Gerald Karey writes . . . It’s Our Planet and We Can Do With It What We Want
I think those cases are challenging efforts to impose those religious beliefs through legislation, not the right to hold hold…
A Writer Writes
It’s Our Planet and We Can Do With It What We Want
by Gerald Karey (Turkey 1965–67)
•
The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish. Industrial waste and chemical products utilized in cities and agricultural areas can lead to bioaccumulation in the organisms of the local population, even when levels of toxins in those places are low. Frequently no measures are taken until after people’s health has been irreversibly affected.
— Pope Francis’ Encyclical, “Laudato Si — On the Care Of Our Common Home”
Hey, it’s our planet and we can do with it what we want. After all, Genesis grants mankind “dominion” over the earth. That’s dominion, as in control, supreme authority, dominance. So what is there about dominion that Francis doesn’t get?
“[T]he Genesis account . . . has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him [man] as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church . . . nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures . . .. The biblical text . . . tell us to ‘till and keep’ the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15). This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature.
— Laudato Si
Has Francis traded his red shoes for Birkenstocks? I suppose he gives his blessing to all those burdensome environmental regulations that make it so difficult for industry to make a buck and satisfy stockholders. Hell’s bells, no pun intended, but it’s industry and its investment in technology and fossil energy that has provided a high standard of living for millions of people around the world. Okay, not for everybody, but there will always be winners and losers. That’s just the way things are.
And to his credit, Francis did praise the progress achieved by economic growth and technology, particularly in engineering, medicine and science. But not content to leave well enough alone, he added, “Our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.”
And he then proceeded to stick his pontifical nose where it has no business being:
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. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity.
— Laudato Si
Oh, yeah. Well, this is a Pope, not a scientist, a number of whom claim that the increase in global warming is part of a natural cycle and is in no way a result of human activity.
And there is this from the Pope, straight out of the radical, left-wing environmentalists’ play book:
If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us. A rise in the sea level, for example, can create extremely serious situations, if we consider that a quarter of the world’s population lives on the coast or nearby, and that the majority of our megacities are situated in coastal areas.”
Thank goodness for right-thinking Fox News commentator Steve Malloy, who called the encyclical “adolescent, insipid, primitive, embarrassing,” adding this zinger, “Pope goes full liberation theology — which was invented, BTW, by the KGB.”
And these inspiring insights from Richard Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ, an online news service for conservatives Tea Partiers: “The encyclical, ‘Laudato Si, On The Care Of Our Common Home’ lends the weight of the Papacy’s authority to the idea of man-made global warming at a time when not only is there more and more evidence that has come forth that global warming is a natural phenomenon, but that there is increasing concern that government ‘solutions’ are keeping people in poverty . . . . While the Pope fiddles with one controversial political issue that is not at the core of spiritual matters, our spiritual culture is burning.”
Viguerie asserts that the Catholic clergy has “abandoned the teaching of morals” and “sees, hears, and knows few sins,” while “the liberals’ true agenda is to destroy religion,” and claiming that the environmental movement has socialist roots.
Jeb Bush, who converted to Catholicism 25 years ago, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination and has questioned the so-called established science of human-caused climate change, had it right when he said, “I don’t get economic policy from my Bishops or my Cardinals or my Pope.”
Which brings to mind what Joseph Stalin said in the waning days of WW II during a discussion of the future of Eastern Europe when British Prime Minister Winston Churchill cautioned him to consider the views of the Vatican. The Soviet leader responded “How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have.”
And while I hate to give any credit to a commie dictator, he had it right. Who cares? It’s none of the Pope’s business.
Gerald.
Where is Mishelle when we need her! The Pope has a primary responsibility to speak to his flock on issues that he has decided reflect on the practice of their faith. He is absolutely within his rights and duties to speak to this issue to Catholics, worldwide.
Of course he is.This was not to be taken seriously. This is not The Onion, but “The Scallion,” perhaps.I am all in with Francis on most of the encyclical, but not all of it.
Gerald,
I am so glad to hear that. When I first read it, I thought you were writing satire, then I thought maybe not. I apologize for being clueless. Now that I understand it, I thought it was great!
“Satire is what closes on Saturday night.” – George S. Kaufman
Satire is tricky and difficult to do well, which I make no pretense of doing.
Funny most liberals lament people following too closely the word they get from the pulpit.
Observations:
If New York City still relied on horse power to move people the city would be buried under a mountain of horse shit.
Companies make money by supplying the goods and services consumers want so if anyone is to blame for the current condition of the earth it is consumers, not those who cater to their desires.
I have said before and will continue to do so, I welcome global warming, the earth is basically a cold place and we could use higher temperatures that are more in line with man’s ideal temperature of 72 F – the earth’s current average temperature is 60 F so lots of room for improvement.
Wait, “most liberals” are indifferent to religious teaching? That is quite a generalization.
I am not Catholic and I have never bought into papal infallibility. But when the man is right, the man is right.And you have said it before about global warming,many times. But that doesn’t make you right. Just wrong, repeatedly. An ambient temperature of 72 degrees F is ideal on a spring day. An average global temperature of 72 degrees F would be a disaster. But I will never tire hearing about how all you folks in Florida will put your houses on stilts.With an global average of 72 degrees, you couldn’t raise your houses high enough.
And the argument never was or is between controlling emissions of greenhouse gases and New York being buried in horse shit. That’s just bullshit.
I guess I should be more specific. I hear many liberals criticize those who adhere closely to religious teachings,i.e. the fervent Christians who take gospel as, well, gospel. I have heard many from the left criticize a church that opposes abortion, birth control, same sex marriage, and more. In fact there are several cases pending before the courts challenging these religious beliefs. So I am amused when I hear these same critics praise the Pope for reinforcing their stands.
And please explain why an average temperature of 72 F would be disastrous. Eternal spring is bad?
I think those cases are challenging efforts to impose those religious beliefs through legislation, not the right to hold hold to express those beliefs. And I expect many conservative Catholics would criticize the teachings of a “liberal” pope.
As for temperatures, there is a difference, as you probably know, between day-to-day ambient local temperatures and global surface temperatures which can have an impact on the climate worldwide. The Earth’s average has temperature has increased 0.85 degree C to about from 13.5 to 14.5 degrees from 1880 to 2012 to about 58 degrees F). Climate model projections indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) for the lowest greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, to 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) for the highest. Those higher global surface temperatures will effect our weather and weather patterns, including changing precipitation and more frequent extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts, flooding, ocean acidification heavy rainfall and – yes – snowfall. Also rising sea levels and species extinctions because of shifting temperature.
Perhaps it will also mean you can raise oranges in the Dakota, but at the same time endanger Florida’s orange crop because of changing weather conditions. These are, of course, projections based on what’s known, but we’ve already seen many of those extreme weather events. Anomalies, or a changing climate?
An eternal spring with temps of 72 degrees sounds like an absurd Florida Chamber of Commerce fantasy. Global earth surface temperatures of 72 degrees, about 12 degrees higher than the current average, would be a disaster.