I see the Pope is apologizing for the Church's treatment of the Waldensians,, for God's sake. When is he going to apologize for the Church's treatment of Luther and for the burning of Hus? Why not just declare them all Saints...
As far as I am concerned, I cannot in conscience consent to an encyclical that was mainly drafted or had input from a godless atheist, which relies on science that isn't settled and is disputed and, therefore, in no way can be considered an infallible document which is free from error and nor does it concern areas of faith or morals. Furthermore, I am concerned that the Pope would choose to invite a godless atheist to advise him in this area.
Jan, it is the new evangelization and while much of what you say is true, there is a great deal in the encyclical that is infallible especially as it concerns abortion, artificial contraception, gender ideologies and same sex marriage.
The care that we has humans must have for our earth is infallible too. The science, no, not infallible and the idea that we can reverse global warming if it ain't from us, no. But just like with diseases that were once incurable or not preventable, God has given man the ability to find cures and preventative medicine for the human body, why not for the earth?
Would you Jan, find is suspicious if the pope wrote an encyclical about moral and immoral means of finding cures for diseases (such as polio, small pox, leprosy and the like) and consulted with atheists who did medical research in writing his encyclical?
Aristotle was BC. Plus, he wasn't an atheist, merely a pagan. Modern atheists like Schellenhuber are atheists in spite of knowing about Christ, revealed religion, and the Church….many are aggressively atheist, reviling or attacking the Church. And, Anony Miss ( I suppose it is you), we would also have to reject much of the NT because of the influence of Greek philosophy (Plato, Plotinus, etc) upon Paul and John.
The difference between working with others for a good outcome is much different then working with them to promote a lie that will be used to destroy you and all that is good. Your comparison is flawed and although I respect your desire to defend the pope out of an obligation you feel as a good priest, if forces you into using the style of poor logic that he spouts off all the time. The cartoon has devious dishonesty to it. It is undoubtedly drawn by a Bernardine seamless garment worshiper.
Angry - No, "we" don't have to reject any of the New Testament. Only Jan and those who think that the influence of paganism or atheism renders a document less than worthwhile.
Anony Miss, There is a difference in paganism and atheism; there is a difference in modern atheism and the atheisms before Christ. Yes, the influence of modern atheism may well render a document less than worthwhile…not in every case, but in many. Now, run back to the kitchen.
Yes, Father, I certainly accept anything in the encyclical that is taught as without error by the Church. However, until it is proven - and there is a lot of evidence against it - I do not accept climate change at all. For one thing if there were genuine rises in temperature then the evidence would not need to be skewed as it has been - but no one seems to be bothering to look at that side. All very well to ban fossil fuels that the poor rely on but how about Pope Francis telling us about what poort are going use in it's place? I saw a programme just the other night about some species of monkey that is feared to face extinction. One scene showed a dead monkey carried on someone's back out of the jungle to the absolute consternation of the narrator who mentioned that the local people - who are impoverished - rely on this monkey for their food. Not a word mentioned about bringing in truckloads of food to give to these people so that they might not need to hunt.
So all these great climate change gurus and all the supporters of climate change what do you suggest be done to alleviate the use of fossil fuels in poor countries. All very well for Americans and Italians to pontificate on "We must get rid of fossil fuels" but supply no answer to what is going to be used in its place. Those from the UK who comment here will be very knowledgeable in what happened a few years back in a severe winter relying on wind generated electricity from Scotland - a fair few went cold. So come on all you supporters of this encyclical, what do you propose to do? And you will all be the first to squeal when the taxes put on fossil fuels start to hit you - which they surely will because these taxes will impact on the cost of food - due to the cost of cartage being taxed etc, etc, etc. What do you propose to do about the heavy taxes that will be imposed on third world countries that rely on fossil fuels sending them deeper into debt and impoverishing the people further? Oh I suspect then there will be the easy solutions - abortion and euthanasia. These climate change gurus will start to say there are too many people in these countries who are a drag on the rest of the world. So, Pope Francis has unleashed a pandora's box. And I am sure you are all supportive of his most recent appointee Naomi Klein who advocates one world government. So where is this all going to end? Badly I think and most especially for the poor who are just a pawn in the wider game of one world government that Pope Francis seems now to be a part of.
An interesting article about Pope Francis that should make a few of us ask a few questions about these liberal appointees of Pope Francis:
"Under the papacy of Francis the Catholic Church is turning from saving souls to saving the environment.
Addressing St. Peter’s Square throngs from his window in a Vatican palazzo is taking the easy way out in that effort.
So is encouraging the collaboration between persons and associations of different religions on behalf of an integral ecology.
Saving souls is—or should be—a full-time job. Read up on any number of saints who were martyred trying to perform that job.
Pope Francis has appointed the world’s top environmental leaders in his recent encyclical initiative.
Papal defenders offer the alibi of the pontiff’s not knowing who chosen papal encyclical presenter Professor John Schnellnhuber, is. Special: GOP Slams SCOTUS: 'So Much For Calling Balls and Strikes'
Schnellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, contends that the earth is “overpopulated by at least 6 billion people”. That’s who. ...
“Schnellnhuber is also author of what’s called the “two-degree target” that says governments must not allow the temperature to rise more than 2 degrees higher than at the start of the industrial revolution. Any higher, the theory holds, and much life on earth would either perish or be gravely harmed.
“To deal with climate issues, he has also called for an “Earth Constitution that would transcend the UN Charter” along with the creation of a “Global Council…elected by all the people on Earth” and a “Planetary Court..a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution.”
“Make that the UN Charter, co-written by Canadian UN Poster Boy Maurice Strong and former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the one absurdly transported in a gilded Ark of the Covenant knockoff as the appropriate receptacle for “The new Ten Commandments” that no Pontiff has ever tried to do anything about. (Canada Free Press, June 15, 2015)
Next defenders of Pope Francis, ‘Defender of the Pagan Gaia Faith’, will be telling us he didn’t really know who Naomi Klein, Canadian author and environmentalist, known for her opposition to capitalism and corporate globalization, scheduled to join a Vatican committee that was formed to draw attention to a conference on the environment being held in Rome this week, really is.
“Klein’s most recent book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, explores the relationship between economic powers and the environment. (National Post)
“The People and Planet First conference is organized by the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace and by Catholic groups and will bring together Church leaders and scientists.
“In a recent encyclical about the environment, Pope Francis wrote passionately about the world’s moral duty to save the Earth and move away from business systems that pollute.
“He also noted how the poor often suffer the most from pollution and from other environmental damage in developing countries.”
Socialism does far more to make the poor suffer than capitalism.
From North America to the Vatican: While the Pope was leaning out of his palazzo window on Sunday, the White House was celebrating the Supreme Court’s legalization of same sex marriage in all 50 states, having flooded the White House with the colours of the gay rainbow flag on Friday night.
A radical societal change surely more worthy of papal attention than saving the environment.
Christians of all sects have had the wind knocked out of them in what they are calling one of the darkest days in history.
Meanwhile, the moss is not growing over the faithful but all over ‘Save the Environment’ Pope Francis." http://canadafreepress.com/article/73293
New Zealand has one of the highest rates of climate change scepticism in the developed world, a study has revealed. Surprisingly, we have more sceptics per capita than in the US, where large numbers of right-wing media and politicians refuse to accept climate change is man-made. ...
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change was real, scepticism may even be on the rise, the authors of the University of Tasmania study said.
One outspoken Kiwi climate change sceptic, Herald on Sunday columnist and former Act Party leader Rodney Hide, said the results showed that New Zealand was "saner than most of the world".
"[The results] suggests to me that New Zealanders are more resistant to propaganda than I would have otherwise believed.
...
"According to data compiled by the US Department of Energy, New Zealand was ranked 50 out of 214 nations for CO2 emissions per capita, with each Kiwi creating about 7.8 tonnes each year.
A new paper from the University of Tasmania, called Scepticism in a changing climate: a cross-national study, found 13 per cent of New Zealanders were climate change sceptics.It was third only to Norway (15 per cent) and Australia (17 per cent). The United States came in at 12 per cent.
...
The study's release comes in a week when four Greenpeace protesters were arrested after scaling Parliament's roof and holing up for 10 hours to protest what they claimed was the Government's lack of action on climate change.
It also coincides with one of the coldest weeks in New Zealand's history, with parts of the South Island reaching a bone-chilling -20°C."
You do know that not everything you find on the internet is Gospel truth, don’t you? I ask because you continue to post scurrilous articles that contain gross misrepresentations, such as Schnellnhuber saying the Earth is currently overpopulated by six billion and therefore advocating population reduction. I am tired of continually having to correct this misrepresentation but I have to do it in the interests of truth So, here yet again, for the umpteenth time, is the _original_ New York Times article that people continue to misrepresent:
As anyone with half a brain can see, Shellnhuber is not advocating population reduction; he is WARNING WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN IF GLOBAL WARMING INCREASES. As I said before, people are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. The charitable explanation is that people are just lazy. It works like this: A misrepresents B then C cites A, but doesn’t check the source B, D cites A or C and so on. That’s how lies and half-truths can go viral and, boy, do we see it here. The uncharitable explanation is that some people are just malicious and spread lies and half-truths deliberately for their own nefarious purposes. Either way, I am beginning to understand much better why people complain about “right wing” news sources and blogs.
Anonymous 2 - I have quoted this repeatedly from the New York Times article. You can't seem to use your reason as to what the man is saying:
“In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,” said Dr. Schellnhuber.
Why does he even make this statement when the population is over 6 billion? Is the man dense or something? Have you got an explanation for what he means? It is a bald statement and it is not explained in the New York Times' article at all. As anyone reading your link will see. The only possible explanation for anyone with a modicum of sense is that he considers the planet needs to be reduced down to 1 billion. We now wait to see how you and he suggest that that might happen.
Oh and while we're at it, his ideas for a one world government are interesting:
"As he explains himself in this document on HumansAndNature.org, he’s a proponent of an all-powerful, climate-focused world government that would rule over the planet… a literal “science dictatorship” based on whatever “science” the climate change proponents can fudge together each year.
As Schellnhuber says:
Let me conclude this short contribution with a daydream about those key institutions that could bring about a sophisticated — and therefore more appropriate — version of the conventional “world government” notion. Global democracy might be organized around three core activities, namely (i) an Earth Constitution; (ii) a Global Council; and (iii) a Planetary Court. I cannot discuss these institutions in any detail here, but I would like to indicate at least that:
– the Earth Constitution would transcend the UN Charter and identify those first principles guiding humanity in its quest for freedom, dignity, security and sustainability;
– the Global Council would be an assembly of individuals elected directly by all people on Earth, where eligibility should be not constrained by geographical, religious, or cultural quotas; and
– the Planetary Court would be a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution.
Schellnhunber, in other words, believes a new world government can create “freedom” for humanity by dictating to it with a new Planetary Court guided by an Earth Constitution which will no doubt begin by declaring the planet can only sustain one billion people. The other six billion or so simply have to go. So instead of a Bill of Rights, this new Earth Constitution will be founded on a Bill of Deaths and a global government that might order the extermination of billions of human beings in order to “save the climate."
Apparently a scientist who does not support climate change who was invited by Cardinal Turkson attendance at the meeting was vetoed. So who on earth is going to support an encyclical that is promoting a one-sided view? Obviously, you only get into these "shows" if you are an atheist, left-leaning radical. In such company, it's not surprising that protestants and others are saying the Pope is advocating for a one world government and the divide in the Church will just become wider while these types of people appear to be in control of the Vatican. Those who have said the Pope should have stayed out of this issue are being proved right.
"Last week the Washington Post reported that Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences, intervened to block the participation of French scientist Philippe de Larminat in a Vatican seminar on climate change. De Larminat, who does not accept that climate change is caused by human activity, was invited to the April seminar by Cardinal Turkson, one of main drafters of the encyclical, but his participation was, according to the Washington Post, “effectively vetoed” by Sorondo.
Professor Schellnhuber is said to have been “stunned” that de Larminat had almost been admitted to the seminar. The Washington Post quotes him as saying that it showed that “even within the Vatican, there were some people who would like to see something that presented both sides.” Presenting both sides of the argument is clearly not acceptable to Schellnhuber.
Schellnhuber is also associated with the controversial “gaia principle.” The “gaia principle” proposes that both living and non-living beings on Earth interact to form self-regulating system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. This system is considered to be a living being in its own right, with even some degree of consciousness.
In “‘Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution”, (Nature, 1999) Schellnhuber spoke of “unravelling the mysteries of the Earth’s physique, or “Gaia’s body”.
He wrote:
“Ecosphere science is therefore coming of age, lending respectability to its romantic companion, Gaia theory, as pioneered by Lovelock and Margulis. This hotly debated ‘geophysiological’ approach to Earth-system analysis argues that the biosphere contributes in an almost cognizant way to self-regulating feedback mechanisms that have kept the Earth’s surface environment stable and habitable for life.”
Gaia theory is often associated with a hostile attitude towards human activity, which is considered a perpetual threat to the earth’s ecosystem."
"Q. Were you aware before your collaboration with Sachs at the Vatican of his public position on abortion in the book “Commonwealth”, where he says abortion is a “low-cost” and “low-risk” intervention to reduce fertility in the event that contraceptives fail?
Sánchez Sorondo (S.S.) I’ve just come back from Argentina, where I attended a conference to combat new forms of slavery, like human trafficking, forced labor, prostitution, and organ trafficking, which I consider, together with Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, to be a crime against humanity. Unfortunately, there is not only the drama of abortion, but there are also all these other dramas, in which you should also be interested, because they are closely related. The climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion.
Q. Several Catholic intellectuals and media sources criticized your decision to collaborate with Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs on climate change, because of their positions on abortion and population control. Do you have any reply to these concerns?
S.S. The Tea Party and all those whose income derives from oil have criticized us, but not my superiors, who instead authorized me, and several of them participated.
Q. Undoubtedly, you discussed Ban Ki-moon’s and Jeffrey Sachs’ position on abortion and population control in the lead up to the conference. How were any questions resolved?
S.S. Yes. We had these discussions, and as you can see, the draft SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) don’t even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. The interpretation and application of these depends on governments. Some may even interpret it as Paul VI, in terms of responsible paternity and maternity. Instead of attacking us, why not enter into dialogue with these “demons” to maybe make the formulation better, like we did on the issues of social inclusion and new forms of slavery?
Go here to read the rest. Mendacious, evasive and leftist doctrinaire would be a charitable interpretation of these snide responses.. That such a creature is at the head the Pontifical Academies of Science and Social Sciences illustrates how deep the intellectual and spiritual rot goes at the very top in the Church."
Yes, Angry Augustinian, Anon 2 is so defensive of Schellenhuber that I begin to wonder if they are one and the same - they are at least chips off the same block.
Who, though, can begin to spin Pope Francis in a better light when you begin to see who he is aligned with on this climate change/one world government issue?
Up to now we have been told that we have more or less imagined all the negative things that he has said: that really wasn't what he said; that wasn't his intention, that he said has been taken out of context or mistranslated.
The trouble is it is becoming more and more difficult to put a positive spin on the events unfolding at the Vatican. How are they going to spin the fact that when it came to the Synod on the Family Pope Francis more or less aligned himself with Kasper - particularly giving him the floor to speak at the consistory when it wasn't even on the agenda. And now he is aligned with atheists, promoting not only climate change but a very liberal agenda indeed.
It is quite obvious that, using Papal infallibility, this liberal bunch are attempting to browbeat Catholics into accepting a liberal agenda (through this encyclical), with population control and world government at its root. The prolife movement is rightly raising questions.
Pope Francis's appointees leave a lot to be desired. We have had an absolute out and out scurrilous attack on Cardinal Pell by a Pope Francis appointee, Peter Saunders. Being as charitable as I can in the circumstances I think Pope Francis is incompetent. Either that or he is an out and out liberal. There is no Pope in recent history that has put the Church into such perilous waters and leading the Church closer and closer to schism.
Anyone who still hopes for a good outcome at the Synod on the Family is sadly mistaken. We are stuck with a liberal agenda being promoted by Pope Francis appointees and no one can now deny that.
Anon 2 says he is not a lib (LOL), but has consistently apologized for and defended on this blog gays, Muslims, Leftists, Obama…everyone but conservatives. When Islam becomes dominant in this country and they have Anon 2 on his knees, he will be defending them as loud as he can until the knife hits his vocal chords or his carotids. LOL!
Okay, for the VERY LAST TIME, here is the actual text of the NYT report. My comments are in parentheses. The editors’ annotations are in brackets.
The report is entitled “Scientist: Warming Could Cut Population to I Billion”
(Get it? – WARMING, and NOT population control, could cut the population to 1 billion)
“COPENHAGEN — A scientist known for his aggressive stance on climate policy made an apocalyptic prediction on Thursday.”
(Get it? – APOCALYPTIC PREDICTION of what will happen if warming is not slowed)
“Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth’s population would be devastated. [UPDATED, 6:10 p.m: The preceding line was adjusted to reflect that Dr. Schellnhuber was not describing a worst-case warming projection. h/t to Joe Romm.]
‘In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,’ said Dr. Schellnhuber, who has advised German Chancellor Angela Merkel on climate policy and is a visiting professor at Oxford.
At that temperature, there would be ‘no fluctuations anymore, we can be fairly sure,’ said Dr. Schellnhuber, exercising his characteristically dark sense of humor at the morning plenary session on the closing day of an international climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. [Earlier post: The conference organizers have sought to jog policymakers with a stronger assessment of global warming’s risks, but some scientists warned the approach could backfire.]
(Get it? – The population WOULD be devastated IF temperatures rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature we know the Earth could sustain 1 billion people as its carrying capacity and there would be no more fluctuations in population; this is a CYNICAL triumph for science and an example of Schellnhuber’s DARK SENSE OF HUMOR)
“‘What a triumph,’ Dr. Schellnhuber said. ‘On the other hand do we want this alternative? I think we can do much, much better,’ he told the conference."
(Get it? This is called SARCASM followed by a clear indication that this result is UNDESIRABLE and WE CAN DO MUNCH BETTER)
“Dr. Schellnhuber, citing his own research, said that at certain ‘tipping points,’ higher temperatures could cause areas of the ocean to become deoxygenated, resulting in what he calls ‘oxygen holes’ between 600 and 2,400 feet deep. These are areas so depleted of the gas that they would badly disrupt the food chain.
“Unabated warming would also lead to ‘disruption of the monsoon, collapse of the Amazon rain forest and the Greenland ice sheet will meltdown,’ he said.
“But on the bright side, he noted, in a joking reference to the meeting’s Danish hosts, the retreat of the sheath of ice covering Greenland, which is Danish-controlled territory, ‘would increase your usable land by, I don’t know, 10,000 percent.’
“‘But I’m not sure whether you want to do this,’ he said.”
(Get it? Schellnhuber explains the effects of such temperature rise on the planet and also gives a final indication that these results are UNDESIRABLE).
If you still don’t get it, I cannot help you.
Admittedly, this report is mostly indirect speech. I have tried to find the actual text of Schellnhuber’s address but without success. As I requested before, if you have access to it, please provide us with the text or a link to the text.
Anyone who dares to challenge extremist distortions and vile invective is a lib in your eyes. And those who engage in extremist distortions and vile invective are not true conservatives.
I will tell you something now and this is in deadly earnest. Uncharitable comments about non-Catholics such as those that have appeared not infrequently on this Blog do nothing to endear the Catholic Church to others. Instead they drive people further away from the Church. Those who make them – and here I am thinking especially of you – may have good intentions, thinking they are defending the Church and working for her good. But in my experience the result is the opposite. It is understandable when others say “Well, if that’s what Catholics can be like – mean-spirited and vile – I don’t want to become one.” I speak from painful personal experience. Moreover, to be quite blunt about it, you, through your comments alone, have significantly impeded my attempts to evangelize. If you wonder why we are losing souls, you need look no further than in the mirror. As I said before, each day some of us are on the front lines of the real battle, not your pseudo macho battle. We could use some help.
If you want people to be attracted to Catholicism, then Catholics have to be attractive. And “attractive” is not a word that leaps most immediately to mind when people read most of your comments on this Blog.
This did not make it through it seems and so I am trying again:
Anon. Jan (and AA):
Okay, for the VERY LAST TIME, here is the actual text of the NYT report. My comments are in parentheses. The editors’ annotations are in brackets.
The report is entitled “Scientist: Warming Could Cut Population to I Billion” (Get it? – WARMING, and NOT population control, could cut the population to 1 billion)
“COPENHAGEN — A scientist known for his aggressive stance on climate policy made an apocalyptic prediction on Thursday.” (Get it? – APOCYLYPTIC PREDICTION of what will happen if warming is not slowed)
“Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth’s population would be devastated. [UPDATED, 6:10 p.m: The preceding line was adjusted to reflect that Dr. Schellnhuber was not describing a worst-case warming projection. h/t to Joe Romm.] ‘In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,’ said Dr. Schellnhuber, who has advised German Chancellor Angela Merkel on climate policy and is a visiting professor at Oxford. At that temperature, there would be ‘no fluctuations anymore, we can be fairly sure,’ said Dr. Schellnhuber, exercising his characteristically dark sense of humor at the morning plenary session on the closing day of an international climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. [Earlier post: The conference organizers have sought to jog policymakers with a stronger assessment of global warming’s risks, but some scientists warned the approach could backfire.] (Get it? – The population WOULD be devastated IF temperatures rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature we know the Earth could sustain 1 billion people as its carrying capacity and there would be no more fluctuations in population; this is a CYNICAL triumph for science and an example of Schellnhuber’s DARK SENSE OF HUMOR)
“‘What a triumph,’ Dr. Schellnhuber said. ‘On the other hand do we want this alternative? I think we can do much, much better,’ he told the conference. (Get it? This is called SARCASM followed by a clear indication that this result is UNDESIRABLE and WE CAN DO MUNCH BETTER)
“Dr. Schellnhuber, citing his own research, said that at certain ‘tipping points,’ higher temperatures could cause areas of the ocean to become deoxygenated, resulting in what he calls ‘oxygen holes’ between 600 and 2,400 feet deep. These are areas so depleted of the gas that they would badly disrupt the food chain.
