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

[zz912]

Can you provide an example of ths, because you’ve mentioned it several times, but I haven’t seen it anywhere?

Lynn tried to avoid explicitly stating as such, but she has said it. I don’t remember if it is in this thread or another. And others have implied the same as well, that Catholics who don’t believe in AGW are sinning.

 

[Ender]

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…

Can you provide an example of what you have in mind here?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

Let’s us not be naive and think that the cultural paradigm is not a factor for all of us.

What would Pope Francis’s receiving scientific advice from a pantheist have to do with scientic advice? He said in Laudato Si that the environmental crisis will require the cooperation of all to resolve and that he is open to listening to any advice. If Pope Francis is comfortable receiving advice from a leading climate scientist, then so be it. It is the criticism of this that ought to be questioned.

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.

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.

At the moment the photo was taken, Pope Francis was quoted as saying, “That is not right.” The surprising presentation of the altered crucifix obviously startled Pope Francis and immediately placed him in a very awkward position. Pope Francis did not create the object fashioned like a crucifix, and it is not important where it is at this moment in time.

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

Pope Francis was in Bolivia. He was greeted by its president, a leftist who wore a jacket with the image of Che Guerva on it. The image of Che Guerva in the background of a photo means nothing other than that the image was there. Saint Pope John Paul II spoke under Havana’s huge portrait of Che Guerva in Havana in 1998 and said Guerva was now “before God’s tribunal” and that he was certain Guerva “wanted to serve the poor.” Pope Benedict XVI spoke with the same portrait in the background in 2012 when he visited Havana.

What is important, I think, is to realize that these three popes, one now a Catholic saint, are of great spirituality and became the spiritual leaders of the Church. They are not politicians and cannot properly be understood that way. When they speak of the poor, it is important to remember the words of the historical Jesus of the New Testament and not those of Che Guerva or Karl Marx. In my view, this misunderstanding is at the root of much of the criticism and misses a point that is not revealed by this sort of analysis.

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 it doesn’t make you a CINO. A Catholic is a Catholic as the result of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. This is a spiritual matter apart from the temporal world of time and space, cannot change, and has nothing to do with concepts like conservative and liberal. Those concepts are of the temporal world and of the limits of human reason and understanding, have differing meanings here and there, did so last year and will next year. They are transcended by spirituality. I believe there are saints that came close to what is divine, but how close I certainly could not know. This is what is Important. Politics is not.

“If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” --Matthew 19:21

“And when they heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?” --Matthew 19:26

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.

“With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.” --Matthew 19:28

 

[CatholicKnight3]

What would Pope Francis’s receiving scientific advice from a pantheist have to do with scientic advice? He said in Laudato Si that the environmental crisis will require the cooperation of all to resolve and that he is open to listening to any advice. If Pope Francis is comfortable receiving advice from a leading climate scientist, then so be it. It is the criticism of this that ought to be questioned.

Wait, did he also take advice from scientists that contradict the AGW crowd? There are many of scientists like that too. Why were they not invited? Does not concern you at all that the advice that he is getting is from someone that is not led by the Holy Spirit? Not at all? Interesting.

At the moment the photo was taken, Pope Francis was quoted as saying, “That is not right.” The surprising presentation of the altered crucifix obviously startled Pope Francis and immediately placed him in a very awkward position. Pope Francis did not create the object fashioned like a crucifix, and it is not important where it is at this moment in time.

Did the Vatican send it back? Anyone know? If not, why not?

Pope Francis was in Bolivia. He was greeted by its president, a leftist who wore a jacket with the image of Che Guerva on it. The image of Che Guerva in the background of a photo means nothing other than that the image was there. Saint Pope John Paul II spoke under Havana’s huge portrait of Che Guerva in Havana in 1998 and said Guerva was now “before God’s tribunal” and that he was certain Guerva “wanted to serve the poor.” Pope Benedict XVI spoke with the same portrait in the background in 2012 when he visited Havana.

