Laudate Si

[Little John]

There's a difference between judging the contents of this one document, judging the Pope, which might be better done after he has had a goodly time in office, and judging the whole works of the Catholic Church.

The current focus should be on this one document.

Why?

Lots of people write equally eloquently and often far more eloquently, not to mention, far more logically/intellectually/philosophically consistently.

The only basis on which you can exhort others to treat this document with any more reverence than many other equally (and far more) worthy documents is by virtue of some kind of appeal to authority. In this case, papal authority. In turn making it entirely legitimate to critique the underlying basis for that authority.

[kenneal - lagger]

Most Churches are relatively large but simple buildings, ideal for solar power.

They are also oriented east/west and so have a large south facing roof. I'll get a picture of our church with its 149 220W PV panels and post it!

[biffvernon]

There's a difference between judging the contents of this one document, judging the Pope, which might be better done after he has had a goodly time in office, and judging the whole works of the Catholic Church.

The current focus should be on this one document.

Why?

Lots of people write equally eloquently and often far more eloquently, not to mention, far more logically/intellectually/philosophically consistently.

The only basis on which you can exhort others to treat this document with any more reverence than many other equally (and far more) worthy documents is by virtue of some kind of appeal to authority. In this case, papal authority. In turn making it entirely legitimate to critique the underlying basis for that authority.

Why? Because it's the title to this discussion!

I have no reverence for papal authority. The significance of this document is that it will be read by, and could influence, a lot more people round the world than other documents on climate change and global justice. If it's a good document, and I think it is, then it could do a lot of good.

Has anybody found a sentence amongst the ~180 pages that is bad?

[Little John]

There's a difference between judging the contents of this one document, judging the Pope, which might be better done after he has had a goodly time in office, and judging the whole works of the Catholic Church.

The current focus should be on this one document.

Why?

Lots of people write equally eloquently and often far more eloquently, not to mention, far more logically/intellectually/philosophically consistently.

The only basis on which you can exhort others to treat this document with any more reverence than many other equally (and far more) worthy documents is by virtue of some kind of appeal to authority. In this case, papal authority. In turn making it entirely legitimate to critique the underlying basis for that authority.

Why? Because it's the title to this discussion!

I have no reverence for papal authority. The significance of this document is that it will be read by, and could influence, a lot more people round the world than other documents on climate change and global justice. If it's a good document, and I think it is, then it could do a lot of good.

Has anybody found a sentence amongst the ~180 pages that is bad?

Of course the focus of this thread is this article. That is not the question I put to you and you know it. The question is why this article should be afforded any more intellectual/moral/philosophical reverence than any other document by any number of other people who are far more authoritative on ecological issues. Again, in response, you have simply repeated your appeal to authority by stating that it is important because it will be read by lots of people. Of course it will be read by lots of people and, of course, this makes it politically strategically relevant. But that does not automatically equate to any particular intellectual/moral/philosophical worth. Which is precisely what you appear to be trying to do. And so, again, I ask you to explain what it is about this particular document that makes it especially intellectually/morally/philosophically worthy? A politically expedient appeal to authority or, even, popularity does not count I am afraid.

[clv101]

Of course the focus of this thread is this article. That is not the question I put to you and you know it. The question is why this article should be afforded any more intellectual/moral/philosophical reverence than any other document by any number of other people who are far more authoritative on ecological issues. Again, in response, you have simply repeated your appeal to authority by stating that it is important because it will be read by lots of people. Of course it will be read by lots of people and, of course, this makes it politically strategically relevant. But that does not automatically equate to any particular intellectual/moral/philosophical worth. Which is precisely what you appear to be trying to do. And so, again, I ask you to explain what it is about this particular document that makes it especially intellectually/morally/philosophically worthy? A politically expedient appeal to authority or, even, popularity does not count I am afraid.

It's clear that there's nothing new in this document - the whole point, as you say, is that these points are far more politically strategically relevant because of who's saying them.

I think it is a good essay - and I'd say that whoever had written it. However, I only read it because of who'd written it and the wide coverage it had received. I expect I'm not alone. If you, or Biff had just posted an equally good 42,000 word essay on your websites I doubt I'd have found time to read it and it wouldn't had had the coverage this has had.

In fact - many of the ideas are the same as those presented by Russell Brand in Revolution. These aren't original but it's interesting to see their promotion by folk as different as Brand and the Pope!

[kenneal - lagger]

Steve, I got the impression from Biff that he was only impressed because of the position of the person who had written it, as if the MSM had suddenly jumped on a band wagon that you or I had been banging on about for years. There are many people of influence in the US, for example, who will listen to what he has said and will now act on it. There are also perhaps a billion people in the rest of the world who will also take note.

The Pope still doesn't quite get the importance of the greater number of people that Catholicism advocates though. Just the space that these extra people, mostly in the third world, will take up to grow their food will have a grave effect on the wildlife that we share this globe with, wildlife of which we are supposed to be stewards, even if they do not use anywhere near the amount of resources that we in the west use. He really should listen to the lectures on Youtube given by the late Professor Albert A Bartlett of Boulder University on The Importance of the Exponential Function. Bartlett would put him right on the implications of that growth.

There is also a new report to the British Government, reported on by Nafeez Ahmed, which agrees with the Limits to Growth report of the 1970s in saying that the world faces complete collapse by 2040 if we carry on with BAU.

I have started a new topic on this article here.

[biffvernon]

This is the sort of pressure that the Pope can effect:

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/0 ... reduction/

Pope encyclical: Jeb Bush ‘embraces carbon emissions reduction’

[Little John]

I have nothing against the Pope as an individual using what influence he has to promote policies which I would broadly agree with. My problem is with the Catholic Church he represent. It is, fundamentally, not a force for good in the world.

[biffvernon]

Does the Pope represent the bad stuff that the Catholic Church has done or is he trying, fundamentally, to turn it into a force for good in the world?

Have you found anything bad in Laudato Si yet?

[Little John]

Does the Pope represent the bad stuff that the Catholic Church has done or is he trying, fundamentally, to turn it into a force for good in the world?

Have you found anything bad in Laudato Si yet?

Given that the Pope represents the entire church, in the absence of an unequivocal denunciation of those bad things, then yes, he represents all of it. Whether or not this document is intellectually worthy is a secondary issue to that. Especially so if there are many other such documents by people that are equally and/or far more intellectually worthy.

[biffvernon]

It would be absurd to blame the Pope for the Spanish Inquisition or the repression of the Cathars. Where does one draw the line? It is hard to read Laudato Si as anything but a denunciation of all the bad stuff that goes on in the world, within and without the Catholic Church, and as a call for how things should be.

[Little John]

It would be absurd to blame the Pope for the Spanish Inquisition or the repression of the Cathars. Where does one draw the line? It is hard to read Laudato Si as anything but a denunciation of all the bad stuff that goes on in the world, within and without the Catholic Church, and as a call for how things should be.

You think all the bad stuff in the Catholic church happened centuries ago and that the church is not behind heinous actions right now?

Do you really need me to list them?

[biffvernon]

It would be absurd to blame the Pope for the Spanish Inquisition or the repression of the Cathars. Where does one draw the line? It is hard to read Laudato Si as anything but a denunciation of all the bad stuff that goes on in the world, within and without the Catholic Church, and as a call for how things should be.

You think all the bad stuff in the Catholic church happened centuries ago and that the church is not behind heinous actions right now?

No! If I thought that I would have written "of all the bad stuff that went on" rather than what I did write which was "of all the bad stuff that goes on".


Here's influence being wielded:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/ ... -06-24.cfm

[emordnilap]

Whatever.

The organisation is far bigger any government: if it can convince so many of its supporters of something that's not true, then I hope it can convince them about something that is.

So if this document results in action, fair enough. I hae ma doots.

[biffvernon]

An lo, the influence spreadeth.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... lical.html

Eric Holthouse, who usually writes about climate rather than religion, reports.