Kind of strange for a member of the faithful to be giving advice to the Vicar of Christ.
Catherine of Sienna did it. Paul too. Before they were saints.
Neither opposed Papal teaching on faith or morals. Nor does Santorum.
Catherine urged the Pope(s) to return to Rome from Avignon, France (which after some reflection they did); Paul urged Peter to live UP to his teachings on the Christian unity between Jews and Gentiles. (And Peter did … his TEACHING was true, his example was poor, Paul counseled).
Santorum getting his :twocents: in on the issue of “climate change” (which doesn’t sound like a faith and morals subject) ***before ***Francis’ encyclical is issued seems within his rights.
Could be a tempest in a teapot again. A bad English interpretation of Francis’
Gaudium Evangelii coupled with worldwide headlines on a section where Francis gave a caution about capitalism, i.e. “trickle down economics” – had it looking like the Pope was critiquing the (rather successful IMO) American *Reaganomics * as the trickle down terminology was first coined by the Reagan administration’s David Stockman.
Pope Francis later clarified his statement (made in Spanish and Italian) and disavowed Marxism when he did.
I haven’t yet heard a single particular about the purportedly upcoming “encyclical” on climate change. Are there a host of new mortal sins about to be defined?
Are the soccer moms who drive SUVs for safety and convenience really destroying the planet (in 100 years) with their unconscionable refusal to drive hybrids or smart cars?
Is Francis going to reveal that he’s had a communique from God on the line of Peter’s dream that changed the Kosher laws (Acts 10 - 11) – that will better explain the importance of this seemingly secular issue to our spiritual life?
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict spoke of stewardship too. And polluting at will is of course, just departure from common sense. Then too, Francis is not American (that is not of the USA) and may have other countries a bit more in mind than the U.S. which used to have far more pollution in its steel towns, before catalytic converters were mandated on every car, and prior to many more environmental successes in my lifetime.
Santorum may still be stung by the REPORTED comment Francis made about Catholics not needing to “breed like rabbits”. With seven children, and having stood up for, and taken heat for the Church’s well known teachings on birth control, Santorum may have felt a bit let down. IMO the Pontiff may have been speaking off the cuff again … and making a different point … to whit, it is an exaggeration of Catholic teaching to conclude that a Catholic family “
must try to have as many children as humanly possible” (which some people do think it teaches).
I must insert that married couples who remain open to life at all times (like they did in the OLD days?) are quite an astounding witness in this day. My parents had eight kids. I have none (was only married for 3 1/2 years). My spouse is in heaven now I hope. I never remarried. But I digress.
“Man made Climate Change”, based on computer projections of a POTENTIAL future using models – seems to be an obscure extremity in the field of faith and morals IMO – if it is even within that realm at all.
Proponents don’t call it “Global Warming” anymore after beating that phrase into the ground - due to what is now called a multi-year “pause” in the curve of the projections (it’s been colder than predicted in the short run, and so, NOT so “globally warm”).
MAN gets blamed for some of the (possible) coming disaster(s). Often by groups that make a lot of money and are given a lot of power for saying so.
When I wonder what my personal contribution is supposed to be … it often seems to be … give more power to the political groups who disagree with me on most other points (too)!
I of course will listen to what Pope Francis has to say. I hope he doesn’t call me to help him research some scriptural background recalling God’s past environmental warnings or prophetic warnings on the subject – because frankly, I’m drawing a blank here.
And I do see many OTHER things that could use the strong encouraging voice of the Pope to: call back the erring to following Jesus, better love God and neighbor, turning from sin and exchanging our worldly views for the heavenly treasure (that won’t wear out, can’t be stolen), and that calls our hearts to higher things.
In opining that Pope Francis has more pressing problems than “climate change” – like Santorum, I can think of a few. At this point I’m inclined to think of Santorum as the loyal opposition … and not a person criticizing the Pope just to build up his own gravitas or something.
Papal infallibility is a misunderstood doctrine in its own right. Teaching “truly” does not necessarily mean “teaching with the most excellent priorities”. For those non-Catholics that think Catholics see Popes as sort of demi-gods, it will be noted that not every Pope gets canonized as a saint later. Even some that probably ARE by now.
Francis gets misunderstood a lot … and part of it may be his own problem of speaking off the cuff and informally so often, when his immediate predecessors were a bit more formal, laconic and doctrinally clear (IMO). The “who am I to judge …” paraphrase of his led some to conclude he’d given a green light to homosexual sex acts … not true of course … and he later clarified.
Critics of Catholicism may rejoice in this seeming conflict between the Pope and one of the most well known publicly faithful American Catholics. But the resolution of the question may lead to some good things. I like Santorum and Francis … and consider both sincere. I may learn some things from the coming exchange.
