• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the pope's new encyclical Laudato Si.

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I'm very interested to know about the Catholic response to this.
What is your personal response? Did your own views change?

What have you heard from others at church? Was there a sermon about it?

What do you expect the majority of Catholics will feel, do, or say? Do you think that this is a popular encyclical or not?

Is there a question I have not asked, but should have?

I know that this is a big deal, not a short term thing. So I am not expecting comprehensive answers immediately. But I am very curious about how this is viewed by the laity.
Tom
 

VitoOFMCap

Member
I think there's way too much to expect a response so quickly. I think a lot of people aren't sure how to react to it just yet. If you just see it as "something the Pope wrote about the environment," then the point is lost, as he even states in the letter. But as someone not Catholic, looking at what is going to happen with this letter, perhaps there's an aspect to Pope Francis' role that may not be seen outside the faith:

Many people outside the Catholic faith see the Pope as the figurehead of the faith, and that we as Catholics assume that the Pope is our current leader. Rather, the role of pope, the Servant of the Servants, is chosen among the other cardinals to represent the leadership and guidance of the Church here on Earth. The Catholic Church attempts to address various aspects of the human condition in our attempt to live out the Gospel, and yet our lives are always changing with the world around us. Part of the role of the Pope is to see these things, and with prayer and discernment, attempt to provide direction to a Church that spans many nations and has a history of over 2000 years.

In the past, Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI were more identified with discussions that "appeared" to be more conservative. I use quotes because both popes had strong messages regarding capital punishment and immigration that do not fit into a conservative/liberal framework. However, it seems that the former was more identified with the previous Popes.

In the time that Francis has served as Pope, we have seen an undeniable focus in a different direction. Francis of Assisi heard the call to "Rebuild my Chuch," and in many ways this could be the tagline for Pope Francis. He has not waivered from the values of previous popes regarding abortion, sexual ethics, governmental exploitation. However some of his words and his actions now challenge the constructs of conservative/liberal frameworks, especially in the United States. There are many theories and discussions regarding this, but the point is that there are a number of Catholics who honestly don't know how to feel. What they are hearing from the leadership of their faith challenges some values and ideas that they've grown up with, and some news venues either praise Pope Francis for being green or accuse him of being a Communist.

For the Christian, we are always called to conversion; in our thoughts, actions, and what we say and do. This encyclical is a pretty big deal. I think some Catholics are going to need time to come to terms with what they are being asked.

I've been reading it over the past few days and I'm still digesting the text. If there's one soundbite immediately, I think its the fact that Pope Francis is calling for all of us, not just Catholics or just Christians, but all of us to recognize that we are caretakers of our common home and all that has been created within...from the Earth to the poorest of the poor who are most affected by the current climate changes we are facing today.

I don't know if that's what you wanted to hear about Laudato Si, but I think just looking for the "Catholic Response" falls short of the point that Pope Francis is trying to make. =)
 

VitoOFMCap

Member
Also, on of my brothers, currently the president of Bonaventure University, has put out a video regarding his reflections on Laudato Si. Perhaps this is more of what you were looking for:

 
One thing that I felt for years that some Roman Catholics put their right-wing politics above their faithfulness to church teaching, and then use Papal statements that lean conservative on issues like abortion and homosexuality as a cudgel to tell progressive Catholics that they are not allowed to "pick and choose" what teachings to follow and that adherence to conservative stances on those issues is "non-negotiable". They even came up with a derisive term to describe Catholics who don't agree with the Church's stances on one or more such issues- "Cafeteria Catholics".

Yet, interestingly, those same conservatives are usually not in line with the church's teachings on economics and environment. They often use the excuse that those issues are "optional" because they don't have to do with "faith and morals". However, Pope Francis in his first encyclical denounced trickle down economics (Using that exact phrase) and explicitly said that it *is* a moral issue. And he devoted a whole encyclical the second time around to discussing the immorality of not putting politicians in power who will take radical action to prevent global climate change to whatever extent it is possible to do. In short, these issues have become as "non-negotiable" issues for Catholics as everything else, according to the very framework that conservatives used to cudgel progressives on social issues previously.

Yet, many conservative Catholics are finding excuses to ignore what the Pope said. Some Republican Presidential candidates who have spent much of their career running for various offices claiming to be "faith based" candidates who's stances on issues are in line with their Catholic faith, now basically are telling the Pope to stop interfering in politics and dismissing him. It exposes what I've always felt to be true- these people are Republicans or conservative first, and Catholics second.

Their threats of hellfire for progressives who didn't toe their line on abortion and homosexuality and various other issues, while already cruel, takes on a new dimension in light of their own refusal to recognize the authority of the progressive positions the Church has taken via Pope Francis on economics and global climate change. Now conservatives can no longer say the awful positions of guilt and fear and derision from others that they put progressives in was entirely motivated out of concern for their souls- it's become obvious that, in the end, the conservatives were hypocrites, and it was all politics, which makes it twice as bad. How many people's relationship with God were ruined forever by listening to and believing that God condemned them for their progressive views? How many people were forced to vote against their consciences because they felt God demanded it?

I don't like the concept of hell. I hope that it doesn't exist. No one deserves that fate. But if there is a judgement day and a final accounting of any sort, I hope God or St. Peter or whomever holds these right-wingers to account and at least makes them deal with the anguish they've caused people and repent of it before letting them through the pearly gates.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Thanks to both you and @VitoOFMCap for
your responses. I was just considering bumping the thread. I knew when I started it was a little premature.
They even came up with a derisive term to describe Catholics who don't agree with the Church's stances on one or more such issues- "Cafeteria Catholics".
I was born and raised Catholic so I am quite familiar with all of this. I remember the short kerfuffle when the Pope declared the invasion of Iraq a crime against humanity, much to the dismay of conservative Catholic purists. So I am still looking for more responses from lay Catholics, as opposed to the talking heads.
Tom
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Yet, interestingly, those same conservatives are usually not in line with the church's teachings on economics and environment.
Being hypocritical on one issue is not the same as being wrong on another. Right-wing disobedience over environmental and economic issues does not diminish the seriousness of left-wing disobedience which is usually more profound if it goes so far as to support abortion. Which is an explicit rebellion against codified Church teaching.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Being hypocritical on one issue is not the same as being wrong on another. Right-wing disobedience over environmental and economic issues does not diminish the seriousness of left-wing disobedience which is usually more profound if it goes so far as to support abortion. Which is an explicit rebellion against codified Church teaching.

The immorality of trickle down economics is also codified as church teaching in an encyclical where it is explicitly categorized as a moral issue, as is people's right to health care and the right to be looked after in the event of old age and disability (cf Pacem en Terris, encyclical letter from then-Pope and now Saint John XXIII on all but the economic stuff). When people oppose universal health care and try to get rid of Social Security and the like, they are going against Catholic teaching, and if they are successful, people die as a result of their efforts because of a lack of health care that could save them, or even from starvation or exposure to extreme weather because some elderly and disabled folks may no longer be able to afford food or shelter without Social Security.

A single celled embroyo in the womb or a small lump of cells with no brain to have hopes, dreams, and a will to live, and no nerve endings to feel pain does not trump the right to life of child and adults, who conservatives are trying to deprive of food every time they propose or enact food stamp cuts that directly take food out of the mouths of the poor. That's not me taking a "pro abortion" stance or even a "pro choice" stance in that sentence, that's me saying that life does not end at birth, and neither does the right to life.

I find politicians who are oh so concerned about single celled embryos and then turn around and cut food stamps for starving children and adults extremely disingenuous- they don't care about life, they are opposing abortion simply out of political expediency, some outdated morality where they want women to suffer for having sex outside of marriage, or out of sexism. Don't get me wrong, it is entirely impossible to oppose abortion and even to oppose abortion being legal solely out of concern for life, but if people stop being concerned for life the second it's born, then I find it hard to believe they fall into that category of opposing abortion solely because they are concerned about protecting lives.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
It'd be off topic to get into debate about this, so I'll restate and that will be the end of it. The moral errors of one group, do not diminish the moral errors of another. I assume that you're well aware of what the Church teaches about abortion and extra-marital sex. The hypocrisy of your ideological enemies in regards to the Church's authority on an unconnected issue is a red herring.
 
It'd be off topic to get into debate about this, so I'll restate and that will be the end of it. The moral errors of one group, do not diminish the moral errors of another. I assume that you're well aware of what the Church teaches about abortion and extra-marital sex. The hypocrisy of your ideological enemies in regards to the Church's authority on an unconnected issue is a red herring.

The thread, however, is about an encyclical that is primarily about global climate change and the environment and how Catholics are receiving it. Discussing the hypocrisy of some Catholics who fail to take it seriously after having used similar encyclicals on other subjects to hammer other Catholics for decades upon decades is relevant to the topic at hand, and not a red herring.
 
This is an interesting article about it

We progressives welcome you to the cafeteria. What are you having today? There's all kinds of interesting choices at the buffet. ;)

The successor of St. Peter has told you that global climate change is real, man-made, and harms the poor. If you or Crisis magazine can't accept that, alright, but then I don't want to ever hear any of you guys complain about Catholics who support gay marriage again. The Church isn't a conservatives doctrines mandatory, liberal doctrines optional affair. We either accept all of them, or we can pick and choose on all of them. Conservatives can't have this both ways, though they are darn sure trying.
 

kepha31

Active Member
It's a matter of moral weight. Laudato Si does not have the same moral weight as does, say, Humanae Vitae. The consequences for ignoring the former over the latter is much more direct.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
It's a matter of moral weight. Laudato Si does not have the same moral weight as does, say, Humanae Vitae. The consequences for ignoring the former over the latter is much more direct.

Why do you think Humanae Vitae is more important?
Don't get me wrong. I'm more of a pro-lifer than most of the Catholics I know. I don't want to derail into an abortion debate.
I'm asking why one encyclical has more weight than the other, to you.
Tom
 

kepha31

Active Member
Why do you think Humanae Vitae is more important?
Don't get me wrong. I'm more of a pro-lifer than most of the Catholics I know. I don't want to derail into an abortion debate.
I'm asking why one encyclical has more weight than the other, to you.
Tom
Using another example:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
James Akin

I don't think failing to recycle out of laziness has the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
I hope this answers your question.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I don't think failing to recycle out of laziness has the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
I hope this answers your question.
Not at all.
Laudato Si goes far beyond recycling. But I appreciate your candor, and the insights into the views some lay Catholics hold.
Tom
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Laudato Si goes far beyond recycling. But I appreciate your candor, and the insights into the views some lay Catholics hold.
Climate change denialists are one thing. What Fish and Bread is suggesting is that because they're out of line with the Pope on this, liberals are at liberty to support gay marriage, contraception and abortion. No, you're not. And if you do, and know better, you're in mortal sin.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
We progressives welcome you to the cafeteria. What are you having today? There's all kinds of interesting choices at the buffet. ;)

The successor of St. Peter has told you that global climate change is real, man-made, and harms the poor. If you or Crisis magazine can't accept that, alright, but then I don't want to ever hear any of you guys complain about Catholics who support gay marriage again. The Church isn't a conservatives doctrines mandatory, liberal doctrines optional affair. We either accept all of them, or we can pick and choose on all of them. Conservatives can't have this both ways, though they are darn sure trying.
The Pope is not a scientist. Even evolution isn't a matter of doctrine or dogma for Catholics. This isn't really the Church's sphere of authority, especially since such a matter is not settled among scientists. No, I'm not riding the "man-made global warming" bandwagon because it's too much of a political issue with radical green misanthropes with a population control agenda to push. However, issues such as gay marriage and female clergy are well within the Church's sphere of authority to proclaim doctrine and dogma on. That matter has been put to rest and has been for many centuries.

I must add that I am an environmentalist and am opposed to viewing the Earth as nothing but a resource to be exploited. St. Francis of Assisi is my namesake. However, I'm quite aware of the political dimension of this argument and the dubious backing it receives so I am skeptical of the whole movement - and it is a movement.
 
Last edited:
The Pope is not a scientist. Even evolution isn't a matter of doctrine or dogma for Catholics. This isn't really the Church's sphere of authority, especially since such a matter is not settled among scientists. No, I'm not riding the "man-made global warming" bandwagon because it's too much of a political issue with radical green misanthropes with a population control agenda to push. However, issues such as gay marriage and female clergy are well within the Church's sphere of authority to proclaim doctrine and dogma on. That matter has been put to rest and has been for many centuries.

I think you should pray about this.

It's obvious to most people outside the Republicatholic in-group that there's a large element of denial and hypocracy to the stance you describe. I'm not saying with you in particular. It's a larger more generalized problem with Republicatholics. Many can't face that we have a Pope who's spoken authoritatively in a way they don't like, so they are trying to put things like economics and the environment outside the sphere of moral teaching even as the Pope himself forcefully says that they are in the sphere of moral teaching and that you need to listen to him.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I think you should pray about this.

It's obvious to most people outside the Republicatholic in-group that there's a large element of denial and hypocracy to the stance you describe. I'm not saying with you in particular. It's a larger more generalized problem with Republicatholics. Many can't face that we have a Pope who's spoken authoritatively in a way they don't like, so they are trying to put things like economics and the environment outside the sphere of moral teaching even as the Pope himself forcefully says that they are in the sphere of moral teaching and that you need to listen to him.
I'll probably vote Republican but I'm not really a Republican as my politics don't fit into American politics (but I'd be at home in most of continental Europe). I actually abhor their typical economic policies. They're just the lesser of two evils.

The Pope still isn't a scientist.
 
Top