“Unabated warming would also lead to ‘disruption of the monsoon, collapse of the Amazon rain forest and the Greenland ice sheet will meltdown,’ he said.”
“But on the bright side, he noted, in a joking reference to the meeting’s Danish hosts, the retreat of the sheath of ice covering Greenland, which is Danish-controlled territory, ‘would increase your usable land by, I don’t know, 10,000 percent.’”
“‘But I’m not sure whether you want to do this,’ he said.”
(Get it? Schellnhuber explains the effects of such temperature rise on the planet and also gives a final indication that these results are UNDESIRABLE).
And Anonymous 2, I think you should start thinking about your own "Catholic" position and start looking at the word "toleration" which as Archbishop Fulton Sheen said:
"Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”
I have friends who are non-Catholic. They look at what is happening in the Vatican. They look at these atheists, these one world government promoters and they say to me that the Church is beginning to fulfill the prophecies.
People like you tolerating evil is what is stopping a lot of protestants from becoming Catholic. I can assure you that a liberal attitude doesn't do it for them.
Christ set the standard when He took whips to the moneychangers in the temple and He told the woman at the well to go and sin no more, which people like yourself seem to conveniently forget and so, can you any longer call yourself Catholic and are you the right person to be attempting to evangelise anyone?
Angry Augustine, reading your comment about the squirrels reminds me of the song, "Here we go gathering nuts in May" but it is already July here ... but I suppose when there are so many nuts around we can still go gather and still leave enough for the squirrels!
It seems that you are as uncritical about AA’s misrepresentation of my comments on the Blog as you appear to be about misrepresentations in articles on the internet.
I choose to follow the lead of Pope Francis rather than people like AA. I hope he and you won’t take it personally. Anyway, I expect that in your eyes Pope Francis is not a real Catholic either. Can’t help you there I’m afraid.
By the way, I can’t forget that He told the woman at the well to go and sin no more because He never said that to the woman at the well. He said that to the woman caught in adultery after all her self-righteous accusers had slunk away when he called them out.
Well, Anon 2, the point of the story of the woman is not simply Jesus' forgiving the woman taken in adultery. The scribes and Pharisees were not particularly self-righteous in this instance (or, their self-righteousness is not the point). They were challenging Jesus on a point of Mosaic Law under which he grew up and which he claims he came to fulfill. He easily diverted their confrontation by reminding them of their own sin, which they could not deny. But, then, in the rest of Jn 8, he takes the Pharisees to school about who He is. He talks of Abraham and the Law, and then reveals himself as the Son of God. He ends by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am (an interesting allusion to JHWH,"I am that I am.")." In Pope Benedict's words in, 'Jesus of Nazareth,' 'Jesus is telling them, in so many words, that He is the new Torah.' Of course, they are outraged and seek to stone him, but he escapes. The real issue here is belief…which the Pharisees reject. If we focus only on the instance of His forgiving the sin of the woman, we fall into the progressivist/liberal mode of seeing only the 'humanistic' side…focusing only upon Jesus' of Nazareth and his actions and not upon the real issue of John's Gospel (our first Christology)…Jesus the Christ, the Messiah promised to Israel and now claiming that the Law is fulfilled in Him. It still all comes down to belief…everything falls into place and into perspective. Jesus' actions are never ends in themselves, but always point back to who He is and the challenge of believing on Him who was sent.
Anon 2, yes, you are correct that Our Lord said it to the woman taken in adultery but the point is He said "Go and sin no more". He didn't tell her to continue the life she was living. He didn't gloss over it as you appear to want to do.
And I have to say I haven't read anything that Angry Augustinian has said that wasn't condemnatory of sin. If you take a good look at your own posts you may see that anyone who reads the way you have reacted to other posters here may be regarded as less than charitable. So it is a case of removing the plank from your own eye ...
I will take your comments about my postings under advisement. But I think you may be trying to score a rhetorical point that is unfounded. If you do take a good look at my previous postings, I challenge you to find one that is not measured or proportionate to the comment to which it responds. In my view, this means that my postings are always appropriately charitable.
If you are thinking of yourself specifically, I don’t think I have even felt as frustrated getting someone to admit that they and others they continued to cite had misread certain material (and indeed you still have not admitted this even though I parsed the NYT report on Schellnhuber paragraph by paragraph as you seemed to ask me to do).
If you are thinking of AA (aka Jolly Jansenist aka Gene aka Pin), I regret very much that sometimes language lacking in a certain charity is the only language he understands. And you should know that I have been extremely restrained in my responses to him
If on the other hand you find that I have been inappropriately uncharitable in a posting, then please let me know about it so that I may apologize.
But all this said, you may be onto something – sometimes I feel I should quit the Blog altogether because on occasion I feel spiritually grubby after engaging. I am not sure it is good for my spiritual health to participate as I do. I am serious about this.
I would also like you to think about what it means to say to someone, as you did, that they tolerate evil, are liberal, conveniently forget scripture (which ironically you misquoted), and perhaps do not deserve to be called Catholic. These are serious slurs on a person’s character. If you said it in response to what I said to AA, you should know that Father McDonald has been trying to civilize AA and his previous avatars for years now, and that what I said was mild in comparison to the reactions he has evoked in the past. Besides which, what I said was true, as you would know if you lived in my family.
It is indeed ironic for one like Anon 2, who constantly rationalizes evil and seems incapable of outrage at what is going on in our society to speak of "civilizing" anyone. It is just such mealy mouthing and compromising with liberal policies that has led to the uncivilized and uncouth society we now live in. Civilization has been preserved, protected, and spread by strong people who knew what they believed and were willing to fight for it. "Righteous might" was the term used by FDR, a liberal icon. So, what happened? Where are these people? When the Muslims or the rabble come for you, do you think the likes of Anon 2, Kavanaugh, and poor pitiful gob will be fighting for you…or would you rather have a few "uncharitable," "mean", and "angry" folks like me in your camp? PS We also know how to shoot, use ordnance, fire and maneuver, and survive in less than optimal conditions. We'll be the first ones the pitiful, mouthy, bed-wetting libs holler for when they come for them…LOL!
(1) Regarding “civilization”, you are the poster child for uncivil speech on this Blog
(2) Regarding use of violence to solve problems, yes, sometimes you do need a hammer but “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” You seem to have only a hammer.
33 comments:
I see the Pope is apologizing for the Church's treatment of the Waldensians,, for God's sake. When is he going to apologize for the Church's treatment of Luther and for the burning of Hus? Why not just declare them all Saints...
As far as I am concerned, I cannot in conscience consent to an encyclical that was mainly drafted or had input from a godless atheist, which relies on science that isn't settled and is disputed and, therefore, in no way can be considered an infallible document which is free from error and nor does it concern areas of faith or morals. Furthermore, I am concerned that the Pope would choose to invite a godless atheist to advise him in this area.
