July 17, 2015

Cardinal George Pell takes a swing at Pope Francis’ environmental encyclical

Print More
Australian Cardinal George Pell arrives for a meeting at the Synod Hall in the Vatican March 6, 2013 ahead of the conclave that elected Pope Francis. Photo by  REUTERS/Tony Gentile 
*Editors: This photo can only be used with RNS-PELL-ABUSE, transmitted May 22, 2015 or RNS-PELL-VATICAN on June 1, 2015 or RNS-VATICAN-TAXES on June 10, 2015 or RNS-VATICAN-ASSETS, originally transmitted on July 16, 2015, and with RNS-SYNOD-FAMILIES, originally transmitted on Oct. 12, 2015

Australian Cardinal George Pell arrives for a meeting at the Synod Hall in the Vatican March 6, 2013 ahead of the conclave that elected Pope Francis. Photo by REUTERS/Tony Gentile *Editors: This photo can only be used with RNS-PELL-ABUSE, transmitted May 22, 2015 or RNS-PELL-VATICAN on June 1, 2015 or RNS-VATICAN-TAXES on June 10, 2015 or RNS-VATICAN-ASSETS, originally transmitted on July 16, 2015, and with RNS-SYNOD-FAMILIES, originally transmitted on Oct. 12, 2015

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

VATICAN CITY (RNS) Until now, Cardinal George Pell had remained quiet on the contents of the encyclical, despite gaining a reputation in Australia as a climate change denier.

  • Sister Geraldine Marie, OP, RN, PHN

    Apparently, Pell hasn’t a clue to the scientific contributions of the Church over the centuries and that it has its own planetary observatory!
    Pope Francis is completely within his rights both as a Churchman and as a human being, to note what all true scientists already know: climate change is due to man’s carelessness with the global environment.
    Is Pell a member of the Flat Earth Society as well?!

  • Greg1

    Yes, the question rather, is how many of the early scientists were NOT Christians. And I for one am happy that the pope wrote an encyclical, which addresses the home that God Almighty has given to us. We have been treating it with carelessly as if we could just all move to another planet once this one is no longer habitable. Please, Cardinal, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Now I would agree that there might have been a better moment for its release, as so many more pressing moral issues have recently popped up, but that is another topic for another time.

  • Bernard Saavedra

    Man’s carelessness ?? Where you got that from ??? Tell us 1, yes, just 1 so called catastrophe that the IPCC said was going to happen. You are just repeating what the new “religion” is saying. Remember Global Warming ?? Not used anymore, too embarrassing now it’s all Climate Change or you have an answer for “The Pause” ??

  • Cardinal Pell is correct to point out that the Roman Catholic Church, as the Church, has–and indeed claims–no particular expertise on empirical science. Yes, there have been great scientists who are Catholics (and Protestants, and Orthodox, and Jewish, and Muslim, and Hindu, etc.), but to reason from there that the Church as a whole has expertise on the science is to commit the fallacy of composition (attributing to the whole the attributes of some of its parts). Interestingly enough, Cardinal Pell has expressed considerable understanding of the science in the anthropogenic climate change controversy (e.g., http://www.thegwpf.org/cardinal-george-pell-one-christian-perspective-on-climate-change-2/). Many Catholic scientists offered contrary views to Francis before the encyclical was completed (www.ClimateLettertoPopeFrancis.org). An excellent critique of Laudato Si’ is at http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/07/Vatican-compass.pdf.

  • Fran

    When, why and how would earth be uninhabitable?

  • Pingback: Cardinal George Pell Criticises Pope Fracis’ Environmental Encyclical | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)()

  • John Benton

    Cardinal Pell is correct to remind the public that the church has no expertise in scientific matters, however that is very possibly not the even the greatest problem with the encyclical. Even if it were the case that mans use of fossil fuels were likely to cause harmful effects to the planet, and that is very open to question since the slight warming due to the direct radiative effect is very likely to be net positive to at least 2100 if not beyond, Pope Francis makes no attempt to even address the continuing poverty his proposed limiting of fossil fuel development will have on the developing world, particularly Africa.

    It would even be possible, I believe, to argue that it would be evil to implement the terms of the encyclical, such would be the level of poverty thrust upon many of the poorest in the world by denying them access to a cheap and reliable source of power, while the developed world, including Pope Francis, continues to enjoy its benefits.

  • Greg1

    We are not just producing biodegradable garbage any more. Nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste that will likely take a million years of half lives to be rendered safe. This stuff is being stored underground in containers that will not last that long. It could contaminate our drinking water, among other things. Additionally if we had a nuclear war, high radiation levels would result, causing much death. Also toxic waste is another killer, if toxins were to get in our water supplies, that would lead to sickness and death. We are called to be good stewards of the planet our Lord gave us, so that it will last until the end of time, when all will be summed up: 2Peter 3:10: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be” Indeed.

