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

[philipl]

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.

All I hear Pope Francis talk about is politics associated with faith. I understand he is a man of kindness. However he lacks any understanding of the economy. We can not take in all the worlds social problems, that is unless we are willing to turn the greatest country the world has ever known into a third world country. I am unwilling to do so, and there is nothing anyone can point to in catholic teaching that my unwilling to do so is against catholic teaching.

I will once again state, every catholic I know who supports things like “Open borders” are either retired, rich, or their paycheck come from a governmental source or charity.

 

[philipl]

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.

Funny, I dont remember back in the 70’s my priest talking about government needs to raise taxes so government could take care of social issues. I remember the middle class as being supported by my Priest. Now today the only group the church seems to identify with is the poor. Forget the middle class other than the group that somehow needs to sacrifice until they are also part of the poor.

 

[Thomas_White]

All I hear Pope Francis talk about is politics associated with faith. I understand he is a man of kindness. However he lacks any understanding of the economy. We can not take in all the worlds social problems, that is unless we are willing to turn the greatest country the world has ever known into a third world country. I am unwilling to do so, and there is nothing anyone can point to in catholic teaching that my unwilling to do so is against catholic teaching.

One could in response simply cite the papal encyclical Laudato Si as an example of Catholic teaching, but I doubt it would matter. So I will be frank: That the words “Conservative Catholic” require an adjective speaks for itself. The perspective of many U.S. Conservative Catholics is also politically conservative, and as a consequence many political conservatives view Catholic teaching through the prism of political ideology. To say, “All I hear Pope Francis talk about is politics associated with faith” is to say that all you hear is “politics associated with faith”. Suffice it to say, this is not what the majority of Catholics hear.

I will once again state, every catholic I know who supports things like “Open borders” are either retired, rich, or their paycheck come from a governmental source or charity.

Bear in mind that the person of whom you are critical of in your comment is the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. The views of many U.S. Conservative Catholics, when an ideological paradigm is present, are not in line with Catholic teaching. The papal encyclical Laudato Si, now a part of Catholic social teaching, is not irrelevant in describing and explaining this phenomenon, but even more is involved, including concepts such as the authoritarian personality. This ideological paradigm ignores history and will not prevail in the Catholic Church.

 

[Thomas_White]

All I hear Pope Francis talk about is politics associated with faith. I understand he is a man of kindness. However he lacks any understanding of the economy. We can not take in all the worlds social problems, that is unless we are willing to turn the greatest country the world has ever known into a third world country. I am unwilling to do so, and there is nothing anyone can point to in catholic teaching that my unwilling to do so is against catholic teaching.

One could in response simply cite the papal encyclical Laudato Si as an example of Catholic teaching, but I doubt it would matter. So I will be frank: That the words “Conservative Catholic” require an adjective speaks for itself. The perspective of many U.S. Conservative Catholics is also politically conservative, and as a consequence many political conservatives view Catholic teaching through the prism of political ideology. To say, “All I hear Pope Francis talk about is politics associated with faith” is to say that *all you hear is “politics associated with faith”. Suffice it to say, this is not what the majority of Catholics hear.

I will once again state, every catholic I know who supports things like “Open borders” are either retired, rich, or their paycheck come from a governmental source or charity.

Bear in mind that the person of whom you are critical of in your comment is the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. The views of many U.S. Conservative Catholics, when an ideological paradigm is present, are not in line with Catholic teaching. The papal encyclical Laudato Si, now a part of Catholic social teaching, is not irrelevant in describing and explaining this phenomenon, but even more is involved, including concepts like the authoritarian personality. This ideological paradigm ignores history and will not prevail in the Catholic Church.

 

[gardenswithkids]

One could in response simply cite the papal encyclical Laudato Si as an example of Catholic teaching, but I doubt it would matter. So I will be frank: That the words “Conservative Catholic” require an adjective speaks for itself. The perspective of many U.S. Conservative Catholics is also politically conservative, and as a consequence many political conservatives view Catholic teaching through the prism of political ideology. To say, “All I hear Pope Francis talk about is politics associated with faith” is to say that *all you hear is “politics associated with faith”. Suffice it to say, this is not what the majority of Catholics hear… The papal encyclical Laudato Si, now a part of Catholic social teaching, is not irrelevant in describing and explaining this phenomenon, but even more is involved, including concepts like the authoritarian personality. This ideological paradigm ignores history and will not prevail in the Catholic Church.

