Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Pope And Climate Change: The Left Is Going To Hate This!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I recently read on a Catholics apologetics site that liberation theory was in fact fully condemned by the church as fully unorthodox and as little more than Marxism. Is there any "official" statement of the church that will put this to rest?
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
      I recently read on a Catholics apologetics site that liberation theory was in fact fully condemned by the church as fully unorthodox and as little more than Marxism. Is there any "official" statement of the church that will put this to rest?
      The documents issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (the modern successor to the Roman Inquisition) can be found here:
      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ration_en.html
      and here:
      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ration_en.html

      I'm not aware of any more authoritative and definitive statements on the subject, but I do know that Ratzinger was not inclined to see liberation theology as essentially marxist. The latter of the above documents (I have yet to read it through, and I intend to reread the former before I do) seems to be an attempt to lay out the foundations of an orthodox liberation theology.
      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        The documents issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (the modern successor to the Roman Inquisition) can be found here:
        http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ration_en.html
        and here:
        http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ration_en.html

        I'm not aware of any more authoritative and definitive statements on the subject, but I do know that Ratzinger was not inclined to see liberation theology as essentially marxist. The latter of the above documents (I have yet to read it through, and I intend to reread the former before I do) seems to be an attempt to lay out the foundations of an orthodox liberation theology.
        From the first link above:
        The present Instruction has a much more limited and precise purpose: to draw the attention of pastors, theologians, and all the faithful to the deviations, and risks of deviation, damaging to the faith and to Christian living, that are brought about by certain forms of liberation theology which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by John Reece View Post
          From the first link above:
          The present Instruction has a much more limited and precise purpose: to draw the attention of pastors, theologians, and all the faithful to the deviations, and risks of deviation, damaging to the faith and to Christian living, that are brought about by certain forms of liberation theology which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought.
          Which suggests that liberation theology that is "sufficiently critical" with respect to Marxist analysis (that does not focus overly on class warfare, materialism, revolution, etc) is acceptable. If Gustavo Gutierrez had ever fallen afoul of that in his writings, he would have been censored for it. In any case, liberation theology's place within orthodoxy is nowhere near as tenuous as you suggested in earlier posts. If anything, just the introductions to the two CDF documents point toward a rather positive view of liberation generally.
          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
            Which suggests that liberation theology that is "sufficiently critical" with respect to Marxist analysis (that does not focus overly on class warfare, materialism, revolution, etc) is acceptable. If Gustavo Gutierrez had ever fallen afoul of that in his writings, he would have been censored for it. In any case, liberation theology's place within orthodoxy is nowhere near as tenuous as you suggested in earlier posts. If anything, just the introductions to the two CDF documents point toward a rather positive view of liberation generally.
            Yes, I agree completely with regard to the two CDF documents.

            My question is: Is the Pope '"sufficiently critical" with respect to Marxist analysis (that does not focus overly on class warfare, materialism, revolution, etc)'?

            The Pope's rhetoric strikes me as rather hostile toward free market capitalism, which has contributed immeasurable to human progress in terms that include lifting poor people out of poverty, etc.

            Also, he seems rather hostile to free people's defense of liberty via weaponry ― though he seems intellectually quite inconsistent if not confused in this regard. See here.

            The Pope is quite popular with communist dictators like Raul Castro of Cuba, whom the Pope befriends without any change whatsoever with regard to the Castro brothers's horrendous persecution, imprisonment, and torture of any and all of their subjects who have resisted the Castros's communist tyranny. See Beyond All Hope, by Armando Valladares:
            Overview
            Against All Hope is Armando Valladares' account of over twenty years in Fidel Castro's tropical gulag. Arrested in 1960 for being philosophically and religiously opposed to communism, Valladares was not released until 1982, by which time he had become one of the world's most celebrated ''prisoners of conscience.'' Interned all those years at the infamous Isla de Pinos prison (from whose windows he watched the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion), Valladares suffered endless days of violence, putrid food and squalid living conditions, while listening to Castro's firing squads eliminating ''counter revolutionaries'' in the courtyard below his cell. Valladares survived by prayer and by writing poetry whose publication in Europe brought his case to the attention of international figures such as French President Francois Mitterand and to human rights organizations whose constant pressure on the Castro regime finally led to his release. When Against All Hope first appeared, it was immediately compared to Darkness at Noon and other classic prison narratives about the resilience of the human spirit in the face of totalitarianism. Now, with a new introduction by the author, which tells of his life since prison and brings the story of Cuban dissidence up to the case of Elian Gonzalez, Against All Hope is more relevant than ever.

            Valladares was released in response to the influence brought to bear on the Cuban dictatorship as described above years ago; however, countless other such prisoners were left in the Cuban prison system then, and now, when the Pope fraternizes with Raul Castro without any relief being granted to any of the likes of Armando Valladares currently imprisoned in Cuba. Political prisoners in the Soviet Union were released when communism was overthrown there thanks to the work of John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan. Contrast that history to that of Cuba up to the present day.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              In all the articles and opinion pieces I've seen, the left is giving a sincere thumbs up to the Pope, and then proceeding to roll on the floor laughing when climate-change denying conservatives go into apoplexy at the Pope's words.
              Like anything else, there will always be those who want to legitimize their beliefs by quoting an "authority figure" like the Pope, while laughing behind his back at many of his other beliefs.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #37
                IIRC, someone has already posted in this thread the information that any and all skeptics of catastrophic manmade climate change were excluded from any consultation at the Vatican re the Pope's encyclical Laudato Si. See here.

                I do not recall if anyone has posted in this thread information re the scientist who had the Pope's ear re climate change, so to speak; that is, a scientific pantheist who believes in Gaia, but not in God. It's a very interesting article found here.

                Here is the conclusion of the article:
                Bad Religion
                Confirmation bias happens when a scientist manipulates an experiment so that he gets the outcome he hoped he would get. When Schellnhuber invites only believers in tipping-points-of-doom to characterize their guesses of this doom, his view that the doom is real will be confirmed. And when he publishes a paper that says, “Scientists say world is doomed” the public and politicians believe it. Scientists skeptical of the doom are dismissed because they are skeptics. This isn’t good science. It’s really bad religion, and a pagan one at that.

                Global warming research is characterized by an insider’s club. If you believe, you’re in. If you doubt, you’re out. This is also so at the Pontifical Academies of Science where Schellnhuber was appointed by Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo. The bishop locked scientists with contrary views out of the process, scientists he has repeatedly dismissed as “funded by the oil industry.” Given this, how likely is it that the Holy Father was fully aware of the views of the chief scientist who advised him?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                  [size=4][font=times new roman]IIRC, someone has already posted in this thread the information that any and all skeptics of catastrophic manmade climate change
                  This is fairly slandarous of the scientists who advised the pope. The state of the scientific community can't be described as holding to 'catastrophic manmade climate change', they do however hold that the climate is changing, the Earth is in fact getting warmer, and this increase in temperature is accounted for by the CO2 emitted by human industry.

                  There's a difference between between being a legitimate dissenter, and a denialist. We shouldn't give equal time to people who dismiss the efficacy of vaccines in a political discussion on health issues. Nor should we those who believe that telecommunication systems cause cancer. Not when several well-done studies have shown and reconfirmed that those who hold to those views aren't in touch with reality.

                  I get that conservative Christians in the US are uncomfortable with the fact that Pope Francis humbly asked the scientific community what their stance on this was, and got the answer.

                  In the encyclical, he noted that this was the case, there is a large agreement in the scientific community regarding the changing climate, and our role in it.

                  Source: Laudato Si by His Holiness Pope Francis

                  A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades, this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  There is very little here for anyone to disagree with. Such a consensus exists.

                  As for the solution, I lean towards a shift away from fossil fuels, to renewable energy sources, which is an inevitable event at this stage. Economical incentives can accelerate the change, but we don't have to put the foot on the pedal, but we should at least lean in that direction. We could start cutting coal subsidies and transfer them to wind/solar/battery initiatives.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                    Yes, I agree completely with regard to the two CDF documents.

                    My question is: Is the Pope '"sufficiently critical" with respect to Marxist analysis (that does not focus overly on class warfare, materialism, revolution, etc)'?

                    The Pope's rhetoric strikes me as rather hostile toward free market capitalism, which has contributed immeasurable to human progress in terms that include lifting poor people out of poverty, etc.
                    Popes from Leo XIII onward have been critical of free markets, and much of what Francis has said about the free market has precedent in Benedict's writings: http://ethikapolitika.org/2013/12/16...arkets-ethics/

                    Also, he seems rather hostile to free people's defense of liberty via weaponry ― though he seems intellectually quite inconsistent if not confused in this regard. See here.
                    Dwight Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex: would you level the same accusations against him?

                    The Pope is quite popular with communist dictators like Raul Castro of Cuba, whom the Pope befriends without any change whatsoever with regard to the Castro brothers's horrendous persecution, imprisonment, and torture of any and all of their subjects who have resisted the Castros's communist tyranny. See Beyond All Hope, by Armando Valladares:
                    Overview
                    Against All Hope is Armando Valladares' account of over twenty years in Fidel Castro's tropical gulag. Arrested in 1960 for being philosophically and religiously opposed to communism, Valladares was not released until 1982, by which time he had become one of the world's most celebrated ''prisoners of conscience.'' Interned all those years at the infamous Isla de Pinos prison (from whose windows he watched the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion), Valladares suffered endless days of violence, putrid food and squalid living conditions, while listening to Castro's firing squads eliminating ''counter revolutionaries'' in the courtyard below his cell. Valladares survived by prayer and by writing poetry whose publication in Europe brought his case to the attention of international figures such as French President Francois Mitterand and to human rights organizations whose constant pressure on the Castro regime finally led to his release. When Against All Hope first appeared, it was immediately compared to Darkness at Noon and other classic prison narratives about the resilience of the human spirit in the face of totalitarianism. Now, with a new introduction by the author, which tells of his life since prison and brings the story of Cuban dissidence up to the case of Elian Gonzalez, Against All Hope is more relevant than ever.

                    Valladares was released in response to the influence brought to bear on the Cuban dictatorship as described above years ago; however, countless other such prisoners were left in the Cuban prison system then, and now, when the Pope fraternizes with Raul Castro without any relief being granted to any of the likes of Armando Valladares currently imprisoned in Cuba. Political prisoners in the Soviet Union were released when communism was overthrown there thanks to the work of John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan. Contrast that history to that of Cuba up to the present day.
                    Let's compare that with American treatment of CIA prisoners.
                    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Thanks for responding to my question, Spartacus.

                      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                      Popes from Leo XIII onward have been critical of free markets, and much of what Francis has said about the free market has precedent in Benedict's writings: http://ethikapolitika.org/2013/12/16...arkets-ethics/
                      O.K.

                      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                      Dwight Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex: would you level the same accusations against him?
                      Of course not, because Eisenhower did not declare that it is impossible for an arms manufacturer to be a Christian. He was the general who led the allied armies in defense of free nations, using massive amounts of arms to defeat the Nazi army that had conquered and enslaved the whole of Europe. It's one thing to criticise the military-industrial complex; it's quite another to condemn all manufacturers of all arms as people who cannot be Christians.

                      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                      Let's compare that with American treatment of CIA prisoners.
                      Let's do. The people in Castro's prison have been innocent citizens who have been critical of the communist dictatorship. They have not been violent revolutionaries or terrorists who have taken up arms against the Cuban government. You should read Armando Valladares's book Against All Hope to gain an understanding of the absolute horror suffered 24 hours each day by innocent prisoners of the Castros.

                      The detainees at the Guantanamo prison are terrorists and or warriors captured on battlefields, who are treated with great respect, with their religious beliefs catered to, their physical needs provided for, etc. etc.

                      There were only less than a handful of prisoners who were early on, after 9/11, subjected to enhanced interrogation such as water-boarding, as measures to possibly save the lives of countless innocent people. And none of such enhanced interrogation procedures were damaging to the permanent health and well-being of the prisoners. Water-boarding is routinely used on certain American military members as part of their training; it's very temporary and perfectly harmless. See here.
                      Last edited by John Reece; 06-23-2015, 04:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                        Thanks for responding to my question, Spartacus.
                        Sorry if I'm being snarky. I'll try to dial it back a notch.

