First Thoughts on Laudato Si

18 June 15

Today the much discussed, eagerly (or fearfully) awaited, scandalously leaked encyclical on stewardship of the environment was released.

Up until today, I have intentionally avoided reading commentary about it. It has all been conjecture and spin. Today I tried to access the Vatican web site, but it is timing out. I can only assume that a whole lot of people on the east coast of the United States are trying to get their eyes on it. Hopefully (but doubtfully) for their own good. Probably to advance their own opinions and agendas. Such is it with fallen Man.

I being no less fallen than my brother, will have to check my own prejudices as I read it and try my best to read it with an open and generous heart.

This reminder by Rebecca Hamilton is a useful corrective in that regard. 

“This time in which we live is every bit as much satan’s hour as that night in the garden.

“Satan will use any doorway into us, including what we think of as our faithfulness to Him. One clear sign that we can use to discern that we are on the wrong path is when we begin to base our righteousness on the sins of other people.

“That is the first sin of cafeteria Catholics, of the red and the blue, the left and right. They are forever attacking one another and claiming righteousness for themselves based on the sins of the other.”

When I read the Bible, Church documents, and other reliable spiritual works, I try ask, “WHY does it say that?” rather than “Why does it say THAT?” Seek to understand before seeking a riposte or objection.

Going in, my position is:

1. Yes. The climate changes. Yes, the activity of nearly 7 billion people will affect how it changes. Undoubtedly, human activity can have a direct and adverse impact on the local and perhaps the global environment.
2. Yes, people, organizations, companies, governments should adopt procedures that consider the impact of their activity on the environment and should make every reasonable effort to act in ways that moderate any adverse effects.
3. No. Climate science is not “settled.” It is obvious to me that too many of the efforts and reports in that area of study have been politicized. As a result, prudence demands any pronouncements be looked at closely with a critical eye.
4. No, the earth and its systems are too complex and too interdependent for scientists to have even a superficial understanding of it. As a result, computer models cannot be dispositive, if they can be meaningful at all when they are based upon questionable and insufficient data; designed by scientists with preconceived outcomes, political agendas or financial stakes; and trying to not only describe but PREDICT a system which they do not sufficiently understand.
5. Yes, globally, mismanagement, selfishness, excess by the “have” has exacerbated the impact of environmental changes on the poor. Charity and good stewardship go hand-in-glove.
6. No, global governance will not solve the problem. Concentration of power tends to amplify bad decisions, create greater opportunities for abuse, and crush potential creative solutions in favor of bureaucratically created ‘plans.’

Here’s the AP’s blatantlyanti-Capitalist, anti-growth take. I only read the first couple of lines before I realized I needed to read the source before this stuff totally skewed my opinion. Of course, AP stories are reprinted or rewritten around the country, so this is the sort of thing most Americans will read about the encyclical.

This looks like it might be more balanced and better informed.

This is an interesting take from someone suffering from drought in California.

Apparently, Patriarch Bartholomew hasbeen green for a while.

And no survey would be complete without an angry rant from an anti-Catholic hater.

More to follow as I read the encyclical for myself and continue to scan the commentary on it.