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

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

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

No one said you couldn’t. But to conflate disagreeing with science and disagreeing with infallible teachings that could jeopardize your immortal soul are two different things, and not worthy of comparison.

The Church’s teachings on life, the unborn, and marriage are infaalible and not up for debate. Never, ever, will be.

The Church’s recommendation for stewardship of the environment is worthy of prudent consideration, and stopping short of endorsing the science, should be heeded. The is not a shred of infallibility in the belief in GW, even if one fervently believes it is going on.

 

[ringil]

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

The difference is that we don’t live in the Renaissance.

All of our Popes for the last 150 years AT LEAST, have been exceedingly holy men worthy of the esteem of the faithful.

 

[Latias]

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.

That cannot happen due to the presence of localized gravitational anomalies (which ballistic missiles have to account for in order to reduce the circle probable error of the weapons). I doubt the value is precise if it is defined at sea-level.

 

[Lucretius]

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?

I once heard of a Saintly man who converted due to reading anti-evolution books. Faith doesn’t work against reason, quite the opposite, but us more educated people must understand the Scandal that the Gospel is for everyone, not just Elite Scholars. We aren’t Gnostics!

Since it St. Augustine’s day, I would like to mention that one of his challenges to accepting the Gospel was accepting its weak rhetorical style.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Augustine, pray for us!

 

[anthony022071]

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?

For the sake of clarity we should distinguish between natural realities and scientific theories,and between theories that can be proven or at least are reasonable and can’t be proven and are not reasonable. Everyone is subject to gravity and experiences it so we all believe that it is real,and the scientific measurements of its effects can be tested. But scientific theories about the origins of things make claims about about natural history that are not confirmed by ordinary experience and cannot be proven by testing and are not even reasonable.

Pope Benedict once said that whatever is worthy of belief must have some rational foundation. My view is that everything the Church teaches has a rational foundation,whether it is philosophical or historical or common observation or personal experience. But scientific theories about the origins of things all use bad reasoning in that they claim natural causes and effects that are impossible,because it is impossible for nature to have the power for them to happen.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

Actually that’s not exactly right. It’s more than an opinion. If you believe a Catholic Cardinal, what Pope Francis has said about the environment indeed really reflects a Catholic moral issue.

Chris Wallace of FOX News: “Pope Francis puts this in the starkest terms. He says we’re turning our precious earth into, quote, “an immense pile of filth” and he says that much of it is because of human activity. And he basically says it’s a moral issue now.”

Cardinal Wuerl: “And it really is. And I think one of the really strong parts of this is he starts with what we’re all aware of and what’s going on around the world: the diminishment of water, the desertification, the fact that we’re destroying the rain forest, all of those terrible, terrible things – we’re all aware of that – and the suffering of poor people because of this.”

The Cardinal goes on to explain how there is an entire package of the Catholic faith but some pick and choose parts and others pick and choose other parts.

Cardinal Wuerl: “I think he probably recognizes, as popes have always had to recognize, certainly as we bishops have to recognize, there are those who take part of what we say and there are others that take another part of what we say. But we have to keep saying the whole package. We have to keep delivering the entire package.”

foxnews.com/transcript/2015/06/21/cardinal-donald-wuerl-on-pope-climate-change-message-can-rick-perry-escape/

 

[Lucretius]

Everyone is subject to gravity and experiences it so we all believe that it is real,and the scientific measurements of its effects can be tested. But scientific theories about the origins of things make claims about about natural history that are not confirmed by ordinary experience and cannot be proven by testing and are not even reasonable.

We must distinguish between facts (that things fall), laws (consitent patterns like f= ma under standard conditions) and theories (that things fall because of an invisible force field between material things (Newton), or that things fall because of a material thing’s manipulation of spacetime (Einstein)).

Facts are the measurements and observations we record, and we usually prefer them in the language of mathematics.

Laws are patterns in the facts, which we prefer in equation form.

Theories are stories we tell to explain the facts and laws. We might say they are interpretations of the facts.

It is true that evolutionary biology is not like physics and chemistry, or even other branches of biology (It is sort of in the middle between biology and history, IMHO, which is why “natural history” is a good term) In the study of history, writings are to human history what fossils are to natural history. Remember, we can’t test for the Norman invasion of England eithe. Is it unreasonable to assert it as a true event?

Pope Benedict once said that whatever is worthy of belief must have some rational foundation. My view is that everything the Church teaches has a rational foundation,whether it is philosophical or historical or common observation or personal experience.