Jan
Jan, it is the new evangelization and while much of what you say is true, there is a great deal in the encyclical that is infallible especially as it concerns abortion, artificial contraception, gender ideologies and same sex marriage.
The care that we has humans must have for our earth is infallible too. The science, no, not infallible and the idea that we can reverse global warming if it ain't from us, no. But just like with diseases that were once incurable or not preventable, God has given man the ability to find cures and preventative medicine for the human body, why not for the earth?
Would you Jan, find is suspicious if the pope wrote an encyclical about moral and immoral means of finding cures for diseases (such as polio, small pox, leprosy and the like) and consulted with atheists who did medical research in writing his encyclical?
Jan has to jettison virtually ALL of the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas because Aquinas relied heavily on the philosophy of the pagan Aristotle.
https://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/influences-of-aristotle-on-thomass-philosophy/
Aristotle was BC. Plus, he wasn't an atheist, merely a pagan. Modern atheists like Schellenhuber are atheists in spite of knowing about Christ, revealed religion, and the Church….many are aggressively atheist, reviling or attacking the Church. And, Anony Miss ( I suppose it is you), we would also have to reject much of the NT because of the influence of Greek philosophy (Plato, Plotinus, etc) upon Paul and John.
Father McDonald,
The difference between working with others for a good outcome is much different then working with them to promote a lie that will be used to destroy you and all that is good. Your comparison is flawed and although I respect your desire to defend the pope out of an obligation you feel as a good priest, if forces you into using the style of poor logic that he spouts off all the time. The cartoon has devious dishonesty to it. It is undoubtedly drawn by a Bernardine seamless garment worshiper.
Angry - No, "we" don't have to reject any of the New Testament. Only Jan and those who think that the influence of paganism or atheism renders a document less than worthwhile.
Anony Miss, There is a difference in paganism and atheism; there is a difference in modern atheism and the atheisms before Christ. Yes, the influence of modern atheism may well render a document less than worthwhile…not in every case, but in many. Now, run back to the kitchen.
Yes, Father, I certainly accept anything in the encyclical that is taught as without error by the Church. However, until it is proven - and there is a lot of evidence against it - I do not accept climate change at all. For one thing if there were genuine rises in temperature then the evidence would not need to be skewed as it has been - but no one seems to be bothering to look at that side. All very well to ban fossil fuels that the poor rely on but how about Pope Francis telling us about what poort are going use in it's place? I saw a programme just the other night about some species of monkey that is feared to face extinction. One scene showed a dead monkey carried on someone's back out of the jungle to the absolute consternation of the narrator who mentioned that the local people - who are impoverished - rely on this monkey for their food. Not a word mentioned about bringing in truckloads of food to give to these people so that they might not need to hunt.
So all these great climate change gurus and all the supporters of climate change what do you suggest be done to alleviate the use of fossil fuels in poor countries. All very well for Americans and Italians to pontificate on "We must get rid of fossil fuels" but supply no answer to what is going to be used in its place. Those from the UK who comment here will be very knowledgeable in what happened a few years back in a severe winter relying on wind generated electricity from Scotland - a fair few went cold. So come on all you supporters of this encyclical, what do you propose to do? And you will all be the first to squeal when the taxes put on fossil fuels start to hit you - which they surely will because these taxes will impact on the cost of food - due to the cost of cartage being taxed etc, etc, etc. What do you propose to do about the heavy taxes that will be imposed on third world countries that rely on fossil fuels sending them deeper into debt and impoverishing the people further? Oh I suspect then there will be the easy solutions - abortion and euthanasia. These climate change gurus will start to say there are too many people in these countries who are a drag on the rest of the world. So, Pope Francis has unleashed a pandora's box. And I am sure you are all supportive of his most recent appointee Naomi Klein who advocates one world government. So where is this all going to end? Badly I think and most especially for the poor who are just a pawn in the wider game of one world government that Pope Francis seems now to be a part of.
Jan
Jan
An interesting article about Pope Francis that should make a few of us ask a few questions about these liberal appointees of Pope Francis:
"Under the papacy of Francis the Catholic Church is turning from saving souls to saving the environment.
Addressing St. Peter’s Square throngs from his window in a Vatican palazzo is taking the easy way out in that effort.
So is encouraging the collaboration between persons and associations of different religions on behalf of an integral ecology.
Saving souls is—or should be—a full-time job. Read up on any number of saints who were martyred trying to perform that job.
Pope Francis has appointed the world’s top environmental leaders in his recent encyclical initiative.
Papal defenders offer the alibi of the pontiff’s not knowing who chosen papal encyclical presenter Professor John Schnellnhuber, is.
Special: GOP Slams SCOTUS: 'So Much For Calling Balls and Strikes'
Schnellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, contends that the earth is “overpopulated by at least 6 billion people”. That’s who. ...
“Schnellnhuber is also author of what’s called the “two-degree target” that says governments must not allow the temperature to rise more than 2 degrees higher than at the start of the industrial revolution. Any higher, the theory holds, and much life on earth would either perish or be gravely harmed.
“To deal with climate issues, he has also called for an “Earth Constitution that would transcend the UN Charter” along with the creation of a “Global Council…elected by all the people on Earth” and a “Planetary Court..a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution.”
“Make that the UN Charter, co-written by Canadian UN Poster Boy Maurice Strong and former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the one absurdly transported in a gilded Ark of the Covenant knockoff as the appropriate receptacle for “The new Ten Commandments” that no Pontiff has ever tried to do anything about. (Canada Free Press, June 15, 2015)
Next defenders of Pope Francis, ‘Defender of the Pagan Gaia Faith’, will be telling us he didn’t really know who Naomi Klein, Canadian author and environmentalist, known for her opposition to capitalism and corporate globalization, scheduled to join a Vatican committee that was formed to draw attention to a conference on the environment being held in Rome this week, really is.
“Klein’s most recent book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, explores the relationship between economic powers and the environment. (National Post)
“The People and Planet First conference is organized by the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace and by Catholic groups and will bring together Church leaders and scientists.
“In a recent encyclical about the environment, Pope Francis wrote passionately about the world’s moral duty to save the Earth and move away from business systems that pollute.
“He also noted how the poor often suffer the most from pollution and from other environmental damage in developing countries.”
Socialism does far more to make the poor suffer than capitalism.
From North America to the Vatican: While the Pope was leaning out of his palazzo window on Sunday, the White House was celebrating the Supreme Court’s legalization of same sex marriage in all 50 states, having flooded the White House with the colours of the gay rainbow flag on Friday night.
A radical societal change surely more worthy of papal attention than saving the environment.
Christians of all sects have had the wind knocked out of them in what they are calling one of the darkest days in history.
Meanwhile, the moss is not growing over the faithful but all over ‘Save the Environment’ Pope Francis." http://canadafreepress.com/article/73293
Jan
"Climate change? Yeah, nah
New Zealand has one of the highest rates of climate change scepticism in the developed world, a study has revealed. Surprisingly, we have more sceptics per capita than in the US, where large numbers of right-wing media and politicians refuse to accept climate change is man-made. ...
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change was real, scepticism may even be on the rise, the authors of the University of Tasmania study said.
One outspoken Kiwi climate change sceptic, Herald on Sunday columnist and former Act Party leader Rodney Hide, said the results showed that New Zealand was "saner than most of the world".
"[The results] suggests to me that New Zealanders are more resistant to propaganda than I would have otherwise believed.
