Laudato Si

[HammerStone]

I know it's early, and I've not even had the opportunity to read it myself, but I am seeing some early responses to the leak of Laudato Si, the pope's encyclical on climate change and other moral-scientific issues. I consider myself a creation care style person at heart because I enjoy the outdoors and abhor the amount of trash and pollution that seems to litter our countryside in my own home state. My grandfather, who was a lifelong Republican, was also a member of the Sierra club and even my father, also conservative, is open to the possibility of climate change and our negative effects on the environment.

That said, I thought this piece from First Things was interesting:
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/the-return-of-catholic-anti-modernism

I very much agree with this:

In short, without a theocentric orientation, we adopt the anthropocentric presumption that we are at the center of reality. This tempts us to treat nature—and other human beings—as raw material to do with as we wish. For Francis, “a spirituality which forgets God as all-powerful and Creator is not acceptable.”

However, would you view the encyclical as post-modern or even anti-modern? Is it a new direction, the right direction?

 

[pom2014]

I know it's early, and I've not even had the opportunity to read it myself, but I am seeing some early responses to the leak of Laudato Si, the pope's encyclical on climate change and other moral-scientific issues. I consider myself a creation care style person at heart because I enjoy the outdoors and abhor the amount of trash and pollution that seems to litter our countryside in my own home state. My grandfather, who was a lifelong Republican, was also a member of the Sierra club and even my father, also conservative, is open to the possibility of climate change and our negative effects on the environment.

That said, I thought this piece from First Things was interesting:
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/the-return-of-catholic-anti-modernism

I very much agree with this:


However, would you view the encyclical as post-modern or even anti-modern? Is it a new direction, the right direction?

The idea that he is saying that we need to turn to God is a chant that people have been saying since Moses. Nothing modern, post-modern, post-post-modern or anti-modern.

This thought really never went far.

The irony is that his church has been at the forefront of turning away from God since its inception, even before the schism between East and West.

Further irony is that his treatise says it is wrong for people to take advantage of each other and to build systems where the haves use the have-nots.

Pot, meet kettle.

So really I look upon his writings on an internet level as, duh thanks Captain Obvious!

But it is a nice effort on his part to point out what is wrong with us while also pointing out what is wrong with him and his lot. I'll give it a lukewarm bit of applause.

Now, the real issue is we all KNOW what is wrong with the system; so now how do we fix it?

Well that is the tricky bit.

As many of the ones profiting from the system, as he is, do not want it to change and will fight if you try.

So really the only way to start is to begin with what I have been saying since 1981. We need a Earth Government that is a meritocracy.

Without that in place first no real changes will ever be made as w have far too much division on this planet.

Get a single, central meritocracy going and then we can actually work on solutions.

 

[Philip James]

Get a single, central meritocracy going and then we can actually work on solutions.

Aieee! That is exactly what 'they" have been working on for 100 years now, only it's the 'chattering elite' who decideds who has merit and who doesnt..