  • Greg1

    The encyclical is a challenge to everyone, including modern scientists. Our president, for example, could ground Air Force 1, and take a smaller plane to where he needs to go (there is only so much fossil fuel on this planet, and when it runs out…). It really doesn’t matter whether global warming is true, or not, but rather that we have limited resources on this planet. We could save our good fertile dirt for growing food, not to build houses on. We could use non-potable water for toilets, showers, etc. and save the potable for consumption. The list is endless. Every time I go to the garbage dump and look around, I find it just amazing what we throw out. We are a throw away society, and not just regarding food.

  • EppingBlogger

    Unless you want to turn the clock back many centuries and promote the idea that scientific discovery and other aspects of human development are miraculously revealed by an invisible hand (of god, allah or whoever), then this criticism of the Pope’s encyclical must be right.

    However, the issue of global warming is not only about physical science. It is also about economics. As Lord Lawson has explained, any decisions on what response we might decide to adopt if there is a warming issue and if there were something we could and should do about it, this would need to consider economics as well as technology and science.

    I wonder who it was that led the work which resulted in the encyclical; was it the usual suspects among the world government movement.

  • Tom F Hazard

    wasn’t there a nuclear accident in the Ukrane that made a thousand square miles of land uninhabitable, There’s one for you. You dummy.

  • Greg1

    Have you read the encyclical?

  • Paleoclimatologist

    The above article describes Cardinal Pell as having ” a reputation in Australia as a climate change denier.”

    This is an appalling example of an ” ad hominem” attack and yet another instance of the use of disparaging language in an attempt by climate alarmists to avoid debate on the many and serious scientific uncertainties surrounding the entire edifice of modern ” climate science” as portrayed by the CAGW alarmist constituency.

    The original  conclusion of Working Group I (WGI) of the IPCC 2nd Assessment ( AR2) and included in the  draft “Science of Climate Change” which it  submitted for the seminal IPCC  Second Assessment ( 2AR) report which catalysed EU action on CO2 emissions  was:-

    “  None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific case of increases in greenhouse gases [sic]. No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change  observed to man made causes. Any claims of…

  • David Chapmanj

    I am a medical practitioner, (surgeon, retired). When I graduated, some 60 years ago, the consensus of medical opinion on the cause of gastric ulcers was that they were stress related leading to gastric hyperacidity. Several major surgical procedures were standard treatment. The drug companies spent millions producing antacids of varying degrees of efficacy. A physician, Marshall and a pathologist, Warren working at a suburban hospital in Perth W.A. suggested that the cause was due to a bacillus, Helicobacter pylori. For years the so called peer reviewed journals wouldn’t publish their work. Eventually they were awarded a Nobel Prize. I could mention many other examples of the so called “scientific consensus” has been debunked, the argument about the age of the earth at the end of the 19th. centuary,(radioactivity had yet to be discovered), Wegoner’s theory of continental drift, and, of course, Galileo. Consenus is not a scientific term.

  • heroooooo

    Environmental issues are not of science themselves, they are something quietly standing surround all beings. Many sentient beings can recognize them through the common, normal sense, but some may need science to help explain to them; anyway our life is well situated on intricate spheres of ecological system, nothing is neither can be separated from others. And science itself can not explain all phenomena in the universe, it only evolves alongside the human consciousness which rely on more individual’s mind’s wakening. So those who try to simply use science to avoid talking about environmental issues they ignore or deny can only demonstrate where their mind is.

  • joe
  • Roman Hamerski

    Mr. Albrecht Glatzle
    Thank you.

  • Liam Ronan

    Whatever scientific contributions individual Catholics have made over the centuries is simply irrelevant misses Cardinal Pell’s point; likewise that the Vatican has a planetary observatory.

    The quote attributed to Cardinal Pell reads::

    “But the church has no particular expertise in science … the church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters. We believe in the autonomy of science.”

    That is an utterly accurate representation of the facts.

    Your inference that the Cardinal might be a member of the Flat Earth Society is beneath you, Sister Geraldine Marie, OP, RN, PHN.

    Peace.

  • Noel

    Viewed from heaven, the Australian Cardinal will be destroyed by God together with the rest of the cabal of right wingers. Contrary to what the rapture nuts believe, God will not destroy the earth at the end-times, but “God will destroy the destroyers of the earth” (Revelation 11:18). Aside from Pell, these include the polluters, the death dealing worshippers of the market as god, and all the climate change deniers.

