In a new document titled “Laudate Deum,” or “Praise God,” the head of the Catholic Church issued his strongest warning yet that action is needed to alleviate suffering.
Pope Francis made his strongest statements yet about climate change Wednesday, rebuking fossil fuel companies and urging countries to make an immediate transition to renewable energy.
In a new document titled “Laudate Deum,” or “Praise God,” the pope criticizes oil and gas companies for greenwashing new fossil fuel projects and calls for more ambitious efforts in the West to tackle the climate crisis. In the landmark apostolic exhortation, a form of papal writing, Francis says that “avoiding an increase of a tenth of a degree in the global temperature would already suffice to alleviate some suffering for many people.”
“Laudate Deum” is a follow-up to the pope’s 2015 encyclical on climate change, known as “Laudato Si’,” which lamented the exploitation of the planet and cast the protection of the environment as a moral imperative. When it was released, “Laudato Si’” was viewed as an extraordinary move by the head of the Catholic Church to address global warming and its consequences.
Nearly a decade later, the pope’s message has taken on new urgency.
When the Catholic Church stops covering up the rampant sexual abuse and money grubbing cash grab scam operations then maybe I'll give two flying shits about what the Pope has to say.
People tend to overlook the fact that the words of someone with this level of influence are vitally important and can have enormous effects on the world.
Whether you in particular care about a famous/rich person's comments or not, there are millions that do--and that is important. Important enough that even without respecting that person, we should always take what they say and do very seriously.
Most Catholics don't listen to the Pope. The Pope says Catholics must accept gay people, but go to the third world or central america and see if Catholics follow that one.
The Pope says Catholics must accept Gay people, but won't give them the same right to marriage as straight people. Hypocrisy, although I guess he's probably worried all his clergy will try and marry the kids they're abusing.
News about what the head of the Catholic church does is as important as news about what the head of USA, China or Russia does. It's hugely influencial even when it comes to lives of non-catholics, non-americans, non-chinese... because of the massive number of people that belong to the religion or state and the power that religion or state has. It's a good thing the pope talks against fossil fuel companies, because his influence is big.
Can you name a few things that a pope has influenced politically in the last, say, three decades?
Because I call complete bullshit on this. Catholicism is big in its own domain (oversized Jesus-based pyramid schemes) but is irrelevant to the vast majority of the world, especially those countries which don't recognise it as the official state religion which is pretty much all of them.
The Popes of recent history have done nothing of note except hide pedophilia, hoard the earnings of the poor, and resign.
Ok, but the question is what has the pope(s) influenced positively over the last 3 decades? Main religion in Latin America is a respectable feat but it is not necessarily a positive influence nor has that been established in the last 3 decades.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you were to ask me, "are there a lot of Catholics in the world?” my answer would be: yes. Because there are. About 15% of the population of the planet is technically* Catholic. That's a lot of the population of the earth comparative to almost anything that isn't a birth-given attribute.
However, in the biggest countries in the world, and for the majority of countries in the world, they are not a majority. Even less so for countries that play a significant part on the world stage in a political way.
I'm happy to ask the same question again as I'm awaiting an answer and, as a scientist, I will change my view in line with the evidence that is presented: in the last 30 years, outside of Vatican City, and in states where Catholicism is not the state or most widely recognized religion or denomination, what meaningful and significant political decisions or stances has the pope influenced?
* The methodology of this is questionable but I'm happy to take it on face value for the purposes of this discussion.
E: it's easier to accuse someone of trying to impersonate you than it is to actually win an argument, see below for a demo.
Is Latin America not important enough? How about Poland or Italy? There are even 20% of catholics in the USA. According to Wiki, there is 1.3 billion baptized Catholics worldwide - that's important enough to me. Do you really think major religions play no role on the political stage?
15% of the world's population is ~1.3b people. You don't need to quote the same stats back at me.
Where did I say anything about SA not being important? Equally, why fixate on SA if the pope has influenced so much politically in the rest of the world?
Also we're talking about Catholicism and the Pope, not other major religions. Stop moving the goalposts.
You say as they address your issue and name several Catholic majority countries where the opinions of the pope sway politics far more than you're accepting.
Oh, my bad, I was trying to be polite. Ill rephrase.
You are wrong. The professional demographics manipulators know better than you do. Which is why you are asking a question you know cannot be answered in the way you posed it without a 5 year study on catholic peoples opinions on a broad range of topics before and after a public vatican statement involving those topics.
The people whose jobs rely on the ability to read and understand demographics attribute weight to smaller demographics, and apply even greater weight to the catholic population. You are just openly incorrect.
The cuban vote is considered a huge swing population. Thats at 2.4 million cuban descent americans. Catholic americans top off just under 62 million. I am pretty damn sure that 18% of americans is a very relevant percent of americans. And, more importantly, every single career politician is pretty damn sure too, and this is the one topic you can be confident that a politician actually knows what they are talking about.
Do you think being snarky and running a gish gallop of nonsense assertions is useful? I thought politeness was a virtue but you've explicitly dropped yours so willingly. How revealing.
I am not wrong. I've laid my case, and you've laid a bunch of self imposed obstacles in your path to avoid answering the question. You've been disappointing but unsurprising, which I expect is rather thematic of your life given you'd rather be edgy than provide evidence to back your claims. Very sad.
I can always trust the religious to lose their cool before they back their own claims; an area of true consistency where no other lies.
Many times the victims of priest sexual abuse have approached the Vatican for a meeting and blessing from the pope. Every time the pope has turned them away and refused to even acknowledge their existence, or their plight. His lawyers tell him it's not a good idea. And of course the representative of god, flanked by lawyers and bankers, listens to his lawyers over god.
Every time the pope has turned them away and refused to even acknowledge their existence
Where did you hear that? These articles seem to say the opposite.
Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.
Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.
Sexual abuse happens in virtually every organization. The main issue is how it is dealt with. The catholic church has a long issue of dealing with issues internally, but this was definitely one that was not being handled correctly. Francis has made it clear that he is willing to face the issue head-on now that he has the power.
We do not have to turn a blind eye to their past mistakes, but we should also acknowledge what they are actually doing to work on those mistakes instead of spreading misinformation about them still hiding from it.
Definitely some odd choices here. Condemns the main abuser to a life-time of penance and prayer and then totally dismisses any claims that the abuser's protege may have seen the abuse.
It does seem he eventually changed his tune, but not before seriously harming his credibility on the issue.
In April, the pope publicly acknowledged that he had erred in handling the situation, saying he had made "serious mistakes" — and summoning Chile's bishops to an emergency meeting in Rome. Francis said he had misjudged Barros and the events in Chile because he hadn't been given "truthful and balanced information."
In May, all of Chile's 31 active bishops offered to resign their posts, issuing a statement in which they asked forgiveness and apologized for "the grave errors and omissions that we committed."
No, that is called having an adult conversation where we acknowledge reality and then discuss how to fix it, or in this case how it is already being worked on.
I love how you have good 25% down-votes as if there are people who cheer for more abuse. There's no way they think it's just a made up story for the 60000th time.
I'm an atheist and a survivor of child abuse, and even I think it's better to have the pope as an ally against climate change, rather than play the whataboutism card. Multiple things can be bad, no need to make it a competition.