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

[Ender]

That climate change is occuring is now well established by science.

If it really was “established by science”, the scientists involved would be able to explain what is happening with the climate. Instead, each year their models diverge further and further from reality. This is precisely the point that is being debated, and pronouncing it settled doesn’t actually settle anything.

The deniers are few in number and fast diminishing.

This is incorrect was well. Given that the climate has not warmed in about 19 years now, and no one has a convincing explanation for that fact, it really is rather desperate to claim that all the questions are resolved.

It is a fringe issue. AGW is increasingly a scientific certainty.

You need to get out more. Even AGW scientists acknowledge the problem.

To whatever extent AGW is occurring, an attempt to mitigate it is what Laudato Si calls for.

Since I don’t believe in AGW I believe my responsibility is to mitigate the mitigators.

To whatever extent AGW contributes to climate change and global warming, an attempt to mitigate it is what Laudato Si calls for. This is a moral teaching. Reject it as opinion as you will.

First, any position taken on the validity of AGW is, even among scientists, an opinion. We have a moral obligation to address problems; the more serious the problem the greater is our responsibility to tend to it. However, if a problem does not exist we obviously have no responsibility to address phantom concerns. More to the point, I do not have a moral obligation to address a problem you believe exists but I do not.

In Laudato Si, Pope Francis refers to scientific studies. These studies are not opinions.

Yes, that is precisely what they are. Einstein’s theory of relativity was an opinion; Galileo’s belief in a heliocentric solar system was an opinion, and so is belief in AGW. These things are theories (opinions) until they can be proven. AGW is a long way from being proven correct.

[sophistry: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.]

My arguments are not sophistry simply because you have no adequate response to them.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

If it really was “established by science”, the scientists involved would be able to explain what is happening with the climate. Instead, each year their models diverge further and further from reality. This is precisely the point that is being debated, and pronouncing it settled doesn’t actually settle anything.
This is incorrect was well. Given that the climate has not warmed in about 19 years now, and no one has a convincing explanation for that fact, it really is rather desperate to claim that all the questions are resolved.
You need to get out more. Even AGW scientists acknowledge the problem.
Since I don’t believe in AGW I believe my responsibility is to mitigate the mitigators.
First, any position taken on the validity of AGW is, even among scientists, an opinion. We have a moral obligation to address problems; the more serious the problem the greater is our responsibility to tend to it. However, if a problem does not exist we obviously have no responsibility to address phantom concerns. More to the point, I do not have a moral obligation to address a problem you believe exists but I do not.
Yes, that is precisely what they are. Einstein’s theory of relativity was an opinion; Galileo’s belief in a heliocentric solar system was an opinion, and so is belief in AGW. These things are theories (opinions) until they can be proven. AGW is a long way from being proven correct.
My arguments are not sophistry simply because you have no adequate response to them.

Ender

I don’t want to play this game. Why don’t you attempt to make an informative comment of your own instead of disputing the comments of those who do? You know very well that “Pope Francis draws criticicism from some conservative Catholics over stances on economy, environment, social issues.”

You were the last person who made a comment on the thread of that name.

 

[sallybutler]

When I was a girl scout, I was taught to leave a place better than how I found it. My mother, who grew up during the depression, made us practice conservation (surely some of you remember the can of bacon grease on the stove). Victory Gardens were very common during WWII, as was recycling.

What is wrong with each of us doing these little things? Like the small drip of water that can destroy a mountain, returning to the common sense activities of previous generations won’t hurt the environment or us. Who knows, it might even help us in our relationship with God, as we spend time working with what He created and being reminded of how great He is.

 

[gardenswithkids]

When I was a girl scout, I was taught to leave a place better than how I found it. My mother, who grew up during the depression, made us practice conservation (surely some of you remember the can of bacon grease on the stove). Victory Gardens were very common during WWII, as was recycling.

What is wrong with each of us doing these little things? Like the small drip of water that can destroy a mountain, returning to the common sense activities of previous generations won’t hurt the environment or us. Who knows, it might even help us in our relationship with God, as we spend time working with what He created and being reminded of how great He is.

Great points! So many habits from older generations like those you mentioned were both frugal and environmentally friendly. They weren’t necessarily give any thought to how the things they did generated less trash or produced less carbon–it was simply how they lived. They frequently repaired things instead of replacing them, and they did with less. My parents didn’t even have an air conditioner when I was growing up. As to the “Victory Garden”, I believe spending time in a garden is good for one’s soul, which sort of aligns with what Pope Francis was saying about the need for outside space in cities to experience nature.

Thank you. That is an example of how to preach “environmentalism” to conservative Catholics.

 

[Thomas_White]

If it really was “established by science”, the scientists involved would be able to explain what is happening with the climate. Instead, each year their models diverge further and further from reality. This is precisely the point that is being debated, and pronouncing it settled doesn’t actually settle anything.

This is incorrect was well. Given that the climate has not warmed in about 19 years now, and no one has a convincing explanation for that fact, it really is rather desperate to claim that all the questions are resolved.

You need to get out more. Even AGW scientists acknowledge the problem.

Since I don’t believe in AGW I believe my responsibility is to mitigate the mitigators.

First, any position taken on the validity of AGW is, even among scientists, an opinion. We have a moral obligation to address problems; the more serious the problem the greater is our responsibility to tend to it. However, if a problem does not exist we obviously have no responsibility to address phantom concerns. More to the point, I do not have a moral obligation to address a problem you believe exists but I do not.

Yes, that is precisely what they are. Einstein’s theory of relativity was an opinion; Galileo’s belief in a heliocentric solar system was an opinion, and so is belief in AGW. These things are theories (opinions) until they can be proven. AGW is a long way from being proven correct.

My arguments are not sophistry simply because you have no adequate response to them.

Ender

Well, since you believe your responsibility is to mitigate the mitigators, here is some information concerning where you could begin mitigating those mitigators.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[Ender]

What is wrong with each of us doing these little things?

Surely you recognize that this debate has nothing at all to do with these “little things”, or even big things like conservation, efficiency, land reclamation, or any other approach to saving the Earth. It is entirely about the validity of AGW. No one opposes the other projects. No one speaks out for waste and pollution. The only question at issue here concerns AGW: is the theory valid or not? If you accept it as true you support one set of solutions; if you reject it as false you support a different set. That’s it; that is the entire debate.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Well, since you believe your responsibility is to mitigate the mitigators, here is some information concerning where you could begin mitigating those mitigators.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Thank you, but I am aware of what is being said by both sides, and I still have no response to the question, if the evidence is so overwhelming and the scientific consensus is so one-sided, of why it is necessary to support that position with deceit? The behavior of many of the leading names on the AGW side has been reprehensible. This entire debate has been carried on in a deplorably unscientific manner.

Ender

 

[gardenswithkids]

Surely you recognize that this debate has nothing at all to do with these “little things”, or even big things like conservation, efficiency, land reclamation, or any other approach to saving the Earth. It is entirely about the validity of AGW. No one opposes the other projects. No one speaks out for waste and pollution. **The only question at issue here concerns AGW: is the theory valid or not? **If you accept it as true you support one set of solutions; if you reject it as false you support a different set. That’s it; that is the entire debate.

Ender

Ender, I liked her comments and found them relevant to this thread. I don’t think that global warming is the only issue here. This thread title and first post addressed how some conservatives in the Church feel distanced from the current pontiff.

Some liberals (Catholic or otherwise) want us to feel distanced from our Pope and our Church. They seem to rejoice in accusing us of rejecting Church doctrines–perhaps because it makes them feel better about their rejection of Church doctrines. I feel that we’re being “played” by liberals in the media.

To many on the left, it doesn’t matter if global warming is a theory or fact. They treat theories like facts when convenient to their agenda, and facts like theories when convenient. “Is a human embryo really human?” Many ignore the biological fact that a human embryo within her mother’s womb has different DNA than her mother. They claim to embrace this newest encyclical while ignoring the Pope’s many points where he condemns abortion and the devaluing of human life. They want to talk about global warming, and they want to tell us that if we don’t accept the pope’s opinion about science, we’re bad Catholics.

