The following comes from a June 24 Sacramento Bee article by Bishops Stephen E. Blaire, Xavier Ochoa, and Jaime Soto:
With the release of his encyclical, Pope Francis has issued a moral challenge to all people of the world. As the Catholic bishops of three dioceses in Northern and Central California, we join our voices with his in calling for urgent action to care for “our common home.” Please join us in reading and prayerfully considering Laudato si’ over the coming weeks.
Pope Francis shares his predecessors’ concern for both human and environmental degradation. In 1990, Pope John Paul II warned: “The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related ‘greenhouse effect’ has now reached crisis proportions.” Twenty years later, Pope Benedict XVI asked: “Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions?”
In California, we have been devastated for several years by severe drought. This has hurt the health of our residents, risked the vitality of our waterways and harmed our economy. No matter the explanations, Californians must learn to steward responsibly and reverentially our portion of God’s creation.
The American Lung Association ranks the Central Valley’s air quality among the unhealthiest in the nation. Soot and particles from automobile and industrial emissions can cause heart problems and cancer. By ignoring our moral responsibility to care for the creation entrusted to us, we risk being overwhelmed by our own folly.
Of particular concern is that environmental degradation and climate change disproportionately burden “the least among us.” Our children and seniors are most vulnerable to negative health impacts, and poor families are least able to afford additional medical and utility costs associated with this crisis.
The Catholic perspective is that human and natural ecology go hand in hand. We are called to solidarity with the poor as well as stewardship of the Earth. Our deep regard for the dignity of every person commands us to cultivate a climate of life where each of God’s children thrive and join with creation in praising our Creator. This is the “integral ecology” of which Pope Francis speaks.
Personal decisions have social consequences, and public policies governing use of resources have implications for the welfare of the entire human family. Therefore, all of us must engage in the political process and urge our leaders to work together to ensure our common earthly resources – our land, air and water – are pure and accessible.
A reliance on technology will not restore the Earth to health. Instead, we must each undergo a personal conversion of heart and mind. Together we can create a moral climate change that reflects our values of human dignity, global solidarity with the poor, reverence for creation and working for the common good.
We must ask ourselves: What kind of world do we intend to leave to our children and grandchildren? Creation is a blessing held in common among all people and in trust for future generations. We invite people to join hands and hearts with all people of goodwill in caring for the least among us by ensuring that Earth be a home for all.
Stephen E. Blaire is bishop of the Diocese of Stockton. Armando Xavier Ochoa is bishop of the Diocese of Fresno. Jaime Soto is bishop of the Diocese of Sacramento.
Is there one leftist-action agenda-item upon which the US bishops are not in agreement? This is the clearest sign of their abandonment of Christ and the Gospel.
But: Keeps them from talking about defense-of-marriage, doesn’t it?
Simply three more US Bishops to place on Ignore. Why am I not surprised? It seems like the majority of US Bishops have missed their vocation. They should have run for public office instead of entering the seminary. That is one thing that Jerry Brown got right when he left the seminary and entered politics.
Bishop suck-ups. Interesting to look at how these brave and faithful men have obeyed a true brilliant moment of Faith — Summorum Pontificum. How many TLMs are there in Stockton? Fresno? Yes, there are one or two in SACTO, but the point remains that these are not men of much Faith, but men of career aspirations. Especially galling to look at B. Ochoa, who spent a good deal of his career in El Paso, Texas hounding a Traditional young priest who wanted to say the TLM, consistent with what Pope Benedict directed. See the sad story of Fr. Michael Rodriguez which is easy to find on the internet.
And, is there a sorrier bishop that B. Blaire in CA?
Extremely disappointing. Have collected a spate of links and articles to counteract this yielding to Environmentalism the Religion.
Open up a few, be conversant with the other side.
Scroll about half way down:
I did read the Air Comditioning Encyclical. These Bishops do not mention that the main goal was to present as fact that Global Warbing is man-made. This is a lie which, now part of the Catholic Magisterium, will have terrible consequences for Science. For Jesuits the ends justify the means. This decision of this Pope is bases on a falsehood as there is no warming. Laudato Sii is just a pretext for one-World government and taxation through the United Nations.
As for the shortage of water in California the main problem is that sweet water is sent out to sea to push back the Pacific Ocean tides to generate the salinity that the California smelt, a baitfish, likes best. The smelt has been in the Sacramento River delta for tens of thousands…
Global Warming is not a part of the Magisterium.