I just thought a reflection by St. Thomas is appropriate here

Whether God requires that we believe things beyond reason?

Objection: It is dangerous for man to assent to matters which he cannot judge whether that which is proposed to him be true or false… but a man cannot form a judgment of this kind in matters of faith, since he cannot trace them back to first principles, by which all our judgments are guided. Therefore it is dangerous to believe in such matters.

Response: Just as man assents to first principles, by the natural light of his intellect, so does a virtuous man, by the habit of virtue, judge aright of things concerning that virtue; and in this way, by the light of faith which God bestows on him, a man assents to matters of faith and not to those which are against faith. Consequently there is no danger or condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, and whom He has enlightened by faith.

Man must be able to judge something if he is to believe it, but for somethings he cannot judge them by himself: his intellect requires a power that he by himself doesn’t possess. This power, which God provides, is called faith On one hand, everything we believe is reasonable, on the other, to see why some of it is reasonable, one must conform his mind to the Divine Mind, as the truths of the faith cannot be seen by the human mind alone, but only through the human mind as an instrument of the Divine Mind.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[anthony022071]

We must distinguish between facts (that things fall), laws (consitent patterns like f= ma under standard conditions) and theories (that things fall because of an invisible force field between material things (Newton), or that things fall because of a material thing’s manipulation of spacetime (Einstein)).

Facts are the measurements and observations we record, and we usually prefer them in the language of mathematics.

Laws are patterns in the facts, which we prefer in equation form.

Theories are stories we tell to explain the facts and laws. We might say they are interpretations of the facts.

It is true that evolutionary biology is not like physics and chemistry, or even other branches of biology (It is sort of in the middle between biology and history, IMHO, which is why “natural history” is a good term) In the study of history, writings are to human history what fossils are to natural history. Remember, we can’t test for the Norman invasion of England eithe. Is it unreasonable to assert it as a true event?

It’s reasonable and certain,because of human records of the event and the physical evidences of the Norman presence in England and fact that many people in England since then had Norman names and spoke the Norman language. There are different ways of knowing.

I just thought a reflection by St. Thomas is appropriate here

Whether God requires that we believe things beyond reason?

Objection: It is dangerous for man to assent to matters which he cannot judge whether that which is proposed to him be true or false… but a man cannot form a judgment of this kind in matters of faith, since he cannot trace them back to first principles, by which all our judgments are guided. Therefore it is dangerous to believe in such matters.

Response: Just as man assents to first principles, by the natural light of his intellect, so does a virtuous man, by the habit of virtue, judge aright of things concerning that virtue; and in this way, by the light of faith which God bestows on him, a man assents to matters of faith and not to those which are against faith. Consequently there is no danger or condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, and whom He has enlightened by faith.

Man must be able to judge something if he is to believe it, but for somethings he cannot judge them by himself: his intellect requires a power that he by himself doesn’t possess. This power, which God provides, is called faith On one hand, everything we believe is reasonable, on the other, to see why some of it is reasonable, one must conform his mind to the Divine Mind, as the truths of the faith cannot be seen by the human mind alone, but only through the human mind as an instrument of the Divine Mind.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Actually that’s not exactly right. It’s more than an opinion. If you believe a Catholic Cardinal, what Pope Francis has said about the environment indeed really reflects a Catholic moral issue.

I guess the way I put it is this: if Global warming is in a large part caused by man, than these actions which cause them are morally objectable. The question on which Catholics can disagree upon is whether human actions are having a true substantial effect on climate change, but not on the moral wrongness of the actions that cause it, if, again, global warming is truly cuased in large part by humans.

On the other hand, we must also distinguish between climate change and other environmental disasters. We might be able to argue that climate change is caused mostly by natural causes, with humans contributing an insignificant cause, but we cannot argue that acidity in oceans and strip minds, among many othersl things, are really damaging the environment, and the actions that cuase such a mess are morally injectable under Catholic social teaching, especially since the goal of such actions is money.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Charles041]

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.

We may struggle with a particular teaching or or have questions about the church be we should always remember that the presumption of truth rests in the church. She has been endowed with the authority of Christ and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit to interpret and teach with authority on all matters of faith and morals.

Judge not. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged and the measure you give is the measure you get. -Matt 7:1-2

You have no right or authority to say who is Catholic in spirit and Catholic in name. This is a statement of pride.

There is no left or right in the kingdom of God. No liberal or conservative Angels. We are the church militant and God will decide, not man who makes the final cut.