Create a wedge and then divide us–that’s what they want to do.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think that global warming is the only issue here. This thread title and first post addressed how some conservatives in the Church feel distanced from the current pontiff.

I will grant that there are any number of issues raised by the encyclical, of which global warming is certainly one of the most contentious. What I was concerned about with sallybutler’s comment was that it blurred the distinction between the generic obligation to be good stewards of the Earth with the specific question of AGW. Those are very distinct issues, and that is a distinction I try to maintain.

Some liberals (Catholic or otherwise) want us to feel distanced from our Pope and our Church. They seem to rejoice in accusing us of rejecting Church doctrines–perhaps because it makes them feel better about their rejection of Church doctrines. I feel that we’re being “played” by liberals in the media.

To many on the left, it doesn’t matter if global warming is a theory or fact. They treat theories like facts when convenient to their agenda, and facts like theories when convenient. “Is a human embryo really human?” Many ignore the biological fact that a human embryo within her mother’s womb has different DNA than her mother. They claim to embrace this newest encyclical while ignoring the Pope’s many points where he condemns abortion and the devaluing of human life. They want to talk about global warming, and they want to tell us that if we don’t accept the pope’s opinion about science, we’re bad Catholics.

Create a wedge and then divide us–that’s what they want to do.

Yes, well to all of this: I agree.

Ender

 

[TK421]

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!)

I don’t think so, at least not with the example you gave. Environmental topics aren’t doctrinal, other than in the general sense that we have an obligation towards the welfare of fellow man, which by extension includes stewardship of our environment.

Another example would be evolution. It’s clear that evolution is true, but not all Catholics believe in evolution. This isn’t the same thing as not believing in, for example, the sinfulness of masturbation or contraception - which is counter-cultural and causes the blood pressure to rise in nervousness simply for bringing it up - because sinfulness relates to our obligation as human beings to serve & love God, one another, and ourselves. Not believing in evolution might be poor judgement, but it doesn’t make you a protester of the Church. Not believing that fruits & vegetables are good for you might be poor judgement, but it doesn’t make you a protester of the Church. Not believing that squares have four right angles might be poor judgment, but it doesn’t make you a protester of the Church.

On the “right” end of the spectrum, there are examples of people that are just as gravely wrong as the cafeteria Catholics on the left (Jesus spent plenty of time combating such people during his ministry) but climate change wouldn’t be one of them, unless that particular person literally doesn’t care if he is rampantly polluting the environment and assaulting other human beings.

Also, although this can change from era to era, in the contemporary West, I think gravely erring on the “left” is much more common than erring on the “right”. We exist right now in a self-obsessed, hedonistic culture, so people are naturally going to fall to the left, where there is permissiveness and a no-judgement standard.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

By that definition from the professor of theology, Pope Francis is certainly a conservative Catholic. I am too.

The thread title is, “Pope Francis draws criticism from some conservative Catholics over stances on economy, environment and social issues”. I did not imagine the title of the OP, nor did I imagine the word “criticism” in it. It is supported by the data provided. However, I suspect Pope Francis would roundly reject the label 'conservative Catholic". I know I do. I am Roman Catholic. That’s all. On this thread I have replied to the criticism of Laudato Si and Pope Francis. It is there and is the OP topic. These replies were not an attempt to divide an already divided Church. Quite the contrary. It was an attempt to try to explain what I believe are the origins of this division. It concerns politics and ideology.

I do not believe the labels “conservative” or “liberal” Catholic can be correct. This is only one Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, it is clear there are Catholics with either a liberal or conservative perspective, and I would argue this perspective, legitimate in politics, cannot properly be a spiritual one. Lengthy of explanation would be the way this phenomenon involves the epistomological paradigm Pope Francis explains in Laudato Si. It would not be suitable for a forum comment.