What is important, I think, is to realize that these three popes, one now a Catholic saint, are of great spirituality and became the spiritual leaders of the Church. They are not politicians and cannot properly be understood that way. When they speak of the poor, it is important to remember the words of the historical Jesus of the New Testament and not those of Che Guerva or Karl Marx. In my view, this misunderstanding is at the root of much of the criticism and misses a point that is not revealed by this sort of analysis

I never hinted they were politicians. I do wonder if this Pope will ever come down harshly on socialism. As you say, they are not politicians, but he sure has the socialist talking points down. It sure SEEMS like he is leaning left to me in a lot of his rhetoric. Make no mistake, that Pope that is a Saint as you so rightfully pointed out strongly came down against communism. Then again, he came from a place (Poland) where he saw first hand the evils of totalitarian government. Make no mistake, the left want to do away with ALL faiths. Most of all Christianity. Such is the way of the devil.

I guess the point is I would like to hear something that actually fits together with what Saint John Paul II stood for against pure socialism (which is communism.) There may have been things he has said. Please let me know if he has and when. Thank you.

Of course it doesn’t make you a CINO. A Catholic is a Catholic as the result of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. This is a spiritual matter apart from the temporal world of time and space, cannot change, and has nothing to do with concepts like conservative and liberal. Those concepts are of the temporal world and of the limits of human reason and understanding, have differing meanings here and there, did so last year and will next year. They are transcended by spirituality. I believe there are saints that came close to what is divine, but how close I certainly could not know. This is what is Important. Politics is not.

“If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” --Matthew 19:21

“And when they heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?” --Matthew 19:26

Well, I will tell you for a long time I have stayed away from the Church. Partly because I struggled with doubts, but mostly cause I considered myself to be hopeless. I got sick and tired of thinking that everything I did was a sin. I got tired of thinking of God sending someone to eternal hell for eating meat on a Friday but inviting a murdering rapist to eternal bliss cause he repented at the least second.

I found myself not wanting anything to do with a God like that, and I still struggle. It is hard enough for someone that does not constantly think everything is sinful. Am I in mortal sin now? That is the question that plagues me constantly.

I still pretty much believe I am hopeless. I am still not quite sure how exactly one is suppose to live in peace when we are constantly beaten over the head about sin after sin.

Now, I am told in this thread if I question the Pope…

You get the idea. That is my struggle, but so be it. There are concerns nevertheless about the things I have pointed out.

 

[Thomas_White]

Wait, did he also take advice from scientists that contradict the AGW crowd? There are many of scientists like that too. Why were they not invited? Does not concern you at all that the advice that he is getting is from someone that is not led by the Holy Spirit? Not at all? Interesting.

Did the Vatican send it back? Anyone know? If not, why not?

I never hinted they were politicians. I do wonder if this Pope will ever come down harshly on socialism. As you say, they are not politicians, but he sure has the socialist talking points down. It sure SEEMS like he is leaning left to me in a lot of his rhetoric. Make no mistake, that Pope that is a Saint as you so rightfully pointed out strongly came down against communism. Then again, he came from a place (Poland) where he saw first hand the evils of totalitarian government. Make no mistake, the left want to do away with ALL faiths. Most of all Christianity. Such is the way of the devil.

I guess the point is I would like to hear something that actually fits together with what Saint John Paul II stood for against pure socialism (which is communism.) There may have been things he has said. Please let me know if he has and when. Thank you.

Well, I will tell you for a long time I have stayed away from the Church. Partly because I struggled with doubts, but mostly cause I considered myself to be hopeless. I got sick and tired of thinking that everything I did was a sin. I got tired of thinking of God sending someone to eternal hell for eating meat on a Friday but inviting a murdering rapist to eternal bliss cause he repented at the least second.

I found myself not wanting anything to do with a God like that, and I still struggle. It is hard enough for someone that does not constantly think everything is sinful. Am I in mortal sin now? That is the question that plagues me constantly.

I still pretty much believe I am hopeless. I am still not quite sure how exactly one is suppose to live in peace when we are constantly beaten over the head about sin after sin.

Now, I am told in this thread if I question the Pope…

You get the idea. That is my struggle, but so be it. There are concerns nevertheless about the things I have pointed out.

