Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[sallybutler]

Where does the passage reference the government?

Government is just another way of saying a group of people who decided how society should be organized. It exists as a physical thing as much as free market, school of thought, church (not a building) do.

 

[CaptFun]

What might some of those “more pressing problems” be?

Santorum (being interviewed here on multiple subjects) cites his pro-life stance, the economy, and the world situation.

youtube.com/watch?v=NKCpQbMphUk

Santorum himself probably has more pressing problems than a "wardrobe change" … but in a serendipidous moment I will remark that IMO his “Air Force One Reagan Library” jacket is a step up from both the sweater vest thing … and the traditional “suits”.

Given his recent themes, it’s impossible not to notice that THIS one even has a “blue collar”.

Maybe he should have another similar looking one made with Senate Armed Services Committee on it?

As for **Pope Francis ** and the “climate change” :tanning::coolinoff: :winter: encyclical? While looking for further clues on what it will be … I ran across this.

youtube.com/watch?v=76BtP1GInlc < Might possibly be satirical.

Less clear is who the bald, eyepatch (pro-pollution?) guy is supposed to be.



OK … if I lived here ^ , I would admit the climate does indeed change.

And who knows, that could have been man made.

Although Benjamin Franklin is still dead - hence possibly not culpable.

Despite having been an American and a capitalist.

http://misconceptions.us/images/ben-franklin-kite.gif

 

[ishii]

Government is just another way of saying a group of people who decided how society should be organized. It exists as a physical thing as much as free market, school of thought, church (not a building) do.

Where does the passage referenced by Thorolfr refer to government? It describes how the early Christians organized their society. But its a stretch to call that socialism in the modern sense of the government controlling the means of production.

Ishii

 

[sallybutler]

Where does the passage referenced by Thorolfr refer to government? It describes how the early Christians organized their society. But its a stretch to call that socialism in the modern sense of the government controlling the means of production.

Ishii

Where does socialism as you have defined it currently exist? It doesn’t exist in the first world countries. I don’t think it exists in any of the third world countries. It has become a bogeyman word.

And Pope Francis is not a socialist or advocating for socialism.

 

[ishii]

Where does socialism as you have defined it currently exist? It doesn’t exist in the first world countries. I don’t think it exists in any of the third world countries. It has become a bogeyman word.

And Pope Francis is not a socialist or advocating for socialism.

sallybutler - I was commenting on the following post:

Didn’t you know that Jesus was a socialist?

Acts 2: 44-47: And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Given that the word socialism today means to support a monolithic, centralized, bureaucratized government which controls the means of production (e.g. Cuba, North Korea, 20th Century Soviet Union, etc) the comment that “Jesus was a socialist” without clarifying, is very misleading at best.

Socialism exists to varying degrees around the world. And certainly there are those who want to bring it about (you might visit a college campus sometime).

Ishii

 

[Thorolfr]

sallybutler - I was commenting on the following post:

Given that the word socialism today means to support a monolithic, centralized, bureaucratized government which controls the means of production (e.g. Cuba, North Korea, 20th Century Soviet Union, etc) the comment that “Jesus was a socialist” without clarifying, is very misleading at best.

Socialism exists to varying degrees around the world. And certainly there are those who want to bring it about (you might visit a college campus sometime).

Ishii

There is more than one definition of “socialism”. According to Merriam Webster, socialism can also mean “a system of society or group living in which there is no private property”. That is the second definition of “socialism” and does not necessarily involve government.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

[ringil]

Doesn’t Santorum, the layman, have more “pressing things” than to criticize his religious superior?

Maybe he never got the memo that we are to Pray, pay, and obey.

 

[CaptFun]

Where does the passage referenced by Thorolfr refer to government? It describes how the early Christians organized their society. But its a stretch to call that socialism in the modern sense of the government controlling the means of production.

Ishii

:sad_yes: The key difference being that the early Christians did so voluntarily and (it seems like) out of their generous goodwill to their beloved neighbors and friends.

Socialism compels. Is usually administered by a power elite that pontificates much but sacrifices little personally (and enjoy a class privilege that somehow doesn’t count on the scoreboard of social justice).

While that Bible passage is inspirational in reporting how unselfish, “poor in spirit” and other world oriented the early Christians were in their care for their poor – undoubtedly inspired by the Holy Spirit - deducing that “Jesus was a Socialist” is a kernel that won’t pop IMO.

Too many instances of Him acknowledging that He is the Master. Too many parables describing God as the owner of the vineyard, assessor of the servants, King and Judge. :sad_yes: < meant to be a serious YES. Not a sad one. :yup:

 

[ishii]

There is more than one definition of “socialism”. According to Merriam Webster, socialism can also mean “a system of society or group living in which there is no private property”. That is the second definition of “socialism” and does not necessarily involve government.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Sure - but the definition most people think of is the 20th century political definition. To simply say, “Jesus was a socialist” is way overly simplistic. As CapnFun pointed out in his excellent post - the early Christians shared everything voluntarily. Big difference between modern political socialism which is imposed on the masses and enforced by the bayonet.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Doesn’t Santorum, the layman, have more “pressing things” than to criticize his religious superior?

