Anti-Catholic already misrepresents new encyclical

:rolleyes: Anything for a buck…

Brannon Howse site article by Michael Snyder

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/pope-francis-calls-new-global-political-authority-save-humanity

I am shocked, shocked I tell you! :slight_smile:

:slight_smile:

What is specifically misrepresented?

Hi Michael,
I consider you one the most trustworthy members of CAF. Could you help me understand what is the misrepresentation, other than the implied link to the UN, or Schellnhuber, or both.

Jon

I have not thoroughly read it yet, but I’m disappointedly unsurprised that the author did not quote from the Encyclical so we could see whether the things said about “what the Pope said” match what he really said.

I haven’t read either thoroughly, but a quick perusal through both (that is, the Encyclical, and the OP article) leads me to believe that the discrepancy is in the Pope calling for a global authority (the article and the UK linked) and the Pope calling for dialogue.

Francis also called for a new global political authority tasked with “tackling … the reduction of pollution and the development of poor countries and regions”.

theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/15/pope-francis-destruction-ecosystem-leaked-encyclical

vs.

II. DIALOGUE FOR NEW NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICIES

  1. There are not just winners and losers among countries, but within poorer countries themselves. Hence different responsibilities need to be identified. Questions related to the environment and economic development can no longer be approached only from the standpoint of differences between countries; they also call for greater attention to policies on the national and local levels.
  1. Given the real potential for a misuse of human abilities, individual states can no longer ignore their responsibility for planning, coordination, oversight and enforcement within their respective borders. How can a society plan and protect its future amid constantly developing technological innovations? One authoritative source of oversight and coordination is the law, which lays down rules for admissible conduct in the light of the common good. The limits which a healthy, mature and sovereign society must impose are those related to foresight and security, regulatory norms, timely enforcement, the elimination of corruption, effective responses to undesired side-effects of production processes, and appropriate intervention where potential or uncertain risks are involved. There is a growing jurisprudence dealing with the reduction of pollution by business activities. But political and institutional frameworks do not exist simply to avoid bad practice, but also to promote best practice, to stimulate creativity in seeking new solutions and to encourage individual or group initiatives.

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

Again, that’s just what I saw on a quick perusal, but it appears to be a call for dialogue on the issue, more than a call for an actual centralized authority.

fwiw.

I don’t know, One authoritative source of oversight and coordination is the law, which lays down rules for admissible conduct in the light of the common good sounds like a centralized authority to me. I really can’t find a clear misrepresentation. Can someone point it out?

Worth a good bit, now that you mention it.

Thanks

Jon

The Pope didn’t call for “the law”. Law already exists, as does a state’s “responsibility for planning, coordination, oversight and enforcement within their respective borders”.He’s simply pointing out the obvious…because society tends to be lazy about its responsibilities, in my opinion.

Two things:

  1. Howss and his people are anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists and the author of that article is asserting that Pope Francis is espousing some kind of one world government a la end-of-time/anti-Christ, which is of course, anything but true.

  2. It is pretty obvious that that author is basing his article on the 3rd hand information, (Leaked journalist article-Guardian [not known for unbiased reporting with regard to Catholicism]-the author’s own lack of research and reporting in the WVW website which is pretty rabidly a-C.

We need to be aware that this is pretty much the kind of stuff we can expect from a-Cs in the coming weeks.

Correctamundo!:thumbsup:

Well, first, like I said, that was based on a quick perusal; I’m still working on going through it more thoroughly, as so many others.

Second, the statement which you’re quoting (which I c&p’d and bolded from the Encyclical) is merely an observation, not a suggestion, recommendation, or call for a ‘centralized authority’–hence it’s probably not the right ‘source’ of the claim anyway.

Third, and more tellingly however, is that as you peruse through the Encyclical, as it goes on, you’ll note that beginning in Chapter 5, “Lines of Approach and Action” (essentially his recommendations to the problems he’s identified) the captions of the major sections are entitled “Dialogue [on/for] [X]”, and the text beneath, appears to confirm its accuracy (again, on perusal) that what he is calling for, is dialogue.

e.g.:

I. DIALOGUE ON THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

…Interdependence obliges us to** think of **one world with a common plan…A global consensus<–[NB: consensus =/= ‘authority’] is essential for confronting the deeper problems, which cannot be resolved by unilateral actions on the part of individual countries. Such a consensus could lead, for example, to planning a sustainable and diversified agriculture, developing renewable and less polluting forms of energy, encouraging a more efficient use of energy, promoting a better management of marine and forest resources, and ensuring universal access to drinking water.