You were not told that you question the pope so much as that you likely don’t realize it. Look at the first sentence of your third paragraph and then the three that follow it. Then look at the last three sentences of the paragraph. I really don’t think I want to pursue this further on a forum. I would suggest you talk to a spiritual advisor and hope you find peace.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…At the moment the photo was taken, Pope Francis was quoted as saying, “That is not right.” The surprising presentation of the altered crucifix obviously startled Pope Francis and immediately placed him in a very awkward position. …

Thank you for clarifying the context of that picture. I won’t judge the motives of the giver of that “gift”, but it sometimes seems like the Pope is being “set up”. Some want to bend both the crucifix and Pope Francis into looking like something that matches their ideology.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

Thank you for clarifying the context of that picture. I won’t judge the motives of the giver of that “gift”, but it sometimes seems like the Pope is being “set up”. Some want to bend both the crucifix and Pope Francis into looking like something that matches their ideology.

I know what the Vatican said and what they claim he said. Did the Vatican send it back? If why not why not?

I have not seen anything in regards to that. Does it matter to anyone if they did not send it back?

It matters to me.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I know what the Vatican said and what they claim he said. Did the Vatican send it back? If why not why not?

I have not seen anything in regards to that. Does it matter to anyone if they did not send it back?

It matters to me.

I had not seen that picture until it was posted here, and I also found it highly disturbing, which is why I was grateful another poster offered some context. I don’t know what he did with it, but wouldn’t expect to see a news story on what the Pope did with an unwanted gift–especially if the original picture helped to further promote the image of a “liberal Catholic pope”. That seems to be the portrait of the pope that many in the media want to portray.

Do not expect the media to report everything that this pope says or does, especially if they don’t like it. Did you see a recent news story from LifeNews regarding Time Magazine? According to this article, Pope Francis referred to abortion as “killing” twice when praising a single mother for not aborting, but Time magazine censored what the pope said without indicating in the original story that they hadn’t quoted him in full. Time’s “correction” merely acknowledge that they hadn’t quoted him in full. lifenews.com/2015/09/09/time-magazine-censors-quote-from-pope-francis-calling-abortion-the-killing-of-a-baby/

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Videos from CHA on Laudato Si

youtube.com/watch?v=uPvzUZu2Yio&feature=youtu.be

youtube.com/watch?v=Kitu8kGLXs8&feature=youtu.be

youtube.com/watch?v=zJ_m0zO8gRM&feature=youtu.be

 

[Hans_W]

Wait, did he also take advice from scientists that contradict the AGW crowd? There are many of scientists like that too. Why were they not invited? Does not concern you at all that the advice that he is getting is from someone that is not led by the Holy Spirit? Not at all? Interesting.

There really is no controversy concerning AGW in science. There is as much controversy as for a 4.5 billion year old earth, or for the theory that HIV causes AIDS (yes, that is disputed by some ‘experts’ as well).

The Catholic Church has been on the cutting edge of biology, physics, astronomy and cosmology. And we can assume that Pope Francis gets sound advice on climatology as well before making such a wide-reaching pronouncement.

 

[estesbob]

There really is no controversy concerning AGW in science. There is as much controversy as for a 4.5 billion year old earth, or for the theory that HIV causes AIDS (yes, that is disputed by some ‘experts’ as well).

The Catholic Church has been on the cutting edge of biology, physics, astronomy and cosmology. And we can assume that Pope Francis gets sound advice on climatology as well before making such a wide-reaching pronouncement.

The problem is there is little support in nature. Despite significant increases in CO2 we have seen no warmings for nearly 20 years . And “science” cannot really explain this . Fortunately although the pope does believe it AGW he has categorically rejected the “solutions” offered by those who promote this theory the most

 

[Joko2599]

Pope Francis. A man who fights for social justice, immigration reform, health care/child care for all, progressivism, and equal opportunity.I applaud this man for highlighting how so many people within the Church have forgotten the core message of helping the poor, aiding the sick, and educating the ignorant.

 

[estesbob]

Pope Francis. A man who fights for social justice, immigration reform, health care/child care for all, progressivism, and equal opportunity.I applaud this man for highlighting how so many people within the Church have forgotten the core message of helping the poor, aiding the sick, and educating the ignorant.

I applaud him for doing this just as I applauded his predecessors for doing the same.

