ai_Droid Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Quite a remarkable thing for the head of a church to say: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...11&ito=1490 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Oh dear, what was he thinking of? he must have been drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Oh dear, what was he thinking of? he must have been drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarroo Ushtey Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Maybe he knows "the boys upstairs" have got a plan to save us all in the nick of time ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 The pope urging people to shun ideology and dogma? Glass houses and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 16, 2007 Share Posted December 16, 2007 Its an interesting piece he's written (always go to the original sources - especially where the Daily Mail is interpreting!). It contains many little gems which I find absolutely fascinating: It starts with what feels to me like an attack on alternative family structures (I assume a part of this is against homosexuality within the family, but also the unwed would seem to be targeted): The natural family, as an intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage between a man and a woman(2), constitutes “the primary place of ‘humanization' for the person and society”(3), and a “cradle of life and love”(4). When ever I read these sorts of things I look at who it is excluding (families which aren't based on the marriage of a man and a woman), and then there is the language about natural - as though being single mother or homosexual isn't a natural phenomenon - read this fascinating essay by PZ Myers on the latest research on homosexual behaviour in Fruit Flies. A bit later on it has this: W]hoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace. Circumventing the insitution of the family undermines international peace - how can you engage with an attitide like this to say gays, or single mothers, or grandparents can and do contribute to a family when the "natural parents" are unable or unwilling to take on their responsibilities. Gay adoption = a threat to international peace. FFS. It then continues saying things which I sort of agree with but still find disturbing due to feeling that their claims are too exclusive: [n a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters, the role of authority expressed by parents, loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age, mutual help in the necessities of life, readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them. For this reason, the family is the first and indispensable teacher of peace. ... Consequently, when it is said that the family is “the primary living cell of society”(6), something essential is being stated. The family is the foundation of society for this reason too: because it enables its members in decisive ways to experience peace. I agree that peace within the family is a primal thing (though the idea that it can only be achieved in a family formed by a married man and women is very difficult for me to accept) - to be with someone you love and to be a beneficiary of the unconditional love that being a part of a family involves is vitally important, but again I don't find this particularly an exclusive feeling. The idea that it can only be achieved in a family founded by a married man and women seems ludicrous. Plus for society to progress and to be peaceful it needs to extend the ideas of justice, authority, concern and acceptance beyond an environment of unconditional love. To be at peace and gain companionship with friends and colleagues allows for collaboration and progress. My memories of life value my relationships with friends in some ways more, or beyond, those of family - for they supported and allowed the transition from being a junior member of one family to founding a family of my own - a subset of the original family - but one where I have a change in role by bringing into my family someone who was originally an outsider – my lovely wife! As well as friends the relationships people have with colleagues extends them beyond the limits of the family. By only talking about a "healthy family" Ratzinger ignores the fact that families can be stifling - to be able to break free from a family and establish an independent life beyond it - confident in society - is a vital part of human and societal development. I can’t give family Ratzinger’s unique, central role – it is a vital and important component – but the pillars of friends and colleagues also have approximately equal roles in creating a balanced individual and society. Ratzinger then extends the family analogy to the international community and brings the discussion round to environmentalism and Global Warming: ... God the Creator has given us [the earth] 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. God has given us the earth? We shouldn't consider the material or animal nature as being more important than man - as though man is not material and not an animal. Human beings “obviously” are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole!? The reason we should not consider nature to be at the complete disposal of our interests is because we should allow future generations the right to reap its benefits. I just don’t know what to make of any of this. I often find that my disconnect with this sort of thing comes right at the start with the axioms that religious people use to rationalize their position. Humanity is privileged due to the power of the human mind, but the idea we are have supreme worth over the rest of life, or should value nature for its usefulness to us goes too far. But then Ratzinger sees Humanity as being made in the image of God, separate from nature, while I see us as one part of the totality of life. Ratzinger's postion seems to value nature only where it can benefit the current or future generations - I hope I'm missing something here, because if that is the case it is a very limited position. Much of nature is of little utility to humanity, but its uniqueness and the awsome fact that ALL of life has developed and multiplied over billions of years gives it a grandier over the narrow claim of human uniqueness. So we then come to the part the Daily Mail has made such a fuss about – the reality is always weaker than the headlines: 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. Ok he does say to have the debate uninhibited by ideological pressure, but I'm pretty certain that Ratzinger would include people enveloped in religious dogma in his dialogue with experts and people of wisdom. To have headlines saying Ratzinger was launching a surprise attack and condeming antiscience dogma is really to miss that this is a very conservative piece full of untestable assumptions about the family and humanity. Is the Vatican moving away from dogma and ideology - don't see much evidence of it from this! But at least they seem to understand the dangers of climate change and the need for science to advance a solution - there is some hope, though not alot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 The idea that it can only be achieved in a family founded by a married man and women seems ludicrous. Ludicrous, perhaps....but it sounds like fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 OPPS - was that a Mormon typo or a (fcjc)LDS freudian slip. Clarifier for DjDan - yes I know the mainstream mormon church abandoned the doctorines of polygamy and the practice is only followed by more fundamentalist versions of the church. Yawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.