Maybe he never got the memo that we are to Pray, pay, and obey.

Pray, yes. Pay ? If give to charity and to the Church, yes, and to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Obey? If to Church teaching, yes. How has Santorum not done all those things? It seems to me Santorum is a good example of a Catholic who “walks the walk.” If Rick Santorum is disobeying Catholic teaching, then please point out how.

Now, perhaps you should direct your ire toward the Nancy Pelosi and others who blatantly reject Catholic teaching. Oh - but I guess they recycle so perhaps that lets them off the hook?

Ishii

 

[Darryl1958]

Didn’t you know that Jesus was a socialist?

Acts 2: 44-47: And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

This is merely more confirmation to the contention that the the environment is being used as a ploy to advance the Marxist cause and the push for radical change to the economy along socialist lines.

 

[CaptFun]

Doesn’t Santorum, the layman, have more “pressing things” than to criticize his religious superior?

Maybe he never got the memo that we are to Pray, pay, and obey.

And maybe Pope Francis DID then address a more “pressing thing”:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1304195.htm

Although Pope Francis already had been in Assisi 10 hours and had celebrated Mass and given five speeches, he energetically ad-libbed and had the crowd roaring with laughter when he told the story of a woman who said her son was in his 30s, had a girlfriend, but wouldn’t get married.

“I told her, ‘Ma’am, stop ironing his shirts,’” the pope said.

Actually the Pope does address a lot of the things I think Santorum would agree with, such as:

**Have the courage to marry, start a family, pope tells youths in Assisi
**

… the subject of the above Catholic News Service link.

But the secular press doesn’t cover those things as much.

 

[anthrogirl]

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, a practicing Catholic, on Sunday defended his criticism ‎of Pope Francis for weighing in on global warming, saying “there are more pressing problems on Earth” for the pontiff to be tackling.

The former Pennsylvania senator on “Fox News Sunday” also argued that it’s more appropriate for him and other lawmakers than the pope to speak publicly on the issue because they make public policy decisions that affect American workers.

Those decisions, he said, include ones on ozone regulations, efforts to revitalize U.S. manufacturing and energy production and creating job opportunities.

foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/07/santorum-says-lawmakers-have-better-standing-than-pope-on-climate-change-issue

I can’t believe Santorum has decided to take this position.

Our pope, educated in science himself, has the premier Pontifical Academy of Science advising him. Does Santorum have ready access to preeminent Catholic scientists, including Noble prize winners or does he rely on scientists funded by coal, oil and gas companies? The Catholic Church, from Pope John Paul thru Pope Francis, has always called on governments and individuals to consider the environment a gift from God. With the much anticipated encyclical coming out in the next few days, we’ll get a better idea of where we as a church need to be on this life issue. As Pope Francis has pointed out in the past, climate change is a life issue, just like the death penalty, abortion, suicide, etc. We can all spin these various issues to make it right for us… as individuals. “We need the death penalty because some people do such horrible things & we need to bring justice to the victims.” or “I was drugged, passed out and raped and now I want to kill this innocent fetus because I hate it so much. I just want it out of me.” or “I’m in so much pain from my disease and I’m only expected to live for 3 more months. Why make me suffer? Let me kill myself… PLEASE…please.” And we can make other perfectly sane arguments for maintaining dirty fuels when clean fuel technology is available. With Germany heading toward 100% clean electricity, we know it can be done on large regional scales. But we just can’t let go of our excuses. They are real concerns but we need to resolve them and move past them. Being Catholic isn’t always easy. Accepting our role in reducing the effects of climate change as individuals and as countries will be a hard thing for some Catholics to swallow regardless of the Church’s position on the subject.

 

[anthrogirl]

If the Church actively enters the political fray on the side of climate alarmists and the motley crew of leftists and socialists who use the environment as a ploy against a capitalist economy, rational Catholics who have given the issue sober second thought are not indebted to follow the crassly politically exhortations of their church.
The Catholic Faith is based in the Risen Christ, and not homage to Gaia or Marx.

Pope Francis has framed the climate change issue as a life issue and I expect he will continue down that path in his encyclical. The Church sees opposition to its life issues (abortion, suicide, war, death penalty, etc) everyday of the week, even from its own members. People who oppose action on climate change will be no different. The Vatican experts in our Church’s doctrine see climate change as aligned with the Church’s call for life and dignity. People can and will oppose the Church’s stance on this just as we see people opposing the Church on other life issues.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Doesn’t Santorum, the layman, have more “pressing things” than to criticize his religious superior?

Maybe he never got the memo that we are to Pray, pay, and obey.

It’s not that simple. This isn’t an issue of doctrine, and it’s important for everyone to know all sides to an issue before making public statements.