So, back to the OP. As I understood Laudato Si, it is nothing ofher than historical, traditional and orthodox Catholic teaching. Throughout his priesthood, Pope Francis has firmy opposed any attempt to introduce either politics or ideology into Catholic teaching, beginning with his opposition to the Marxism in liberation theology while the Jesuit provincial of Argentina. This is well documented. Saint Pope John Paul II appointed the future Pope Francis the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, the largest diocese in Argentina, during this period and did so outside the traditional line of succession. It is why I thought perhaps the criticism of some conservatives of Ladauto Si and Pope Francis likely involves either a misunderstanding of the encyclical or a disagreement with its teachings. I would not disagree that the full implementation of what Laudato Si calls for would be extremely difficult for the U.S. to accomplish. But so would the Teaching on the Mount. It would be far less difficult for an individual Catholic to at least try. For that reason, the criticism seemed perplexing.

 

[pnewton]

Since I am not ignorant about the myth of climate change and the Pope is basing his writings on false science then I may very well ignore it. There very fact it mentions consumerism over and over that its bad for people and the environment is wrong.

I did not say you were ignorant of climate change. I was referring to ignorance of this teaching, based on you literally saying you were ignoring it. If you wish to part companies with the Holy Father on the evil of consumerism, then that is simply not Catholic. Catholics might disagree with a point of doctrine, but we are responsible to God to inform our conscience if we choose to disagree with Church teaching. You say that you are deliberately going to refuse to inform your conscience on this particular doctrine…

How is this different than those who reject the Church teaching in other areas without studying why the Church maintains a certain doctrine?

 

[pnewton]

I wonder how many catholic that agree with the encyclical are getting rid of their A/C’s? A consumer product pointed out in Laudato si as a problem.

That would be an extreme solution. On another thread, several of us have given real steps we want to take, including changing our thermostats. I understand you haven’t read it, but it is not just a “back to nature” document. It is about adjusting our attitudes of entitlement and waste for the sake of others, both throughout the world, and in future generations. Surely you understand that idea of dying to ourselves for the sake of others, even strangers, is absolutely core to Christianity.

 

[philipl]

That would be an extreme solution. On another thread, several of us have given real steps we want to take, including changing our thermostats. I understand you haven’t read it, but it is not just a “back to nature” document. It is about adjusting our attitudes of entitlement and waste for the sake of others, both throughout the world, and in future generations. Surely you understand that idea of dying to ourselves for the sake of others, even strangers, is absolutely core to Christianity.

The encyclical doesnt say lower your thermostat. “People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning. The markets, which immediately benefit from sales, stimulate ever greater demand. An outsider looking at our world would be amazed at such behaviour, which at times appears self-destructive.”

Its clearly using a/c as an example of extreme consumerism.

 

[Colorad007]

I would be really careful about this, particularly considering the source. While it is true that there is profound division in the Church, and that even schism doesn’t seem like a fantastical delusion, I don’t think it is neceasarily as easy as Francis vs the Conservatives. It is a great affinity in the media to portray the Pope as a liberator of the Church from its stodgy and prudish doctrines, but the Pope knows much better than the Washington 0ost that he has zero power to change any doctrine, and that means that those agitating for doctrinal change are actually working against the Holy Father. I don’t doubt that Church conservatives ate getting fed up these days, but their biggest opponent is the accomodationist reformers and not the Pope.

 

[pnewton]

I would be really careful about this, particularly considering the source.

I do not know about the source to have an opinion of the WP, but this article is problematic. It does not follow any logical progression. For example, this set of quotes is, broken up and splice together

Burke said he would “resist” liberal changes — and seemed to caution Francis about the limits of his authority. “One must be very attentive regarding the power of the pope,” Burke told the French news crew.

Papal power, Burke warned, “is not absolute.” He added, “The pope does not have the power to change teaching [or] doctrine.”

Yet, this really says nothing. It is a big, “Duh!” Then they continue with:

Yet as he upends church convention, Francis also is grappling with a conservative backlash to the liberal momentum building inside the church.

Is this writer really clueless to the difference between doctrine and what he calls “conventions”? I think he or she is too anxious to label the Holy Pontiff in terms of American politics.