 

[pnewton]

Bound to happen. He preaches toughness. He has brought reform in the Church and asks reform of all, from bishop and priest, to the man in the pew. Like Jesus was rejected by those who did not understand his teaching, it was inevitable that Pope Francis would lose his luster from those who prefer to sit on their own papal throne.

 

[pnewton]

You have no right or authority to say who is Catholic in spirit and Catholic in name. This is a statement of pride.

He didn’t say who. This is an example though of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Catholics are still Catholics even though they sin, or struggle with Church teaching, or disagree with people in the Church over non-theological issues.

 

[anthony022071]

We must distinguish between facts (that things fall), laws (consitent patterns like f= ma under standard conditions) and theories (that things fall because of an invisible force field between material things (Newton), or that things fall because of a material thing’s manipulation of spacetime (Einstein)).

Facts are the measurements and observations we record, and we usually prefer them in the language of mathematics.

Laws are patterns in the facts, which we prefer in equation form.

Theories are stories we tell to explain the facts and laws. We might say they are interpretations of the facts.

It is true that evolutionary biology is not like physics and chemistry, or even other branches of biology (It is sort of in the middle between biology and history, IMHO, which is why “natural history” is a good term) In the study of history, writings are to human history what fossils are to natural history. Remember, we can’t test for the Norman invasion of England eithe. Is it unreasonable to assert it as a true event?

It’s reasonable and certain,because of human records of the event and the physical evidences of the Norman presence in England and fact that many people in England since then had Norman names and spoke the Norman language.

There are different ways of knowing with certainty.

I just thought a reflection by St. Thomas is appropriate here

Whether God requires that we believe things beyond reason?

Objection: It is dangerous for man to assent to matters which he cannot judge whether that which is proposed to him be true or false… but a man cannot form a judgment of this kind in matters of faith, since he cannot trace them back to first principles, by which all our judgments are guided. Therefore it is dangerous to believe in such matters.

Response: Just as man assents to first principles, by the natural light of his intellect, so does a virtuous man, by the habit of virtue, judge aright of things concerning that virtue; and in this way, by the light of faith which God bestows on him, a man assents to matters of faith and not to those which are against faith. Consequently there is no danger or condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, and whom He has enlightened by faith.

Man must be able to judge something if he is to believe it, but for some things he cannot judge them by himself: his intellect requires a power that he by himself doesn’t possess. This power, which God provides, is called faith. On one hand, everything we believe is reasonable, on the other, to see why some of it is reasonable, one must conform his mind to the Divine Mind, as the truths of the faith cannot be seen by the human mind alone, but only through the human mind as an instrument of the Divine Mind.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I agree with that. There are different degrees to which different Church doctrines can be believed by reason alone. The existence of God the Creator can be believed and known with certainty by reason alone,through reflection upon the things he has made. After that may come belief in his providence for the world,and his goodness and wisdom and eternity and almighty power. The Church doctrines which are least believable and knowable by reason alone,such as the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception,are believed and known on the foundation of other beliefs,such as in the Catholic Church itself and scripture.

 

[anthony022071]

Actually that’s not exactly right. It’s more than an opinion. If you believe a Catholic Cardinal, what Pope Francis has said about the environment indeed really reflects a Catholic moral issue.

Chris Wallace of FOX News: “Pope Francis puts this in the starkest terms. He says we’re turning our precious earth into, quote, “an immense pile of filth” and he says that much of it is because of human activity. And he basically says it’s a moral issue now.”

Cardinal Wuerl: “And it really is. And I think one of the really strong parts of this is he starts with what we’re all aware of and what’s going on around the world: the diminishment of water, the desertification, the fact that we’re destroying the rain forest, all of those terrible, terrible things – we’re all aware of that – and the suffering of poor people because of this.”

The Cardinal goes on to explain how there is an entire package of the Catholic faith but some pick and choose parts and others pick and choose other parts.

Cardinal Wuerl: “I think he probably recognizes, as popes have always had to recognize, certainly as we bishops have to recognize, there are those who take part of what we say and there are others that take another part of what we say. But we have to keep saying the whole package. We have to keep delivering the entire package.”

foxnews.com/transcript/2015/06/21/cardinal-donald-wuerl-on-pope-climate-change-message-can-rick-perry-escape/

What the pope said about the environment is only a Catholic moral issue insofar as what he said is true. But he said things that are plainly not true and other things which don’t appear to be true and cannot be proven. He was wrong to say that the earth looks like an immense pile of filth. We can see for ourselves that it does not. For the most part it looks beautiful. It only looks filthy in certain areas such as uncared-for neighborhoods and junkyards and places where there is much waste disposal.

A teaching of the pope or some bishops is not Catholic simply for being taught by them or for having a Catholic flavor. Catholic refers to the whole Church and the fulness of truth that it teaches. Catholic doctrine is the traditional teaching of the Church which comes from the apostles and Church Fathers,or it flows from those teachings and accords with reason,and must be held by all the faithful. But climate change theory, like evolution theory, is not a traditional Catholic teaching,does not accord with reason and the faithful are not obliged to believe it.

 

[graciew]

He was wrong to say that the earth looks like an immense pile of filth. We can see for ourselves that it does not. For the most part it looks beautiful. It only looks filthy in certain areas such as uncared-for neighborhoods and junkyards and places where there is much waste disposal.

.

This is what the Pope actually said. From Laudato Si ,quoting:

" The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish. "

 

[lynnvinc]

What the pope said about the environment is only a Catholic moral issue insofar as what he said is true. But he said things that are plainly not true and other things which don’t appear to be true and cannot be proven…But climate change theory, like evolution theory, is not a traditional Catholic teaching, does not accord with reason and the faithful are not obliged to believe it.

So you are saying that you know better than 1000s of climate scientists, the Pontifical Academic of Sciences, JPII, BXVI, and Pope Francis on this issue. I guess people are free to believe men from Mars are causing the warming or that all the measurements are fraudulent coming out of a giant conspiracy of 1000s of climate scientists, but those are personal “revelations” or delusions (albeit fostered by the well-funded CC denialist industry) and not for the whole church to follow or accept.

Furthermore, there is a huge difference between climate change and evolution. Failing to accept evolution causes no harm to others – tho it might not be good for one’s soul because it might be tantamount to a lie not to accept it. However, failing to accept that climate change is real, harmful, and caused by us humans, and then failing to help mitigate it is a lot more serious a flaw or sin. It is willful and negligent participation in the harm and killing of other people and God’s creation.

That is what the Pope is trying to warn us about – not only the lives of others (including our progeny), but our own spiritual jeopardy.

He was wrong to say that the earth looks like an immense pile of filth. We can see for ourselves that it does not. For the most part it looks beautiful. It only looks filthy in certain areas such as uncared-for neighborhoods and junkyards and places where there is much waste disposal.

That’s bec the Pope is pope for all Catholics, not just the rich in wealthy nations in their wealthy and middle class neighborhoods.

Where do you think the trash and toxic hazards mainly generated by the rich and middle class go – both “upstream” in the resource extraction, shipping, and processing AND “downstream” as we pollute and discard? To the poor areas, some of which indeed look like filth piles with toxic rivers and fields from which they used to eek out a living.

Also the economic system we have now is very unjust. Yes, we can buy things at low cost in the Big Box stores, but that is because these things do not include the costs of these above-mentioned externalities (harming people’s health and livelihood in countries far away and at home), or the cheap and even slave labor. (Yes, there are more slaves in the world today than at any time in history, busy producing our sugar, chocolate, and other products, and fulfilling evil fantasies of corrupt people.)

People living in beautiful places and our corporate media may shut their eyes and ears to all of this, but the Pope knows about it, and his heart – aligned well with the Sacred Heart of Jesus – goes out to those suffering the consequences.

A teaching of the pope or some bishops is not Catholic simply for being taught by them or for having a Catholic flavor. Catholic refers to the whole Church and the fulness of truth that it teaches. Catholic doctrine is the traditional teaching of the Church which comes from the apostles and Church Fathers,or it flows from those teachings and accords with reason,and must be held by all the faithful…

Never heard of that standard – that all the faithful must accept that climate change is real and harmful for the Pope’s teaching on it to be valid and followed, before one might consider turning off lights not in use or the myriad of other things we need to do to mitigate climate change?

What if the so-called “faithful” are totally wrong and willingly bamboozled by the corrupt powerful CC denialist industry on this, bec they really don’t want to know the truth? Bec the truth hurts, and it does hurt.

 

[Lucretius]

It’s reasonable and certain,because of human records of the event and the physical evidences of the Norman presence in England and fact that many people in England since then had Norman names and spoke the Norman language.

There are different ways of knowing with certainty.