  • There is no middle ground on this issue, it has become a new world religion, and the Pope wanted in on it. Trying to convince an environmental activists to open their minds and admit that science is never settled, that the anthropogenic apocalypse is an hypothesis, not a proven theory, would be like trying to convince an Islamic jihadist that the Crusades were just a bunch of young knights on spring break having a bit of fun, no harm intended…

  • Fran

    Let’s see what God has to say about that: Eccl. 1:4: A generation is going and coming, but the earth remains forever. Isaiah 45:18: God formed the earth, established it and did not create it in vain, but formed it to be inhabited. Psalm 37:29: The righteous will possess the earth and live forever on it.

    Sometimes, words such as heavens, earth, and fire are used figuratively, as symbols. Gen. 11:1 says all the “earth” continued to be of one language, referring to “human society.” The context of 2 Peter 3:7 shows the heavens, earth and fire to be symbols and a parallel to the flood, when only an ancient world of ungodly persons was destroyed. It foretells the “permanent” destruction of wicked society and its corrupt governments as if by fire.

    God will NEVER allow man to nuke the earth, nor mankind, to complete destruction. He will bring ruin to those ruining the earth (Rev. 11:8) and cleanse it of all corruption and pollution for the meek to enjoy forever.

  • John Benton

    The site you refer to is now one of the richest wildlife areas in Europe. Research teams now visit on a daily basis without any protective clothing and there are currently over 100 construction workers working at the site. Hardly uninhabitable.

  • John Benton

    I’m afraid throughout history those connected to the church have a long history of ad hominen attacks on anyone who disagrees with the current meme.

    It was even possible to find yourself imprisoned for suggesting that the earth may not be the centre of the universe.

  • John Benton

    The only ones avoiding the debate on both environmental and scientific issues are the CAGW alarmists for whom it is a religion.

  • John Benton

    My goodness, with an intolerant attitude like that are you sure you are on the right site?

  • wilbert

    Then .. Show us the evidence .. Not Computer models fabricated evidence but .. Observed DATA.

  • Greg1

    Fran, Psalm 37 is translated the “land,” not the earth. But even so, you said yourself, that “heavens, earth, and fire are used figuratively” so the Old Testament references to the earth are really just poetic symbolism referring to our ultimate goal, heaven, and written by a very earthy people who were not yet ready for God’s ultimate Truth, given to us by the Lord. But I do agree with you that 2Peter is figurative, insofar as a great transformation will take place when our Lord sums up everything at the end of time, when all will realize the words of the Apostle in Phil 3:20, “but our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.” One thing I will say is that Bible translation of your Church is very dangerous, as it twists Greek to conform with its…

  • Joan

    Sister, is “sister” not enough for you, that you need all those initials after your name!? My goodness, I know many priests who are PhD’s, and none of them uses any title other than “Father.”

  • Chris C.

    Sister I would guess that the Cardinal knows of the great scientific contributions that Catholic scientists have made over the centuries. The Pope is “within this rights” to say what he said. So is the Cardinal, and so is anyone else for that matter as long as it is done with respect to our Holy Father, much as Cardinal Pell did.

    Scientific facts will speak for themselves, with or without a stamp of approval from the Holy Father. As St. Thomas More was quoted as asking in A Man for All Seasons; “If the world be flat will the King’s decree make it round, or if round flatten it?” He was speaking of course of the limited competence of the King to prounounce on spiritual matters. Likewise, by his own admission, the Holy Father has no special competence on matters of science or economics, both of which were addressed in the encyclical. If he is willing to acknowledge that fact, so am I and so evidently is Cardinal Pell.

  • Stinky Lebinowitz

    Cardinal Pell is in deep doo doo now! Didn’t anyone tell him that Frainkie’s Marxist New World Order Global Warming Crapfest has nothing to do with science, much less the worship of God? Maybe someone did and Cardinal Pell just has a death wish?

  • dmj76

    Science is not magic. Even the great ones like Maxwell and Einstein could be wrong sometimes.

    In your retirement portfolio, are you betting that the current popular view held by most climate scientists is wrong? If you are right and they are wrong, you could make a ton of money.

  • dmj76

    Do you think all the folks over at Scientific American magazine are stupid? Left wing nuts? Infidels??

  • Sarah Jenkins

    I don’t think there’s a simpler means of identifying a member of the class of political AGW-alarmists than the use of the disinformation term “climate change denier”. The sole instance of climate change denial I recall is in Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockeystick graph, in which the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age were removed to create the illusion of centuries of unchanging temperature followed by a radical increase due to “AWG”.
    I doubt that Pope Francis is ignorant of the Club of Rome’s globalist depopulation advocates publication “The First Global Revolution”, which includes the phrase “The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
    with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in the IR, but there’s no research showing that it causes warming in the complex system of the earth’s atmosphere.

  • Anna Summerfield

    One senior cardinal was made a chaplain to the Knights of Malta after criticising the pope. Are any other chaplain’s positions open?