The Magisterium are people-the bishops and the Pope.
Global Warming is not a teaching of the Magisterium, even with this encyclical.
I think you have not understood what the Pope was saying in this document.
It is about the moral duty to take care of what God gave us and to make choices which do not harm yourself and others.
Anonymous i havent read it so i wont comment. Ill take your comments into consideration.
I just finished it. I haven’t read the cited works though.
I really loved the part about the Holy Trinity, the Eucharist and Mary and St. Joseph.
If you don’t have time to read it, you can jump to the last page for the prayers.
God bless you and keep you and your loved ones.
Man made global warming is a lie? Please prove your vicious accusation.
Prove Global warming YFC that’s its from man made causes.
….he cannot, hence the devolution into tagging others as leveling “vicious” accusations. Emotional claptrap – but highly effective.
People are horrified when their social facade is nicked. Ego. The “not-me” reaction kicks in. But when it comes to defending truth or mankind, that’s seems to always be somebody else’s business. What is truth? What is my business? The collective conveniently forgets….as it is too difficult to remember and much easier to go with the tide, smiling all the while in the assurance that one is nice, holy, open minded, whatever the buzz words of the day happen to be.
To make proclamations about unsettled science and to use it as a vehicle to manipulate man’s conscience is vicious. It’s…
A LIE is an intentional mistruth. It is not simply being wrong about something. If you want to accuse climate scientists of LIEING, please provide evidence that they are INTENTIONALLY spreading a mistruth that they know to be false. To say that they are lieing is not simply to say that they are wrong, but is a vicious accusation that they are intentionally misleading people. Why would they do that? What does a scientist gain from telling an intentional falsehood?
It is a lie to insinuate that the science on the matter of the causation of climate change is settled. It isn’t.
And your question, “…What does a scientist gain from telling an intentional falsehood?” is just plain naivete. Calculated naivete to effect an innocence that’s just not there, not when one looks at the whole climate-change agenda. Another emotional plug much like the overboard claim of “vicious.”
“Scientific” theories create industries, YFC, so there is much to be gained.
Oh, get off your high horse of “LYING”, YFC stop the self-flattering prosecutorial trip. If “LYING” (properly spelled) is what occurs to you about global-warming’s self-proclaimed authorities, is that what you must be thinking they are really doing, right? After all, it occurred to you first, to try that ploy. Are they “LYING”, YFC, and are you worried now they will be caught? And what is your emotional investment in all this?
(It never occurred to me:I just think they floated a theory and it’s gone too far for them to now admit they were fools, smart as they are supposed to be.)
“Why would they do that? What does a scientist gain from telling an intentional falsehood?” Politicized science would gain an awful lot of money and power …
Ann Malley, it is a lie to intentionally ignore what humans are doing to the planet.
Trust me Canisius, academic scientists don’t garner power or money.
Academic scientists don’t garner a lot of power and money, but are assuredly led to pursue research in those areas that are funded by the powerful with money.
It is a lie to pretend that the science as to the causality of global warming is settled. It is not. And as YFC says, it would be deceitful to ignore what humans do to the planet. But it would be a downright lie to inflate and/or assign blame to human agency without conclusive evidence. Especially when that inflation leads society toward policies that adversely effect human beings…. and line the pockets of others who will make use of these so-called irrefutable facts.
Almost everyone would agree with the Pope that “we need unity to protect creation”. However, the devil is in the details.
Global warming is not a scientific reality. For the past 10 years, the US Climate Reference Network has shown no sign of global warming. In fact, there’s been a very slight cooling in temperatures across the US.
The Church condemned Galileo for stating that the sun was not the center of the universe.
In trying to be a scientific authority, the Catholic Church is moving from being a religious authority to a secular authority. It is losing its moral authority. It is using an atheist scientist to present the encyclical, Laudato Si.
Does the encyclical address what will happen to the workers who lose their…
Joel, etal, climate change is settled science, except for the radical nuts who see it as a political issue. But a full read of Laudato Si, which by the way is Italian, not Latin, tells us more about how we can live a moral life than it does about science. It shows how God’s creation is inter-dependent on every aspect of it. We are stewards of the earth, and as such need to protect it for the future. Pope Francis doesn’t cry out for abolishing capitalism, for instance, but rebukes those that ruin the earth for excessive profit, those that treat people badly for excessive profit. That is only one example. How we treat each other and our earth is a moral issue, not a political issue and he states the case rather well.
