Papal Global Warming Encyclical Continues to Split the Church

Photo of Fr. Joseph Fessio, author TraLeSollecitudini, source Wikimedia

Photo of Fr. Joseph Fessio, author TraLeSollecitudini, source Wikimedia

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.

Read more: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-bishop-popes-view-on-global-warming-is-as-authoritative-as-the-cond

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.

Advertisements

173 thoughts on “Papal Global Warming Encyclical Continues to Split the Church

  1. 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 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?

  2. 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?

      • @ 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.

    • 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:

        I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false.

    • 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 on December 20, 2015 at 12:15 pm
      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.

      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 on December 20, 2015 at 3:10 pm
        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.

      • 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”>

      • 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.

  3. 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”?

    • ”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.

    • 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.

  4. ” 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”.

  5. 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?

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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”.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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 most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.” ~ Dr. Roy Spencer

    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.

  17. 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.

  18. The Pope didn’t decide matters of science, nor did he claim he did so. Rather he accepted the findings of peer-reviewed research and the verdicts of every national Scientific Academy in the world ..the US, UK, France, Germany, China, Italy, Australia, and all others, that Man’s activities are warming the planet, dangerously so.

    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.

    • 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:

      Oh really? How about some fact checking by you. Every National Science Academy concludes dangerous AGW. NO exceptions. Since when did family doctors become atmospheric scientists.

      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):

      The Progressives are not concerned so much with the Church as they are with its image.
      [A] Traditionalist would never claim that the Church, much less the Pope, has any specific authority in any other field than the Christian faith and the ethics it requires. Progressives want the Church to swim in the dominant streams of public opinion (whatever these may be). Pope Francis may still be a traditionalist in some matters (e.g. the role of the family) but many Progressives are prepared to go all the way to whatever it takes to receive some praise from the mainstream media.
      The Traditionalist-Progressive divide pervades not just the Church. It also pervades the institutionalized world of science as well as the media. Most contributors and commenters on this blog pride themselves on their commitment to the traditional standards of science (“How to get things right”) and repudiate the progressive obsession with having the largest impact on public opinion and funding authorities. Also, there are still many journalists and reporters In the media who uphold the traditional standards of their profession against the spineless “go with the flow” majority. Whether there are still traditionalist politicians of note is another matter.
      N.B. No progressive will ever refer to his opponents as traditionalists. To him, they are either “conservatives” or “reactionaries”.

      The positions of Bergoglio et progtard alia upon which SJW ScienceRules feculently relies in his incompetent grope at support are corrupted by political (indeed, by theological methodology invalided) motivations. No adherent Roman Catholic is required to receive such utterances as matters pertinent to our faith in Catholicism or our respect for the Holy See as an institution.
      As has been observed, the Bishop of Rome is not the Roman Catholic Church, any more than the present occupant of that job – a Jesuit willfully and with malice aforethought violating scientific method – is in any way to be considered trustworthy on matters of factual validity in the issue at hand.

    • 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:

        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?

        And I responded with the observation that you’re perpetrating argument from inappropriate (indeed, corrupted) authority. Do you dispute your fallacy?

        Does history record any case in which the majority was right?

        — Robert A. Heinlein (1973)

    • 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.