The conservative rebellion is taking on many guises, in public comments, yes, but also in the rising popularity of conservative Catholic Web sites promoting Francis dissenters; QUOTE]
Finally, the popularity of anything on blogs, websites, YouTube, Twitter, etc., has no bearing on anything. Yes, there is a rise in this sort of thing. There is a rise in everything in social media in every arena. Americans particularly have a problem understanding that the right to opinion and the availability of the internet have no bearing on Church authority.

 

[pnewton]

The encyclical doesnt say lower your thermostat.

It doesn’t say to get rid of them. If I raise my thermostat, I am not " increasing use and power of air-conditioning", but decreasing the use and power of air-conditioning. A thermostat is an electrical device that turns the equipment on and off. If it is off more, it uses less electricity. Thus in this one way, I am changing this habit of consumerism. Of course this was only one example that I (and the Holy Father) used. There are a lot more.

 

[philipl]

It doesn’t say to get rid of them. If I raise my thermostat, I am not " increasing use and power of air-conditioning", but decreasing the use and power of air-conditioning. A thermostat is an electrical device that turns the equipment on and off. If it is off more, it uses less electricity. Thus in this one way, I am changing this habit of consumerism. Of course this was only one example that I (and the Holy Father) used. There are a lot more.

Youre convently dont mentions the last part of the quote,

“The markets, which immediately benefit from sales, stimulate ever greater demand. An outsider looking at our world would be amazed at such behaviour, which at times appears self-destructive.”

This is talking about the sales for AC’s.

Another quote from “Laudato Si” ““use and throw away” logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary”

How is the church going to define “really necessary”?

Lets see anyone here try to make a list of what is “really necessary”!

Good luck with that one.

But according to what some Catholic’s write, I even have to agree to an “urgent need of a true world political authority” or risk my soul.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

The fact is as the vicar of Christ (from what I understand) the Church will not be pigeonholed to one political ideology or another. Do we think Truth is obliged in any way? Do we think Christ is?

Of course not. Therefore, everyone’s toes if you will, will be stepped on so to speak at some point. Capitalism for example, while I believe in it over socialism or communism, is not a “perfect system.” There is sinfulness that arises out of it. The worship of company logos for example. I have denied that I have done that, but that is not the truth. I can think of times when I missed mass, but I would bend time and space to never miss a football game on a Sunday. That, is idolatry. There is no two ways about that.

We also see the disease of GREED that arises. I think we can all agree on that. So, in that light I believe it needs to be shone. I believe Pope Francis is doing this. Much like Christ pointing out to the pride filled rich man. Saying to him, sell all that you have and follow Me. Is Christ advocating socialism with that? No, I do not believe so. I do believe He is pointing out the rich man who had just boasted that he is “sinless.” Immediately, the rich man was humbled and Christ illuminated his pride.

Having said all of that, I am discouraged by a few facts in regards to Pope Francis. Now, I could be wrong but from all reports, he is receiving climate advice from a scientific pantheist. This person does seem to follow Gaia, but not God. There are more than just a few reports regarding this alarming issue. Plus, we cannot just ignore that the global warming issue has become a 1.5 trillion dollar INDUSTRY. Let us not be naive and think that that is not a factor.

Also, it is alarming to me when I see the Holy Father expressing socialist talking points. It is alarming to me when he accepts a hammer and sickle fashioned like a crucifix.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I believe the Vatican spoke out against this, but did the Vatican send it back? I did not read much about that. Maybe they did, and I sure hope they did. That in my mind is blasphemy. Someone may need to correct me there.

I was also alarmed when the Holy Father did a talk with the image of Che Guerva prominently behind him.

While I understand that Christ and the Vicar of Christ through the Holy Church will not be pigeonholed, I do have concerns. I do not think having concerns or even criticizing the Pope for these curious decisions makes me a CINO.

Of course I deal with accusers day and night. People have always felt the need through their arrogance to tie big heavy burdens on people’s backs. I am certainly not above criticism, and I am certainly a sinful person. However, it becomes painful to deal with my scrupulosity through out my life. It becomes unbearable for me at times to be around people who in my mind are myopic about the law.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… a small but vocal group who are unable, or unwilling to separate faith from politics.

In view of the fact the USCCB has put out a voter guide for Catholics, how would we do that? Is a Catholic two persons?