and

  1. Enforceable **international agreements ** (i.e. treaties–not global authority) are urgently needed, since local authorities are not always capable of effective intervention. Relations between states must be respectful of each other’s sovereignty, but must also lay down mutually agreed means of averting regional disasters which would eventually affect everyone. Global regulatory norms are needed to impose obligations and prevent unacceptable actions, for example, when powerful companies dump contaminated waste or offshore polluting industries in other countries.
  1. Let us also mention the system of governance of the oceans. International and regional conventions do exist, but fragmentation and the lack of strict mechanisms of regulation, control and penalization end up undermining these efforts. The growing problem of marine waste and the protection of the open seas represent particular challenges. What is needed, in effect, is an agreement on systems of governance for the whole range of so-called “global commons”.

and

*II. DIALOGUE FOR NEW NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICIES

  1. There are not just winners and losers among countries, but within poorer countries themselves. Hence different responsibilities need to be identified*. …
  1. Given the real potential for a misuse of human abilities, individual states can no longer ignore their responsibility for planning, coordination, oversight and enforcement within their respective borders. How can a society plan and protect its future amid constantly developing technological innovations? One authoritative source of oversight and coordination is the law, which lays down rules for admissible conduct in the light of the common good. …There is a growing jurisprudence dealing with the reduction of pollution by business activities. But political and institutional frameworks do not exist simply to avoid bad practice, but also to promote best practice, to stimulate creativity in seeking new solutions and to encourage individual or group initiatives.
  1. In some places, cooperatives are being developed to exploit renewable sources of energy which ensure local self-sufficiency and even the sale of surplus energy. This simple example shows that, while the existing world order proves powerless to assume its responsibilities, local individuals and groups can make a real difference. They are able to instil a greater sense of responsibility, a strong sense of community, a readiness to protect others, a spirit of creativity and a deep love for the land… Because the enforcement of laws is at times inadequate due to corruption, public pressure has to be exerted in order to bring about decisive political action. Society, through non-governmental organizations and intermediate groups, must put pressure on governments to develop more rigorous regulations, procedures and controls. Unless citizens control political power – national, regional and municipal – it will not be possible to control damage to the environment.** Local legislation can be more effective, too, if agreements exist between neighbouring communities to support the same environmental policies.**
  1. There are no uniform recipes, because each country or region has its own problems and limitations. It is also true that political realism may call for transitional measures and technologies, so long as these are accompanied by the gradual framing and acceptance of binding commitments… New forms of cooperation and community organization can be encouraged<–[NB: encouraged =/= dictated] in order to defend the interests of small producers and preserve local ecosystems from destruction. Truly, much can be done!
    .

And I’m still fishing for the “One World Authority” deal; haven’t found it yet…

And please note how he’s calling for MORE LOCAL responsibility; that would seem to contradict the notion of a singular, omnipotent global authority.

and:

III. DIALOGUE AND TRANSPARENCY IN DECISION-MAKING
*
182. An assessment of the environmental impact of business ventures and projects demands transparent political processes involving a free exchange of views. On the other hand, the forms of corruption which conceal the actual environmental impact of a given project, in exchange for favours, usually produce specious agreements which fail to inform adequately and to allow for full debate.

  1. Environmental impact assessment should not come after the drawing up of a business proposition or the proposal of a particular policy, plan or programme. It should be part of the process from the beginning, and be carried out in a way which is interdisciplinary, transparent and free of all economic or political pressure*. It should be linked to a study of working conditions and possible effects on people’s physical and mental health, on the local economy and on public safety. Economic returns can thus be forecast more realistically, taking into account potential scenarios and the eventual need for further investment to correct possible undesired effects. A consensus should always be reached between the different stakeholders, who can offer a variety of approaches, solutions and alternatives. The local population should have a special place at the table; they are concerned about their own future and that of their children, and can consider goals transcending immediate economic interest. We need to stop thinking in terms of “interventions” to save the environment in favour of policies developed and debated by all interested parties. The participation of the latter also entails being fully informed about such projects and their different risks and possibilities; this includes not just preliminary decisions but also various follow-up activities and continued monitoring. Honesty and truth are needed in scientific and political discussions; these should not be limited to the issue of whether or not a particular project is permitted by law.
  1. In the face of possible risks to the environment which may affect the common good now and in the future, decisions must be made “based on a comparison of the risks and benefits foreseen for the various possible alternatives”.[131] This is especially the case when a project may lead to a greater use of natural resources, higher levels of emission or discharge, an increase of refuse, or significant changes to the landscape, the habitats of protected species or public spaces. Some projects, if insufficiently studied, can profoundly affect the quality of life of an area due to very different factors such as unforeseen noise pollution, the shrinking of visual horizons, the loss of cultural values, or the effects of nuclear energy use. The culture of consumerism, which prioritizes short-term gain and private interest, can make it easy to rubber-stamp authorizations or to conceal information.
  1. There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics**. But I am concerned to encourage** an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.

NB: “encouraging debate” =/= a global, central authority.

and

*V. POLITICS AND ECONOMY IN DIALOGUE FOR HUMAN FULFILMENT

  1. Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy. Today, in view of the common good, there is urgent need for politics and economics to enter into a frank dialogue* in the service of life, especially human life. Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price, foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms the absolute power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises after a slow, costly and only apparent recovery. The financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an opportunity to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of regulating speculative financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not include rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world. Production is not always rational, and is usually tied to economic variables which assign to products a value that does not necessarily correspond to their real worth. This frequently leads to an overproduction of some commodities, with unnecessary impact on the environment and with negative results on regional economies.[133] The financial bubble also tends to be a productive bubble. The problem of the real economy is not confronted with vigour, yet it is the real economy which makes diversification and improvement in production possible, helps companies to function well, and enables small and medium businesses to develop and create employment.

  1. Politics and the economy tend to blame each other when it comes to poverty and environmental degradation. It is to be hoped that they can acknowledge their own mistakes and find forms of interaction directed to the common good…Here too, we see how true it is that “unity is greater than conflict”.[140]

…still fishing… :smiley:

*V. RELIGIONS IN DIALOGUE WITH SCIENCE

  1. It cannot be maintained that empirical science provides a complete explanation of life, the interplay of all creatures and the whole of reality. This would be to breach the limits imposed by its own methodology. If we reason only within the confines of the latter, little room would be left for aesthetic sensibility, poetry, or even reason’s ability to grasp the ultimate meaning and purpose of things.[141] I would add that “religious classics can prove meaningful in every age; they have an enduring power to open new horizons… Is it reasonable and enlightened to dismiss certain writings simply because they arose in the context of religious belief?”[142] It would be quite simplistic to think that ethical principles present themselves purely in the abstract, detached from any context. Nor does the fact that they may be couched in religious language detract from their value in public debate. *The ethical principles capable of being apprehended by reason can always reappear in different guise and find expression in a variety of languages, including religious language.
  1. Any technical solution which science claims to offer will be powerless to solve the serious problems of our world if humanity loses its compass, if we lose sight of the great motivations which make it possible for us to live in harmony, to make sacrifices and to treat others well.** Believers** themselves must constantly feel challenged to live in a way consonant with their faith and not to contradict it by their actions. They need to be encouraged to be ever open to God’s grace and to draw constantly from their deepest convictions about love, justice and peace. If a mistaken understanding of our own principles has at times led us to justify mistreating nature, to exercise tyranny over creation, to engage in war, injustice and acts of violence, we believers should acknowledge that by so doing we were not faithful to the treasures of wisdom which we have been called to protect and preserve. Cultural limitations in different eras often affected the perception of these ethical and spiritual treasures, yet by constantly returning to their sources, religions will be better equipped to respond to today’s needs. NB: “We believers…should” =/= Global, secular authority, Not by any stretch.
  1. The majority of people living on our planet profess to be believers. This should spur religions to dialogue among themselves for the sake of protecting nature, defending the poor, and building networks of respect and fraternity. Dialogue among the various sciences is likewise needed, since each can tend to become enclosed in its own language, while specialization leads to a certain isolation and the absolutization of its own field of knowledge. This prevents us from confronting environmental problems effectively. An open and respectful dialogue is also needed between the various ecological movements, among which ideological conflicts are not infrequently encountered. The gravity of the ecological crisis demands that we all look to the common good, embarking on a path of dialogue which demands patience, self-discipline and generosity, always keeping in mind that “realities are greater than ideas”.[143]

That’s the end of Ch. 5. Nothing in the remaining Chapters appears to fit the bill.

So, my conclusion at this point, is that the characterization of there being a call for a centralized authority is ill founded. Actually, completely fabricated (unless it’s buried in one of the other sections I did not comb through).

fwiw.

PS: the C&P jobs above were largely edited out in order to fit the 6000 character limit.

Another misrepresentation: the OP article suggests Pope Francis supports depopulation, but the idea of depopulation is specifically repudiated in the encyclical. Just my $0.02.

When the Pope says “one authoritative source…” he means “one of several authoritative sources…” He’s not saying there needs to be one centralized legal system, but he thinks that nations ought to coordinate their laws with each other so that they are working towards a common purpose in a consistent fashion.

If the Pope says that one authoritative source for Catholic doctrine is Scripture, we understand that he has not suddenly gone all sola Scriptura on us.

Exactly–it’s taking that one little statement completely out of context (again, assuming that was the right one).