  • Bob Parmelee

    Sister Marie slips into “true” believer mode quite easily. The world has been undergoing gradual cooling since 1998. Recently remains of forests uncovered by retreating glaciers in Alaska (see Mendenhall) and the Alps have been carbon dated to date from 1000 AD to 4000 BC. These forests PROVE that todays “warm” climate is nothing new. This is why the Vikings were able to settle and FARM Greenland around 1000 AD, why Hannibal was able to cross the Alps with elephants and why the Romans hardly mentioned ice in the Alps. Come on, Sister Marie, do your own thinking.

  • Fran

    Greg1,

    If our “ultimate goal is heaven,”then we should have been created there to begin with all the rest of the spirit persons in the heavens before the earth was created. But we humans are born, raised, live and die on earth, which speaks volumes. Psalm 37:10 also says the meek will inherit the earth, living in peace there, withou any wicked ones.

    Of course, the apostle Paul could honestly say that “our citizenship is in the heavens,” since he was part of the new covenant Jesus made with him and others to be a part of God’s kingdom or heavenly government. He did not have an earthly hope after death, but a heavenly one, as do all who are spirit-anointed or born-again Christians.

    What kingdoms, then, will God’s kingdom crush (Daniel 2:44), and over whom will it reign over during its millennial rule?

  • Bob Parmelee

    There is no “challenge” to anyone in the encyclical. The Pope just strayed into unfortunate territory. CO2 is not poison, it is PLANT FOOD. Before recent humans began to recharge the atmosphere with carbon, plants were actually nearing carbon starvation. Now we have fortunately reversed that. I drive a Prius, not because of any “Green” nonsense, but because it is a frugal, economical, superbly engineered automobile. Capitalism is now introducing hydrogen cars from Japan into California. Hydrogen may quickly supplant 19th century electric cars because of range and refueling time (5 minutes for hydrogen). Sell your electric car stock.

  • Bob Parmelee

    Nuclear energy is a remarkably effective power source. After the fuel has been “expended” in a power plant 95% of the energy is still present in the fuel rods and only needs reprocessing to harvest the balance. Those radioactive compounds that cannot be “recycled” can be disposed of in many safe ways such as in vitrified (glass casks) buried in clay, as they do in France. Oh, did I mention that the footprint for a nuke plant (200 acres or so) is a small fraction of the ground shaded by solar plants for equivalent power output, except that the duty cycle of solar plants is obviously low. .

  • Bob Parmelee

    Bernard is correct, I would daresay that virtually NONE of the predictions of the warmaholic doomsayers (Gore included) has come true. Does that bother any of you AGW True Believers? Your so-called science is only a series of MODELS which fail to predict the future. Also why don’t you ask those who claim to be able to predict the future so accurately ( irrefutable claims equal a useless tautology) what happens when they use the models to BACKCAST. For example, inserting the best estimates of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere say in the 1930’s do the models accurately describe the actual conditions then?

  • Beattitudes

    Come, come “sister”:
    “Is Pell a member of the Flat Earth Society as well?!”
    Attacking Cardinal Pell will not change Truths.
    He is a high-ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church, who’s mission is:
    Drum roll….. SAVING SOULS…. I’m sure he has a clue of scientific contributions and he also has a clue of Christ’s mandate: “Go forth and teach all nations”.
    Christ didn’t mean teach “science” but repentance and the salvation of souls.
    If the Hierarchy kept their focus on THAT, I’m sure the world would not be in the condition it is in at present.
    In every age the Church has had its’ martyrs and its’ critics but in the end the Church has recognized and remembered those who stood for Truth and forgotten those who were carried away with the political correctness of the moment.

  • I think this is more an effort to drive a wedge between Card. Pell and Pope Francis than any real dissent or discord from Pell (recall the stories a couple of months ago criticizing Pell for his expenditures). Francis himself admits the Church has no expertise (“the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views”–L.S. 61), and Pell makes lots of positive comments that are downplayed in this story. Seems off kilter to me.

  • Fran

    Also, concerning Psalm
    37:29, “land” is generally defined as the part of earth’s surface not covered by water, or the solid part of the surface of earth. Land is definitely on “earth” where man now resides and will reside in the future. Heaven is not mentioned in any translation.

  • Richard W Comerford

    Sister Geraldine Marie, OP, RN, PHN:

    You posted in part:

    “Is Pell a member of the Flat Earth Society as well?!”

    I do not know if the man you refer to as “Pell” is a member of “the Flat Earth Society”; but he is a member of that most exclusive fraternity sometimes called “Successors” to to the Apostles” without which we would have neither faith, nor sacraments, nor Church. If Holy Father Francis can publicly refer to the man you call “Pell” as Cardinal why cannot you, with all four your publicly boasted titles (Sister, OP, RN, PHN) do the same?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • John Benton

    That is a very uneducated statement. There is no “current popular view held by most climate scientists”. If you believe one exists perhaps you could enlighten us all what it is, but bear in mind that those sceptical of CAGW do not deny that the climate changes, nor that (all things being equal, although they rarely are) CO2 has a very marginal warming influence by virtue of its direct radiative effect.

