Guest essay by Joe Ronan
Today 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 Church is engaging in everyday problems: What is their position on gun ownership?
And meat consumption? and driving SUVs/trucks?
and fossil fuel investing?
… why we park on driveways, and drive on parkways.
And two of the “Bali Nine” who are Australians have been executed.
After the Bali bomings in 2005, some of my workmates and my manager at that time, had people literally die in their laps. They came back to New Zealand VERY different people. Were the perpetrators exceuted?
Remember, Nickolus Copernicus postulated the earth revolves around the sun and got excommunicated. Galileo invented the telescope, proved it and got excommunicated. A belief in the One True God does NOT have anything to do with the fraud of Rome. That fraud has nothing to do with science either.
Amen
In case you have not noticed it, the ramp up of ongoing global warming media assault has moved into even higher gear and into previously quiet areas of media and orgs (Vatican). The Paris summit must have some very big bucks, over reach, and redistribution of wealth on a massive scale to justify this latest media effort.
Joe – Interesting article, thanks. Your quote from Francis’ Korea visit where he says that the body of an encyclical is doctrinal and proposes that uncertainty or multiple hypotheses be referenced in footnotes seems to suggest some quite large footnotes being possibly of more interest than the body of the encyclical.
Never seen an encyclical so I was just wondering about the format and brevity or otherwise. Is it of the form of a main marketing glossy document with hyperlinks to the footnotes?
Thanks Jeff. Encyclicals can be longer or shorter, but are always plain text and very much the opposite of a glossy marketing document. There are many examples on the Vatican website – they are public documents and a quick search will turn up a few. Try searching on Lumen Fidei and that should take you to a Vatican link to the document (Pope Francis first one). On the Vatican website the notes are linked from the text, but not to the reference documents, so I’m afraid it’s not easy following the references up. There may be other sites that link them, but I’ve not come across them.
Got it. I’ll go look.Thanks again.
What will the call be from the Vatican when the AMO is in full decline alongside the solar cycle? It will be fuel and food for the poor in between blame for polar vortex and unprecedented this or that.
One wonders if the Pontiff will realize that cheap energy helps the poor most.
Or will it be a “Let them burn natural gas.” moment to people who can barely afford coal?
It will never be natural gas for the poor. There is a fundamental transport problem with that statement. Only coal can be trucked or sent by rail or various classes of vessel to ports of variable size. Natural gas is for the pipeline endowed and the special case of LNG. For the poor it is kerosene, coal, wood, and dung.
I recall in the vapid pre-election shenanigans of 2012 the man of the people, Barack Obama, had a fundraising dinner, or some such, with none other than fashion dragon lady herself, Anna Wintour. This unseemly event was deliciously lampooned by the opposition. On the screen, in silver script on a navy blue background the glamour of the night’s festivities was spelled out while directly underneath, also in a sophisticated script, one by one, the dismal economic numbers, unemployment rates, and such, silently glided across the screen, followed by an escort of glamorous bubbles. A lovely lampoon indeed.
Well, I have a similar recommendation for the presentation of this encyclical. As the information on the Pope’s viewpoints on CAGW glides across the screen each nugget is followed in the same way as set forth in the foregoing. But, not with bubbles. No, with gentle, relatively small sized, helium inflated, condoms gracefully blowing across the screen and accompanying each statement.
This was in my news feed this afternoon:
Pope Attacked by Climate Change Sceptics
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11569839/Pope-attacked-by-climate-change-sceptics.html
One of the objectives of climate-change advocates is the redistribution of wealth from developed nations (CO2 producing climate sinners) to less developed nations. Based on his previous statements, I suspect Pope Francis will be on board with that in his encyclical. In 2014 Pope Francis said that a more equal form of economic progress can be had through “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state.” I’m not sure what he means by “legitimate redistribution,” but if it is done by “the state,” I fail to see how it could be legitimate. If he had said “by individuals,” in the same way Jesus encouraged individuals to give of their own wealth, I would have no problem with his statement.
