Pope Francis wants to roll back progress. Is the world ready?

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. There's no 'may' about it; First Things is primarily known as right wing

("Asking First Things to stop criticizing inane straw men amounts to telling them to stop publishing at all, and if that happened, where could preening pseudo-intellectuals trying to spiritualize their right-wing ideology go to reinforce their epistemic closure?" http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/10/17/7-things-9-oclock-10-17/ )

No, the article is not supportive of the pope challenging technology; it's ignoring huge parts of his message, in the hope of reducing it to "the pope says give up technology, just like the silly pope in this novel who banned trams!".

Other analyses of the encyclical talk extensively of the pope concentrating of the effects of environmental damage on the poor; but this article doesn't mention the poor, poverty or economics at all. It says:

Francis writes that “We should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm, the rise of a relativism,” which leads to sexual exploitation, abandonment of the elderly, and the taking of innocent life.

but it doesn't specify what that 'relativism' is. So it looks like the pope was saying "the omnipresent technocratic paradigm" "leads to sexual exploitation, abandonment of the elderly, and the taking of innocent life." Oooh, scary. Look at the encyclical, and we find what's missing.

122. A misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided lifestyle. In the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I noted that the practical relativism typical of our age is “even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism”.99 When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests. There is a logic in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.

123. The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same “use and throw away” logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be suffi- 92 cient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided.

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/06/18/laudato-si-chapter-three-the-human-roots-of-the-ecological-crisis/

So the pope was actually talking about a relativism of short term gain, with many effects, mostly economic, or people doing things for gain. But the writer has left out that, and the explicit description of the 'relativism', to leave the non-economic effects, and make it look as though the pope is blaming technology for them.

The writer is trying to cast the pope as a naive hippy, who says technology is to blame for the world's ills. He ignores the parts of the message about economic exploitation, and paints the message of the encyclical as a call for "a life of self-sacrifice". It doesn't actually support challenging the fossil fuel industry. It just notes that Francis challenges it. It also notes he calls for "true world political authority", but later says "of course, neither a one-world authority nor a thriftier use of electricity nor a ban on trains can solve the spiritual crisis Francis foresees".

Oh yes, this is nefarious, all right. It's been carefully written to paint the encyclical as well-meaning but impractical, and to shift the blame to just technology rather than capitalism and consumption.