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

[Thomas_White]

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

And how would one respond to that question other than to again repeat that NASA’s conclusion, based on its own satellite data, as well as on a massive amount of other scientific evidence, is that global warming is occurring? With all due respect, why would a person care to engage in an apparently futile effort to convince a person of this fact?

There is nothing good that could result from such a debate, it would perhaps lead to a contentious argument and this too often has an uncharitable result. The forum clearly does not want to see this, and I wouldn’t care to engage in it anyway. I see no point and nothing productive here, so I will let it go. This is said to illustrate something in what is surely meant in a charitable way.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Is Pope Francis the first Malthusian pope?

Reading this article I experienced an overpowering sense of de ja vu. It seems that Pope Francis and his fans here at CAF have been voicing very similar sentiments.

Is the world capable of the kind of economic growth that capitalism pursues? Much hangs on that question. Not only is the truth of the question crucial, but one’s belief in it leads to different approaches to life and morality.

nationalreview.com/article/423959/yale-professor-hitlers-malthusianism

Why are “conservatives” criticizing Pope Francis? Fundamentally it is fear of Malthusian theology.

 

[estesbob]

And how would one respond to that question other than to again repeat that NASA’s conclusion, based on its own satellite data, as well as on a massive amount of other scientific evidence, is that global warming is occurring? With all due respect, why would a person care to engage in an apparently futile effort to convince a person of this fact?

There is nothing good that could result from such a debate, it would perhaps lead to a contentious argument and this too often has an uncharitable result. The forum clearly does not want to see this, and I wouldn’t care to engage in it anyway. I see no point and nothing productive here, so I will let it go. This is said to illustrate something in what is surely meant in a charitable way.

NASA changed their data to show a very small warming-nothing like any proponent had predicted, nothing like any model had shown. I ask the question again-how many years of no warming does it take to disprove AGW.?

 

[sarah_j]

Is Pope Francis the first Malthusian pope?

Reading this article I experienced an overpowering sense of de ja vu. It seems that Pope Francis and his fans here at CAF have been voicing very similar sentiments.

Is the world capable of the kind of economic growth that capitalism pursues? Much hangs on that question. Not only is the truth of the question crucial, but one’s belief in it leads to different approaches to life and morality.

nationalreview.com/article/423959/yale-professor-hitlers-malthusianism

Why are “conservatives” criticizing Pope Francis? Fundamentally it is fear of Malthusian theology.

Whether or not he is the first Malthusian pope remains to be seen.
…let’s hope not !

Excellent article. thanks for posting that.

 

[Thomas_White]

NASA changed their data to show a very small warming-nothing like any proponent had predicted, nothing like any model had shown. I ask the question again-how many years of no warming does it take to disprove AGW.?

NASA has explained why it made statistical corrections to satellite data. It involves adjustments made relative to afternoon and morning readings where there are differing surface temperatures. NASA scientists have repeatedly explained it is statistically necessary to make these adjustments to remove artificial bias in surface temperature data resulting from these afternoon and morning readings. NASA scientists concluded that the issue of climate change and AGW is settled based on their own research and the vast amount of other scientific data. That this was an attempt to artificially manipulate data to indicate AGW is only the allegation made by deniers of AGW. It is a grasping at straws, and, in any event, there remains the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change and AGW.

With all due respect and as I have explained, this sort of discussion can only go downhill. I have no interest in it and will not pursue it further.

Peace

 

[philipl]

All you have to do to understand the poverty in Argentina is too look at its government. Its corrupt. Those people arent poor due to mean old corporations taking advantage of them, they live in poverty because their government is 100% corrupt.

What I fail to understand is most governments are corrupt, the government of the USA is getting there. Croney capitalism is all over the place in our fed, state, and local government. And yet people will go vote for the same crooks because their intent is to help. Forget the fact they never never never never never never ever solve any problems.

 

[philipl]

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!

Somewhere on a post here I read the ideal condition is not poverty or something along those lines, and now i read they middle class wont make it into heaven. So which one is it, is poverty the ideal condition to live in or the middle class will get into heaven? It cant be both.

 

[estesbob]

NASA has explained why it made statistical corrections to satellite data. It involves adjustments made relative to afternoon and morning readings where there are differing surface temperatures. NASA scientists have repeatedly explained it is statistically necessary to make these adjustments to remove artificial bias in surface temperature data resulting from these afternoon and morning readings. NASA scientists concluded that the issue of climate change and AGW is settled based on their own research and the vast amount of other scientific data. That this was an attempt to artificially manipulate data to indicate AGW is only the allegation made by deniers of AGW. It is a grasping at straws, and, in any event, there remains the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change and AGW.

With all due respect and as I have explained, this sort of discussion can only go downhill. I have no interest in it and will not pursue it further.

Peace

Quite convenient isn’t it. They were wrong so they adjusted their data and then they were right. Problem is even with their cooking the books the increase is statistically insignificant. So again how many years of no warming does it take to disprove AGW?

 

[Thomas_White]

Somewhere on a post here I read the ideal condition is not poverty or something along those lines, and now i read they middle class wont make it into heaven. So which one is it, is poverty the ideal condition to live in or the middle class will get into heaven? It cant be both.

I know I said in one comment that the ideal was not poverty and if that was the comment to which you refer it was in the context of why in 1968 the Latin American Conference of Catholic Bishops elected to focus on a “preferential option for the poor” on the belief that the poor in Latin America were in dire need of help as the result of abject poverty. This was the focus on an aspect of what was already Catholic social teaching where most certainly poverty is not viewed as any ideal condition. I have not seen where anyone has said it is.

 

[philipl]

I know I said in one comment that the ideal was not poverty and if that was the comment to which you refer it was in the context of why in 1968 the Latin American Conference of Catholic Bishops elected to focus on a “preferential option for the poor” on the belief that the poor in Latin America were in dire need of help as the result of abject poverty. This was the focus on an aspect of what was already Catholic social teaching where most certainly poverty is not viewed as any ideal condition. I have not seen where anyone has said it is.

But if we get rid of poverty, who will go to heaven? AFter all it will be easier to fit an elephant thru the eye of a needle than the middle class to get into heaven. So says one poster.

 

[philipl]

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

No consumer is being exploided. none not one, no one is forced to purchase anything except by government. No one here or any other person that believe consumerism is bad can prove its bad.

 

[Thomas_White]

Is Pope Francis the first Malthusian pope?

Reading this article I experienced an overpowering sense of de ja vu. It seems that Pope Francis and his fans here at CAF have been voicing very similar sentiments.

Is the world capable of the kind of economic growth that capitalism pursues? Much hangs on that question. Not only is the truth of the question crucial, but one’s belief in it leads to different approaches to life and morality.

[nationalreview.com/article/423959/yale-professor -hitlers-malthusianism](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423959/yale-professor -hitlers-malthusianism)

Why are “conservatives” criticizing Pope Francis? Fundamentally it is fear of Malthusian theology.

"Pope Francis and his fans here at CAF"? What? They are advancing sentiments similar to those of Thomas Malthus?

“Why are ‘conservatives’ criticizing Pope Francis? Fundamentally it is a fear of Malthusian theology.” Theology? Theology and the theories of Thomas Malthus are two entirely separate things.

What is it you are suggesting about Pope Francis? I ask this with all due respect and the question is not meant in an uncharitable way. I really would like to know what is meant here.

 

[Thomas_White]

But if we get rid of poverty, who will go to heaven? AFter all it will be easier to fit an elephant thru the eye of a needle than the middle class to get into heaven. So says one poster.

Well, I really cannot speak for another person. I can try to explain how Matthew 19:24 might apply relative to my own comment.

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” --Matthew 19:24

This is unnerving. But keep in mind that when Christ speaks in the Gospels, there invariably is elsewhere in the Gospels where he says what seems its opposite. Look and it is there. I would say with respect to my original comment that it is Catholic social teaching that it is wrong for the wealthy to ignore the poor. I would add it would seem unlikely that many Catholics would disagree. Poverty is no ideal condition, and that it isn’t is no controversy.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

"Pope Francis and his fans here at CAF"? What? They are advancing sentiments similar to those of Thomas Malthus?

“Why are ‘conservatives’ criticizing Pope Francis? Fundamentally it is a fear of Malthusian theology.” Theology? Theology and the theories of Thomas Malthus are two entirely separate things.

What is it you are suggesting about Pope Francis? I ask this with all due respect and the question is not meant in an uncharitable way. I really would like to know what is meant here.

I think you are taking the theories of Thomas Malthus too indivisibly. (Much like those who insist that Marxism is exactly that which Karl Marx advanced over a century ago.) Malthus did not invent the idea that people are overrunning natural resources, he simply gave it an intellectual pedigree.

It would be a shame if Pope Francis gave it a theological pedigree as well.

What is it that binds all anti-capitalists together, both fascist and socialist? A distrust of mankind’s ability to provide for a growing population and the need to ration out the goods accordingly.

Is Pope Francis among them? I am beginning to suspect so.

 

[philipl]

Well, I really cannot speak for another person. I can try to explain how Matthew 19:24 might apply relative to my own comment.

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” --Matthew 19:24

This is unnerving. But keep in mind that when Christ speaks in the Gospels, there invariably is elsewhere in the Gospels where he says what seems its opposite. Look and it is there. I would say with respect to my original comment that it is Catholic social teaching that it is wrong for the wealthy to ignore the poor. I would add it would seem unlikely that many Catholics would disagree. Poverty is no ideal condition, and that it isn’t is no controversy.

So many catholic will tie themselves into knots trying to justify two opposites positions. But when the other poster user the elephant and the needle it was to show the middle class is now also wealthy and they will not get into heaven. Now its only the poor that will make it into heaven. At least according to the poster.

 

[Thomas_White]

So many catholic will tie themselves into knots trying to justify two opposites positions. But when the other poster user the elephant and the needle it was to show the middle class is now also wealthy and they will not get into heaven. Now its only the poor that will make it into heaven. At least according to the poster.

Economic data shows that for the past 30-40 years, a small elite in the U.S., now often termed the One Percent, have became wealthier while the middle class has become poorer. Rich and poor are relative terms, and in that way they are subjective. They are also for man in this question relativistic value judgments. Is this what Christ meant? I very much doubt it. Was Christ even speaking directly of material wealth? Or was it perhaps that he was speaking about an obsession with material things (and the material world) that results in the absence of spirituality? Spirituality is open for everyone, and so in that way what we would judge as a ‘rich’ man would not mean he is therefore necessarily condemned.

I think there are verses in the Gospels that likely cannot be understood when separated from the whole teaching. It was what I meant when I mentioned the likelihood of an opposite teaching, ‘Look and it is there.’ Christ was surely speaking of Absolute Truth where dualities like rich and poor would seem unlikely. It would also seem this truth would be difficult to communicate by the spoken work given the limits of language. But perhaps it is easier to grasp when the whole teaching is considered. And as I earlier quoted from a book by Romano Guardini, this seeming opposition of concepts is impossible to understand by the intellect. In that way, it is a spiritual teaching.

Again, I cannot nor would I attempt to speak for another person. To infer what was meant is only an assumption.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think you are taking the theories of Thomas Malthus too indivisibly. (Much like those who insist that Marxism is exactly that which Karl Marx advanced over a century ago.) Malthus did not invent the idea that people are overrunning natural resources, he simply gave it an intellectual pedigree.

It would be a shame if Pope Francis gave it a theological pedigree as well.

What is it that binds all anti-capitalists together, both fascist and socialist? A distrust of mankind’s ability to provide for a growing population and the need to ration out the goods accordingly.

Is Pope Francis among them? I am beginning to suspect so.

But when you mention Fascism and Socialism you are omitting spirituality, and I cannot see how those two ideological concepts could legitimately become theological. Pope Francis, while the Jesuit provincial in Argentina, firmly opposed the Marxism in liberation theology and all other ideologies as well in Catholic teaching. With respect to climate change and AGW, Laudato Si addresses not relative scarcity but absolute scarcity where the earth would be unable to sustain human life at all.