“…climate change is settled science….”
Yes, Bob One, the earth naturally goes through cyclical climate changes. Putting the lion share blame on humans causing it is what is not settled. Kind of like blaming PMS symptoms on bad television programming or insensitive husbands. There may be correlation, but not causation.
But even so, if you want to ascribe how we treat the planet as a moral issue, it is hubris and misguided zeal that would tag humans as having more power over the situation than they actually do.
I suggest you read the encyclical before you comment again.
The Pope is very aware of how much power humans have and climate change is just a tiny part of the encyclical.
I do not need to read the encyclical again to understand that the Pope believes himself to be very aware of how much power humans have regarding the climate, Anonymous. Nobody is debating here what the Pope thinks in that regard. What is at issue is reality regarding the cause of climate change.
And the Pope’s understanding in this matter does not make the matter settled scientifically.
Well, if you read the encyclical you will see that the Pope does not say that it is settled scientifically.
Ann Malley, the lion’s share of blame for climate change is not only on the backs of humans, but humans, science shows, are contributing to the speed of change. However one looks at climate issues, there is no justification for our not trying to do the least damage possible. Our cars exhaust much less bad air than in previous generations. Our food is grown with less really bad chemicals than in generations past. Clean air laws have helped us breath better. There is still much to do, but we simply need to keep trying to be less destructive of our climate.
The Science is only settled by leftist like you, who want it settled to impose their political will on the rest of us……
“Bob One” and “Anonymous” — neither of you seem to understand the global warming political agenda, and its weak science. Of course, “Bob One”, your response is always a regurgitation of the D’s speaking notes, and you never seem to be able to say anything without personal insult, here “radical nuts”.
In fact, the literature is full, and growing, against the “man-made” allegations of global warming, but the Vatican, and the Zombie-Liberal groups that you so adore, keep out any opposition argument. Enjoy the deck chairs on the Titanic!
St. Christopher, global warming is mentioned 3 times in the paper. That is not what the paper is about. Even if global warming is proven untrue, it does not change what the encyclical is really about. Holiness!!!! How to live in a way that is pleasing to God!!!!
We can all agree that doing better is always a good thing. But scare mongering and laying guilt trips is not the way to do it. Especially when the climate change is part and parcel of the earth’s own cycles.
Ends don’t justify the means.
Where, exactly, St. Christopher is this growing literature against CO2 induced global warming? Where? In some republican talking points?
How do you know it is part of the earth’s cycle?
Ann Malley – You put yourself out as so knowledgeable about climate and it’s cycles, but you know very little. Climate does not change decade by decade by itself. It changes over thousands of years by itself. The climate change we are talking about has happenned over the last 50 years and will accelerate over the NEXT 50 years. There is no 100 year period you can point to where climate change has happenned so rapidly.
YFC you know what the climate will be like in 50 years as much as you know about the far side of Saturn.. These are leftist lies whose end game is complete control…..
I am not a climatologist, nor have I claimed to be, YFC. I do know, however, that the “science” on climate change is not settled as to causation.
Using caps and unproven theory is no science, YFC. But those are the kinds of tactics used by those who understand the power of preemptive fear mongering.
Dear bob one: Why do we have to keep going over and over this? Climate Change is NOT settled science, at least not in the sense that Advocates like you state. So, here we go again. 14,000 years ago, North America was under an ice cap a mile thick. In the short space of 2000 years, all this ice was melted, and the Great Lakes emerged. How did this happen, Bob? Were your evil factories spewing tons of Carbon Dioxide into the environment, back then? Were the evil Koch brothers around to cause this gigantic ice melt? Were all those power plant smokestacks pouring tons of smoke into the air? Explain how the Climate changed back then, Bob. Doesn’t the melting of that mile deep ice cap imply that solar…
But in the last 10 years, Antarctica ice shelves have fallen into the sea. Greenland is becoming green again. And storms have become more violent every year. 10 years, not 10,000 years!
….and we could naturally be at the point within the earth’s climate cycle that would allow for this change, YFC. That is why the matter of causation is not settled. And you touting others as being “vicious” for pointing out that reality is just alarmist claptrap.
Closing the door on natural cycles while putting the blame on humans is too convenient a beating stick. Your insistence on this matter smacks of a superstition. Superstition marketed as science to promote false narratives whose only purpose is to put certain powers at the top in place of others.
No, we’re not at the point of natural climate change Ann Malley. Prior “natural” climate changes were the result of huge amounts of methane, CO2 & dust being thrown into the atmosphere by periods of incrased volcanic activity. There’s no increase in those phenomena. There HAS been millions of TONS of CO2 put into the air by you and I, and it is clear that that is the cause of the current very very rapid change in climate. The cause of climate change IS settled in the scientific community. Those who disagree with man-made climate change are the same anti-science people who deny evolution, economics, psychology etc.
“Those who disagree with man-made climate change are the same anti-science people who deny evolution, economics, psychology etc.” Spoken like a true Leftist Totalitarian …..
Global warming has taken place all down through history. Thousands and thousands of years ago the Atlantic Ocean was where the Potomac is now since they are finding ancient fossils of sea creatures there. What caused the ice in the Artic to melt way back then?
My husband and most of our family have always conserved as much as possible. We were brought up with the “Waste not want not” policy, and recycle whatever possible, but not because of so-called “global warming”.
What I am saying is that we should protect the environment in a reasonable way (protect workers from jobs losses, too) because it is both thrifty and healthy, but not because of some theory that cannot be proven either way.
Or maybe people who don’t actually have a background in the environmental sciences could learn something from those who do. Isnt THAT what we should be saying Anne T? Rather than just adding uninformed opinions into the fray?
Good for you for conserving resources and recycling. That IS important and I applaud you for it! You listened once to those who told you those were good things. Maybe you can listen again?
YFC, by the same token that you assail Anne T. and try to silence her for not being a certified climate-expert, then neither are you able to interpret for the Lord high exalted experts their theories: you are just as likely to be misunderstanding their abstruse theories, since (unless I am mistaken) neither are you credentialed to authenticate “true climate-change theory”, either.
For that matter, the man the Vatican most relies upon for their apodictic certitude on climate theory, Hans Schellnhuber, is a mathematician and a quantum-physicist, not a “climatologist”; he is also an atheist and a misanthrope who hates human beings. So he is entirely unqualified also.
Informed and well balanced opinions that are not contingent on having their scientific research funded and/or having their grants pulled is precisely what is needed, YFC. This absurd notion that scientists have nothing to gain from preemptively elevating a theory to fact sounds like it’s coming from a would-be scientist who dreams about wearing a white coat someday.
You may have your bills paid by some magic fairy, but others don’t. That includes scientists who get pruned out of the discussion based on big $$$$. You may want to consider that you’re not speaking to a wide-eyed class of 13 year old pocket protected neophytes.
Ann Malley you forget that I wore a white coat for a very long time and have the academic credentials that come from years of scientific study.
YFC, the big, noble stories of what scientists do without any temptation of gain is something better suited to fairy stories or those intended to get the young to pursue science as a career. Despite the assorted “coats” you put on, you’re first and foremost a human being – just like any other.
What I’m implying is that you’ve been blinded by the glare of your own white coat and foolishly believing that “I’m a Scientist” somehow exonerates you from human frailty. Oftentimes, the laurels do little more than make one more susceptible for the feeling of power and superiority they lend.
Anne T. whether climate change is caused by man or by nature, the prudent thing to do is for man to adjust his behaviors that might be causing it. If that theory is wrong, no harm done. If that theory is right and we do not adjust our behavior, then, as the Pope says, we are headed for “inevitable destruction.” And it is not just climate change that is the concern..
Please read his encyclical.
Galileo was wrong about the sun being the center of the universe, but right about the earth moving. The sun is the center of our Solar System but still moves.
Given the techological limitations of the time, Galileo could not prove his heliocentric contentions. The Church thus sided with Aristotle.
When in doubt, siding with Aristotle is not unwise.
Joel: Galileo was wrong about the sun being the center of the universe, but right about the earth moving. The sun is the center of our Solar System but still moves.
Given the technological limitations of the time, Galileo could not prove his heliocentric contentions, and the Church was siding with Aristotle.
When in doubt, siding with Aristotle is not unwise.
Hmmm. Had there even been this small support for Humnae Vitae, would the US Supreme Court had the nerve to proclaim the decision that they did on Friday? Not in the vein of Decartes, but I think NOT!!!
