Originally published on Daily Kos Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:35 PM PDT
I'm not religious. In fact, some would label me a "fallen away
Catholic". I prefer the expression "recovering Catholic". So it
seems a little strange for me to feel compelled to defend Pope Francis'
encyclical Laudato Si against criticism.
If one simply reads comments about this document rather than the document itself, one may conclude that it is mainly concerned with the concept of human-caused global warming. That seems to be what some conservative politicians seem to think. Their general attitude toward Global Warming can be summed up by this quote of Catholic GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio,
We probably are better off leaving science to the scientists, and focusing on what we’re really good at, which is theology and morality. (http://thinkprogress.org/...)
Below the squiggle I will explain how these criticisms relate to the content of the encyclical.
If one simply reads comments about this document rather than the document itself, one may conclude that it is mainly concerned with the concept of human-caused global warming. That seems to be what some conservative politicians seem to think. Their general attitude toward Global Warming can be summed up by this quote of Catholic GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio,
I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.(http://www.nytimes.com/...).According to News Channel WJBF ,
U.S. Congressional Republicans are shrugging off Pope Francis’ call for urgent action on climate change and dismissing his attempt to frame global warming as a moral issue. “No, I’m sorry, it’s a political issue,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, Republican chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. “Most people have their minds made up on this issue, so any more rhetoric about the issue doesn’t really add a heck of a lot more to it.”...Bishop said he had not yet read the document, but said: “Everyone has the right to weigh in on any topic they want to, they should be considered with deference, but there is some kind of a separation of church and state. I’m going to respect that.”(http://wjbf.com/...)
Conservative Republicans like Jeb Bush, a Catholic convert and Rick Santorum, also Catholic, weighed in on the encyclical. According to an article by Bill Scher from Public Citizen, Jeb Bush, who is running for president, is quoted as saying, "I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting into the political realm.” He is also quoted by kaldaya.net as saying, "...I don't get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope." And he said, "I don’t think we should politicize our faith” (http://wjbf.com/...)Rick Santorum. a PA Republican, said, “When we get involved with controversial and scientific theories, I think the Church is not as forceful and not as credible.” (Public Citizen) Santorum is also quoted as saying,
We probably are better off leaving science to the scientists, and focusing on what we’re really good at, which is theology and morality. (http://thinkprogress.org/...)
Below the squiggle I will explain how these criticisms relate to the content of the encyclical.
~~~~~~
"Theology and morality". Maybe Rick skipped Section 218 of the encyclical:
The comments above the squiggle are evidently the best criticism of Laudato Si our esteemed political leaders have to offer. In response, I will first point out that there are 246 paragraphs or sections in this papal document. How many deal specifically with climate change? Exactly eight by my count. 23-26 and 169-172. That's approximately 3% of the entire document. Representative Bob Bishop admitted that he had not actually read the document he was criticizing. What would be the excuse of the rest of them? Climate change is only one of a myriad of problems with which the planet is being assailed.
The focus of Laudato Si is actually the relationship between human beings and the planet Earth. Pope Francis gives a virtually comprehensive description of the many abuses being heaped upon the Earth by humans. These include deforestation, desertification, fresh water shortages, acid rain, species extinctions, toxic waste dumping, pollution. etc., etc. These problems would exist with or without global warming and would still have a disproportionate negative effect on the poor. Even if human-caused global warming was not real, these other environmental problems would still be real. These real problems are not being dealt with in a way that is fair to all the world's people. This, in itself, should generate enough concern to stimulate a dialogue. The Republicans mentioned above don't wish to talk. They prefer to deflect. So rather than reading the entire encyclical with an open mind, they reject the whole thing based on three percent of the content which is concerned with an issue they choose to believe is not real. That's leadership!?
This encyclical questions the abusive practices and attitudes of technology experts, economists, and politicians. Note Section 106:
This diary is not a summary or synopsis of Laudato Si. This encyclical is much richer and more comprehensive than what the few excerpts I have included might seem to indicate. I suggest that those who want to criticize Pope Francis' message to the world should first read it in its entirety.
~~~~~~~~~
*Laissez faire, also known as pure capitalism, is a theoretical economic system in which the owners of industry and business dictate the rules of competition, the conditions of labor, the negative effects of their activities on the environment and on public health, the cost and safety of products and services, as they please, etc. without government regulation or control.
In calling to mind the figure of Saint Francis of Assisi, we come to realize that a healthy relationship with creation is one dimension of overall personal conversion, which entails the recognition of our errors, sins, faults and failures, and leads to heartfelt repentance and desire to change.Sounds like theology and morality to me. The ThinkProgress.org article points out that the pope studied chemistry in school. Also the Catholic Jesuit order has a long tradition of notable scientists in their ranks. Catholic priests have been responsible for some major scientific discoveries. The article points out that Pope Francis has always approached the issue of climate change from the viewpoint of morality.
The comments above the squiggle are evidently the best criticism of Laudato Si our esteemed political leaders have to offer. In response, I will first point out that there are 246 paragraphs or sections in this papal document. How many deal specifically with climate change? Exactly eight by my count. 23-26 and 169-172. That's approximately 3% of the entire document. Representative Bob Bishop admitted that he had not actually read the document he was criticizing. What would be the excuse of the rest of them? Climate change is only one of a myriad of problems with which the planet is being assailed.
The focus of Laudato Si is actually the relationship between human beings and the planet Earth. Pope Francis gives a virtually comprehensive description of the many abuses being heaped upon the Earth by humans. These include deforestation, desertification, fresh water shortages, acid rain, species extinctions, toxic waste dumping, pollution. etc., etc. These problems would exist with or without global warming and would still have a disproportionate negative effect on the poor. Even if human-caused global warming was not real, these other environmental problems would still be real. These real problems are not being dealt with in a way that is fair to all the world's people. This, in itself, should generate enough concern to stimulate a dialogue. The Republicans mentioned above don't wish to talk. They prefer to deflect. So rather than reading the entire encyclical with an open mind, they reject the whole thing based on three percent of the content which is concerned with an issue they choose to believe is not real. That's leadership!?
This encyclical questions the abusive practices and attitudes of technology experts, economists, and politicians. Note Section 106:
Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that “an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed."[86]and Section 123:
The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts.... It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage.Laissez faire* - the economic theory favored by many Republicans. Jeb Bush doesn't get economic policy from the Pope. Sounds like he should. Section 178 should be read by all politicians who use deflecting excuses about politics and morality being separate:
The myopia of power politics delays the inclusion of a far-sighted environmental agenda within the overall agenda of governments. Thus we forget that “time is greater than space”,[130] that we are always more effective when we generate processes rather than holding on to positions of power. True statecraft is manifest when, in difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the long-term common good. Political powers do not find it easy to assume this duty in the work of nation-building.Is it any wonder our political leaders have tried to discredit the pope and deflect the importance of the issues raised by this encyclical? Consider 181:
..in the absence of pressure from the public and from civic institutions, political authorities will always be reluctant to intervene, all the more when urgent needs must be met. To take up these responsibilities and the costs they entail, politicians will inevitably clash with the mindset of short-term gain and results which dominates present-day economics and politics. But if they are courageous, they will attest to their God-given dignity and leave behind a testimony of selfless responsibility. A healthy politics is sorely needed, capable of reforming and coordinating institutions, promoting best practices and overcoming undue pressure and bureaucratic inertia..Section 188 states the Pope's motivation for writing the encyclical while simultaneously revealing the motivation of the critics who have connections to the rich and influential.
... Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.It seems obvious to me that "particular interests or ideologies" would not favor an honest and open debate. People like Marco Rubio would prefer to deprive future generations of environmental quality in order to not "destroy our economy", that is, the economy of the upper 1%. It concerns me that apparently intelligent people like Bishop, Bush and Santorum seemingly believe that morality is somehow separate from the realm of political decision making and the exercise of political power. If that's the case, what is the purpose of the Office of Congressional Ethics and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics? I don't believe that religion and morality are the same. But if I were to make a list of people qualified to speak on the morality of economic, environmental, and political issues, I think Pope Francis would certainly be near the top of the list.
This diary is not a summary or synopsis of Laudato Si. This encyclical is much richer and more comprehensive than what the few excerpts I have included might seem to indicate. I suggest that those who want to criticize Pope Francis' message to the world should first read it in its entirety.
~~~~~~~~~
*Laissez faire, also known as pure capitalism, is a theoretical economic system in which the owners of industry and business dictate the rules of competition, the conditions of labor, the negative effects of their activities on the environment and on public health, the cost and safety of products and services, as they please, etc. without government regulation or control.