  19. It is not Anthropogenic Global Warming that is splitting the Church. The AGW controversy is just a symptom of the deep rift in the Church between Progressives and Traditionalists.
    Even before John Paul II died, a progressive cabal was active in the Church to come up with a progressive successor. It included the German Cardinal Kasper and the Belgian Cardinal Danneels. They referred to themselves — jokingly, of course — as “The Mafia of Sankt-Gallen”, after the Swiss town where they met.
    However, their candidate, Jorge Bergoglio, lost to Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedictus XVI. In 2013, when Benedictus XVI resigned, the progressive network (“Team Bergoglio”) prevailed and got its man elected.
    The Progressives are not concerned so much with the Church as they are with its image.
    Traditionalist would never claim that the Church, much less the Pope, has any specific authority in any other field than the Christian faith and the ethics it requires. Progressives want the Church to swim in the dominant streams of public opinion (whatever these may be). Pope Francis may still be a traditionalist in some matters (e.g. the role of the family) but many Progressives are prepared to go all the way to whatever it takes to receive some praise from the mainstream media.
    The Traditionalist-Progressive divide pervades not just the Church. It also pervades the institutionalized world of science as well as the media. Most contributors and commenters on this blog pride themselves on their commitment to the traditional standards of science (“How to get things right”) and repudiate the progressive obsession with having the largest impact on public opinion and funding authorities. Also, there are still many journalists and reporters In the media who uphold the traditional standards of their profession against the spineless “go with the flow” majority. Whether there are still traditionalist politicians of note is another matter.
    N.B. No progressive will ever refer to his opponents as traditionalists. To him, they are either “conservatives” or “reactionaries”.

  20. It took them almost 400 years to fix the Galileo humiliation of Pope Simplicio. Pope Karlus Marxium I should be penailling in an apology for his successor for 2400AD.

  21. l lost my respect for Pope Francis when I saw he did not consider the effect on the poorest of the Earth when writing this terrible encyclical. Helping the poor should his principal mandate, not “saving the planet”, which is doing very well on its own.

  22. He knows the church has enough problems right now…..it a shame he’s not smart enough to realize he was creating another problem

  23. Even if all that was true, if his motives were sincere, where’s Christ? He didn’t come to save the planet. He came to save the people. (Eternal life, not temporal well being.) Why isn’t this pope preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ that was once delivered to the saints? Whether we leave behind a Man-made paradise or a trash heap, eternity won’t notice. God sent the “life preserver”, Jesus Christ, so that those who choose to grab hold can be rescued.
    Man was born screwed. (Dead in trespasses and sins. Ever read Romans 5?) Keeping his room clean won’t matter.

    • Gunga,
      You are right. Christ did not come to save the planet. He came to save fallen humanity. He also warned his followers that they would be persecuted by the rest of the world. Well, you can see that happening in many of the comments above. Yup, following Christ is not the best way of courting popularity. But in the Book of Revelation we read, “Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.” God created the earth and man has broken the relationship which God established with both man and ‘the planet’. So the Incarnation, which we celebrate at Christmas, is about the restoration of that broken relationship and that includes the creation of a ‘new earth’.
      In addition, it might be an idea to keep in mind what Christ says on the Day of Judgment:
      “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
      “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
      “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
      “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
      “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
      “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
      “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
      “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

  24. Fortunately, the Pope is not the Church, and the Church is not the Pope. Sometime when you are bored and want some heavy reading look at the entire history of the 2000 year old Catholic Church. It becomes abundantly clear it is God’s Church and not man’s church. The have been a bunch of idiots as Pope, a bunch of idiots as Cardinals, and yet the Church survives. It will survive this idiot too.

    • Dan,
      Yes. It really is up to the church members to politely rebel against error. In fact,it is part of Canon law:
      Canon Law…
      TITLE I : THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF ALL CHRIST’S FAITHFUL (Cann. 208 – 223)
      Can. 212
      §2 Christ’s faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.
      §3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position , to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
      So…

    • yes – thank you
      PF is just a knee jerk Jesuit happy dancer from a looong line of Jesuit heretics. Perhaps the most notable, Tielhard de Chardin, tried to incorporate the collectivism of Marxism with the ‘Progressiveness’ of evoluttion to synthesize a new global spirituality which would eventuate in the second coming. This heresy displaces the Divine Christ with collective human progress. The Jesuits have been afflicted with demonic intellectual conceits for many decades. There are good Jesuits but they are very circumspect in criticizing Progressives. JPII was insulted and humiliated by the rabid Liberation Theology Jesuits in Central America. He tried to get them back in line and failed. He should have suppressed the order. PF thinks he can invent science.