What is it that you believe Laudato Si tells Catholics to do and believe?

I believe that Pope Francis is the visible head of the Church established by Christ on Earth and that the charism of infallibility bestowed by the Holy Spirit preserves him from teaching errors in matters of faith and morals. There’s a lot of faith and morals in his encyclical, but he also writes about things of science, which is outside the field of faith and morals.

The pope wrote something in the encyclical about wasting food being a sin. I generally agree with that concept that we shouldn’t waste food and that we should share with the poor. But here’s a dilemma I have: I’ve planted fruit trees in my yard. Sometimes the birds or deer or insects get to the fruit before we do. Is that wasting food? Would it have been better for me to not have planted the trees rather than letting the fruit go to waste? If falls off a tree and decays on the ground, is it really wasted? If I throw out food that might be spoiled, is that “wasting food” or is it saving my family from potential food-borne illness? Doesn’t nature in a way re-cycle that “wasted food” through microbial breakdown of the nutrients to enrich the soil?

And the pope mentioned something about air-conditioning in the encyclical without making it exactly clear what he expects. Can we Catholics use air conditioning or not? Can we go places that are air conditioned? At what point does cooling the interior of a building become a sin? If he answered those questions in the document, I didn’t notice.

As I read the document, the larger moral principles stuck out to me that we should share and be generous. Got it. I embrace those as moral truths. But as to the other specifics mentioned in his very, very long document, I’m not sure what he really wants us to do. Please do tell me what you think he wants. It’s not exactly clear to me. Oh, and perhaps if you are using a computer to tell me your interpretation of the document, you should consider relaying the information to me in a way that doesn’t require the use of electricity. Or trees. We wouldn’t want you to waste any precious resources.

And speaking of precious resources, I spent too much time already reading this entire and thread writing this. Gotta go.

 

[pnewton]

What is it that you believe Laudato Si tells Catholics to do and believe?

I believe that Pope Francis is the visible head of the Church established by Christ on Earth and that the charism of infallibility bestowed by the Holy Spirit preserves him from teaching errors in matters of faith and morals. There’s a lot of faith and morals in his encyclical, but he also writes about things of science, which is outside the field of faith and morals.

As I read the document, the larger moral principles stuck out to me that we should share and be generous. Got it.

I think you do have it. Very little of the encyclical related to science. The moral principle is sharing, but also sharing on both a global and a generational scale. He also taught about the problem of consumerism . This is simply a modern reflection of the principle of stewardship as taught in the parables of Jesus.

 

[lynnvinc]

Funny, I dont remember back in the 70’s my priest talking about government needs to raise taxes so government could take care of social issues. I remember the middle class as being supported by my Priest. Now today the only group the church seems to identify with is the poor. Forget the middle class other than the group that somehow needs to sacrifice until they are also part of the poor.

In a way you are right. The Catholic churches and priests, it seems to me, tend to support the rich in the parish and are very responsive to the “folks in the pews,” the Rush Limbaugh Catholics as one priest put it, confessing he is so afraid of them that he dare not mention global warming. I even think he may have been a Rush Limbaugh Catholic – in Rush they trust, they are a Rush-fearing people.

So there is this tremendous disconnect between what the popes (JPII, BXVI, & Pope Francis) have said and are saying and what comes up in local homilies and parish chit-chat.

In the past 25 years of my concern about global warming, I heard one priest in San Francisco (when I was there at a conference) mention global warming, and I figure it was because he was a Filipino, and they really can’t ignore it anymore, with super-hurricanes nearly every year in these past several years slamming the Philippines to smithereens.

At least the Pope hears the cries of the people around the world unjustly victimized by the rich and thoughtless.

 

[Thomas_White]

What is it that you believe Laudato Si tells Catholics to do and believe?

I believe that Pope Francis is the visible head of the Church established by Christ on Earth and that the charism of infallibility bestowed by the Holy Spirit preserves him from teaching errors in matters of faith and morals. There’s a lot of faith and morals in his encyclical, but he also writes about things of science, which is outside the field of faith and morals.