Could we see just a little “heavy lifting” in support of marriage or are our US Bishops cravenly seeking to obtain the sactions of our gvt, climate change being “a safe issue.”
Where is our Pope – via an Encyclical when we need him? Missing in action?
Where was/is our needed ENCYLICAL on MORALS as related to our FAITH (his job – on sodomy & sodomy marriage; fornication; adultery (sexual relationship with the valid spouse of another); pornography; and contraception ? ? ?
Instead we get an encyclical on unproved global warming, and the Pope’s personal opinions in favor of a one world authority – government with the POWER to make laws, police and enforce, and tax (unlimited funding).
Does the Pope and these Bishop not care about the most important – Salvation of Souls ?
I recommend B. Blaire (of the bankrupt diocese of Stockton), B Ochoa, and B. Soto for any high ranking position in the Obama administration. They don’t understand science, economics or basic Catholicism. They are well qualified.
Laudato Si, Yankee No is being called the Recyclical of Pope Francis.
Laudato si, Yankees no!!!
Thanks DottieDay for distilling the anti-American essence of this Encyclical.
Anti-American? No, it is anti-sin. It is anti-atheism. It is anti-evolutionism. It is anti-materialism and anti-consumerism and anti-individualism. It is anti-abortion.
DottieDay, let’s keep in mind that most of the world’s pollution is created by the U.S. and China, both industrialized nations that use much too much coal in the production of energy and other industries that don’t care about the amount of pollution their products create, like the auto industry. We, people, may not be the cause of global warming, but we seem to be speeding it along more that we should. This encyclical is not Anti-American, it is anti-greed, anti-pollution and anti-whatever makes us less than great stewards of our earth. It is very pro-Catholic.
The Catholic teaching about the sanctity of life is largely ignored by the liberal media in this encyclical. They portray Pope Francis as wading into controversial waters of “climate change” and nothing more than that. They are cherry picking his message and alarming us that “climate change” is now dogma and concealing many pro-life messages that permeate throughout his encyclical.
I have read the entire encyclical. All the pro-life excerpts from Laudato – Si can be read at http://www.sacramentohelpers.org.
Great article that takes down the silliness and heterodoxy found in this encyclical:
“Why I’m Disregarding Laudato Si and You Should Too”
Well, bishops are going to rally ’round the Pope. This recyclical would better be associated with my friend Ferdinand the Bull than with dear St. Francis, who would not support the loss of individual freedom that the Pope proposes because of ecological threats fabricated by a wacky atheist and “a number of studies.” Sadly shaking my head and long bunny ears as Christians and the unborn are slaughtered and the Pope’s priorities are so skewed.
Excellent post, “sixlittlerabbits”: Paras. 83 and 243 show little more than a belief in some sort of pan-theism, and no-one-goes-to-hell-and-all-are-savedism, by our befuddled (at best) Pope.
Yes, where is the concern and attention to sin, sexual sin: contraception, abortion, fornication, homosexual sex, and adultery, to name a few? Many hated Benedict because he urged the need for holiness, and traditional worship; many love Francis because, like Rhett Butler, he pretty much says, “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”.
Now besides encyclical advisers Hans Schellnhuber, pro-abort Jeffrey Sachs, as well as significant input from UN sec. general Ban Ki-Moon (who recently openly authorized forced abortions of women in African nations under UN control)—procedures done under appalling and lethal conditions for many of the women by the way—now Naomi Klein, another non-Catholic secular atheist and radical Earthfirst-er, has been made a key member of the formerly prestigious Pont. Academy of the Social Sciences: a “Catholic” academy staffed increasingly by Catholic-doctrine-hating psychopaths. Do any of the check-pants Catholic-Answer-types have a response regarding this infiltration of the papacy?
NASA satellite data, the most accurate data available from the last 17 years, reveals no net warming increase. Before one decries this as an insufficient time-period, Dr. Michael Mann (the famous “hockey-stick graph”-theorist), had infallibly predicted that these last two decades would be marked by catastrophic weather conditions due to greenhouse-gas-caused warming: now, he has changed his “infallible” forecast and claims, infallibly again, we are in a cooling period.
Now, we are not permitted to evaluate the objective contradictions of the exalted experts—even though in 2004, his own pro-alarmist peers criticized him, even then of “adjusting” data. We must just submit and put on the leg-irons.