The article in the National Review, originally Mr. Buckley’s journal, is of course political, but it does not mention either Catholicism or Pope Francis–though it seems God and Man at Yale remain a topic. The trickle down theory of economics is not only untenable, it is a myth. There is no data to support it. The moral teaching of Laudato Si goes beyond economic theory and sees a cultural paradigm where both humans and nature have been exploited to the extent that both are now becoming absolutely imperiled. Inventing and creating by entrepreneurship ever increasing resources simply won’t work in an environment of climate change and AGW where those resources are ever diminishing and in time no longer even exist. It would be this development that would result in global catastrophe.

I cannot see the ethical and spiritual teachings of Pope Francis resulting in the next Pol Pot. That disaster did result from a confused mixture of Buddhist concepts and Marxism where an individual person had no self, no soul and no meaning. All of that was for the state and not the person. That is hardly the view of Pope Francis.

 

[pnewton]

Whether or not he is the first Malthusian pope remains to be seen.
…let’s hope not !

Excellent article. thanks for posting that.

Godwin’s Law at its best!
Well, I can answer the question. No, he is not Malthusian, Republican, Democrat, Fascist, Communist or any other political rhetoric that is used to disparage him. He is Catholic. He speaks as a prophet of old calling and challenging us beyond our materialistic rut, to aspire to the charity to which or faith calls us.

I think conservatives will find that they are alienating Catholics with this sort of attack on this beloved man at a time when such talk will prove disastrous in the next election.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No, he is not Malthusian, Republican, Democrat, Fascist, Communist or any other political rhetoric that is used to disparage him. He is Catholic.

This may come as a shock to you but Republicans, Democrats, and, to a lesser extent Fascists are also often Catholic. (Even Communists in Latin America are Catholic.)

Those who seek to insulate Pope Francis from political criticism will have to do better than such nonsensical jibberish as has been offered to date.

For my money, the best characterization of Pope Francis socio-political views is Peronism.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But when you mention Fascism and Socialism you are omitting spirituality, and I cannot see how those two ideological concepts could legitimately become theological.

Marxism was originally atheist but that didn’t stop Liberation Theology.

Fascism has had a more mixed relationship with faith. It was never atheist but it has been anti-clerical.

Pope Francis, while the Jesuit provincial in Argentina, firmly opposed the Marxism in liberation theology and all other ideologies as well in Catholic teaching.

“Neither Marxists nor Capitalists. Peronists!” goes the phrase.

Now I don’t expect Pope Francis to start preachig Gaia, the secular/pagan spiritualisation of Malthusian ideology, but what would a Catholic spiritualization look like?

Something like this:

With respect to climate change and AGW, Laudato Si addresses not relative scarcity but absolute scarcity where the earth would be unable to sustain human life at all.

The article in the National Review, originally Mr. Buckley’s journal, is of course political, but it does not mention either Catholicism or Pope Francis–though it seems God and Man at Yale remain a topic. The trickle down theory of economics is not only untenable, it is a myth. There is no data to support it. The moral teaching of Laudato Si goes beyond economic theory and sees a cultural paradigm where both humans and nature have been exploited to the extent that both are now becoming absolutely imperiled. Inventing and creating by entrepreneurship ever increasing resources simply won’t work in an environment of climate change and AGW where those resources are ever diminishing and in time no longer even exist. It would be this development that would result in global catastrophe.

Of course, anti-capitalism long predates the AGWism. It is more accurate to say that AGW is simply the latest manifestation of this ideology.

I cannot see the ethical and spiritual teachings of Pope Francis resulting in the next Pol Pot. That disaster did result from a confused mixture of Buddhist concepts and Marxism where an individual person had no self, no soul and no meaning. All of that was for the state and not the person. That is hardly the view of Pope Francis.

I’m not sure why you single out Pol Pot. But, yes, his mania had a Buddhist spin.

My concern is less with genocide than with continued impoverishment which I see as a natural consequence of Malthusian ideology.