Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The papal Laudato Si’ encyclical on global warming continues to be a source of division, and has prompted reportedly heated exchanges between senior church figures, at a recent top level meeting in Rome.
ROME, December 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – A heated exchange regarding global warming and magisterial teaching between a top Vatican official and various other presenters ended a December 3 Acton Institute conference in Rome. Argentinean Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, a close advisor to Pope Francis and the Chancellor of both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences stressed that the pope’s declarations on the gravity of global warming as expressed in the encyclical Laudato Si’ are magisterial teaching equivalent to the teaching that abortion is sinful.
Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press who obtained his doctorate in theology under Joseph Ratzinger prior to his elevation to the pontificate, told LifeSiteNews, “Neither the pope nor Bishop Sorondo can speak on a matter of science with any binding authority, so to use the word ‘magisterium’ in both cases is equivocal at best, and ignorant in any case.” Fr. Fessio added, “To equate a papal position on abortion with a position on global warming is worse than wrong; it is an embarrassment for the Church.”
I applaud the courage of senior church figures who have had the courage to speak out against this divisive encyclical. People like the North American Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, and Australia’s Cardinal Pell, church leaders with a track record of placing integrity before political convenience, who have publicly and repeatedly criticised the attempt to extend papal moral authority into deciding matters of science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
Relax, hunter. Nobody in the Church has the authority to change its teaching on papal infallibility.
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.
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!
Heck out how the united states is about to start gearing up to frack in this article
https://kerrpumpsandflowvalve.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/oil-wars-the-empire-fracks-back/
off topic
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.
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.
You don’t actually know that about your kids.
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.
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.
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.
Here is a bit more about the history:
http://magnacarta800th.com/history-of-the-magna-carta/
http://magnacarta800th.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/crusader-knight-202×300.gif
During the Medieval Period, the Pope blamed climate change on Witches: