Bishop Hill On encyclicals
Apr 28, 2015 Climate: WG3 Ethics This is a guest post by Cumbrian Lad.
Climate change and the coming encyclical
Today we see another set of meetings in Rome. One is that of the Pontifical Academy of Science, and the other the Heartland Institute. Both organisations are hoping to influence the widely heralded encyclical from Pope Francis that will include references to climate change. Given that the text of the encyclical has already been finalised, and is currently being translated, there may not be much that either party can do to affect its content. The headlines they are making will be building up expectations on both sides, and it's worth having a closer look at the background to an encyclical.
What is an encyclical?
Simply put, it is a circular letter written by the Pope to the Church which forms a part of the Ordinary Magisterium or teaching of the Church. It is not a formal statement of the type that is regarded as infallible doctrine, as it usually deals with moral guidance and the application of existing doctrine to current matters. In the past encyclicals have dealt with such subjects as war and social issues of all types.
What will this one cover?
Despite the emphasis being put on climate change in the press, it's unlikely that the central part of the document will concern itself with just that subject. Rather it will treat that as one factor among many in what Pope Benedict XVI called 'human ecology', a term that Pope Francis has adopted enthusiastically. It will touch on many aspects of life for the poor and vulnerable, including the misuse of economic power and the many injustices that man visits upon man in our world.
Is the Pope endorsing a particular view of climate change?
In the coming encyclical, the indications are that it will certainly include some discussion on how to react to the planet's continually changing climate. On this issue, (as a non-scientist with some technical training) he will be largely dependent on the advice of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which has made a number of statements on this topic.
The PAS is in turn dependent on interpreting the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), which was completed in 2014 and is a wide-ranging review of the known science and data on the subject.
So the starting point will be a largely accepted position that the climate has warmed and that at least half of this change is very likely due to man's actions.*
Is the Church making pronouncements on Science?
The Church is accepting the judgements of its scientific advisers. There is of course precedent for the scientific consensus to be wrong, and the Pope seems to be well aware of this, as he mentioned in a press conference on his flight back from the visit to Korea in August 2014;
But now there is a rather difficult problem, because, up to a certain point, one can speak with some assurance about safeguarding creation and ecology, including human ecology. But there are also scientific hypotheses [to be taken into account], some of them quite solid, others not. In this kind of encyclical, which has to be magisterial, one can only build on solid data, on things that are reliable. If the Pope says that the earth is the centre of the universe, and not the sun, he errs, since he is affirming something that ought to be supported by science, and this will not do. That's where we are at now. We have to study the document, number by number, and I believe it will become smaller. But to get to the heart of the matter and to what can be safely stated. You can say in a footnote: “On this or that question there are the following hypotheses...”, as a way of offering information, but you cannot do that in the body of encyclical, which is doctrinal and has to be sound.
So there is clear recognition here that anything that depends upon hypothesis is unlikely to make it into the main body of the document.
If so, do Catholics have to believe everything he says?
The encyclical will have the status of the ordinary teaching authority of the magisterium, so is not lightly put aside. This works both ways of course; one of the reasons that Pope Francis makes the comment quoted above is that he is conscious that what is written needs to be correct, and will have gone to some trouble to identify those issues which are subject to change and interpretation.
A great problem is that many people form an opinion on a document or an issue based on press reports, or other third party interpretations. These can be very selective in nature, and often 'spin' the substance of the document in very creative ways. There is no substitute for reading a document in its entirety and understanding the full case that it puts. A Catholic has a duty to fully inform his or her conscience about what the Church teaches, and then (and only then) act according to their conscience or 'moral compass'. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (892) and Lumen Gentium (para 25) make it clear that the full documents have to be considered in their context and character and reference that to other speeches and writings in order to fully inform themselves. A good example is that of Humanae Vitae, the encyclical that dealt with contraception. There are many people who say they disagree with it; considerably fewer who have actually read it!
Is this science, religion or politics? Is the Pope calling for specific policies or changes in behaviour from Catholics?
The Pope has made it clear that one of his great concerns is the welfare of all humanity, and particularly the poor and vulnerable. The encyclical will no doubt deal with many aspects of human behaviour with respect to dealings with our neighbours and with the environment and so will impact on all areas of our thinking and behaviour, including in the areas of science, politics and religion. This teaching will likely give particular moral guidance, but will not deal with the specifics of policy or attempt to 'take a side' with respect to political systems. It will require a Catholic to consider the teaching, and to apply that in an informed way to their decisions and actions in their everyday life, including in the political sphere.
Is this going to cause controversy and division in the Church?
It is certain that in the days after publication there will be many words spoken and written across a wide range of commentators that will highlight particular lines, phrases, or even short sets of words, that will be set up to indicate that the Pope and the Church advocate this or that policy, or political system, or stance on other matters. This will in turn lead to counter pieces, refutations, re-analysis and re-interpretation ad infinitum, particularly since many groups have specifically stated that they are looking for the Holy Father to produce a document that will strengthen their particular world view.
This is all good. The whole point of an encyclical to engage in teaching and to spark debate; to encourage thinking deeply into an issue and to question ourselves and our own actions. It is very easy to look at such a document in terms of how it supports a particular political viewpoint. But Popes generally, and Pope Francis in particular, have a habit of ploughing their own furrow, and not being aligned with a particular way of doing things. Rather they look to inform each of us individually as to how to live our lives, and govern our own actions in the light of Church teaching. We, each of us individually, are asked to read and understand the teachings as they apply to us, not as we think they apply to others.
Personally, I expect that what is written will be fully in accord with, for instance, the concerns highlighted here recently on the way poverty stricken people are denied access to life saving energy sources.
One thing is certain, the coming encyclical will contain a lot of surprises to people at all points on the political spectrum. And it will challenge us all to look again at how, in a practical way, we love our neighbour.
------------------------------------------------------------
*Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-AR4, vol 1, page 10): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Reader Comments (72)
Latimer Adler, if the temperature in the Garden of Eden is that important, I am sure that the Hockey Team could play another blinder, and adjust/homogenise satellite data back to a week and a bit after the beginning of time. Would teatime be alright, as the cafetiere had not been invented then, and Eve had morning sickness, so normally did not get up, and figleaved, until mid afternoon.
That Adam and Eve could stroll about wearing nothing but a fig leaf, does suggest a warmer climate, and the lush vegetation depicted indicates a more tropical climate, than that of say Blackpool in January, but seasonal adjustments would also have to factored in.
Serpents, being reptiles, are coldblooded, so not likely to be found in colder climates, and certainly apples, as a fruit, are associated with autumn, and folklore does not associate apple scrumpers with partial nudity.
The Nile delta is an area with good temperatures and fertile soil, plus a reliable water supply not wholly dependent on local rainfall.
Subsequent biblical records, do suggest that Nile flooding could go for upto 7 years, without happening at all. Properly adjusted modern records suggest this would now be considered unprecedented, but the subsequent food shortages would still be described as a famine of 'biblical proportions'.
Clearly the Old Testament, as it is known to the Christian faith, but also fundamental to Islam and Judaism, may have other conflicts to resolve, with the new faith of climate science and the power of CO2.
But what has religious faith got to do with climate science? I dunno, ask a climate scientist.
“Popes generally, and Pope Francis in particular, have a habit of ploughing their own furrow, and not being aligned with a particular way of doing things. Rather they look to inform each of us individually as to how to live our lives, and govern our own actions in the light of Church teaching. We, each of us individually, are asked to read and understand the teachings as they apply to us, not as we think they apply to others …”.
=======================================
That’s the crux of it.
Anyway I would have thought the Catholic Church and the UN were natural rivals.
Apologies Latimer ALDER not Adler!
Chris Hanley, the Catholic church has over a thousand years of experience, of dealing with nutters, and despots within its own ranks, let alone political and military skullduggery around the world.
They try to work with leaders, rather than for, or against. The current Pope is being lured into a position, that HE may find difficult to reverse out of, but it is now accepted that he may not be Pope for life.
He has rumbled some financial con artists in the Vatican, so I would hope his endorsement of climate science, is not as 'full' as some may be hoping for.
Its all about politics, not faith, after all!
Golf Charlie's elision of The GWPF, the Curia and the Covenanters is understandable, given Joe Bast''s startling resemblance to John Knox, and the disproportionate number of Papal knights on one side of the Climate Wars.
What did you have against my short post Bishop? Not Catholic enough?
Looking at climate change from a religious point of view adds a whole new dimension. God is omniscient and surely anticipated that we would burn the fossil fuels on the planet. So the question then becomes is this something that God expects us to do and has made allowance for in his plan. Or is it like the apple in Eden something that we could do but which God commands us not to do.
The religious point of view on nature is very different from the radical environmentalist point of view. The radical environmentalist sees the untouched planet as pristine or pure and raises a moral objection to anything at all man does that changes this natural state. Any influence of man on the enviromment is regarded as malum per se. The really radical environmentalists see mankind itself as evil and believe the planet would be better if we were not here.
But the religious point of view is that God created the planet FOR US. He commands us to be fruitful and multiply. He expects us to make full use of the natural resources he has provided for us. So maybe God expects us to burn those fossil fuels. It would be pretty mean of him to put them there and expect us to not use them. If he does expect us to burn them perhaps he made allowance for it. One could imagine for example that the climate and ice age cycle were set up by God in anticipation that we would be adding a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere right about now. Maybe if we don't add this CO2 to the atmosphere it could put us into ice age.
Under the religious point of view it isn't enough then to just look at the question "are we influencing the climate" with the implicit assumption that any influence is bad. We need to look much more carefully at whether that influence is part of gods plan, beneficial or problematic. And that is a question that climate science, with its assumption that all warming is bad, seldom asks.
(disclaimer: I am an atheist, but investigated a variety of religious beliefs in my younger days.)
He moves in mysterious ways...
Has the Pope ensured a new legion of Catholic skeptics who will see themselves as a modern day Galileos, or maybe this, like so much 'climate science', is just politics and red in tooth and claw. Will the Pope now move to apply pressure to the mainly catholic nations of the world to cutback on fossil fuel use no matter how much it hurts the people of these countries? Would somewhere like Poland listen?
As usual with most moves from the Vatican and Popes, motives and outcomes are obscured more than clarified.
However with the old church embracing the new one, and with this new guidance in hand shall we now hear --
"In nomine patri, et fili, CO2, spiritu sancte" ?
As with all things in settled 'climate science' these days, 'eppur si muove', that is, and yet it moves -- except for Windmill of course -- continues.
Has the Pope ensured a new legion of Catholic skeptics who will see themselves as a modern day Galileos?
The inquisition long ago ran enough fire experiments to conclude that there really is something to this radiative forcing business.
I posted in the comments at WUWT.
“He is also preparing an encyclical — one of the highest forms of a papal statement — on the subject, expected to be released as early as June.”
This “ENCYCLICAL” is not an “INFALLIBLE” Doctrinal Pronouncement, according to Catholic Answers.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
By this means, the Vatican is hedging its bets & watermelons should take heed. This pope may be feted amongst some circles of fawning sycophants, but he is fated to overstep his pay-grade on the subject of warm mongering..
Perhaps the subject he should address is that as half the warming is deemed as natural, half the fault lies with Him.
Is He a malevolent god?
The Telegraph on line has managed to draw attention to the encyclical and sceptics' reaction to it with an article headed with the no doubt intentionally misleading headline
" Pope attacked by climate sceptics".
I don't care if the UN and Obama build a consensus of 7 billion+ people, who are they to say that they are right and that the one bloke who says - "er no, actually you are wrong" - is incorrect and then we get into statistics.
I only wish that, the pope could play a better game of dead batting and with a enigmatic smile that says, not on your nelly mate.
What I do see, hear and divine - there are too many people, should I say numpties [*ank-i-moonie is one] running around the world and using umpteen million tons of CO² telling us all what to do and how to live our lives, I for one am heartily sick of it.
Who the hell are the UN, what can they do for me apart from nothing good?
The span of any incumbent Pope is emphemeral and I ain't too sure God is listening anyhow.
Indeed the span of all humanity is like a mere fluting on the backside of geology going back in terms of billions of years, the power of the earth is in comparison to mankind - almost infinite and ye Gods there's a whole ****ing Universe out there. Lord, do we all need to get a grip here, all we need is a bit of ****ing humility.
Pompous megalomaniacs can spout all they like, exhorting God may be their thing, whether you live in Africa, Baltimore, or Gloucestershire - what we all need to do is to take a bit more responsibility for our own lives, here a bit of Christian "do unto others..." would not go amiss, working hard, worrying about paying bills, keeping your nose clean and when you can help thy neighbour.
Que Sera, whatever the earth will do, it will do and for all our technological know how [see Nepal] there is not a damn thing we can do about that, though we can construct better and safer housing - as the Chileans know well, a big earthquake strikes there fairly regularly but civilian deaths are numbered in multiples of 10's, if that. Lots of things we could do but the bigger picture - is out of our hands and we do know it, though certain men do a half decent job in pretending they can change the world, usually it lasts about as long as 5 years or a few more if you can hold down the people - Mao knew how.
Monotheistic, Theocrats, all faiths, people, need to be more philosophical, keep matters spiritual - whatever floats your boat but keep it out of politics and be a bit less eschatological - leave that to God.
Yup, leave the big things to God what we should focus more on in the UK......... is making our own government do as we ordain and not the other ways around and it all starts with, YOU - always keep it local and thus: keep it real.
RE the Telegraph (see above)
Who do they think we are? Greenpeace?
As a Catholic myself can I say that it ill beloved a religion that expects its adherents to believe in transubstantiation to extoll the virtues of scientific data.
Estimates of Roman Catholics in India and China? About 30 million.
Combined population of India and China? About 2600 million.
Combined population of Popes? About 1.
"Beloved" = behoves!
"Perhaps the subject he should address is that as half the warming is deemed as natural, half the fault lies with Him.
Is He a malevolent god?"
It's worse than you thought! The 50% is for the latter part of the 20th century i.e. Aoround 0.3C since 1880 temps have risen by 0.85 so Gon is responsible for 2/3rds.
Ok
If we judge the validity of scientific theories by the historical support given by the Catholic Church (or its opposition to it), I think we can be very confident on the invalidity of the AGW hypothesis.
(The encyclical is not out yet, but the pontificating document is signed -twice- by a high ranking Monsignor)
An Encyclical will be used by Greens to demand action by the Catholic church, in accordance with Green manifestos.
The actual wording of the Encyclical will be an irrelevance
Well, President Eisenhower in his farewell address could rightly blame the ‘military industrial complex’ for distorting science teaching and research, but we now have President Obama as Chief Lysenkoist of the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – i.e. the UN/IMF/IPCC fairy-tale of man-made global warming (now also declared through the EPA as virtual state religion). And there is surprise that the rest of the world no longer buys that dead horse trade? Nor any Vatican State ukas that emission of CO2 is tantamount to original sin?
In order to keep this comment brief, a summary of my views and reasons may be found at
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/global-warming-un-funnelled-from-famous.html
1520 - the encyclical against the sceptic martin luther
2015 - the encyclical against the sceptics
Mother nature has not warmed in 18 years. So the reality is that the real climate sceptic is not us but Mother Nature aka "God".
I wonder who will win this battle?
[Snip - O/T]