 

[Thomas_White]

The problem is there is little support in nature. Despite significant increases in CO2 we have seen no warmings for nearly 20 years . And “science” cannot really explain this . Fortunately although the pope does believe it AGW he has categorically rejected the “solutions” offered by those who promote this theory the most

In view of the scientific evidence provided in a link in comment #120, it would seem far more likely that what is necessary is an explanation of AGW denial. Many scientists have said that It would be better to simply ignore this denial, and psychologists have said it is probably impossible at this point to convince AGW deniers of this reality. However, it is noted that denial is often the first response to what is difficult to accept. Acceptance of a hard truth is often a process involving one’s defense mechanisms.

Within conservatism, or at least for some conservatives (including so-called conservative Catholics) it seems the reality of AGW is a truth too hard to accept. In some way, it appears AGW is perceived a threat to belief and that reason and scientific evidence matter not. This denial tends toward a questioning of Pope Francis, often with inferences that the explanation is that he is a “liberal”, the piñata of conservatism. It is often a theme on this forum.

Pope Francis is Catholic. He is not a politician. It seems to me that what is not understood is the spirituality of this pope and his two predecessors. The pope’s focus, as he had said, is not in the fixation and obsession on those issues of the social wars of the U.S., which revolve around the theme of sexuality. This debate has become political even though the teachings of the Church are well articulated and well known with respect to those few issues. What is feared, it would seem, is the change that is a continuous process in the temporal world. The conclusion that this world and man are capable of perfection is the sin of pride. Pope Francis can be understood in the context of the message of the New Testament but not, I think, through the views of the likes of Rush Limbaugh. There is a subtext there that is a rejection of Kyrie Elesion, an essential message to an imperfect world.

 

[estesbob]

In view of the scientific evidence provided in a link in comment #120, it would seem far more likely that what is necessary is an explanation of AGW denial. Many scientists have said that It would be better to simply ignore this denial, and psychologists have said it is probably impossible at this point to convince AGW deniers of this reality. However, it is noted that denial is often the first response to what is difficult to accept. Acceptance of a hard truth is often a process involving one’s defense mechanisms.

Within conservatism, or at least for some conservatives (including so-called conservative Catholics) it seems the reality of AGW is a truth too hard to accept. In some way, it appears AGW is perceived a threat to belief and that reason and scientific evidence matter not. This denial tends toward a questioning of Pope Francis, often with inferences that the explanation is that he is a “liberal”, the piñata of conservatism. It is often a theme on this forum.

Pope Francis is Catholic. He is not a politician. It seems to me that what is not understood is the

AGW is not a matter of faith for a Catholic spirituality of this pope and his two predecessors. The pope’s focus, as he had said, is not in the fixation and obsession on those issues of the social wars of the U.S., which revolve around the theme of sexuality. This debate has become political even though the teachings of the Church are well articulated and well known with respect to those few issues. What is feared, it would seem, is the change that is a continuous process in the temporal world. The conclusion that this world and man are capable of perfection is the sin of pride. Pope Francis can be understood in the context of the message of the New Testament but not, I think, through the views of the likes of Rush Limbaugh. There is a subtext there that is a rejection of Kyrie Elesion, an essential message to an imperfect world.

People are welcome to believe in AGW. What they are not welcome to do is use their belief in AGW as an excuse to try implement massive new tax and regulation schemes.

AGW is not Catholic Doctrine-protecting the environment is. Thankfully the Pope recognizes this and rejected out of hand the drastic measures alarmists are demanding to “fix” the problem

 

[Thomas_White]

People are welcome to believe in AGW. What they are not welcome to do is use their belief in AGW as an excuse to try implement massive new tax and regulation schemes.

Yes, I understand. My point was that this is a political issue. This is legitimate in politics, but politics has no place in Catholic teaching or in its proper understanding. I believe Pope Francis’s teaching is spiritual and not political, and that politics introduces what is arguably a legitimate division in U.S. politics into the Church where it has no place.

