Climate Change and the coming Encyclical

Guest essay by Joe Ronan

pope-francisToday we see another set of meetings in Rome. One is that of the Pontifical Academy of Science, and the other the Heartland Institute. Both organisations are hoping to influence the widely heralded Encyclical from Pope Francis that will include references to climate change. Given that the text of the Encyclical has already been finalised, and is currently being translated, there may not be much that either party can do to affect it’s content. The headlines they are making will be building up expectations on both sides, and it’s worth having a closer look at the background to an encyclical.

What is an Encyclical?

Simply put, it is a circular letter written by the Pope to the Church which forms a part of the Ordinary Magisterium or teaching of the Church. It is not a formal statement of the type that is regarded as infallible doctrine, as it usually deals with moral guidance and the application of existing doctrine to current matters. In the past encyclicals have dealt with such subjects as war and social issues of all types.

What will this one cover?

Despite the emphasis being put on climate change in the press, it’s unlikely that the central part of the document will concern itself with just that subject. Rather it will treat that as one factor among many in what Pope Benedict XVI called ‘human ecology’, a term that Pope Francis has adopted enthusiastically. It will touch on many aspects of life for the poor and vulnerable, including the misuse of economic power and the many injustices that man visits upon man in our world.

Is the Pope endorsing a particular view of climate change?

In the coming encyclical, the indications are that it will certainly include some discussion on how to react to the planet’s continually changing climate. On this issue, (as a non-scientist with some technical training) he will be largely dependent on the advice of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which has made a number of statements on this topic.

The PAS is in turn dependent on interpreting the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5) which was completed in 2014 and is a wide ranging review of the known science and data on the subject.

So the starting point will be a largely accepted position that the climate has warmed and that at least half of this change is very likely due to man’s actions. *

Is the Church making pronouncements on Science?

The Church is accepting the judgements of it’s scientific advisers. There is of course precedent for the scientific consensus to be wrong, and the Pope seems to be well aware of this as he mentioned in a press conference on his flight back from the visit to Korea in August 2014;

“But now there is a rather difficult problem, because, up to a certain point, one can speak with some assurance about safeguarding creation and ecology, including human ecology. But there are also scientific hypotheses [to be taken into account], some of them quite solid, others not. In this kind of encyclical, which has to be magisterial, one can only build on solid data, on things that are reliable. If the Pope says that the earth is the centre of the universe, and not the sun, he errs, since he is affirming something that ought to be supported by science, and this will not do. That’s where we are at now. We have to study the document, number by number, and I believe it will become smaller. But to get to the heart of the matter and to what can be safely stated. You can say in a footnote: “On this or that question there are the following hypotheses…”, as a way of offering information, but you cannot do that in the body of encyclical, which is doctrinal and has to be sound.

So there is clear recognition here that anything that depends upon hypothesis is unlikely to make it into the main body of the document.

If so, do Catholics have to believe everything he says?

The encyclical will have the status of the ordinary teaching authority of the magisterium, so is not lightly put aside. This works both ways of course; one of the reasons that Pope Francis makes the comment quoted above is that he is conscious that what is written needs to be correct, and will have gone to some trouble to identify those issues which are subject to change and interpretation.

A great problem is that many people form an opinion on a document or an issue based on press reports, or other third party interpretations. These can be very selective in nature, and often ‘spin’ the substance of the document in very creative ways. There is no substitute for reading a document in it’s entirety and understanding the full case that it puts. A Catholic has a duty to fully inform his or her conscience about what the Church teaches, and then (and only then) act according to their conscience or ‘moral compass’. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (892) and Lumen Gentium (para 25) make it clear that the full documents have to be considered in their context and character and reference that to other speeches and writings in order to fully inform themselves. A good example is that of Humanae Vitae, the encyclical that dealt with contraception. There are many people who say they disagree with it; considerably fewer who have actually read it!

Is this science, religion or politics? Is the Pope calling for specific policies or changes in behaviour from Catholics?

