Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stinkcat_14 said:
Then we should always vote for truly pro-life candidates, not pro-abortion candidates, right?
Click to expand...
The most viable, pro-life candidate available and that was Romney. The difference between Obama and Romney on the issue was night and day. A no-brainer.

Ishii
 
Thomas_White said:
The real problem occurs when candidates like Bush and Santorum introduce the “religious realm” into politics, which has been their wont whenever it suits their political ends. There is nothing new with these latest announcements.
Click to expand...
stinkcat_14 said:
They might, of course, we will never know. Politicians on average will say anything to get elected and don’t have a good reputation for honesty. So they might believe what they say and they might not, there is no real way to tell, except for after the fact, and by then it is too late.
Click to expand...
In the case of Santorum I think its fair to say that the man has walked the walk when it comes to his faith and I would hope no one would call into question his faith or say that he just uses his faith to get votes, etc. There is a way to tell and that is to look at how they live their life. I think we should be very careful to question the faith of anyone, including Santorum or Bush. I don’t think we’d like anyone questioning our faith.

Ishii
 
Santorum is voicing the concerns of many informed Catholics who know the science on global warming has been fudged. Scientists who don’t follow the party line are blackballed, as was Lord Monckton at the Vatican meetings on this issue. Some future generation will once again have to listen to the Catholic Church being ridiculed and condemned because they didn’t get it right on a matter of science. Why isn’t the pope sticking to faith? If he would teach the FAITH and encourage people to keep the commandments, then the environment, the economy, and all the rest would fall into place.
 
Jeb seems to think that since he’s catholic now, he can publicly reject the teachings of the Holy Father, how stupid! Even GWB wouldn’t have said this, at least he respects the Pope.
 
It is unusual for politicians to take on the pope in a no holds barred bare knuckle brawl.
No pope in modern history has been perceived as a purely political animal.
But the left have taken Francis under their wings, and that is just how this next campaign is going to be fought.

It is actually good for the Church in a way, and ironically it the kind of ‘question authority’ attitude that Francis encouraged that is coming to the fore. He is the authority that is being questioned.

In another way, the crass politicization of the office of Vicar of Christ is something that most other popes have avoided. Certainly John Paul II developed a good working relationship with Reagan in their common battle against communism, but communism is pure evil so that was not really even politics. Further, John Paul II was a harsh critic of the horror of consumerism, so nobody mistook him for being under the protective wing of the Republicans, nor they under his wings. He remained very much outside of the reach of the crass political fights of the day, and politicians of all stripes respected him for as much.
From the beginning of his ministry PF1 on the other hand has either been a willing or unwitting tool of leftists. His words were used from the beginning to take potshots at the religious Catholic right, whether fairly or through misquotes, and for his part, he never toned it down so that this would not happen.
He is perceived to be part of the Democratic campaign now, and Republicans are treating him just like they would any other Democrat.
 
estesbob said:
You should always vote for the most pro-life viable candidate in the race .

"You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion."He adds that voters "may in some circumstances, where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country. But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone

Cardinel Burke
Click to expand...
So, the question is, ignoring the fact that the Church says nothing about viability, what is a viable candidate?
 
ucfengr said:
Well, yeah, it kind of does. What do you propose to replace fossil fuels with that doesn’t involve significant environmental degradation? Rare earth metals don’t grow on trees, they have to be mined. If we’re going to have to accept some level of environmental degradation to provide power, we may as well accept the one that has the virtue of being relatively cheap and reliable, which is fossil fuels.

Producing energy involves some dirt. There’s no real way to get around it. You may be able to get cheaper, but it’s not going to be cleaner or renewable, unless you’re willing to give up reliability.
Click to expand...
Oh I’m not disputing that mining silicon or uranium or anything else that might be used in non-carbon based energy production isn’t great (and that’s an understatement) for the environment. Cutting down trees for firewood isn’t great either, so it’s about profit-loss analysis in terms of what impacts our environment (and our climate, but as there are some ostriches about we can even ignore climate change itself if you prefer). Mining uranium for nuclear power is absolutely “dirty”. Using that mined uranium for power generation is significantly less dirty than burning coal. (For that matter burning gas is much less dirty than burning coal. Coal has a Victorian romance about it but is pretty much the worst thing you can use for energy).

Just because something is cheap doesn’t mean it’s the best option. (Buy the cheapest shoes you can fit into and see what happens to your feet if you only wear them for a while).

If we’re going to have to accept some level of environmental degradation to provide power, we should accept the one that has the virtue of being the least degrading, because in the long run we will all be very much better off for it.

Ignore climate science if one likes. It doesn’t change the catastrophic local and global environmental impacts (nor does it get round the problem that we need to give up on fossil fuels anyway at some point, given we’ll have used them all up).
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If feeding plants were the only consequence of higher CO2 levels, this argument might be somewhat compelling. But you have not even addressed the many serious claims of adverse effects, as if these improvements in the growth of some plants makes up for all those adverse effects.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Even if it were entirely true that CO2 production just “feeds plants” (which is a really nice idea actually), it doesn’t “feed” all plants uniformly. What will benefit are algal blooms in the oceans (ok algae involves more than just “plants” as we commonly think of them). They also (contrary to immediate logic, i know) measurably reduce oxygen content in the water which is immensely harmful to aquatic animal life. (More prosaically, they can simply suffocate fish who come to the surface)/

If we were to plant truckloads of trees everywhere (particularly in the equitorial regions, but everywhere really), it would probably be more beneficial. Human beings compound their local and global environmental and climatic impact by massive deforestation. If only trees gave out free WiFi, there would be millions planted every day. Too bad they only produce the air we breathe.
 
Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur," Francis writes.
Click to expand...
Political conservatives (or libertarians who identify as conservatives) traditionally embrace a notion called “living within your means.” I don’t understand why this notion only seems to apply to taxation and spending. It’s a solid notion that should apply to our use of the planet’s resources as well.

It seems our society is hyperventilating and spiraling out of control. We need to slow down.

I hope Santorum wins the GOP nod, as I truly believe he is a genuine man of faith who actually lives out his faith. Pro-environment is pro-life, and Santorum could well unite those two messages in unison with Pope Francis.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If feeding plants were the only consequence of higher CO2 levels, this argument might be somewhat compelling. But you have not even addressed the many serious claims of adverse effects, as if these improvements in the growth of some plants makes up for all those adverse effects.
Click to expand...
The claims don’t match actual temperature data. The warming is consistent with the trend without any allowance for CO2.
 
ringil said:
Most don’t actually bash the Pope they just say “prudential judgment” and move on with their lives- that is until a document or comment comes out of the Vatican which they politically approve of. 😉
Click to expand...
His comments thus far merit criticism, with or without an encyclical,
 
stinkcat_14 said:
So, the question is, ignoring the fact that the Church says nothing about viability, what is a viable candidate?
Click to expand...
In 99% of all races the Democrat or Republican nominee . Voting for a non-viable candidate is not a violation of church teaching at all. If, however, one proclaims to be pro-life it is a meaningless gesture that does nothing to advance a cause and actually helps empower those who would keep abortion legal.
 
Tony_Micelli said:
Jeb seems to think that since he’s catholic now, he can publicly reject the teachings of the Holy Father, how stupid! Even GWB wouldn’t have said this, at least he respects the Pope.
Click to expand...
What teachings of the Church has Jeb Bush rejected ?
 
estesbob said:
What teachings of the Church has Jeb Bush rejected ?
Click to expand...
It appears that many Catholic democrats on here are trying to paint this Encyclical as an infallible teaching. They once again are searching for a way to ease their conscience because deep down they know they are aiding in promoting abortion by so blindly defending for their party.

From stanthonymessenger.org/AskAFranciscan/Question.aspx?Question=176

‘Is Every Encyclical Infallible?’ The short answer is no.

About Papal infallibility from here catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Bush should have simply responded that since the media twists the Pope’s words so much, he was going to wait to comment.
 
Murmurs said:
Just because something is cheap doesn’t mean it’s the best option. (Buy the cheapest shoes you can fit into and see what happens to your feet if you only wear them for a while).

If we’re going to have to accept some level of environmental degradation to provide power, we should accept the one that has the virtue of being the least degrading, because in the long run we will all be very much better off for it.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said “cheap and reliable” and not just “cheap”. All the available “clean, renewable” alternatives are neither cheap nor reliable, and for that matter, they’re not all that clean. You can’t claim to care about the poor while at the same time increasing substantially the cost of energy.
Murmurs said:
Ignore climate science if one likes. It doesn’t change the catastrophic local and global environmental impacts (nor does it get round the problem that we need to give up on fossil fuels anyway at some point, given we’ll have used them all up).
Click to expand...
I might be less inclined to ignore climate science if there was any evidence that the “parade of horribles” they predict showed any sign of coming to fruition. Among other things, we were told that Hurricane Katrina and “Superstorm Sandy” would be the norm, but they haven’t been. The truth is both storms were only notable because of where they came inland, not because they were unusually powerful. Science is supposed to be the search for objective truth, but in a culture where objective truth is attacked, science becomes useless as a tool.
 
dcs said:
I don’t usually agree with Santorum but it’s hard to argue with him here. When bishops are openly supporting homosexual unions or allowing those in irregular marriages to receive Holy Communion it’s obvious that there are more pressing problems than climate change.
Click to expand...
It is** not **hard to avoid trying to second guess the Holy Father. Most Catholics do it quite well. Oh, and slandering bishops is also something most Catholics avoid easily.
 
estesbob said:
In 99% of all races the Democrat or Republican nominee . Voting for a non-viable candidate is not a violation of church teaching at all. If, however, one proclaims to be pro-life it is a meaningless gesture that does nothing to advance a cause and actually helps empower those who would keep abortion legal.
Click to expand...
Voting for an ideal candidate is an expression of what you would like to happen, even if you don’t have the power personally to bring that about. Praying the rosary is also an expression of desires we do not have the power to fulfill on our own. I would not say that praying the rosary is a meaningless gesture. So why is voting for the ideal candidate a meaningless gesture?
 
I think many so-called environmentalists on the left would also be challenged by it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top