Actually the question was designed to give political cover to Democrat Catholic who will , as always, be looking for rationalizations as why they vote to support unspeakable evil . And given the mainstream media does not ask questions about the Popes views on other issues to Democrat candidates the game they are playing here is quite apparent
Aside from general statements about the objectives that are the proper end of a fair economic system, there really is little one should expect from a papal view of economic policy. I’m pretty sure that’s more the purview proper to economists. The same is true of statements on the environment. A discussion of goals and of our obligation to care for the environment do not translate into specific proposals in how to achieve those goals.
The worst part about arguments like this is not their casual nastiness but their utter irrelevance. My position is either right or wrong, and it doesn’t become wrong because I support it for mendacious reasons. Even if your charge was accurate it would no less meaningless.
They will use any stuck available to beat on a republican.
MMGW isn’t a “Church teaching” though.
But during this election season liberals will swear it is 11th Commandment
Yes, an encyclical (from the Greek egkyklios, kyklos meaning a circle) is nothing more than a circular letter. In modern times, usage has confined the term almost exclusively to certain papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either Bulls or Briefs, and which in their superscription are explicitly addressed to the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops of the Universal Church in communion with the Apostolic See.
But if these folks waited, they wouldn’t have all this Pope-bashing fun!
That is precisely it.
MMGW is a religion all it’s own. When data/reality don’t match the religion it must be modified to fit the faith. If the thermometers don’t show the warming that must be there according to MMGW, it’s the thermometers that are wrong- not the theory.
Except that the evidence you say is not there really is there if you look at it.
Evidence that the stock market is going to crash very soon is there too, if you look at it. Also that it’s going to improve. Also that it will neither crash nor improve. And every promoter of every view of it has his statistics to prove it.
That’s like saying, “get an imprimatur for every post you make.” Shall we hold you to the same standard?
I’m willing to accept that there is evidence on both sides of this question, but apparently styrgwillidar is not willing to concede even that much.
The “faith vs good works” argument has been going on ever since St. Paul talked about it.
:banghead: