AmericanPapist Comments
Just because the guy selling his product says ridiculous things doesn't mean that solar cells are, themselves, ridiculous. Look at it this way Thomas: solar power means less dependency on the Italian infrastructure/power grid. Insert gratuitous comment about Italian efficiency here ( ).
Attempting to be carbon-neutral is silliness? How can the Vatican talk about being good stewards of the earth--something that only few think is ridiculous--when it won't act on what it preaches? Good for Pope Benedict for being a leader.
"such silliness" = CEO's who claim solar panels would constitute the 4th gift of the magi in our time.
I don't have a problem with solar panels, per se. I have a problem with CEO's selling solar panels with some sort of claim that buying them somehow constitutes an intrinsic religious act. I also have difficulty with the Vatican accepting offers from companies who then use their association with the Vatican as an endorsement of their product line, like Planktos/Klimafa did last year.
Hopefully that's more clear.
P.S. Nathan, where exactly has the Vatican claimed that carbon-neutrality constitutes "good stewardship"? Would it be "bad stewardship" for the Vatican to have a carbon footprint, or any individual?
Silliness? I don't think so. Smart stewardship, and savy marketing, on behalf of us good Catholics' resources methinks.
Cheers from Canada.
Tony
So would the Magi have driven a Nissan if they had to make the same journey today?
Neverminding the comments the Pope has made regarding the environment, I don't think the Vatican has to explicitly say that solar panels on a huge audience hall is good stewardship. It's clearly implied. I don't understand what the problem is with the Holy See's position concerning the environment. (For whatever reason, comments on this little thread aren't showing up for me so I don't know what else has been said other than what I see on the side of this site to respond to.)
"Would it be 'bad stewardship' for the Vatican to have a carbon footprint, or any individual?"
Obviously, a carbon footprint is inevitable. But it seems you don't even think it's worthwhile to reduce the size of the footprint. I like the idea of my country being energy independent and having clean air to breathe. I guess I'm weird that way.
As an aside, since Toyota is the best-selling car company in the world, I think that would be the logical choice of transportation for the Magi.
And see, this is where I would ask folks to give me the benefit of the logical fallacy doubt: namely, when I say one thing critical of "silliness" (i.e., the CEO's comments), it is no service to assume that I've committed the logical fallacy of equating his silly comments with thinking his solar panels are silly.
Energy independence? Clean air? Fine by me. Kooky theology to make a buck? No thanks. Let's keep to those saving distinctions and everyone will be happy.
The reason there is/was a difficulty with the "silliness" is that the "such" before it is vague. Glad to help the grammar police win today.
Hi again.
I had a comment on your 11Jul07 Planktos post. Remember?
They were going to make the Vatican carbon-neutral?
Here's an update:
http://climateerinvest.blogspot....sell-
seitz.html
My apologies, AP. I took your last line to mean that environmentalism in general is silliness. I agree that the CEO's quote is cause for rolling one's eyes, but I can overlook it because people, yes, including myself, say stupid things all the time!
Look at it this way: the barque of Peter is a big ship, and a big ship picks up a lot of barnacles.
But some big ships carry oil and leave enormous carbon footprints so I guess that isn't an acceptable analogy. Oh well! I think the 4th wiseman would have brought a PS3. Equally plausible.
It was a donation. And besides, solar power is not usually part of the climate change madness and accepting the donation doesn't mean collusion with the crazies. The engineering side of solar energy is quite serious as a renewable source. What I'd like to know is if the new roof really is producing all the power for the Hall, or if not, how much.
I think this is good. Everyone ought to be doing this, so why rag on the Vatican? Once again, the vatican is showing the rest of the world what is right to do.
Why do americans seem to hate the concept of taking care of the environment? The concept wasn't introduced by liberal idiots in 1968 - it's been with us since the first bleedin' book of the Bible!
Now of course we need to prioritize things. If there is something that needs to be done that cannot be done without doing something somewhat harmful to the environment - it still needs to be done, so do it. But if there are ways to do what we need to do, without thereby harming people, animals, sea and land - why on earth should we (you) keep sticking to the environmentally harmful way of doing things?
All too many of you americans seem to think that caring for the environment is a "liberal Democrat" thing. Wake up! Just because Al Gore happens to talk about saving the environment doesn't mean that conservatives have to want to destroy it.
God gave each of us a brain. He want us to take care of it so it can serve us many years and help us make wise decisions. He also gave all of us one single earth. What do you think he wants us to do with it? Some of us are trying. Others undo our effort.
God gave us all that is around us. He wants us to take care of it. That's not politics - it is an assignment that God gave Adam and his descendants. I believe Americans share that ancestor with the people of the rest of the world. Am I wrong?
Not to put too fine a point on it . . .
but is it really the German company that is providing solar power?
Wouldn't it be the sun that is providing the power?
Well, at least the Paul VI hall can't be made any uglier.
The "Fourth Gift" was obviously a smart marketing campaign, and should not be made more than that. I think savvy marketing: very memorable, humorous, timeless and *relevant*. I can imagine years from now tourists and pilgrims will continue reading this in their tour guides. Regarding *relevant* to the Epiphany, well, not in any theological sense, but hey, these are just business folks.
I suppose the issue at hand the criteria for accepting a gift and the associated etiquette. I don't know the details (perhaps you can share), but I would expect the Vatican to graciously accept any gift that is not intrinsically evil, nor given with evil intentions. I'd guess that the CEO is faithful Catholic wanting to share his talents.
Of course I'd expect the Vatican to stay above the fray regarding the any theological implications and not endorse the marketing campaign, which so far haven't seen any evidence.
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