The Pope has made it clear that one of his great concerns is the welfare of all humanity, and particularly the poor and vulnerable. The encyclical will no doubt deal with many aspects of human behaviour with respect to dealings with our neighbours and with the environment and so will impact on all areas of our thinking and behaviour, including in the areas of science, politics and religion. This teaching will likely give particular moral guidance, but will not deal with the specifics of policy or attempt to ‘take a side’ with respect to political systems. It will require a Catholic to consider the teaching, and to apply that in an informed way to their decisions and actions in their everyday life, including in the political sphere.

Is this going to cause controversy and division in the Church?

It is certain that in the days after publication there will be many words spoken and written across a wide range of commentators that will highlight particular lines, phrases, or even short sets of words, that will be set up to indicate that the Pope and the Church advocate this or that policy, or political system, or stance on other matters. This will in turn lead to counter pieces, refutations, re-analysis and re-interpretation ad infinitum particularly since many groups have specifically stated that they are looking for the Holy Father to produce a document that will strengthen their particular world view.

This is all good. The whole point of an encyclical to engage in teaching and to spark debate; to encourage thinking deeply into an issue and to question ourselves and our own actions. It is very easy to look at such a document in terms of how it supports a particular political viewpoint. But Popes generally, and Pope Francis in particular have a habit of ploughing their own furrow, and not being aligned with a particular way of doing things. Rather they look to inform each of us individually as to how to live our lives, and govern our own actions in the light of Church teaching. We, each of us individually, are asked to read and understand the teachings as they apply to us, not as we think they apply to others.

Personally, I expect that what is written will be fully in accord with, for instance, the concerns highlighted here recently on the way poverty stricken people are denied access to life saving energy sources.

One thing is certain, the coming encyclical will contain a lot of surprises to people at all points on the political spectrum. And it will challenge us all to look again at how, in a practical way, we love our neighbour.

*Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-AR4, vol 1, page 10): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”


Joe Ronan  is a Catholic with a science background in analytical chemistry. He resides in the UK.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
162 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HankHenry
April 28, 2015 9:28 am

Maybe he’ll have something to say about Islam.

Paul
Reply to  HankHenry
April 29, 2015 4:12 am

he has , it is a peaceful religion

Charlie
April 28, 2015 9:30 am

Who else in history used the catholic church to endorse a political scam?
can anybody help me out here? it’s amazing the blindness to blatant propaganda tactics. how many hard line environmentalists do you know that are catholic hierarchy fans? i thought this was all about science.

A C Osborn
April 28, 2015 9:32 am

THe Pope is definitely NOT starting a Debate about AGW, in fact they refuse to allow it at all.
see
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04/28/climate-depot-round-up-vatican-uns-shut-down-of-dissent-is-widespread-in-climate-debate/

Newsel
Reply to  A C Osborn
April 28, 2015 9:49 am

Thx for the link…

Newsel
April 28, 2015 9:41 am

From today’s NYT:
“In the United States the encyclical will be accompanied by a 12 week campaign to raise the issue…in sermons…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/world/europe/pope-francis-steps-up-campaign-on-climate-change-to-conservatives-alarm.html?ref=todayspaper

Resourceguy
Reply to  Newsel
April 28, 2015 9:46 am

That will teach them.

richard
April 28, 2015 10:08 am

they can huff and they can puff but they will never blow skepticism down.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
April 28, 2015 10:09 am

Galileo.
“Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, a time when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[9] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books and forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism. Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII, thus alienating not only the Pope but also the Jesuits, both of whom had supported Galileo up until this point.[9] He was tried by the Holy Office, then found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, was forced to recant, and spent the last nine years of his life under house arrest. It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences, in which he summarised the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.” From Wikipedia.
The Vatican and its Pope see the UN and its IPCC as placing Man at the center of the Universe. This give rise to the new politic-science of Homocentrism, with Man at the center of the Universe and God, the Vatican’s God, at the center of Man, a return to ancient Doctrine and placing the Vatican back in charge, governor and owner of all human affairs and artifacts.
Where for out thou the “carbon tax” and what will you become in the hands of the Vatican’s Pope!?

