.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Live streaming of the Encyclical "Be praised: on the care of our common home"

Sou | 6:52 PM Go to the first of 22 comments. Add a comment
If you're up and about, the much-awaited Encyclical from Pope Francis on the environment is to be live streamed, starting in just a few minutes. Here is the link.



For italian speakers.

Here is the link to the official English Language version - just released.

22 comments:

Sou said...

The live streaming is about to start in just a few minutes. See the video above - or go straight to YouTube.

Sou said...

I've now added the link to the English language version - the official one (pdf). It's just been released following the press conference.

Watch this space.

Millicent said...

It seems that there are a lot of American 'Catholics' who look to Houston, not to Rome, for the basic tenets of their faith.

Bernard J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bernard J. said...

I have only just starting wading through the Encyclical but I have to repeat what I've already said several times - I like this Pope.

Without commenting on the theology itself, Francis' is (ahem) frank and unflinching in addressing climate change and other environmental damages. I hope that he bursts the bubble that has so far encapsulated the critical mass of humanity and inspires a shift in the way we live.

If he can't, I doubt that anyone can until the golden hour has past and if we reach that point then the way we live will become a thing of the past...

thefordprefect said...

I wonder how Spencer, D'Alleo, McKitrick, feel about it? It rather puts a damper on their (Cornwall Alliance) beliefs that:

1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.


WHAT WE DENY

1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

Still I suppose with big enough blinkers anything can be denied!

PG said...

Jesus Christ! When have so many atheists hung on every word of a Pope?

(This particular atheist had his atheist son schooled by Jesuits and the results are fucking spectacular. He is doing a double major at Sydney and scoring HDs.)

Fucking love Sydney Jesuits!

Bernard J. said...

PG, speaking for myself the thing for me is that Francis has access to and profound influence over a huge section of the global population, including many who are by their natures resistant to secular evidence. If people cannot understand a message based on objective reason then having one of their highest authorities rub their noses in it is perhaps the best thing that can happen for the planet.

Because - let's face it - the simple fact of the science, and it's communication to the world, and the almost total lack of action to do anything about it (or in Australia's case, a reversal of the seed of effective action...) means that every other possible avenue of change has to date failed.

If I was a religious man I'd pray that people listen to Francis...

Millicent said...

Lets not forget that Dubya1 has had the occasional chat with God.

"George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Dubya2 claims some kind of Catholicism, although its not clear atm whether he deals directly with God or gets his directions via God's representatives in the fossil fuel industry.

metzomagic said...

I had assumed from the very start that the Cornwall Alliance was almost exclusively a Protestant club. But I may be wrong about that. If I'm right, however, I leave it to your imagination what their reaction will be to the 'Papist Encyclical' :-)

Anonymous said...

dubya2 -- and a lot of other Roman Catholics in the Republican Party leadership -- now have a lot 'splainin' to do. -- Dennis

bratisla said...

Someone in a previous thread made the very relevant comment that these Catholics, by not following their spiritual leader, do not abide by the catholic rule and should therefore go for apostasy or be excommunicated.

Mind you, I'm not very fond of Catholic church, living in a ... shall we say "traditionnal catholic area" : Orleans, its churches populated with integrist priests, its Joan of Arc parade each year when a young lady with "proper thoughts and manners" (last year, the lady chosen was openly homophobic and had some ties with extreme-right ...) ; therefore I have more sympathies to the protestant approach (until of course I encounter the Westboro Baptist Church crackpots).
But still theology and religion politics are something I like to learn, so if I can use it to corner American hypocrits such as Watts (he's catholic if I remember correctly ?) so much the better :]

/edit recaptcha, in order to check if I'm not a robot, made me select ... images with wine.
NOW that is nationality stereotyp :D

David Sanger said...

An interesting question for "climate skeptics" is this:

If they don't like the scientific evidence to date, what kind of evidence would it take for them to be convinced that humans really are contributing to a warming planet? And at that point would it not indeed be a moral issue to be dealt with by all of us?

palindrom said...

The counterattack has, of course, long since started. And all the usual suspects are involved:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/17/who-s-behind-pope-francis-climate-encyclical-denier-attack

Are there any credible scientists among them? Everyone gets only one guess.

FLwolverine said...

I've asked that question ("what evidence do you need?") a number of times over the last few years. I've only ever received one answer, and it was something along the lines of "well, if all the climate scientists in the country (US) got together and debated the evidence with the scientists who don't accept it, then I might listen." Later the person giving that answer deleted the post and denies ever having discussed this topic with me, much less ever saying anything like that. Totally full blown denialism with a heavy dose of self-righteousness and a touch of paranoia thrown in.

FLwolverine said...

Dubya1 also looked into Putin's eyes and read his soul. Some heavy magic there!

ligne said...

based on their previous run-ins with the Vatican, they don't exactly have a stellar track record of defending climate denial through bible quotes:

"Dr. Calvin Beissner (US) argued along the lines of Dr. Idso and Prof. Singer but framed his contribution theologically. His approach was strongly questioned by theologians around the table for an insufficient exegetical and systematic basis."

(that's Theologian-speak for "that's not how reading works".)

PG said...

Note to self. Do not post comments after consuming 3/4 of a bottle of red.

dhogaza said...

True. Wait until you've polished it off :)

bill said...

One looks into Putin's eyes and sees perhaps not so much by way of sole as of shark. And in Dubya's case; flounder...

Victor Venema said...

Any evidence in 20 years will do.

Millicent said...

The Onion has the Republican response to Pope Francis nailed:

"Bush also told reporters that Pope Francis was unqualified to issue policy recommendations of any kind unless he had personally accepted money from the fossil fuel industry."

http://www.theonion.com/article/frustrated-republicans-argue-pope-should-leave-sci-50701