Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[estesbob]

Shouldn’t we appreciate God’s gifts to us and give continual thanks? And not trash and smash them?

Shouldn’t we be remorseful for our own sins of harming Gods creation and thru that harming people and others of God’s creatures?

Of course we should. None of which is dependent upon us buying into AGW hysteria.

 

[Darryl1958]

Not for every feminist, just saying…

I think in the anecdotal case that Tomarin presented of women in the Northeast, a woman publicly supporting abortion would lose her a lot of friends.

That does not mean that support for women’s rights is incompatible with strong pro-life advocacy. One certainly can be against abortion and the burka at the same time, without contradiction.

 

[bobcrawford]

Shouldn’t we appreciate God’s gifts to us and give continual thanks? And not trash and smash them?

Shouldn’t we be remorseful for our own sins of harming Gods creation and thru that harming people and others of God’s creatures?

Sure we should give thanks.

I do not believe we are harming God’s creation. I do NOT believe we are harming other people through our production, job creation and standard of living.

I DO believe that by cutting back production, making energy so expensive people cannot afford it, taking our generated wealth away through environmental taxes, letting illegals aliens trample sensitive wildlife areas and taking away jobs from citizen minorities, unionization of workers with greedy unyielding demands forcing job relocation to countries without environmental laws, is doing far more harm to people. Those are the sins and the sins of the progressive left.

 

[lynnvinc]

Sure we should give thanks.

I do not believe we are harming God’s creation. I do NOT believe we are harming other people through our production, job creation and standard of living.

I DO believe that by cutting back production, making energy so expensive people cannot afford it, taking our generated wealth away through environmental taxes, letting illegals aliens trample sensitive wildlife areas and taking away jobs from citizen minorities, unionization of workers with greedy unyielding demands forcing job relocation to countries without environmental laws, is doing far more harm to people. Those are the sins and the sins of the progressive left.

We indeed are harming and killing people thru our environmental harms from local pollution to AGW.

The sooner we start mitigating and doing God’s will, the sooner we will find out that the economy can be enhanced by alt forms of energy and doing things. I know of which I speak.

An archaeological example: Around the eastern Mediterranean they were using slave labor to cut down trees and build ships. Due to using up the forests, they were forced to find a new way to do things, so instead of using logs and chiseling and shaping them into curved forms, pegging them together, they started by building the frame first, then cutting many boards from the logs, and bent them to fit the frame. That saved a lot of wood and was less slave-labor intensive, AND these new types of lighter ships were more sea-worthy to go out into the ocean and eventually cross to the New World.

Env regs sort of serve the same function, and I have several stories of companies faced with upcoming regs searching for least-cost solutions, then actually findings solutions that saved them money and help their business. 3M’s 3P (Pollution Prevention Pays) program ended putting them well below the new env regs AND saving them $billions, when at first they thought they’d be paying huge amounts to meet upcoming regs. The CEO then asked why they hadn’t done that before, since it saved them money, and they said it wasn’t put to them that way (finding least cost solutions to env regs).

We need to trust in God, and He will show us the way. Many prayers are needed, but we need to start the journey and take that first baby steps.

A good read is NATURAL CAPITALISM - chocked full of ideas that both save the earth AND save $$ and strengthen the economy: natcap.org/

Internet searches will bring more ideas and ways to both help the earth and help our economy.

God is with us always and may He bless us all abundantly.

 

[bobcrawford]

We indeed are harming and killing people thru our environmental harms from local pollution to AGW.

The sooner we start mitigating and doing God’s will, the sooner we will find out that the economy can be enhanced by alt forms of energy and doing things. I know of which I speak.

An archaeological example: Around the eastern Mediterranean they were using slave labor to cut down trees and build ships. Due to using up the forests, they were forced to find a new way to do things, so instead of using logs and chiseling and shaping them into curved forms, pegging them together, they started by building the frame first, then cutting many boards from the logs, and bent them to fit the frame. That saved a lot of wood and was less slave-labor intensive, AND these new types of lighter ships were more sea-worthy to go out into the ocean and eventually cross to the New World.

Env regs sort of serve the same function, and I have several stories of companies faced with upcoming regs searching for least-cost solutions, then actually findings solutions that saved them money and help their business. 3M’s 3P (Pollution Prevention Pays) program ended putting them well below the new env regs AND saving them $billions, when at first they thought they’d be paying huge amounts to meet upcoming regs. The CEO then asked why they hadn’t done that before, since it saved them money, and they said it wasn’t put to them that way (finding least cost solutions to env regs).

We need to trust in God, and He will show us the way. Many prayers are needed, but we need to start the journey and take that first baby steps.