  25. The climate that is plainly seen by analysis of ice cores at the Vostok shows 4 past glacial cycles starting 420,000 years ago. On average, the earth has been far more entombed in ice than it is now.
    See for yourself http://bit.ly/1J0N4hM.
    Russian scientists have recently set up a research facility to attempt to recover and make use of DNA from a well preserved woolly mammoth baby that was entombed in snow and ice some 39,000 years ago. It was discovered exposed in the Russian Arctic Circle in 2010.
    Since mammoths eat vegetative matter, it is clear that just a short time ago, as the earth measures time, the arctic was warm enough to support mammoth-friendly vegetation.
    Even a casual glance at the data from the Vostok ice cores shows that on balance, the climate is normally much colder than anything in the last 200 years. The last glaciation in North America occurred about 50,000 years ago. When the glacier started to retreat about 20,000 years ago, the ice was a mile thick at Chicago.
    As can be seen from Vostok data, the climate is continually changing, freezing and thawing.
    It is no surprise that almost every demand made by advocates of Anthropogenic Global Warming converges on bigger government, higher taxes, less freedom and more restrictions. That tells me all I need to know about this massive fraud.

  26. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

    I absolutely agree that the Pope has given cause for division. This situation is Galileo all over again. Those who refuse to learn the lessons of the past are damned to repeat them.
    It is an embarrassment for Christianity. It is especially embarrassing for the Catholic Church. It is also an embarrassment for science in accepting the endorsement.
    “To equate a papal position on abortion with a position on global warming is worse than wrong; it is an embarrassment for the Church.”
    It is worse than wrong. It is damaging.
    Sadly, it will likely take as long to get past this embarrassment as it did with Galileo.

    • Lonnie E. Schubert
      I have to disagree. The Pope has nearly every scientific body on earth on his side. He has convectional science on his side. During the Protestant reformation, the Church had accepted the “unpopular” Copernican model of planetary motion decades before Galileo and Galileo himself, was afraid to be out as a “Copernican” in his communications with Kepler. So the analogy is wrong on the contemporary facts and the history. All this is obtainable information.
      Now, your errors notwithstanding, comments attributed to Pope Francis have been a cause for controversy. Comments he never said also have been a cause for controversy, and documents he has authored have also been the a cause for controversy.
      Jesus himself said this:
      “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.”
      The sole question that remains is what does science tell us now?
      My next question is what are you going to do about it?
      I give you credit for being authentic.

      • That setting of “a man against his father” has nothing to do the prevailing “97% consensus” but about him. Is Jesus the Christ or not?
        Genuine and honest science has done much to make our temporal lives better now.
        Politics is twisting the science now for it’s own ends.
        The eternal then has to do him.
        This pope isn’t preaching him.
        In the mean time, lets keep the politics out of the science of the now.
        .

  27. This attempt by the Pope to meddle in the field of science is a throwback to the pre Thomas Aquinas days of the 13th Century. One would have thought that the Church had the concept of distancing the authority of the church from matters concerning the natural world well embedded after 800 years !

    • Paul,
      Please look into Opus Majus by Roger Bacon, published in 1267 at the request of Pope Clement IV It is considered to be the birth of western scientific method.
      Furthermore, The “dark ages” is a modern myth. It is beneath those of us in our information filled world to accept such nonsense as fact. Search Dark ages Myth and simply read.