...
"According to data compiled by the US Department of Energy, New Zealand was ranked 50 out of 214 nations for CO2 emissions per capita, with each Kiwi creating about 7.8 tonnes each year.
A new paper from the University of Tasmania, called Scepticism in a changing climate: a cross-national study, found 13 per cent of New Zealanders were climate change sceptics.It was third only to Norway (15 per cent) and Australia (17 per cent). The United States came in at 12 per cent.
...
The study's release comes in a week when four Greenpeace protesters were arrested after scaling Parliament's roof and holing up for 10 hours to protest what they claimed was the Government's lack of action on climate change.
It also coincides with one of the coldest weeks in New Zealand's history, with parts of the South Island reaching a bone-chilling -20°C."
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11472277
Jan
Anon. Jan:
You do know that not everything you find on the internet is Gospel truth, don’t you? I ask because you continue to post scurrilous articles that contain gross misrepresentations, such as Schnellnhuber saying the Earth is currently overpopulated by six billion and therefore advocating population reduction. I am tired of continually having to correct this misrepresentation but I have to do it in the interests of truth So, here yet again, for the umpteenth time, is the _original_ New York Times article that people continue to misrepresent:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/?_r=3
As anyone with half a brain can see, Shellnhuber is not advocating population reduction; he is WARNING WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN IF GLOBAL WARMING INCREASES. As I said before, people are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. The charitable explanation is that people are just lazy. It works like this: A misrepresents B then C cites A, but doesn’t check the source B, D cites A or C and so on. That’s how lies and half-truths can go viral and, boy, do we see it here. The uncharitable explanation is that some people are just malicious and spread lies and half-truths deliberately for their own nefarious purposes. Either way, I am beginning to understand much better why people complain about “right wing” news sources and blogs.
Anonymous 2 - I have quoted this repeatedly from the New York Times article. You can't seem to use your reason as to what the man is saying:
“In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,” said Dr. Schellnhuber.
Why does he even make this statement when the population is over 6 billion? Is the man dense or something? Have you got an explanation for what he means? It is a bald statement and it is not explained in the New York Times' article at all. As anyone reading your link will see. The only possible explanation for anyone with a modicum of sense is that he considers the planet needs to be reduced down to 1 billion. We now wait to see how you and he suggest that that might happen.
Oh and while we're at it, his ideas for a one world government are interesting:
"As he explains himself in this document on HumansAndNature.org, he’s a proponent of an all-powerful, climate-focused world government that would rule over the planet… a literal “science dictatorship” based on whatever “science” the climate change proponents can fudge together each year.
As Schellnhuber says:
Let me conclude this short contribution with a daydream about those key institutions that could bring about a sophisticated — and therefore more appropriate — version of the conventional “world government” notion. Global democracy might be organized around three core activities, namely (i) an Earth Constitution; (ii) a Global Council; and (iii) a Planetary Court. I cannot discuss these institutions in any detail here, but I would like to indicate at least that:
– the Earth Constitution would transcend the UN Charter and identify those first principles guiding humanity in its quest for freedom, dignity, security and sustainability;
– the Global Council would be an assembly of individuals elected directly by all people on Earth, where eligibility should be not constrained by geographical, religious, or cultural quotas; and
– the Planetary Court would be a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution.
http://www.humansandnature.org/democracy---hans-joachim-schellnhuber-response-61.php
Schellnhunber, in other words, believes a new world government can create “freedom” for humanity by dictating to it with a new Planetary Court guided by an Earth Constitution which will no doubt begin by declaring the planet can only sustain one billion people. The other six billion or so simply have to go. So instead of a Bill of Rights, this new Earth Constitution will be founded on a Bill of Deaths and a global government that might order the extermination of billions of human beings in order to “save the climate."
Jan
Apparently a scientist who does not support climate change who was invited by Cardinal Turkson attendance at the meeting was vetoed. So who on earth is going to support an encyclical that is promoting a one-sided view? Obviously, you only get into these "shows" if you are an atheist, left-leaning radical. In such company, it's not surprising that protestants and others are saying the Pope is advocating for a one world government and the divide in the Church will just become wider while these types of people appear to be in control of the Vatican. Those who have said the Pope should have stayed out of this issue are being proved right.
"Last week the Washington Post reported that Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences, intervened to block the participation of French scientist Philippe de Larminat in a Vatican seminar on climate change. De Larminat, who does not accept that climate change is caused by human activity, was invited to the April seminar by Cardinal Turkson, one of main drafters of the encyclical, but his participation was, according to the Washington Post, “effectively vetoed” by Sorondo.
Professor Schellnhuber is said to have been “stunned” that de Larminat had almost been admitted to the seminar. The Washington Post quotes him as saying that it showed that “even within the Vatican, there were some people who would like to see something that presented both sides.” Presenting both sides of the argument is clearly not acceptable to Schellnhuber.
Schellnhuber is also associated with the controversial “gaia principle.” The “gaia principle” proposes that both living and non-living beings on Earth interact to form self-regulating system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. This system is considered to be a living being in its own right, with even some degree of consciousness.
In “‘Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution”, (Nature, 1999) Schellnhuber spoke of “unravelling the mysteries of the Earth’s physique, or “Gaia’s body”.
He wrote:
“Ecosphere science is therefore coming of age, lending respectability to its romantic companion, Gaia theory, as pioneered by Lovelock and Margulis. This hotly debated ‘geophysiological’ approach to Earth-system analysis argues that the biosphere contributes in an almost cognizant way to self-regulating feedback mechanisms that have kept the Earth’s surface environment stable and habitable for life.”
Gaia theory is often associated with a hostile attitude towards human activity, which is considered a perpetual threat to the earth’s ecosystem."
http://voiceofthefamily.info/wordpress/?p=1212
Jan
If they were to leave the window open, the squirrels would grab Schellenhuber and Anon 2.
I think everyone should pay close attention to who Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo is. It is much, much worse than people have realised:
http://the-american-catholic.com/2015/05/21/popewatch-archbishop-marcelo-sanchez-sorondo/
"Q. Were you aware before your collaboration with Sachs at the Vatican of his public position on abortion in the book “Commonwealth”, where he says abortion is a “low-cost” and “low-risk” intervention to reduce fertility in the event that contraceptives fail?
Sánchez Sorondo (S.S.) I’ve just come back from Argentina, where I attended a conference to combat new forms of slavery, like human trafficking, forced labor, prostitution, and organ trafficking, which I consider, together with Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, to be a crime against humanity. Unfortunately, there is not only the drama of abortion, but there are also all these other dramas, in which you should also be interested, because they are closely related. The climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion.
Q. Several Catholic intellectuals and media sources criticized your decision to collaborate with Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs on climate change, because of their positions on abortion and population control. Do you have any reply to these concerns?
S.S. The Tea Party and all those whose income derives from oil have criticized us, but not my superiors, who instead authorized me, and several of them participated.
Q. Undoubtedly, you discussed Ban Ki-moon’s and Jeffrey Sachs’ position on abortion and population control in the lead up to the conference. How were any questions resolved?
S.S. Yes. We had these discussions, and as you can see, the draft SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) don’t even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. The interpretation and application of these depends on governments. Some may even interpret it as Paul VI, in terms of responsible paternity and maternity. Instead of attacking us, why not enter into dialogue with these “demons” to maybe make the formulation better, like we did on the issues of social inclusion and new forms of slavery?
Go here to read the rest. Mendacious, evasive and leftist doctrinaire would be a charitable interpretation of these snide responses.. That such a creature is at the head the Pontifical Academies of Science and Social Sciences illustrates how deep the intellectual and spiritual rot goes at the very top in the Church."
Jan
Yes, Angry Augustinian, Anon 2 is so defensive of Schellenhuber that I begin to wonder if they are one and the same - they are at least chips off the same block.
Who, though, can begin to spin Pope Francis in a better light when you begin to see who he is aligned with on this climate change/one world government issue?
Up to now we have been told that we have more or less imagined all the negative things that he has said: that really wasn't what he said; that wasn't his intention, that he said has been taken out of context or mistranslated.
The trouble is it is becoming more and more difficult to put a positive spin on the events unfolding at the Vatican. How are they going to spin the fact that when it came to the Synod on the Family Pope Francis more or less aligned himself with Kasper - particularly giving him the floor to speak at the consistory when it wasn't even on the agenda. And now he is aligned with atheists, promoting not only climate change but a very liberal agenda indeed.
It is quite obvious that, using Papal infallibility, this liberal bunch are attempting to browbeat Catholics into accepting a liberal agenda (through this encyclical), with population control and world government at its root. The prolife movement is rightly raising questions.
Pope Francis's appointees leave a lot to be desired. We have had an absolute out and out scurrilous attack on Cardinal Pell by a Pope Francis appointee, Peter Saunders. Being as charitable as I can in the circumstances I think Pope Francis is incompetent. Either that or he is an out and out liberal. There is no Pope in recent history that has put the Church into such perilous waters and leading the Church closer and closer to schism.
Anyone who still hopes for a good outcome at the Synod on the Family is sadly mistaken. We are stuck with a liberal agenda being promoted by Pope Francis appointees and no one can now deny that.
Jan
Anon 2 says he is not a lib (LOL), but has consistently apologized for and defended on this blog gays, Muslims, Leftists, Obama…everyone but conservatives. When Islam becomes dominant in this country and they have Anon 2 on his knees, he will be defending them as loud as he can until the knife hits his vocal chords or his carotids. LOL!
Anon. Jan (and AA):
Okay, for the VERY LAST TIME, here is the actual text of the NYT report. My comments are in parentheses. The editors’ annotations are in brackets.
The report is entitled “Scientist: Warming Could Cut Population to I Billion”
(Get it? – WARMING, and NOT population control, could cut the population to 1 billion)
“COPENHAGEN — A scientist known for his aggressive stance on climate policy made an apocalyptic prediction on Thursday.”
(Get it? – APOCALYPTIC PREDICTION of what will happen if warming is not slowed)
“Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth’s population would be devastated. [UPDATED, 6:10 p.m: The preceding line was adjusted to reflect that Dr. Schellnhuber was not describing a worst-case warming projection. h/t to Joe Romm.]
‘In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,’ said Dr. Schellnhuber, who has advised German Chancellor Angela Merkel on climate policy and is a visiting professor at Oxford.
At that temperature, there would be ‘no fluctuations anymore, we can be fairly sure,’ said Dr. Schellnhuber, exercising his characteristically dark sense of humor at the morning plenary session on the closing day of an international climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. [Earlier post: The conference organizers have sought to jog policymakers with a stronger assessment of global warming’s risks, but some scientists warned the approach could backfire.]
(Get it? – The population WOULD be devastated IF temperatures rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature we know the Earth could sustain 1 billion people as its carrying capacity and there would be no more fluctuations in population; this is a CYNICAL triumph for science and an example of Schellnhuber’s DARK SENSE OF HUMOR)
“‘What a triumph,’ Dr. Schellnhuber said. ‘On the other hand do we want this alternative? I think we can do much, much better,’ he told the conference."
(Get it? This is called SARCASM followed by a clear indication that this result is UNDESIRABLE and WE CAN DO MUNCH BETTER)
“Dr. Schellnhuber, citing his own research, said that at certain ‘tipping points,’ higher temperatures could cause areas of the ocean to become deoxygenated, resulting in what he calls ‘oxygen holes’ between 600 and 2,400 feet deep. These are areas so depleted of the gas that they would badly disrupt the food chain.
“Unabated warming would also lead to ‘disruption of the monsoon, collapse of the Amazon rain forest and the Greenland ice sheet will meltdown,’ he said.
“But on the bright side, he noted, in a joking reference to the meeting’s Danish hosts, the retreat of the sheath of ice covering Greenland, which is Danish-controlled territory, ‘would increase your usable land by, I don’t know, 10,000 percent.’
“‘But I’m not sure whether you want to do this,’ he said.”
(Get it? Schellnhuber explains the effects of such temperature rise on the planet and also gives a final indication that these results are UNDESIRABLE).
If you still don’t get it, I cannot help you.
Admittedly, this report is mostly indirect speech. I have tried to find the actual text of Schellnhuber’s address but without success. As I requested before, if you have access to it, please provide us with the text or a link to the text.
AA:
Anyone who dares to challenge extremist distortions and vile invective is a lib in your eyes. And those who engage in extremist distortions and vile invective are not true conservatives.
I will tell you something now and this is in deadly earnest. Uncharitable comments about non-Catholics such as those that have appeared not infrequently on this Blog do nothing to endear the Catholic Church to others. Instead they drive people further away from the Church. Those who make them – and here I am thinking especially of you – may have good intentions, thinking they are defending the Church and working for her good. But in my experience the result is the opposite. It is understandable when others say “Well, if that’s what Catholics can be like – mean-spirited and vile – I don’t want to become one.” I speak from painful personal experience. Moreover, to be quite blunt about it, you, through your comments alone, have significantly impeded my attempts to evangelize. If you wonder why we are losing souls, you need look no further than in the mirror. As I said before, each day some of us are on the front lines of the real battle, not your pseudo macho battle. We could use some help.
If you want people to be attracted to Catholicism, then Catholics have to be attractive. And “attractive” is not a word that leaps most immediately to mind when people read most of your comments on this Blog.
Think about it.
This did not make it through it seems and so I am trying again:
Anon. Jan (and AA):
Okay, for the VERY LAST TIME, here is the actual text of the NYT report. My comments are in parentheses. The editors’ annotations are in brackets.
The report is entitled “Scientist: Warming Could Cut Population to I Billion”
(Get it? – WARMING, and NOT population control, could cut the population to 1 billion)
“COPENHAGEN — A scientist known for his aggressive stance on climate policy made an apocalyptic prediction on Thursday.”
(Get it? – APOCYLYPTIC PREDICTION of what will happen if warming is not slowed)
“Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth’s population would be devastated. [UPDATED, 6:10 p.m: The preceding line was adjusted to reflect that Dr. Schellnhuber was not describing a worst-case warming projection. h/t to Joe Romm.]
‘In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,’ said Dr. Schellnhuber, who has advised German Chancellor Angela Merkel on climate policy and is a visiting professor at Oxford.
At that temperature, there would be ‘no fluctuations anymore, we can be fairly sure,’ said Dr. Schellnhuber, exercising his characteristically dark sense of humor at the morning plenary session on the closing day of an international climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. [Earlier post: The conference organizers have sought to jog policymakers with a stronger assessment of global warming’s risks, but some scientists warned the approach could backfire.]
(Get it? – The population WOULD be devastated IF temperatures rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature we know the Earth could sustain 1 billion people as its carrying capacity and there would be no more fluctuations in population; this is a CYNICAL triumph for science and an example of Schellnhuber’s DARK SENSE OF HUMOR)
“‘What a triumph,’ Dr. Schellnhuber said. ‘On the other hand do we want this alternative? I think we can do much, much better,’ he told the conference.
(Get it? This is called SARCASM followed by a clear indication that this result is UNDESIRABLE and WE CAN DO MUNCH BETTER)
“Dr. Schellnhuber, citing his own research, said that at certain ‘tipping points,’ higher temperatures could cause areas of the ocean to become deoxygenated, resulting in what he calls ‘oxygen holes’ between 600 and 2,400 feet deep. These are areas so depleted of the gas that they would badly disrupt the food chain.
“Unabated warming would also lead to ‘disruption of the monsoon, collapse of the Amazon rain forest and the Greenland ice sheet will meltdown,’ he said.”
“But on the bright side, he noted, in a joking reference to the meeting’s Danish hosts, the retreat of the sheath of ice covering Greenland, which is Danish-controlled territory, ‘would increase your usable land by, I don’t know, 10,000 percent.’”
“‘But I’m not sure whether you want to do this,’ he said.”
(Get it? Schellnhuber explains the effects of such temperature rise on the planet and also gives a final indication that these results are UNDESIRABLE).
If you still don’t get it, I cannot help you.
And Anonymous 2, I think you should start thinking about your own "Catholic" position and start looking at the word "toleration" which as Archbishop Fulton Sheen said:
"Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”
I have friends who are non-Catholic. They look at what is happening in the Vatican. They look at these atheists, these one world government promoters and they say to me that the Church is beginning to fulfill the prophecies.
People like you tolerating evil is what is stopping a lot of protestants from becoming Catholic. I can assure you that a liberal attitude doesn't do it for them.
Christ set the standard when He took whips to the moneychangers in the temple and He told the woman at the well to go and sin no more, which people like yourself seem to conveniently forget and so, can you any longer call yourself Catholic and are you the right person to be attempting to evangelise anyone?
Jan
Angry Augustine, reading your comment about the squirrels reminds me of the song, "Here we go gathering nuts in May" but it is already July here ... but I suppose when there are so many nuts around we can still go gather and still leave enough for the squirrels!
Jan
Anon. Jan:
It seems that you are as uncritical about AA’s misrepresentation of my comments on the Blog as you appear to be about misrepresentations in articles on the internet.
I choose to follow the lead of Pope Francis rather than people like AA. I hope he and you won’t take it personally. Anyway, I expect that in your eyes Pope Francis is not a real Catholic either. Can’t help you there I’m afraid.
Anon. Jan.:
By the way, I can’t forget that He told the woman at the well to go and sin no more because He never said that to the woman at the well. He said that to the woman caught in adultery after all her self-righteous accusers had slunk away when he called them out.
Well, Anon 2, the point of the story of the woman is not simply Jesus' forgiving the woman taken in adultery. The scribes and Pharisees were not particularly self-righteous in this instance (or, their self-righteousness is not the point). They were challenging Jesus on a point of Mosaic Law under which he grew up and which he claims he came to fulfill. He easily diverted their confrontation by reminding them of their own sin, which they could not deny. But, then, in the rest of Jn 8, he takes the Pharisees to school about who He is. He talks of Abraham and the Law, and then reveals himself as the Son of God. He ends by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am (an interesting allusion to JHWH,"I am that I am.")." In Pope Benedict's words in, 'Jesus of Nazareth,' 'Jesus is telling them, in so many words, that He is the new Torah.' Of course, they are outraged and seek to stone him, but he escapes. The real issue here is belief…which the Pharisees reject. If we focus only on the instance of His forgiving the sin of the woman, we fall into the progressivist/liberal mode of seeing only the 'humanistic' side…focusing only upon Jesus' of Nazareth and his actions and not upon the real issue of John's Gospel (our first Christology)…Jesus the Christ, the Messiah promised to Israel and now claiming that the Law is fulfilled in Him. It still all comes down to belief…everything falls into place and into perspective. Jesus' actions are never ends in themselves, but always point back to who He is and the challenge of believing on Him who was sent.
Anon 2, yes, you are correct that Our Lord said it to the woman taken in adultery but the point is He said "Go and sin no more". He didn't tell her to continue the life she was living. He didn't gloss over it as you appear to want to do.
And I have to say I haven't read anything that Angry Augustinian has said that wasn't condemnatory of sin. If you take a good look at your own posts you may see that anyone who reads the way you have reacted to other posters here may be regarded as less than charitable. So it is a case of removing the plank from your own eye ...
Jan
Truth is attractive, Lies are ugly.
Anon. Jan:
I will take your comments about my postings under advisement. But I think you may be trying to score a rhetorical point that is unfounded. If you do take a good look at my previous postings, I challenge you to find one that is not measured or proportionate to the comment to which it responds. In my view, this means that my postings are always appropriately charitable.
If you are thinking of yourself specifically, I don’t think I have even felt as frustrated getting someone to admit that they and others they continued to cite had misread certain material (and indeed you still have not admitted this even though I parsed the NYT report on Schellnhuber paragraph by paragraph as you seemed to ask me to do).
If you are thinking of AA (aka Jolly Jansenist aka Gene aka Pin), I regret very much that sometimes language lacking in a certain charity is the only language he understands. And you should know that I have been extremely restrained in my responses to him
If on the other hand you find that I have been inappropriately uncharitable in a posting, then please let me know about it so that I may apologize.
But all this said, you may be onto something – sometimes I feel I should quit the Blog altogether because on occasion I feel spiritually grubby after engaging. I am not sure it is good for my spiritual health to participate as I do. I am serious about this.
P.S. Anon. Jan:
I would also like you to think about what it means to say to someone, as you did, that they tolerate evil, are liberal, conveniently forget scripture (which ironically you misquoted), and perhaps do not deserve to be called Catholic. These are serious slurs on a person’s character. If you said it in response to what I said to AA, you should know that Father McDonald has been trying to civilize AA and his previous avatars for years now, and that what I said was mild in comparison to the reactions he has evoked in the past. Besides which, what I said was true, as you would know if you lived in my family.
It is indeed ironic for one like Anon 2, who constantly rationalizes evil and seems incapable of outrage at what is going on in our society to speak of "civilizing" anyone. It is just such mealy mouthing and compromising with liberal policies that has led to the uncivilized and uncouth society we now live in. Civilization has been preserved, protected, and spread by strong people who knew what they believed and were willing to fight for it. "Righteous might" was the term used by FDR, a liberal icon. So, what happened? Where are these people? When the Muslims or the rabble come for you, do you think the likes of Anon 2, Kavanaugh, and poor pitiful gob will be fighting for you…or would you rather have a few "uncharitable," "mean", and "angry" folks like me in your camp? PS We also know how to shoot, use ordnance, fire and maneuver, and survive in less than optimal conditions. We'll be the first ones the pitiful, mouthy, bed-wetting libs holler for when they come for them…LOL!
AA:
Two responses:
(1) Regarding “civilization”, you are the poster child for uncivil speech on this Blog
(2) Regarding use of violence to solve problems, yes, sometimes you do need a hammer but “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” You seem to have only a hammer.
Post a Comment