…One authoritative source of oversight and coordination*** is the law,*** which lays down rules for admissible conduct in the light of the common good…

He’s merely making an observation here, not a suggestion. Restated in the active voice, it would read like this: "The Law is one authoritative source of oversight…". Nothing at all along the lines of “…there should be established ONE AUTHORITATIVE ENTITY” or such.

The Pope is calling for dialogue–and yes, consensus (later on down) but consensus entails a meeting of minds–further implying a voluntary aspect, none of which even comes close to amounting to a call for a centralized authority–especially when he goes on to talk about how effective local efforts have been, and how inept many international efforts have been.

Again, I’m just not seeing it.

Yes, I get the eco. tree-hugger vibe that emanates throughout, but not the political call to centralized global authority that has been projected onto the the encyclical. Strikes me as wishful thinking from those of that political bent (as they always seem to let it color their coverage of almost anything).

Obviously the Pope (perhaps with the assistance of his staff) is capable of doing something the Liberal Media is completely incapable of–and that’s keeping politics and ideology separate.

IOW: you can have an ideological bent; but you need not let that convert your every communication about it, into a political agenda.

fwiw/jmho.

I just searched the whole encyclical for anyplace that even infers any sort of population reduction, (something else that the OP mentions from the Guardian article) and not one single hint of that exists from Laudato Si.

Here are excerpts that mention population.

  1. Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”.[28] To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption. Besides, we know that approximately a third of all food produced is discarded, and “whenever food is thrown out it is as if it were stolen from the table of the poor”.[29] Still, attention needs to be paid to imbalances in population density, on both national and global levels, since a rise in consumption would lead to complex regional situations, as a result of the interplay between problems linked to environmental pollution, transport, waste treatment, loss of resources and quality of life.
  1. The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone. If we make something our own, it is only to administer it for the good of all. If we do not, we burden our consciences with the weight of having denied the existence of others. That is why the New Zealand bishops asked what the commandment “Thou shall not kill” means when “twenty percent of the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive”.[78]
  1. For poor countries, the priorities must be to eliminate extreme poverty and to promote the social development of their people. At the same time, they need to acknowledge the scandalous level of consumption in some privileged sectors of their population and to combat corruption more effectively. They are likewise bound to develop less polluting forms of energy production, but to do so they require the help of countries which have experienced great growth at the cost of the ongoing pollution of the planet. Taking advantage of abundant solar energy will require the establishment of mechanisms and subsidies which allow developing countries access to technology transfer, technical assistance and financial resources, but in a way which respects their concrete situations, since “the compatibility of [infrastructures] with the context for which they have been designed is not always adequately assessed”.[128] The costs of this would be low, compared to the risks of climate change. In any event, these are primarily ethical decisions, rooted in solidarity between all peoples.
  1. Enforceable international agreements are urgently needed, since local authorities are not always capable of effective intervention. Relations between states must be respectful of each other’s sovereignty, but must also lay down mutually agreed means of averting regional disasters which would eventually affect everyone. Global regulatory norms are needed to impose obligations and prevent unacceptable actions, for example, when powerful companies dump contaminated waste or offshore polluting industries in other countries.
  1. Let us also mention the system of governance of the oceans. International and regional conventions do exist, but fragmentation and the lack of strict mechanisms of regulation, control and penalization end up undermining these efforts. The growing problem of marine waste and the protection of the open seas represent particular challenges. What is needed, in effect, is an agreement on systems of governance for the whole range of so-called “global commons”.

(Cont’d)

Thanks for posting this, OP.

Mary.

  1. The same mindset which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty. A more responsible overall approach is needed to deal with both problems: the reduction of pollution and the development of poorer countries and regions. The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. As Benedict XVI has affirmed in continuity with the social teaching of the Church: “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”.[129] Diplomacy also takes on new importance in the work of developing international strategies which can anticipate serious problems affecting us all.
  1. A politics concerned with immediate results, supported by consumerist sectors of the population, is driven to produce short-term growth. In response to electoral interests, governments are reluctant to upset the public with measures which could affect the level of consumption or create risks for foreign investment. The myopia of power politics delays the inclusion of a far-sighted environmental agenda within the overall agenda of governments. Thus we forget that “time is greater than space”,[130] that we are always more effective when we generate processes rather than holding on to positions of power. True statecraft is manifest when, in difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the long-term common good. Political powers do not find it easy to assume this duty in the work of nation-building.

Frankly, I see His Holiness being very careful to speak of national sovereignty while saying that all nations must step up and take responsible and transparent action.

The article by Michael Snyder pretty clearly misrepresents the content and intention of the encyclical, and in referring to “The Guardian” as a source clearly fails to do his own journalistic homework in checking his sources.

IMHO all Christians (especially journalists) have a responsibility to insure that they offer only truth because we follow Him who proclaimed “I am the way and the truth and the life."

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.