AGW is not Catholic Doctrine-protecting the environment is. Thankfully the Pope recognizes this and rejected out of hand the drastic measures alarmists are demanding to “fix” the problem

Maybe so, but it is not the case that in Laudato Si Pope Francis rejects out of hand the scientific evidence concerning the reality of AGW.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, I understand. My point was that this is a political issue. This is legitimate in politics, but politics has no place in Catholic teaching or in its proper understanding. I believe Pope Francis’s teaching is spiritual and not political, and that politics introduces what is arguably a legitimate division in U.S. politics into the Church where it has no place.

Maybe so, but it is not the case that in Laudato Si Pope Francis rejects out of hand the scientific evidence concerning the reality of AGW.

While Making the point that the encyclical was not intended to settle scientific issues. The Sad part is how alarmists seized upon this encyclical to push their political agenda effectively diluting the point the Pope was trying to make

 

[zz912]

In view of the scientific evidence provided in a link in comment #120, it would seem far more likely that what is necessary is an explanation of AGW denial. Many scientists have said that It would be better to simply ignore this denial, and psychologists have said it is probably impossible at this point to convince AGW deniers of this reality. However, it is noted that denial is often the first response to what is difficult to accept. Acceptance of a hard truth is often a process involving one’s defense mechanisms.

Within conservatism, or at least for some conservatives (including so-called conservative Catholics) it seems the reality of AGW is a truth too hard to accept. In some way, it appears AGW is perceived a threat to belief and that reason and scientific evidence matter not.

How many years will need to pass without any warming before the AGW crowd might reconsider their dogma? We are already approaching two decades. In fact we just passed another milestone of some prediction someone made a few years ago where the earth was going to be a hellhole already, and not a word from the AGW crowd about yet another failed prophesy.

 

[Thomas_White]

How many years will need to pass without any warming before the AGW crowd might reconsider their dogma? We are already approaching two decades. In fact we just passed another milestone of some prediction someone made a few years ago where the earth was going to be a hellhole already, and not a word from the AGW crowd about yet another failed prophesy.

With all due respect, this is not correct. Any disagreement among climate scientists concerning AGW is insignificant.

“All three major global global surface temperature reconstructions show that earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970’s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all ten of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000’s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures contine to increase.” --NASA: Global Climate Change.

NASA’s same webpage also states the following: “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the last century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

In an earlier comment, I provided the citation ( climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ ) that explains this. To say this is dogma of the “AGW crowd” does not provide any scientific data, or even any information, to support the statement. On the other hand, 97% of climate scientists agree AGW is occurring, and most scientific organizations worldwide have publicly endorsed this position. In light of that, to simply say AGW is not occurring does not present not much of a debate, not in the face of the differing conclusion of thousands of highly-qualified scientists and respected scientific organizations.

So, for anyone to make inferences about Pope Francis on this basis alone is only unfortunate. I realize your comment makes no such inference, and I am not suggesting it does. The point is only that others have done so, and it has nothing whatever to do with the ethical and spiritual teachings of Pope Francis. It far more likely involves some sort of psychological denial or a politically ideological perspective given the overwhelming scientific consensus about AGW.

Again, I am only pointing this out.

 

[estesbob]

With all due respect, this is not correct. Any disagreement among climate scientists concerning AGW is insignificant.

“All three major global global surface temperature reconstructions show that earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970’s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all ten of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000’s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures contine to increase.” --NASA: Global Climate Change.

NASA’s same webpage also states the following: “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the last century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

In an earlier comment, I provided the citation ( climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ ) that explains this. To say this is dogma of the “AGW crowd” does not provide any scientific data, or even any information, to support the statement. On the other hand, 97% of climate scientists agree AGW is occurring, and most scientific organizations worldwide have publicly endorsed this position. In light of that, to simply say AGW is not occurring does not present not much of a debate, not in the face of the differing conclusion of thousands of highly-qualified scientists and respected scientific organizations.

So, for anyone to make inferences about Pope Francis on this basis alone is only unfortunate. I realize your comment makes no such inference, and I am not suggesting it does. The point is only that others have done so, and it has nothing whatever to do with the ethical and spiritual teachings of Pope Francis. It far more likely involves some sort of psychological denial or a politically ideological perspective given the overwhelming scientific consensus about AGW.

Again, I am only pointing this out.

Again the question is how many years with no warming does it take to prove that AGW is not correct?