Pope Francis draws criticism from some conservative Catholics over stances on economy, environment, social issues

[anthony022071]

newsday.com/news/new-york/pope-francis-visit/pope-francis-draws-criticism-from-some-conservative-catholics-over-stances-on-economy-environment-social-stances-1.10770830

…A Gallup poll released last month showed Francis losing support among conservative Catholics. It found his favorable rating among them fell from 72 percent last year to 45 percent in July. His favorable rating among all Catholics dropped from 89 percent to 71 percent.

The decline among conservatives “may be attributable to the pope’s denouncing of ‘the idolatry of money’ and linking climate change partially to human activity, along with his passionate focus on income inequality – all issues that are at odds with many conservatives’ beliefs,” the Gallup poll analysis said. [Conservative Catholics don’t idolize money]

For conservative Catholics, broadly defined by experts such as Fordham University theology professor James McCartin as people who attend Mass regularly and support the church’s teachings on birth control, same-sex marriage and other issues, taking on the pope is not easy.

“It’s a very uncomfortable position to be in for a faithful Catholic,” said Elizabeth Yore, a Chicago-based advocate for children who attended a Vatican meeting in Rome last year about human trafficking. "In my lifetime I’ve never had a concern about the papacy, the direction of the papacy . . .

“There’s a reluctance of faithful Catholics to criticize the pope because we’ve never done it before,” said Yore, who was a teenager in the 1960s when the church went through its last major liberal reform. “It’s a new situation for conservative Catholics.” …

…“We always felt under John Paul II and Benedict XVI that at least the pope has got your back. That feeling . . . for the last couple of years has really begun to leave,” said John-Henry Westen, 44, co-founder of Voice of the Family, a conservative international religious group that runs a website based in Front Royal, Virginia…

…Robert Miller, 44, a Roman Catholic from Sayville who grew up in St. Aidan’s parish in Williston Park and graduated from Chaminade High School in Mineola, said that "adopting a bunch of very, very controversial positions on the environment, on economics, on the causes of certain economic conditions in a papal encyclical, and lending the prestige of the Roman pontiff to this, in my opinion is a very dangerous idea . . .

“If the church starts talking about things that are beyond its competence, it’s likely to get them wrong. And that brings the church into disrepute and causes people to think the church doesn’t know what it’s talking about on any matter whatsoever,” said Miller, a law professor who splits his time between New York University and the University of Iowa. “It also causes dissension in the church when some Catholics mistakenly think they are required to agree with the opinions of the pope on matters unrelated to faith and morals.” …

 

[Billy112]

Is there really much he says that has not been said by pontiffs before him? I don’t mean this as a criticism but it seems as if many think Pope Francis is this huge reformer who’s going to change the entire Church when it seems to me that he has not said anything contrary to the Catechism or to what Holy Fathers before him have said. Many of his comments are horribly distorted by the media, which I hate to see because it’s extremely frustrating to have one thing you say distorted one time, let alone loads of things you say distorted over and over.

 

[Neofight]

The Pope is not losing support from Catholics, he is losing support from CINOs (Catholics in Name Only), a small but vocal group who are unable, or unwilling to separate faith from politics.

 

[zz912]

The Pope is not losing support from Catholics, he is losing support from CINOs (Catholics in Name Only), a small but vocal group who are unable, or unwilling to separate faith from politics.

People who are 100% faithful to Catholic doctrine, who disagree with the Pope’s political opinions, are CINO’s???



When did the Pope become impeccable?

 

[Lucretius]

There’s a reluctance of faithful Catholics to criticize the pope because we’ve never done it before," said Yore, who was a teenager in the 1960s when the church went through its last major liberal reform. “It’s a new situation for conservative Catholics.”

Faithful Catholics have been critizing the Pope since Saint Peter. Have you read the Letter to Galatians? What about Dante’s Inferno?

The Pope is not infallible regarding scientific issues such as Climate Change (St. Francis is just following the majority Scientific opinion, of which he probably only has a mediocre understanding, although that doesn’t make it necessarily correct). However, he speaks with Christ when he criticizes Mammon and " the rich."