The pope wrote something in the encyclical about wasting food being a sin. I generally agree with that concept that we shouldn’t waste food and that we should share with the poor. But here’s a dilemma I have: I’ve planted fruit trees in my yard. Sometimes the birds or deer or insects get to the fruit before we do. Is that wasting food? Would it have been better for me to not have planted the trees rather than letting the fruit go to waste? If falls off a tree and decays on the ground, is it really wasted? If I throw out food that might be spoiled, is that “wasting food” or is it saving my family from potential food-borne illness? Doesn’t nature in a way re-cycle that “wasted food” through microbial breakdown of the nutrients to enrich the soil?

And the pope mentioned something about air-conditioning in the encyclical without making it exactly clear what he expects. Can we Catholics use air conditioning or not? Can we go places that are air conditioned? At what point does cooling the interior of a building become a sin? If he answered those questions in the document, I didn’t notice.

As I read the document, the larger moral principles stuck out to me that we should share and be generous. Got it. I embrace those as moral truths. But as to the other specifics mentioned in his very, very long document, I’m not sure what he really wants us to do. Please do tell me what you think he wants. It’s not exactly clear to me. Oh, and perhaps if you are using a computer to tell me your interpretation of the document, you should consider relaying the information to me in a way that doesn’t require the use of electricity. Or trees. We wouldn’t want you to waste any precious resources.

And speaking of precious resources, I spent too much time already reading this entire and thread writing this. Gotta go.

There is no possibility that I would try to tell you what I think Pope Francis wants you to do and believe. Perhaps you should write to him and ask him yourself.

 

[philipl]

One could in response simply cite the papal encyclical Laudato Si as an example of Catholic teaching, but I doubt it would matter. So I will be frank: That the words “Conservative Catholic” require an adjective speaks for itself. The perspective of many U.S. Conservative Catholics is also politically conservative, and as a consequence many political conservatives view Catholic teaching through the prism of political ideology. To say, “All I hear Pope Francis talk about is politics associated with faith” is to say that *all you hear is “politics associated with faith”. Suffice it to say, this is not what the majority of Catholics hear.

What does “Laudato Si” have to do with the US absorbing millions of third world immigrants?

However it does reference consumerism over and over and over and over and over, as if consumerism is bad. When its not a bad thing at all. In fact consumerism has help create a standard of living in the Western world equal to none other. I realize there are catholics that truly believe we need to return to the days of old of working the dirt and forgoing the wonders of modern life. Yet they themselves aren’t willing to divest themselves of all the consumer products they purchased.

How many anti-progress catholic are willing to give up their meds that keep their heart beating?

Bear in mind that the person of whom you are critical of in your comment is the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. The views of many U.S. Conservative Catholics, when an ideological paradigm is present, are not in line with Catholic teaching. The papal encyclical Laudato Si, now a part of Catholic social teaching, is not irrelevant in describing and explaining this phenomenon, but even more is involved, including concepts like the authoritarian personality. This ideological paradigm ignores history and will not prevail in the Catholic Church.

So?

 

[philipl]

Bear in mind that the person of whom you are critical of in your comment is the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. The views of many U.S. Conservative Catholics, when an ideological paradigm is present, are not in line with Catholic teaching. The papal encyclical Laudato Si, now a part of Catholic social teaching, is not irrelevant in describing and explaining this phenomenon, but even more is involved, including concepts like the authoritarian personality. This ideological paradigm ignores history and will not prevail in the Catholic Church.

authoritarian, which seems to be the direction some Catholics are taking. We are no longer allowed to think for ourselves. We must just accept everything the pope says as if it were 100% correct. The document also reference a world authority. Are you willing to give up your individual liberties? Not me. The church can not work to influence my politics, if it does so, it should lose it tax exemption. Which, btw, I would love to see happen.

 

[philipl]

In a way you are right. The Catholic churches and priests, it seems to me, tend to support the rich in the parish and are very responsive to the “folks in the pews,” the Rush Limbaugh Catholics as one priest put it, confessing he is so afraid of them that he dare not mention global warming. I even think he may have been a Rush Limbaugh Catholic – in Rush they trust, they are a Rush-fearing people.

So there is this tremendous disconnect between what the popes (JPII, BXVI, & Pope Francis) have said and are saying and what comes up in local homilies and parish chit-chat.