April 28, 2015 10:14 am

The last time people felt confused by the changing weather as the Medieval Climate Optimum descended into the Little Ice Age, in 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal bull decrying witchcraft and blamed the stressful highly variable extreme weather on witches opening the way for systemised persecution of witches.
Will history repeat itself?

Resourceguy
Reply to  jim Steele
April 28, 2015 10:24 am

Interesting….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_VIII
On the request of German inquisitor Heinrich Kramer, Innocent VIII issued the papal bull Summis desiderantes (5 December 1484), which supported Kramer’s investigations against magicians and witches:
“It has recently come to our ears, not without great pain to us, that in some parts of upper Germany, […] Mainz, Köln, Trier, Salzburg, and Bremen, many persons of both sexes, heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the catholic faith, give themselves over to devils male and female, and by their incantations, charms, and conjurings, and by other abominable superstitions and sortileges, offences, crimes, and misdeeds, ruin and cause to perish the offspring of women, the foal of animals, the products of the earth, the grapes of vines, and the fruits of trees, as well as men and women, cattle and flocks and herds and animals of every kind, vineyards also and orchards, meadows, pastures, harvests, grains and other fruits of the earth; that they afflict and torture with dire pains and anguish, both internal and external, these men, women, cattle, flocks, herds, and animals, and hinder men from begetting […]”[6]
Kramer would later write the polemic Malleus Maleficarum in 1486, which stated that witchcraft was to blame for bad weather. These remarks are included in Part 2, Chapter XV, which is entitled: “How they Raise and Stir up Hailstorms and Tempests, and Cause Lightning to Blast both Men and Beasts”:[7][8]

Resourceguy
Reply to  jim Steele
April 28, 2015 10:28 am

Translation: Stay indoors and silent ye climate deniers, lest the Australian pseudo scientists shall condemn ye.

bushbunny
Reply to  Resourceguy
April 28, 2015 7:24 pm

Well they have the poohs right now, since Dr Bjorn Lomborg is setting up a think tank on climate change and the AGW nonsense at the WA university. Financed by big oil and also the Australian government. Good on Minister Pine.

April 28, 2015 10:17 am

If “Encyclical” is deemed in any way authoritative, in any way or to any extent coercive of belief, then it is just another term for “fatwa”, and just as much an abomination for thinking people to reject out of hand. No church has true dominion over a man’s thoughts; no church is true if it coerces, in any way, belief in it. If Catholics believe the Pope has any special authority over them, they are fearful children, not competent adults. True religions teach that it is all between the individual and God–a “personal relationship with God”. Dogma (whose handmaiden is fear) is ascendant over good reason now, on many fronts, but in the end it can only reveal dogma to be a fool’s desperate gambit to escape responsibility for his/her own thoughts and actions.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman)
April 30, 2015 4:51 am

Harryd
A Fatwa, as I understand it, is a judgement which is not at all like an encyclical. A fatwa can be issued ‘against someone’. If it is a licence to kill, murder normally being a crime, then is it an indulgence as well. In the absence of a central authority, a fatwa can be issued by all sorts of people ‘with recognised authority’ and the followers of that issuer take it as law. Others may not. It is a recent word.
Fatwa | Definition of fatwa by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fatwa
Definition of FATWA: a legal opinion or decree handed down by an Islamic religious leader . Origin of FATWA. Arabic fatwā. First Known Use: circa 1889.

April 28, 2015 10:21 am

Dr. Michael Crichton:
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment…

[source]

DirkH
Reply to  dbstealey
April 28, 2015 11:30 am

Plato suggested in The Republic to create a Gaia religion for the prole class so they would enjoy working the land more.
Venetian/Byzantine technique: Religion as a tool of the Total State, religious leader subservient to emperor.

trafamadore
April 28, 2015 10:25 am

” …meetings in Rome: Pontifical Academy of Science, and the other the Heartland Institute.”
The pope will be at one and not the other.

LeeHarvey
April 28, 2015 10:36 am

Is an Encyclical anything like an epicycle? Because I seem to recall epicycles having been one of the results of the Catholic Church’s previous forays into popular science.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  LeeHarvey
April 28, 2015 11:17 am

LeeHarvey

Is an Encyclical anything like an epicycle? Because I seem to recall epicycles having been one of the results of the Catholic Church’s previous forays into popular science.

False. Epicycles were required to CORRECT the “requirement” that the Grecian philosophers and THEIR conventional wisdom/scientific consensus needed to make the THEORY of circular orbits fit the experimental/observed DATA of the actual planet movements.
Like today’s 950 year long-term climate “cycles” and 66 year short climate cycles … the “establishment officially-scientific-and-political-consensus-approved theory” does not fit the observed evidence in the planets. Therefore, “climate castro-astrologists” are using epicycles and offsets to fix the data so it matches their “perfect” theory.

Gerry Shuller
April 28, 2015 10:38 am

Is it really necessary to have three threads in which the Know Nothings can live down to their name?
[Yes? .mod]

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Gerry Shuller
April 28, 2015 10:59 am

Gerry,
Read Copernicus’ Letter to Pope Paul III wherein Copernicus gives the Know Nothings a name: Drones Amongst the Bees.
Also, without the idiots carping drivel, how would I have been able to find you kind sir? Here is where you discover who the ignoramuses are and are not. Hint… they are the first to drag out Galileo.

Steve P
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
April 28, 2015 11:36 am

idiots carping drivel
That’s not what I would call a very Christian characterization of your opponents’ point of view.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
April 28, 2015 11:44 am

….oh well….sorry to let you down. The world is full of carping idiots endowed with unbecoming entitlement of presumed intellectual competency. Drones amongst the bees.

April 28, 2015 10:56 am

Should we put out faith in a holy anti-sceptic solution?

HelmutU
April 28, 2015 11:00 am

We have to excuse us by Jesus Christ for such a deputy here an Earth

Gerry Shuller
April 28, 2015 11:06 am

“The Church is accepting the judgements of it’s scientific advisers. ”
Someone could use a good punctuation adviser.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Gerry Shuller
April 28, 2015 11:31 am

By a strange synchronicity, today is National Apostrophe Day, Gerry. I just put up a large banner across Main Street here in Mt. Idy that says, “No apostrophes in personal pronouns!”

Steve P
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
April 28, 2015 11:38 am

One’s rules may have an exception.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
April 28, 2015 11:42 am

comment image

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
April 28, 2015 11:44 am

Enough of this nonsense!
Shouldn’t we be concerning ourselves with apostrophic climate change?

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
April 28, 2015 11:47 am

Darn… I din’t know that an apostrophe was not to be used on Personal Pronouns. hmmmm Proper nouns are OK!

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
April 28, 2015 12:22 pm

Steve,
If I am not mistaken, ‘our’ is considered a possessive, and not a personal pronoun.
Are we’s all in agreement?

albertalad
April 28, 2015 11:20 am

One would think the Pope would be far more concerned with Christians murdered in the middle east and Africa than global warming about now.

April 28, 2015 11:26 am

Paul Westhaver,
I’ve been enjoying your posts on this subject, here and on related threads.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Max Photon
April 28, 2015 11:40 am

Well.. thank-you Max. Similarly, I look forward to reading your great thoughts, experiencing your humor and irony, and benefiting from your good will in general. Cheers.

Adam from Kansas
April 28, 2015 11:27 am

To those equating the Christian church as a whole to the Vatican, well, I guess it’s a good thing then that there’s many conservative demoninations that do not take commands from the Pope at all.
The Christian church in its purest form is not related to Catholicism period. The Catholics have been slowly drifting away from the teachings of scripture for centuries (with their idea that no one has direct access to God and must instead pray to a selections of saints, the priesthood which Christ intended to abolish for good, the conversion of a faith-based salvation to a works-based one, the very existence of the Pope himself, ect…).
There are countless churches out there that do not buy the idea of man-made climate change, so please do not make the generalization that Catholicism = Christianity as a whole (even though I do not doubt that they remain in standing for a number of good things as well).

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Adam from Kansas
April 28, 2015 12:53 pm

who wrote the scripture.. and when?