  • Richard W Comerford

    Mr. John Benton:

    “It was even possible to find yourself imprisoned for suggesting that the earth may not be the centre of the universe.”

    If you are referring to the Great Galileo he was never imprisoned; but showered with honors and a life long pension by the Church. However Galileo,a Canon in minor Holy Orders, did publicly attack two Jesuit astronomers who disagreed with Galileo’s theory and Galileo also cited the Bible as support of his theory (The Jesuits as we now know were right).

    Cardinal Bellarmine told Galileo to cease and desist and, when after the Cardinal’s death, Galileo persisted, that got the great Galileo in trouble with the Church – mixing the Bible with theoretical science. No jail time, torture or other un-pleasantries though.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • laurel

    Yes, members of the Church have greatly advanced scientific information. But, your response to Cardinal Pell reads as if you missed his point. He was talking about the papal charism.

  • Sixtus

    Even Popes can get it wrong. Climate Change is a Marxist attempt to have a global effort to population control through the use of abortion, contraception, so called Gay Marriage. This is all about sterilization. Then euthanasia is being steamrolled to reduce the carbon footprint. Climate Change is a fraud. The good Cardinal Pell was correct the best Pope Francis could have done was condemned the Climate Change agenda being a tool for the promoters of the Culture of Death. Yes this is a period of darkness in the Catholic Church. God Help Us.

  • Richard W Comerford

    Mr. Noel:

    You posted: “Viewed from heaven, the Australian Cardinal will be destroyed by God together with the rest of the cabal of right wingers.”

    Are your “right wingers” all guilty of mortal sin, you can look into their hearts?

    Also: “God will not destroy the earth at the end-times”

    Rome teaches that in the end their will only be heaven and hell.

    Also: “Aside from Pell, these include the polluters, the death dealing worshippers of the market as god, and all the climate change deniers.”

    Climate certainly changes, and changes radically, and it has been doing so since the creation of the earth and before Adam walked the earth.

    Perhaps you might convince more people of the rightness of your position if you did not first damn them?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Karen

    Albrecht Glatzle: Thank you, sir, for correcting the nun.

  • Sister:

    I am a genuine atmospheric scientist, a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and a practicing Catholic. Unfortunately, Pope Francis has the science wrong in his encyclical. World temperatures have been flat since 1998 and there is no acceleration in the rare of sea level rise to name just two.

    Yes, humans affect the client in many, many ways. But climate science has no demonstrated way of accurately forecasting the future climate.

    Best wishes,
    Mike Smith

  • “rate” of rise…

  • Cardinal Pell is merely repeating what Pope Francis already said in the encyclical:

    188. There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. 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.

    Global warming is not a point of Catholic doctrine and sensible Christians can absolutely disagree with the papal assessment of its importance. In fact, anyone who has studied the evidence would know the Pope didn’t get the global warming thing right. But the rest of the encyclical is good, so there’s that.

  • Science not in

    The “Climate Gate” Copenhagen e-mails of 2009 reveal the corruption of the “science” being touted by the Marxist Malthusians from the Cult of Global Warming. Dissenters are systematically ostracized and dubbed “deniers” and “flat-earthers” by pseudo-intellectual sophists supporting Josef Stalin-like Lysenkoism and Malthusian population control. I also don’t see how it’s “groundbreaking” to simply go along with pop culture’s talking points. This pope should stay in his lane and worry more about important religious matters at play these days, especially the worldwide persecution of Christians.

  • Greg1

    Fran: Dan 2:45: “This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands–a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.”
    Jesus applies this to Himself, tying Psalm 118 to Daniel 2: Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: “ ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.” Luke 20:17-18.
    The Kingdom is initially the Church on earth (Luke 22:29), then at the end of time will be united with heaven when our Lord comes. I am going to challenge you to read Matthew 25 slowly online, and not the JW version.
    Fran, you underestimate yourself. You are a human, with an immortal soul. Your body might die, but your soul lives forever (Matthew 10:28). But at the end of time, our “glorified” bodies will be reunited with our souls, for heaven (1Cor…

  • Greg1

    …(1Cor 15:42-53). The Angels were likely given one test, as they are intelligent spirits; they either passed or failed (Jude 1:6-7, 2Ptr 2:4, Rev 12:9, 2Cor 11:14). But humans have a whole lifetime to work for the kingdom. Fran, you are worth so much more than the dignity your church affords you. Heaven is your goal: 1 Corinthians 2:9 “as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him.”

  • Liam Ronan

    May I just offer what another Cardinal declared in an address given during the 1976 Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia for the U.S. bicentennial celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence?

    Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (Pope Saint John Paul II) addressed the assembled with words which I believe were incredibly prophetic:

    “We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever experienced. I do not think that the wide circle of the American Society, or the whole wide circle of the Christian Community realize this fully.

    We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the Antichrist. The confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence. It is, therefore, in God’s Plan, and it must be a trial which the Church must take up, and face courageously.”

    This my friends is what the Catholic Church and Bergolio must be focusing now.

  • Noel

    If you cannot take the encyclical of Pope Francis, just open and read and meditate on the Bible. Read especially the passage I quoted for yourself. With you guys denying climate change you certainly having been brainwashed by big corporate think tank and propaganda belong complicity to the camp of “those who destroy the earth” whom God will destroy (Revelation 11:18). Welcome to the Church of Pell! If the Pope is unlikable to you, will you also unlike God and God’s word? Beware!

  • Richard W Comerford

    Mr. Noel:

    You posted: “With you guys denying climate change”

    No reputable, credentialed scientist denies climate change. Climate change is normal. It has occurred since before Adam walked the earth.

    and:

    “Revelation 11:18”

    This citation has nothing to do with climate change.

    and

    “If the Pope is unlikable to you, will you also unlike God and God’s word? Beware!”

    Love and hate are acts of the will. Like and dislike are of the emotions. Liking or disliking Holy Father Francis is neither praise worthy or blame worthy.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Jordan

    A great post, climate does change, it is the natural order of things. The geological record shows that it changes, the fact that there was an ice age shows that it changes. The hubris of man to believe that he can change it on his own just shows how we have raised ourselves up to be new idols with science our new god. CO2 levels were twice as high in the time of the dinosaurs and I think one would be hard pressed to find a scientist who says life was not flourishing at that time.

  • Fran

    Greg1,

    We are souls (Gen. 2:7) that are presently immortal; otherwise, we would not die. As Ezekiel 18:4 days, “…the soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

    If Adam and Eve had obeyed God, refused eat the fruit, proved Satan to be a liar and remained faithful to God, then they would still be alive today on a comfortably filled paradise earth (Genesis 1:28). Satan would also have been destroyed.

    It would not have been necessary for Jesus to become a man on earth and die as a ransom sacrifice since mankind would be perfect and living forever; nor for God’s kingdom or heavenly government to be established (Gen. 3:15) to put an end to sin and death, since it would be non-existent.

    Let’s see what happens during the upcoming great tribulation (Matt. 24:21) and God’s war against the Kings or political systems of man at Armageddon (Rev. 16:14-16). God’s purpose for both man and earth, as well as the heavens (Matt. 4:17; Matt. 6:10) will be truthfully obvious to all then.

  • Greg1

    Fran, when the Old Testament speaks of dying, or death, it is a reference to either the death of the human body, or the eternal death of the soul in hell. We, to the contrary, are to strive for eternal life, not eternal death: Romans 6:22: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Matthew 25:46 “And [the reprobate] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Regarding the soul: when we die, our bodies go back to the earth, and the soul back to God: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” (Ecclesiates 12:7). But at the end of time, when our Lord Jesus returns to sum up all that has ever been (Mat 24:30), he will Judge each person, and send each to the place merited by their lives. Matthew 25:46: “and the [reprobate] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” And what is eternal life? Gal 6:8 John…

  • CJ Orach

    Even the the U.S. EPA Chief Gina McCarthy is admitting that their EPA anti fossil fuel regs will only result in 0.01 Degrees of averted Global Warming which according to her is ‘Enormously Beneficial’
    thehttp://dailycaller.com/2015/07/16/lawmaker-grills-epa-chief-for-claiming-0-01-degree-of-averted-global-warming-is-enormously-beneficial/ The truth is the only people who will benefit from curtailing the use of fossil fuel are the filthy rich green so called renewable snake oil salesmen who are putting billions of dollars into their pockets by making the tax payers pay for useless green energy that “skyrockets” the poor’s energy cost. Bill Gates agrees with Google Engineers -Wind Solar Energy Doesn’t Work and Is Enormously Expensive https://shar.es/1ql734 IOWs All Pain for NO Gain

  • Never mind prominent climate scientists are predicting ‘mini ice age’ http://aol.it/1RvfJo5 that has nothing to do with CO2 fossil fuel emissions. Pope Francis Climate Encyclical is not about science it is simply a means to an end. The end being establishing a global governance to control society for “the common good”. The “common good” as defined by a group of know it all elites who fear and loath humanity. That is why Pope Francis would not allow any so called “skeptic” input into his doomsday screed that blames humans for turning earth into an “immense pile of filth”
    In 2006: Catholic Cardinal George Pell: ‘In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today Pope Francis demands a reduction in Co2 emissions’ from fossil fuel to “save the earth” from those pesky humans In other words the poor must be doomed to Death by Fuel Poverty to “Save The Earth” from fictitious Climate Change

  • John Benton

    I think you may have your history somewhat mixed up. Galileo was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment by the Roman inquisition in 1633 and spent the last eight years of his life under house arrest.

  • John Benton

    What on earth are you talking about?

  • Simplynotred

    There are not rights that a pope has other than to save souls. Anything that steps outside the bounds of saving souls is mere mundane elements that must pertain to the prime objective of the Catholic Church. Regardless of how well the Church cares for its banking, hospitals, schools, churches, and scientific endeavors, they are merely secondary elements that are used to support the prime objective. Bergoglio has perused the opposite of the Churches traditional mandates when it comes to science, and that is to prove beyond all doubt a truth both theologically and scientifically.

    Up until now, he has not demonstrated this Truth, nor the moral implications that are supported by these unsupported scientific theories. The church historically only supports science when experimental repeat-ability can be substantiated, and so for repeat-ability has not happened thus far. If you are clearly intelligent enough to demonstrate such, please do so. No one has so far.

  • Simplynotred

    There are no rights that a pope has other than to save souls. Anything that steps outside the bounds of saving souls is mere mundane elements that must pertain to the prime objective of the Catholic Church. Regardless of how well the Church cares for its banking, hospitals, schools, churches, and scientific endeavors, they are merely secondary elements that are used to support the prime objective. Bergoglio has perused the opposite of the Churches traditional mandates when it comes to science, and that is to prove beyond all doubt a truth both theologically and scientifically.

    Up until now, he has not demonstrated this Truth, nor the moral implications that are supported by these unsupported scientific theories. The church historically only supports science when experimental repeat-ability can be substantiated, and so for repeat-ability has not happened thus far. If you are clearly intelligent enough to demonstrate such, please do so. No one has so far.

  • Louise

    The Pope has no business calling for a global political authority on fake climate change. Where is he on the Supreme Court’s abominable ruling on gay marriage, or abortion, or the cutting up of babies to be sold for profit? Can’t find anything on these issues, because there are none. These are the matters of the Catholic Church. Where is the encyclical on that which concerns eternal salvation? Climate change is a ruse, and the most pretigious scientists around the world agree. The Pope sounds like a NWO shill.

  • Louise

    Amen to that, I agree with you 1000%.

  • It is all very confusing. Obviously most of the comments come from those who have hard from scientists favourable to climate change and are convinced that there are no scientists against it, and this is myth is kept alive by such scientists being silenced. There will be no measures introduced to help the poor and where this idea came from I do not know. You can be trinkets from Africa but you will never buy a motor car, washing machine, or large industrial products because the rich resources of African have never been touched and the Western world preferred it that way. So what hope for removing poverty in Africa when they are forbidden to develop their fossil fuels. There are a lot of Catholics shouting ‘the poor, the poor’ who have done absolutely no thinking on this subject whatsoever. Will someone tell me how climate change policies will help the poor? We hear about lands being flooded – the fact is that the Antarctic ice has spread not diminished.

  • This is not the first time that Cardinal Pell has criticised or inferred that the Pope was wrong. Is he insane? Is the Pope infallible or not?

  • Edward Silha

    The Pope is a scientist, Cardinal Pell is not. Who is better qualified to judge a scientific conclusion that has overwhelming support of every international science organization (e.g., AAAS, ACM AMS, AGU, APU) in th world? The National Academies of nearly every developed country agree with the conclusions of the IPCC and none takes an opposing position.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/148044717/Joint-science-academies-statement-Global-response-to-climate-change
    http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
    Are you smarter than the members of the National Academies?
    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-20110105
    http://katharinehayhoe.com/?page_id=5
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/french-foreign-minister-it-s-not-climate-change-it-s-climate-chaos
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/kerry-mocks-climate-skeptics-flat-earth-society

  • Sabelotodo2

    Great point, Simplynotread! But you see, that business of saving souls is so droll and doesn’t get someone of the pope’s media-stature, lots of ongoing press like delving into these popular areas of contention like environmental and climate science, or economics!

    If these folks thought very deeply about these matters, they would bump up against the inherent conflict between (1.) their standard message that humans need a transformative encounter and on-going relationship with an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Loving God, vs. (2.) the fear-and-guilt-laden posture that WE need to pitch in and save Creation, because apparently some inferior diety constructed said Creation with the HUGE design flaw that gives one created life-entity (humans) the capability to use the other created elements to destroy all the rest!

    Both messages cannot be true!