In the past 25 years of my concern about global warming, I heard one priest in San Francisco (when I was there at a conference) mention global warming, and I figure it was because he was a Filipino, and they really can’t ignore it anymore, with super-hurricanes nearly every year in these past several years slamming the Philippines to smithereens.

At least the Pope hears the cries of the people around the world unjustly victimized by the rich and thoughtless.

So now the middle class are “the rich”?

 

[philipl]

authoritarian, which seems to be the direction some Catholics are taking. We are no longer allowed to think for ourselves. We must just accept everything the pope says as if it were 100% correct. The document also reference a world authority. Are you willing to give up your individual liberties? Not me. The church can not work to influence my politics, if it does so, it should lose it tax exemption. Which, btw, I would love to see happen.

If I were to make a list of all the consumerism type products and services that most people really dont need, the list would be much longer than the list of needed stuff. Without all that consumerism, the unemployment rate would be at a alltime high that and would never be able to recover from it. No more personal computers, no more cell phones, no more restaurant, no more big screen TV’s, more more nice furniture, no more nice cars, the list can go on and on. But try and make a list of things you need and I can make that list even shorter. You dont even need cloths that look nice. All you really need is a burlap bag or even a leaf to cover you up!

 

[lynnvinc]

So now the middle class are “the rich”?

Let me put it this way, by today’s standards it would be more difficult for a middle class American to enter into heaven than for an elephant to enter through the eye of a needle.

The great uptick to that is that with God all things are possible. Hallelujah. There is hope for us all!

 

[Thomas_White]

What does “Laudato Si” have to do with the US absorbing millions of third world immigrants?

Why are you asking me? The quote below is your original comment:

All I hear Pope Francis talk about is politics associated with faith. I understand he is a man of kindness. However, he lacks any understaning of the economy. We can not take in all the worlds social problems, that is unless we are willing to turn the greatest country the world has ever known into a third world country. I am unwilling to do so, and there is nothing anyone can point to in catholic teaching that my unwilling to do so is against catholic teaching.

I will once again state, every catholic I know who supports things like “Open borders” are either retired, rich, or their paycheck come from a governmental source or charity.

This sterling example of a political interpretation of moral teaching is helpful.

However it does reference consumerism over and over and over and over and over, as if consumerism is bad. When its not a bad thing at all. In fact consumerism has help create a standard of living in the Western world equal to none other. I realize there are catholics that truly believe we need to return to the days of old of working the dirt and forgoing the wonders of modern life. Yet they themselves aren’t willing to divest themselves of all the consumer products they purchased.

How many anti-progress catholic are willing to give up their meds that keep their heart beating?

I can see why one would want to change the subject right now. As I understand Laudato Si, the teaching concerns compulsive consumerism for consumerism’s sake. The consumer is the person exploited. However, I did not see any suggestion that a consumer should give up a medication that keeps their heart beating.

“Bear in mind that the person of whom you are critical of in your comment is the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. The views of many U.S. Conservative Catholics, when an ideological paradigm is present, are not in line with Catholic teaching. The papal encyclical Laudato Si, now a part of Catholic social teaching, is not irrelevant in describing and explaining this phenomenon, but even more is involved, including concepts like the authoritarian personality. This ideological paradigm ignores history and will not prevail in the Catholic Church.”

So?

It is what it is.

 

[Thomas_White]

authoritarian, which seems to be the direction some Catholics are taking. We are no longer allowed to think for ourselves. We must just accept everything the pope says as if it were 100% correct. The document also reference a world authority. Are you willing to give up your individual liberties? Not me. The church can not work to influence my politics, if it does so, it should lose it tax exemption. Which, btw, I would love to see happen.

No one can truly take another person’s liberty from them, and it most certainly was not the intent of the encyclical Laudato Si to try. We don’t have to accept anything the pope says, but there is a point where one should stop referring to themselves as Roman Catholic. I am only pointing this out and do not mean to suggest it is the case here.

I have not seen where Laudato Si is suggesting a world authority that would require anyone to give up their liberties. What is criticized is the continuing violation of the human rights of others. The moral teaching is that this is wrong. The problem is global. There is obviously very strong opposition to righting a wrong that has resulted in the suffering of untold millions. How would you prefer that a country respond to protect its citizens? I would think the intervention of an international court would be preferable to other alternatives. But that you perceive this as a threat to your liberties is telling. What individual liberties? The liberty to manipulate and exploit the poor and damage the environment?

The suggestion that the Catholic Church would work to influence a person’s politics rather than their spiritual life is outrageous. Of course there are those who would love to see the Church lose its tax exemption. For some this love would result from seeing their own taxes lowered; for others it would concern the advancement of the secular agenda.

 

[Ender]

The papal encyclical Laudato Si, now a part of Catholic social teaching…

What teaching in Laudato Si is new? What specific things does it call on us to do or refrain from doing? Francis raised a concern about global warming, but you have said accepting AGW as valid is not an obligation. I certainly believe that to be true, but it isn’t clear what if anything we are required to believe now that we weren’t obliged to assent to before.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

**

What teaching in Laudato Si is new? What specific things does it call on us to do or refrain from doing? Francis raised a concern about global warming, but you have said accepting AGW as valid is not an obligation. I certainly believe that to be true, but it isn’t clear what if anything we are required to believe now that we weren’t obliged to assent to before.

Ender

With all due respect, what I said was that if there is no AGW, which is to say if it does not exist, then it cannot be a moral issue. There would be no “there” there–no AGW, then no moral issue either. While this is only my understanding of this, it would seem difficult to maintain that something that does not exist presents a moral issue for us because we have caused it to exist. But I most certainly have not said that “accepting AGW is not an obligation”. It is hardly for me to say what is an obligation of a papal encyclical, and I would ask you to please be more careful in saying what you think I have said.

Neither is it not for me to explain again and again on the CS forum what I learned from Laudato Si and the way I understood it. What do you think is the moral teaching of the encyclical?

I have said I believe the primary philosophical basis of the encyclical’s moral teaching is found in paragraphs 106-108 and in the paragraphs that immediately follow. It concerns a cultural and epistomological paradigm and the adverse effects it has had on humans, nature and spiritual development and understanding. In was while reading these paragraphs that I believed I began to understand the moral teaching of the encyclical, but the moral teaching is also found throughout the encyclical. Others may have understood the moral teaching prior to those paragraphs or in later sections of the encyclical. I don’t know. But the particular way I understod it is complex in explanation. It just is. In any event, Laudato Si describes and explains it.

In my opinion, what is new in the encyclical is the description and explanation of a cultural and epistomological paradigm.

 

[philipl]

With all due respect, what I said was that if there is no AGW, which is to say if it does not exist, then it cannot be a moral issue. There would be no “there” there–no AGW, then no moral issue either. While this is only my understanding of this, it would seem difficult to maintain that something that does not exist presents a moral issue for us because we have caused it to exist. But I most certainly have not said that “accepting AGW is not an obligation”. It is hardly for me to say what is an obligation of a papal encyclical, and I would ask you to please be more careful in saying what you think I have said.

Neither is it not for me to explain again and again on the CS forum what I learned from Laudato Si and the way I understood it. What do you think is the moral teaching of the encyclical?

I have said I believe the primary philosophical basis of the encyclical’s moral teaching is found in paragraphs 106-108 and in the paragraphs that immediately follow. It concerns a cultural and epistomological paradigm and the adverse effects it has had on humans, nature and spiritual development and understanding. In was while reading these paragraphs that I believed I began to understand the moral teaching of the encyclical, but the moral teaching is also found throughout the encyclical. Others may have understood the moral teaching prior to those paragraphs or in later sections of the encyclical. I don’t know. But the particular way I understod it is complex in explanation. It just is. In any event, Laudato Si describes and explains it.

In my opinion, what is new in the encyclical is the description and explanation of a cultural and epistomological paradigm.

Since there is no such thing as AGW I will ignore the encyclical.

 

[Sarcelle]

Let me put it this way, by today’s standards it would be more difficult for a middle class American to enter into heaven than for an elephant to enter through the eye of a needle.

The great uptick to that is that with God all things are possible. Hallelujah. There is hope for us all!

The sign of a healthy economy is a huge middle class. In India and China the middle class is growing. I’ve lived in a third world country. I’d rather live in the U.S.

You seem to have the idea that the U.S. should be third world.

 

[pnewton]

Since there is no such thing as AGW I will ignore the encyclical.

Please reconsider. Ignoring Catholic teaching is not conducive to spiritual growth.