      • Paul,
        Who considers Bacon’s Greater Work the birth of the Western scientific method?
        The two most recent studies of his work debunk this hoary canard, irrefutably IMO. He says in Pat Two of the Greater Work that theology, especially the Bible, is the basis of all “science”. His “method” bears little relationship to the scientific method as now understood. In Part One, he objects not to citing authority, but only unreliable or weak authorities.
        Nor are the Dark Ages a myth. It is an historical fact that most of the learning and much of the technology of the Greek and Roman pagan world was lost in Western Europe during the Dark Ages. After the fall of Rome, instability, to include repeated invasions and epidemics, swept across Europe, East and West. Note that the Dark Ages also coincided with deteriorating climate, ie it got colder.
        You’re also mistaken if you imagine that the Catholic Church embraced heliocentrism and a mobile earth in the 16th century. It never did until the 19th century, sticking to the Ptolemaic System long after Galileo showed it false by observing the phases of Venus. Rome largely ignored Copernicus before Galileo, although those Churchmen who did comment abhorred the sun-centered system. Galileo was convicted of heresy precisely because of advocating that the earth does move. I’ll grant that his disrespect for the pope didn’t help his cause.

  28. Make a list of how many things the RC church got right over the past 2000 years. Now make a list of how many things they got wrong.
    Virtually everything they got right was given to them 2000 years ago by Jesus of Nazareth. He explained what was right and what was wrong.
    Just about everything the Church got wrong over the past 2000 years were matters where the Church took it upon themselves to decide right from wrong.
    This is a mistake. God determines right from wrong, not the Church, not the Pope. Every person has it in their heart to know right from wrong, without any help from the Church or the Pope. Jesus made that abundantly clear. It is God in our hearts that determines right from wrong, not the teaching of some old fool in a funny hat.
    The Church and the Pope have no business deciding right from wrong. That is the Province of God. The Church’s only task on earth is to carry out those things identified as right by God, not right as identified by Popes.

  29. This fool’s pronouncement was stupid enough, but I wasn’t aware it stood on an equal footing to abortion. So we now have a side in a scientific question being pronounced upon with the same authority as a serious moral issue. This is probably intended to be the church’s next foray into claiming scientific authority, but the fact is the facts are what they are. And when what they are is indisputably established, the church’s moral authority, being now on equal standing with its scientific idiocy, will fall into the same disrepute. Brilliant work.

  30. Genesis 1:28
    God blessed them; and G_d said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

    Who is the Pope to tell us to disobey G_d? We were told fill the earth and rule over it and now the Pope says not to? Did G_d change his mind? If G_d changed his mind, you’d think he’d tell the Pope to tell us so the new rules could be communicated to us? Or perhaps drop a giant stone tablet out of the sky with much thunder and lightning and perhaps an earthquake for emphasis with the new rules written on it?
    Religion is complicated thing. One can selectively quote to make it say anything one wants.
    This Pope has on the whole been a pretty good Pope in my view, but my view takes in a lot of other issues. On this issue he is simply wrong, he’s gotten emotional instead of logical about it, and his judgment is clouded.

  31. The bible says there will be no rising of sea level:
    Gen 9: Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.
    Perpaps the pope should believe in the bible.

  32. I cannot believe all this venom spit against the Pope trying to save our planet is by people we revere as tpreachers of the word of Christ. Global warming stares us in the face!

    • Francis

      I cannot believe all this venom spit against the Pope trying to save our planet is by people we revere as tpreachers of the word of Christ. Global warming stares us in the face!

      How many millions do YOU – and the pope! – condemn to death by YOUR fears of what is only a beneficial increase in global average temperature, and a beneficial increase in CO2 to all plant life, and a beneficial improvement in life for billions worldwide?

    • You’re obviously a troll, but whatever…
      CO2 has provided the earth with 11% more food over 28 years, thus feeding 600 million people. And the world’s got warmer since the little ice age, as every sane person says it did.
      But in order for whatever is staring us in the face to be a cause for starving 600m. ppl, then it has to be ALL of the following:
      1) not merely “a fact”, but a dangerous fact. And since it was 2C hotter in the middle ages and life was BETTER, clearly we aren’t there yet.
      2) Mostly caused by CO2,
      3) which was mostly emitted by human activity.
      You got that? Now crawl back in your hole.

    • Francis,
      Nice parody. Thanks. No one informed and reasonable actually believes what you wrote.
      I appreciate good irony.

    • There’s worse staring Man in the face. And it ain’t the condition of “our planet”.
      If the Pope has abandoned the Good News of Jesus Christ in favor of the current “97%” world view of a temporal Man-made paradise, what “venom” is being spit? If he’s wrong when measured against Scripture, then, guess what? He’s wrong. Is he preaching Christ or pantheism?
      (Ever read the record in Galatians where Paul called out Peter for not walking according to the Gospel?)

  33. Why I’m not a Catholic anymore is succinctly captured in this commie Pope. He’s full of s…t. Why would anyone listen to anything he spews from his mouth or pen? I don’t revere him. I despise him.

    • We must not abandon the church because of a goofy pope. As a well known saint said the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. The whole church has been infected by Marxism according to plan by Antonio Gramsci. Displacing God with Socialist Government to build a Utopian heaven on earth calls to mind the Golden Calf, the Tower of Babel and the parable of the weeds among the wheat. The church is seriously afflicted but there is a faithful cohort that preserves the faith despite our misguided bishops. Our Lady of Fatima warned of this chastisement.

  34. I did a Mr Spock Meld with one of my chickens and it turns out God is a chicken. We’re all in trouble.

  35. Gregor Mendel a catholic monk got genetics right…
    Copernicus, a catholic Priest got Heliocentric right…
    Fr Georges Henri LeMaitre, got the big bang right, even while ALL of the world’s most prominent atheist physicists said he was wrong, including Fred Hoyle who refused to accept it even into 2000 AD.
    etc etc…

    • Discussions on Galileo and the Church always seem to ignore the fact that Galileo’s contemporaries made some very important contributions to science. Considering these contemporaries might change the nature of the conversation since some of these contemporaries were priests.
      http://www.scientus.org/Galileo-Contemporaries.html
      http://www.scientus.org/Galileo-Contemporaries-Timeline.html
      And Galieo’s astronomical ideas weren’t driven completely by reason. Galileo was the most famous critic of his time of Kepler’s planetary model, and the reason for his criticism was probably aesthetic..he felt that the circles of the Copernican model were more ‘perfect’ than the ellipses of Kepler’s. The Copernican Model was never going to work better than any other model if you didn’t add the ellipses.
      http://www.scientus.org/Galileo-Battle-for-Heavens.html

      • Kepler was a Protestant. Copernicus was persuaded to complete and publish his book by a Protestant, and it was printed by a Lutheran press. He waited until near his death to publish, despite having written a summary of his ideas 36 years previously.

  36. IMO The Popes objectives in Laudito Si were political, not religious or scientific. He, like Obama and Naomi Kline, see CAGW as a means to wealth redistribution. Sadly, this dishonest “means justifys the ends” approach is in itself immoral. I believe this is not an issue between orthodox or progressive leadership within the church, it is an issue between those who recognize the potential damage to the papacy and the church, and those who are willing to accept duplicity as a means to a goal. Sadly, the Pope appears to be in the later camp.

    • He was probably lobbied heavily by prelates from the developing world. They, and their flocks, would have been alienated by inaction, not to mention skepticism. It would have hurt the church’s popularity. This probably accounts for half his motivation. But he obviously has a warmist mindset–hence the heatedness and frequency of his proclamations on this matter, the poor reasoning he employs, and his exclusion of skeptics from his counsels.

      • IMO, being a Marxist “liberation theologist”, Francis didn’t need to be lobbied by Third World cardinals and funcionaries. The Commie goon embraced this anti-human doctrine whole-heartedly.

      • Well said Gloateus Maximus. Indeed, Francis is right at home with the misanthropic greens. Their shared goals and policies will condemn forever poor societies to all of the solvable ills of energy poverty.