                        Of course not, because Eisenhower did not declare that it is impossible for an arms manufacturer to be a Christian. He was the general who led the allied armies in defense of free nations, using massive amounts of arms to defeat the Nazi army that had conquered and enslaved the whole of Europe. It's one thing to criticise the military-industrial complex; it's quite another to condemn all manufacturers of all arms as people who cannot possibly be Christians.
                        First, a link that explores the context and content of the quote: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standin...-religion.html

                        Second, the point I wanted to bring up through raising Eisenhower is that he was right about the military-industrial complex, and we actually treat the manufacture of weapons of war as a normal part of our economy.

                        Back in the 1980s, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a document called "the Challenge of Peace," which, among other things, suggested that the resources being poured into making more and better nuclear weapons would be better used in any number of other ways, and that prioritizing weapons in the way that we were was immoral. That's a bit more context to what the Pope said about weapons manufacture, but the above link explains and contextualizes the pope's off-the-cuff remarks far better than I could.

                        Let's do. The people in Castro's prison have been innocent citizens who have been critical of the communist dictatorship. They have not been violent revolutionaries or terrorists who have taken up arms against the Cuban government. You should read Armando Valladares's book Beyond All Hope to gain an understanding of the absolute horror suffered 24 hours each day by innocent prisoners of the Castros.

                        The detainees at the Guantanamo prison are terrorists and or warriors captured on battlefields, who are treated with great respect, with their religious beliefs catered to, their physical needs provided for, etc. etc.

                        There were only less than handful of prisoners who were early on, after 9/11, subjected to enhanced interrogation such as water-boarding, as measures to possibly save the lives of countless innocent people. And none of such enhanced interrogation procedures were damaging to the permanent health and well-being of the prisoners. Water-boarding is routinely used on certain American military members as part of their training; it's perfectly harmless.
                        The torture report paints a far less sunny picture of our treatment of prisoners than you present here.
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                          Of course nations will seek weapons of self defense, and of course war will always be with us.
                          But he’s the pope. He’s supposed to be against war.
                          Is this a joke? The article pretty much confirms what his critics were saying.
                          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            The torture report paints a far less sunny picture of our treatment of prisoners than you present here.
                            Are you referring to the Wikipedia article you posted?

                            If so, this is a case in which relying on such a source is grossly inadequate.

                            I take it you missed my edited addition at the end of the post to which your are responding: see here.

                            It would be asking too much of you to read the book, but at least you should read all the reviews at the bottom of the Amazon.com link.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                              There were only less than a handful of prisoners who were early on, after 9/11, subjected to enhanced interrogation such as water-boarding, as measures to possibly save the lives of countless innocent people.
                              The Senate report makes it clear zero lives were saved as a result of torture, and that zero accurate and useful information was ever obtained from the process. The torture techniques they were subjected to were not 'enhanced interrogation' they were clearly 100% torture.

                              And none of such enhanced interrogation procedures were damaging to the permanent health and well-being of the prisoners.
                              Well for starters, there was the guy who died of hypothermia after being subjected to "48 hours of sleep deprivation, auditory overload, total darkness, isolation, a cold shower and rough treatment” then after most of his clothes were removed and wearing only a sweatshirt he was “shackled to the wall of his cell in a position that required the detainee to rest on the bare concrete floor”, and was found dead from hypothermia the next day "“in part from having been forced to sit on the bare concrete floor without pants”.

                              And if you think that none of the people tortured will experience life-long psychological effects, then I have a bridge to sell you.

                              See here.
                              The guy who wrote that book is now well-documented as having repeatedly lied to cover up the torture that he ordered his people to do. He also ordered the destruction of video tapes recording the torture sessions out of fear of investigators seeing what they showed. I'm generally not in favor of the death penalty, but I'm prepared to make an exception for people like that: IMO there's enough evidence to warrant his immediate execution under international law.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                                Are you referring to the Wikipedia article you posted?

                                If so, this is a case in which relying on such a source is grossly inadequate.

                                I take it you missed my edited addition at the end of the post to which your are responding: see here.

                                It would be asking too much of you to read the book, but at least you should read all the reviews at the bottom of the Amazon.com link.
                                Postscript (video) re the Amazon link above: here.
                                Last edited by John Reece; 06-23-2015, 06:54 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                286 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X