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Augustine, pray for us!

 

[Neofight]

People who are 100% faithful to Catholic doctrine, who disagree with the Pope’s political opinions, are CINO’s???



When did the Pope become impeccable?

The fallacy lies in the fact that his statements (and granted, opinion) are not politically but theologically motivated…and by the CINOs, theological perspectives are overshadowed by their political prospectives…Francis speaks from the Good News of the Gospel rather than the opinionated news of FOX and MSNBC.

 

[lynnvinc]

newsday.com/news/new-york/pope-francis-visit/pope-francis-draws-criticism-from-some-conservative-catholics-over-stances-on-economy-environment-social-stances-1.10770830

…A Gallup poll released last month showed Francis losing support among conservative Catholics. It found his favorable rating among them fell from 72 percent last year to 45 percent in July. His favorable rating among all Catholics dropped from 89 percent to 71 percent.

The decline among conservatives “may be attributable to the pope’s denouncing of ‘the idolatry of money’ and linking climate change partially to human activity, along with his passionate focus on income inequality – all issues that are at odds with many conservatives’ beliefs,” the Gallup poll analysis said. [Conservative Catholics don’t idolize money]

For conservative Catholics, broadly defined by experts such as Fordham University theology professor James McCartin as people who attend Mass regularly and support the church’s teachings on birth control, same-sex marriage and other issues, taking on the pope is not easy…

This is sort of weird, bec I know Catholics, esp the religious, have been into self-denial and leading ascetic and simples lives AND have been into helping correct social problems for the past 2000 years.

When I became a Catholic in 1969, things like abortion and same-sex marriage were not prominent issues back then, and what attracted me from the Protestant to Catholic religion was the social justice aspect – the socially liberal, rather than conservative (less taxes, let the poor & sick take care of themselves) way of thinking. It was actually the Bible that helped me become a Catholic – I came to understand Catholicism was closer to the teachings of Jesus.

So in my books Pope Francis is really terrific, very close to Jesus, and able to communicate and engage people really well. And there isn’t really anything he is saying that JPII or BXVI have not said before – I thought they were terrific too.

So what I’m thinking is the “conservative Catholics” were just able to better ignore JPII and BXVI. And the problem with Pope Francis for such Catholics is it’s just a lot more difficult to ignore him.

 

[zz912]

The fallacy lies in the fact that his statements (and granted, opinion) are not politically but theologically motivated…and by the CINOs, theological perspectives are overshadowed by their political prospectives…Francis speaks from the Good News of the Gospel rather than the opinionated news of FOX and MSNBC.

The Pope’s opinion on global warming is just that. An opinion. And his opinion on public policy is just that, an opinion. Catholics are free to disagree with it.

The left rejects Church teaching, the right disagrees with personal opinions of this particular Pope. There’s a fundamental difference.

 

[Neofight]

The Pope’s opinion on global warming is just that. An opinion. And his opinion on public policy is just that, an opinion. Catholics are free to disagree with it.

The left rejects Church teaching, the right disagrees with personal opinions of this particular Pope. There’s a fundamental difference.

There is a fundamental similarity, namely both the right and left twist his message to justify their political views.

 

[Murmurs]

The left rejects Church teaching, the right disagrees with personal opinions of this particular Pope. There’s a fundamental difference.

The left rejects the truth of the Church on some social issues; the right rejects the truth of science on some environmental issues. It’s the same kind of rejection, but expressed in different directions (I think anyway!)

For conservative Catholics, broadly defined by experts such as Fordham University theology professor James McCartin as people who attend Mass regularly and support the church’s teachings on birth control, same-sex marriage and other issues, taking on the pope is not easy.

Isn’t that definition not of a conservative Catholic, but, sort of…just…an actual Catholic?

I mean even where one (or I, anyway) might recognise the possibility of an alternative line of thinking (e.g. regarding the ordination of women - please don’t attack me for it!) - it doesn’t mean one (or I) either articulates that possibility in a vociferous way such as to bring scandal to the Church, or would do anything other than strive to uphold and where it applies to me, practice, what is taught (because it’s Truth). There’s a difference between a faithful Catholic who might allow for the possibility of another way of thinking, but upholds what is taught because she trusts in the truth of the Church’s teaching…and someone who flagrantly disregards the Church’s teaching because they don’t find it very convenient for their own life?