      • Thanks.
        Francis is a Jesuit, a member of the Counter-Reformational order (founded by St. Francis Xavier) which most fully embraced so-called “Liberation Theology”. Its priests were active in violent revolutionary movements in Latin America and in the cocaine trade. That’s the milieu out of which the Watermelon pope emerged.

      • And under Archbishop Marcinkus (1971-89), the Vatican Bank was implicated in laundering money and running scams for the Mob.

      • Here’s a hidden benefit Francis has reaped by his actions: He now has a lot more “cred” with the governments of the world, and others, because he could claim that he motivated his flock to get the COP deal passed in Paris. He’s seen as one of the fathers of victory.

        • rogerknights

          He now has a lot more “cred” with the governments of the world, and others, because he could claim that he motivated his flock to get the COP deal passed in Paris. He’s seen as one of the fathers of victory.

          Well, he now definitely has a lot more credibility with those who he (this pope) admires and wants recognition from: His socialist teachers and sponsors, the socialist governments around the world, the immigration sponsors and “immigration winners” around the world (those who hate the western world in general and the US/UK in particular), and those in Washington who need their “good catholic voters” to remain in power.
          But he is NOT the “father of victory” but rather the bringer of despair and death. Victory to killers? Yes.

  37. It is better that two leading religions of the West get together rather than fight each other, but it is unusual for the press to put such effort into reporting a good news story.

  38. Fr. Joseph Fessio is right IMO. Mankind isn’t omnipotent. If it were, why believe in any supernatural being?

  39. The Catholic Church got rich raiding the New World and taxing peasants in Europe with ‘tithes’.
    Does it surprise anyone that the Church wants a tax on air we breathe? Of course! It is a brilliant idea which is why ALL the rulers of humanity are pushing for this tax.

  40. This Pope’s enthusiastic support of Climate Imperialism is bad enough. If his (ill)advisors shove through the heretical idea that the Pope’s opinion on the science is infallible, I will formally quit the Church.

  41. Ad hominem attacks based on “News Reports” I thought we were not supposed to take notice of the Media ? Many contributors here would be better writing for Eye of the Tiber,’eyeofthetiber.com’ then we could all have a good laugh. Merry Christmas whether you like it or not.

  42. An Ode to the Church
    On Fighting Climate Change
    Bureaucrats and ‘global planners’
    Speak in agitated manners,
    Predicating great disaster:
    “Climate change we now must master!”
    Human guilt and blame beseeching:
    “Children, shame we should be teaching!
    Man has sinned, by overreaching
    Fragile Gaia’s limit!”
    Beware their new ‘theology’,
    Its prophesies are vanity.
    The firmaments cannot yet be
    Controlled by mortal hands.
    So, make this world green as you can,
    But first, care for your fellow man!
    And leave Earth’s destiny to God’s great plan.
    All creation is God’s and He alone
    Commands the elements He owns,
    Perplexes any man’s control,
    Yet still, provides for every soul!

  43. Aphan says “there is only one National Academy of Science”. Confirming there a remarkable lack of knowledge on this forum. Such Academies exist in most developed countries –The US, UK, China, Italy, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, and more. All conclude AGW and publish so as their affirmative position.

    • ScienceRules…my response to you confirms nothing about this forum whatsoever. Except that I can get you to bite. 🙂
      Now, pay attention. There is only ONE organization called the National Academy of Science, the NAS, and it is defined as: “The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private non-profit organization in the United States.” No one calls the Russian Academy of Science, RAS, the “National Academy of Science”, or the Chinese Academy of Sciences, CAS, or the German,GNAS, or etc etc. See how that works?
      So, are you claiming that ALL of those organizations conclude AGW or are you claiming that all of those organizations conclude CAGW or “dangerous” AGW? They are different things. And even if you are, their officially stated opinions are just that…..opinions.

  44. OH NO! My children might find out that I was wrong about something? Please no!!!!
    Are we supposed to F.E.A.R. that? I don’t. But that’s probably because my kids are intelligent enough to identify and ignore illogical, unsound, cockeyed rantings, no matter who is doing the ranting.