A good read is NATURAL CAPITALISM - chocked full of ideas that both save the earth AND save $$ and strengthen the economy: natcap.org/

Internet searches will bring more ideas and ways to both help the earth and help our economy.

God is with us always and may He bless us all abundantly.

I don’t dispute what you are saying at all. Not polluting, using our resources wisely are all good things. That is what the Pope should be talking about. But instead he had to adopt what is really a political agenda for wealth redistribution. The Pope is all about taking money from rich counties and giving it to poor countries. The reality is the United States is not rich at all and is massively in debt due to social programs being funded with money we do not have and will never have.

And remember, the Muslim Terrorists also believe that it is God’s will for them to kill and murder, destroy and plunder. They also believe that in doing this they are being blessed and that God is with them and showing them the way. We believe we are the one true church, guided by the Holy Spirit. They also believe Islam is the one true faith and guided by God.

Someone is wrong. You response is probably that the Muslims are wrong and the Pope is always right. What would be the response of Islam?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Sure we should give thanks.

I do not believe we are harming God’s creation. I do NOT believe we are harming other people through our production, job creation and standard of living.

I DO believe that by cutting back production, making energy so expensive people cannot afford it, taking our generated wealth away through environmental taxes, letting illegals aliens trample sensitive wildlife areas and taking away jobs from citizen minorities, unionization of workers with greedy unyielding demands forcing job relocation to countries without environmental laws, is doing far more harm to people. Those are the sins and the sins of the progressive left.

You are correct.

The pope’s prescriptions for problems that don’t exist will harm millions of people.

 

[zz912]

Seriously, I was always taught that Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to what the Holy Father has to say in a papal encyclical.

Only when he’s speaking on faith and morals. The myth of global warming is not faith and morals, so Catholics are free to disagree with his opinion on the matter.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You are correct.

The pope’s prescriptions for problems that don’t exist will harm millions of people.

You mean China doesn’t have a pollution problem? And it is not a moral issue?

 

[zz912]

The question of whether excess CO2 produced through human activity is warming the planet is settled with a definite YES. I suppose you will understand that climate prediction is a bit more complex than predicting the movement of a ball.

Pope Francis’ view on Climate Change is not his “personal opinion”, but based on scientific consensus. That alone should tell you where we stand on Climate Change. Pope Francis is not likely to take the risk of being proven wrong and humiliate the Church.

If it is settled, then why isn’t the earth warming for the last two decades? In fact the most up to date measuring stations show a general cooling over that period.

And it doesn’t matter how many people believe the scientific consensus, it is still a question of science, and that is not the purview of declaring something infallible.

And I predict this encyclical will be used by Protestants 50-100 years from now to argue against the infallibility of the Pope after this hoax has been definitively disproven. And Catholics at that time will have their work cut out for them explaining how those portions of the encyclical were never infallible teachings.

 

[zz912]

On economic issues, I don’t see any of his policies that would violate Church teaching on Socialism.

For example, he is for cutting back on tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals. While that may be imprudent, that does not violate Church teaching.

Similarly, he strongly favors spending more on medicare and social security, while I would argue that is extremely imprudent, most on these forums would not argue that these programs violate Church teaching.

So, while on abortion and gay marriage he is against Church teaching, on the issue of socialism, there does not seem to be any policy position that he advocates that would violate Church teaching.

He advocates for single payer healthcare, and a host of other social programs, all run at the federal level. That alone violates the teaching on subsidiarity. There’s no excuse for any of these programs to be run at the federal level.

 

[zz912]

There have only been two infallible teachings, both about Mary.

There have been only two “ex-cathedra” proclamations, but all of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals are infallible.

 

[Micosil]

There have been only two “ex-cathedra” proclamations, but all of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals are infallible.

Depends.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma#Theological_certainties

Only de fide and fides ecclesiastica teachings are, in the strict sense, infallible, as the term is usually defined and understood. Of course, this doesn’t mean everything else is up for grabs or dissent is welcome – they do still require submission.

 

[zz912]

Does that mean we can ignore the Church’s scientific opinion about the Pill? Or when life begins?

The Church doesn’t proclaim a scientific opinion about the Pill. It teaches that artificial birth control is sinful.

And the Church, even when it did not know when exactly life began in the womb, still taught that any interference or termination of a potential human was sinful. If in the future science were to find that “life” begins two days after conception, the Church would still teach that it would be wrong to terminate the potential life of a conceived embryo.

 

[zz912]

He just did. As the years progress with warming taking place and finally scientists have to admit they were wrong it will take generations for them to regain their credibility and when people criticize the church they will always mention Gallileo and the global warming fiasco.