Past popes have also called for the redistribution of wealth and for the protection of the environment and the climate. Here are some brief excerpts from Pope Benedict’s long 2009 encyclical:
I would be surprised if Pope Francis doesn’t also call for a “world authority,” like his predecessors, to protect the climate and the environment, regulate migration, and redistribute wealth, etc. If he does, most climate-change advocates and environmentalists will be pleased. But the pope and his predecessors cannot be blind to the implications of giving a “world political authority” the power to “ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties.” Once you create such a powerful global entity, there is no going back. They would have to realize that it would not be long before such a world authority turned its attention to population control. It would just be a matter of time. Wouldn’t that go against Church teachings and doctrine, or are such things expendable for the “greater good”?
I guess the answer comes down to the definition of authority. A lot of religious statements of social causes are never translated to action impressed on the body as a whole. These are manipulated statements from a small group of representatives using word play and bias. That is not the same as instructions for a groundswell movement in to go wreck havoc on the economy, regulations, or tax system. It may incite some policy pot shots, regulatory over reach, and cover for corrupt leadership, but not economic hari kari. I suppose you could say it is the formula for Latin American politics and economic backwardness. It wins elections there but not social progress.
Wasn’t John the Baptist a member of the Essenes? They lived in common-purse communes which are asset sharing communities. I am not surprised the Pope talks about sharing (redistribution of excess to those in deficit).
Common purse communes are a heck of a lot older than communistic ideas about forced equality. Intentional communities are common enough around Waterloo. But they don’t think too highly of communists who persecuted the hell out of them, including killing the grandfather of a friend of mine. Not everyone willing to share equally is a communist.
Jeffrey Sachs & co, with what looks like a call for Population Control aka Depopulation by CAGW policies?
pdf. 12 pages: April 2015: Climate Change and The Common Good: A Statement Of The Problem
And The Demand For Transformative Solutions
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences
Prepared By P. Dasgupta, V. Ramanathan, P. Raven, Mgr M. Sorondo, M. Archer, P. J. Crutzen, P. Lena, Y.T. Lee, M. J. Molina, M. Rees, J. Sachs, J. Schellnhuber, Mgr M. Sorondo
(OPENING LINE) Unsustainable consumption coupled with a record human population and the uses of inappropriate technologies are causally linked with the destruction of the world’s sustainability and resilience…
(page 7) Historical Context
About 10,000 years ago, when we humans were first beginning to cultivate crops for food, world population was approximately one million,
with about 100,000 in Europe. As agriculture spread and our numbers grew, the world enjoyed a relatively stable climate…
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2068632/climate-change-and-the-common-good.pdf
sort of clashes with the Pope’s call for large families…surely.
propaganda
(noun)
———–
4. Roman Catholic Church.
a) a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions.
b) a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.
[…]
noun
1. (RC Church) a congregation responsible for directing the work of the foreign missions and the training of priests for these
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda
Shocking, but true: some Catholics today still seem to think that the murder of Bruno and the persecution of Galileo were completely justified on “theological” grounds.
The Pope claims to be the personal representative on Earth of the Creator of the Universe. Now he pontificates on AGW. Ahem!
Paul Westhaver on April 28, 2015 at 6:04 pm
– – – – – – –
Paul Westhaver,
I responded critically to your various comments on this thread about the Roman Catholic Church’s treatment of Galileo. My critical comment directed at you is above at John Whitman on April 28, 2015 at 7:24 pm
John
Very eloquent and interesting post, Joe. And much appreciated.
I knew Rabbi Ephraim Fischoff. He translated Max Weber’s original Sociology of Religion into English from German. He also had a PhD. in Sociology. He also wrote a paper that said Protestant capitalism ushered in the Age of Enlightenment into Europe back during the dark ages. Change course head back into darkness via Rome.