    • It’s a sound conclusion based on all the empirical evidence and observations during their lives Patrick. It’s YOU that has to bear the burden of proving that I don’t actually know that about my kids. And good luck with that.

  45. The Pope should stay out of politics. If the Pope had gotten his way in 1215 King John would have won against the rebels, and the Magna Carta would have been made null and void.

    Meanwhile, instructions from the Pope arrived in August, written before the peace accord, with the result that papal commissioners excommunicated the rebel barons and suspended Langton from office in early September. Once aware of the charter, the Pope responded in detail: in a letter dated 24 August and arriving in late September, he declared the charter to be “not only shameful and demeaning but also illegal and unjust” since John had been “forced to accept” it, and accordingly the charter was “null, and void of all validity for ever”; under threat of excommunication, the King was not to observe the charter, nor the barons try to enforce it.

  46. First, full disclosure: I was a student in one of Father Fessio’s theology classes 30+ years ago. I have fond memories of his class and greatly respect his opinion. I’m also in substantial agreement with what he says about comparing abortion and anthropomorphic global warming.
    I want to offer a few notes on this story:
    * Laudato Si is not a “Global Warming Encyclical”–this is the name given it by the media and the left (but I repeat myself) who wanted to use the weight of Church influence to cow Christians, Conservatives (and Republicans) into buying into catastrophic warmism. Although AGW is mentioned, it is one of many themes, and it is discussed in terms of its moral dimension. This dimension includes the indisputable observation that the worst effects of environmental damage fall most heavily on the poor, and the admonishment that as Christians we need to remember that when we are making policy.
    * As for the actual scientific assessment the pope signs on with, it is very much akin to Bjorn Lomborg’s: yes, there is warming, and yes, we have some responsibility for causing it, but we need to look at the whole picture, and use our resources to the best aggregate advantage while NOT LEAVING OUT THE POOR.
    * Father Fessio is not a “high official” in the Church. He is learned, influential among Catholics who want to live out Church teaching, and very, very smart, but in officialdom his opinion carries no weight.
    * The Encyclical has caused some grousing in the Church, but has not “split” it. The encyclical is fully in line with existing Church teaching and–to repeat–the controversy is largely the result of it being hyped in advance in some quarters as a major teaching of a new Catholic “orthodoxy” which would be akin to “settled science” for Catholics. The reality is that Catholics who have actually read the encyclical see the context of the presentation, which is that we should all be caring for creation, preserving it for our children, and taking responsibility for it out of love of our fellow man. He also takes the Hypergreenies to task for putting the environment above humanity. In this context, Francis is NOT carrying the the Big Green flag, and should NOT be heard as saying a la Al Gore that the biggest threat to civilization is the internal combustion engine.
    I want to wish all WUWT readers a wonderful holiday season, and Christians a joyous celebration of our Lord’s birth.

  47. Here is a bit more about the history:

    Magna Carta, despite the pennant flying theatricality of the showdown at Runnymede in June, 1215, suffered a similar, yet more rapid demise than the Coronation Charter. By August the same year, Pope Innocent III had annulled Magna Carta, declaring it illegal and having been sealed under duress. King John therefore never lived with the full consequences of the Magna Carta humiliation, and by October of 1216, he had died of dysentery at the ripe old age of 50.

    http://magnacarta800th.com/history-of-the-magna-carta/
    http://magnacarta800th.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/crusader-knight-202×300.gif

  48. During the Medieval Period, the Pope blamed climate change on Witches:

    This isn’t even a new thing. Mankind has known for a thousand years that witches are to blame for climate change. In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII linked the destruction of crops to supernatural practices of witches and sorcerers. Indeed, scholars throughout the centuries have collected extensive statistical and anecdotal evidence that reveals how witch persecutions have spiked after particularly bad harvests (the height of which was between 1550 and 1650).

Comments are closed.