April 28, 2015 11:58 am

It’s rather remarkable that the heliocentric view of the solar system still persists to this day.
The earth does not revolve around the sun; the solar system revolves around its barycenter.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Solar_system_barycenter.svg/463px-Solar_system_barycenter.svg.png
It’s interesting to trace the barycenter (relative to the sun) with one’s finger.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Max Photon
April 28, 2015 12:52 pm

I know! Great image BTW. I love using the barycenter argument now and again. I believe the center of the solar system is 1/4 of a sun radius above the surface of the sun in 2015. Not sure.

Curious George
Reply to  Max Photon
April 28, 2015 1:12 pm

And if Jupiter were 10x farther from the Sun (and therefore its gravitational influence were 100x weaker), the barycenter would also be 10x farther from the Sun. Aren’t we all orbiting around a barycenter of the Milky Way?

Reply to  Curious George
April 28, 2015 3:29 pm

If gravity is the only force at work, I would say yes.
If there are any electromagnetic forces at work in addition, then I suppose there might be deviation from the center of mass.
As I understand it the rotational properties of galaxies present problems to modelers who use only gravity.
Some plasma physicists (e.g. Anthony Perratt; Winston Bostick) have modeled better fits to the rotational properties by incorporating electromagnetic forces (from plasmas).

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Max Photon
April 28, 2015 2:22 pm

… and scientists used to scoff at astrologers for pointing-out that a planetary alignment might cause strange things to happen. In principle they were right, even if not always right about the consequences. Just shows that you cannot reduce science to banalities; it is always has more nuances than a simple model suggests.

April 28, 2015 12:01 pm

I thank Joe Ronan for the lead post which is a discussion of the nature of the current version of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) wrt unfolding activities leading up to issuing a new encyclical.
His lead post is not a scientific one; it is a RCC explanatory post.
The Pope’s upcoming encyclical represents a RCC theological guide to all humanity for human development in an area chosen by the RCC as important to its concept of god.
To the extent the forthcoming encyclical suggests authority in the interpretation of science, it is irrelevant. But, to the extent it is a surrogate for the voice of RCC god then it is a significant moral force on the RCC community.
Because we’ve got a post on the RCC’s nature and public announcement process, I wonder what posts will occur next on other religion’s nature and situation wrt position statements?
John

Newsel
April 28, 2015 12:23 pm

Pandora’s box….? Some times Pontificating can result in unintended consequences…..

Joel Snider
April 28, 2015 12:26 pm

Progressive/Greenie types live in stereotypes and basically this is them projecting upon us as Bible-thumping science deniers – so they go and get the friggin’ Pope. Total condescension.

Gerry Shuller
April 28, 2015 12:28 pm

C’mon. Will a moderator please clean out the trash?
[On wholy holy political threads – here mixed thoroughly with thoughts most would assign the theoretical side of theology, much less secular politics affecting science or even climate change itself – it is best for irritated readers to chose to either ignore the thread, or to merely ignore the words that cause offense to some. .mod]

Resourceguy
April 28, 2015 12:37 pm

Does this mean sainthood for bad modelers as the next act of ill-advised authority?

jacklisterio
April 28, 2015 1:03 pm

Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post:.
“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.
“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.
“There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”
He also said:
“Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
Professor Woodcock dismissed evidence for global warming, such as the floods that deluged large parts of Britain this winter, as “anecdotal” and therefore meaningless in science.
“Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it’s completely unpredictable beyond around five days.”
Also, the only reason we regularly hear that we have had the most extreme weather “since records began” is that records only began about 100 years ago.
“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.
“It’s absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don’t blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors.”
When asked how can say this when most of the world’s scientists, political leaders and people in general are committed to the theory of global warming, Prof Woodcock answered bluntly:
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it’s not up to me to prove it does not exist, it’s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.
“Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
This lack of evidence has not stopped a whole green industry building up, however. At the behest of that industry, governments have been passing ever more regulations that make life more difficult and expensive.
“…the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.”
Professor Woodcock is the latest scientist to come out against the theory of man-made global warming. James Lovelock, once described as a “green guru”, earlier this month said that climate scientists “just guess”, and that no one really knows what’s happening.
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, also said that she was “duped into supporting the IPCC” and added “If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic