The Pope’s Judgement

8:29 pm EST December 11th, 2007 | News | 4 Comments

Conservatives are trumpeting this attack on climate science from Pope Benedict saying we should slow down on dealing with the problem. The Pope is free to say what he wishes, but people like myself are also free to note that the Pope also thought the Catholic church should slow down on rooting out child rapists. So, there’s that.

It is times like this that I’m glad that I’m not tied in to any of these official churches and their inevitably flawed human leadership. My Life, The Universe And Everything is tied in to my own Deity.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

4 Responses to “The Pope’s Judgement”

  1. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 12, 2007 at 12:18 am

    My Life, The Universe And Everything is tied in to my own Deity.

    That qualifies you to be a Quaker!

  2. bill l. says:
    December 12, 2007 at 2:34 am

    I’m just always glad to hear from my favorite reformed Nazi Catholic fashion plate and all around rockin’ pontif. Usually I just get a small bone to tide me over, like a condemnation of contraception or how homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of baby Jeebus. Nice to see him upping the ante and tossing the whole planet down the swirly.

    There are actual people who get their climate science from the Pope. The EX-NAZI POPE. The EX-NAZI, PEDOPHILE SHIELDING, ANTI- CONTRACEPTION/AIDS PREVENTION POPE.

    We may be witnessing the point at which “to stupid to live” moves from conversational put down to culturally prophetic.

  3. John M says:
    December 12, 2007 at 8:21 am

    Oliver,

    You may want to read the statement itself, rather than the Daily Mail’s interpretation of it. It should always be a red flag when the reporter’s summaries, rather than direct quotations, are the most inflammatory parts of the piece. Here’s the relevant excerpt from the Pope’s statement, which strikes me as not even newsworthy on its face. Vatican website

    The family, the human community and the environment

    7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

    8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth’s energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

  4. Sean D. Martin says:
    December 12, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    The most oft quoted portion of Pope’s statement includes this bit (which some articles bold, as if to emphasize it is the key bit:

    “It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions”

    Seems to me that that would have the Pope (were he to actually practice what he should be preaching) coming down on the side of the scientists, and opposed to those (generally on the right politically) who have the knee-jerk ideological reaction of “I don’t like what the research shows, so I’m going to claim they it is wrong even though I have no sufficient support for do so.”