I mean, who would issue death threats against the Pope?

Pope Benedict XVI stands up against the global warming “prophets of doom”, a/k/a Al Gore and his church of eternal carbon credits. BWHAHAHAHAHAH! What a beautiful thing to hear. We have the Pope vs Al Gore et al; AND the…

Your exit question: What’s motivating this? Is the Pope really a righteous skeptic?

That, or he’s not happy with the competition for the faithful.

I think the Pope is trying to defuse the leftism that has the Catholic church in the 3rd world tied in knots.

Yeah the lefties take “The worker should enjoy the fruits of his labor” and turn it into liberation theology, which is a no-no.

Its about time the people who ushered in modern science got back in the game.

Wonder if this will have any effect on Liberal Protestants, who have made Global Warming a central doctrine?

Nope. These so-called “Christians” abandoned the faith years ago.

The GW crowd isusing the excuse of drowning polar bears (they swim BTW) to interject a whole doctrine based on a very skewed kind of “faith.” Al Gore is a false Messiah for this movement. The Pope is right to question.

Nah!

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 9:01 PM

I don’t wan’t to be pedantic w/ someone I probably agree with. Most of the South Koreans and Phillipin-aio I have met (having lived in Japan and the S. Pacific for over 20 years), are very political, often religious, and sometimes idealogical (like visiting Democratic Underground, but, ummm, more conspiricy oriented — but with reason!).

So, to you, “non-ideological” and/or “apolitical” mean that they en masse are not stark raving mad and or a member of some conspiracy believer club, like over 50% of every other human you’ve ever met? I’m sorry: they’re humans. ipso facto: they are insane, just like you and me. And they have *more* variations in politics than we do. For God sake, in the PI, they have more than 50 languages! We just have Fox and CNN with the same language. That does not lead to understanding.

I think, though: I understand your point. You mean to say that they have taken every chance possible to resist authoritarianism. Well to that, two points: (a) they’ve had the protection of United States guns to help; and (b) look at their governments today and since the wars — they’ve made their democratic mistakes as well.

Again: I think I mostly agree w/ your point, but your examples were very messy…

South Korea and the Philippines are apolitical?

Compared to Islam, yes. They dropped authoritarianism like a hot potato when the opportunity arose. The democratic revolutions in those countries saw them throw off their autocratic restraints. Perhaps non-ideological would be a more accurate term.

Actually, some neighborhoods are asking the Christians to come back now. Check out Michael Yon’s blog.

I’m well aware of that. But when US troops leave what then? Is religious pluralism achievable without the permanent presence of the US? Can Iraqi Christians survive in Baghdad, the seat of the Caliph, without the presence of a non-Muslim standing army? I think not.

And here is the section the quote is from:
…

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.
…
8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth’s energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 7:51 PM

South Korea and the Philippines are apolitical?

Unfortunately for the Church, the last time they told someone they’d better have scientifically verifiable proof before they spout off, it was Galileo. Look how well that turned out, The G-man got house arrest in his villa in Tuscany, and the Church got painted as anti-science (albeit hundreds of years later).

Iblis on December 11, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Excellent point. You’re my hero.

Your exit question: What’s motivating this? Is the Pope really a righteous skeptic?

I think the Pope is trying to defuse the leftism that has the Catholic church in the 3rd world tied in knots. Ever since Paul VI’s endorsement (or near endorsement) of communism, the church has had to deal with people that want to de-mystify the doctrine and make Jesus into some sort of revolutionary. In the 20th century it took the form of out and out Marxism, but now it seems to be mutating into environmentalism. It isn’t just the animal rights folks, as your link suggests, but they are a big part of it.

Do I hear An AMEN for the Pope?

OBX Pete on December 11, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Bing, right out of the box. Nice, Pete.

Amen, Ben!

On the Exit Question, it is curious. Seems like only yesterday, his Holiness was all about The Stewardship.

No they weren’t. Chaldean Christians are being chased out of the country or subjected to dhimmi rule. Meanwhile what are the chances that Iraq becomes a functioning stable democracy or a genuine US ally after the troops have gone home? Sharia law is constitutional in Iraq. Neoconservatism works in relatively apolitical countries like South Korea and the Philippines but “democracy” cannot replace Islamic law in majority-Muslim countries.

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Actually, some neighborhoods are asking the Christians to come back now. Check out Michael Yon’s blog.

He will backtrack as soon as they burn a church or kill some nuns…..errrr

BL@KBIRD on December 11, 2007 at 7:21 PM

They’ll torch the Popemobile.