  • Edward Silha

    So much misinformation it is hard to know where to begin.
    The term “Climate Change” was used in science journals before the term “Global Warming” was. The term “Climate Change” is more precise and imparts a more informative implication.
    The IPCC has projected that global temperatures will continue rise and will, if no action is taken to reduce emissions of GHG’s, cause sea levels to rise to catastrophic levels by the year 2100.
    We know what the earth is like under current conditions. The scientific consensus is that a global temperature rise of more than 2 degrees C will have large negative effects on crops, animal species, oceans life, and will result in mass migrations of people as deserts shift and floods become more prevalent in some areas.
    Are you smarter than the members, of the National Academies of most developed countries, who agree with the IPCC results?

  • Edward Silha

    Do any of the climate change skeptics (deniers) posting on the forum believe they are more knowledgeable than the members of the National Academies, the executives of most major international corporations, and the members of nearly every international science organization?
    Who would be willing to admit he is so arrogant to answer this question in the affirmative?

  • dm76

    Very well said!

  • trevor collins

    greetings from New Zealand to all those who have ‘spoken’. we have NOW found a ‘new word’ to describe climate change? YOU MUST HAVE HEARD OF THIS ….CLIMATE CONTROL! REMINDS ME OF WHAT KING CANUTE SAID……….

  • Edward Silha

    Thanks dm76. Not only is the Pope a scientist, he is advised by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the members of which are among the most capable academicians in the world (including representatives from all religions), many of whom (past and present) have been awarded the Nobel Prize.
    Who does Cardinal Pell rely on for advice? Does he just assume his judgement is more relevant than that of the vast majority of scientists worldwide (including those of the Pontifical Academy)?

  • Hugh Davis

    Yes, chapters 1 and 5 of Laudato Si’ were a creation of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences hastily thrown together for the purpose of promoting the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals in September and the Paris Climate Treaty in November. Only regulators who support alarmist perspectives on these issues were invited. Those with contrary views were neither invited, welcomed nor tolerated. The only scientist at the launch of the encyclical was Hans Joachim Schellnhuber who is a member of the Club of Rome, an organisation that states “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, would fit the bill. …Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, and set levels of mortality control.” ie the Vatican is in bed with an organisation that seeks to use abortion, sterilisation and euthanasia to achieve a global population of less than 1 billion..

  • Edward Silha

    So you are proposing a grand worldwide conspiracy of scientists, and nearly every international independent science organization?
    Or are you claiming to be more knowledgeable than the members of the National Academies of most developed countries in the world.
    Or are you claiming to be more knowledgeable than the membership of American Geophysical Union?
    Or are you claiming to be more knowledgeable than the membership of the American Meteorological Society?
    There is no debate among climate scientist. The overwhelming consensus is that global temperatures are trending up, caused by the increase of GHG’s and the risk of catastrophic changes (if the emissions of GHG’s are not reduced) is near certain. Kerry Emanuel is a Republican and a climate scientist.
    http://video.mit.edu/watch/what-we-know-about-climate-change-prof-kerry-emanuel-mit-club-of-northern-california-27750/
    Are you more knowledgeable than Dr. Emanuel?

  • Hugh Davis

    I don’t need to be knowledgeable to read a graph and note that global temperatures have only increased by 0.8K since 1885, and not at all since 1998.
    In science, consensus is irrelevant.
    The central criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its “falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. You can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.” Observations are constantly being made that disagree with catastrophic AGW theory. The real scientific method would require that scientists throw out that theory and come up with a new one, but the fat cats in government, industry, environmental groups and universities that have benefited from this public scare would have too much too lose so they hang on. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. eg Newton, Pasteur, Galileo, Einstein, Curie, Darwin, Bohr, Rutherford ………

  • Pope Francis, climate change, and Sunday sacredness. http://bit.ly/1GSUfuo

  • Edward Silha

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413
    2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began … easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).

    Your claim is obviously false.

    Hugh Davis “Observations are constantly being made that disagree with catastrophic AGW theory.”
    Personal opinion or do you have some facts to validate your suspect claim?

    Hugh Davis “broke with the consensus. eg Newton, Pasteur, Galileo, Einstein, Curie, …”

    Another false claim. Galileo contradicted a consensus base on philosophy and religion, not one based on the scientific method. The others you listed contradicted theories that did not have a large scientific consensus or any at all.

    Please watch the video featuring Kerry Emanuel (a conservative who votes Republican) and explain why you believe he is wrong.
    http://video.mit.edu/watch/what-we-know-about-climate-change-prof-kerry-emanuel-mit-club-of-northern-california-27750/

  • Edward Silha

    Another conspiracy theory that is about as nonsensical as most.

  • Brendan

    Remarkable thing is this person does not exist ! Evidently there are pretend nuns making comments !

  • Pingback: Vatican Cardinal Criticizes Pope Francis’ environmental encyclical | The Drinking Water Advisor()

  • Pingback: Recent Energy And Environmental News – August 3rd 2015 | PA Pundits - International()

  • Pingback: Climate Change and The Common Good | Basic Rules of Life()