sound, logical premises that support your conclusions, then I can only view them as your personal opinions, which matter here as much as the Pope’s opinions do.
Whether the Pope’s position of leadership in the RCC at this moment in history is credible or not, he IS the leader of the RCC. Your arguments, no matter how logical you might be able to make them, or how relevant or irrelevant they might seem, will not change that fact in any way. And on the premises that 1) Jesus’s direct teachings to his followers do not include instructions on climate change, and 2) the RCC has not declared the Pope’s opinions on the matter to now be part of it’s official doctrine/canon/dogma-I conclude that it is highly IRRATIONAL to presume that A) there is ANY discussion going on anywhere about it, much less B) that this “exact discussion” is “going on within the cloisters or the RCC and even the protestant cloisters and meeting places.”
And I’ll bet based on mathematical probabilities and your continued misrepresentation of modern religious organizations, that you can’t provide empirical evidence to the contrary.
Thank you Aphan December 20, 2015 at 4:03 pm–that was very informative and somehting I knew nothing about before–and I was raised Chatholic!
John Whitman-
“The history of Christianity going back to historical documentation and independent corroboration of what Jesus actual taught directly to his followers is crucially relevant to the recent activities, positions and secular involvement in a recent history making controversy about Pope Francis.”
Exactly HOW is it “crucially” relevant? Upon what premises are you basing that conclusion? What thought process leads you to declare that?
He guys and girls, get a grip: We are mostly all brothers on this site, determined to bring the truth into public view on the political mantra of global warming and climate alarmism; rising sea levels, extreme weather et al.
We do this by speaking up, whatever the risk, and having our comments published in reputable newspapers based on the wealth of scientific published comment and observation on this ‘gold mine’ WUWT
Pernicious comments against the Catholic Church and Cardinal George Pell (which have been adequately answered below, especially unsubstantiated accusations of him using a word that would be utterly unbecoming and out of character) add nothing to the scientific debate.
However, two points for the record regarding the magisterium of the Apostic Universal Catholic Church and the Pope:
First in answer to Slywolf:
Matthew 16 – 13-20: And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? [14] But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. [15] Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20]
As to the Pope’s “infallibility” which should not be confused with “impeccability”
A true Pope (not an antipope or heretic claiming to be the Pope), when speaking on a matter of faith or morals (not economics or science) to the universal Church (not a letter to a friend) is guided by the Holy Spirit. It is then said that he speaks EX CATHEDRA, but only when:
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.
There is then, no reason why Catholics may not debate or contradict Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato si
Equally, there is no reason to engage here in condemnation of him or the Church, however we might disagree with his and his advisers opinions or Church theology. “Just the facts man, just the facts”>
there is no reason to engage here in condemnation of him or the Church
=========
we condemn neither the Man nor the Church. We condemn their actions.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Aphan quotes the Book, but he stops at a point (20) that might make it seem Jesus was declaring Peter was to Him all that and the cat’s meow ; )
~
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
~
No one asked (as far as I can see), about the actual man Peter’s role in the early Church, but rather about some guy in Rome, hundreds (or thousands) of years later, presenting himself as some kind of inheritor of a supposed ongoing special Authority to speak for God. I am aware of no such Authority being spoken of in the Book, in regard to any particular name/place/group . . other than Christ Himself of course.
Oops, that should say … Kevin quotes …”. I was preparing a response for Aphan, and switched without realizing I had not switched names.
Dear Slywolfe,
Yes. It’s extremely easy to show from the Bible the justification for both the Catholic hierarchy and the existence of the Catholic Church but to cut a long story short can you show me where it says in the Bible that we can only look in the Bible to find out what Jesus taught?
As to the origins of the Catholic Church there are as many different versions put about by Protestant apologists as there are divisions within Protestantism. Some say it started at the time of Constantine but then they come up against the written evidence for adherence among Christians to Catholic doctrines (like the real presence) long before Constantine. Ever read the Didache? John Henry Newman (an English Anglican who converted to Catholicism) famously said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”
Kevin,
The persecuted Early Church (to c. AD 350) was nothing like the Catholic Church that developed later, after Christianity became the official state religion and took over the Roman Imperial organizational system. Even after that time, various other heretical forms of Christianity continued to flourish until wiped out by the state-sponsored (Nicean) Roman and Orthodox Catholic Churches. The Germanic barbarian invaders–Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, etc.–were for instance adherents of the Christian heretic Arius.
My bad. Should have said AD 380:
On February 27, 380, the Roman Empire officially adopted the Trinitarian version of Christianity as the state church of the Roman Empire. Prior to this date, Constantius II (337-361) and Valens (364-378) had personally favored Arian or Semi-Arian forms of Christianity, but Valens’ successor Theodosius I supported the Trinitarian doctrine as expounded in the Nicene Creed from the 1st Council of Nicea.
@Gloateus Maximus (December 21, 2015 at 6:26 am)
Your remarks about Christianity becoming the official state religion and taking over the Roman Imperial organizational system are irrelevant in the present context.
Western (or Roman) Catholic Christianity started under Pope Leo I (r.440-461) when he turned his back to Constantinople after the Council of Chalcedon (451). At the time, the Western Roman Empire was collapsing. There was no functioning “Roman Imperial organizational system” left. The Roman Church had nothing that could be called an organizational system until the beginning of Modern Times (the 15th century). It had the Canon Law (the codification of which was indeed inspired by the discovery the Law Books of the sixth-century emperor Justinianus) from the early eleventh century, but the Canon Law was nowhere the law of the land: it was the law of the Church.
Roman Catholicism was not a “state religion” anywhere outside the Papal States (founded in the 8th and dissolved in the nineteenth century) in some regions of central Italy, where the popes had temporal as well as spiritual jurisdiction.
For about a millennium, the Roman Catholic Church thrived in an environment where there were no states. Unlike the earlier Roman emperors and the later absolute kings of the sixteenth century, medieval emperors, kings, dukes, counts, etc. lacked the powers that make a state: legislation and taxation not sanctioned by local customary law, standing armies and police forces and prisons. The Church condemned the use of such powers (and did not have or seek them). Roman Catholicism was, if anything, an anti-state religion.
The modern notion of state religion dates back to the Peace of Augsburg (1555) between the German Catholic and Lutheran princes, where it was agreed that the ruler of the land had the authority to determine the religion of his land (“Cuius regio, eius religio”).
The Roman Church was the main victim of the rise of the state under Royal Absolutism. Even where Catholicism was declared the “official religion”, the Church lost her spiritual and moral authority over the rulers. The process was completed in 1916, when the attempts of Pope Benedict XV to resolve the conflict known as World War I by peace negotiations were simply ignored by all the belligerents (all of whom were nominally Christians).
Before Pope Leo I, all the Christian Churches were “Catholic”. There was no need to distinguish between the Catholicism of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem. The distinctive mark of the Roman Church was that it held out longer than any other Christian Church against the cult of political power (which is arguably the dominant public religion today). In the West, it was Luther who made religion a “private affair” and left the public sphere entirely to the opportunism of power seekers.
It is true that the “Germanic barbarian invaders – Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, etc. – were adherents of the Christian heretic Arius”. However, it is not true that Arianism was “wiped out by the state-sponsored (Nicean) Roman Church”. In the West, Arianism disappeared after the death of the mighty Visigoth king Theodoric I in 451. He was for all practical purposes the Emperor of the West, although he never claimed the title. He was indeed a follower of Arius, but he thought political power was more important than religious doctrine and realized that to rule Italy and the south of France he had to defer to the Catholic convictions of his subjects. Apparently, his own followers were more attached to his person than to his religion.
The Catholic Church has been around since the Last Supper. Saint Peter, was the first Bishop of Rome. Until the 11th Century, there was just one Holy and Apostolic Church. When Byzantium broke away, there were 2 Christian Churches. And everyone knows what happened in the 16th Century. However, the RCC is the only church with an unbroken 2000 year history.
That’s not true.
The Eastern Orthodox Churches are even older than the Roman church. Syriac Orthodox liturgy is in Aramaic, the language of Jesus.
Until the Roman Catholic Church became the state religion of the Roman Empire and tried to impose its doctrines and declare others heretical, there were various competing Christian theologies and organizations, which did not recognize any special authority for the Bishop of Rome.
Please don’t let your anti-warming convictions dupe you into supporting Cardinal Pell. His conduct in relation to the sexual abuse of children has been inexcusable, and his reign as head of the Catholic Church in Australia was largely one of expediency, with drastic measures applied to those who strayed out of line. ‘Integrity’ and ‘Pell’ really don’t belong in the same sentence.
I’d endorse your sentiment with a “falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus” were it not for my hard-won understanding that “even a stopped clock can be right twice every twenty-four hours.”
I wouldn’t cite Pell as an authoritative support except insofar as he speaks on the magisterium of the pontificate, in which area he qualifies as an expert.
With this in mind, upon what subject was he speaking when he joined other senior members of the Roman Catholic clergy to criticize”…the attempt to extend papal moral authority into deciding matters of science”?
Not relevant to this thread, strictly ad hominem.
”Many dogs surround me”.
The consistent and unremitting attack on Pell’s character and motives can be slated back to his willingness to actually address real problems in the CC, such as pedophilia, global warming millennium type hysteria and, of course, Curial dysfunction especially with finances.
He was the first to address pedophilia in the CC in a formal way in Australia and the world, setting up a commission to attempt to right the wrongs of the CC.
This is to his great credit.
His conduct then can be judged, while everyone else, politicians included,who did nothing,are not to be judged by their omission.
The attacks come from the usual quarters and turn on his alleged indifference to suffering of victims of the CC.
These are amplified by the usual suspects, the ABC, Fairfax press and, of course, the Guardian, banner holders of the Green Crusade to purify everything that is sullied by fossil fuels.
My own view of him is observational.
While here in Sydney he was front and centre supporting street people and the homeless.
He mixed easily with people of ‘all walks of life’ on the streets and defined as ‘homeless’, those with ‘no fixed address’, explaining the dichotomy between the official homeless figures and those on the streets raised in the recent piece by Eric on the ‘arts grant’ to the Sydney Uni drama group.
Many have major personality disorders, the whole raft of mental illness and other disabilities.
He is completely at home with them.
Reading the reports on him, especially in Fairfax,its like looking at an obsolescent GCM built on some thought construct and promoted as true narrative, enhanced by click bait and bile.
‘His conduct in relation to the sexual abuse of children has been inexcusable,’
Jon Jermey
December 20, 2015 at 11:25 am’
Not true from personal observation.
His ‘mistake’ was to roll up his sleeves and address the problem of pedophilia.
That’s why I don’t knock him.
The Melbourne Response also capped the compensation to the victims of pedophilia to the then cap set in Victoria under their State ‘criminal justice system’, which seemed very fair.
From memory it was $50000.
Even today the Commonwealth will only pay out $10000 for such crimes as criminal compensation.
The Melbourne Response was well ahead.
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/0441a513-668e-4e0d-a5e0-fe983e3453fe/32-Victorian-Aboriginal-Legal-Service
One of the reasons that Pell has had so much hammering like a soft target, is his decision not to have his accusers cross examined in the Royal Commission.
They were free to make allegations without examination.
For good or ill, as cross examination is most stressful and brings out mental illness caused by post traumatic stress.If the examined were abused as proven,then this would harm them further.
However this decision has changed.
His accusers will be cross examined.
As Neville Wran was won’t to say in as many words ‘They will have their day in court’.
But in parallel,’ Although he was exonerated, he lamented: ”Some of the mud will eventually stick” ‘.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/neville-wran-praise-controversy-and-balmain-boys-dont-cry-quote-marked-time-in-office-20140420-zqx46.html#ixzz3uv88NHuJ
From Wikipedia;
Melbourne Response and Towards Healing protocols
Under Pell’s leadership, the Melbourne Respone and the Towards Healing protocols were established in Australia to respond to allegations of child abuse.[21] Three months after being installed as Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the Melbourne Response. The Melbourne Response was set up to be an independent process, which offered counselling and support to victims at no cost to them, as well as ex gratia compensation (payments made without the church recognising any liability or legal obligation) to victims. Ex gratia payments were capped, but victims were publicly encouraged to come forward. Soon after, the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference established Towards Healing.
Yes you would have to say Pell is an interesting man. While I don’t agree with his views on AGW he is certainly a man who respects those who care for their fellow man. Rates Obama highly and is very keen on social issues. Personally I think his stand against pedophiles in the church has been commendable. That whole thing is a minefield for the church and he seems to have done his best to navigate through it with a sincere hope to put things right.
Jon Jermey, your comments re Cdl Pell are factually false, as has been attested publicly many times. [If anyone is interested, my opinion is that the ‘Get Pell’ movement is a proxy war between Progressives’ and the Orthodox, mainly, but not exclusively in the churches, and the wider Australian society.] These false claims are damaging to the credibility of correspondents here – that they are happy to offer such tripe. Opinions are free, facts must be adhered to.
I may be wrong, but as far as I understand it, there is no head of the catholic church of Australia. It is simply not how the catholic church is structured or operates. My understanding is that each bishop has only the pope as his superior. Cardinal Pell has been in charge of important arch dioceses for sure, but I don’t believe that his authority has ever extended further than those arch dioceses. Being appointed a cardinal is prestigious and important to be sure, but it doesn’t make you in charge of the other bishops or anything like that.
I don’t know how it works in Australia, but in the United States, cardinals are the superiors of bishops & bishops report to them.
papal warming
As the sun spins slowly around the earth, somewhere Galileo is smiling.
ROFL, brilliant.
Nothing slow about it, the Earth’s orbital radius is 149.6 MMKm, thus, 939.965 MMKm to travel in 24 hrs. Some 29.8 kilometers per second.
Not 24 hrs. but 1 year. The speed is 29.81 Km/sec.
Let me see. Galileo lived from 1564 to 1642. 1642 is 373 years ago. As you can’t find anything to point to in the last 373 years that says quite a lot.
Alba,
I can think of lots of things the Catholic Church has gotten wrong since 1632. You really can’t?
Consider for instance the 19th century papal encyclicals against freedom and democracy:
http://counterenlightenment.blogspot.cl/2011/02/papal-encyclicals-of-nineteenth-century.html
And of course, the Church’s support for slavery long after the 17th century:
http://counterenlightenment.blogspot.cl/2011/02/papal-encyclicals-of-nineteenth-century.html
Before their 18th century suppression in Spain, Jesuits did however try to protect missionized South American Indians from the enslavement practiced by their Portuguese neighbors with the approval of Rome.
As CAGW further unravels, Laudato Si will be a growing burden on the modern Catholic Church.
I have been following the Vatican political scene because I see the pope as a far left and confused individual with a net negative impact given his tendency to support dictatorship and human rights abuses. I don’t like to link the mostly political material I write, but what the heck here it goes
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2015/09/the-pope-and-dictator-dinasty.html
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2015/09/pope-francis-and-catholic-theology.html
And my abridged version of Laudato Si is here
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2015/06/my-readers-digest-version-of-pope.html
” Australia’s Cardinal Pell, church leaders with a track record of placing integrity before political convenience ”
A very poor example. The truth is quite the opposite.
“Cardinal George Pell was overheard in the 1980s discussing the sexual abuse of boys at the hands of convicted paedophile Gerald Ridsdale, a royal commission has been told.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-07/cardinal-george-pells-lawyer-questions-abuse-victims-testimony/7006512
Mr Tony, circulating allegations with your support does your credibility no good. Pell is being attacked because he is orthodox, and has been identified by Progressives as an effective leader. You seem blinded by emotion, or hoodwinked by the popular media.
This is what is known a “hearsay” evidence, and is generally inadmissible. The question that should be answered is what should be done about sexual abuse. Those in the anti-church stance argue for the conviction and punishment of offenders, but (seemingly) care little for the rehabilitation of victims; those in the pro-church stance argue for the rehabilitation of, and restitution to, victims, and the transfer of offenders, so far as possible (not always well done), to a position where offences will not recur. Remember that the Roman Church has always been more concerned about the moral lapse and its rectification than the temporal authority’s efforts at criminal punishment. Suggest one reads the Wikipaedia article on “Benefit of the Clergy”, noting the different views of ecclesiastical and temporal courts on appropriate punishment. The Benefit was not abolished in the UK until 1823, in the US federally in 1790, but may be still available some states in law but “fallen into disuse without formal abolition”.
It’s already too late. The majority of Catholics and many others believe that the Pope would not mislead them. This is now a matter of belief and not science.
How this will play-out in the U.S. 2016 election remains to be seen. Can candidates be seen to contradict the Pope?
Climate change activists have been involved with U.S.Catholic affiliated organizations for many years now.
December 2015-Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, while strongly supporting the Pope’s ecology encyclical on the call for climate control, told the National Catholic Register that the Pope was “not claiming any dogmatic position” or proclaiming “an article of faith.”
If his position on GW is not a dogmatic position, nor an article of faith, then Catholics are free to accept it or reject it or simply view it as the Pope’s opinion.
So, what evidence do you have that demonstrates conclusively what “the majority of Catholics and many others believe” regarding the Pope’s opinions generally, and regarding his position on global warming specifically?
If they read the Bible..the answer is already there. Revelation (!) 16:8 says :
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
I’m going back to read the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It’s more insightful on matters of veiled alliances and hope in the face of determined foes of fact-based living. Marching over the fact finders is the daily transgression that reveals them.
