Among Republicans, Catholics stand with Pope Francis on the environment

[lynnvinc]

Is there a Church teaching on man made global warming - like there is on contraception and those other issues normally associated with “cafeteria” Catholics? …

Ishii

There’s a Church teaching on “Thou shalt not kill,” and is doesn’t specify some methods okay and others not. Killing thru AGW is killing, plain and simple.

Of course, Cain may disagree

 

[bibcat]

There’s a Church teaching on “Thou shalt not kill,” and is doesn’t specify some methods okay and others not. Killing thru AGW is killing, plain and simple.

Of course, Cain may disagree

That’s some heavy duty bootstrapping there. And that’s even assuming the “A” in AGW is for real, and that’s open to question. We had that big email scandal years ago on just that very subject. Climatologists frustrated that the data wasn’t going their way. Scientists pushing the man-made global warming thing have been cooking the data big time. Remember, lying is a sin, too.

P.S. Some benighted soul recently used the term “Democrat [sic] Party.” The official name of that party is Democratic Party. To insist on using “Democrat Party” smacks of gooberism. Trailer-park-ism. Maybe we should all start saying “Republic Party.” Oy!

 

[Ridgerunner]

And certain Republicans are bad mouthing the encyclical because they are afraid Catholics will actually pay attention to it and their stock will go down. Why should we care what these two opponents say or think?

This is so far beyond a problem of “certain Republicans” that it’s virtually irrelevant to even imagine it in that way.

Given the commentaries on it, including on CAF, how many people do you think are going to take anything away from it other than a papal endorsement of MMGW? I truly think you’re whistling in the dark with this. Almost nobody actually opposes taking care of the environment as a general principle, or spending resources in doing it. But that’s lost in the noise of the MMGW endorsement like the sound of a cricket when a firecracker goes off.

Yes, some people will read the whole thing. Some will study it. Some will pay real attention to other parts of it while nevertheless discarding the MMGW part like one discards a peach seed while enjoying the rest of the peach. Would an encyclical about protecting the environment and the first world aiding the second and third worlds directly and by greater care by “end users” been instructive in a world in which, e.g., heavy metals are strewn among human habitations in order, ultimately, to power electronic devices? Sure it could have.

But because of the politically-charged debate in which the Pope elected to take sides, the “peach pit” is all but the peel in the perception of virtually everyone. Oh yes, a churchman here and there says “…but you see, there’s actually fruit there, you’re looking at the wrong thing”. But it’s not working except among the grit-your-teeth faithful.

By and large, I think you greatly overestimate any good most people are going to take away from the encyclical, though many will try mightily to take the best from it. It could have been a great work. But it isn’t, because for reasons I cannot fathom, the Pope took sides in a quasi-scientific disputation that cannot truly be resolved other than by the passage of time, yet has political and economic consequences that are potentially huge in their negative effect.

 

[zz912]

There’s a Church teaching on “Thou shalt not kill,” and is doesn’t specify some methods okay and others not. Killing thru AGW is killing, plain and simple.

Of course, Cain may disagree

So because I didn’t throw my aluminum can into the recycle bin, I’m now guilty of murder? And where are all these people killed by the earth warming less than 1 degree?

 

[zz912]

Not only to most Roman Catholics NOT are with Humane Vitae, most of the experts advising Pope Paul Vi didn’t either. Paul VI went against their recommendations anyhow and condemned all artificial birth control. As a result, he drove most Catholics-- at least in advanced nations–into disobedience, if not rebellion against the Church, and helped create what many here call cafeteria Catholicism. So mistakes and poor judgement happen even at the very top.

HV was not a mistake. Speaking the truth about faith and morals is not a mistake or poor judgment. If many Catholics CHOSE to rebel and disobey, that is on them. And they did CHOOSE. They weren’t forced to disobey.

You are right though, the “consensus” at that time by all the “smart” people was that ABC was okay, or even good. We’ve since seen how wrong they were. The same will hold true for all the “scientists” today who are claiming AGW is real.

 

[zz912]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner View Post
I think that’s a certainty. Pro-abortionists are going to use this encyclical against the teachings of the Church. That’s the pity of it.

Only if they didn’t read the encyclical.

People should actually read it.

The same was true of the documents of Vatican II. A whole slew of people rushed out to introduce false teaching as the “spirit of Vatican II”, including a bunch of things that Vatican II never called for. And it didn’t matter. The leftists who wanted to change the Church did it anyway, and they will use this encyclical to justify voting for and supporting virulently pro-abortion politicians and policies, even though the encyclical condemns such things.

 

[ishii]

There’s a Church teaching on “Thou shalt not kill,” and is doesn’t specify some methods okay and others not. Killing thru AGW is killing, plain and simple.

Of course, Cain may disagree

So you equate the abortion of a child with say, me not recycling the aluminum can of soda ?

Ishii

 

[Eddie_Mac]

And certain Republicans are bad mouthing the encyclical because they are afraid Catholics will actually pay attention to it and their stock will go down. Why should we care what these two opponents say or think?

The most vocal left want to round up all gun owners and kill us, so since I think AGW is a farce they will probably now put a bounty on my head and those who think as I do.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Oh, of course. I’m sorry if I indicated the opposite regarding you specifically.

Wholesale disregard for the encyclical = cafeteria Catholicism. I’m fine with debate about specific points but there is much within it that cannot be disregarded by faithful Catholics. I both was and wasn’t surprised to find folks here and elsewhere who are interested in completely dismissing the entire document.

You are correct there is cafeteria Catholicism across the spectrum. I wasn’t surprised though as I’ve seen people disregard even basic Catholic teaching such as OCAC. And Cardinal Wuerl said as much about the cafeteria on Fox News Sunday when he said the Pope speaks the whole package, the whole faith. But said popes and bishops know people pick and choose. He was speaking in the context of the encyclical. So clearly the cafeteria and the whole package of faith are not limited to matters such as contraception and marriage. Those indeed are part of the whole package of the Catholic faith. But you certainly appear to be on the same page as the Cardinal and correct when you say there is much in the encyclical that also can not be disregarded by faithful Catholics.

 

[Sy_Noe]

P.S. Some benighted soul recently used the term “Democrat [sic] Party.” The official name of that party is Democratic Party. To insist on using “Democrat Party” smacks of gooberism. Trailer-park-ism. Maybe we should all start saying “Republic Party.” Oy!

I’ve noticed using that term to reference the Democratic Party is nothing new around here.

 

[Ridgerunner]

P.S. Some benighted soul recently used the term “Democrat [sic] Party.” The official name of that party is Democratic Party. To insist on using “Democrat Party” smacks of gooberism. Trailer-park-ism. Maybe we should all start saying “Republic Party.” Oy!

Call it gooberism if you want, but a trailer park is not where the term comes from. I was born and raised a Democrat. I held office in the party, raised money, held events, knew the candidates personally, did advance work for them; one of the hardest jobs there is. So did my wife. We stopped supporting the party when it became clear the party no longer stood for anything it once stood for. It was about abortion and nothing more. Since then, it must be admitted, it has added the profanation of marriage and oppression of the Catholic Church.

I was there when it was possible, through grass-roots organization and petition, to get things done for ordinary people. Did some of it myself. It became less and less so as the party relied more and more on the rich and the media.

When I became a party worker, I was told by the old time Democrats that the proper name was “Democrat Party”, at least locally. The reason, it was explained to me, was that the party was a party of otherwise independent individuals who supported programs for the poor and the working man, but who otherwise made up their minds without regard to what some erstwhile “party boss” directed.

And it was true. So, it was, to them, a “party of Democrats”, the emphasis being on “Democrat” as in “democracy”, not “Democratic party”, which they said was a term suggesting party-above-all, within which one had a vote internally on what the party might stand for today or tomorrow, and thereafter towed the line.

I still use the term, though people who know nothing about such things think it is intended as an insult or perhaps “trailer parkism” (I know good people in trailer parks and I personally resent anyone using them as a negative epithet). Rather, my use of the term is motivated by my respect and, indeed, reverence, for the old Democrats, most of whom are now gone, and the way they understood their party; one which, unfortunately, no longer exists. The party of today isn’t worthy of either name, and certainly not of its heritage.

Call the Republicans what you want. I don’t care, as I have never been one.

Reflecting on what I just posted, it did occur to me that perhaps it’s an insult to the better people of old who were once the mainstays of the party to call the present organization by the name they honored by their membership. So, perhaps I should give it further thought. I will.

 

[sps49]

And certain Republicans are bad mouthing the encyclical because they are afraid Catholics will actually pay attention to it and their stock will go down. Why should we care what these two opponents say or think?

Why should we care what anyone thinks? Then we can all be secure with our cherished notions.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Not only to most Roman Catholics NOT are with Humane Vitae, most of the experts advising Pope Paul Vi didn’t either. Paul VI went against their recommendations anyhow and condemned all artificial birth control. As a result, he drove most Catholics-- at least in advanced nations–into disobedience, if not rebellion against the Church, and helped create what many here call cafeteria Catholicism. So mistakes and poor judgement happen even at the very top.

Are you saying that Pope Paul VI made a mistake with HV?

 

[TEPO]

According to this website, Africa is the biggest polluter of co2, and is causing the global warming by destroying rainforests at a rapid rate near the earths equator. Could it be, that the poor, underdeveloped nations who use wood as fuel, are actually the worst co2 polluters, and not the developed world at all?
appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Deforestation.htm

 

[TEPO]

…of course, between Chinas toxic lakes, and Africas deforestation, I’m not sure what is worse for the environment. As for co2, though, think Africa is worse.

 

[TEPO]

…In the meantime, the Western developed nations take the brunt of bending over backwards so the poor can continue on their destructive rampages.

 

[TEPO]

And certain Republicans are bad mouthing the encyclical because they are afraid Catholics will actually pay attention to it and their stock will go down. Why should we care what these two opponents say or think?

Its not stock holders causing the climate change though. Its the poor who are causing it.

 

[mikekle]

I’m not the biggest Hillary fan but I do believe she has this in the bag.

I disagree, despite what the mainstream media will have us believe, many women that would call themselves ‘feminists’, do not support Hillary, I know a few women like this, they dont like the fact that she publicly stood by her philandering husband, she was made out to be very weak, if she had divorced him back then, that would be a different story.

The main belief of feminists is that they do not need a man in their life to be successful, happy independent women, remaining with one that cheated on her in such a public manner is a sign of dependency.

 

[TEPO]

Heh, just imagine cutting off power to the United States, Canada and Europe…? How many acres of wood fuel would it take per year to cook and heat the homes of this population?

Now look at what Africa is doing.
…Theyre doing just that. Plus, they’re burning coal in their fire pits too.

 

[anthrogirl]

Not the biggest Hillary fan? Then that means you a big Hillary fan? Or just “Hillary fan” ?

The problem the Republicans have is they’re up against the ever increasing number of recipients of government entitlements / aid of some kind or another, who are naturally going to support the party which promises the entitlements to not only keep coming and even increase in $ amount, but which also accuses the GOP of wanting to cut or take away the entitlements. I think Alexis D’Tocqueville said it well:

The American republic will endure until the congress realizes it can bribe the public with the public’s money.

The other component to that is immigration, in which the Democrat is now promising Hispanics in this country immediate amnesty / citizenship (and by extension, the entitlements promised to everyone else) - which will result in fresh new crops of faithful Democrat voters to add to the already growing Democrat base.

The reason why the Democrats don’t quite yet have an electoral lock on the presidency, and the reason why Hillary isn’t quite a shoo-in yet, is because they are largely incompetent when governing. Also because Hillary has a voice made for silent film.

Ishii

With the exception of New Mexico, the top states that take the most in govt taxes are red states. Given that they are also some of the poorest states, we need to really concentrate on why/how these republican states have created these pockets of despair in our country. What in their policies and economic environments foster poverty? If we want to reduce government spending on handouts to people in need, we need to start coming up with state policies that reduce the reasons why people are dependent on the govt.

States that take more in federal taxes than they pay: #1 is S. Carolina; then N. Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, N. Mexico. (2015, Wallethub).

The poorest state in the US: #1 Mississippi; then W Virginia, Alabama, S. Carolina, N. Mexico. (Forbes, 2014).