Still, I think what some people object to is being reminded we have a duty to help the poor a little more, both by works of charity according to our ability, but also by working for a social and economic system that doesn’t add to the problem of poverty further. I think it is annoyance (because plenty of conservatives like plenty of liberals, are very generously charitable) from some, and perhaps a little nagging (and well deserved!) guilt, from others?

 

[ringil]

Some Conservatives do seem a bit “squirmy”. I definitely see it around here.

Personally, I have loved all the Popes of my 39 years. Every Pope has something to teach us.

 

[ringil]

There is a fundamental similarity, namely both the right and left twist his message to justify their political views.

Absolutely.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

The Pope is not losing support from Catholics, he is losing support from CINOs (Catholics in Name Only), a small but vocal group who are unable, or unwilling to separate faith from politics.

I was not a fan of Pope Alexander VI; he seemed to be a very immoral man who loved having children out of wedlock. Does that make me a CINO too? Please.

Faithful Catholics adhere to absolute Church teachings and doctrines. Topics that allow for a nuanced discussion lime how to be stewards of the environment or how best to care for the poor allow for a broad range of options.

Topics like whether or not two guys can marry do not allow for opinion - the Church has spoken.

People can not like someone and still be faithful to them. Just ask Hillary Clinton.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

We should not make the mistake of looking at the pope as a political figure. That is not his role, as I am sure that he would agree.

 

[kozlosap]

This is sort of weird, bec I know Catholics, esp the religious, have been into self-denial and leading ascetic and simples lives AND have been into helping correct social problems for the past 2000 years.

When I became a Catholic in 1969, things like abortion and same-sex marriage were not prominent issues back then, and what attracted me from the Protestant to Catholic religion was the social justice aspect – the socially liberal, rather than conservative (less taxes, let the poor & sick take care of themselves) way of thinking. It was actually the Bible that helped me become a Catholic – I came to understand Catholicism was closer to the teachings of Jesus.

So in my books Pope Francis is really terrific, very close to Jesus, and able to communicate and engage people really well. And there isn’t really anything he is saying that JPII or BXVI have not said before – I thought they were terrific too.

So what I’m thinking is the “conservative Catholics” were just able to better ignore JPII and BXVI. And the problem with Pope Francis for such Catholics is it’s just a lot more difficult to ignore him.

I agree. From the moment he accepted his fate in the Sistine Chapel, he has tried, quite successfully, to emulate what Jesus taught in the Gospels. He espouses bringing people together instead of shutting some out.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

The left rejects the truth of the Church on some social issues; the right rejects the truth of science on some environmental issues. It’s the same kind of rejection, but expressed in different directions (I think anyway!)

The obvious and glaring difference is that even IF we assumed for a second that the science you refer to was 100% settled, you are saying the right rejects the truth of nature, and the left rejects the Truth of the Holy Spirit on key social issues.

How are they even close to the same level of disobedieance to the Church?

For arguments sake, let’s pretend the science you speak of was indisputable

I’d much rather be

1. a man who doesn’t believe in gravity but swears by the Church’s teachings on life and morality, and dies jumping off a cliff, knowing I’ll end up in Heaven

than

1. a man who can quote you the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration due to earth’s gravity to the 37th decimal point, yet who thinks two-men can be married.

Not believing science won’t get you into Hell; not believing God’s teachings on life could. So why compare them?

 

[sallybutler]

The obvious and glaring difference is that even IF we assumed for a second that the science you refer to was 100% settled, you are saying the right rejects the truth of nature, and the left rejects the Truth of the Holy Spirit on key social issues.

How are they even close to the same level of disobedieance to the Church?