Awesome. I’ve read it 18 times, and I plan to get back to it again next year.
Who will nail the complaints on the church doors?
This is an important and serious matter which is not helped by the trolls.
Many well-meaning religious leaders absolutely believe that they are on the right side of the scientific arguments. The UN, the PAS, APS, RS etc all say that they are. Overwhelmingly the establishment press and science bodies have advised the Vatican that the science favors the AGW argument.
Who is making the counter arguments?
We are. Alone with our happy few we are trying to speak reason in a storm of propaganda.
What the Vatican advises is based on a mountain of lies perpetrated by some very bad men who should know better. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Hanson, Gore etc.
I am not losing site of the objective and I fault this latest assault on the AGW battle on me, and mine and those like me for not making the case for science.
What are you going to do about it? You personally? What sacrifices are you prepared to make to defy the tidal wave of propaganda coming from the UN et al?
I at least use my own name and daily make the case of reason at my peril. I have the courage of my conviction. The targets are the bad scientists and their fraudulent works.
I know I’ve mentioned before on this site that my sister; my older sister; my vampiric older sister was once a nun. Or, shall I say, a nun in training. Now, while in the convent; in training; the young women who sort of chose to be nuns (such as my sister, my older sister) had a little jingle. And, here it is. And I’m not making this up. Ready?
‘When you’re old
and feeling blue
And there are no boys
left for you
Join the convent
And see the world!
Yes, believe it or not the human spirit, and sense of humor, had not yet been fully repressed in those young women. And, every time our dear Francis opens his mouth to take us down the road of privation, deprivation, poverty, menial work, and self imposed hardship, the words of that little jingle snap back in my mind to remind me that human self determination, will, and mockery are powerful characteristics of our being.
When you’re old
and starting to feel blue
Make damn sure that Francis
doesn’t screw you
That should teach the Pope not to meddle in earthly problems – it is much safer for him only to talk of matters “not of this Earth”.
Not being a catholic, don’t know much about lover echelons of the Pope’s army.
“The {Christ} child” (or in Spanish El Nino) is climactic phenomenon that occurs generally every 3 to 5 years at Christmas time in which the wind direction changes in the Pacific and ocean waters are unusually warm affecting weather patterns worldwide.
Since Christmas is approaching and we celebrate birth of the Christ child, I did a little experiment on the lines sun-earth-elNino-global temperature.
As the sun shines on this ‘blessed planet’ its rotation varies following the beat of the life giving star. The planet’s global temperature and its ‘Christ child’ climactic phenomenon follow these celestial events.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGN.htm
best wishes for Xmas & HNY to all
Bad spelling error, should be “lower”
The moral authority of the church is ruined. Who is to believe anything this pope proclaims is righteous and true unless the pope repents publically of his position on unsettled science backed by political and emotional followers who have made climate change into a religion? This pope is an anti-Christ because he has sided with enemies of truth. Alas, with his proclamation, we have returned to the era of Galileo and Copernicus.
I thought it was supposed to be the Church of Rome, not Argentina.
Start your climate change refugee application now based on being a victim of policy over reach and continuous policy threats. The first habitable planets are bound to listen.
The Church of Rome has no scientific authority whatsoever.
I am beginning to think that, it has abrogated much of its moral authority, ethics gone out of the window. It was no business of any church leader to join in this immorality, MMCO₂≠warming, it was a man made fiction based on lies, myth making and Mann’s witchcraft.
If they want to redistribute the wealth of nations, then defrock, let them throw off their robes and join in with the venality of politics and the Democrat party.
This new pope is a socialist from South America..nuff said……
True.
Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, and Australia’s Cardinal Pell, are church leaders of integrity and knowledge, who are on the side of the Angels. They will have to do a lot of work to convert some members of the Catholic Church back to Christianity, after their conversion to the Green Faith of CAGW.
The average layperson sitting in the pew does not really think about the Pope and his views on climate or economics. (especially the American layperson) And that is a good thing.
But if I could have a moment with the Pope I would point out two things:
1) Clouds.
The Pope should be praying for more clouds if he is worried that God will not protect the earth from burning up.
2) Pope, please read Randy England’s book on why all Catholics must be libertarian to follow what the Church itself has taught for 2000 years. See: http://www.amazon.com/Free-Beautiful-Catholics-Should-Libertarian/dp/1475130961/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 and READ IT pontiff. Or see his site: http://freeisbeautiful.net/
The big question is why the church spends so much time supporting various governments when the governments are mankind’s natural enemy.
why the church spends so much time supporting various governments
============================
so that governments won’t loot the church’s wealth.
You’re just trying to crank me up, right ?
God has determined that the weather of 1820 is ideal for the minions.
I was lucky enough to work outside for 20 years of Chicago weather.
A weather geeks dream, I experienced everything.
Bilge.
When a Jesuit – particularly a high-ranking member of the Society of Jesus – utters a prominent policy statement like Laudato Si without intensely skeptical fact-checking to ensure that the sources upon which he’s relying for support are, in actuality, unimpeachably valid, nobody with experience of the Jesuits as instructors is ever going to believe that such an action had been undertaken without premeditated and arguably nefarious purpose.
Let’s put it another way: if someone like me – a mere family doctor – could figure out that the “We’re All Gonna Die!” hysterical climate catastrophe crapfest was utterly bereft of evidentiary support when first it had been drawn to my attention in 1981, than the pontiff (who has the ability to summon any scientific resources he wishes to request or require) has at least as much reasoning capacity and a great deal more incentive to bullet-proof his grounds for discerning this proposition’s preposterous bogosity, and either speaking against it or (for political purposes) holding his peace.
We’ve got us a Conan Doyle-ian “curious incident of the dog in the night-time” business here, the same I must rise to declaim.
“How about some fact checking by you. Every National Science Academy concludes dangerous AGW.”
Check out the unprofessional way the latest position statements from the AGU and the APS were engineered and extrapolate–that’s what’s created the NSA consensus. It’s as phony as the 97% consensus.
Rules,
The statements by scientific societies aren’t put to a vote of the membership. They are ginned up by the often nonscientific leadership because they know on which side the bread is buttered.
rogerknights
The AGU and APS are Scientific professional societies, not National Science Academies.
Succumbing not only to argument from inappropriate authority but also argumentum ad hominem (“attacking the man” while evading the substance of the position articulated), Social Justice Warrior ScienceRules irrelevants:
First and foremost, let us remind this arrant idiot of the old saw about how one does not have to be a laying hen to tell when an egg is rotten. Anyone familiar with scientific method is qualified to tell when said method is not being followed in an allegedly scientific investigative process. Moreover, who better than a medical doctor – against whom the pharmaceuticals marketers perpetrate endless deviations from sound science in order to peddle their products – to speak on “research” which does not pass the sniff test?
Not to mention the fact that we deal with the error-compounding effects of instrumental inaccuracies in diagnostic testing every bloody – hm; perhaps a bit too literal there? – day of our educational and professional lives.
Second, given the history of Bergoglio’s (and, perhaps more importantly, that of Chancellor Sorondo, who controls the Pontifical Academy of Sciences upon which Bergoglio predicates the ostensible “scientific” validity of the anthropogenic global warming premise) refusal even to give hearing to qualified expert witnesses and questioners who approach this preposterous conjecture with properly methodological skepticism, there is absolutely no argument to be made that the Vatican’s “Academy” is any less corrupted by political predisposition than is every other “National Science Academy” dependent for funding, prestige, and primacy upon career politicians, bureaucrats, and other professional liars, thieves, and extortionists.
To recapitulate the observations and conclusions of an earlier poster (S.H.A. Prodi, at 2:32 PM on 20 December) with regard to the factionalism within the Roman Catholic Church, dividing traditionalists from “progressives” (which latter term has a pointedly adverse meaning in clinical oncology, denoting as it does a malignant disease process which has shown either resistance or recrudescence after the full implementation of treatment according to best therapeutic practices):
Tucci78,
You hit nail on head. Jesuits know the structure of arguments inside and out. When this Pope and his inner circle chose to ignore the valid and well documented skeptics, it was a deliberate choice to pick sides in advance. To invite people like Klein- a non-scientist- and other anti-Catholic secular radicals to teach the Vatican on climate while ignoring non-leftist scientists who disagree demonstrates an intention that is much less than transparent.
Tucvi78
Neither you nor roger knights are paying attention. I said nothing about professional societies, I said that all the world’s National Science Academies conclude AGW, without exception. Do you know the difference? And do you dispute that fact?
Yammers ScienceRules:
And I responded with the observation that you’re perpetrating argument from inappropriate (indeed, corrupted) authority. Do you dispute your fallacy?
The FACT that any or all scientific organizations put forth statements regarding AGW, has zero bearing on whether or not what is said in those statements is FACTUAL. You know the difference….right?
There is only ONE “National Academy of Science” btw.