The Pope vs. the Goracle

From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Wed, 2007-12-12 15:58

A quote from Simon Caldwell at The Daily Mail, 11 December 2007

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. [...]

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind. [...]

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists. But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius. "The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said.

Don't get hysterical

Submitted by Aisling on Tue, 2007-12-18 00:23.

So, I am promoting an "anti-Christian", nay, "anti-Catholic" agenda, "trying to silence the Church's view on morals", "attempting to discredit the Church's right to speak on moral matters ...".

Atheling, please. Calm down. Try to read what I actually said instead of getting hysterical. And, to go back to a previous posting of yours, it wouldn't be a bad idea if you started using a bit of good old male logic  - if you can.

Finis

Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2007-12-18 00:30.

Aisling:

"Try to read what I actually said"

Been there, done that.

Your calling me "hysterical" does not nullify the ignorance of your comment. If anything, you have shown irrationality in your comparing Galileo's house arrest to some kind of Soviet gulag.

I'm done with this and with you.

BTW, using "ummmm" in your sentences doesn't help your argument. It only serves to make you sound like an adolescent.

@atheling

Submitted by Aisling on Fri, 2007-12-14 12:18.

"... the issue was not the Church proclaimed a geocentric system, but that they cautioned Gaileo in teaching a heliocentric system AS FACT before he had solid proof".

Galileo's indictment of 1633 says: "The proposition that the sun is in the centre of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false and formally heretical .... The proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith". Now this may not be explicitly proclaiming the geocentric doctrine, but it strikes me as a very good imitation nevertheless.

They "cautioned" Galileo: yeah, right. A sick, elderly man is threatened with arrest and torture if he doesn't recant a scientific theory. You call this "cautioning"? Suit yourself, babe. Myself, I'd call it something else. If you were a communist, you'd no doubt say that Lysenko's opponents were "cautioned", too. 

"Before he had solid proof": sure, sure. Could someone please tell me how a scientist put under house arrest can pursue the research work that would allow him to obtain "solid proof"? Oh, and by the way: were the supporters of the geocentric theory ever asked to get "solid proof" before they taught their system AS FACT?

The point is, that the Church had no business telling scientists whether their theories were scientifically right or wrong, and a fortiori, using their secular power to enforce their view.

Yes, of course I've heard of Jesuit schools, and I'm told they are admirable (apparently they are very good at teaching logic, amongst other things), but I'm afraid you're missing the point there, atheling. The Jesuits who are astronomers, seismologists, mathematicians or physicists practise and teach astronomy, seismology, mathematics or physics tout court, and not Catholic astronomy, Catholic seismology, Catholic mathematics or Catholic phyisics. Being genuine intellectuals, the Jez know that "Catholic" science is just as abominable and demeaning a concept as Soviet science, Islamic science, feminist science, and any "science" that aims at furthering a particular religion or ideology.

The Church is of course perfectly entitled to oppose certain uses of science or methods of scientific research (such as stem cell research) as contrary to its teaching on faith and morals, but the point I've been trying to make all along is that when it insists on pronouncing on the scientific validity of concepts and theories it usually ends up giving its enemies plenty of ammunition, sometimes for centuries to come. Is that what Catholics really want?  In my opinion, one does one's faith a disservice when one tries to defend the indefensible.

@Aisling #2

Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2007-12-14 19:15.

Your dragging an old dead horse to promote your anti Christian (or more specifically, anti Catholic) agenda is nothing but that: an attempt to discredit the Church’s right to speak on moral matters. After all, if people like you can silence the Church’s voice on morals, that would permit you to have a license to do whatever you wish: kill babies, sleep with anyone you want, marry dogs, etc...

Your allegations:

“They "cautioned" Galileo: yeah, right. A sick, elderly man is threatened with arrest and torture if he doesn't recant a scientific theory. You call this "cautioning"?

Your knowledge of this matter leaves something to be desired. Galileo was never tortured, or even threatened with torture. In an age where torture was commonplace among the laity, Galileo’s imprisonment was mild. He lived under house arrest in his villa, where he had servants and lived a standard of living that was consistent with men of his rank at that time. Your comparison of Galileo’s treatment with the Communists’ treatments of dissenters borders on hysteria.

“Could someone please tell me how a scientist put under house arrest can pursue the research work that would allow him to obtain "solid proof"?

Indeed, he managed to write his greatest work, “A Discourse on the Two New Sciences” during his arrest. In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprisonment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities."

Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable. Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "[i]n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post as it indicates a distorted lens and lack of historical context. But then, that's commonplace these days.

@Aisling #1

Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2007-12-14 19:14.

No, Aisling, you’re the one who misses the point. Here’s a clue:

In this particular article, the Pope cautions that the global warming scare has a troubling aspect besides its junk science origins: that man is the culprit who does not deserve to live on this planet. There are moronic people out there who are having ABORTIONS because of global warming, in the mistaken belief that somehow, if there were fewer human beings on this planet, then global warming will stop. In other words, let’s throw babies into the fiery mouth of Moloch in order to appease the weather gods.