For arguments sake, let’s pretend the science you speak of was indisputable

I’d much rather be

1. a man who doesn’t believe in gravity but swears by the Church’s teachings on life and morality, and dies jumping off a cliff, knowing I’ll end up in Heaven

than

1. a man who can quote you the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration due to earth’s gravity to the 37th decimal point, yet who thinks two-men can be married.

Not believing science won’t get you into Hell; not believing God’s teachings on life could. So why compare them?

But why can’t you believe in gravity and in the Church’s teachings? I don’t think they are mutally exclusive.

 

[Murmurs]

The obvious and glaring difference is that even IF we assumed for a second that the science you refer to was 100% settled, you are saying the right rejects the truth of nature, and the left rejects the Truth of the Holy Spirit on key social issues.

Well it’s settled unless the truth is too uncomfortable, in which case people are free to ignore it, however foolishly (much like what the Church teaches, in fact).

How are they even close to the same level of disobedieance to the Church?

For arguments sake, let’s pretend the science you speak of was indisputable

I’d much rather be

1. a man who doesn’t believe in gravity but swears by the Church’s teachings on life and morality, and dies jumping off a cliff, knowing I’ll end up in Heaven

than

1. a man who can quote you the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration due to earth’s gravity to the 37th decimal point, yet who thinks two-men can be married.

Not believing science won’t get you into Hell; not believing God’s teachings on life could. So why compare them?

I do understand what you’re saying, but a)

But why can’t you believe in gravity and in the Church’s teachings? I don’t think they are mutally exclusive.

and obviously that goes for how we impact the climate, too.

(b) “Rejecting the truth of nature” is exactly what more liberally-minded people are accused of doing with regards same-sex marriage, so unless the right/conservatives want to appear a tad hypocritical, it’s best to let, yanno, the consensus of experts speak on it. (And it is a consensus, with some outliers; it’s not like it’s a 50-50 or even 75-25 split on the issue. And if the vast majority are wrong, it still won’t have hurt to clean up our act anyway, so really it’s a no-brainer, though I digress). And yes I admit I coined the phrase in my previous post but it’s basically the same idea.

(c) I’d much rather spend less time concerned about where I will ‘end up’, and more time ensuring that I do the best I can for the most I can, now, which is what Christ calls us to do. And then trust to His mercy in judgement in which I do absolutely.

I know what the Church teaches; I support what the Church teaches, and strive to uphold it even when my lack of understanding sometimes means I don’t quite get why it is what the Church teaches - but I do sometimes wonder if this rather legalistic approach to our salvation (“ensure we do what the Church says we should, and strenuously avoid doing what the Church says we shouldn’t”), isn’t kind of the attitude Christ warned about in Matt. 23… (an observation which I in no way direct at you personally, it’s just what thinking on what you wrote caused the idea to spring into mind ).

We’re called to look out for others as well as ourselves, and actively working against efforts to help the poor (rather than being constructively critical, which is what the right always used to do with some success), and denying the blatant truth of how our actions are adversing affecting the world we’re meant to be stewards of for future generations, and instead being primarily concerned with Following the Rules, isn’t very helpful in attaining that.

 

[ringil]

I was not a fan of Pope Alexander VI; he seemed to be a very immoral man who loved having children out of wedlock. Does that make me a CINO too? Please.

Faithful Catholics adhere to absolute Church teachings and doctrines. Topics that allow for a nuanced discussion lime how to be stewards of the environment or how best to care for the poor allow for a broad range of options.

Topics like whether or not two guys can marry do not allow for opinion - the Church has spoken.

People can not like someone and still be faithful to them. Just ask Hillary Clinton.

I feel sorry for any Catholic who doesn’t like a Pope. That must be a heavy burden to bear.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I feel sorry for any Catholic who doesn’t like a Pope. That must be a heavy burden to bear.

I suspect not really. Pope’s come and go. There are lots of people others do not like. As long as one is obedient, prays for the Pope and his intentions, and adheres to Church teachings and doctrines, I am sure what liking them has to do with anything.

Like I said, I probably wouldn’t have liked Pope Alexander VI. I doubt anyone is a fan of adulterers, and those who break their vows and sire children as supposedly celibate Pontiffs. But that just me