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

[Starlight]

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

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.

[John Reece]

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.

[Darth Executor]

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.

[Spartacus]

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.

[John Reece]

Thanks for responding to my question, Spartacus.

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.

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.

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.

[Spartacus]

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.

[Leonhard]

[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.

[John Reece]

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

[Cow Poke]

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.

[John Reece]

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.

[Spartacus]

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.

[John Reece]

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.

[Spartacus]

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.

[KingsGambit]

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?

[Spartacus]

Why did both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) reject and oppose liberation theology?

See here.

Consider also, from The Catholic Resource Network, Trinity Communications, this.

Liberation theology isn't nearly as unorthodox as your sources suggest it is, and, if Francis is "bringing it back," it's only because Benedict in particular paved the way for it. It is worthy of note that Gustavo Gutierrez, widely acknowledged as the founder of modern liberation theology, was never censored by the Vatican, unlike numerous other liberation theologians. We may also note that Cardinal Muller, whom Benedict appointed to succeed himself as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, was a pupil of Gutierrez and a fan of liberation theology generally. Furthermore, in the first Instruction on Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation', Ratzinger identified Marxism (especially class warfare and materialism) as the main potentially corrupting factors in the otherwise Christian endeavor. Without a global superpower pushing Marxism, it's less likely than ever that liberation theology will be contaminated by Marxist influences.

So, yeah, Ratzinger in particular was never an opponent of liberation theology as such, or he never would have written what he wrote about the subject, nor appointed a pupil of Gustavo Gutierrez to succeed him in his job at the CDF.