Now, perhaps you’re not aware of this, but the Church opposes the murder of unborn babies, and seeks to protect the status of man’s divine right to live on this planet, above that of animal and plant life. Indeed, there is a MORAL aspect to this issue in which the Pope has every right to delineate and defend. Apparently you missed that.

Next, people’s property rights are being trampled on in an effort to legislate and control via the religion of environmentalism. If you own some land which happens to have a bog or swamp, suddenly the State has an interest and seeks to control your land, declaring it “wetlands” and telling you that if you drain said swamp because it breeds bacteria, you will destroy the natural habitat of some kind of mosquito or tadpole. Again, is that moral? Does the State have a right to tell you that the life of an insect takes precedence over a human being’s health?

Well, um, if I'm not

Submitted by Aisling on Thu, 2007-12-13 09:44.

Well, um, if I'm not mistaken, the last time the Church chose to pronounce on scientific issues, it was to proclaim that the sun revolved around the earth ... In view of such a precedent, in Ben's place I would have chosen to abstain from straying into the more technical details of the controversy.

Maybe it's that I'm a bit of an agnostic (in both directions) when it comes to the causes of and remedies for climate change, maybe it's my aversion to the current fashion for taking stances on the matter according to one's ideological prejudices (of either variety) rather than any scientific knowledge one may possess, or maybe it's just that I wish churchmen would stick to matters of faith and morals instead of pontificating on things that are outside their remit, but I must admit that, while I generally have more respect for the present Pope than for his predecessors, his latest statement leaves me rather cold. Have we really got nothing in between leftwing priests and nuns turning into instant sociologists and economists, and rightwing prelates turning into instant climate scientists? Please. I'd have thought sorting out the mess in the Catholic church was a tall enough order already, without pointlessly adding to the job description.

@Aisling

Submitted by atheling on Thu, 2007-12-13 19:45.

"Well, um, if I'm not mistaken, the last time the Church chose to pronounce on scientific issues, it was to proclaim that the sun revolved around the earth..."

Well, um, you are mistaken, Aisling, because the issue was not that the Church proclaimed a geocentric system, but that they cautioned Galileo in teaching the heliocentric system AS FACT before he had solid proof.

"I wish churchmen would stick to matters of faith and morals instead of pontificating on things that are outside their remit..."

I guess you never heard of Jesuit schools... in them, many Jesuits are astronomers, seismologists, mathematicians, physicists, etc... and the Holy Father has advisors who are both priests and scientists.

In Response

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2007-12-13 05:23.

The Daily Mail: Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

 

Despite the seemingly obvious religious and economic rationales for environmental protection, preservation and co-existence with human settlement and activities, the environmental movement is largely a 'progressive' social one dominated by those individuals who are also socialists, social democrats, feminists, anti-racists and atheists. Therefore I am certain that the "climate change prophets of doom" consider Catholicism a "dubious ideology" i.e. the feeling is mutual.

 

The Daily Mail: The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

 

I suppose that Satanism, heresy and Jewish blood libels count in this category also. Fortunately, Al Gore and his ilk cannot 'Magdeburgize' their critics...

 

The Daily Mail: The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

 

Well isn't that self-serving of mankind to say so!

carbon off sets anyone?

Submitted by pet85022 on Wed, 2007-12-12 21:15.

Gore might wrap himself in the mantle of science, but he is not a scientist. He belongs to a class of people -- politicians -- least trusted by the public.
Consensus, as Gore insists, is not the basis by which closure is brought to scientific discussions. Science is about the search for answers to natural phenomena and its progress is made through scrutiny and tests of falsification, and not consensus imposed by extraneous considerations.
 In 1974 TIME and other Magazines were warning of Another Ice Age. Now about 30 years later MAN in his infinite power has changed the equation from, we will freeze to death to we will fry to death and his royal hineness Al Gore is MORE than happy to SELL you some, "carbon off sets".

@ Monarchist

Submitted by Frank Lee on Wed, 2007-12-12 19:44.

You are right that journalists and politicians who should know better have kept quiet about global warming hysteria out of cowardice.  But once the tide turns -- once the Arctic sea ice expands again, once temperatures stay flat or decline for a few more years -- popular opinion, at least in America, will shift and statements from the cowards will shift with it.  It's a predictable and annoying phenomenon, but saant aer livet, as the Swedes say.

Bearer of Truth

Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-12-12 18:30.

Pope Benedict is greatly needed in these times... he is not afraid to speak the truth.

Now those who have ears... let them hear...

Hallelujah!

Submitted by Cogito on Wed, 2007-12-12 17:38.

The pope has understood that te green misantropic mother-earth cult is anti-human, the essence of the devil`s activities.

He has recognized his enemy.

Well, let`s hope ...

 

 

Global stupidity

Submitted by Monarchist on Wed, 2007-12-12 16:47.

So the Pope and Vaclav Klaus are the only two that have enough courage to stand against global warming agenda. Others even if disagree prefer to avoid to mention this issue. Pathetic...