Santorum’s statements here are more than justified, especially with the scandal surrounding man-made climate change.

 

[anthrogirl]

The Democratic party have access to much deeper pockets than the Koch brothers.

The Koch brothers have become a meme for the left to use in order to detract attention away from how deep the pockets that fund them go.

The republicans outspent the democrats in 2012.

“On the presidential level, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign outspent the campaigns of all his Republican rivals put together. Obama’s campaign spent about $737.9 million, compared to the combined Republican total of $624.8 million. Spending by other committees in the presidential race, however, heavily favored Republicans and helped make up the deficit.
The Republican National Committee, for instance, laid out $333.9 million for the presidential contest, far more than the Democratic National Committee‘s $197.8 million. Outside spending by super PACs and politically active nonprofits on the presidential race also came out heavily in favor of Republicans. Conservative outside groups spent $454.5 million to get a Republican elected president, while liberal outside groups spent a relatively paltry $124.5 million.” -Center for Responsive Politics, 2013

 

[SuperLuigi]

Pope Francis has framed the climate change issue as a life issue and I expect he will continue down that path in his encyclical. The Church sees opposition to its life issues (abortion, suicide, war, death penalty, etc) everyday of the week, even from its own members. People who oppose action on climate change will be no different. The Vatican experts in our Church’s doctrine see climate change as aligned with the Church’s call for life and dignity. People can and will oppose the Church’s stance on this just as we see people opposing the Church on other life issues.

Except that the science behind man-made climate change often leads to false conclusions, and actually actions taken to address the imaginary problem of man-made climate change cause more extensive damage to the environment. Alternative energy infrastructure has caused significant damage in many cases.

Climate change (almost all of it is natural) is nowhere near the matter of abortion, and neither is suicide, war or the death penalty. The Church leadership has made that clear many times.

 

[ishii]

The republicans outspent the democrats in 2012.

“On the presidential level, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign outspent the campaigns of all his Republican rivals put together. Obama’s campaign spent about $737.9 million, compared to the combined Republican total of $624.8 million. Spending by other committees in the presidential race, however, heavily favored Republicans and helped make up the deficit.
The Republican National Committee, for instance, laid out $333.9 million for the presidential contest, far more than the Democratic National Committee‘s $197.8 million. Outside spending by super PACs and politically active nonprofits on the presidential race also came out heavily in favor of Republicans. Conservative outside groups spent $454.5 million to get a Republican elected president, while liberal outside groups spent a relatively paltry $124.5 million.” -Center for Responsive Politics, 2013

According to the NY Times, the Obama campaign raised more than the Romney campaign, and spend about the same amount.

According to Politico, Obama campaign raised $1.123 billion to Romney’s $1.019 billion.

I don’t think Hillary will have a money problem in 2016 as she has a host of donors from all parts of the globe. The Clinton’s are a fundraising machine.

elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Pope Francis has framed the climate change issue as a life issue and I expect he will continue down that path in his encyclical. The Church sees opposition to its life issues (abortion, suicide, war, death penalty, etc) everyday of the week, even from its own members. People who oppose action on climate change will be no different. The Vatican experts in our Church’s doctrine see climate change as aligned with the Church’s call for life and dignity. People can and will oppose the Church’s stance on this just as we see people opposing the Church on other life issues.

Sorry anthrogirl. “climate change” is not on par with abortion on the moral gravity scale. If it is though, perhaps you could point out to the specific teaching which states as such.

Ishii

 

[SuperLuigi]

=anthrogirl;13046717]Our pope, educated in science himself, has the premier Pontifical Academy of Science advising him.

So where’s all this when the Pope speaks out against so-called gay “marriage”?

Does Santorum have ready access to preeminent Catholic scientists, including Noble prize winners or does he rely on scientists funded by coal, oil and gas companies?

Sent PM

With Germany heading toward 100% clean electricity, we know it can be done on large regional scales.

Actually, the German dream of solar and wind is crashing down and it cannot be done on regional or large scales because the only form of alternative energy reliable is nuclear, and the same crowd that largely opposes coal, oil and gas doesn’t like nuclear.

They are real concerns but we need to resolve them and move past them.

Does this mean that people are willing to give up the internet and let their CAF accounts go idle?

Also, no more flying to climate conferences or Cancun for spring break, no more fun off-roading trips, no more study abroad, no more traveling for sports—in fact, no more big screen TV for sports. Get ready for black-outs. It’ll be hard for people in hospitals and old people living in the city in the summer, but hey, we’ve all got to make sacrifices for the great utopia of bikes, algae ponds and wind turbines.

Being Catholic isn’t always easy. Accepting our role in reducing the effects of climate change as individuals and as countries will be a hard thing for some Catholics to swallow regardless of the Church’s position on the subject.

Would people be willing to swallow it if it meant handing the entire planet over to Russia, China and ISIS?

Think they’ll join the great climate revolution (reset button), or take advantage of naive liberal First World activism and crush it into the midst of history with one swift stroke?