Absolutely right. A lot of people who were willing to give the benefit of the doubt to this Pope are really turned off by this encyclical. And make no mistake about it, this encyclical will be used as a weapon by some Protestants against the Church.

 

[zz912]

This is true. On the other hand, there are those on the other side who claim that these tax and regulation schemes are socialism. That is equally as false as saying we must support tax and regulatory schemes. There is a lot of misinformation on both sides of this debate.

The socialists of today have learned from their past mistakes. They failed when they tried to implement socialism through revolution in the West. Instead they have changed tactics, and now push it through creeping incrementalism. Little by little, through regulation, govt control, govt spending, taxation and other means, they are bringing all of society under the control of govt.

Now if their final end result is communism, fascism, or some other form of socialism, the end result is still socialism in some form, which is oppressive govt control and size over most/all of life.

 

[stinkcat_14]

He advocates for single payer healthcare, and a host of other social programs, all run at the federal level. That alone violates the teaching on subsidiarity. There’s no excuse for any of these programs to be run at the federal level.

Yet, Canada has a similar program and the Church has not condemned it. The UK has a similar program and the Church has not condemned it. The Church has never ruled that national health insurance programs violate subsidiarity, that is still an open question. Reasonable people can debate whether health insurance should be provided by the federal government, state government or the private sector.

The thing I find amusing is that the people on these forums who scream the most about welfare programs violating subsidiarity tend to get very silent when the question of social security and medicare violating subsidiarity is raised.

 

[zz912]

How do I know which is which? I am not a Church scholar.

One quick way, pull out your Catechism. If what is being discussed isn’t in the Catechism, start with the assumption that it isn’t infallible.

On this encyclical, we would see in the Catechism that it notes we must be good stewards of the earth, so those parts are reaffirming Church teaching.

On the issue of global warming theory, it’s nowhere to be found in the Catechism. So it is the opinion of the Pope on a matter of science ,and is not infallible.

 

[zz912]

There is a difference between a party which acknowledges that to even suggest reforms to medicare or SS is political suicide at this point, and a party which enthusiastically embraces the expansion of those programs. ** I am not sure of the wisdom of continuing a discussion with someone who cannot recognize that distinction**.

Another difference: W Bush received a lot of criticism from his own part for his expansion of Medicare, and indeed Republicans perceive Jeb as being more of a “big govt” guy, and for that reason want nothing to do with him. Is there anyone in the Democratic party which doesn’t want any part of Hillary because of her big government philosophy? No. The parties are different. In the Republican party there is a debate. Many of course want to reign in spending and the size of government. The Democratic party sees expanding government as the source of its power. Big difference, which you do not acknowledge.

Another thing you don’t acknowledge is my point about the healthcare debate: the Democratic party voted 100% for Obamacare. The Republican party voted 100% against it. That seems to be a huge difference. Of course that doesn’t fit your narrative so you ignore it. Again - not much point in continuing if you keep sticking to a false narrative.

Ishii

 

[SonOfMan]

On the issue of global warming theory, it’s nowhere to be found in the Catechism. So it is the opinion of the Pope on a matter of science ,and is not infallible.

And if the CCC gets a revision to include climate change, then all Catholics have to follow what that says, correct?

 

[zz912]

Santorum is a politician, is again running for president and last week criticized a papal encyclical. He is also Catholic. The views he expressed are what they are, which is to say that rather than giving silent internal assent to a teaching of the Catholic Church he publicly opposed it. I see this as a test of discipline and obedience. Santorum failed.

Santorum, and all Catholics, are free to disagree with the political and scientific views of the Pope. They are under no obligation to remain silent about their disagreement with his opinions. Your aspersions towards him and others is unbecoming.

Ideologues, whatever their political persuasion, view the world through a prism. This is why, for example, they typically seem unable to accept the teaching that both abortion and capital punishment are immoral. This holds true whatever the political persuasion.

The Church doesn’t teach that capital punishment is intrinsically immoral. It allows for capital punishment in some circumstances. Please don’t misrepresent Church teaching.

But for Catholics, these are properly religious rather than political issues, and one either does or does not assent to the teachings of the Church.

The poltical/scientific opinion of the Pope on global warming is not Church teaching. Please don’t misrepresent Church teaching. All Catholics are free to disagree with the Pope’s opinion on the matter.

Your repeated attempts to portray this issue as Church teaching, and to misrepresent Church teaching, comes across to some as political ideology instead of the Catholic faith. You seem to be failing your own proscription against being an ideologue.