The problem is, from my understanding, is that there doesn’t seem to be an interpretation of the fossil record that does suppose that individuals of one species changed into individuals of another.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[zz912]

Actually that’s not exactly right. It’s more than an opinion. If you believe a Catholic Cardinal, what Pope Francis has said about the environment indeed really reflects a Catholic moral issue.

Chris Wallace of FOX News: “Pope Francis puts this in the starkest terms. He says we’re turning our precious earth into, quote, “an immense pile of filth” and he says that much of it is because of human activity. And he basically says it’s a moral issue now.”

Cardinal Wuerl: “And it really is. And I think one of the really strong parts of this is he starts with what we’re all aware of and what’s going on around the world: the diminishment of water, the desertification, the fact that we’re destroying the rain forest, all of those terrible, terrible things – we’re all aware of that – and the suffering of poor people because of this.”

The Cardinal goes on to explain how there is an entire package of the Catholic faith but some pick and choose parts and others pick and choose other parts.

Cardinal Wuerl: “I think he probably recognizes, as popes have always had to recognize, certainly as we bishops have to recognize, there are those who take part of what we say and there are others that take another part of what we say. But we have to keep saying the whole package. We have to keep delivering the entire package.”

Why is it that those on the left keep trying to equate and tie together pollution and AGW? Pollution is one thing, and Christians should work to mitigate it and manage it. No one is in disagreement over this. But the left keeps throwing in the theory of AGW, and pretending that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

If the Pope wants to believe the AGW myth and believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, he is free to do so. His personal opinion on it is not binding.

 

[Ender]

So you are saying that you know better than 1000s of climate scientists, the Pontifical Academic of Sciences, JPII, BXVI, and Pope Francis on this issue.

The science is the same after Francis’ comments as before. If it was unconvincing before it is equally unconvincing now.

I guess people are free to believe men from Mars are causing the warming or that all the measurements are fraudulent coming out of a giant conspiracy of 1000s of climate scientists…

The problem for the AGW side is that the measurements for the past 18-20 years indicate serious problems with the theory. It is not the disbelievers who are in denial.

…those are personal “revelations” or delusions (albeit fostered by the well-funded CC denialist industry) …

Seriously? You believe in a Bogey Man?

However, failing to accept that climate change is real, harmful, and caused by us humans, and then failing to help mitigate it is a lot more serious a flaw or sin. It is willful and negligent participation in the harm and killing of other people and God’s creation.

Basically your argument is that because you are certain you understand the issue all those who oppose you are evil. Not mistaken, evil. Actually, this is one of my biggest problems with Laudato Si: it encourages people to view this as a moral choice rather than a scientific debate.

That is what the Pope is trying to warn us about – not only the lives of others (including our progeny), but our own spiritual jeopardy.

I rest my case.

Where do you think the trash and toxic hazards …

This is irrelevant to AGW.

Also the economic system we have now is very unjust.

This is irrelevant to AGW.

What if the so-called “faithful” are totally wrong and willingly bamboozled by the corrupt powerful CC denialist industry on this, bec they really don’t want to know the truth? Bec the truth hurts, and it does hurt.

What if you are wrong and willingly bamboozled by the corrupt powerful AGW industry?

Ender

 

[Murmurs]

The science is the same after Francis’ comments as before. If it was unconvincing before it is equally unconvincing now.
The problem for the AGW side is that the measurements for the past 18-20 years indicate serious problems with the theory. It is not the disbelievers who are in denial.
Seriously? You believe in a Bogey Man?
Basically your argument is that because you are certain you understand the issue all those who oppose you are evil. Not mistaken, evil. Actually, this is one of my biggest problems with Laudato Si: it encourages people to view this as a moral choice rather than a scientific debate.
I rest my case.
This is irrelevant to AGW.
This is irrelevant to AGW.
What if you are wrong and willingly bamboozled by the corrupt powerful AGW industry?

Ender

The point, and the subtext of what the Holy Father says, is that it doesn’t actually matter if AGW is ‘real’ or not (it is, by the way, but it’s pretty much irrelevant). Our activities which have such an impact climate change would be grossly harmful to the environment anyway, so regardless we should be cutting back and finding different, more sustainable solutions, to energy/manufacturing/construction/farming/etc problems. If by some miracle we can pump trillions of tonnes of CO2/etc into the atmosphere and not remotely impact the way the atmosphere works (which even just in terms of common sense makes, well, no sense), we still have just as much a duty to change our behaviour anyway.